This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 5 January 2013 (→RfC: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:27, 5 January 2013 by ChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs) (→RfC: Re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his edits at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/John F. Lewis. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
The Signpost: 31 December 2012
- From the editor: Misplaced Pages, our Colosseum
- In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter
- Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes
- Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy
- Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review
- WikiProject report: New Year, New York
- Recent research: Misplaced Pages and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined
RfC
It was appropriate because we are discussing it and its going nowhere. RfC is there for third party review.Lucia Black (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually a RfC should be filed correctly and not on a now failed GA nomination. I would like to go into more detail but my reverts and closure speaks for itself in this situation. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I added that to the main talk page. But some GAN template made it so it would go there. On another note if you would like to serve as third-party then it would be best you talked to both of us at the same time because right now it feels like theres more of an alliance.Lucia Black (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am not one sided. Chris came to the IRC asking for help on the matter, I am talking him through all appropriate Misplaced Pages policies. No alliance is present. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Im asking for help too. He's spear heading eerything. Yes good intentions but abusing the process of consensus and i've reverted enough, any more and an edit war and surely ill get blocked. No one is helping me in this situation, and i'm stressing out.Lucia Black (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am not one sided. Chris came to the IRC asking for help on the matter, I am talking him through all appropriate Misplaced Pages policies. No alliance is present. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I added that to the main talk page. But some GAN template made it so it would go there. On another note if you would like to serve as third-party then it would be best you talked to both of us at the same time because right now it feels like theres more of an alliance.Lucia Black (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You are in an alliance if there is absolutely no middleground where we can discuss, sigh...you really not helping, you just allowing him to edit and change the article's focus without really bringing in any third party. This is getting ridiculous.Lucia Black (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is middle ground. There is dispute resolution, ANI and several others noticeboard a where tis can be dealt with. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I already gave the warning. But you helping himm didnt really worked out. Next time, if you "help" make sure its not based on talking to him and not with the one he has an issue.Lucia Black (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- First off I don't even know Lewis, we are not in alliance or whatever you are insinuating. That's not AGF and you have continued to toss terms like bias around at the mere mention that I was a fan of Shirow's work. You over react and create drama about it. I asked for assistance because I was having difficulty in dealing with this situation and wanted clarity on convention. I do not know all of Misplaced Pages's policies in every minute detail, but I wanted to be sure that it was proper to try and fix what you broke, and according to policy is seems I am allowed to do that. I haven't even really started to fix the broken stuff because you keep raising objections and nonsensical solutions that are detrimental. Changing the scope of a very popular franchise page to deal solely with the manga on your personal opinion is wrong, the franchise is notable and forcing the main incoming link to be solely about the manga is a bad idea, what if they came from another Misplaced Pages page, outside of Misplaced Pages? Its the #2 result on Google, why should it be confined to the manga? It does not make sense. Your argument should make sense and be persuasive. Your argument is based on opinion and 'because I think so' not on practicality. That's the issue I have with it. That's why I want to fix it. And I have 250 sources now to do so. If you want to nom the manga for GA, nom the manga, don't make the main incoming link about the manga. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 7 January 2013 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)