Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fran Rogers (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 5 June 2007 (→Factory farming: reply, has it been agreed upon?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I prefer to keep all correspondence in the same place; if you leave me a message here, I will respond here. If I post a message on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Thank you!

THE award for THE closing line on that AfD

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		You closing message here was one of the best I've seen. Whsitchy 07:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I was going to pass along a hearty chuckle for this one, myself - but that one's good too! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I saw that one and laughed so hard I had to come here! (Sure enough I wasn't the only one!) -wizzard2k 07:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It was funny. But why did you close it so quickly? I didn't have a chance to weigh in... minus half a point for poor form. As it is, many comments on that AfD were misdirected. A list of exceptions to general rules about use of the definite article before proper nouns would be valid, finite, and of interest -- two different conversations in a day required finding such a list, which led me to start one -- but perhaps Wiktionary is a better place to begin, as the use case data is already there. +sj + 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

full disclosure: I have a yen for definite article precision... and a pet peeve about references to the Misplaced Pages. +sj +

Commons Help

Do you still know how to transfer photos from wikipedia to commons? -- JA10 05:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure! See Misplaced Pages:Moving images to the Commons =) I also have a user script called CommonsHelper Helper that can make the process easier. Krimpet (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- JA10 11:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

see this. -- JA10 00:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DRV Daimonin

Hello! I thought I would inform you that Daimonin, DRV Link has been sent over to DRV (with a somewhat vitriolic diatribe.) I've been talking with the Daimonin community at their forum. I wonder if userfying the page would be possible at the moment? (Or at least a copy of the last edit that they might be able to transwiki if they're willing.) Anyway, just thought that since you were the closing admin I'd let you know. LaughingVulcan 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And again

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For having the funniest AfD closing lines ever. Whsitchy 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I like to keep things a little livened up =) Krimpet (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming

unprotect please. Haber 00:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking on the talk page, I'm not seeing much of a consensus to remove protection just yet. Krimpet (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ok thanks. Haber 12:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:71.185.140.166

I have shortened the block on 71.185.140.166 from 1 month to 1 day per typical blocking procedure... well, actually, typical procedure calls for a few warnings first, but the vandalism was egregious and it dosn't sound like this is this user's first experience with unblocking procedure. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit the block was a bit on the IAR side; if you think it should be shortened, OK. I just have little tolerance for blatant hateful vandalism and name-calling, but I guess we can just keep an eye on him. Krimpet (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, got a perfect AfD for ya

It's begging for you to close it (because I know you'll make it funny Whsitchy 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Aww, someone got to it before me =/ Krimpet (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I know... what would you have said? Whsitchy 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop closing DRVs in which you participiated

Stop closing DRVs in which you participiated. This is not an "admin action", but a partisanship.  Grue  08:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Your opinion is no better than anybody else's and you are already involved in the debate. Also, closures are supposed to reflect consensus. Prolog 08:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore them. If people insist on slavish devotion to process over a private woman's desire to maintain her own dignity, hell with consensus.

I'm not going to get in a wheel war over this, since I'm a strict adherent of 1RR, but I want to state this: anyone insisting on process in this case is a sick human being with no empathy whatsoever. Krimpet (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

IAR can not be used as a tool to enforce one's view on the project. Clearly at least half of the editors would have disagreed with a claim that your closure was improving Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision#Gaillimh.27s early closure of the deletion review was inappropriate for a related incident. As for this woman being "private", once a person becomes news in LA Times, CBS, as well as hits the front page of Washington Post, she's not very private anymore. And we only write from reliable sources, after all. Prolog 09:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		You know exactly what this is for... I haven't laughed so hard in a month, at least. FCYTravis 09:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

300

Stop removing 300 from the Internet Phenomena list. It's more suitable than almost anything else in the list and additionally, it's currently about the most famous. As to the references you said were blogs, some are and some are not. You need to realise that even some blogs may be appropriate considering the subject matter in question. I could post well over 100 blogs and I've posted 3 news articles to the effect additionally. I've posted 2 blogs that also provide the information. I have looked at your history and notice you're a deletionist, so your conduct doesn't surprise me, but that doesn't mean that it's right. If you keep removing it, I'll raise it for a third opinion. --linca 10:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I only removed it once. However, countless others have removed it before for the same reason: these websites you are citing are not considered reliable sources, whether they are "appropriate to the subject matter" or not. This isn't because I'm a "deletionist," or any other divisive label, but because verifiability is of utmost importance. Krimpet (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Should you read the information about reliable sources you'll note that it states in its own boiler plate "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The sources I've provided may not fall under the specifics set out in RS, but are reliable in the sense that they're of a journalistic nature and tone and not simply Paris Hilton's jailcell ramblings or a 14 year old fanboy having a wetdream about Star Trek. The content of the source dictates its reliability. People often cite WP:RS as advising no blogs to be cited. The page states nothing of the sort (search it for yourself). I'm not going to bother adding it again because I really can't be bothered, though, to be honest. To put something in an article only to have it removed based on eroneous and inaccurate statements is disappointing to say the least. --linca 03:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Afd

You are over the top! --Infrangible 13:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I came here to congratulate you on that gross but very funny addition! Adrian M. H. 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming

I would like to request that you remove the lead from the current version of the protected "factory farming" article. As I mentioned on the talk page, I feel that having the lead support a particular POV in this dispute is not facilitating movement toward consensus. Removing the lead is contrary to everyone's wishes for the final product, but it will remove the disputed text from the article. Thus, removing the lead would not sponsor a request to "remove The Wrong Version", as it does not choose any version as "right", but rather would simply remove all disputed text from the article so that everyone may move forward equitably and on equal footing. Jav43 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds sensible I guess, but have you discussed this proposal with the others in the dispute yet? This dispute is looking pretty bitter here, and I want to make sure there's a consensus to go ahead with this first. Krimpet (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)