Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) at 21:32, 4 April 2013 (→Apologize?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages is a project to create and improve an online encyclopedia which is as accurate and as useful to its readers as possible. It is not an MMPORG, a debating society or an experiment to create the ideal online community. Activities which do not, in some direct or closely indirect way, contribute to that goal are a waste of the project's resources and should be minimized as much as possible.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Kurban Said

I noticed your previous interactions with User talk:Gizgalasi, especially where you told her to stop editing Kurban Said and other Azerbaijan-related articles. I've recently spoken to her at a meetup and expressed Misplaced Pages's need for independent sources and NPOV. I have indicated to her that she could return to making edits so long as she can abide by stated policies. If you really believe that she is in violation of WP:3RR, please go through the established channels to have an administrator block her. I don't want to see another good-faith editor chased off the wiki. I have placed a Request for Comment on that page so the editors in the WikiProject Azerbaijan can provide some academic insight and bring balance to that article. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If her editing behavior falls within our policies, then she'll have no problems from me. I do, however, reserve the right that any Misplaced Pages editor has of warning other editors about non-compliant behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angels from Hell, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Martin and Stu Phillips (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

33 Thomas Street

The claims of ownership and/or usage of equipment at 33 Thomas Street is not supported by the citation used. This material has been removed. This is not a a case of obvious information that does not need citation, this is an interpretation of unknown validity of the citation given or it's original research. Neither is appropriate. If you are able to locate a reliable source which supports this material, then please restore it.--RadioFan (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this long-standing material with a CN tag, which is all that is required. Deletion is an over-reaction. Please do not delete it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The duration the material has existed is imaterial. Please do not restore this again.--RadioFan (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Your actions are bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with BMK, but I wouldn't use the word beginning with b. My sense is it is a case of someone being finicky about rules about verifiability while missing the overall picture. This stuff happens in Misplaced Pages. The overall picture, as I see it, is this: correct detail; duration of material => sign that it's right; personal knowledge of this building => factoid about switches is correct; the "citation needed" tag should probably stay. My two cents). Takes a while for some Wikipedians to begin to trust other Wikipedians. Such is life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You can insult all you like, it doesn't change the fact that WIkipedia is based on verifiability not original research or interpretation. Either there are references to support this or there aren't. I've worked the telecommunications industry for 20+ years, have stood in front of 5ESS, DMS10 and DMS100 an all the variations in buildings just like this, but I've not added that information to Misplaced Pages simply because I've seen it with my own eyes. If there are telco, regulatory or some other documents available, online or otherwise, to support the claims in that article, then great, let's add it back. Until then, it fails WP:V. You've both been around here for over 3 years, you should know this.--RadioFan (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A citation needed tag was sufficient. Your removal (and edit warring to support it) was drastic, unnecessary and unhelpful to the encycylopedia - especially considering your claim to specialized knowledge that would assist in finding a source to support the material, instead of deleting it. In short, your actions were bullshit, and your attitude is totally unproductive and non-collegial. Go away, don't post here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Croton Aqueduct

As you very well know, you recent edits on Croton Aqueduct break WP:MOS. Please stop these edits. From WP:COMMENT: "Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode." --91.10.58.188 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

MOS is not a policy it is a guideline. The purpose of the comment is to introduce one blank to keep the navboxes separated from the external links. This is an aesthetic choice and adds to the readability of the page, so please don't revert again.

Also, please edit with your account, it is against Misplaced Pages policy for an editor with an account to edit with an IP to avoid scrutiny of their edits, as you are clearly doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Croton Aqueduct --91.10.58.188 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP has brought this up here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Your suggestion to the IP was a good one, I have nothing to add to it. (Clearly, he or she knows their well around very well, and has done nothing so far to indicate that they aren't simply trying to make trouble for me.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

your note on my talk page

Please dont template the regulars, it's just rude.--RadioFan (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to want to hew precisely to the letter of the law, so you got a template, and deserved it. If you had behaved even the slighest bit collegially, I would have responded in kind.

Now, explicitly, do not post on this talk page again unless required to do so by Misplaced Pages policy. I have no respect for you, and no interest in your valueless opinions. Any further comment from you will be deleted unread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser investigation

I have mentioned you at new report for checkuser investigation request.

Just a friendly FYI, — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Any further evidence or insight you might have would be most appreciated at the checkuser investigation case page. — Cirt (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

By the time I got there, it had already been closed as negative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologize?

Accusing someone of sockpuppetry without any evidence is the lowest possible attack against someone's online reputation. I certainly hope you will apologize for having made so many baseless accusations against me now that you know you were wrong. Yours, DanielTom (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No apology will be forthcoming, as there was sufficient evidence for suspicion. Next time, reign in your hyperbole and don't behave like an over-active cheerleader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You are extremely rude. That's all I have to say. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as being frank and straightforward. I would never make an accusation of sockpuppetry for effect, or to get a leg up in an argument, I only say it when the evidence presents itself, and considering that the topic of discussion was a inveterate puppetmaster, the accusation was quite reasonable, enough so that three CheckUsers thought it was a sufficient basis to run checks. That I was wrong is undeniable, but that is nothing to apologize for, since rampant sockpuppetry is one of the scourges of this project, and needs to be clamped down on. If you were truly concerned about the project, you'd understand that, and be able to put aside your personal feelings in the interest of improving things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was me who first suggested that I be checked so that we could move on ("in the interest of improving things"). Anyway, if you don't want to apologize, that's up to you, though I think you should, but was it really necessary for you to now accuse me of not being "truly concerned about the project"? I mean... really. No comments. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So, if you wanted to be CU'd, what the hell are you bitching about, you got your wish, thanks to Cirt. You were accused, on reasonable evidence (actually, to be technical, it was Kalki who was accused, not you), you were cleared, incident over. Now, go edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it was Kalki who was accused, not me. I guess that makes it OK? No, it's not OK. It is offensive, in particular because you had zero evidence to support your baseless accusation, other than the fact that I praised Kalki. Jesus Christ. And, more importantly, I had said many times who I am, and even presented lots of evidence of my identity (Daniel Tomé, a college student, Go player, etc., etc.) but you decided that I was lying. I'm sorry if you don't understand that that was offensive. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you're going to be dense about the obvious difference, clueless about the quality of your actions, and naive about the nature of identity on the Internet, then there's nothing to talk about and this discussion is over. Bye. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: RfAr

Thanks for the catch. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 05:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Issues much?

Everywhere I turn you seem to insult other editors. Oh and when you are called up on it you act like a little child putting their fingers in their ears by deleting all the comments. Or you accuse them of sock puppetry. If you wish to continue to edit here then bloody well sort out your attitude! 217.44.127.129 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would respond to this, but I have this genetic defect, I can't seem to read comments posted by editors with accounts using IPs to obscure their identities. Too bad, because if I were to respond it would probably be to cite the socpuppetry policy and then say something frank and straightforward, but witty, like "Buzz off, buddy." Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)