Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 6 May 2008

Archives

/archive1 - Prior to Dec 10th 2006 /archive2 - Prior to Feb 7th 2007 /archive3 - Prior to May 1st 2007 /archive4 - Prior to May 24th 2007 /archive5 - Prior to Aug 9th 2007 /archive6 - Prior to Nov 2nd 2007 /archive7 - Prior to Nov 27th 2007 /archive8 - Prior to Dec 27th 2007 /archive9 - Prior to Feb 27th 2008

no a valid reason for removal

actually it is (WP:NOT) - Article pages are for improving articles not general conversation about issues that will not improve the article - see the Muhammed talkpages for an example of where this has had to be into practice alot. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoptee Here!

Hi its your adoptee here. Sorry I have not been in touch recently..it's been pretty mad my end. Hope everything is OK with you?

Just to confirm I would like to keep you as my adopter just in case I encounter any problems and I need help!

Cheers

Jack Random Jack (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude... no.

This is so far beyond inappropriate, it's shameful.

• Don't bother applying
• And writing directly to Jimbo wasn't cool
• You currently have less than 450 edits to your credit which puts your likelyhood of success at...oh...around 0%
• They'll take a look at your "User contributions" and discover that you have never, not even once, done any of those things and reject your request without further consideration
• try again in a year or two

Srs? Calm down. I find it highly ironic that you just tanked any chance of a successful RFA for yourself in biting a newb in regards to his chances of having a successful RFA. Keep up the good work. Lara❤Love 16:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a bite - that was the truth - and this isn't a newbie - he's been editing since late 2006. Honesty beats false hope one to nothing. There are enough ridiculous RfA's out there as it is - we don't need to create more! As for me - personally, I don't want adminship - it's not a badge of achievement and it's not something that experienced Wikipedians should automatically be assumed to aspire to - it's a set of tools for doing a specific set of jobs. Before I realised the truth of that, I applied for RfA (and failed for the curious reason that I had spent too much time actually writing articles!?!) - nowadays I turn down people who offer to nominate me. SteveBaker (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That was the truth presented in a damn bitey fashion. If you don't believe Lara, believe me. If you don't believe me let me know and someone else will come tell you the same thing. _(1 == 2) 22:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Until worded it perfect. You are absolutely right in your message, but absolutely wrong in your presentation. It was rude, disrespectful and unnecessary. He may have registered some time ago, but in that he only has 450 edits, he's still a newb. Jimbo's page is patrolled by a lot of people, and you have no right to tell anyone that they can't post to it. You also have no right to speak for everyone else. I think the vast majority of RFA voters would have been much more tactful and kind in their response to his nomination. Moral support goes a long way for people acting in good faith. Lara❤Love 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better.

Thanks so much for your eloquent defense of our arguably lame April Fools' Joke. That's exactly what I wanted to tell the joke's detractors, but I was a bit tongue-tied and mopey after the initial abuse our little conceit received. Your words were warmly appreciated.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Minis

I feel a little hostility in our discussion, and I wonder why. I don't want to take anything away from you, nor do I wish to harm you in any other way. Please try to keep the issue in mind before addressing me in your postings. Thanks. --87.189.70.10 (talk)

I just asked for a third opinion. --87.189.70.10 (talk)

Your attitude towards this one small and relatively unimportant guideline is (to say the least) unhelpful. The goal here is to make a better encyclopedia. It's all too easy to lose sight of that in a morass of rules, policies and guidelines. That's why we have the "Ignore All Rules" principle right up there at the top of the list. When a guideline interferes with a decent description of the world - ignore the darned thing. The purpose of guidelines is to guide you in that goal of making a better encyclopedia. They are not meant to override good editing. In this case, the guideline makes the encyclopedia significantly worse.

Please explain to me why you think renaming the article makes it in any way better - because in my eyes (and in those of pretty much every authority on the car itself) - your change makes it significantly worse. As the ONLY authoritative work on the MINI to not spell it's name the proper and correct way - we look STUPID. ...and for no particularly good reason other than mindless conformity to a fairly minor guideline. Then to add insult to injury you start trying to remove the 'Good Article' tag from the article - which (quite frankly) starts to look vindictive. It would be more helpful if you would actually improve the article rather than going out of your way to destroy it. SteveBaker (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to communicate and again get personal attacks (riddled with lies no less) and complete disregard for anything I say. You wasted enough of my time, the gloves come off now. --87.189.62.219 (talk)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your comments. Please note that on Misplaced Pages, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you!

And misuse of templates is vandalism. Please stop doing that. SteveBaker (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

NPA: Surely you can see that {your actions are} just laughably stupid I also consider your repeated allegations that I'm a sock puppet to be highly offensive.

AGF: Your first set of changes were perhaps excusable ("be bold" is another pillar) - although moving an article in the teeth of the opposition from long-term content creators without extensive prior discussion goes well beyond "being bold"! But after I pointed it out in my first edit comment when I reverted your somewhat understandable mistake - you should certainly not have re-reverted - that's just plain rude. Note that I changed the article once (except for a whitespace-only change ten days before).

Ownership: My research is not "admittedly short". I happen to be an expert on this subject. I've owned three MINIs (including the first to be registered in the state of Texas and the first MINI Convertible off the production line to be built to US specifications). I've also owned and restored three Minis over the years. I still have one of each. In order to write this article, the Mini and Mini Moke articles, I went out and bought every single book ever written on the MINI and the Mini Moke - and over 100 written about the Mini...trust me - I know how just about every author writes about these cars. Also passim.

Consensus: You do not have consensus either. Summarizing to selectively pick and choose the arguments you want to defeat is an old Misplaced Pages tactic and it won't work. Hence I will continue to revert if you rename the article again.

So, since baseless accusations (carrying a threat of blocking even) are a personal attack:

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

I suggest that you calm down and focus on the topic, not on me. --87.189.62.219 (talk)

Tyre vs Tire

I very much like the text you wrote at the top of the talk page. I've taken similar action on the bicycle and motorcycle pages, one in American English and the other in British English. While researching the spelling of tyre/tire, I came across some neat details in the American and British English spelling differences article. Specifically: "Tire is the older spelling, but both were used in the 15th and 16th centuries (for a metal tire); tire became the settled spelling in the 17th century but tyre was revived in the UK in the 19th century for pneumatic tyres, possibly because it was used in some patent documents, though many continued to use tire for the iron variety. The Times newspaper was still using tire as late as 1905." It cites The Cambridge Guide to English Usage by Pam Peters, 2004, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-62181-X. I thought this might be helpful in the tyre/tire article, but I don't want to open a can of worms that you've worked hard to close. Suggestions? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In the titles of articles (at least) we should strive to be of the most use possible to our readers. They are going to be looking for articles based on modern spellings and meanings - so (for the purposes of title selection) I really don't care what the ancient history of the spelling/meaning is. That kind of information belongs in the bulk of the article - but the title should strive to use modern meanings since that is what our readership will use in looking things up. So that leaves us with the problem of British vs US (vs Australia vs NewZealand...) spelling. This is an insoluable problem. Unless we want to split English dialects off into separate languages (like we do with French and German Wikipedias) - we have to recognise that we simply cannot do a great job of this. The present rules are not great - but at least they are clearly defined - and that's all that's needed to stop flame wars. SteveBaker (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest changing the name of the article, the spelling in the article, nor even fight flame wars. I just found the information interesting and thought it might be interesting to other readers of the article. On some talk page somewhere, I read someone's comments about the etymology of tire and tyre, but I don't see it mentioned in the article now. I don't, however, want to cause a bunch of trouble by blindly adding the information to the exiting article, so I'm checking with you first. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh - then I'm sorry! I misunderstood. Well, your information has references - so there is no reason not to include it in the article. Go ahead! SteveBaker (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus essay

Hi Steve, hope you are keeping well. There is a proposal at Misplaced Pages:Governance reform which reminded me of your essay on consensus. You might find it interesting. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel economy

If you are so inclined, we'd like to hear your opinions on fuel economy at http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Infobox_Automobile#no_obvious_reason_why_fuel_economy_is_not_included_in_the_infobox . 198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)