Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:44, 30 November 2009

Template:Archive box collapsible

User:Familyconspiracy

Given the "check out our website" link at the end, I deleted the userpage as advertising. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism assist

Hey there. I wanted to say thanks for your help in dealing with the vandal that hit my user page earlier. I never even saw it happen, but I'm glad that you and Marek69 took care of things. The user has been blocked for 31 hours, so we'll see what happens after that. Your assistance was much appreciated. If I may ask, how did you know it was going on? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm very glad you did catch it. The editor's first edits seem to suggest a vandalism-only account, and I'm one of the first to assume good faith, where possible. I'll be keeping an eye on this editor, and if something "interesting" happens, I'll keep ya posted. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, got it!

Thanks for alerting me to that talk page...don't know how I missed it!  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for (very nicely) pointing out important things about editing that should have been obvious to me. I will be more punctual. Really. --Avidmosh (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sarcastic, just n00bishly careful with my manners and grammar ;) --Avidmosh 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidmosh (talk • contribs)

Troll

See the comments I made here if you haven't noticed already. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

When he used the word, that was when I stopped giving a damn. Seriously, what is it with me lately? I seem to have some sort of cyber-pheromone that says "sockpuppets and vandals, come here and I'll waste my time helping you get started on Misplaced Pages only to watch you be blocked two days later". It's annoying when that happens. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I do that too, don't worry. :P I was thinking of signing up to be an adopter to help the new recruits make their beds with hospital corners, but this garbage along with another user (and possibly a third too) has made me start to think otherwise about wasting my time. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but my life has forged a very cynical person out of me. I mean, the first thing that ran through my mind when I read your barnstar was "yeah, how often does that happen?" I'll reconsider becoming an adopter, but I'm still not sure about it. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 20:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Yield (band)

I left the talk page on purpose while there was, IMO, constructive discussion going on. Once it ceased to be constructive, and once the conversation had slowed down, I went ahead and deleted it. Don't worry about the tone. I don't think I took it harsher than you meant it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Inga Newson

Hi there! Just wanted to give you the heads up that I removed the CSD tag from Inga Newson because both the article's content and related Google hits would move this past the A7 standard (i.e. credible claim of importance or significance). I would suggest another deletion method such as AfD to determine consensus on notability (on which I'm still on the fence about). Singularity42 (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility

This kind of comment was not helpful to the discussion on the article talkpage. Remember, it's important to discuss content, not contributors. This becomes even more crucial when participating in an article about a controversial topic. Would you be willing to consider refactoring your comment, to help keep the discussion focused on article content? Thanks, --Elonka 05:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Elonka 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Cthulhu Mythos references

You seem to have assumed ownership of this article, and constantly revert every addition or attempt to add to it. I've noticed many valid additions be reverted because they don't meet your standards. Gpia7r (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Johnny Cash Show (TV series) request

I wanted to let you know I moved your request to move The Johnny Cash Show (TV series) from the uncontroversial section of Misplaced Pages:Requested moves to the controversial section since it is "clearly" not a uncontroversial move and there is a reasonable possibility it could be opposed. Aspects (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You're being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard

Hello RepublicanJacobite. See WP:AN3#User:RepublicanJacobite reported by User:Jimsteele9999 (Result: ). I see an experienced editor and a newcomer slugging it out on a small article, with apparently no intention to stop. Please post at the noticeboard your willingness to stop the war, since blocking both parties would be an attractive solution for admins. I do see some personal attacks from the other guy, and if you stop and he chooses not to, there will be repercussions. Incidentally, in my personal opinion the fish *is* important. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

RepublicanJacobite, I see that you have been going through several articles and reverting an established editor. I have no opinion on whether the reverts are appropriate or not, but I really must insist that when making reverts of this nature, especially in a controversial topic area, that you also engage in discussion at the article's talkpage. It doesn't need to be an extensive post, but really, some attempt must be made. Thanks, --Elonka 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus wept, this place is going totally to the dogs these days. I originally removed the addition that Irvine made with an informative edit summary. This was then reverted by Irvine with no edit summary. RJ then reverted per me, which is obviously giving a reason for the revert. So to sum up:

1. One editor reverted an established editor (that's me, for the record) with no explanation at all.
2. One editor reverted Irvine (who's hardly an established editor) using a previous reason as an explanation.

So which editor do you choose to harangue? Yes, obviously the second one not the first, that makes as much sense as a fireguard made of chocolate. Seeing as it's obviously the season for insisting, I insist you investigate things properly before shooting your mouth off, and I also insist you read Misplaced Pages:Consensus and Misplaced Pages:Editing policy - specifically the parts about edit summaries and how if there's not enough space to use the talk page. Some editors are required to specifically discuss reversions on the talk page as a result of ArbCom cases, for example the Lapsed Pacifist case, however there's no comparable restriction available for admins to impose as a result of The Troubles case or any community imposed sanctions. There is no policy based reason as to why anyone should obey your dictats, as in fact policy says the exact opposite. If you want to change policy you know where to go, but until then you're not making up your own rules so stop haranguing people for the heinous crime of reverting someone with an edit summary while simultaneously ignoring the editor who reverts without an edit summary.

While I'll happily admit that discussions about edits shouldn't take place in edit summaries, policy fully allows a reversion to be made with an edit summary and no discussion on the talk page. Should further discussion need to take place, there's always the talk page. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this comment. This user/editor has habit of deleting large parts of articles without discussions (by himself but calls others to his defense) but based on their perceived experience at wiki editing not the will of the readers or contributors. See the large text removal at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Simple_living#Major_Article_Trimming Please accept this a criticism as multiple people are starting to notice. Frankk74 (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Frank, what you are talking about, and what Elonka is talking about, are two very different things. As for your link, as you can very well see, another editor agreed with my edits, and did not need any prompting from me. So, in future, get your facts straight. Furthermore, mind your own business. Please do not comment further on this talk page, on this, or any other, topic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)