Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 15 February 2013 (→Another atrocity: I have returned from my sailing expedition and am gravely displeased!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, intellectual reader. There's no need to post "Talkback" or "You've got mail" templates here. I watch my e-mail, and also your talkpage if I've posted on it. (Click here if you want another compliment.)

MOS and ArbCom

I welcome your offer to post a request for arbitration as a neutral editor in the recent AE matter.

I see several advantages to this.

1) New eyes. Long-time participants may able to express the issues more succinctly to someone who has not already formed an opinion on an issue. Indeed, this is the much of the real work of an ArbCom case, providing a forum for the exchange of ideas between parties that is necessary to any resolution.

2) It is simply too dangerous for any involved editor to do so.

—Neotarf (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I'm probably treating something important too flippantly, but when I saw the section title "MOS and ArbCom", I thought to myself: That's probably a good working definition of Hell. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • LOL. To me, it's " and ArbCom". ;-) -- Ohconfucius  02:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
    • There are new arbs now, the "new eyes" principle may mean fresh insights from that group as well. —Neotarf (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Glad to hear from you, Neotarf. I was in fact thinking along the lines that I might be able to express myself more succinctly, yeah… and with luck without myself getting caught in the vast sticky webs of MOS. (What was the name of the spider monster in the Lord of the Rings, Floquenbeam?) But Sandstein has responded that he intends "later this week" to post a request for clarification about appellate procedure for people who don't accept discretionary sanctions warnings. I'll wait for that. There may turn out to be a simpler way than RFAR, or rather, the arbs may invent an appellate procedure in response to Sandstein, because I don't think anything like that has come up before. Or they may stonewall again, no doubt. Again, I'm willing to start an RFAR if that's what remains. I'd want to hear what SMcCandlish thinks about it first, though. Bishonen | talk 11:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

Ungoliant or Shelob, depending on if you're a First Age kind of person, or a Third Age kind of person. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Shelob sounds about right. "Bloated and grown fat with endless brooding on her feasts, weaving webs of shadow; for all living things were her food, and her vomit darkness." If I do request anything related to MOS, I shall have to be fleet of foot. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

Thank you. This seems to be the appropriate policy page. But Shelob, ha ha, no, the MOS is not alive, more like DNA. The bots and gnomes use bits of it to polish the 'pedia. And like DNA it is subject to repair and mutation. But fleetness of foot, yes. Even at its best, MOS is not for the faint-hearted. —Neotarf (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein delivers: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_sanctions_appeals_procedure — HaugenErik (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. Most of the arb comments so far seem well-reasoned. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC).

I am sorry, but "Even at its best, MOS is not for the faint-hearted" makes no sense whatsoever. All of Misplaced Pages is by necessity equally welcoming of all participants. If the current climate at MOS is not thus, that needs to be changed immediately. Apteva (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Er.. OK, Apteva. If you think you achieve something by replying in this place to a comment from nine days ago, not made by me, be my guest. Bishonen | talk 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

Crat LOL

Well played :) -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks for the attention. And a nice and concise comment, Avi! (See what I did there?) Bishonen | talk 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC).

User:Klbog1987

Can you please block him permanently? I saw where you already levied a 24-hour block on him per an ANI discussion. This user repeatedly adds false and/or unverifiable information into articles and templates. Every single time, without fail, another editor has left him messages regarding his behavior he has blanked his talk page without (a) responding, and (b) altered his behavior. His incompetence is staggering. For the good of this online Encyclopedia, please get rid of him. Thanks in advance. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I was just checking out the user's edits. But I decided not to act, because I have so very, very little understanding of sports-related articles. Pretty much all the editing on them is a deep dark mystery to me. I think your concerns are very probably well-founded, but could you please take them either to a more sports-minded admin, if you know such a one, or to the incidents noticeboard? P.S., in either case, you'd probably like to give a link to the earlier ANI thread. Here it is. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC).

I've asked User:Zagalejo. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

<teach>For your diff guide: Try this for a solution that uses whichever http or https server you're on and works with wp:popups.</teach> --RexxS (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rex. I realise that's simpler for the nerd population, but it's not simple in the sense of "simple diff and link guide". It's more mysterious for us lamers. I'll leave you or darwinfish to put it into the Complete diff and link guide, which is where I think it belongs. Unless it's already there..? I don't remember. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC).

re: "spam ban"

hmmmm ... I guess I coulda linked that to WP:SPAM, but meh. Yea, I should know that anything "understated", "overstated", "humorous", "dry", or "sarcastic" simply doesn't play out well in the written genre. Your point is taken, and I stand corrected. I humbly appear here to accept my well deserved "trout". As we are approaching the Easter season, and it's Friday - I may as well make a meal of it though, so any "chips" or "fries" with that would be welcomed too. :-) — Ched :  ?  12:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Ched. It's just that the people who reckon up the results of ANI polls tend to go extremely formal about it (in self-defence, no doubt) — 'What exactly did that person support?' — and hence understated and overstated can both be risky. Here's your trout. Bishonen | talk 13:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

Another atrocity

I have just been smartening up my beloved aunt to bring her more into line with how other editors want an eminent page to look and noticed some clot has, without warning, deleted two of the images - I believe one of them was uploaded by you, perhaps you could retrieve them. I really think this needs to happen quite quickly before she and the staff return from their yachting cruise in the Med and notice the defilement of the page.  Giano  13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What a magnificent infobox! I can't seem to do anything about the redlinked images, but help should be on its way, please see Bishonen | talk 15:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

also why can't I get the info box to display her neighbours ad cousins, all the other essential details of an informative info-box? Sometimes, I do really miss Jack!13:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you mean? If you just edit the page as a whole, the editable infobox will be right at the top. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

• I'm just headed off, so can't really help too much... but Miss Bish, try this link Worm(talk) 15:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Very nice fixes Worm; thank you. However, you have shrunk my magnificent info-box. I do think the size of the info-box should reflect the status of the subject. That way, some gnat with no attention span, won't even have to read the info-box, he will just know he's looking at an important person.  Giano  15:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies! I hope my recent change goes some way to restoring your dear aunt's self worth. Worm(talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps some other clever tps can do something about the two redlinked images. I just don't understand how to get to look at the images themselves (yes, Writ Keeper, I know you have demonstrated it but I didn't get it that time either, sorry. :-() I can't see what the delete reason was either. The probably adorable baby picture File:CdeB4.jpg in the same article page has the same problem also. (The fixes were mainly by Bishapod, Giano.) Bishonen | talk 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

  Hmmm. Well, it looks like CdeB4.jpg is a derivative of File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1989-0322-506,_Adolf_Hitler,_Kinderbild.jpg. To see the image (as an admin), you just need to go to the undelete link and scroll to the bottom where it has the file history rather than the page history. If it's not been sorted by the next time I log on, I'll get them done :) If someone could find the original of the wedding party, I'd appreciate it though. Worm(talk) 16:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's much better Worm. Now, next. we must please the info-box crowd, so how can I add her neighbours, dearest and closest friends, hobbies, shoe size, vital statistics and medical history. I tried, but they won't display.  Giano  16:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is the template the infobox uses; it doesn't have fields for things like neighbors, so they won't show up. Your best bet is probably to subst the template into the article and then add the fields by hand; you could also make a copy of the template and add the new fields in there, which would abstract the wikicode a bit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

well it won't be much of an info-box, if people are expected to actual read the article - people have busy lives and somc ecan't even read.  Giano  16:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've restored the baby picture, I can't for the life of me figure out why it was deleted. It says there's no source information, but the source was clearly stated on the information page. Oh well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm always having these problems - I think they have difficulties getting decent admins these days.  Giano  16:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Awww, cute, thanks. As for sourced images getting deleted, in my experience that's just business as usual on Commons. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

How terribly serendipitous, this popped up on my watchlist just above the Massacre of Glencoe so I had to have a look. Her ladyship's first great work brings to mind the Laird's distant adventures.... dave souza, talk 17:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I had indeed already enjoyed the swashbuckling "Scrøtum where åre my bøøts" adventure. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

I have returned from my sailing expedition and am gravely displeased! Who, precisely, is on charge of Info-Boxes on this encyclopaedia? You can all stop cowering Mrs Bishonen,put those trembling Bishopods back in their kennel </ref>. Just give me his name. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)