Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Previous thread is previous.
(10-20-2021, 10:30 AM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]We're down to sixteen entries left on "All The Tropes:No Real Life Examples, Please" that may or may not be TVT control issues. Funnily enough, they're all Sex Tropes.
We've started discussion threads on the tropes' Talk pages. Mods, if you haven't logged in lately, expect to see a lot of "mentioned you" notifications...
I'm seeing some themes in the replies to these threads:
- NRL is stupid / TVT-control-freakery here and should be killed with fire
- Historical examples only
- Not physically posible in RL
- Yeah, let's keep NRL
Luckily, most of the threads are already gaining consensus as to which of the above applies to each trope.
I'd still prefer to keep the discussion going for a day, at least, to give other tropers time to comment - especially where we don't yet have consensus.
(10-19-2021, 10:15 AM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2021, 07:17 AM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Has anyone followed the steward's suggestion and contacted BalonGreyjoy yet? (I haven't been on the wiki since last night.)
Not yet - i haven't seen the steward's suggestion until now. It's a good idea.
EDIT: Already done by the Steward.
(10-19-2021, 01:50 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Reddington and BalonGreyjoy continue to add edits to the moderation queue, despite it being now 13 hours since Dmehus posted his message on Reddington's talk page. Perhaps we need to remind all of him about what happens when you ignore admin communications.
(10-19-2021, 03:01 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]i just did.
Quote:@Reddington, you are free to disagree with the moderation staff. You are not free to ignore the moderation staff, or the Miraheze Stewards.
I see unreviewed edits from both BalonGreyjoy and Reddington in the moderation queue. These edits have time stamps that show they were made after the posts made above in this thread.
I therefore modify my statement above: We won't be blocking your accounts locally as long as you speak with us.
This is the warning that you are required to receive as per All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here.
Your posting history shows that you are online every day. If you do not reply within 24 hours, we will temporarily remove the distraction of being able to edit the wiki other than this page until you do reply.
With pings to both accounts, all mods, and the Steward taking part in the issue.
It's been 24 hours and there's no reply. Dropping the hammer. EDIT: One-week block on both BalonGreyjoy and Reddington
(10-20-2021, 03:08 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2021, 10:15 AM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2021, 07:17 AM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Has anyone followed the steward's suggestion and contacted BalonGreyjoy yet? (I haven't been on the wiki since last night.)
Not yet - i haven't seen the steward's suggestion until now. It's a good idea.
EDIT: Already done by the Steward.
(10-19-2021, 01:50 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Reddington and BalonGreyjoy continue to add edits to the moderation queue, despite it being now 13 hours since Dmehus posted his message on Reddington's talk page. Perhaps we need to remind all of him about what happens when you ignore admin communications.
(10-19-2021, 03:01 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]i just did.
Quote:@Reddington, you are free to disagree with the moderation staff. You are not free to ignore the moderation staff, or the Miraheze Stewards.
I see unreviewed edits from both BalonGreyjoy and Reddington in the moderation queue. These edits have time stamps that show they were made after the posts made above in this thread.
I therefore modify my statement above: We won't be blocking your accounts locally as long as you speak with us.
This is the warning that you are required to receive as per All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here.
Your posting history shows that you are online every day. If you do not reply within 24 hours, we will temporarily remove the distraction of being able to edit the wiki other than this page until you do reply.
With pings to both accounts, all mods, and the Steward taking part in the issue.
It's been 24 hours and there's no reply. Dropping the hammer. EDIT: One-week block on both BalonGreyjoy and Reddington
Auto-rejected the edits on moderation log.
Quote:One-week block on both BalonGreyjoy and Reddington
Time to see if he trots out DagonGreyjoy, in which case that one gets banhammered, too.
Oh, and given what Geth found out, anyone have problems with accepting that Hepzibah is "foxley" and putting things back?
(10-20-2021, 03:41 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, and given what Geth found out, anyone have problems with accepting that Hepzibah is "foxley" and putting things back?
No issues here - we've done our due diligence.
Are there no Troping Trekkies at ATT? The list of TV series on the Star Trek franchise page ends with four redlinks.
Does that mean the franchise has finally dropped out of the public consciousness, or are people just busy with other things?
(10-20-2021, 04:59 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]Are there no Troping Trekkies at ATT? The list of TV series on the Star Trek franchise page ends with four redlinks.
Does that mean the franchise has finally dropped out of the public consciousness, or are people just busy with other things?
Probably a mixture of both, ViacomCBS hasn't necessarily been paying full attention on that front.
Amelia's edit approved because google showed no matching results on TVT or otherwise.
(10-20-2021, 03:38 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:One-week block on both BalonGreyjoy and Reddington
Time to see if he trots out DagonGreyjoy, in which case that one gets banhammered, too.
The Steward on the case has recommended tempbanning that account now... along with the fourth account in the cluster, DevanSeaworth78.
Oh, I missed that one. Was that found via CheckUser, or just someone very alert on the team?
I didn't ask. Presumably it was Checkuser, since it was Dmehus who found the account.
Yeah, I just saw his post on the thread.
Meanwhile, I'm going to promote Hepzibah to autopatrolled/automoderated. Given the events of the past few days, I'm confident we can trust her with it.
(10-21-2021, 02:33 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]Yo Tropers, I'm real happy for you, I'mma let you finish, but summbody's legally changed his name. His name!
Anybody got time to update the pages that link to that one?
Considering Wikipedia hasn't moved the page, should we have at least sought consensus on this one?
(10-21-2021, 02:38 PM)LulzKiller Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2021, 02:33 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]Yo Tropers, I'm real happy for you, I'mma let you finish, but summbody's legally changed his name. His name!
Anybody got time to update the pages that link to that one?
Considering Wikipedia hasn't moved the page, should we have at least sought consensus on this one?
We didn't wait for Wikipedia to act when Elliot Page changed his name.
In both cases, it's the name the person wants to be known by, so not using it would be rude. IMHO.
(10-21-2021, 02:46 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2021, 02:38 PM)LulzKiller Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2021, 02:33 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]Yo Tropers, I'm real happy for you, I'mma let you finish, but summbody's legally changed his name. His name!
Anybody got time to update the pages that link to that one?
Considering Wikipedia hasn't moved the page, should we have at least sought consensus on this one?
We didn't wait for Wikipedia to act when Elliot Page changed his name.
In both cases, it's the name the person wants to be known by, so not using it would be rude. IMHO.
Very much this... and it actually doesn't matter what Wikipedia does. If someone wants to be known by a different name, then it should be so. Having legal paperwork declaring it to be so should be immaterial, because of the thing known as the "stage name". See: Peter Davison (Moffat), David Tennant (McDonald).
(Yes, I know, part of
that is a legal construct for actors in the UK, but still.)
(10-21-2021, 04:57 PM)LynnInDenver Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2021, 02:46 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2021, 02:38 PM)LulzKiller Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2021, 02:33 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]Yo Tropers, I'm real happy for you, I'mma let you finish, but summbody's legally changed his name. His name!
Anybody got time to update the pages that link to that one?
Considering Wikipedia hasn't moved the page, should we have at least sought consensus on this one?
We didn't wait for Wikipedia to act when Elliot Page changed his name.
In both cases, it's the name the person wants to be known by, so not using it would be rude. IMHO.
Very much this... and it actually doesn't matter what Wikipedia does. If someone wants to be known by a different name, then it should be so. Having legal paperwork declaring it to be so should be immaterial, because of the thing known as the "stage name". See: Peter Davison (Moffat), David Tennant (McDonald).
(Yes, I know, part of that is a legal construct for actors in the UK, but still.)
I guess I'm arguing for the most well known name of the person in common parlance. I understand the trans situation nuances this position. Most people know "ye" as Kanye West. My main issue was the lack of discussion beforehand, as I've been criticised for making decisions without consensus before.
(10-21-2021, 02:46 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2021, 02:38 PM)LulzKiller Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2021, 02:33 PM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]Yo Tropers, I'm real happy for you, I'mma let you finish, but summbody's legally changed his name. His name!
Anybody got time to update the pages that link to that one?
Considering Wikipedia hasn't moved the page, should we have at least sought consensus on this one?
We didn't wait for Wikipedia to act when Elliot Page changed his name.
In both cases, it's the name the person wants to be known by, so not using it would be rude. IMHO.
While I don't disagree with the name change itself, a consensus is always good to do even if the answer is going to be obvious (I would have concurred on changing it myself in this case without objection). I see nothing good from short-circuiting the process except in extreme circumstances as will not admit delay, which was not the case here. In the future, I strongly suggest we do this properly, just so no one can say anyone played favorites or acted without authority. For the record, I would have supported the Elliot Page name change too without objection, but we established a process for things like this, and we should be consistent in it.
That said, I concur on changing names for stage credits as Lynn put it, or if the name change is one that has entered formal use in media by their request, though in all cases where they have a prior history of credits under other names for other works, we should make that clear to establish their stage history for the works in question.
Mea culpa. The next time somebody who has a ATT page changes names, I'll ask first before doing what's necessary.
After a night's sleep on this, I'm now wondering exactly what it is that I did that people think is a bad thing.
Is it not the wiki's policy to "correct, don't complain"? All I did was correct a page title -- and I got grief for doing so.
If there's a process for changing a page name, I can't find the URL for it.
The forum outage gave me a chance to put together a trope candidate.
Have at it...
(10-22-2021, 08:31 AM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]After a night's sleep on this, I'm now wondering exactly what it is that I did that people think is a bad thing.
Is it not the wiki's policy to "correct, don't complain"? All I did was correct a page title -- and I got grief for doing so.
If there's a process for changing a page name, I can't find the URL for it.
I agree... I have no idea why what you did was so wrong. I have refrained from commenting while I tried to figure out why my point of view was so different from everyone else's.
I am beginning to wonder whether the issue with the change was who made it. I say this because I've noticed my proposals and questions on the wiki go unanswered until Bob replies and restates my position, at which point people post that they agree with Bob.
Am I simply seen as being unable to contribute to the wiki in a positive manner? Because that's how I'm seeing some other mods acting as if it's the case.
(10-22-2021, 08:31 AM)robkelk Wrote: [ -> ]After a night's sleep on this, I'm now wondering exactly what it is that I did that people think is a bad thing.
Is it not the wiki's policy to "correct, don't complain"? All I did was correct a page title -- and I got grief for doing so.
If there's a process for changing a page name, I can't find the URL for it.
I couldn't find the correct, don't complain policy; it might have become useful for me in the past if I has been previously aware of this policy.
Maybe there's been a miscommunication of some kind, but considering we've had issues in the past regarding not consulting regarding changes to content pages, and that ATT in general prefers consensus, I would have preferred some kind of discussion beforehand.
It seems clear that my preference of the name by most common parlance (I'd prefer Bono over Paul Hewson for example), would likely not be the consensus; I also don't see where it's wrong to ask for a consensus to be reached; a great example of us all reaching consensus is with the NRL page sorting.
All The Tropes:FAQ for Creators:
Quote: If something is factually and demonstrably wrong though, please fix it or let us know. We don't want to be spreading lies about you or your book.
All The Tropes:Repair, Don't Respond (a.k.a. "You Could Always Edit It Yourself"):
Quote:An in-wiki admonition that speaks against explaining why an entry is wrong or incomplete instead of just fixing it.
"All The Tropes:Everything You Wanted to Know About Changing Names" is specifically about Trope names (and thus should be renamed with a more accurate page title).
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13