Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 3 July 2007 (WOTTA BLP edit summaries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Tony Sidaway/OTRS review

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Re: TWINKLE Bug

Thanks for looking out! -- Dangerousnerd 19 June 2007 01:21 UTC

Slouching Towards Bedlam

Hello, I'm writing regarding your rollback of my addition of spoiler tags to the above-mentioned article. I've reviewed WP:SPOILER but didn't find why were the added spoiler tags against the guidelines.

--Thanks, The CyberShadow 14:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my edit summary was unnecessarily terse in that edit. The guideline suggests that when the plot is contained in a clearly marked section the n extra warning tags are unnecessary. So because there is a clearly marked "Summary" section, it would be obvious to the reader that the plot structure of this interactive novel would be discussed there, and so the extra tags would be superfluous. From the guideline:

Spoiler warnings are usually redundant when used in "Plot", "Synopsis" or (fictional) "History" headings of any sort in articles whose subject is fictional. To insert a spoiler warning in sections of this kind requires a compelling reason. These sections should never have blanket spoiler warnings covering the whole section. --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cybershadow: it's important to note that WP:SPOILER is currently disputed, and should not be used as any sort of authority. See the talk page for more details. --Jere7my 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are only authorities in any case insofar as they express commonsense. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. --Jere7my 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help me with this

I don't know if you have any experience in dealing with sockpuppets, especially a weird case like this, but I have found your advice quite valuable in the past. I would really not like to reach over 3RR on this case at the article Drifting (motorsport), although I beleive it is a case of dealing with vandalism I prefer not to without consulting someone first. I beleive User:Oldschoolbmx and the IP User:70.102.171.242 are one adn the same and used by someone at the website linked in the spam being inserted in these diffs to avoid violating WP:3RR. Since this is a weird case involving an IP and linkspam I am not entirely sure what to do. I was wondering if you had any advice on the issue, or if not, you could point me to someone who might have experience in dealing with this. Thanks--Oni Ookami Alfador 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If linkspam is being persistently inserted by IPs, ask at WP:RFPP for the article to be semiprotected. If a logged-in user is persistently inserting linkspam, report that on WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the asisstance. Looks like the problem should go away now.--Oni Ookami Alfador 13:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR

Hello,

Is it merely that it is superfluous, or is there some other objection? I ask because I suspect the lily may be gilded in any case. You may come around to the dark side at that point. Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording is good because it says no more nor less than is required. It follows that adding more makes it worse. --Tony Sidaway 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No more and no less than is required by you, me, and a great many other people. We could remove the policy box - and I know you keep trying this. And I can sympathise, because quite honestly, the title is enough, really, isn't it? And yet, my feeling is a new user might require more. I mean, even Be Bold has scare clauses these days - and I know you know this, as I have seen you there. She needs assurance that good judgement and thoughtfulness are sufficient, and that no, we mean it, she really is Allowed. Thus, at the very least, the policy box on WP:IAR. The latest comment by Jimbo on WT:IAR prompted me to try the sentence again.

Perhaps this helps explain where I am coming from. Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually my favorite version ever was a blank page. My reasoning was that you would always be able to tell if people were buggering with Ignore all rules again simply by checking the character count of the page. --Tony Sidaway 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And then you would complain when users seem to use even less Clue and even more Wikilawyering. Forget what you know and read a few policies and guidelines. Compared to them, does Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules (blank) make you, in your amnesiac state, feel confident enough to use your own good sense? Or do you cave at the first Wikilawyer who throws a rule at you? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand any of the above. You lost me at "And then you would complain when users seem to use even less Clue and even more Wikilawyering.". Would I? --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you? If you're saying you don't think it would happen, then you're partly right: maiming IAR wouldn't do a whole lot to most of the "regulars". Their behaviour is largely set, and they largely know how other regulars behave. (If on the other hand you're saying it would happen but you wouldn't complain, then I have you confused with your good twin brother or something.)

Of course there aren't just regulars. I mean, not to say new users are impressionable children or anything - and maybe that's how I came off. But, if they encounter some ridiculous bureaucracy before getting any particular reassurance that they can use their own good sense and that we've got their backs, they may simply leave, not being nearly invested enough in this place to fight. This leaves behind those who grudgingly adapt, or willingly embrace bureaucracy, and they eventually will annoy Tony Sidaway. In fact, this already happens, but let's not make it worse by reducing the chance of them seeing these reassurances before encountering their first red tape tangle. Misplaced Pages rules have an intimidating look to them, WP:IAR should be at least as "tall".

I apologise in advance if I'm still not making sense. Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I hadn't even thought of it, which is what made your cast iron certainty something of a surprise. Actually I believe that a blank page would be an excellent way to emphasize the unorthodox nature of "Ignore all rules." The fact that it would be very difficult to wikilawyer is the main attraction, but a very close second is the fact that it would divide the sheep from the goats pretty quickly. Some people are capable of absorbing clue from a blanked page, those are the people who will find Ignore all rules useful. The others, it doesn't matter, they'll never understand it. --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I come off as very certain, it's not really my intention. It's more brevity than anything else, because let's be honest I'm already blathering on too much as it is. I hadn't considered this use of IAR, and it strikes me as a rather harsh approach. Sort of a shibboleth, if we're going for pseudotheology. I'm not sure I would have absorbed anything from a blank page. Unless, of course, policy pages were similarly cut down to size, as has been suggested.

But at least I better understand where the heck you're coming from. Cheers, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARM

What did you think of Misplaced Pages:Avoiding harm? I notice you made an edit to it, but I don't know whether this constitutes implicit acceptance of its principles. You may notice that I compromised my own views and tried to meet you halfway, in order to formulate an essay that (hopefully) everyone can agree on. Btw you may want to look at it again - I've expanded it in the last few minutes. Walton 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I have only scanned it and haven't read it all in depth, it looks impressive at first sight. I would have removed it from the list of links on the Biographies of living persons policy if I didn't think it contained something worth reading. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - it is quite lengthy, and even the nutshell is 3 sentences long. I might work on trimming it down a little tomorrow - feel free to do this yourself, if you think any sections are redundant. But please do check the new section I added at Misplaced Pages:Avoiding_harm#Suggested_procedure. Walton 18:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I may be going way off base here, what would you think of it being upgraded to a proposed guideline? I know it's an uphill struggle to get a new guideline to gain consensus, but I think we need clear instructions on how BLP should be applied (in general) to most situations. Obviously it would need editing first to make it more concise (right now it's fairly confusing). Walton 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Ask me again in a month's time and I might have a clearer idea of whether it would make a useful guideline. --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I won't propose it at this time - I think you're right, it needs to be left a while to see whether the basic ideas gain de facto acceptance. Leave any further comments at WT:HARM. Walton 20:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack?

Well, you have successfully changed the subject.

If anyone else agrees that there is a difference between "revert-warring" and "repeated direct reversion", I will change; I may anyway. Nor was I talking about the f- word, as much as your routine brushoff with "silly sausage".

But, most important, I am not on an ethical crusade; and if I were, I would expect it to begin at home. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so you're not about to apologise to the editors whom you attacked. Silly sausage. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My, what a loaded assumption; nobody else has agreed that I attacked them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of abusive editing in order to subvert policy is an extremely serious attack. You know this. Your attack was one of the nastiest bits of thuggery I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages from an established editor. You should be bloody well ashamed of yourself. --Tony Sidaway 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DieWeisseRose/Userboxes/EndUN

FYI, I have started a discussion relating to your deletion review summary/decision at User_talk:Dmcdevit#Your_bot. I don't agree that there was a consensus to replace the userbox "with an invocation of template:userbox ..." For convenience sake, let's keep the conversation on Dmcdevit's talk page unless it goes to another deletion review. Thanks. --DieWeisseRose 07:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this dispute to Deletion Review. --DieWeisseRose 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Galleries as per images policy

Tony, how are galleries defined? There is a specific <gallery> tag - I wouldn't necessarily remove images of fictional characters unless you are sure that:

• Having images of fictional characters does not significantly contribute to the understanding of the article (Remember that fictional characters have visual characteristics that are difficult to express in writing)
• And that a gallery can include some images that are not using the <gallery> tag

I would like a quick response - WhisperToMe 20:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Misplaced Pages:Galleries - It is not policy, but I still like looking at it.

"Galleries are pages which contain large numbers of media content—almost always, images—with little or no supporting text. Large numbers of galleries have been deleted from Misplaced Pages per WP:NOT. This is usually cited in this context as WP:NOT an image gallery, which is a paraphrase of the official policy that Misplaced Pages articles are not mere collections of photographs or media files. There are, however, not many galleries on Misplaced Pages in the main article namespace (see ). This page defines how, when, and where galleries should and should not be used." - If you do not mind, I shall take a look at this. WhisperToMe 20:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want another example of a page with galleries of fictional characters: One_Piece_minor_characters - If Narutaru cannot do this, this one shouldn't either. WhisperToMe 21:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm expected to do here. You seem to have found what you were looking for elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 21:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not start a section at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content and ask for a discussion about galleries of major and/or minor fictional characters of a work of fiction (Only involving screenshots of TV shows with characters' faces or small sections of individual pages of comic books or illustrations showing the faces of characters) ? WhisperToMe 21:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria is a criteria for inclusion - I argue inclusion for images of comic book characters in that there is no free alternative to do so. WhisperToMe 21:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you find people who object to the current gallery, please have them post on the Misplaced Pages policy talk page, the Shadow Star characters talk page, AND that One Piece page. WhisperToMe 05:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NFCC question

Image:Titanic in TARDIS.jpg < In your opinion, does that pass NFCC #8? I've outlined the reasons why I think it passes here. Will 20:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I'll get it deleted. I'm just really pissed off that Matthew's gone to ANI again because editors on the article don't agree with him. Will 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision

Thanks for the message; I'd interpret PA's comment as an abstention, but it's moot since the case closes anyway as 5-1. David Mestel 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tony: please don't modify my votes. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Should have left the clerking to the professionals. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for you help on the Margita Bangová article. --Chicaneo 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The matter seems to be rather academic now. --Tony Sidaway 20:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WOTTA BLP edit summaries

Oh dear. Now I'm doing it: revert to BLP compliant version. I was just so incensed that someone used that article to dump in the old material that was previously deleted. Carcharoth 11:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)