Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:53, 19 September 2007

• Keeping dialog readable: If you post here, I'll reply here. If I posted somewhere else, please reply there instead of on my talk page. Thank you.

Archives
2006: Mar—Jun 19 | Jun 20—Jul | Aug—Sep | Oct—Dec 17 | Dec 17—31 2007: Jan | Feb—May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2008: Jan—May | Jun—Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec 2009: Jan—Apr | May—Aug | Sep | Oct—Nov | Dec 2010: Jan—Jun | Jul—Oct | Nov—Dec 2011: Jan—Mar | Apr—Jul 2012: Jul—Aug | Sep—Dec 2013: Jan—Dec 2014: Jan—Dec 2015: Jan—Dec

DRV Archives

You recently converted the monthly DRV archives to link to the daily log pages rather than transclude them. I can't find any prior discussion of this change. If one occurred please direct me to it. If not, I will start one on Misplaced Pages Talk:Deletion review. I think that linking is clumsy and in many cases actually slower since it requires an additional click and page load, but it depends on the connection speed and expectations of users which one is best. Eluchil404 05:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no prior discussion that I know of. If you want it that way, just revert me. It annoyed me when I was looking for something, but I'm really quite indifferent now.--Chaser - T 06:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

This particular user seems to have a bias against the page in question (I have no idea why). Given the volume of the edits he has made, this page was simply a place for me to organize them. My intent was (and still is if the edits continue) to report them to RfC and RfA (sequentially), but IAW your advice (and yes it was taken as advice even without the disclaimer), I may try WP:ANI first. This page is specifically meant ONLY to organize my thoughts in relation to this situation. BTW, THANK YOU for being so clear as to how a situation like this should be handled. — BQZip01 —  07:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Any way you could revert the page back to its original state, so I can avoid a violation of the 3RR? — BQZip01 —  08:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have just made a new friend on Misplaced Pages!!! — BQZip01 —  08:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Makes it hard for me to be neutral, though.--Chaser - T 08:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh...in that case. You're a jerk! — BQZip01 —  09:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No can do. I realize it's rather ridiculous when you can't discuss the other editor's POV concerns on the talk page with him. If you want to copy/paste his comments onto the talk page, he could engage in dialog about his concerns that way.--Chaser - T 08:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning (ThreeE)

Hello, Chaser. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning ThreeE's conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by "ThreeE" in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/ThreeE, where I would appreciate your participation and comments. — BQZip01 —  12:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Chaser, I hope you don't mind, but considering that an RFC has been filed I thought it would be fair to unblock User:ThreeE so that he can participate in the RFC. I have asked him not to make edits to other pages until his original block would have expired. Johntex\ 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fair. I'm pretty sure it's also standard practice. Thanks for the note.--Chaser - T 18:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted material request

Hi Chaser. Would it be possible to get a copy of the deleted article MTV in popular culture put into my userspace here? Thanks Bláthnaid 22:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the full history to User:Blathnaid/MTV. Having the history eliminates any licensing concerns should you use any of the old article to do a rewrite. Cheers!--Chaser - T 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bláthnaid 11:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrogant adminitis

Your tone of this message is unacceptable. Sometimes edits have to be reverted. It is normal and two reverts may but does not necessarily constitute a disruption. But most importantly, you should learn how to deal with committed content editors before trying to advise them on following the policies and guidelines in such an arrogant manner. Your current attitude only fits to dealing with vandals. Until you learn to change it, please stick to vandal patrol with your block button. --Irpen 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am explicit to ensure the message isn't blown off. You seem to want to accomplish the same with rudeness. I prefer my method.--Chaser - T 07:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Accomplish what? Could you elaborate what you intended to "accomplish" by coming to lecture in arrogant tone to the talk page of a well established and committed content editor threatening blocks for restoring the factual and referenced content in the article? And how exactly is my message "rude"? Yes, it is "explicit" because your attitude is clearly inappropriate. How else should I have said that to you? Anyway, the only thing I to relay to you that you should reconsider the way you deal with Misplaced Pages editors. The "method you prefer" accomplishes nothing but contributing to bad editing climate. --Irpen 08:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, Chaser merely warned you about edit warring. He did not insult you and he ended his post with a "thank you." I have had plenty of experience with editors and admins issuing "unacceptable" comments to me; Chaser's to you seemed reasonably polite by comparison. Calling him "arrogant" is a bit harsh. Anyway, I hope that everyone can keep their heads cool! :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that Chaser said was over the line by any stretch of the imagination. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Are you saying that undoing the removal of the referenced info in the article repeated for the second time is already an "edit war" and justifies the block threat? --Irpen 19:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that an administrator warning a user about the repercussions of engaging in an edit war is perfectly valid. You are reacting to his tone, which was entirely appropriate in my opinion. The threat of a block was there only because that's the end result of edit warring. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrator "warning" an experienced user in a lecturing tone about "repercussion of engaging in an edit war" and threatening blocking while the only issue at hand was the restoration of blanked referenced content, even if it was done two times, is inappropriate. There is no clear-cut definition of what amounts to "edit war", but reverting the content blanking for just two times does not amount to it by any stretch. Administrator who does not realize that reverts may be warranted on some occasions and two reverts does not necessarily comprise an "edit war" should stick with vandal patrol as far as the block button is concerned. --Irpen 23:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but experienced users are just as capable of violating rules as newbies. The crux of your argument seems (to me at least) to be that you feel you are above the warning you got. Your calling Chaser arrogant and repeatedly belittling his administrative abilities doesn't exactly convince me that I'm wrong in my assessment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You are being mistaken. Anyone is capable of violating rules and no one is above them. The crux of my argument is that there was no activity to warrant any warning in this case, especially with the block threat. If Chaser thought that two reverts in a short time were alarming, he should have studied the matter first. I believe that most people would not see anything alarming in this particular incident. Two repeated restorations of referenced blanked content just do not add up to "disruption". Even if Chaser would have concluded otherwise he could have left a polite and courteous inquiry at my talk page asking for an explanation of what was going on. He, however, preferred to jump the gun, show who is the boss and leave a rude and totally unsubstantiated warning with the block threat on top. This was clearly unwarranted and offensive. Trivial inquiries over minor editing disputes are not made in this manner. --Irpen 04:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this thread can be very useful anymore. I thank EVula and Roi for coming to my defense and thank Irpen for his criticism. Regardless of whether the originating post was warranted, a long thread on my talk page is a bigger waste of the time of two productive contributors to this encyclopedia than the original message. I'm happy to let Irpen have the last word and let this go.--Chaser - T 05:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You are right, my apologies Tymek 12:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC). Anyway, did Irpen get the same message?

Interesting difference in attitude.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, there is now one less page in Misplaced Pages where you have not followed me with your taunting comments. And did not you say earlier that you were unwatchlisting my page? (Hint: if you do, I won't mind). --Irpen 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I was following Tymek, a relatively new user, whom I also wanted to caution against revert warring in FAs. I'd expect you to know better - both in terms of revert warring, as well assuming good faith towards me and Chaser.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did I doubt Chaser's "faith"? His message at my talk was inappropriate (see above) but was not a bad-faithed one. Two reverts of the removal of a well-referenced info were not a revert war by any stretch of the notion. And your diff points to my page and my edit, not Tymek's. Anyway, I am used to your "reviewing my contributions" all the time, Piotrus. This is just how you do things. --Irpen 18:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, let me urge you to draw a table comparing your talk page contributions with those of Piotrus and immediately submit a report on stalking. This has become ridiculous. I don't believe that anything short of a block will put an end to the guy's abuse of his editing rights. --Ghirla 06:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, but not on my talk page, please (this is not a comment on the validity of such an action).--Chaser - T 07:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article "OK-Desktop"

Could you please supply me with a copy of my article "OK-Desktop" that was deleted. I am confused as to why it was deleted as i compared it to other articles about linux distributions and i beleive that it conformed vary closely to others, in fact i used another distribution article as a template for creating my article. I also went to great pains to make sure that links were created throughout the article to other articles within Misplaced Pages. I also beleive that this distribution goes beyond being just a operating system and applications. That it has a strong impact on both humanitarian issues and education, as such i beleive that it is a new breed. I would appreciate any suggestions of yours as to how the article may be changed so that there is no possibility of deletion in the future. My email is shaw.mark@gmail.com Thanks in Advance for your assistance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdavidshaw (talk • contribs)

I'm emailing the first revision to you. The article was deleted because it exclusively promoted that Linux distribution and would have needed a fundamental rewrite to become a neutral encyclopedia article. Sentences such as "We believe that this entitles it to be considered a new breed standing in a class by itself." and section titles like "Features: Easy, Safe, Compatible..." and "OK-Desktop focuses on Usability" contributed to this problem. If you can rewrite it to make it more informative and less like an advertisement, that would solve most of the problem. There may still be a notability issue that will put such an article at risk of deletion.--Chaser - T 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Chaser's Day!

Chaser has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Chaser's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Chaser! Love, Phaedriel 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Why thank you, Phaedriel. That's enormously kind of you and I appreciate it.--Chaser - T 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

After your extremely kind words at my RfA at Simple, my friend, letting you know how deeply appreciated your great work is (which I have noted extensively in you long time as an editor and admin), was the very least I could do ;) May this humble token of recognition brighten your day a little, dear Chaser! Enjoy your special Day! Love, Phaedriel - 00:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You deserve every compliment you get, Phaedriel. You're the single greatest source of wiki-love we have!--Chaser - T 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)