Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 24 July 2007 (→Comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

feloniousmonk

Archives

• /Archive_1
• /Archive_2
• /Archive_3
• /Archive_4
• /Archive_5
• /Archive_6
• /Archive_7

Userfied Trolling

Cheers, I was actually a little concerned I might have overstepped the mark, but he really is getting out of hand isn't he. ornis 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Milloy article

Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nate1478

I'm curious who Nate1478 was harassing and where was his indef ban discussed. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Over the last 3 days I have indef blocked 3 or 4 impostors of User:Nate1481. I rolled back back around a dozen edits by today's sock because the edit summaries referred to reverting non-existant vandalism by User:Nate1481. I don't think the user has been banned but the template refers to blocking as well as banning. Certainly, I'm not prepared to unblock an impostor who is harrassing a good faith editor. Have I done something wrong? Spartaz 12:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review this CFD result

The result of Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Category:Signatory_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22 was clearly not delete. The comments there are about evenly split so there's obviously no consensus. Yet User:Radiant! claimed the conclusion was for deletion, closed the CFD and deleted the category. I've asked Radiant! at his talk page to explain how he came to his conclusion and am asking you to please undo his unjustified deletion. Odd nature 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I have asked for a deletion review of Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". You might want to participate in the deletion review. Hrafn42 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view#Writing in the FAQ proposes that this should no longer be policy. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ has already been hacked about and several section headings have been removed, with the result that half of the section links to it don't work any more: I've commented on the talk page. .. dave souza, talk 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your challenge

I thought that your "challenge" on the DRV was right on point. I must admit that Kbdank71's dogmatic comments on this review (and some earlier comments indicating a contempt for gaining a consensus) make me question his suitability to co-administrate the CFD process. Hrafn42 05:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a stroll through my talk page and its archives; you certainly aren't the first to disagree with me, nor will you be the last. For the record, I don't have contempt for consensus, but I will always temper that against what is best for the encyclopedia, based upon common sense. It's clear you will take policy above all else, even to the point of keeping an attack category if consensus says keep . --Kbdank71 14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If "Category:Jimbo is a poo-head is up for deletion, and everyone on earth wants to keep" I would consider myself to have far greater worries than wikipedia, and would most probably be looking for a new planet, where the dominant species had a higher IQ than the plant life, to inhabit and leave you want to play Canute the Great commanding back the tide. Your argument is a very silly (as in Camelot in Monty Python and the Holy Grail silly) argument. The trouble with common sense is that it is all too frequently not in common supply, which leads many people to mistake their own prejudices (which are far more common) for it. :D Hrafn42 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice side-step. All of that doesn't change the fact that you are willing to keep an attack category because consensus says so. --Kbdank71 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm no, I never said that. You are quite simply putting words in my mouth. What I said was that if the entire world was against you, you should start your own wikipedia (rather than futilely attempting to shove a deletion down everybody else's throat -- i.e. I'd be "willing to keep an attack category" because I would know that I had no real choice in the matter). "God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference." If I was to take your favoured approach, I would quite simply have deleted the CFD and restored the category "for the good of wikipedia", and told you to take a long walk off a short plank. Satisfying in its intellectual purity perhaps, but strategically futile and likely to gain one a very bad reputation. Hrafn42 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, but you implied it, and then you just stated it above. Just a hint, when trying to explain how you didn't say something, you might not want to go ahead and say it anyway. I'd be "willing to keep an attack category" because I would know that I had no real choice in the matter. No choice? WP:BLP. WP:BOLD. WP:IAR. Sure you do. Regardless, I won't bother FeloniousMonk any further. If you wish to continue this, you know where to find my talk page. --Kbdank71 17:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFD on DRV

Hi FM. Could you take a look at this comment on the DRV. I made a total of four notifications (to Radiant!, to Odd Nature, to yourself and to Talk:A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. How is that violation of WP:CANVASS? How is Radiant!'s wild accusation not in violation of WP:AGF, or behaviour unbecoming of an Admin in a formal review of one of their decisions. Is the CFD the Old West or something, complete with 'hanging judges' and lynchings? Hrafn42 11:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have requested an Arbitration review on your behaviour against me, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of thinking that by trying to portray this as some sort of personal matter you can avoid being blocked and left free to violate your RFAR probation. With your shabby history it would be no trouble at all for the community to indef ban you if that's what people really wanted. But the fact is you've been opportunity after opportunity to straighten up and contribute positively, sadly you continue to squander them. There are better uses of the community's time than another Iantresman RFAR filing. What's this one, number three this year? You're wearing the community's patience thin, Ian, and I'm far from the only one who thinks this. FeloniousMonk 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If Ian is determined to score an own goal, I don't think we should stand in his way. Raymond Arritt 04:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A RFAR too far, it appears, Ian. FeloniousMonk 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That block

Well, see, the thing is, despite Hrafn's claims to the contrary we're not in fact involved in any kind of content dispute. Rather, in clearing xFD backlogs, I made a judgment call about the deletion of something I'm otherwise uninvolved in and don't have any particular strong opinions about, and he's been, for the lack of a better term, screaming bloody murder since then. Aside from that he made a series of nasty remarks against Kbdank, and other people disagreeing with him on this issue, and appears to have a history of doing so against other people. Note that an outside admin (Yamla) reviewed and endorsed the block. HTH, >Radiant< 08:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked LAEC

Informing you because not only were you already attempting to help this user understand what is and is not vandalism and how his approach was disruptive, he apparently has decided I'm your attack dog, or something. Full details on WP:ANI#Mentors wanted, where I have requested someone new (not open to accusations of lapdoggery) give it a try, as he shows no sign of comprehension that his behavior is at all a problem. While I appreciate your reticence to block and efforts to resolve this through dialogue, I believe his disruption has reached the point where unless and until he ceases, he is impeding progress beyond what is tolerable. KillerChihuahua 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Woof, woof! Offtopic apology for altering your talk page comment, but the link to wikisource needed fixing in that the hope that our fixated friend might actually read Kitzmiller rather than a notorious blog. .. dave souza, talk 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please see my comments here Raul654 21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've waited many days for your response; I need to archive my talk page. I believe the conversation now at Raul's talk page covers all the bases. I do hope you intend to make amends with at least Tim Vickers (even though he's not asking for it), and hopefully others as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have returned from a few days off Wiki, and am still awaiting your response to the charges you lodged on my talk page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, please quit trying to make trouble. You turned up at an FAR insulting the editors who had written it, calling it "embarrassing." Granted, there might have been writing in it that you personally did not like, and it's fair enough to point that out. It's wasn't fair enough to insult the people who'd put a lot of work into it. You then started insulting Raul, claiming he had a conflict of interest when he promoted it. But when someone calls you on this, and the fact that several editors don't submit FAs anymore because of you, you start demanding apologies. My suggestion is that you apologize first to FM and the other editors of that article, and that you start writing some FAs yourself instead of only reviewing other people's, because that would give you some much-needed insight into how much work is involved, and how dispiriting it is when that work is aggressively attacked. SlimVirgin 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AFA

Hi FM. I am discussing the pink swastika issue again in the AFA article talkpage. I welcome your input again if you have the time or inclination. Regards Hal Cross 05:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)