Misplaced Pages

Making valid use of an edit summary will help to avoid confusion relating to the various X-Men franchises. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shameless (disambiguation)

I wasn't done with it yet when you flagged it for deletion. -Mike Payne 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• From my talk page: "Mike, I've removed the tag as you've added a second link to an established Misplaced Pages page. However, if I may suggest, creating the link to a non-existent page Shameless (HBO special) isn't advised. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"
  • The link was to an HBO special performed by Louis C.K. but I really know nothing about it. If I created the page it would have only one sentence on it and I'm sure that would be flagged for deletion as well. What do you do in this case? Link to the nonexistent article, create the article with only one sentence, or just don't mention it at all? -Mike Payne 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps leaving it out of the disambiguation page at this time, until someone with an interest in that subject and information relating to it creates an article. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I delinked it but left the mention of it. I figured this is a happy medium, and hopefully eventually it can point somewhere. :) -Mike Payne 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
        • From my talk: "::Good idea! :) Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
          • How do I insert the wiktionary definition for the word "shameless"? Any idea? -Mike Payne 18:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rat agility

I beleive your tagging of the article was incorrect, see the talk page. Could you please remove it? // Liftarn

Per User:Wknight94: "rm speedy. Has a few references so this one deserves a chance (barely). Try WP:AFD instead" and has been deleted once previously via WP:PROD. Allowing this one a chance (barely). Netkinetic(t/c/@) 16:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Premature Flagulation

Hey Netkinetic,

Please review your premature flag for deletion on , and make your recommendations.

Thanks!

—The preceding comment was added by Nahicom (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Premature Flagulation II

Sorry, but I wasn't logged in earlier, so it didn't record my signature.

—The preceding comment was added by Nahicom (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Oops

Sorry, thought the strikeout was a mistake or someone's vandalism. My bad, I was on your talk page for an unrelated reason and just happened to see it and took it out... Sorry about that. :) I'm still somewhat new to wikipedia, although I am trying to be a good contributor. :) -Mike Payne 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

University of East Anglia

Please note my edit was to removed member of notable alumni who had been recently added, because after a thorough search on the interenet i could find nothing about this person. I moderate the UEA page a lot and this happens quite a bit, people just seem to get a thrill from adding themselves to the notable alumni list.--Jamesmh2006 10:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment as well as...

Netkinetic,

It can definitely be difficult to try and blend distinct styles into the overall mix of this website, though definitely worth the effort! I've noticed in your contributions a lot of activity attempting to maintain the integrity of various articles, which is commendable. Especially when never receiving credit (except a few comments from above). So I'll acknowledge it, since you were the first here to respond on my talk page.

Why have you been gossiping about me?

(see top of page)--Jamesmh2006 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Old old news haha. No worries...peace bro. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

John Titor

No problem :D El hombre de haha 04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Much appreciated! =) --† Ðy§ep§ion † 05:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Counterparts Situation

Thanks for the kind words; for me, it not only served no pleasure, it also seemed a little excessive. I could understand the debate over the Earth-S and Earth-X entries in the grids, but Earths-One, -Two, and -Three were much more definitive - if anything, I was expecting the removal of -S & -X, and probably the Earth-Three entries that only ever appeared in the modern era's Anti-Matter Earth (they were already there - I just added the disclaimer), not the removal of the entire page.

The link you sent was interesting. The comparisons made there were definitely function-comparisons, though far more broad (aside from the standard JLA/JSA ones) than the ones I was trying to show (mine generally co-existed in the same time period - even allowing for the generational gap between Earth-Two and Earth-One - even when being published by competing companies, for starters), but I could see the comparisons being made were even more functional like, "youthful female with wings on a team," or "the fire-based member of a team," etc., that required using characters from different time-periods as well.

Just out of curiosity, why is there no allowance made for a 'reasonable inference?' Not that I'm trying to re-argue the debate on this particular entry, but it didn't seem to me that what I was putting forth was exactly outlandish. Maybe it's just a matter of changing the term 'original research' (which implies a deliberative searching for information to back-up a theory) to 'original conclusions' or 'personal observations' (which probably better describes someone like me, who was simply trying to show what I came to conclude after reading comics for enjoyment purposes for over 30 years, with the evidence being, primarily, those same comics).

But, that's all water under the bridge now. I can only content myself with knowing that I'm right, even if I can't demonstrate it to Misplaced Pages standards. Thanks again for the support. Starmiter 01:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And to clarify, the 'External Links' area for Multiverse (DC Comics) cannot have a link to the same info on a non-Misplaced Pages page, even if it could be presented with a disclaimer like, "An intriguing interpretation of the pre-Crisis DC Multiverse may be found here" kind of thing? And as for the removal of the Earth-One info from the Earth-Two chart, I had based it mainly on the fact the Flash entry mentioned both versions, and so the remaining entries seemed incomplete by comparison - just thought people would've liked "cliff-note" info-blurbs for comparison purposes without having to read each and every entry, which is rather time-consuming. I have no intention of formally opposing their removal because, frankly, it would be too much effort, and my track-record is already 0-for-2 (and this is on subject matter that I considered myself an expert on), so I'm going to be more careful about when to pick my battles. Thanks. Starmiter 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it's probably too little, too late for the multiverse grid page, but I recently came across this site: http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/doveside/412/page4.html that goes even further than the comparisons I was trying to show. The part of this set of comparisons I found intriguing were the Earth-One/Earth-Two/Earth-Shazam match-ups (though I don't agree with Capt. Marvel, Jr., being linked with the Flash - more closely to Superboy who, like Supergirl, was introduced well after the Fawcett character). Also, I've been corresponding with Roy Thomas about the topic, and he recalls prior issues of Alter-Ego discussing the topics as well, though he is uncertain of the exact issues and cannot devote the time to research them. I'll still be digging through the back issues when I can get access to them, so perhaps I'll find enough to be able to re-introduce the grid and have it be kept this time (the irony here, of course, is that it's going to require a lot of 'original research time' to track down the back-up, which is why I think the term is a misnomer on the standards of 'no original research' and that 'original conclusions' would be a better term for the policy - I'm sure this distinction was probably debated ad infinitum back in the day, though). Anyway, just thought I'd share the info. Thanks. Starmiter 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandal report

Thanks! I blocked the address (this time for a week). --Shirahadasha 05:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the revert of vandalism on my user page. :O) Flowerpotman talk|contribs 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re User:131.183.238.102

CFD for DC Comics characters with super speed

Um, hi. Do you plan to have all superhuman cats. cfd'd? I don't see the meaning of only having the DC Comics super speed one gone, so you probably want all of them gone I presume? Could you explain to me why? Peace. ~I'm anonymous

Hey. You never answered back to me. How come? ~I'm anonymous

"Digg" vandalism

This discussion I deleted was not necessary anymore and it was certainly not vandalism. Digg was down for a couple of minutes and then it went back up without any change. It doesn't need to be discussed. 24.165.131.164 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting suggestion relating to Huntress (Helena Wayne)

Jc37,

I've come to highly respect your opinion. You have shown support towards me quite often even in the face of adversity and also given me some frank reminders when necessary. I'm attempting to broker a different path towards communication with fellow editors and have diverted my energy towards other projects such as combatting of vandalism. There is a particular article, Huntress (Helena Wayne) that I believe objectively meets criteria similiar to Huntress (Helena Bertinelli) and Paula Brooks. All of these articles were split from the Huntress (comics) main article in October of 2006 or thereabouts, and all were allowed to exist and develop further for a few months. Following my insistence on a particular related article, the Wayne article was included and summarily changed to a redirect page based on WP:FICTION. Yet this same criteria is not applied to the above two articles. I find this incredulous while at the same moment wondering if the article would not have been contested had I not been connected to it. If so I regret my involvement. Mention has been made that there was a consensus, yet only two editors changed the article to a redirect (Steve Block and Lesfer) while others seem to be on the fence without a definitive stand. I would ask for direction from yourself as to how to proceed with the community towards reconsidering this article. It will be intrepreted as WP:OWN on my part as having created it. Truthfully, the entire PH along with picture and other contents could be changed at this point by others and I wouldn't object. However, I cannot reconcile an application of WP:FICTION in one article's case yet not in comparable articles. At this point in the project, I cannot expect to build consensus and I understand this is personal. However, I feel a principal is involved greater than one editor. Regards. Netkinetic 01:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Lesfer#Helena Wayne for further information. I've asked him to discuss on the article's talk page. I ask you to not comment at the user's talk page, in the hopes of keeping the discussion united in one place (Talk:Huntress (comics)). I hope this helps. - jc37 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to that talk page consideration, Jc37. I'm unsure if anything I say will be accepted in a manner that will solicit a positive response. It is apparent a few simply have no interest in dialogue beyond finger pointing. Of course I may be wrong. Netkinetic 20:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

You sent me a message about my deletion being inappropriate. Perhaps I'm not too familiar with Misplaced Pages editing rules but I gave an explanation of why the section should be deleted on the "Left-wing politics" talk page under the subsection "Accuracy Dispute - Huge problems with the political violence section." A previous user commented in January 2007 about how the section is factually inaccurate and tagged it as such. It is now May 2007 and no one as responded to the original objections. Since I believe that content of the section (though not the section itself) to be egregiously misleading and poorly written I went on to delete it. -df 12 May 2007.

Hello

Just noticed your welcome on 68.118.157.63's talk page. I thought you might want to know about the {{anon}} template - it's useful for welcoming IPs because it also encourages them to create an account. If you would like to use the anon template, you should generally write: {{subst:anon}} ~~~~ on their talk page. Happy editing! --Ali 04:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a regular {{welcome}} template to me! Anyway, if you already know, then I don't need to tell you. Sorry about that. --Ali 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry!

sorry about that edit, i wasn't cautious enough with it. someone snuck in "poop or pee" and i didn't catch it

71.112.142.5 06:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:MajorDisaster.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MajorDisaster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a fair use rationale to this image. I didn't know the source, though. --GentlemanGhost 04:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Groupthink

By their very nature, I think all WikiProjects lend themselves to groupthink. It's an occupational hazard, one might say. Interestingly, in my early days as a member of WikiProject Comics, I frequently found myself on the losing side of arguements, directly in conflict with some of the longer-established project members whom I respected. These days, I find the opposite is true. I guess I must have drank the Kool-Aid somewhere along the line. ;) --GentlemanGhost 04:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

:)

Editing something doesn't equal obsessive-compulsive. As the pros say, writing is rewriting. I just don't use the preview feature much. Yeah, I know we should, but you know how it is when you've been working on something only to get a message saying there's an edit conflict because somebody else edited the page while you were writing. Doczilla 03:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your report to AIV

You seem to have gone offline and probably haven't seen discussion suggesting you post your report to another board, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it. I would cross-post it for you, but I see that two boards have been suggested, so I'll leave the decision of where to go up to you. For more information, see this page version from before the removal. Cheers! – Luna Santin (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: My Edit

The statement that currently exists is presented as fact by the author. It has always been in dispute and that's what I was referencing. However, I'm waaaaaaaay too tired and disinterested in rounding up the membership and then sourcing the refutation. Let him have the historical conceit. Those of us who were there will continue to question the veracity. This is a bird's eye view about how history is created, out of half and untruths and exaggerations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.3.47 (talk • contribs) 07 08 2006.

Well the next time you'd care to sign your name and actually refer by name to the article in question, you may receive a response. Since you haven't developed such an advanced skillset as yet, I'll let you stew in your own juices.Netkinetic 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue Beetle (Jaime Reyes)

Crosses, yes, but crucifixes? I was under the impression that use of the cross with the Christ figure on it was much more limited, and that the only group regularly using it which would be appropriate for Jaime's region and ethnicity would be Catholic, as I understand it. Lucky number 49 05:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are some Protestant denominations of a more recent derrivage that also use crucifixes, but I'll check it out. Still, although it is logicaly Reye's is Catholic due to several biographical factors, until explicitly stated it is original research which is a no-no.Netkinetic 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just 2¢ or so... (Looking out of curiosity over the header)

There is a short article at Crucifix that covers denominations that use them over plain crosses.

That being said, it sounds like a drawn conclusion that the Reyes are Catholic based on "religious wall decoration"+"ethnicity"+"setting". In that light it may be better to put off including the item until there is an explicit statement about the family's faith.

- J Greb 05:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Per my above comment, I agree completely. It is original research, pure and simple, hence why I removed it until verified. Netkinetic 05:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, I'll keep this in mind. Thanks. Lucky number 49 06:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dick Grayson Skills Consensus

See Talk:Dick_Grayson/Archive01#Skills.2FAbilities and Talk:Dick_Grayson/Archive02#.22Second_to_Batman.22_Insult_or_compliment.3F. It's been gone over a couple times, and this was the result. Just FYI. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No big :) I figure if I can save everyone time with a rehash and just go straight into the new shizney, we'll all have less ulcer. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All the best

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but as long as you believe you are working to the betterment of the encyclopedia, and as long as you don't edit war and are prepared to accept you are wrong and to discuss issues, then ignoring all rules is a useful policy. I may be misunderstanding your message, but it is not a blank cheque to act as you will. I think perhaps you misread my whole comment to Tenebrae, which noted that the manual of style is at conflict with the comics exemplars, and in fact supercedes it. This allows the invocation of Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. I'm glad to see you still find my contributions amusing and follow them with such zeal. The most amusing thing for me is that I actually liked your Earth two article and recall asking you to concentrate your arguments on the merits of the article, rather than the wiki-lawyering to which you descended and which failed to help your cause. Maybe in the future you'll bear that in mind and concentrate on what improves articles to our featured article status rather than the ins and outs of policies. Best wishes, Steve block Talk 10:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• And by the way, if you do wish to quote me, it's preferable that you quote the whole of what I said. Your partial quotes on my talk page obscure and in some instances contradict my actual meaning. Cheers. Steve block Talk 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I say, you have misinterpreted me. And by golly, I hadn't realised you'd followed my edits to that great a degree. Still, if you are happy to assert your own meaning of my words over what I actually said and what I meant, then good luck to you. Thank you for striving to help me grow as a person. As the header says, all the best. Steve block Talk 13:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Interesting...misinterpreted yet without explanation on what points were misinterpreted. Wikilawyer wikispeak, me think? :) Netkinetic 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

End of Evangelion

I hope you've seen the series and remember what happened, otherwise I am just wasting my time. During the original last two episodes, many assertions were made, such as that human personalities complement each other, each mind is only a small part of the possiblities, the implication that by others we can grow and learn. Then the rest of the episodes consisted of lots of bouncing of ideas off the different personalities, exploration of why they thought what they thought, the scenarios that Shinji was put thru, and finally his realization that his self-esteem was the main thing keeping him from forming proper relationships. The beginning of episode 26 describes how it shows the effect of the Instrumentality project on ONE INDIVIDUAL ONLY, because of time. The implication is that everyone else is going thru the same process. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Shinji's evolution is unique to himself; it has a kind of inevitability, as evidenced by Asuka's (or the Asuka-replica who is in his mind, at the very least) disgust at how long it takes him to realize what he finally realizes. If the Project failed, it failed by design.

But eh, what do I care if the Misplaced Pages articles on NGE are contradicting and misleading. I won't change it back, don't worry. 74.61.41.118 06:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones in popular culture deletion debate

Greetings! An article which you have edited, Tropical cyclones in popular culture, has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to voice your opinion in the deletion debate. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:KyleRayner

Template:Deprecation notice --MZMcBride 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Melsaran

You might want to take another look at this... — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in preventing vandalism

Thank you for your efforts in saving the article Network Security from vandalism. Given the popularity of the topic, the article has been attacked many times. I am pleased to see how collaborative editing of WP is helping! Raanoo 10:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jla135.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jla135.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

You can see the merge discussion within Talk:Natalee_Holloway/Archive_2#Merge_proposal from December 2007. Could you please provide me a link to any of the "multiple notable events" regarding Joran that do not have to do with the Holloway case? Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 05:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page, but I'd encourage you to initiate a discussion on Talk:Natalee Holloway before reverting a consensus merge/redirect. Consensus can change, but that can only be determined by discussion. - auburnpilot talk 05:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

lol

Re: to "their" heroes - they aren't my heroes? are they your heroes?

For some reason, that wording really amused me. Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)