Misplaced Pages

Your critical comments requested

Hi Black Kite. I remember that at one stage you were acting as an advocate for users who felt they'd been unfairly blocked. I wonder whether you'd mind having a look here and letting me know what you think about it, and how the process might be improved. Tony (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-free content

I read that section and read the consensus debate over use of characters in list images off that talk page. The consensus is that if there is a group shot, then it should be preferred. There is no group shot of the Ugly Kids. Second, is the character a main character? In that one episode, they were. But to compromise with you, I have added only one of the four kids abck into the article, and the one that had the largest role in the episode.--2008Olympian 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk on the NFC talk page about NFC on list articles that states that a character does not have to be notable enough to have its own article to get a picture in the list article. And there is no arbitrary limit of only one photo per article, as you would enforce by replacing the one that is there with Jamal. I am not, however, deaf to the policy about using too much non-free content. I had photos of all five Ugly Kids in the article and pared it to only one. I honestly do not think that a textual description of these characters adequately portrays well enough exactly how these characters look, so I provided just one example to let the reader see just how different the appearances of these characters are. These guys are uniquely in the entire series in how they are drawn, and with their physical characteristics being the entirety of their existence, a photo is necessary. It's like having an article about The Elephant Man that doesn't show what he looks like. For a reader who has never seen this episode, that reader will naturally wonder what these kids looked like and want to see a picture.--2008Olympian 22:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hey Black Kite, I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm confused about something.

There's an article that was recently created called Elan morrison. This article is clearly misleading and disruptive - the individual is not a ghost writer. But I wonder, should it be tagged G3 (pure vandalism), A7 (non-notable individual), A1 (no content), or even be speedied in the first place? I'd tag it, but I'm not confident in what to tag it with. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see, thank you. :) I figured the individual wasn't notable, however notability seemed to be asserted (though it was obviously not true, plus it was likely a coi), so I was wary of tagging it for speedy deletion. But thank you for your assistance. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Received your message shortly after posting this, again thank you. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF AFD

It was a serious AFD you know, can you re-open it?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Townson

I found a bio of a music producer in an article on Robert Tounson (a bishop) and forked it off. Some one has deleted what I did out of hand and without warning. Is this not rather high-handed? I have no knowledge of the music producer or the merits of that article, but it did contain several wikilinks. It was accordingly not patent rubbish. Please explain, and tell me what I should do differnetly next time I find something like this? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The List (South Park). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 2008Olympian 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)