Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) at 01:21, 9 January 2017 (→Waterside places categories: wow!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk page archives Current talk Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 Archive 31 • Archive 32 • Archive 33 Archive 34 • Archive 35 • Archive 36 Archive 37 • Archive 38 • Archive 39 Archive 40 • Archive 41 • Archive 42 Archive 43 • Archive 44 • Archive 45 Archive 46 • Archive 47 • Archive 48 Archive 49 • Archive 50 • Archive 51 Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 Archive 55 • Archive 56 • Archive 57 (template link) (revert point)

Redirect tagging

Hi Nyttend - your post on my talk was exceptionally offensive. I would have replied sooner but I have a terrible temper. In your post you don't tell me what redirect you refer to; nor do you give me any chance to defend myself but, worst of all - you actually threaten me that if I do not behave as you wish I might be sanctioned by more than yourself for - as you suggest - vandalism.

If you want to condemn me then please consider the worth of my entire input during the past month - I am in no way a vandal.Mark 03:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

My complaint at AN/I

See WP:AN/I#Involved admin closing RM discussion and threatened opposers with sanctions re your involved close and inappropriate threat of sanctions. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Farm to Market Road 289

I'd have let this backroad die. If its creator wanted it on Misplaced Pages so back they'd have found a source to at least verify its existence. The benefit of this article does not, in my opinion, outweigh the liability of yet another unsourced, unpatrolled article. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your message back on my talk page. It was just a bit of frustration really. After 4 years of editing I have nearly 10,000 articles on my watchlist, and seem to be spending more and more time reverting unsourced edits. There's hardly any time to improve articles anymore. I stumbled into editing rap music articles about a year ago, and probably 95 percent of my edits there are reverts and vandals. I wonder when our collective ability to sustain the quality of the project will reach a tipping point. Anyway, all the best. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year +

I hope everything is going well and that you'll have a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year.

I just ran into a fairly strange article Oley Hills site and thought of you. It doesn't seem to be to be a hoax. There was (is?) a very old Lutheran church nearby. But the article itself seems quite isolated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Google maps only can suggest that it is north of, or just inside the northern border of, Oley Township, Pennsylvania, which is an NRHP HD, near Oley Furnace. The pix in our article are too neat. But I'll let my curiosity play out, without bothering you too much (unless you ask). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've got a bit of a clue. "Isolated" in the sense of being an orphan, but also most of the refs and links were broken. Whoever started the article (I think I know) was something of an SPA on stone landscapes back in 2007. There's one academic article at and I left a message for the author (though I have no idea whether he'll get it. See also .

Just guessing that this wouldn't quite meet notability requirements today, but in 2007 might have. I'll leave it alone and read the academic article, it is a quite interesting situation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Nyttend!

Nyttend,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
Donner60 (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US

Hello,

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Misplaced Pages that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Superman

Hi, Nyttend. You made a good-faith edit at Superman, with a pretty funny edit-summary, actually, and I only reverted it since it's standard language at WikiProject Comics to say "fictional superhero" in the lead. This was the result of debate and consensus a few years ago, and if I remember correctly, it had to do with the larger thing of specifying "fictional character" in general. Anyway, you're a good editor and I wanted to take time and explain it since I didn't want to seem off-putting. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JohnCD: Death real or hoax?

This has turned into a problem. I know you took the initiative in posting a memorial notice on JohnCD's talk page and in trying to confirm the message about his death. Please see the additional messages from the IP on my talk page and in the message section on JohnCD's talk page. I have been chastised and rebuked, justly if a bit strongly by a few, for being gullible and insensitive, for not confirming the message, etc. As I state in my longer message on the administrator noticeboard in response to the comments, I had a few reasons to think the message could be genuine and the followup messages now add some further reason for me to think that, even though that might add to my gullibility (good faith?). Then again, this may be the fake death news vandal that I did not know about. The followup messages have a little more information and seem sincere so that adds to my confusion, I guess. Also, the message was not posted to my talk page until the day John said he would likely return to editing. I saw that before I posted the message, thinking that a sincere message would not have preceded that date and that a hoax would not have much time to take effect after it. On the noticeboard, User:Someguy1221 stated he could not confirm a name as stated in the messages, presumably not being able to connect it to the account. So that seems to point to me being wrong. I have just realized that perhaps the fact these messages were posted on my talk page and not initially on JohnCD's talk page (though there are messages from the IP there now) might have raised some doubt.

I am leaving this message because you posted a notice saying you would try to confirm the news about John. I want to be sure you are caught up with the various further messages, the ones from the IP at least, and the doubt that has been raised. If you can confirm the news, please let me know. Although I won't be online much in the next few days, I would like to clear this up. I suppose we wlll be able to confirm this one way or the other within the next few days or weeks as a matter of course but I am somewhat disheartened by my seeming gullibility and waste of people's time. I have embarrassed and diminished myself by not handling this more prudently even if it is true but especially if it is not. At this point I am not sure what to believe. None of that is very important, of course, if the best resolution, that John in fact is alive and well, is the real story.

I thank you for crediting me with good faith by your actions with respect to this. Especially if this was a false report, but even if not, I sincerely apologize for any embarrassment or waste of time I may have caused you. I can affirm that was unintentional and inadvertent. It was only in an effort to do a good deed and provide what I thought was a needed notice. Regardless, it seems I should have handled this differently and better and it seems to have gone wrong whatever the truth turns out to be. Donner60 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a message and further reply that I just received from the IP.

I understand from the guidelines for the Deceased Wikipedians page, here https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines that there is a procedure called checkuser by which family reports may be verified. Perhaps someone qualified to conduct this could do so, while those not so qualified could bide their time before making accusations of ill faith. Thank you. 92.24.244.137 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I cannot do that myself but will pass it along to an administrator. Then I will be offline for most or all of the next two or three days. Donner60 (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Watersi:de places categories

Hi Nyttend

At 02:33, 8 January 2017 I lodged an objection to your proposed speedy renaming of >200 waterside places categories.

Yet at 02:50, you went ahead and placed them all for processing at WP:CFD/W, in this edit .

That was not a good thing to do, particularly since you required your admin privileges to perform this action and you are WP:INVOLVED. Are you going to revert promptly, or will I do it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As I noted at CFDS, this decision was not open to opposition: I was merely following someone else's instructions in closing the CFD, and once I figured out how to use the working page, I listed the categories there to avoid the unnecessary wait. It's not WP:INVOLVED to do what another admin tells you to do. If you insist on using your administrative rights to impose your preferred decision in place of the CFD result, sanctions will be requested immediately: a block, for creating a large number of categories in defiance of a CFD result, and a desysop, for using your administrative rights unilaterally to overturn an XFD decision. Of course, if you want to start a new CFD, or if you want to go the DRV route, I'll participate in the discussion and likely oppose anything that disagrees with this CFD's result, but I'll have no grounds to complain about abuse of tools. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend, wow. that's fairly aggressively unrepentant and hostile response. Nonetheless, I will take the bait, and revert the moves.

The categories were not tagged for speedy, and did not wait the requisite 48 hours before you moved them, from the CFD/S page to CFD/W. Nor were they tagged for CFD, so there was no mandate for a mass move. I will certainly challenge the mandate of any CFD closer to apply the decision to categories neither listed nor tagged for that discussion, but regardless of that the closer's instruction was tonominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming. Note that word "nominate", because it is not what you did. You did not validly nominate the categs for CFD/S, you did not follow CFD/s procedures clearly set out at the top of the page:

1. You listed the categories at CFD/S, but did not validly nominate them for CFD/S, because you didn't tag them
2. Having listed (but not tagged) them, you simply ignored an objection at CFD/S, having somehow decided that you had a right unilaterally overrule any objections -- despite there being no such exemption at CFD
3. Having ignored the objection, you then proceeded to implement the moves barely 30 minutes after listing them, despite the clear instructions at WP:CFD/S that nominations must remain listed for 48 hours
4. And you did all of this in respect of a CFD nomination which you yourself had made, so you were certainly WP:INVOLVED

That's a total of 4 ways in which you were out of order here. Regardless of what anyone things of the closer's decision, the closer did not instruct you to bypass CFD/S as you did.

I will proceed with reverting these moves, and you are of course free to make a complaint to or wherever. But given what I have set out above, beware of WP:BOOMERANG. I suggest that you would be much better advised to take a deep breath and try again to do this properly ... to ensure that 200 categories are out moved out-of-process. But it's your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)