Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geometry guy (talk | contribs) at 06:33, 8 January 2012 (→Notice: rm duplicate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 9 sections are present.

Merry Christmas!

Fallschirmjäger ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

test

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last three days. Last updated 31 July 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

test elements

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 11 January 2025 by HotArticlesBot.

A friendly warning

This remark of yours has just been brought to my attention. I am rather disappointed that no one seems to have taken the time to discuss it with you at the point it was made. I realise it was a month ago. However, I simply want to make clear that the remark is utterly unacceptable, a clear breach of civility, and the invective about "pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" particularly offensive. Any reasonable editor would be aware that it was likely to offend, and thus be disruptive of a healthy editing environment. Had I seen the remark at the time, I would have blocked you without hesitation. Whatever your intention, please refrain from that type of rhetoric in future, which can only serve to harm the editing environment. Please consider this a warning, designed to prevent you stumbling into issues going forward.--Scott Mac 01:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This warning is frankly crap. There is no personal attack contained in the diff, and per the recent village pump policy discussion you ought not to warn over words. Pull your head in Scott, your action is not supported by community consensus on what civility policy ispolicy and community consensus formed around perennial attempts to produce policy on the role of specific language within civility is. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility is about creating a conducive working environment. That post offended at least one user (and reasonably would offend more) - needlessly offending people is something good Wikipedians avoid doing.--Scott Mac 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, the community has clearly spoken: policyfailure to form policy on language in civility? Fifelfoo (talk)

That page does not say what you are making out. "To the extent that discussions remain WP:CIVIL consensus is clearly against language restrictions" - I completlet agree with that. "To the extent that discussions remain CIVIL"--Scott Mac 01:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Individual offence is not incivility; stop playing the school marm and the defender of helpless ladies. You may also want to exit the area of civility as you cannot sufficiently explain a warning over civility. Your assumptions of self-evident content, and over what the nature of policy is, are so deeply flawed as to make these contributions a pointy support of some normative morality you possess. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever.--Scott Mac 02:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott, who did it offend? I'm at something of a loss here. The comment strikes me as possibly vulgar, but that's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is gratuitously vulgar. A female editor found it to be offensive and sexist.--Scott Mac 19:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I figured out who it was. There is a history and a grievance there, not related to civility.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I saw it when it was posted and thought it was disgusting. My reaction: unwatch the page. In my view, that's the best way to deal with something like this. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a warning? Malleus Fatuorum has just been indeffed (now at ArbCom) for ostensibly much the same use of language. There's more backstory to both of these, but neither are "parliamentary expressions" that either editor should be using. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As a woman from America who has lived in England, what Malleus said offends me far less because I understand that the word is used differently, i.e often directed by men at men in cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, etc. As an American woman I understand exactly what TCO was saying & the spirit, and I found it to be mean-spirited. That's the difference. In case anyone cares. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, opinion expressed and no doubt taken on board. Anything else to be done here?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As a man from Glasgow, I'm aware of the usage of "cunt", and while it is not particularly sexist, it is the language of the macho gutter, which even men who use it among men would seldom repeat outside that circle of male friends. And we really don't want to go to the lowest common denominator of what men feel free to say to male friends in a pub, as a mark of what's acceptable in wikipedia. Trust me, we don't.--Scott Mac 20:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbs asked for examples of inconsistent civility enforcement, so ... Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Scott, that language was unacceptable. TCO, your talk page is on my watchlist now, as well as several others I presume. You don't repeat the behavior, then there's no problem. OK? Cla68 (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Value judgements at FPC

We get that you don't agree with the featured picture criteria (and there never will be a "TCO has determined the subject to be important" criterion, so I'm not sure you ever will), and I know it's going to take you a while to get into your head that you are being unambiguously disruptive by opposing on your made up criteria, but surely even you can see that to claim that a subject is completely unimportant despite having not even read the opening line of the article is just ridiculous? J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I will try not to be disruptive. I do think you should allow different perspectives. If you start tossing out my votes, I will just not participate, but I think that will be a loss for your program, not a gain. Sometimes it is worthwhile to allow different ideas, even if you don't agree. And encyclopedicity can be a spectrum not an on/off. (I mean we don't list every technical blemish as an on/off decision or an equation either.) Do you just want robots or people actually thinking about the stuff. I do try to engage with this stuff and look at the articles and such. Purely technical discussions will lose a lot and you end up disconnected from really serving articles and readers. Anyhow, I really think you should allow alternate viewpoints, man. Even ones you disagree with.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you completely about allowing different perspectives, and I certainly agree with you with regards to the on/off of "encyclopedicity", but dismissing certain images because they're of something that you personally don't care about (or do not meet criteria that you personally have arbitrarily decided) is most certainly not in the spirit of cooperation, or anything to do with the featured picture criteria. Yes, there may be grounds for being stricter on incredible minor topics or more leniant on incredibly important topics (though, on the flip side, we may say that with the important topics, it's important to get it right). There are certainly grounds for being harsher/more leniant depending on the rarity of the photograph. However, what you're doing is not fair, and is not based on the featured picture criteria; it's based on your well-known and clearly apparent agenda. If you were editing like this in other areas, you'd face blocks for pushing your point of view, tendentious editing and so on. People have made quite clear where you can go and stick your ideas and theories when you've pushed them elsewhere; that doesn't mean you can just move onto the next process. As I've said before, I liked you as a person, and had respect for you as an editor, before this whole situation; I'd love to get back to that, and I'd love to see more of your articles. I hope you won't take this too personally.

There's no way I want tickboxes for the criteria and robots for the reviewers. I'm a philosopher, not a computer scientist. However, this isn't a free-for-all. As a point of comparison, two Biblical scholars could have a legitimate disagreement about the meaning of a particularl parable; that doesn't mean someone else can come along and say "this parable should be ignored, because the sky is blue and today is Friday". Especially when it isn't Friday. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just calling it the way I see it. Is it a viewpoint or an agenda or just taking a wider perspective? Could be the same thing but all have different connotations. It's not some sneaky thing. This is how I've always voted.

Honest, just start throwing my votes out and I will disengage. There is no need to threaten a block or vote to get rid of me or any of that white blood cells resisting the foreign organism stuff.

I still think you lose and become more insular if you toss out a different perspective. I am really trying to engage with the pics and the articles.

I'm not discussing it further, here. You and I are repeating points.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have ideals; you have an agenda; they are conspiring. Highly irregular verb.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine paper

Hi TCO. I can get hold of that fluorine paper you want, but not for a week or so. If no one else gets it to you by then, drop me an email (I'll need to send it to you by email) and I'll get on to it. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Stupid me, I should have said that I meant "The early history of hydrofluoric acid" SmartSE (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sent.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting post

And thanks for leaving it although in the current climate I might have smiled a bit more, if you know what I mean. Have you ever seen this? Most interesting. I was a bit surprised to see who supported elections, in 2007.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic. (that old discussion.) Wiki seems to attract people who want to have control over others. To play moderator. I wouldn't want a volunteer job if I couldn't pass an election. I respect the admins who have done followup RFAs. Not the pry from my dead hand types.TCO (Reviews needed) 13:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. Hope you don't mean me. I consider my use of the tools inoffensive.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean you (whatever that means). I'm not as smart as you think I am. Like I have no idea what smiled a bit more means. It's fine though.

I respect you even if we disagree sometimes. No one sees everything 100% alike. Besides, you have lots to be proud of, huge stuff...no question, and shouldn't lose sweat on what TCO thinks! But, if it makes good feeling, same as I told Malleus, it is very favorable. FWIW.

Still two days of Xmas left...TCO (Reviews needed) 16:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not important. Thanks though.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically I was trying to hint what Carcharoth said rather more bluntly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comments at WT:FAC

I've temporarily redacted the comments you made in that discussion at WT:FAC, and pointed people to your talk page for details. In an edit just before that, I've stated my objections to the atmosphere your comments there have created. I'm asking you to please rewrite what you said and remove the personalised comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've shown less disrespect to others than others have to me. And I stand behind the remarks. It is plain speaking.

FAC should not be a single person's preserve. You all are WAY too trapped in that mindset. And no emphasis on growth or outreach. Just more discussion of the same people. We need to stop thinking about one person and think about the program.

Actually I did not see a big kerfuffle after my remarks so that part of your comment is off. Probably more accurate to just say you disagreed with the tone per se than that it prompted a scuffle.

I'm not going to rewrite my comment. You can, if you care. End of discussion.

TCO (Reviews needed) 01:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The only points you'd really need to rewrite are points B and E (and possibly a few other bits I may have missed). What I will do is add a diff there to your original comments (so they aren't censored, and anyway, one of the comments was quoted back at you) and a diff to what you've said here, and then leave it at that. What I'm trying to do here is ensure the discussion doesn't go off the rails, and people carry on commenting. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I trust you. Do what you think best. Thanks for taking care of it, man.TCO (Reviews needed) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Buying the room a beer isn't very generous, TCO. Divided among the room, it will barely wet the throat, which are very dry after this kind of discussion. In practice, the glass would never get past Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

TTT

OK, you have me completely stumped. Who or what is TTT?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Tony the Tiger. Check out his user page, with the "farming implements" (numchucks) and there is a youtube of him doing a set of 105# db presses (no kidding).TCO (Reviews needed) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK! I wade in the heavy end of the dumb bell pile, myself. I screwed up my shoulder doing Arnold Presses 10 years ago(seated shoulder presses which you rotate out at extension) with 85 lb dbs...then going into Aikido class and having someone torque my shoulder. I had to stop Aikido and lifting for almost 2 years...almost drove me nuts.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Good man. I am going to lift legs tonight. HAve to take it easy with shoulder and knee, but I find if I do a moderate amount it actually helps (too much and I get hurt, too little and I get worse too).

Yeah, I hear you on that. I used to do squats till I puked, literally. Now I just do them until I'd rather sleep in the car than walk up the 5 steps to my house!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Newcomer's guide

Hi there! We've all been slowly adding to WP:The End and now it's becoming quite long. It occured to me the other day that we might be able to split it into a guide instead of a single page with the same down-to-earth language and helpfulness. I've started a prototype, please check it out and let me know if it's worth doing.--v/r - TP 16:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Newcomer's guide is a good idea. I would change the name to...Newcomer's guide. Also, get rid of the box that says it relates to deletion policy.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Relates to deletion policy?--v/r - TP 16:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin Review

Hey, no fair! I get down and do grunt work sometimes, didn't you see my latest article? Surgical positions.--v/r - TP 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Guess you are all over the place! TCO (Reviews needed) 19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I try to get around.--v/r - TP 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Geometry guy 06:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)