Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ceoil (talk | contribs) at 01:21, 17 February 2009 (→Looking towards consensus: glen). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Arcade revision

Hi Gwen! I've been leaving you notes inside your archive, but just realized that you might not see those!! If you have a chance, can you take a look at this revision to the arcade page, it's in my sandbox. Let me know what you think, thank you so much for your time!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:GtotheR/Sandbox

GtotheR (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's coming along! However, the project list isn't encyclopedic. By the way, if you want to leave a message for me after a thread has been archived, start a new thread on this talk page. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen!! I revised the project list to be by date and alphabetic within those dates, is that good? What else is needed do you think before I can put the page up :) Thank you!! GtotheR (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant the list itself shouldn't be there. One might put maybe 3-5 of the projects into a prose sentence along with why they might be notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gwen! I rewrote that section, eliminated a bunch of awards, and combined it into works. When you get a chance, can you please take a look. If it's not right, do you have a page that you can give me as an example on how to write that section? Thanks so much!!! GtotheR (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped a lot. I cleaned out the advertising lingo only a bit more and moved the article to the mainspace (see Arcade Edit). The inline references should be put into readable format but that's not a big deal. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help on this! Amazing! GtotheR (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions? (if you have a few moments)

This is unreal, and kinda long. I think some new eyes (and possibly powers) are needed. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've left two warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to avoid those (since I had earlier said I didn't think they should have been necessary, but it escalated beyond that point). Hope you don't mind me occasionally using you as a second set of eyes. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oo ! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think he caught the drift. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See also. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See also. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Gwen. I appreciate your post. I am 100% confident that you are very well intentioned. I don’t think there is much I can add about my ‘leprosy’ comment to T-bird that hasn’t been said here at his WQA. Let’s remember that, in reality, T-bird wasn’t shocked and offended by what was said there. Nor did he really think I was really suggesting that he go into the business of selling a contagious bacterium to rogue nations. Concern over readers from Iran and North Korea is silly. T-bird was simply wikylawyering to remove an obstacle to his one-man crusade. Nothing more. Nothing less. People are wasting their time if they presume that enlightened liberalism is an entitlement to tell me how I may think, or how I may express my thoughts. If you want to go to T-bird’s talk page and say “Gee gosh Wally, I really do wish you’d drop the stick and stop flogging the horse, and stop disrupting Misplaced Pages”, be my guest. Greg L (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The civility warning I left for you had aught to do with T-bird, who I've warned about tendentious editing and forum shopping. As for any "concern over readers from Iran and North Korea" I think you wholly, deeply misunderstood what I was getting at, but that's ok. The only pith is, if you're going to edit on this website, you must abide by Misplaced Pages's civility policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am. You aren’t. See below. Greg L (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg, as a third set of eyes on this whole thing, and as one who agrees with you on the behaviour of Thunderbird, you're being unnecessarily disruptive here. You accuse Gwen of being thin-skinned, but by reading re-read your knee-jerk reactions to her polite suggestion that you tone down your language to a less "in-your-face", one has to wonder if you don't have an "one atom thick skin" as well. The problem here is not that you use sarcasm in your remarks, it's that you knee-jerk everytime someone doesn't slob all over your dick as a manifestation of their 100% agreement with you. Thunderbird completely deserves these knee-jerks reactions (whether or not we should make them is another debate). Gwen however has done nothing to deserve the biting sarcasm you're thrown at her as a response. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see your point, Headbomb. It wasn’t “biting sarcasm” but biting indignation. Gwen: I see you were trying to help. Most all of the admins here are trying to help. I appreciate your contributions. Perhaps I was a bit too quick to take offense to your “skin” post. Your post came near-instantaneously after I deleted a previous post from you, was referencing an edit summary, connecting the dots to something I wrote a week ago, and then a less-than-veiled threat of being blocked, and it all seemed like a rapid-fire pile-on at the time. I further perceived it as intentionally provocative but it certainly simply could have been unintentional. I hadn’t been looking at the goings on at T-bird’s WQA (his antics are a bug splat on my windshield of life and I try to ignore him). So I didn’t know of your efforts on the WQA where you were tying to be even handed. I wasn’t aware all of that was still going on. Now that I’ve had time to go back and look at all the time everyone has devoted on this thing, and the sincere effort Gwen was making there, I realize you didn’t deserve to be treated like a punching bag. I apologize for that.

  Headbomb: “…everytime someone doesn't slob all over your dick…”??? And I thought *I* wrote whatever the hell I thought! :·) Greg L (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Greg L. Only so you know, on Misplaced Pages, civility isn't always what you or I think it should be, but what a consensus of editors takes it to be, which now and then won't be the same thing. Truth be told, keeping within that "consensus of civility" will often get one much further editorially ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thunderbird and his crusade to flog the dead horse until there is nothing but compost remaining is old news to me. The better response to his disruption is to ignore him. The IEC prefix issue has been moved to a subpage of WT:MOSNUM so no one has to be reminded of it. I am interested in getting past this and can see that you want to put an end to this too. I’ve struck my original ‘leprosy’ post and replaced it with Wiki-language. . I posted a notice regarding this on the WQA (just above “Libelous claim”). Thanks. Greg L (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your stalking and abuse balking wan caboose

You are the subject of a complaint to a bureaucrat (Rlevse) here. Greg L (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comment there. I'm also a sitting arb. Also, crats' role is bot flagging, RFA, and renames. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been a misunderstanding. :P Gwen Gale (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Five years

Happy Wiki anniversary, Gwen. Five years in any online community is a rarity, and doing it here is no mean feat either. Keep up the great work! All the best, Antandrus (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ta! Gwen Gale (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete and Perfect Tutnum of the Encyclopedia

Yeah, that's it! Cheers! Proofreader77 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Whilst I find the etymology a bit worrisome, the book cover has always cracked me up. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Smiling at the touches of magic and grace ... like the book ... and the link ... that make manifest the why. (Too much, milady? lol No. More!) 06:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kim Jong-il

I reverted your revert, since you offered no explanation. My change made no visible difference to the article, it is merely a better way of transcluding the infobox. PC78 (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have boldy reverted you again. This is a trivial change that does not require a talk page discussion. Please discuss if you have an issue with this. PC78 (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you give a reason for this needlessly heavy transclusion on the talk page? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? The template was already there, all I've done is update the transclusion and remove three lines. You're not making yourself very clear. PC78 (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wall, meet fog. Fog, meet wall. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. When you're ready to enunciate your problem in a way that I can comprehend, do please let me know. PC78 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Then please tell me, what's the pith of the /president tag? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been perfectly civil with you, but your "wall/fog" comment above was hardly civil towards me.

As for the template, until now the width and colour have been set manually in the article to harmonise the infobox with {{Infobox President}}; this is the case with other such articles. Now, by switching the transclusion to the /President subtemplate, these conditions can be set from a centralised location. The advantages of this are twofold; first, it means that if changes are made to {{Infobox President}} then it will only take one edit to update the Korean name infobox, rather than having to hunt down each transclusion and fix them all in turn; second, it makes life easier when adding the template elsewhere. As I have already said, the edit made to the article in question is trivial and makes no visible difference. Why do you think this requires a debate at Talk:Kim Jong-il? PC78 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for at last telling me what you were doing. An edit summary saying something like "transclude to {{Infobox President}}" would have skirted all of this. You didn't use an edit summary at all. Please keep this in mind next time, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind, but I did mark the edit as minor and honestly didn't expect such a fuss. By the same token, had you offered an explanation for your revert at the first time of asking we might have cut to the chase much sooner than we did. You might also have simply asked me instead of being so quick to revert. Regards. PC78 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries, it's most helpful to use them always, even on minor edits, moreover on controversial topics. In your preferences, under the editing tab, there's a box you can tick which will stir up a reminder whenever you don't leave an edit summary. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Palringo

I am requesting an unlock of and permission to write a non-advertising article about Palringo under the conditions:

1. non-notable product; possibly spam or advert (akaDruid) - Product has grown a very large user base; Product is no longer non-notable. 2. Article will be written to meet Misplaced Pages's no advertisement standards.

Due to the popularity among all age groups in the Palringo service, if possible, I request that only I may edit the article to prevent vandalism. If not, half-locked would still be appreciated. Please respond soon and thank you for your time.

ThymeCypher (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been deleted twice, the last time about 6 months ago. I want to help you. Please think about building the article in your userspace, say at User:ThymeCypher/sandbox and I'll be happy to have a look at it whenever you ask. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Answering tendentious editors with civility

OK, I dealt with a brand new case of incivility with civility. It would be nice if you would properly deal with this: . Greg L (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a diff of a post by you. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. May I draw your attention to my 23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC) post on here on WQA? Cuddlybabe has twice now, , struck text in a post of mine, which makes it appear that I retracted the affected text. I reverted him the first time with the edit summary “The proper response to what you feel is bad speech is ‘better’ speech. Please don’t strike text in my posts”. I also added a link to the dispute. But he did struck the text again. We obviously weren’t arguing for the sake of arguing. I rightly feel that he was objecting to my contribution. He calls that libelous. The extent to which he feels righteous indignation has no bearing on whether or not he has the right to strike text in another’s post. Twice. After being warned about the proper way to do it. Tendentious and intentionally provocative. Greg L (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like something you can/should settle with Cuddlybabe yourself. A hint for next time though, when you quote others, or talk about something you think they've done, please use diffs instead of trying to write a narrative paraphrase about it, as you did here, which at the very least was highly misleading about what had been posted. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is no point trying to deal with Cuddlybabe over his violations of Misplaced Pages policies. I reverted him once with a polite edit summary advising him that practice was impermissible and he did it again. Your suggestion that I continue to plead with him that he not vandalize my posts hardly seems wise. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't vandalizing. See WP:Vandalism. Calling the good faith posts of another editor vandalism, when they are not, is at the very least incivility, which I warned you about before, closing this loop. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Signpost — February 16, 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

IP editor at Talk:Monk's Mound

It's pretty obvious who that is, our old friend Marburg72 (talk · contribs)- looking at the IP's contributions he seems to have several IP addresses that he's using right now. dougweller (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, I think that's why the article's on my watchlist (other than the topic being kinda cool). WP:RBI? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking. dougweller (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Done then. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

the need for consensus

Thank you for post. I replied here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I answered there. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking towards consensus

I note, in your above-mentioned reply, that you have attempted to resolve an editwarring situation by looking towards community consensus on a style guideline (“…hint or hope of consensus…”). This seems to be the obvious way one must approach this sort of problem: if there is an allegation of tendentious editing against consensus, one must first properly discern what is truly the community consensus. Doesn’t this mean that pretty much any administrator (or regular editor) could act as a mediator—if both parties agree—and help to interpret the community consensus on more nuanced issues like the linking of dates? If the answer to this loaded hypothetical is ‘yes’… you know where I am headed. Greg L (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Greg, I don't and don't have to watch your activities, you have cut a swath across many of the talk pages of editors I highly respect and your modus operandi is becoming clear. Now you've switched rapidly from victim-of to supplicant-to Gwen. Perhaps seeking an advantage? Or maybe the plain-speaking but unduly set-upon plain old editor needing protection from those awful, awful people? Your tactic here is shameful IMO - but I'll stay small and let Gwen make her own response. Franamax (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Glen

I have a funny feeling this Glen fellow is not too impresses by our shenagians the last night. I'm prepare to overlook your call for a spite block on me my Hoary, if you can cover this, somehow. Ta. Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)