Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:31, 14 January 2006

List of sexual slurs

Hmmm. That's tricky. The debate certainly did have a whole drawerful of socks in it, at a rough pure-numbers count it's about 10d-5k which is about on the knuckle. Some explication from the closer would have helped. Given the passage of time, and the continued editing of the article, I don't think we can invoke G4 and speedy it, not least as it would seem very retroactive. I guess that leaves 3 options: be brutally WP:BOLD and redirect it, citing in your support the newer AfD, WP:V and the fairly stable state of the target; ask for a deletion review (likely outcome: relist if you like, but nothing in particular); or write a new AfD nomination, citing very loudly the procedural problems in the previous one to avoid the "Keep, we kept last time" stuff and citing even more loudly the fact that WP:V is non-negotiable, and that almost the entire article falls well short of it, and citing the new AfD on the "slang" article as evidence of existing feeling, too. Which do you reckon? -Splash 21:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you take the AfD route, be prepared to construct a defence relating to the use of "slur" rather than "slang"; slur is rather more specific a term, and stating that we'll never be able to keep it to fitting the title will be shot down as "then try harder". -Splash 22:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexual slang, I think you mean. Yes, ok. I'll add the redirect to my watchlist.... -Splash 22:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job. Let's see how long it lasts... -Splash 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your unilateral and protected redirect to "Sexual Slang" is an abuse of administrator's power and possibly even vandalism. There was no discussion period or consensus. An official notice of your abuse of administrator's power/vandalism will be filed by 6pm Eastern Standard Time, If you do not reverse your unilateral actions. MonkeyHateClean 15:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what's up with the redirect? It sounds like MonkeyHateClean is right on this (well, maybe a bit hyperbolic). I've probably never seen the list before today, but someone mentioned it on my talk page. Checking the article talk page, there does not appear to be any discussion of a redirect. There seems to have been an AfD that failed; but nothing was obviously wrong in the conduct of the AfD. Moreover, the content of Sexual slang seems to be quite a bit different than List of sexual slurs (not just in tone, but a different, albeit somewhat related, topic). Without some consensus from article editors, a redirect is absolutely inappropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop redirecting the page. I'll restore it also, if I see that again. You're welcome to AfD the page. You're welcome to propose merging. And if you can get consensus on the talk page for the redirect, I'm perfectly happy with that. But effectively deleting existing content outside process is not proper. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It is completely wrong to link redirection to deletion. The two are not the same thing, effectively or otherwise. In fact, WP:DEL encourages such things. -Splash 23:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

They really are almost exactly the same thing in these types of cases. One page has substantial content right now that is not contained in the target page (maybe unencyclopedic content, but that's a different question). A redirect prevents casual readers from having access to the content, which is exactly what deletion is. This isn't like redirecting JQ Smith to John Q Smith because some users are likely to type the former... it's replacing one article with a quite different article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

List of sexual slurs

In my opinion a merge is a very good idea as both pages are similar anyway. You could list it on some page or add templates to it for five days and see what happens: alternatively you could just be bold and just do it. I'll support you if anyone complains. -- Francs2000 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

PS You might want to change the links in your sig to your new username.

Having been there and studied the history (sorry I was in the middle of something before) it's probably better to do it formally. Yes there appeared to be a history of using sock puppets in previous discussions but I get the sense that this could be a case where unilateral action could lead to flare-ups. -- Francs2000 00:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I support removing all prologisms/unstable neologisms (which, now that I look at it again, turns out to be a good many of them), with verification if possible, and adding a link under "See also" in sexual slang. Though, a merge would be fine with me (my opinions are not too strong on this article). — TheKMan 23:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

List of sexual slurs vote

You voted to cleanup, can you be more specific. Do you want to prune the list or remove it? Thanks.Voice of All 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Responded on the AfD subpage. Segv11 01:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Anarchism

Hello. I'm wondering your motivation for protecting the template. Especially considering the fact that you haven't discussed your protection on the talk page, nor even put the protected page tag on the page. More concerning to me is why, if you protected the page, you did so on the version pushed by a POV troll who has 1) almost consistently refused to discuss his position, 2) when he has discussed it found almost unanimous disagreement, 3) who has been blocked for vandalizing the page previously. I'm not all implying malice but this protection seems to be off the bat, done without following the procedure for protection, not putting your protection up for discussion, and to defend someone who has been almost unamiously marked as belligerent by the community of editors on multiple pages. Cheers --FluteyFlakes88 05:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm fairly new to the ins and outs of[REDACTED] so I was little confused by what happened. Is all we need a consensus discussion on unprotecting the page? Also, what is the process to have him blocked from the template (and related pages)? --FluteyFlakes88 05:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I can give no easy answer for blocking, if he reverts a page 4+ in a day, then contact an admin. If you really want to stop him, go to WP:RFAr and file a complaint with support diffs.Voice of All 05:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Template:Anarchism

Hello. I'm wondering your motivation for protecting the template. Especially considering the fact that you haven't discussed your protection on the talk page, nor even put the protected page tag on the page. More concerning to me is why, if you protected the page, you did so on the version pushed by a POV troll who has 1) almost consistently refused to discuss his position, 2) when he has discussed it found almost unanimous disagreement, 3) who has been blocked for vandalizing the page previously. I'm not all implying malice but this protection seems to be off the bat, done without following the procedure for protection, not putting your protection up for discussion, and to defend someone who has been almost unamiously marked as belligerent by the community of editors on multiple pages. Cheers --FluteyFlakes88 05:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD bot change

Regarding your request a month ago... I have committed the new changes for you. I hope the new version of the list is more beneficial to you. See User:AllyUnion/AFD List. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wargh!

Be careful when closing AFDs! alot of your {{subst:ab}} tags are either typo'd or {{subst:at}}!!

Fine work otherwise though--Tznkai 12:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Stress

Don't stress it. You're doing good things here. Friday (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

User:Outerlimits and WP:NPA

I thought I'd ask your help as an uninvolved admin. Basically stemming out of the work that we've been doing at the proposed guideline WP:LISTS, a few editors of that have made some effort to start cleaning up List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people as a typical example of one of the "identitarian" lists that have evidentiary problems.

Unfortunately, as is not particularly unexpected, some of these identitarian lists have some rather childish existing editors: specifically ones who not just feel ownership in the list, but accuse anyone trying to improve it of various types of bigotry. For example, somewhere completely different (List of Jewish jurists), the first time I asked for names to be cited I was accused of being a follower of Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Naturally, the accusation in this context is variations on slanders of homophobia (made, to my mind, even more absurd by the fact I've actually written a fair amount in academic queer theory; but I guess that's neither here nor there).

Well, anyway, the editor Outerlimits is the worst of them, by far. It's now gotten to the point of tracking down and lying about various stuff I've written outside WP (which isn't hard to do: I have a WP article on me that's linked to from my user page; and from there to other sites is simple enough). For example: , . It's not that I'm really concerned about the personal attacks per se, I'm not that thin-skinned. But when an editor goes to those kind of lengths, it certainly usually portends a near future of increasing disruption of the editing process, and often futher so-called "wikistalking" (though that term is slightly silly, I know).

I was thinking maybe a stern word from an admin might be able to get the user to cool his/her heals a bit. Or any other thoughts? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

Sexual slurs

I figured that most of it isn't verifiable, but I have been convinced in the past that there's utility for articles like this. Of course, it takes a lot of effort to keep them clean. But encyclopaedic content is encyclopaedic content. I'm sure there are reputable publications which document things like this. Guettarda 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Body_Part_Slang article

I am shocked why this very informative article has been deleted also at Answers.com. As a writer for Adult articles it has been a great HELP for me. I don't see anything bad with those articles... (comment by 58.69.31.185)

Protection of pedophilia

I'm not sure 2 malicious edits by the same user qualifies a need for protection; perhaps a block, but... // paroxysm (n) 23:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage protection

Hi, I noticed that your userpage is protected, and has no recent vandalism. Protection policy says to avoid leaving these protected unneccessarily. Please leave any replies on my talk page. --Phroziac _. o º 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev

Hi and please forgive my coming by to discuss your vote at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev. You said in your vote that Alex was "insulting an admin". This point received some discussion later at this RfA and I would like to request that you actually look at what Alex said rather and in what context than conclude based on a hearsay (that is of course if you haven't studied the matter already).

Perhaps you agree that the features required from a good admin first of all are commitment and the highest standards of personal ethics (not to use the tools you are empowered with inappropriately)? Alex expressed the highest virtues in both the commitment and personal ethics, especially in view of an exemplary decency of how he handled certain individuals that committed to derail his Adminship and even dared to use sockpuppets for that. Besides, since Alex actually checks all new articles created at wiki (an amazing commitment) the admin tools will come very handy because he is willing to do a cleaning part of admin duties, unlike most of our admins who, usually, just remain regular editors.

I respectfully request that you give another thought to your vote. If you choose to study the nomination page to make up your mind, please study all of it so that you won't miss any issues. By no means I intend to pressure you and should you choose to keep your vote unchanged, I will not be contacting you with further pressure. --Irpen 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Imposter

Hi there. I think somebody's posing as you. --Mr. Billion 03:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Typo

On your userpage, you have "this user is an independent mediator" misspelled as "independant." --Mr. Billion 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

RE:3RR

See my reply on /3rr--Tznkai 03:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Alright. I just ranted a bit at Thames's talk page, but I figured I'd say this abit more calmly. First off, I'm not actually a newbie, I'm a recent adminstrator, for the record. Second, I don't think I was revert warring, and while I was possibly edit warring, I assure you I was making a good faith effort to try to accomidate suggestions. If you look at the history and the talk page I believe Iwas making good attempts to respond to real criticisms other than "I like the old version" or "rv, it is time-tested and it works, get a life". Furthermore I have been discussing my edits on the talk page, despite thames's claims to the contrary, and I feel many of his responses reduce very much to: "No, I don't like it"

Your perspective on this would be appreciated.--Tznkai 16:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The new admin bit was just to clear up any sympathy votes yo uwere giving me for being a new user. I possibly should have used talk more, but I don't think being reverted after a talk page objection with a 3 minute time gap is reasonable. As for the changes, I was improving new things as I saw them and trying to compromise on the old ones by incorperating elements of the old template. Anyway, if you don't want to be involved here, go right ahead, I am just frustrated with being accused of bad faith editing--Tznkai 17:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your leave a message

Link just prompted an inattentive me to create a new page? Odd.

What I said there was: You may want to review my recent actions at List of sexual slurs.

brenneman 05:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Admin coaching

Hi! I've assigned EddieSegoura to you and Kirill Lokshin, if that's ok. Just tell me if there's any problems, ok? Titoxd 05:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I confirm it. My name is EddieSegoura and I've been trying to familiarize myself with how wiki works and I do hope to have an RfA nom by the end of April. That will be three months to teach me the thing I need to learn such as spotting vandals, and honing my edit skills -- Eddie 11:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Could you please have a look at the message I left Kirill? Cheers. NSLE _(T+C) 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-nude pornography

I don't understand your edit removing the photos from non-nude pornography. Your edit summary refers to them as "spam". They are not spam; they do not refer to, link to, or promote any site, product or service; they're examples, released into the public domain (see image tags). This is no different from, say, the photo of a hammer in the article hammer. (By the way, I have no connection to the photographer nor with any porn site, non-nude or otherwise.) MCB 01:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the copyright status of the images used in this article, Image:NonNudeExample1.jpg and Image:NonNudeExample2.jpg? - brenneman 04:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to assert their legal status, but I will asssume they were genuinely released by the creator. My issue is that they are not needed anywhere.Voice of All 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

List of sexual slurs

All I saw was a revert being reverted again and a rather cryptic explanation. But I suggest you discuss it with the other user, although I do have doubts if a list like that is appropriate on Misplaced Pages. The term "triggerhappy" may be uncalled for, as the amount of vandalism sometimes doesn't leave time to thoroughly judge each edit and I have to rely on edit history, differences and explanations to come to a conclusion. Cyberevil 04:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, when RoyBoy starts to revert, see his explanations on my talk, -my- eyes start to bleed. It is simply amazing. You will get one or the other wrong, which is I why I explicitly ask people to contact me when they feel I made an error. I should probably add a direct link to my talk to my username, perhaps in the form of "feel this revert was wrong?" Last thing I want to do is scare away people who simply not have the hang of it yet. Cheers, Cyberevil 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No thanks

I'm not interested in watchlisting articles that don't belong in[REDACTED] anyway. Thanks for the nudge though.--MONGO 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it, but not sure about everything that is going on there. I'll do what I can. Why not just be bold and merge then redirect, or at least tag it that way...has that been discussed there?--MONGO 05:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I have noticed that you recently speedy deleted several articles with the comment "vanity" or "not notable". Please note that "vanity" is not a speedy deletion criterion under WP:CSD. Even if the subject matter is non-notable, or is an autobiography, as long as it asserts notability, it has to go through an AfD, and cannot be speedied. The article Pussy City Pimps was restored after you speedied it (as "no notability at all"), and has later been deleted by an AfD (which is now disputed as well). I have just restored Louis 'Lou' Black, which clearly claims notability. If you wish to nominate it for AfD, feel free to do so. Owen× ☎ 16:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am sure that this is a very contraversial debate, I mean with all of those keep voters ;). Lets try to keep BS off of Misplaced Pages.Voice of All 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No, let's try to stick to policy and process on Misplaced Pages. I don't care about Pussy City Pimps, but you can't go around speedy deleting any article that doesn't meet your personal notability standards. That's what AfD is for. CSD is exactly for the cases described in it, not a free-for-all to save you the trouble of nominating for an AfD. Owen× ☎ 17:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If you'd rather deal with this on an RfC, we can do that too. Otherwise, please undelete all pages that you have deleted out of process. OwenX 17:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC is an idiotic waste of time, check my user page. No one ever listens and you have to sift through pages and pages of comments just to make a comment that will not effect anyone and is not binding. I wish listing AFD could be done automatically with a click (and a summary). Also, it would be like RfC: against half of Misplaced Pages admins.

Now, perhaps I could be more of a nice guy on deletion, but hundreds of articles are deleted as "vanity", all the time by admins. I'll try to use AfD more (likely I just wont give enough woodle nickles to list BS for AfD, so it will just stay there). Besides, if an admin overturns me, which admins like Splash and Tony Sideways do to other admins all the time, then so what? Big deal. Then it just goes to AfD; nobody is going to delete war over it.

Now, an easier option would be to tag with {{NOT}} or the accuracy tag, as long as those lead to a category the people actually look through.Voice of All 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)