Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brews ohare (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 14 August 2010 (→unable to engage with Misplaced Pages as it is, rather than as he believes it should be: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Archive 1 (May 2007–May 2008)
• Archive 2 (May 2008–March 2009)
• Archive 3 (March 2009–May 2010)
• Archive 4 (May 2010–present)

Dick Ebersol photo

Hi Steve-

There is currently no picture up for Dick's page. Would you like me to send one to you and add? Let me know, would be happy to. Thanks.

Julianyc (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again- I definitely have a photo you can use... how do we go about this then? Shall I send to you somehow, what kind of file works? Let me know what is the easiest and we can get a photo up there! Thanks.

Julianyc (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve- Don't have all of that info handy, do you need it in order to put a photo up? Let me know, if so, I'll ask around... thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The photo was taken by an NBC photographer, and NBC holds the rights to it. Will that suffice? Let me know and I can send on over, or I'll try uploading it. Thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve- Never heard back from you about the above. Let me know, thanks!

Julianyc (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your FAC

I see the Brownlee FAC is short on reviewers. You might try reviewing Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 (also at FAC) and see if User:Acdixon will do the same for you. Just a thought. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Replying to your message on my talk page, can you look at my suggestions? RIPGC (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

If you could drop by and comment at the RfC here, regarding date styles, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Connormah 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory

Here's a new article I created. Please help improve it. It's also up for DYK for 24 July. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Need an arbitration hand

Hi. Unfortunately I can't yet edit this page, so I'm asking you for a help in resolving a dispute. I nominated the article for second the time, but the case was closed way too fast (one hour), without even letting anyone to object on such a controversial matter (there are people who are against, it was nominated already so it can be considered as controversial already), and it was closed by the same wikipedian who closed the previous nomination. So I want at least to keep the nomination for another time, so there would enough time to make an objection (I'm myself was late to make it as it was closed already, damn). And it seems that interested persons so immediately took part in it, thus were biased. The previous nominator was warned by me. Dramadeur (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparent SPA, and quacks loudly. Dram -- out of curiosity, given your nom which has been closed as POINTy, and the nature of your five edits, have you ever edited under a prior name or IP address?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? Why are you asking it in front of an arbitrary? You should have asked it in my page, it's not relevant to ask it here. Anyway, yes this ip belonged to me, when I had gone trough procedures it was revealed that I need an account to leave my "thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page." Dramadeur (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've indef blocked that account. Fences&Windows 13:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Kudos.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Decision on clarification issue is stalled

Although you have expressed an opinion on the matter, as has Carcharoth, this question of clarification appears to be stalled. Without a decision on this matter, my appeal cannot proceed, as Sandstein has made this a precondition for progress.

Do you anticipate framing a motion to bring this clarification to a conclusion? Thanks for your attention. Brews ohare (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment

This is a prime example why we get upset over the speed of light issue. ] is a rosey example of hounding and persecution. Kinda funny how he can block when he is knee deep in the. Itas hard to say I'm assuming bad faith when there is multiple statements like ]. In the past Brews advocaters have been blbamed for brews issues but here is what happens when someone doesn't say something. Can you please comment on this? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

You seem to be online, so I am making you aware of these procedural notes I made at the appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said in another venue, Jehochman is clearly obsessed with the outcome of the appeal but that's not what I'm concerned about right now - my concern is that an editor, any editor, even the worst/best of editors, should be able to make an appeal to the community without difficulty and excess bureaucracy. While J continues to bully editors (be it below, or when he insists appeals should go directly/only to ArbCom), more heat than light emerges. He's advocated in nearly every discussion concerning Brews on the matter , he encouraged an admin to misuse their tools , he failed to discuss concerns about this behavior , and he responds with unrelated+condescending commentary in response to my active concerns . There are plenty of editors who can identify problem conduct that the subject may be exhibiting, and have done so on important occasions (myself included), and that isn't going to change. However, I don't think his participation is beneficial when it goes towards intimidating editors or making them feel that they are being treated unfairly, especially when contrary to what he or Stifle insists, appeals in this are not limited to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. I may have misinterpreted a bit of your response on my talk earlier - I apologise for the occasions where that is apparent. It's sometimes not easy to convey that one is trying to argue for keeping the principles in tact.

Camel's nose

In my experience, one sign of a disruptive editor is that if you give any leniency, they take full advantage of it to resume their agenda. You may need to rethink the matter of Brews, Count Iblis, and Hell in a Bucket. I see no signs of comprehension or compromise. They have an agenda, and are taking full advantage of whatever cover anybody provides. Now Ncmvocalist has gotten into the picture, which inevitably will complicate the dispute. Jehochman 10:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

i'm very much interested in what is problematic by the questions Iblis or myself have made. Iblis is always civil from what I've seen, I'm not but in this case I have not cursed at anyone, called them nazis or the like. All Iblis and myself have done is question Jehochmans invovled sts and asked him to step aside from making blocking decisions because he has a clear and announced belief what should happen and does not seem willing to agf in the slightest. I again call upon Jehochman to back up his claims we are disrupting things, I've asked four or five times and he refuses to answer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

unable to engage with Misplaced Pages as it is, rather than as he believes it should be

Hi Steve:

The header is your comment about my capacities on WP as stated in the Speed of light appeal. I'd like you to explore this matter further, to see whether you really see things differently than I do.

My view is that I talked about matters beyond the willingness of other editors to continue, so they sought administrative action to terminate discussion. One might sympathize with their view. If so, the question is what to do about it.

I think an effective remedy is a sanction to govern my Talk page behavior. The idea is to propose that when a thread is prolonged beyond endurance, the engaged editors can simply tell me that they are going to invoke this sanction unless I pack it up.

That seems to me to be a perfectly effective approach to the problem. I'd say that I'd be nuts not to accept that motion on the part of the involved editors, and desist.

The remedies proposed instead appear to me to miss the point that this is about behavior control, not about technical exchanges on a particular topic. What is worse, they open the door to a type of generalized harassment that I have experienced before that, frankly, I do not wish to operate under. The "uninvolved administrator" approach simply doesn't work, and leads to crazy actions that cannot be overturned.

What do you think about this? Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)