Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) at 02:24, 17 November 2008 (→USS Monitor: rm message from troll). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Re:Intel Core i7 Extreme image

There must have been an exact duplicate of the image in question on Misplaced Pages at the time, with the one you linked me to not in use. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, I delete a lot of images and I don't remember this one specifically, so I can't show you the other, identical one. I do remember a lot of these logos being uploaded at once- is it possible you accidentally uploaded the same file multiple times while uploading several similar images? J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Given the history, your restraint and even supportive comments in the Pigsonthewing thread are very laudable. I've been consistently impressed for a long time now. I hope to be able to support (or nom if you want) you for adminship some day. A long way from where we started. --CBD 14:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. =) While I appreciate the sentiment, I think you'll agree that given how RFA operates it's highly unlikely I'd ever be given a fair chance. Hopefully the situation with Andy is resolved now and he can get back to doing good things for the encyclopedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it could be tough... but don't rule it out. The ability to be fair to and make peace with your 'enemies' ought to be the baseline for adminship, and in that regard you're well ahead of the curve. Other stuff tends to fall away over time. --CBD 12:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

date cleansing

Try this for starters, gathered only at the very beginning. Tony (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore Tony

As somebody who has unfortunately let Tony get him riled up on more than one occasion, I would recommend to you that you simply ignore him and his comments. Nobody takes him seriously, everybody knows he's full of it, and it does you no good to argue with him. Let him scream into the wind and you should continue fleshing out your ideas with the people who actually feel like listening.

As for the edits by Lightmouse, Greg, et al. you should feel free to revert them. There was never any consensus for removing the date links (despite what some claim) and your opinions on the matter are just as valid as anyone else's. If you have the time, it would be better to re-link the dates they've unlinked but to make sure the date format remains consistent throughout the article (I believe they're "fixing" both, although only the consistency fixes are actually fixes, IMHO.)

There is a bugzilla ticket that should (hopefully) resolve this issue with a technical fix soon, and from there we can proceed with improving date autoformatting to eliminate the same concerns that Tony (et al.) have.. which really makes you wonder why they fight us so.. but whatever. --UC_Bill (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Tennis expert (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur with edits in regard Lightmouse, Greg, etc. I've commented on that at WT:DATES. In fact, I'd say the reverts should be exempt from 3RR, but it's not going to happen, so be careful. Feel free to E-mail me if you're blocked for this reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I've noticed for the last several weeks you have been edit warring at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Please remember that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground and we operate under the principle of discussing changes to reach consensus. None of us own any of the pages on Misplaced Pages and edit warring, even if one is certain they are correct, is never acceptable. I fear if you do not stop edit warring that I will need to block you for disruption and edit warring. Happy editing. MBisanz 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

An identical post was made on my talk page and that of Arthur Rubin, although I've removed the post from my page. I found it offensive in its assumptions, the way-premature and overbearing threat, the sending of an elaborate prefabricated message that would be more appropriate to newbies, and the most inappropriate "Happy editing" sign-off. Several tenets of the policy on admin actions and behaviour appear to be at issue. Tony (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems we're all in agreement on that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And on mine, despite my only having edited that page twice in recent times, both today. My request that the false accusation be retracted was refused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Monitor

This edit broke conformance to the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in that it removed a version that conformed to the MOS and in its place restored a version that had a mixture of different date formats. These mixed-format dates will be visible to the majority of readers, who are neither logged on nor have any preference setting for dates. Please do not do this. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The MOS is currently disputed and it's inappropriate for editors with a vested interest in one format over the other to force those changes despite the obvious dispute. I will however attempt to make the dates consistent per your note. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, Locke Cole. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Review. Thank you.MBisanz 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)