Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:32, 26 August 2007

Template:Jwelcome Oran e (t) (c) (e) 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Diane Kunz

In the interest of preserving the record of the debate, I have applied the nowiki tag to your improper close of discussion on the deletion. I have also reviewed the added text to the article and question whether any additional measure of notability is made for her. If you would like to discuss this issue, either on the AfD page or the article's talk page, I welcome it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reopened this debate, as there is a clear community consensus to delete, so a close as keep is improper. I have moved your comments to the bottom of the AfD so as to maintain the usual format, without censoring your opinions. Kevin 01:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Consensus in the AfD is to delete the article. As to your comment to me: "It is one thing to disagree about how to handle an unusual situation. It is quite another to repeatedly remove comments and opinions with which you disagree from an AfD discussion." I have not removed any comments you have made; what I have removed is the apparent close of an AfD when discussion is ongoing—and when consensus is the opposite of how you have false-closed the debate. In light of you comments on my page, and in light of your hijacking of the community-built process for AfD: Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. —C.Fred (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You vandalized the article. You made false statements about what various external pages about the author said. You initially deleted my comments from the afd. We'll continue this in an appropriate place. And nothign I did was vandalism, whether I was right or wrong. You deleted relevant, referenced text about the author's books from the article without any reason except to deceive voters in the afd. That was vandalism. VivianDarkbloom 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer adult parodies

Hey -- although you may be right about what's going on there, it's not a reason for speedy deletion. If the article in question had already been deleted, though, perhaps CSD G4 would apply. But for what it's worth, I don't think it would in this case as it's not a straight repost. Let me suggest just using AfD? Mangojuice 20:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry

Vivian, I'm sorry I attacked you at the ANI. Clearly, the issue was much more than I knew of. You are right to oppose me in my RfA, I had no idea of the magnitude of the problem, I was completely off-base to respond. Please accept my apology. If there is any way I can help, please tell me. My email's working if you would like to respond privately.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and your vote

Hello again Vivian, Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I'm sorry we had a bad run-in....thank you for pointing it out, though, I will no longer be so quick to reach conclusions. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page. Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeff Somers

You had opined keeping. If the claim on which you based that opinion were cited/sourced, I'd agree. Please let me know if you source the claim before the AfD closes, and I'll change my opinion. GRBerry 21:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Buckley Article

I was by no means suggesting you did anything in bad faith. I was merely making the point that a subject's notability exists independantly of any editors actions towards an article. My point was that even if it had been deprodded in bad faith (if is a qualifing word; it expresses possibility, not certainty. It was a hypothetical point, not an accusatory one) it would have no bearing on the inherent notability of the subject in question. It would also appear that if a side is to be taken, (not again, to say that I am taking sides in any way) certain people are acting civily and others are resorting to name calling. I have not called any names. You have not called any names. You do the math. --Jayron32 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'd say. I wouldn't have jumped the gun if your comment began 'Vivian Darkbloom may or may not be', but I really shouldn't have called it an accusation. VivianDarkbloom 20:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979 06:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Elonka

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, particularly the "standing up against an apparatchik" reference, which I found very encouraging. Please rest assured that I am still in support of the Misplaced Pages project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO

Side comment - if you look at the discussions linked from Misplaced Pages: Notability (pornographic actors)/Referenced page (it really is useful) you will notice the guideline is used about half the time by people voting Delete, and half the time by people voting Keep. However, when the article is Kept, it is sometimes in accordance with the guideline, and sometimes not, while when the article is Deleted, it is always in accordance with the guideline. In other words, the guideline deletes more articles. If you really don't like porn star articles in the Misplaced Pages, as your many AfD comments imply, you should be in favor of the guideline, not against it. AnonEMouse 21:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments from editors who don't know what Personal Attacks are

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Kf4bdy 22:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I second these comments. Your concerns about Ophelia Benson could have been met quickly and simply by editing the page to establish notability rather than taking the time to write page or so of vitriol on the talk page. That is the best way to stop an AfD in its tracks. I don't think anyone is happy with all Misplaced Pages contains: I too am rather bemused by some of the fancruft that crops up on here. But it is unreasonable to behave as you did when there was a much simpler, faster and more pleasant solution: fix the article and let people change their votes. –Joke 00:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear irresponsible joker, the information was already on the page and the deleters lied abouit it. As you would have noticed if you checked. Talk about unreasonable. VivianDarkbloom 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Today is the second time I've seen your name at WP:PAIN, which is surprising since I've been an administrator for only two weeks. The first time you posted a request upon which I declined to act because I considered the matter a content dispute with incivility on both sides. I cautioned you in my response at the board but didn't place a warning on your user talk page - a close call that works in your favor now. Your actions regarding AFD prompted several complains, and unnecessarily so because improvements to the article have changed some opinions. If you had any prior history of blocks or level 3 warnings I'd be writing a block notice instead of this. You cared enough about an article today to go out of your way defending it. Please channel your energies into directions that don't lead me to question your conduct. Durova 03:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make posts that lead me to question your intellectual or moral capacity. VivianDarkbloom 19:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming rather late to this debate, but I just want to give you an "Attaboy!", Vivian. I read the stuff about Ophelia Benson, and also about Chessie Moore, and I don't think there's a "personal attack" within a thousand miles of what you said. It's some of the very best – and funniest – writing I've seen in the short time I've been working on Misplaced Pages. Please do some more of it!! Feel free to put it on my talk page if you don't want to offend anyone – I won't be offended, because I love your sense of humor. What a concept! Discussing the epistemic consequences of political correctness isn't "notable", but having sex with dogs is "notable". That's a riot. ROFLMAO.

Have a great day!  ;^> DavidCBryant 13:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop

Seriously, stop trolling. Stop calling people insecure, incompentent, whatever else every time they disagree with you. You can express your opinion without offending everyone, believe it or not. Behavior like yours makes Misplaced Pages suck. If you continue lacing everything you say with personal attacks, I will block you. --W.marsh 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can't see any reason why this account shouldn't be blocked anyway for admittedly violating WP:SOCK. - Taxman 16:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a technical sockpuppet violation here as long as the user's "main" account isn't voting when this account is. Maintaining an alternate account for this purpose isn't a best practice by any means, but I don't think it's prohibited, although uncivil comments and gratuitous imputations of sexism, etc., certainly are. Also problematic is the situation arising in the underlying AfD, in which an editor's first ever-edit was the AfD nomination, and I think that is one of the things that led to Vivian Darkbloom's frustrated, but vitriolic and over-the-top, response. It would be good to see a commitment from Vivian Darkbloom to more moderate commentary in the future, although a consensus has clearly emerged that she was right about this particular AfD, especially now that the article has been improved. Newyorkbrad 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is maintaining an alternate account that is quite plainly in violation of WP:CIVIL and what amounts to a harassment campaign, with the stated aim of not having one's actions on these AfDs and RFAs coming back to haunt the main account. Given the extremely tenditious pattern of editing, this is abusing the privilege of having an alternate account. It's a violation under the "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors" and "Good hand, bad hand" accounts clauses.--Rosicrucian 00:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If the pattern of editing continues and the issue of personal attacks is not resolved, indefinitely block this account. –Joke 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice

Nice username. Charles Kinbote 16:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)