Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:37, 7 July 2008

Template:Archive box collapsible

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Generation X. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

Gen X is going to arbitration, and you my friend, are invited to attend. Ledboots (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Serfdom in Tibet

Yep , the article has problems. But speedy delete is only for the reasons in WP:CSD. (yu are right though that there was no point in prod if its going to be deleted). The only way to go for deletion on this is afd. I am uncertain about the result, & even uncertain about what I will say there myself. DGG (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Thank you for alerting me about this, I'll see what I can do. Strangely enough, User:LaGrandefr has not edited in quite a while and even announced on the Tibet during the Ming Dynasty talk page that he would be leaving English Misplaced Pages indefinitely. This would be a lie if he's just trolling around under another account, but we'll see.--Pericles of Athens 20:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of reference, I believe LaGrandefr's IP address is 195.221.219.142. I say this because during our debate at Talk:Ming Dynasty, it was this IP address that was pushing to have LaGrandefr's dubious map placed in the Ming Dynasty article in several other Wikipedias, such as German Misplaced Pages here on March 27. Hope this helps.--Pericles of Athens 20:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha! Dude, I just read Foxhunt's comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Foxhunt99, and I am almost certain that it is the same person as LaGrandefr. They have seemingly identical syntax errors in their sentences and similar use of adjectives.--Pericles of Athens 21:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:Chenyangw's bizarre one-sentence statement as his user page is strikingly similar to the first version of LaGrandefr's user page and his present talk page.--Pericles of Athens 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're up for it, I would suggest that you make another request for checkuser and provide the IP address (i.e. 195.221.219.142) to moderators so that they can quickly verify whether or not LaGrandefr and Chenyangw come from the same source.--Pericles of Athens 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of LaGrandefr too, and wondered if the same person was cooking this new brew up. But I figured, if LGF wanted to sockpuppet, he would probably use his sockpuppets to attack Tibet during the Ming Dynasty again. What's more, I doubt LGF would be silly enough to think of me as a likely ally in support of keeping the Slavery/Serfdom article. Bertport (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ESanchez013

I don't really understand what's wrong. I placed the {{userpage}} template. What do you want me to change? I would've appreciated mention of your intention on my talk page. Thanks! Mr. E. Sánchez / _{Share yours with me!} 01:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tags on HM Bark Endeavour

Thank you for the message you left on my talk page.

The reason I have previously removed the multipleissues box is given in the edit summary:

"removed unhelpful multipleissues box as there was nothing in the talk page to support it"

It's good Etiquette use the edit summary to explain your changes to other editors rather than to use it to demand that no-one else touches them.

If you really think that such a garland of tags is helpful to this article then why not explain your reasoning to the rest of us on the article's talk page? As it stands I can see no benefit in having it there so I'll probably delete it again the next time I contribute to the article.

Better still, why not have a go at improving the article yourself?

The article is rated as B-Class on the assesessment scales of WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Shipwrecks and WikiProject Ships so there is clearly an overwhelming consensus that it needs further work.

So go ahead, think about what you can do to make the article better, and Be bold and help make HM Bark Endeavour the great article it deserves to be.

Petecarney (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting the edits to United Airlines - with the fact the vandalism wasn't obvious, I was getting a bit worried about hitting the 3 revert rule (hence the edit where I left in the close-to-vandalism content and asked for a revert). Cheers --Matt (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Generation Z Article

The two sources listed are the NY Times and an Australian Newspaper. These are certainly notable sources and are not blogs as you incorrectly stated. I undid your incorrect undo of me. Please take it to the discussion page lest we get into a revert war.

• I've responded on your talk page but I don't appreciate the threat of an edit war. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dihydrogen monoxide hoax

I would like to invite you to participate in a discussion on the talk page of the article Dihydrogen monoxide hoax. I, and at least one other editor, see no need for the tags at the top of the page. I submit that (1) there are multiple references in the article to reliable sources documenting that there is such a hoax, (2) the article does not appear to have been written in an essay-like tone (as one of your tags suggests), and (3) that the article does not contain original research. If you would like to help out, please post a more detailed response on the talk page rather than continuing to edit war on the page. I also ask that you familiarize yourself with the three revert rule, which you are now in violation of. Thank you, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How about you help out with the citation style, rather than placing more templates at the top of the page? I find this rather infuriating. See WP:POINT. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and five tags at the top of a single article without accompanying talk-page discussion seems disruptive to me. I am going to address the issues as I see fit, and I am then going to remove all of the nag tags. If you want to add them back, then you are going to have to post something on the talk page. Otherwise your editing is clearly disruptive. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies. We aren't talking about a deletion discussion here. We are talking about whether or not there are any references in the article. Clearly there are, so the template should go. The other templates should be accompanied by a section of the talk page. Please direct your browser to Talk:Dihydrogen monoxide and use the talk page. These are there for a reason you know. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, take it to the talk page of the article. That is what you should have done to begin with, rather than edit-warring. See WP:CON. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I am just as guilty of edit warring as you? Interesting. From where I sit, I am the only one even trying to address the issues your template raises. Furthermore, the {{unref}} template is not accurate. There are many references in the article, if you would care to scroll down to the References section. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is funny stuff, and appears to be the basis for a mock-serious presentation we had in our office recently. Baseball Bugs 06:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I found the article quite interesting and informative. I tried to write a similar article on Cephalectomy (surgical removal of someone's head) but it got wiped due to lack of references. It is the actual term of course, but hey what can you do? It is good that Misplaced Pages can inform and be amusing sometimes. Dyinghappy (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Spectacular. Thanks for the heads up. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Michael Q. Schmidt at wrap party for Yesterday Was A Lie.jpg

I've started a discussion about Image:Michael Q. Schmidt at wrap party for Yesterday Was A Lie.jpg here. Please join in the discussion there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of the edit to The Gong Show

Please see my response here. Thank you. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for input

Since you were the one who added them, I thought you should be informed that a discussion is ongoing at Talk:Allegations of serfdom in Tibet about whether maintainance tags are still necessary. If you're still interested, your input on the changes that have been made -- splitting the article especially -- would be welcome. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

The prod statement was false. 300 users online at the same time is different to 300 users in total. I don't know if that influences your opinion or not, or the fact it had existed for over 4 years with dozens of contributors and had passed an AFD over 3 years earlier. Was deleted on a PROD that was based on false information, which you seemed to accept as fact. Dyinghappy (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

New editor help

Thank you for your help so far concerning The Rock and Roll Conservatory. I noticed that it's marked for deletion and that you saw it as a purely promotional article. If you're willing, I'd appreciate some help in making this article meet the standard guidelines. This article and another are my first attempts at this sort of thing and were experiments in learning the process. Not to encroach on your time, but if possible, I would appreciate some help with the references. I'm not quite sure how to include archived video news coverage in the references section. Could you point me to another page that has this type of reference?

Superhero77 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you frown upon composing articles based on one's personal knowledge of the subject is understandable. I was using subjects that I know well in an effort to begin learning the Misplaced Pages system and culture. It's quite overwhelming and the process of learning the code, the guidelines, the culture, and the format is difficult for those of us that wish to contribute. I hope you'll understand that although I used my personal knowledge of the Strange Occurrence and Rock and Roll Conservatory subjects to write articles, I did my best to compose them without bias. The composition of these articles were based on similar articles about similar subjects that somehow seemed to pass through the system even though these similar articles had either no references and/or carried much more commercial bias than those that I composed (The Paul Green School of Rock Music and Amber Pacific). Nonetheless, I understand how the bias is even present in me merely attempting to write those articles, let alone what they contained, so I won't debate your reasoning, although I feel it is solidly flawed. That said, my edit to the Scott Hunter article was factually based and added to the accuracy of the article and reflected no bias in the slightest. You reverting the article to a vague and non-accurate state seemed to be more of a vendetta. I'm not sure what I've done to offend you, but you've chosen to take action based on your flawed assumption that I was self-promoting (I am not Joe Wiles) instead of taking action in good faith and asking me about my stance or even improving the article (read WP:DP Alternatives to Deletion). Your bias against new users was made clear to me when you reverted my edits to the Scott Hunter article. I had made the article more accurate, more factually based, and instead of asking me why, you just went with your assumption. Please refrain from doing so again. Superhero77 (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you just want me off Misplaced Pages? I'll leave and never return again, if that's what you'd like. Cumulus, there are a whole ton of articles without references to specifics across Misplaced Pages. I can dig up evidence of the involvement of the members of Scott Hunter's last project if you'd like, but if you're going to hound me about them, revert them, and constantly be on my ass, then I'd rather not take part in the process. There are literally millions of articles on Misplaced Pages with no references to the specifics they claim to be authorities on. Since I don't see you reverting and editing those articles, I can only assume that you're aiming specifically at me and the edits that I make. Please prove me wrong. I'd love to find out that you're just a stickler for the cause and are, indeed, on a mission to clean up Misplaced Pages's millions of unreferenced claims. You know, as well as I do, that if every single claim, fact, or statement on any article had the necessity of being referenced to a secondary, unbiased, published work, then there would be very, very little information on Misplaced Pages. Get off my back, man. Superhero77 (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles Walker (checkers player)

Could you please take another look at this article? I have added a number of references and I think the article is in much better shape now. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WMA article

Hi this is just a work in progress. I am getting ready to add references. Please don't delete, or please help with it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadandsocks (talk • contribs) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Please help make Wiki more constructive, I'm not altering any articles, just adding info to it as I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadandsocks (talk • contribs) 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion of my contributions to The Gong Show

Please see my response here. Thank you. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi CC, Can you pin down exactly where MichaelQSchmidt has tried to "write into an article about a show appeared in"? I quite frankly don't see it. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)