Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OranL (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 12 September 2008 (→Cronyism: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: /Archive 1

Good job on the Limbaugh page

There is a cadre of Limbaugh supporters (still smarting from the election, apparently) who are simply dishonest editors. Kudos to you for standing up to them. Their responses to you showed them to lacking in reason, substance, and character. Eleemosynary 06:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rosencomet's Starwood Edits

The Undue Weight issue is pretty much the heart of the current Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence arbitration. You might want to keep an eye on it for when the arbitrators decide what to do. Y ou are not the first to try to politely point out the problem. --Pigman 22:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.

Cordially, Davidkevin 00:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you accept my replacement of the Starwood mention in Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart's article with a list of "Public Appearances". I did this in consultation with Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, and I think that satisfies the issue of Undue Weight. As far as I'm concerned, such a list would be a good addition to any professional lecturer's article, and Starwood and/or WinterStar need not be anything but one inclusion in that list (where appropriate), except when there's some special additional connection to mention (like, as you said, if the subject is an organizer of the event, or recorded a commercially-available CD of their appearance, etc.). I don't have the facilities to supply such a list for everyone, but I will try over time to contact speakers and get one, or find one on their own websites, if they have one. Rosencomet 19:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess that I still think you're trying to plug A.C.E. events in an area where it seems to me that there isn't all that much of an audience or potential audience for them which isn't already aware of them, but creating such personal appearance lists for articles on notable persons seems to be an appropriate way of meeting both your needs and Misplaced Pages's requirements (or so I perceive: Y.M.M.V. and all that).

I hope you'll include links to other venues and festivals in those lists with the same assiduousness that you do Starwood and Winterstar Festival.

Cordially, Davidkevin 00:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said above, I don't have the same access to the appearance histories of all these people that I do to a list of who has been at Starwood and WinterStar, but I'll do what I can over time. I can contact some of the individual speakers, like I did Patricia Monaghan and Oberon, and ask them to send me a list or steer me in the direction of an existing one, but that's a one-by-one task, and a few of these speakers are no longer with us. But I'll do what I can, and I certainly won't delete other people's efforts in that area or pepper them with {fact} tags. As far as links, I did put test brackets on all the venues on the Morning Glory list, but Pagan Spirit Gathering was the only blue one. Hopefully articles will appear for all sorts of events of note like Gathering of the Tribes, Free Spirit Festival, Rites of Spring, Wic-Can Fest, Pan-Pagan Festival, Caw-Con, Pantheacon, Sirius Rising, Ecumenicon, Elf Fest, Gnosticon, the Whole Life Expo and others both here and abroad. I am not qualified to write such articles right now, except for Sirius Rising, and I was unsuccessful months ago in keeping it from being deleted (and I am neither associated with it nor have ever attended it, BTW). But I'll link anyone I create a list for that's appeared at Heartland Pagan Festival, Winter Magic, X-Day, or Council of Magickal Arts.Rosencomet 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting my user page. I wish these vandals would do something else besides attacking people. User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Buck

I fail to see how saying that someone forgot someone else's middle name could be considered libelous. The better complaint would be that it's uncited. For all we know, the editor might have either made it up or misunderstood it. Wahkeenah 17:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Earlier versions were worse -- I think the original intention was simply a slam against Mr. Buck (see the article history). Either or both reasons are sufficient for its removal. -- Davidkevin 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There are some users (IP addresses mostly, I think) who apparently have a vendetta against Joe Buck for reasons known only to themselves, and that kind of stuff has to be watched. I just don't think this one item is libelous... as if Joe Buck even would care what wikipedia said about him anyway, but that's another story. I think he does just fine as a broadcaster. Wahkeenah 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Heraldry Project

Hey. I see that you list yourself as a beginning speaker of Blazon. Have you thought of joining the WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology? It's a great place to improve your skills at blazoning. Hop on over and give us a piece of your mind.--Eva 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Chrysler Building

I would suggest that you start reading about what triva and popular culture sections are all about before you do nothing but reverting sections that have been tagged. We wikipedians agree on the status quo of using the tags on trivia and popular culture sections, and that they go together - and the Chrysler Building has been once tagged for the overuse of the unnecessary use of popular cultures.

If you think these tags aren't what they are, I would suggest you search around Misplaced Pages and find articles that tagged the popular culture section with trivia tags and see for yourself before you do any reverts to Chrysler Building.

Lastly, When you revert something, give a good reason. Also remember, don't ever try breaking the 3 revert rule. You have been warned, we do not tolerate edit wars here.

121.6.67.23 06:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this 'we' you speak of, oh one who is too new or too cowardly to have an account with a name? "'We' do not tolerate edit wars here"? If you don't even have a named account, you're not part of any "we wikipedians." ("We pompous twits," now, that you might belong to.)

If you're so illiterate that you can't understand the plain English difference in meanings between "'X' in popular culture" and "Trivia section", then you shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages articles.

Finally, you can quit the pompous finger-wagging, I've broken nothing and there is no war.

"Also remember, don't ever try breaking the 3 revert rule. You have been warned, we do not tolerate edit wars here."

As Chris Knight said about Kent in Real Genius, "Who talks like that?" -- Davidkevin 10:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

3RR doesn't apply when dealing with vandalism. And you're welcome.  :) Corvus cornix 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, David. I hope you will accept my sincerest apologies over my mistake. When I looked at the edit summary I thought it said "Trivia", in which case the template would have been appropriate. Whether or not it still is, I am unsure because I haven't read the rest of the article. I was on vandal patrol and simply looking for blatant vandalism- and removing a template without an edit summary usually fits under that category. I fear I may be becoming jaded by the sheer amounts of vandalism I see. I do only do it every once in a while but I have found that it does tend to diminish your ability to assume good faith. When you see as many real vandals as I do out on patrol you tend to start wondering how it could be possible that a real person out there could be treating something millions of people spent time on with such malice. It does get to your head. I believe I will stay off vandal patrol for a while until I can work this out with myself and I do want to thank you again for calling me on it. I hope you can forgive me, I would hate to think that we could not work past this like reasonable people and maybe end up wikiaquaintances. : ) L'Aquatique 17:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly forgiven, and I in turn apologize for the delay with this reply, pleading illness.

I should have included a reason for my revert, but I was tired and lax and did not, so I have my own part of the responsibility for this mix-up. I shall endeavor to do better.

Best wishes, Davidkevin 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Crossmr (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can count, you're not going to get rid of me that way, not when you and your buddies obey the letter of the rule while violating the spirit of it by splitting your content-censorship WP:POV-violating edits among yourselves. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Having several people revert you to avoid running afoul of the 3-revert rule is not a violation of the spirit of it — it's exactly how it's supposed to work. That way, if there is a consensus of many users engaged in an edit dispute with a single editor, the consensus wins. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And if the consensus is that the world is flat? Or if the Sun rotates around the still Earth?

As a better man than I said, "It still moves!" -- Davidkevin (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Don Pietromonaco

You have any further info on him and the teen club he was involved with in the basement of the Imperial Club located at West Florissant and Goodfellow? Alatari (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the teen club, sorry, no. I was in elementary school during his days as Johnny Rabbitt, and never got further north than Arsenal Street without being in the company of my parents. They and I did once get to visit with him at the station in "Radio Park", though.

Everything else I know about him (and that's not actually that much) would almost certainly be original research as I doubt I could find a verifiable citation for most of it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil accusations of vandalism

It is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL to characterize good-faith edits as "vandalism", as you did in this edit. I would like an apology, here and on my own talk page, and a promise not to repeat this misbehavior, please. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to answer this at this time because I doubt you'd accept the answer -- not because it would be rude or otherwise uncivil but because you probably wouldn't like the intellectual content of what I would have to write in a specific response.

I propose an alternative: some of your telephone numbers are on the web. I have toll-free long-distance and a flexible schedule. I suggest you specify a convenient time and date, and presuming it's mutually so (more likely than not), I'll call you and we can see if there's some way we can work out an acceptable compromise (if such a thing is indeed possible) over the content issues about which we are disagreeing, short-cutting the back-and-forth of e-mail or public postings. No absolute demands, no assumptions of authority, no rancor, no name-calling, polite conversation -- honest negotiation of the underlying issues.

Better this attempt, I think, than continuing to fight. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility should be a given, independent of content. We can continue to disagree about the content, but I insist that you treat my side of the content dispute as a valid one, not as an attempt to degrade Misplaced Pages, which is what you have labeled it by calling it vandalism. I repeat my call for an apology, visible publically here and not through private channels. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried.

I'm not an errant boy, for you to spank or publicly shame.

The suggestion for a telephone conversation was not to apologize through private channels, but to try to solve a problem. What I am sorry about is that you don't appear to care to try to do that.

Given that the split List_of_sites_running_the_LiveJournal_engine is undergoing an AfD vote as we write, it does in fact strike me as unethical to reduce a contested part of it to almost nothing in mid-vote, leaving some voters seeing one version of it and other voters seeing a gutted version of it. And yes, I honestly see that to be vandalism, as an act in bad faith. If you were sincere in your change and the reason for it, and confident that you are correct in your interpretations of the Wikirules, why couldn't you have waited for the vote to finish before making it?

Given my honest opinion and belief, to apologize to you now would be a lie. I haven't lied at any time in this dispute and I'm not going to start now.

It's also my opinion and belief that I am being subjected to escalating attempts at cyber-bullying to get me to back down from my honest attempts to improve the article as I perceive it, particularly from Crossmr and you. For example, you wrote up in item 11 above:

Having several people revert you to avoid running afoul of the 3-revert rule is not a violation of the spirit of it -- it's exactly how it's supposed to work. That way, if there is a consensus of many users engaged in an edit dispute with a single editor, the consensus wins.

I'm sure in disagreements honest on both sides that could be correct, but in this case, it's clearly a means to attempt to marginalize and/or silence a dissenter by a clique.

I know bullying. I was physically bullied as a child, I've been paper-bullied in APAs, and cyber-bullied elsewhere, too, so I know it all too well when it's happening, and it's happening here. You demand, "I insist that you treat my side of the content dispute as a valid one, not as an attempt to degrade Misplaced Pages...." Well, frankly, I can insist that too, as neither you nor anyone else in your clique have ever given me that courtesy.

If anything, this demand of yours is uncivil, as was your demand here that I submit to your personal test before I should edit again, as offensive and uncivil a statement as I have ever seen anywhere in Misplaced Pages. I think you should apologize to me for that, although I don't ever expect to receive it.

There is one other thing I'm sorry for, and that's losing my temper when I first came back into this. Well over a year ago, when I first tried to improve the LiveJournal article and was censored by Crossmr, I got so angry I walked away as the various dispute resolution articles suggest, because of the manipulation of the rules I saw. Coming back, I had all that unresolved anger, which came out when I saw the same misuse and manipulation continuing to be used to censor the article, by the same person, in a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN, despite the amount of time which had passed. I'm sorry I gave way to that anger, which is now being focused on in order to attempt to divert attention from the ongoing manipulation and censorship. It's not about me, it's never been about me, but making it about me rather than about the article is a useful tool, and I'm sorry I enabled that.

Finally, I didn't know until today that you are an Admin.

If what I've written above is right, I'll now be blocked for "continuing to be uncivil", which is dirty work Crossmr tried to get other admins to do for him in AnI without success. If what I've written above is wrong, maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from and we can work together, accomplishing something productive about opening up the LiveJournal articles to reports of LJ management criticism while keeping the standards you say you want observed. If that happened, I'd admit to being wrong (as I've never had a problem doing when wrong) and make retractions, and even apologies, accordingly.

We'll just see, I guess. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to block you myself for being uncivil — though I may think you deserve it, I'm too closely involved in this dispute to take that action. I had avoided mentioning escalated levels of dispute resolution so far (or my own admin status), deliberately, because I wanted to give you an honest chance to apologize without being under any kind of threat.

Hiding your status from me is not honest, it's deceptive, a lie by omission, and you're literate enough to know that.

I have seen escalating levels of threat for some time, starting with the failed attempt at AnI. I have had no reason even before today to assume that escalation would not continue -- and given your last sentence below, I'm sure it will, sad to say.

I said above why you deserve no apology from me, and won't get one, regardless of escalation. I am sorry that you don't seem to see that what you did in that edit was wrong.

My requests for an apology are a not, as you view them, demands that you comply with my will regarding the content of the articles we disagree on, but rather an attempt to attempt to get you to step back, recognize the importance of Misplaced Pages's policies (particularly, in this case, WP:CIVIL),

I remind you of your offensive and uncivil demand here, since you seem to have forgotten it already.

and avoid that sort of escalation. But the next steps, if you continue to refuse to assume good faith, would be to take your case to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts, possibly followed by higher levels of dispute resolution (user-conduct RFC, or, as a last resort, WP:RFAR).

Why are you ignoring the sentences beginning with...

"There is one other thing...."

"I'm sorry I gave way...."

...and, most importantly...

"The suggestion for a telephone...."

"If what I've written above...."

...and...

"If that happened, I'd admit...."

If you wish me to take it to a higher level, so be it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's a threat.

Despite all the rudeness on your own part, despite the attempts at bullying, despite all the threats, both oblique and overt, I was willing to set it all aside and assume good faith: I offered an olive branch, an explicit offer of cooperation to build a better article. You don't appear to want to take it.

That makes it also a shame. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in case you care, I've decided not to waste my time escalating this at this time. It's the new year, and a time for new chances; additionally, the AfD will soon be over, at which point I hope this will all be moot. But I ask you again, without any further request for action from you at this time, that you please reconsider all of your past actions in light of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and try harder to assume good faith and be civil in future editing disagreements, regardless of how you feel other participants in those disagreements may have behaved. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject St. Louis

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to St. Louis articles or that you are in some way connected to metropolitan area. I thought you might want to become a member of the St. Louis WikiProject. We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve St. Louis related articles. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

Grey Wanderer | Talk 20:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Davidkevin! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Misplaced Pages:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

While my paternal grandparents were from Germany, they both came to the United States as infants, and I myself have never been there nor do I speak or read German. I doubt I'm knowledgeable enough to contribute to the project, but I thank you very much for the invitation and wish you well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What?

Am I supposed to know what 'dot_cattiness' is? I am lost. Lots42 (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Well now it's a little clearer. Despite what you seem to think of any shared history, speculation, especially fandom based speculation, is just plain not allowed. It's not abuse, it's not a vendetta, it's basic Misplaced Pages rules. I still don't know what dot_cattiness is. Lots42 (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

This edit summary does not assume good faith on the part of User:Lots42. In fact, Lots42 is correct in this case, as all information in Misplaced Pages articles must by verifiable -- which means "fanon speculation" is not appropriate. Please review this content policy, and remain civil in your edit summaries. Thank you. --Ginkgo100 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Lots42 is a participant in a group cyber-bullying which has been ongoing since 2003. There is no assumption on my part involved -- I know with certainty that regardless of the text he is not acting in good faith, but is extending the bullying from LiveJournal to Misplaced Pages.

I agree that the assumption of good faith in an edit is the normal response to be expected, but this case is different -- this is stalking on his part. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What? I have no idea what you are saying, I am part of no such campaign. Lots42 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Either you have the memory of an Alzheimer's patient, or you're lying. Either way, the next time you think an edit of mine needs correction, leave it alone. If anything I write truly needs further editing, I have no doubt someone else will note it without bias and make the appropriate adjustment. You stay out of my work and my life. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Jesus Factor

Thanks. I'm sorry to say I lost the book during moving house a few years back, but I thought it was an extremely clever fantasy around the Manhattan Project and subsequent events. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

USS Princeton

Who, what, when, where," and.... if you know: "why" and "how"...and REFERENCES. Thanks WikiDon (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your intentions are, but this reads (to me) as patronizing and rude. I put in the information I had available to me, counting on other editors to elaborate with what information they might have beyond what I knew, as you in fact did. However, you could have done so without appearing to be a jerk about it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

justifying your userboxes left and right

Really, you are "a" historian? I consider myself some thing of "an" historian. Is there room in the wikiverse for both of us? I just don't know. DaronDierkes (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant no offense, I've just always struggled to choose which article to use. You may be interested in the new history working group for the st. louis wikiproject Misplaced Pages:WikiProject St. Louis/History. I'm still working on a bunch of loose ends, but I'll be try to work on that page as much as I can off and on. I mean to eventually sort through the articles and figure out exactly which counties they happened in and categorize them. There's a lot to be done. No pressure, just want to keep you informed. DaronDierkes (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Notification of WP:ANI case against User:Rosencomet

I have opened an WP:ANI discussion on User:Rosencomet's canvassing off-wiki for people to participate in AfDs. Since part of the evidence is your recent post on his talk page, you might want to at least keep an eye on it. Here is the diff and here is a link to the specific section. Please come and participate in the discussion. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal e-mail

Please stop posting something that was not addressed to you on my talk page. That e-mail was a personal one to friends, Oberon included, and should NEVER have been forwarded to ANYONE without my consent. I have spoken to Oberon about this, and he has apologized. You used the term "tacky"; how much more to keep publicizing a private e-mail, especially in a way that it can be taken out of the context of the private conversations it was a follow-up to and used to damage me. You say you have nothing against me, but I have a hard time believing it. Perhaps if you viewed my contributions over the past six months or even since the arbitration, you'd realize that I am just trying to get more Magical people involved in Misplaced Pages. Maybe then I wouldn't have to defend these authors so often myself.

Also, my intent is not to promote Starwood. Most of the articles I've written in the past year, like Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Sally Morningstar, Pamela J. Ball, Vivianne Crowley, and many more have never been to an ACE event. Pigman has been scouring Misplaced Pages of mentions of Starwood and ACE that pre-date the arbitration no matter how appropriate a mention might be judged on a case-by-case basis; I have usually either let it go or responded on talk pages, not revert warred or been aggressive, which is exactly what I was told to do. -- Rosencomet (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That e-mail was posted to four separate YahooGroups -- two connected with Oberon's Grey School of Wizardry and the Grey Council, one connected with the revival of the CAW, and a private groups of friends of mine populated by my personal invitation only. In no way was it described as confidential.

You said I misrepresented what you wrote, I don't think I did. If anything, I minimized the extent of what you were asking others to do. I first tried merely linking to your letter, than copied and pasted it after I found the link would not work, so that other editors could make their own judgements from your own words what your intent was rather than go through my interpretation which you claimed was inaccurate.

As for the letter's context, no, I certainly didn't participate in the larger written exchange of which it was a part, so perhaps I am mistaken about that, but from my admittedly limited point of view it certainly looks to me like a crass attempt to proverbially stuff the ballot box.

I make no claim of perfection, and perhaps in fact I am wholly misinterpreting, and then again perhaps I am not. I can only go by what I have read plus what I (no doubt incompletely) know of your past actions with regard to Misplaced Pages.

Yes, I really do not have anything against you...but it does distress me that you seem unable to grok that some of what you do in the context of Misplaced Pages is seriously inappropriate. I myself have a hard head and have made similar faux-pas from time to time and been taken to task for them, sometimes with kindness and sometimes with malice, so it distresses me to see someone who I know to be an otherwise righteous person subject himself to the same. I really am trying to help you in my less-than-perfect way. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet

Was a decision made with regard to Rosencomet's AN/I, or did it simply scroll off again? Pigman put it back at least once, but I don't want to be presumptious, especially as I just want him to act differently, not get blocked, which is where it looked like things were going the last time I looked. -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it just went stale. He is not blocked but has no contributions in the last couple days. I think I would like to try to work with him, since he seems to trust me. I will approach him about that soon. - Revolving Bugbear 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have hopes for your working with him. Much obliged. -- Davidkevin (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

DC Fontana

If you have a reliable source for DC Fontana's involvement with the Society for Creative Anachronism, pls try to give one. I don't know much about her personal life sadly.

On Star Trek, I liked the original show and the first 2 sequels but I'm afraid it started to lose a lot of gas after the end of ST DS9 and the departure of Ronald D. Moore. ST Voyager and ST Ent was really bland in my subjective view. It seems as if most sci-fi fans today are mostly engaged with BSG which is made in Vancouver, Canada close to where I live. Some fans are even excited about 'Caprica' though I don't know much about it. I don't think Star Trek has a bright future with CBS which basically shut down the startrek.com site last December. CBS is simply slashing all their online program divisions and firing their online staffers to the bone. If CBS' Evening show couldn't catch fire with superstar anchor Katie Couric, what chance does a new movie or sequel of Star Trek have with them, I wonder? Leoboudv (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That she was a kingdom officer (Mistress of the Lists) was in the Caid kingdom newsletter, the title of which I don't remember, back in the early '80s. -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• OK. That's good enough. A source would have helped but we don't always remember to footnote our sources when we type in articles. BTW, do you think Star Trek has a chance for a rebirth under CBS? You must have some views here. Personally, I am really doubtful...sadly. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter was The Crown Prints. // Possibly, as long as Les Moonves isn't involved in making the decision. -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Schadenfreude

If you want to discuss the article schadenfreude the place to do that is on the article's talk page, not on my user page. Your comment was "Yes, the Hitler example is important. It helps show just how damned evil the concept is. -- Davidkevin (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)". WP:NPOV is a bad fit with adding and re-adding examples meant to show evil (an article topic) is. But take it to the article talk page if you want to argue for putting Hitler back in again; others besides me removed it previously.15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the unsigned comment -- I had to look at the history of my own user talk page to see who this was from, betsythedevine.

I politely wrote to you as a courtesy. I didn't expect a rude, anonymous rant in reply. Silly me. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for forgetting to sign my comment with four tildes. I was not trying to be anonymous and I did not intend my remarks to be rude. 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC) betsythedevine (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Apology and intention accepted. I apologize in turn for misunderstanding you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary here, reverting my addition of the {{toomuchtrivia}} template, was not civil. I appreciate that this particular article is one that you feel passionately about, but that sort of dialogue is not productive. --Stlemur (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and I apologize...but I get irritated by people equating the two phrases and using it as an excuse to make articles less encyclopedic, particularly articles that I've put some sweat into. "In popular culture" and "Trivia" really don't mean the same thing. However, I'll make a better effort to be emphatic without being sarcastic from frustration. -- Davidkevin (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Jones

Ah, well in my own opinion I do think we've (unfortunately) seen the last of Jones. Her character arc was finished - she redeemed herself to the Doctor, died a noble death, and perhaps most importantly justified her pivotal decision from The Christmas Invasion as the scenario she had prophesised of the Earth being in danger and the Doctor being unable to help came true. It would cheapen her sacrifice if she somehow had survived. I understand how some thought she might return in Journey's End (there was all those rumours that she'd be inside the red Dalek) but she didn't. With her included in the montage of those who gave up their lives for the Doctor, and Ten now informed of her sacrifice, I feel her story has come to an end. Of course, this is sci-fi and even Rose got to reappear, but on a personal level for me I really believe that she is dead (despite my love for the character) because anything else would ruin the redemption she truly earned.

And, on a visual level, she was seen facing down three Daleks fully expecting death. That we did not see her dying was I believe for dramatic effect rather than sneaky plot device. The viewer is left to imagine her death rather than see it, which can be far more frightening. I would also bring up how many others we know have died but have not seen it physically (the attendant from Midnight for example, or several others from that montage).

Finally, Misplaced Pages articles shouldn't be about hedging bets, they should be about facts that we know and I have to question what real indication you say you have that she may reappear. I do not wish to edit war, but I really do feel strongly about this. Regardless, thank you for taking the time to discuss it with me. Tphi (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Reprinted here because the butthead has Last-Word-itis and cut off my final post.

################################

I didn't know you were an admin. Okay, now that you've declared your ownership through admin power, no facts will be allowed to be in the article which contradict your solipsistic disbelief that they occurred, even though literally hundreds of people were there, and you may call another editor a liar at your whim.

Abuse of those with less "authority" than you: Words to live by. -- Davidkevin (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you feel I'm abusing my powers (although I haven't used my admin abilities at all), take it to WP:ANI. I am reverting material because it falls afould of WP:V and WP:RS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You called me a liar, so, yeah, you were abusive. -- Davidkevin (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Then go ahead. I really don't care. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and what? Put the info back in, or go and ahead and make a complaint about your violation of WP:AGF by calling me a liar ("Your word doesn't cut it.")? -- Davidkevin (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Make a complaint. My edits were in line with policy and guideline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I've already lost this fight. You have other admin buddies, I don't. Cronyism rules. You get your "win" from name-calling and proving you're a big shot. The rest of the public loses because information which illuminates how an actor approached her role is kept out of the article. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of editors like you griping about jack and then refusing to do anything about it. If you think us evil admins rule the show, then why the hell are you contributing here. Stand up or shut up would be a helpful maxim here. If you're not going to do anything, then you're wasting people's time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 15:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of editors taking ownership of articles and cutting out factual information because they don't like it. I'm sick of editors taking ownership of and doing wholesale rewrites of t.v. universe chronologies and substituting their bizarrely "creative" personal notions of what the characters "really" did and said for what was actually depicted. I'm sick of editors younger than my children, ignorant of anything before 1994 and therefore not on the web, telling me events didn't happen because they occurred before newspaper contents were digitized, and due to having a life not having time to look them up in forty-year-old newspapers in morgues on the other side of town. I'm sick of my time being wasted in trying to make contributions of value written in coherent English sentences, only to be reverted by virtual illiterates sitting at keyboards they don't know how to use. I'm sick of admins who say I should assume good faith out of one side of their mouths while calling me a liar out of the other. I'm sick of factual inaccuracies being repeated because they're on the web somewhere else because Jimbo Wales, speaking ex cathedra, decided the standard should be "verifiability, not truth" when anyone with the common sense God gave an ant in one of Aesop's Fables can see that the standard for an encyclopedia should be "verifiability and truth".

So don't whine at me about e-vile non-Admin editors who don't feel like uselessly reporting you to your friends and cronies for being the jerk you're being to someone actually trying to do some good with and for Misplaced Pages. -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My actions were in line with policy and guideline. Yours are not. You're acting like a petulant child, so I'm assuming you realized that if you took me to ANI you would be found in the wrong, or else have deluded yourself sufficiently and have resorted to calling me childish names. Good for you. I'm going to continue building an encyclopedia, see you when you grow up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep telling yourself that -- whatever enables your conscience to forget your actions so that you can sleep at night. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Stan Freberg

It's not my rule, it's wikipedia's rule. You need to read it, and then you'll understand. Baseball Bugs 19:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See last post in the chain above. You helped inspire it. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not write the wikipedia rules. Baseball Bugs 19:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cronyism

Bishonen,

Thank you for proving my point about cronyism among admins by threatening me for complaining about David Fuchs violations on his talk page. He, of course, is still posting on my talk page as much as he wants.

Don't worry, I'm done posting to you. As I said, just wanted to thank you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be a little paranoid of admins, so let me try and explain it to you, as one user to another. WP:V, one of the core principles on which Misplaced Pages was built, clearly states that all information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable. A statement or other piece of information may be true, but without a verifiable source, no one can check to make sure it's true.

In this particular instance, you added a piece of information that you know to be true, but that had no recorded source (such as a video or transcript) stating that this person did indeed say the things that you heard. If you put yourself in the place of everyone who did not hear Besch say those things, wouldn't you be dubious of that information, unless you could go check the information yourself somewhere? That is the basis of WP:V.

If there's anything else you need, please let me know! — OranL (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject St. Louis Invitees