Misplaced Pages

Confused

Could you please explain why you put {{db-author}} on Go God Go XII? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is too out of control and I want to start it over from scratch. I started it in the first place. --Ineffable3000 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you started the page is irrelevant; too many other editors have added to it for {{db-author}} to be usable (actually read the tag to spot all the ways it is incorrect for this situation). Go about starting from scratch by creating the article in your userspace, then copy your local version into the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Serbophobia issues

Hi. I object to the speedy closure of Serbophobia DRV, as it lasted mere 4 hours, and I (and anyone else who knew the background) didn't have a chance to comment. Calton, who seems to be the only aware of the issue, came too late. The "incident" was announced and endorsed here.

While I understand your reasons for the DRV closure (and my deletion summary at the time was bad, the reasons being given primarily in the AN/I thread above), and admittedly an out-of-process deletion for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, it wouldn't have cost too much to leave it open for at least 24 hours, or check "what links here" and/or the article text.

Please don't take this as an... um... rant; from the pure process wonk viewpoint, the deletion was incorrect and thus undeletion might be correct. But, the speedy closure of DRV, from the same process wonk viewpoint, was also uncalled for (may I mildly hint to a bit of lack of WP:AGF for the fellow administrator who IAR-ed the said article?). The sole intention was to get rid of petty little ethnic feud articles, enumerating every chance of evil deeds of them against us. Oh well, guess I'll follow the process this time. Just, please, try to see if there's a bigger picture in the future. Cheers, Duja► 14:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, (and this is without reading the link; I'm about to head off to work, but want to at least address this so I don't forget) I agree that the four-hour DRV is unusual (which I agree is shame on me), but "Delete crap" is about the most useless summary for the deletion of an article I've seen, and suggests absolutely no grounding in policy (with that in mind, IAR seemed like it was tacked onto a personal opinion). I was in a particularly bold mood last night, though I'll probably give a bit more time before closing DR in the future... maybe I'll let them get into the double digits next time. ;-)

So, to sum up; while I may have been wrong to close it so soon, I think it was wrong for it to have been snuffed out the way it was without any sort of notice. Since DR is, primarily, a review of whether the process has been followed correctly, I felt good about restoring it, as it was apparently a gross abuse of the deletion system (which several other editors agreed, and even called for its speedy restoration). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, AfD-ed now. I was in a particularly bold mood too at the time of deletion; however, there was "a sort of notice" (and then some) though (tho' admittedly not in the deletion summary). When one gets two bolds on opposite sides, what remains between? (pun intended). Duja► 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, we've got boldness coming out of the wazoo. I'll be happy to participate in the AfD (though I'm staying the hell away from closing it), once I've actually read up on everything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't do it again, 'k? One major point of DRV is to draw a line what admins can get away with in their interpretation of policy, and if that itself is done out of process DRV loses much of its credibility. There was no imminient reason to restore the article right away and in all likelihood the consensus would have stood after five days, except in that case with the weight of a procedural decision behind it. ~ trialsanderrors 22:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, it won't happen again; while I usually like for process to work its mojo (the article's deletion, from what I could tell, was a violation of that, and in turn I violated it myself), but I especially don't like getting jumped for stuff I've done... it is even worse when the people jumping me have a very valid point. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

How can I activate an auto-heading for Template:Drmspeedy? Regards Must 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't know; I never use default headings, so I have no experience with them (outside of knowing they exist). Check WP:WARN; I'm sure some of those have the proper syntax (not the Test1-Test5 templates, though; those I'm familiar with). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

User:Freestyleking46

This guy is always defaming the pages of John Tui and Jason David Frank. I was wondering instead of just giving him a few hours' block if you could just block him indefinitely, as it appears most of the time he "edits" a page it is because he desires to vandalizes it. I am not really familiar with the blocking policy, but since this guy is always vandalizing these pages when his block is up, I just figured if it was possible. I know such a move will make him create a sock puppet perhaps, but at least he may be less inclined to vandalize. Daijinryuu 22:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at his edits, and he certainly seems to be a habitual violater. As a result, he's now blocked indefinitely. I didn't block him from creating a new account, though, in the hopes that he'll clean up his act. You seem to be moderately familiar with him; if you see similar editing from a new user, let me know and I'll block the sock. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think there will be more than one of us on that, too, I think. I'm seeing various people leaving comments about removing the dude's vandalisms. If he does go elsewhere, he'll be caught most assuredly I think. Yet, in the mean time, can we semiprotect the pages about John Tui and Jason David Frank so this guy can't vandalize from an IP or a newly created name? Daijinryuu 19:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's not exactly the most subtle vandal I've ever seen. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet, in the mean time, can we semiprotect the pages about John Tui and Jason David Frank so this guy can't vandalize from an IP or a newly created name? Daijinryuu 19:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather hold off on semi-protecting the pages until they've actually been vandalized more; I always prefer to take care of the problem editor, which protects numerous articles, rather than lock down just the articles themselves (which can have possibly negative repercussions for uninvolved editors who just happen to be new). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Haunted Angels Talk Page

Hello I noticed you removed content from the Haunted Angels talk page. I hate it that he has to deal with ignorant Christian harrassment, but it is his talk page and it is not up to you to remove content from another users talk page. American Brit 02:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, personal attacks often get removed, regardless of where they are; see WP:NPA.

If this was an editor with a legitimate beef with THA, there's no way in hell I'd remove anything from his talk page. However, this is the same individual (or group) that has been harassing him for a long time, and I've already blocked them before. They've been warned not to post personal attacks, and yet they do it anyway; as a result, I remove them and block the individuals.

Considering that he's started removing some of the attacks as well, I don't think I'm stepping over any boundaries on this, but I do appreciate the concern. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like THA agreed with me. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Haha, thanks. Glad at least someone else is getting as much a kick out of the insults as I am.

And don't worry, I'm sure you'll start building your own little collection soon enough. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How long have you been waiting for that? :) Cbrown1023 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A long time. I've always had bad luck with AIV; before the bot, I was always clicking on users that had already been blocked, and since the bot has been running, it has always beaten me.

Beating the bot is pretty much the peak of my Misplaced Pages career. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)