Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 15:01, 27 January 2012 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Fæ/2012.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

2010 2011 2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Disclaimer Any opinions expressed on Misplaced Pages, sister projects or in tweets and blog posts are mine and do not represent the opinion of Wikimedia UK or any other organization that I am affiliated with. – Fæ

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Behavior mutation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Replication and Locus

Chen Wei (artist) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chen

William Drenttel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Metropolitan Transit Authority

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What an unnecessary notice, the designer never thought of DTTR. It is rather annoying as in these cases I converted inter-wiki links to local links and did not actually add the link itself to the article. Guess I am forced to add the surplus code {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} to my page header. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

H&R Block

Hi Fæ, I'm hoping to discuss the flag you attached about the changes to the H&R Block page. I made edits today to update a sorely outdated page.

I moved the 2 former business units, Financial Advisors and RSM McGladrey, from the Business section to the history section. That content doesn't appear to be promotional in nature.

Also the products section only listed one product, so I added from the current annual report the other products. When the flag was added, I deleted the descriptions in case they seemed promotional in nature.

Can you provide any background on what you think still needs to be improved? Or if you agree the product section was the issue and now has been improved, we'd like to ask to remove the flag that you attached. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.137.100.23 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• H&R Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I can see you already removed the advert notice. It is not unusual to wait for more than 3 hours for a reply, other contributors are not necessarily available for 24 hours a day. I may return for a more detailed look, but I am glad to see the spammish detail that you previously pasted on the product range has been trimmed down to a simple list. However, you may want to seek advice at WP:COIN as you appear to be directly involved with the organization the article is about. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I did wait several hours but understand that you're not sitting at your computer 24/7. I only made the edit to remove the notice because I made the change in response and reached out in good faith to open the discussion to make the improvements. The content wasn't intended to be "spammish," but meant to describe the product/service as the name likely won't stand alone. I did make an extra effort to review and follow the Misplaced Pages guidelines, that any edits were to update outdated information only and seemingly non-controversial edits. I saw on WP:COIN that the "conflict of interest guideline does not absolutely prohibit subject-matter experts or other people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject." Thanks for the reply, and I'll watch for any additional feedback. There is still some outdated information but I'll wait to confirm the information from today is considered in good standing. Thanks for the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparks1971 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Fæ, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek.69 20:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a huge scary topic. I'm afraid that religious articles tend to cause a lot of heat and this particular Pope is recent enough for that to still be a worry for me. Thanks for asking though and good luck with getting the review banked. --Fæ (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper

I have raised the question of banning Kuiper for outing, if your allegations are true, at both here and Commons. Please comment at WP:ANI here, and also at Commons if you want to. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll email you a link to the relevant material. --Fæ (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you don't have email enabled. Please email me if you want a link. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't even want to know who he tried to out. I would prefer that you go to the ANI page here (and on Commons also, if you want) and solicit the help of another admin. I am not an admin. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, personally I try and steer clear of ANI. I'll pass the information to another person to take a view on. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just quit already

You're gonna burn in this world and the next! Best admin evar ! Ash=Fae=F4g (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This comment fits a coordinated pattern I have seen of personal homophobic harassment directed against me over the last month on Twitter, Misplaced Pages Review, email, Wikimedia Commons and Misplaced Pages. I would like those that keep an eye on my user page to take note and reflect on whether the harassment policies we have for the Wikimedia projects are able to act effectively or efficiently when anonymous accounts, low contribution sock puppet accounts and manipulative traveling circuses are used to attack members of our community. Not all such attacks are as obvious as this one. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)