Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ta bu shi da yu: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:46, 15 November 2004 editTa bu shi da yu (talk | contribs)32,902 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:57, 26 September 2020 edit undoLlywrch (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators81,174 edits reverting selfTags: Replaced Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
{{User:Ta bu shi da yu/navbox}}{{pic of the day}}
Talk to me, I'm not an ]! - ] 04:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(As wikipedia seems to be having refresh issues, I'm adding a link to the cache of this page]. Gah!

----

== Comments ==

Regarding your comment about "abrasiveness". Can I ask what specifically has given you that impression? -- ] ] 02:52, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

:Perhaps abrasiveness was the wrong word. I just don't think you're ready for adminship yet. I think you are a good contributor, however. - ] 03:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:: Can you give any specific feedback as to why I wouldn't be "ready"? Is your evaluation of that based on the other votes, or something else? -- ] ] 03:55, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

:::Netaholic's behaviour on ] and ] has confirmed my choice was correct. I have placed a message stating as such on his webpage, however he has seen fit to remove it. Can't do much about this I suppose. - ] 14:30, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==NWS==
I placed a larger NWS logo on the NOAA page for you. Couldn't find any other items on the list that, but on the bright side, thats 1 down and 2 to go. ] 22:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Exploding whale ==

I haven't really followed the article's progression, but I know you're a driving force behind exploding whale awareness here. So congrats on the main page! ] 01:27, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well done. ] 11:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== alferd packer ==

hey there, you whats really funny? i just happened to read that article maybe two days before i got your message! coincidence? --] 19:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==Speedy...?==

Hi. I'm not sure what it is you meant on my talk page, unless it had to do with that B-Movie Bandit stub from yesterday. I posted that for a speedy before it had been moved to VfD. Hope that clears things up. - ] 19:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== ] ==

It has been agreed that, since ] is not a news item on any major service, it does not belong on ]. Please revert. -- ] ] 02:05, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

: Both sides are talking on IRC, and Jimbo expressed a dislike for it, also. -- ] ] 02:09, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

OK, here is proof - it is not front page on any of these. As we only have space for three news items, surely this one is not valid. -- ] ] 02:17, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

* http://www.cnn.com/
* http://abcnews.go.com/
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/
* http://www.ap.org/
* http://www.msnbc.msn.com/


(to Ta bu shi da yu)
:You came very close to violating the 3 revert rule, and I was forced to protect the page due to the edit war (and why the heck did you put an NPOV header on OUR FRONT PAGE). You are an admin - please abide by the rules and courtesies of Misplaced Pages. Thanks, ] 02:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:First of all, do you really think it was appropriate to put an NPOV header on our front page? Secondly, edit warring in any form (whether or not you reverted three times, I never accused you of doing so) is unbecoming of an administrator. Thirdly, Netoholic raised valid concerns, to which you responded (and I applaud you for that), meaning that the objections were at least stated on the talk page. Thanks, ] 02:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Again, I did not say it was against policy to revert, I stated reverting "is unbecoming of an administrator"; administrators are generally held to higher standards, and should definitely follow normal courtesies. As for your IRC comment - what exactly is wrong with discussing on IRC? It is a lot easier to get real-time comments between many different parties in a chat, rather than on the rather slow and edit-conflict-prone Misplaced Pages talk pages. Thanks, ] 02:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::Again, it is very sluggish to do much of any discussion on Misplaced Pages, or on the mailing list (of which I am not a part, in any case). As for your behavior, it seems inherent (to me at least) that placing a glaring NPOV header (or any header, for that matter) on a main page template would violate common sense. While I should probably retract my statement of "please abide by the rules," it still remains that edit warring on any page is strongly discouraged, especially on the, by far, most highly viewed page on the Misplaced Pages. Thanks, ] 02:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::In what way is discussing on the IRC channel *not* being held to a higher standard? It's a different matter if we were all congregating to decide which user to ban as a "troll" because we didn't like him or her, but in this case we were simply discussing whether or not the election fraud page belonged on the main page. While I had my own opinions, the only decisions I made were to protect the page due to an edit war (after having been informed of the problem by several users) then to proceed to warn you. There is no *standard* to which users are held, regarding their participation on the IRC channel.

::Also, my comments regarding the "sluggishness" of the talk page were relative. I had decided to protect the page; however, I just offhandedly asked on the IRC channel if it was all right. I was not formulating any policy, nor making any decisions on IRC - I was simply asking for a casual confirmation. (Why does this seem like a repeat of my defense on Cecropia's talk page?) However, if you object to discussion on the IRC channel, I fully respect that; it seems unreasonable and unrealistic, however, to limit all wikipedia-related substantive discussion to the Misplaced Pages talk pages. Of course, I wouldn't decide to change the blocking policy on the basis of an IRC chat with a few of my wikifriends, but in this case, again, it was simply a casual, non-binding confirmation. By the way, don't take my comments as representative of anyone besides me - other users of the IRC channel may disagree with me completely, and hate me for this defense... Thanks, ] 03:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::Hmm. Rdsmith4 was on the IRC channel, but I do not think he said anything about the issue until after he reverted. Ed g2s (or whatever his username is) was never on the IRC channel. Our discussions were, as far as I can recall, regarding whether or not to protect the page, and while we did talk about your (in our opinion) questionable edits, we didn't make any IRC-collaborative decisions to revert you. (this is ugen64 on an IP) ] 18:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Blocking ] ==

Hi. I saw that you sent a final warning message to that user, and then a couple minutes later, you blocked them. However, if you compare ] with , you will see that they made their last edit BEFORE your final warning, so I don't think that their block was warranted just yet (they '''stopped''' vandalizing after your final warning). I'm unblocking, but if I'm mistaken, please let me know, and I will reblock (or you can do it). -]|]]] 03:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Agreed! Thanks for your message. I've left them a message on their talk page so that they know they're not invincible ;) -]|]]] 03:35, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::It looks like they got the point :D, I hope they won't be vandalizing again. Personally I hate blocking users, that's why I give them at least three warnings before doing so- even if it's obvious vandalism. Maybe it's a phobia I have? I've never had to block a user, but it's probably because of my long and slightly threatening ] ;). "For your reading pleasure, I don't plan to archive ." That's a subtle joke on the top of my talk page. I also have an irrational fear about archiving my talk page :). Maybe if it gets REALLY big, I'll archive it. I should've archived it on the anniversary of my first edit on Misplaced Pages, but I suppose it's too late for that now :(. Does archiving really make a difference, since most people use the 'post message' button? -]|]]] 03:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::Ah, see your point ;). Maybe when it gets to a nice number...like 100. I see why you wanted to block the user before they made any more disruption. While I think you were a bit quick in actually blocking them, I definately agree with your reasons. Anyhow, I'm going to go play, then sleep :). Good night- it was nice talking to you :). -]|]]] 03:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== ] ==

Edit summaries are for documenting the changes you made, not for the reasons you made them. Do not leave edit summaries which comment directly on other users ("''First Netoholic removes it for "original research", then removes it because the info is duplicated. There is nothing wrong with summarising info. Reverting.''") -- ] ] 17:27, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)


Stop trolling my user page. -- ] ] 04:16, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


DO NOT INTERFERE WITH USER SUBPAGES. That is MY user space. You are abusing your admin rights in moving them rather than honoring my deletion requests. IF you do not desist I will take you directly to arbitration. I have never seen such a grevious abuse. -- ] ] 04:31, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

:You moved all of my old archives, and then just deleted the redirects. That is OUTSIDE the bounds of your rights. -- ] ] 04:39, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

::OK, I'll do a copy of the archives and then delete the page, then recreate by pasting them back in. That OK with you? - ] 04:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::: Why are you harassing me like this. I supported your adminship and have never taken issue with you. -- ] ] 04:46, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

:::: I just noticed this comment. Whether Netoholic supported my adminship or not doesn't fuss me in the slightest. I will not be treating Netoholic differently to any other user just because he voted for me. I have taken issue with Netoholic's behaviour and unilateral editing technique, which rubs many people up the wrong way in a consensus driven website. - ] 14:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Netoholic, these archives are duplicated in the page history because they were archived via copy+paste. As such I don't see any reason not to delete them. ]— Kate Turner | ] 04:47, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
:I doubt there's a policy on copying talk pages, but why bother? The only reason I can see that you'd want to is to preserve the contents (which is already done) ]— Kate Turner | ] 04:51, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
::Just easier to see what people have written. I don't want to go through his history to find my past comments! - ] 04:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::: Seems like you're only doing it to make trolling harassment easier. -- ] ] 04:58, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

::::Incorrect. However, I did do it because I dislike it when people just remove negative feedback, especially when it is regarding an ongoing issue. It makes communication very difficult, and others aren't able to see that others have been telling the user the same things. Basically I find it rude, even if technically you are allowed to do it. I mean, ever tried hunting for a particular comment in a talk history? It's hard as people don't usually write good edit summaries (if they write one at all!). Now I have the talk history, I can much more easily remember what I've written, and see what others have written also. My perogative. Netoholic would be allowed to do this also. - ] 14:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From IRC:
<pre>
<zwitter> Netoholic: were you planning on adding links to the old versions of your talk page on the page?
<Netoholic> kate yes
</pre>
That's why I do as well - it's just as easy as having archive pages. ]&mdash; Kate Turner | ] 04:55, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Ta - If you want to keep a copy of Net's talk page lying around (which is fully in your rights under the GFDL), then the best thing for you to do would be to copy and paste it into a subpage of yours. Our de-facto policy in the matter is that his subpages are his to do with as he pleases (within reason), and by the same token, yours are yours. ] 05:00, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

:Protecting that page was '''not''' appropriate. I am unprotecting it. ]&mdash; Kate Turner | ] 05:00, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

::''I can't even lock it because Kate won't let me'' - I only unprotected the page in Net's user space. You're free to put whatever you want in yours (and he is free to not have what he doesn't want in his). ]&mdash; Kate Turner | ] 05:07, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

:::No problem :) ]&mdash; Kate Turner | ] 05:19, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

==Cleanup==
(Crosspost to User talk:Ta bu shi da yu and talk:Netoholic) - I have copied and pasted Netoholic's pages into Ta bu's subpages, and protected them (Ta's subpages). Netoholic can do what he likes with his subpages, and likewise for Ta. Ta can do with them what he wants. ] 05:15, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

:These are ], ], ] and ]. - ] 05:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:: If you are going to keep them protected, they have to be listed on ]. -- ] ] 05:52, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

::: You have to list them. Personally, nothing about this will make be look bad. -- ] ] 05:55, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

::::I would prefer to unprotect them if we are all in agreement that they can stay where they are. ]&mdash; Kate Turner | ] 05:57, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

:::::Done. - ] 06:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::: Please don't leave threatening warnings on my talk page. Kindly asking goes a lot farther. -- ] ] 06:46, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

::::::: Please note: I asked Netoholic on his talk page what threats I was making, but he never responded. Unless you call clearing his talk page a "response". - ] 13:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::Sure - I think it'll be fine though :) ]&mdash; Kate Turner | ] 06:49, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC) (P.S. you two need to go and do something else for a few hours)

== Clarification ==

I wasn't accusing anyone specific of anything. I do find it highly suspect however that you, as an administrator of Misplaced Pages no less, would defend this behavior which is so obviously a violation of the rules, both written and unspoken. It also goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages and the purpose of VfD. If VfD (and indeed Misplaced Pages in general) is going to turn into nothing more than a popularity contest (since, after all, whoever has more friends willing to sign up, vote, and leave again wins) this will end with my resignation as an editor from Misplaced Pages until such issues become addressed. ] 09:39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

== Reminder ==

Have a chat to ] about Jonah 4. - ] 16:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Keeping "In the news" NPOV and credible ==

Following various attempts to add partisan and fringe stories to ], I've proposed a new criterion to keep such stuff out. Could you please take a look at ] and let me know what you think? -- ] 17:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Arb comments ==

The Arbitration request you added comments to was opened by another user, and over different items. It's not really an open format to launch complaints. If you feel strongly, can I suggest you open a page on ]? This is a separate dispute, and really needs to follow all the proper steps. I want your concerns to be heard, rather than dismissed as not part of that Arb case. -- ] ] 20:06, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

:Raul654 commented on his page: "Netoholic asked me the same thing after he told you that. And I'll tell you what I told him - there's nothing stopping you from adding to that page - arbitration evidence pages are open to everyone. ] 06:16, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)"

:: To add to Raul654's comments, a bit of my own... apparently, you can add evidence there, but if you are joining the case, I can also add evidence against you, such as your actions related to my user archive sub-pages, edit wars you've in, and things like repeated harrassment of me. This will be looked by the arbitration committee just the same, and they would be allowed to rule on it. I suggest we try and use other methods of resolution (even as simple as just talking) before we open this up larger than it needs to be. -- ] ] 06:46, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

:::Just how large does he want it opened? I'm only adding things that he did that caused problems. For my trouble I get threatened! - ] 11:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Cyclone Tracy ==

Because it wasn't an Australian cyclone. It didn't belong to anyone. No one ever refers to Andrew as an American hurricane, or to the Kobe earthquake as a Japanese earthquake. A natural disaster shouldn't get such a descriptor. --] 20:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

== Human shields ==

Hi, sorry for the delay in getting back to you: ] 09.43 13 Nov, 2004 (UTC)

==Removing personal attacks==

I will continue to remove personal attacks as I see them posted. No, they are not relevant to the issue of whether or not the article should be deleted. And they weren't "comments" by the way- If you'll notice, one was in bright red bolded font at the very top of the page. Comments go at the -bottom- of the page, not the top, and certainly not before the votes. If you wish to comment on Netoholic's conduct, do so on his talk page, the article's talk page, or make a short, relevant one under the "comments" section. Do not attempt to skew the vote by attacking the person that put it on VfD. ] 10:44, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

:Putting a large bright red "OMG NETOHOLIC IS TEH SUCK" (which is basically what was said) at the very top of the page is abusive, not productive in the slightest, and does nothing to alleviate the growing tension between certain users. As I said, if you wish to point something out about Netoholic, place it under the Comments section on the VfD page. You'll notice when I discovered that the vote had been tainted by someone's actions on an off-site forum I didn't post it in great bold red letters at the top of the page- I made a comment about it, as is appropriate. By the way- I talked to FT2 about it. He agrees it's not necessary. So we'll just leave the personal jabs out of it okay? ] 11:11, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

::I will say this one last time: If you have objections to Netoholic that relate to the VfD entry, post them under "Comments", not under "Opposing views". They certainly shouldn't come before the list of votes. This is the last time I will address the issue here. I will, however, continue to remove ''any'' personal attacks or anything that is not directly relevant to the issue of whether or not the article should be deleted I see on the page if it isn't where it should be. ] 11:49, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

== Sandbox BJAODN ==

I think such excerpts should go under ] (linked to from ]). ] 13:31, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)


== change to vfd procedure without consensus, reverted ==
Some folks had started setting up numbered voting on vfd. I have alwayws been an opponent of numbered voting on wikipedia in general (though I can see the point on RfA , but only there!), and I can't believe folks would just like, go and do that on vfd without getting a consensus to do so first.

In fact, they shouldn't, so I reverted it out in the only 2 cases that were present.

One case someone reverted back, so I'm awaiting discussion on that particular case. :-)

] 13:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

: Since I last looked there's been some more folks using numbering. Oh dear. I've put up some comments on that at vfd talk ] 13:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Don't revert my VfD addition again please. ==

''From Violetriga's page''

I am an admin. The vote was never closed properly with the vfd top and vfd bottom templates, so it never got closed. It must have been removed accidently from the VfD page, so I'm readding it. - ] 13:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Please don't talk down to me. I am an admin too - that makes no difference. The article was deleted and a new article has been created about an entirely different subject. It should be removed, archived and a new VFD created. Please fix this before I have to do it again. ] ] 14:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Excuse me, but I'm not talking down to you. I was letting you know I'm doing an admin task. If you felt I was doing this, sorry. I wasn't. I will double check what's going on and fix accordingly. ''You'' should have left a quick message on my page though. I would have sorted it out pretty quickly. Instead you've figured I'm doing things in bad faith. Unpleasant. - ] 14:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::I have just double-checked. There were two articles: one was called ]. ''I'' deleted that article. The other article has no deletion history, was listed under VfD once and somehow was removed from VfD before the vfd top and vfd bottom tags were added. Those tags indicate that the vote has ended, no? It looks like the vote never ended. Hence the reason I relisted. - ] 14:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::Sorry that I took it the wrong way and thanks for sorting the problem out. :) ] ] 16:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::I think it still needs clarification. ] was not up for VfD before - ] was. The articles are different. Are you saying that ''you'' want to list the present ] article on VfD? If so you'll need to present the reason why. ] ] 20:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think it's pretty much sorted now...
*] = vote on the current ("music nerds") ] article
*] = vote on the now-deleted SpongeBob SquarePants episode '']''
*] = deleted
Looks like we got it. ] ] 00:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Netoholic shifting comments on talk pages. ==

I was looking through FT2's history pages when I came across the quote, which I copied and pasted. However, FT2's histories are now only 50 long each, and I cannot find the section. I suggest you ask FT2. For further research, you might note the timestamp on Netoholic's posts on my copy (I've just logged in, so do not know if they are still extent anywhere.)

- ] 16:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Chuck F and the anon users ==

Thanks for the note about the anon. A few anonymous users have been reverting Chuck F, I don't think they are Reithy. You're correct that they should also have been warned about reverting 3 times. The difference, as I see it, is that Chuck should know better by now, he's been doing it for over a month. In the future if I warn Chuck I will also warn "his opponent," as the anon(s) are being called. You should also be aware that the AC is voting on a temporary injunction and it looks like Chuck and Reithy will be ordered not to edit in the main namespace at all. ] 19:40, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

== ] ==

I notice you have deleted my article ]. I request that it be undeleted and go through the ] process, as it was unfairly speedied. ] 06:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Reverting Chuck F ==

Thanks for your comment on ], which was me. I understand that in trying to deal with Chuck's bad faith edits I have broken the three-revert rule on a number of occassions. But I cannot conceive of any other way to deal with him. He has constantly inserted his POV into articles and removed any neutral and truthful information he doesn't like. He immediately reverted any attempt at compromise and any reinsertion of accurate information he deleted. He sees Misplaced Pages as a place to promote his political beliefs and spin and will do anything it takes to do that, including inserting POV and untrue information into articles and deleting anything he doesn't like. Neither the RfC nor the arbitration case against him produced any moderation in his behaviour. I'm afraid I just lost my patience.

I'm not sure the revert wars have been entirely unhelpful. They did force him to start using Talk pages and discussing things, but not to any product as he simply kept reverting to his preferred version and telling others to explain themselves on Talk, then refused to accept anything anyone else told him. Looking at the edit history of ] it seems he was forced to discuss and compromise at one point on that article, but as soon as he thought the other editors bakcs were turned he reverted to his POV and factually incorrect version. I saw now recourse given the failure of discussion and his refusal to comrpomise other thann to keep reverting his reverts.

I have never come across such a bad faith editor as Chuck. Chuck needs to see that Misplaced Pages is not a place for him to promote his political beliefs at the expense of neutral and accurate information and must moderate his blanket reversions and POV editing. I suspect he will need to formally apologise to other editors before anyone can assume good faith about him in the future and given his track record I think it will be a long time before anyone will trust him. ]


Do you do wiki IRC? Can you wander over there if you do, and if Im round? ] 23:15, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

== American World University/delete ==
After a bit of detective work, I've found out what happened. The page was originally listed for deletion on October 31, which was then moved to vfd/old at the appropriate time (whenever that was), and stayed there until I cleaned it up yesterday. On November 12, ] then moved the old discussion to ] and restarted the discussion at vfd '''without amending the link at vfd/old''' and in my haste yesterday I didn't check the dates of the discussion, just the votes. Technically therefore the discussion was still open on the old vfd debate, therefore making the new listing invalid; however as the article had had a re-write, that's normally enough to open the discussion anew, so quite what you want to do with it is up to you. Interesting to note though how willing Anthony is to accept an action that's against the normal process when it's in his favour... -- ] | ] 23:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Vandalism by ] ==

No problem. I was checking my watchlist when I came across that. I did fix the articles he edited, by the way. Hope it'll stop for now. &ndash; ] 01:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:57, 26 September 2020

Redirect to: