| Revision as of 15:38, 18 December 2008 editSeidenstud (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,762 edits →Civility: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:44, 18 December 2008 edit undoDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits removing some old conversations that serve no point to hanging aroundNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| Please add new comments below (you can use the handy dandy "new section" tab next to "edit this page" at the top of the screen). | Please add new comments below (you can use the handy dandy "new section" tab next to "edit this page" at the top of the screen). | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi DreamGuy - Just FYI: I saw your request for editor input on the external links talk page and responded at the article. -- ] 00:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for taking a look. ] (]) 17:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image:DeGuignes_Pekin_livres.jpg== | |||
| Aha -- thanks for your brief message. On the basis of your explanation, I now appreciate that my reasoning was mistaken in uploading this specific image. I don't know how to delete an image, but the bottom line is that your thoughtful attention to detail is at least appreciated in this case. | |||
| I am sorry to learn that I was wrong, of course: but there you have it. --] (]) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :May I trouble you further by asking how I go about deleting this wrongly uploaded image? --] (]) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Nice == | |||
| Very nice. I didn't like mine, but hoped it would get someone thinking, and I much appreciate your far better wording. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Cut and paste moves == | |||
| I find it best to assume good faith. I left the user the standard {{tl|c&pmove}} message about how to correctly move articles. If the user does it again and makes edits on the new copy then a history merge would be needed. See ] for more information on that. Regards. ] (]) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == SSP and CU reports concerning you == | |||
| Arcayne filed ] and ] reports on you this morning, and as he is obliged to do, he left notice here on your page. Since then, the leanings of the discussions there have moved towards the likelyhood that, instead of it being you at the IP in question, it was someone setting up both you and Arcayne, to get you in trouble using Arcayne as the unwitting tool. Arcayne then removed the notice here, as you are no longer really the target of the investigations. But still, you *are* effected, so I felt you deserved to be still informed that the discussions that effect you at least in part, are ongoing. - ] (]) 21:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the post. I did see Arcayne's edits here removing his earlier accusations when they turned out to be wrong. It's strange how he can get away with all sorts of harassing behavior and assuming of bad faith on a regular basis and I've got someone above telling me to apologize under threat of blocking or whatever if I don't for pointing out that several admins had identified a meatpuppet account. Yet the latest example of people not even pretending to follow rules impartially. ] (]) 21:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Golly, you were looking for an apology? Okay: I am sorry that I presumed that the uncivil behavior of an anon account was yours. Of course, you wold ''never'' edit anonymously or be uncivil. How could I have ''ever'' arrived at that conclusion? | |||
| ::Anyway, thanks for being gracious about the whole matter. - ] ] 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You keep talking about the supposed need for civility while being extremely uncivil in the process. It's been clear for ages that you aren't even trying, and feel like you don't need to try. | |||
| :::On top of that, you know that the message at the top of this page about harassing editors being banned applies to you, and that you have been given several final warnings about it. How you can continue to post here with ridiculously false accusations all the time and even pretend to be making any sort of good faith effort to resolve disputes is beyond me. Maybe one of these days it'll catch up to you and you'll get blocked for it. ] (]) 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| And now someone else has filed a ] report against you, with a couple of additional people piling on separate incident reports there. - ] (]) 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the heads up. The first complaint was a transparent attempt to mislead people (he accused me of coming out of nowhere, blind reverting, ignoring consensus, being uncivil, etc., when that was actually what ''he'' had done on the article in question) and the second was the same person as above on this talk page who had threatened to report me unless I apologized for calling a clear meatpuppet account a clear meatpuppet. | |||
| :Same old nonsense, different day. ] (]) 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd just like to point you towards my comment on that AE page. I agree that you are being jumped on rather heavily, but I think that it's equally important that you try to avoid commenting on contributors as much as possible - I'm sure you will agree that you have a tendency to be rather blunt at times. I'm not sure if you've ever read the essay ], but I've always found it to be a great help in preventing situations from becoming overly inflamed. | |||
| ::I hope that I am not unwelcome on your talk page, and that you will give consideration to the contents of the essay and how you may be able to use them in your editing. Thank you. ] (]) 19:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Don't call a spade a spade"? That's got to be the silliest thing I have ever heard. Sorry, but that's the exact opposite of what we should be doing. ] (]) 20:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Chimera == | |||
| I see the edit war has reemerged (after long dormancy) over the link to ] on the dab page for ]. I looked at the Pliny and Aeneid links in the former article that appear to support the claimed link. The only question that I have is whether the identification of the ancient site with modern Yanartaş is well-established. In any case, the ancient accounts referenced by the Yanartaş article are relevant and I'd be inclined to let it stand. ] ] 23:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I replied on your talk page, but I have to say that your comment here doesn't seem to relate to what the real controversy is on the page. Certainly we can say that a theory exists, and quote some sources. We cannot use a Misplaced Pages article (and especially the name of the article) to promote a theory, especially one that is a minor fringe view in modern mythology studies. ] (]) 21:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Final warning == | |||
| No, not you! The spammer, I issued a final warning, if they do it again, they will be blocked. cheers ] (]) 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Bigfoot Map == | |||
| While I think your edits to the Georgia Bigfoot incident are great—it was unnecessarily long—I believe your removal of ] was unjustified. Please see ] for my opinion. The map and caption could use improvements but it something should be there. —] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Disagree. There's so many reports, the vast majority of which are completely baseless and silly, that any map serves no encyclopedic purpose. ] (]) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reports in the map are no more baseless than any reports mentioned in article. The encyclopedic purpose is to show the distribution of Bigfoot sightings. If you have an objection to that then why not object to mentioning that Bigfoot is sighted mainly in the Pacific Northwest.—] <sup>] ]</sup> 03:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I included the map in a different spot with a better description of what it shows. Hopefully, this will reduce your concern about giving credence to Bigfoot sightings. Please either change the description of the map or the accompanying paragraph if you don't think it's clear, otherwise post something on the talk page instead of removing it. —] <sup>] ]</sup> 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your sometimes needless link removals == | |||
| "...no reason to link to youtube, also no reason to link to more than one page on same site" | |||
| Okay, but by removing links you put the onus upon 10s, 100s, 1000s, etc. of users to do all that work on their own. Again. By leaving links well enough alone, people 10s, 100s, 1000s, etc. of users may not waste as much of their (collective) time. <span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is not a web directory, and anyone can go to a website and then click on a link there to find forums/blog/etc. off the main page. If you want to argue that people are too lazy to do the extra click themselves and we should coddle them for it, please take those arguments to the talk page for ] and try to get the external links rules changed. Otherwise we have to follow them, and for good reason. ] (]) 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Scolarly sources on ]s == | |||
| I'd be interested to hear what you think are good scholarly sources on this, I reopened some discussion on the werewolf talk page but has been buried in new material etc. partly mine. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :OK Dreamguy, the stage is yours - please detail above why they shouldn't be merged and how they aren't synonymous. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == D&D articles for Misplaced Pages 0.7 == | |||
| Hi there! :) | |||
| As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Misplaced Pages DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the ] for more details. :) ] (]) 18:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == SpaceWestern SPAM? == | |||
| Hi DreamGuy, | |||
| (Disclosure: I'm Nathan Lilly, the editor at SpaceWesterns.com) | |||
| I noticed in my weblogs that wikipedia had stopped sending me traffic and came to find out why. | |||
| I agree that SpaceWesterns.com didn't belong on the Science Fiction Western page. Good call. | |||
| However, I don't see how mentioning a magazine devoted to Space Westerns on the Space Western page is "promotional advertising". I think it's a useful resource that adds value to the entry. I wouldn't add it back in myself, but I was hoping that you would. | |||
| Would you please add it back to the external links section? | |||
| cordially, | |||
| Nathan E. Lilly | |||
| ] (]) 19:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Wild boar == | |||
| Hello, DreamGuy! Just a head's up regarding the capitalization of mammal articles: this is a very heated debate and the only consensus reached at ] was to leave them as is. I don't want to risk a move war, so for a brief history check out ]. This page was originally at Wild Boar, then Wild boar, then Boar, then I restored the proper common name per MSW3 of wild boar and found it was originally capitalized, so that is where it sits. Ack! Just an FYI so you know why I reverted. (It also messes up the templates, and caps are consistent for the WP articles in this genus anyway.) Rgrds. --] (]) 13:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I had thought they cleared that controversy up a while back and that the capitalizers had finally accepted real world usage. It's too bad it's back to being "heated." ] (]) 17:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your recent edit summary at ]== | |||
| Good catch on the no longer working link, however the other comment sounds a bit confused. You can certainly "own" a name, they're ] all the time, such as . That's usually why you see the little tm signs by game and corporate names in plain text (such as press releases) as well. I work in the industry and deal with this issue all the time. --] (]) 17:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps you know games, but your understanding of trademark law is a little off. A trademark doesn't give ownership to a name, it just grants a semi-exclusive right to the name for certain uses in certain areas to sell certain products. Other companies can use the exact same name for other things in other areas. It's not the name that's owned. The wording in the article was confusing and not accurate about intellectual property law. Worse than that, it wasn't backed up by any ]. ] (]) 14:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == penrose references == | |||
| Hi Dreamguy, | |||
| I saw you edited some references on the penrose tiling page. I originally posted a link to a Berlin office using Penrose tiling as a generative grid for some 3D reliefs or ornament. I am not sure why you have deemed this entry less appropriate than the drop city artist one. That office recently showed at the Venice Biennale, has been widely published and seems to be using this geometry in an innovative way. There are numerous references to other designers/ artists in the links page. Perhaps you could advise, as a more experienced wikipedian, how you think it could be included on that page? There is also no mention of Olaffur Eliasson work on Penrose, who is a internationally known artist, perhaps the most significant artist to have used five-fold symmetries in his work. I also think the connection to some applications, specifically the benefits of penrose in certain application, should be included. Braun uses Penrose patterns for its shaving foils, claiming it's quasicrystalline order ensures cutting stubs growing in all directions. | |||
| Thanks | |||
| ] (]) 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I noticed you were having difficulty with ]. I fixed it for you. ] and his otters • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 22:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == More help? == | == More help? == | ||
| Line 155: | Line 41: | ||
| Greetings, DreamGuy. I've started a new discussion thread at ]. Feel free to join in. Note also that I modified your recent edit of the article with and . (If you reply here I will see what you say, but it might be better to have any further discussion take place on the article's talk page. Thanks.) <font face="cursive">— ]<small><sup> (])</sup></small></font> 18:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | Greetings, DreamGuy. I've started a new discussion thread at ]. Feel free to join in. Note also that I modified your recent edit of the article with and . (If you reply here I will see what you say, but it might be better to have any further discussion take place on the article's talk page. Thanks.) <font face="cursive">— ]<small><sup> (])</sup></small></font> 18:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Thought you should know == | |||
| If that is you posting after the closed deletion discussion as {{user|68.47.239.11}}, you might want to go back there and put your sig in place. I don't think you were intending to fly under the radar, but you are explicitly supposed to not edit under an anon IP. Not going to harp about it, but you should address the matter within the next few hours or so. - ] ] 05:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That's Wikimedia website, not Misplaced Pages. I don't even ''have'' an account there. I also don't have any ArbCom rulings there. And it's not like I'm trying to "fly under the radar" because even the totally clueless people wikistalking me, blind reverting edits I make for no reason other than that it was me making them and posting to my talk page after being explicitly told that they are not allowed to can figure it out. ] (]) 17:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay. I wasn't aware that the ArbCom stuff didn't pertain to other wiki-Projects, but since you say they don't, I won't argue the point. I also didn't suggest you have an account there, DG; hence the pointing out of the IP address with a post that resembled your writing style. Since you are also pointing out that the post wasn't from you (er, you are saying that, right?), there's no further reason to address the point. | |||
| ::On a side note, I understand that you feel put upon by a significant number of people, DG; I am sure I have been counted among that number in the past. However, I am endeavoring to give you the Assumption of Good Faith, in order to avoid a repeat of our past encounters. For whatever its worth, I think you might find your interactions with others somewhat more frictionless if you try to do the same. Suggesting people are "blind-reverting" and "wikistalking" is either a ] if you are right (wherein some other bright editor is going to come around and support your posts), or its an open door an uncivil row, (wherein everyone loses, but you have ''more'' to lose than others). | |||
| ::I have been quietly watching your edits, DG, and I find most of them to b e very good - opinionated, but good. I think if you gracefully allowed for people to either be wrong, or to allow for the possibility that others might have as much going on upstairs as you clearly do, you editing experiences would be tremendously improved. | |||
| ::But, as I said, its just advice, not an order from On High. Good editing. - ] ] 18:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Despite the multiple ]s, that might be your first claim to be operating in good faith that comes across as even slightly genuine-sounding instead of another attempt at making baseless threats... | |||
| :::...but how on earth could you come up with the idea that I was saying I didn't make the Wikimedia post in question? | |||
| :::Anyway, I judge people by their actions, not their history. If you aren't part of the blind reverting and wikistalking any more, all the more power to you, but there are at least two editors who quite clearly are still doing it and not even trying to hide it. I call a spade a spade, and don't care on iota if some mere essay somebody wrote says we shouldn't. There are lots of essays here that editors should ignore, and that's one of them.] (]) 18:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sorry, no back-handed compliment was intended or envisioned, DG. About the anon posting at Wikimedia, are you saying it was you, or wasn't? I guess I am confused a little by your response. | |||
| :: Lastly, no one is demanding that you follow an essay; I only note it because it seems uncommonly wise for use in normal situations. :) If you feel folk are stalking you or demonstrating bad faith, head to WQA or AN/I and report them. This addresses a top-down approach again, and saves you time and en energy. All you are doing is generating Diffs by which people can report ''you'' for violating your ArbCom civility parole; and we both know how tedious and frustrating that can be. By focusing your grievance in one forum, your point is made without dilution, and resolved in much the same way. Just my opinion. - ] ] 19:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::People can always report me for whatever bogus reasons they want, just like the last umpteen zillion times. The good thing is that all of those reports have failed quite dramatically, because others can see that the people complaining have nothing to legitimate to complain about. And, no offense, but you're about the last person on this site to try to give advice on civility. ] (]) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Annie Chapman== | |||
| Hi, Please do not refer to me as "ignorant" or accuse me of acting in bad faith. I regard such comments as incivil. Please read this comment from the copyright document you keep referring to: "The owner of '''a copy of a posthumous work''', as distinguished from the owner of the original of the work, is vested with no such right, where the copy was transmitted without intent of transmitting such right". The copyright to the image belongs to the original photographer in 1869, and not to the Chapman family who merely own a '''copy''' of that image. Thanks. ] (]) 07:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You can't complain about being called ignorant while at the same time seemingly actively choosing to remain so. Ignorant is a lack of information. Even smart people can be ignorant sometimes. It's not an insult. It's not like I said you were an idiot or anything. You are probably capable of being more informed, you just go out of your way to avoid anything that might contradict whatever you want to believe. | |||
| :As far as your argument, which is quite simply entirely ignorant of how the law works, there are several problems with it. First, back then copyrights had to be explicitly filed in order to exist. The photographer did not file for a copyright. The copyright comes from publication, and first publication was by Neal Shelden on behalf of the family. They own the copyright. Second, if copyrights did exist back then the moment something was made without any paper work toward that end, the photograph likely would qualify as a work for hire, as it was specifically taken for Annie Chapman and her husband, in which case the family would still own the copyright. This is the family in question, ownership of copyright would obviously transfer through the family with the original. They don't merely own a "copy" of the image, they own THE image. We aren't talking about some archive holding onto a newspaper that had lots of copies printed and trying to claim copyright by virtue of owning that one copy out of many, they own the original sole copy as well as all copies made of that original. On top of that, for all you know, the photographer could have been a member of the Chapman family and thus had the copyright every which way no matter which way you want to play. | |||
| :And, on top of that, even if they didn't own the copyright of the original, the photo enhancement they did was extensive enough that it grants a new copyright, and *that's* the version you uploaded without permission. | |||
| :The bottom line here is the only way your argument would work is if one particularly convoluted legal interpretation which goes against what multiple different clauses of the copyright law says is valid. There are at least three different reasons why you can't use that image here, and any ONE of those is enough to make it a copyright violation. The presumption on such images is that you cannot use them unless you prove you have the legal right, especially when there is someone already claiming a legal right. You have not proven anything, you just keep claiming you are right and twist the words of any phrase you look at to try to justify it. You need to prove it 100% or it can't be used, not the other way around. And, certainly, the family has already proven ownership as far as the real world is concerned. ] (]) 17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, DG; you've been here for a long time. Do you know where the best place for addressing this question might be (like Wikimedia Foundation, etc.) ? I think a top-down approach might be better than the ]-style activity in which you might think you currently find yourself currently. Your thoughts on the pros and cons of this are welcome. - ] ] 18:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just keep hoping that when people have things spelled out to them in very clear terms that they'll either be smart enough to follow, honest enough to admit they were wrong, and moral enough to do the right thing. Obviously that method doesn't work with some people, but other editors do sometimes come in and get it sorted out, and they need the info there in the first place so they can act on it. | |||
| :::As far as getting it resolved completely, we just need enough informed people to overrule the bad decision before. If that's unlikely, maybe I have to contact the family and walk them step by step through the process of jumping through a bunch of pointless hoops that they shouldn't have to jump through just because some stubborn people here are risking Wikimedia's good faith legal efforts and good name with their little games. ] (]) 18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Why not pursue both options, DG? As you can clearly see, the issue isn't really getting resolved quickly this way, and by acting on the ticket for the family, you ensure that the matter doesn't recur. - ] ] 19:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think I can fill out a ticket ''for'' the family, I think I'd have to have Neal or the family do it themselves, which would be a colossal pain for them. Someone steals from them and they have to fill out some forms on some website they never joined or did anything with to prevent the theft from continuing? That's pretty lousy. And, hell, nothing stops the people from stealing other photos from the family or even reuploading the exact same one if someone wants to violate the law again. It's a neve nding cycle. The onus shouldn't be on the owners to force us to do what the law requires, we should do what the law requires from the beginning. ] (]) 21:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :DG: I have every sympathy with the family wishing to retain 'ownership' of what they may consider a very personal photograph. As you've seen from the discussion, the 'presumption' with such an old photograph is that it is 'out of copyright'. If there is an argument otherwise, then it ''must'' be up to the family (and their author) to assert their rights in the matter. The tickets system provides them with input into the process with confidential and independent verification. While I accept that you may have a 'good faith' presumption about the subject, it's just that. Please, let's just keep things civil and try to sort it out. Cheers ] (]) 23:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, that's not the presumption legally, that's the presumption of a couple of people off the street with no known background in copyright matters who decided to chime in on this instance. The presumption on Misplaced Pages, and Wikimedia, is that we cannot use something unless we prove we can. Claiming that it '''must''' be up to the owners to prove to the satisfaction of a couple of nimrods on Misplaced Pages with no knowledge about copyright laws that they have ownership of something that the rest of the world already acknowledges is, frankly, bizarre. Any claims Wikimedia might have to be working in a good faith manner in this case goes out the window when the ownership question is brought up, documented and ignored with quite hostile language. That's reckless disregard for the law. And please stop trying to give lectures all the time; it really only works if you make some effort to know what you are talking about. ] (]) 02:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''The rules for unpublished material are more complicated, and are as follows: | |||
| * Copyright expires 70 years after the creation of any unpublished photograph taken before 1 June 1957'' | |||
| That's the UK law, essentially you are right that there is a new copyright of first publication - in Europe - but it doesn't apply to anything that was 'out of copyright' before first publication. How that applies to wikicommons, we shall see ... ] (]) 10:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You claim: ''"but it doesn't apply to anything that was 'out of copyright' before first publication"'' -- The link you sent provided above does not say that, and if you'd bothered to look at the info I *already* gave you you'd know that was wrong. As the first line of ] says: "The publication right is a copyright granted to the publisher who first publishes a previously unpublished work after that work's original copyright has expired." Think about it, if it didn't give a new copyright then it would be completely pointless as a law, as it would grant nothing other than what already existed. Don't you even think things through before you post? ] (]) 14:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hm, 'lecturing' how does that compare to your 'hectoring' - how is that working for you? Maybe 'lecturing' is evidential based 'hectoring'? Hopefully the Commons admin in the debate will be able to make a determination and do something about it. Take care. ] (]) 12:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Except you don't have evidence for your "lecturing" and you ignore the evidence given to you. You'd save time if you just accepted that you don't know what you are talking about and admitted that in these situations that I do know what I am talking about or else I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. That's what makes me different from most editors here. ] (]) 14:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Civility == | |||
| How sure you are that you are on the correct side of a dispute '''does not''' give you permission to act without ]. However, and , you have done exactly that. The Civility policy is not designed for easy conflict-free times; it is not needed during them. It is designed for times like this, and must be adhered to. Continuing to break this policy will make it harder for you to have your points taken seriously, thus delaying the process, and may lead to other consequences. -] (]) 15:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:44, 18 December 2008
I periodically go through and clean out the old comments... This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current. Those looking for archives are invited to refer to the history.
If you have a demonstrated history of personal harassment on these pages, your posts are not welcome here. (This includes certain admins who seem more interested in breaking policies than enforcing them.) You should know who you are. If you do post, your comments will be removed, most likely unread. If there's any chance that you might not know that your behavior is considered harassment, I will tell you, and from that point on you will not be allowed to post here. To anyone who doesn't know what I am referring to here, this warning does not apply to you, so by all means leave a message.
Please add new comments below (you can use the handy dandy "new section" tab next to "edit this page" at the top of the screen).
More help?
Once again, I call upon your services as a hardcore rationality warrior. Joan Marie Whelan is full of... shall we say, unsubstantiated claims. Care to take a look? DS (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to fix a little, but it needed more than what I could really do... but I did see that it was a recreation of an article deleted in October for being spamvertising of someone who fails WP:BIO and has no reliable sources for notability, so I tagged as a speedy delete. DreamGuy (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
On The Right Track
Misplaced Pages has been littered with a lot of egotistical, trivial junk in the chess variants area that is generally not realized to be junk by outsiders to our hobby.
Although I like Christian Freeling, he is just an inventor of a couple of known games but not a notable person who has accomplished great things of encyclopediac importance. So, the deletion you proposed recently was an appropriate, measured response. Besides, this was just a stub that hardly any editors had worked on.
What you may not yet realize is that a full article exists that several editors have worked on for Ed Trice. Unfortunately, he is no more notable than Christian Freeling. In my objective, informed opinion, he is just an unethical egomaniac who has worked very hard at misleading a number of well-intentioned editors into believing that he is a giant in the chess variant community. Take a few moments to check-out the disruptive, fictitious edit history of this page and it will verify my assertion. Perhaps, you should also propose its deletion?
--BenWillard —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC).
- Well, the claim that he assisted in solving checkers was overstated in my opinion -- as no news article mentioned him, and the person who did solve it listed him as one of many, many people who provided some help, with his name being only among the database people and not noteworthy over all those other people -- and so I removed it. Otherwise I'm not really in a position to know whether the claims to notability are accurate or not. I'm not familiar with the chess sources quoted, how he compares to other chess players, and so forth. Some of the article does sound pretty trivial and thus not encyclopedic, but I don't have the background knowledge to know for sure. I sympathize with you in that the situation you describe is something I see in many articles, and could very well be the case here, but I'm not the best person to help you out in sorting it out. DreamGuy (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Final Destination Pages
Thank you for cleaning these pages up. I've been trying to do so over the last few months and it's extremely difficult to do so when you're the only one that seems to be doing it and every edit gets questioned. Hopefully having a second opinion from a well-established user cleaning it up will help keep the fans at bay. Thanks again! --13 18:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, if you wouldn't mind it'd be cool if you could take a look at Final Destination 2 and Final Destination (series). They don't get hit as much as the first and third films, but they could both use some cleanup. Thanks! --13 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
vampire too
Grand chess references
I observe that you're not satisfied with the references we have for Grand chess, and you seem to feel these references are not notable enough. These are basically all of the references out there for Grand chess, and if they're not good enough, it's time to delete the article.
Whether something is notable or not notable enough for the Misplaced Pages is a very subjective judgment and one that results in countless arguments. I feel that the references we have for Grand chess and the information and size of the article makes a nice little overview of one of the most popular chess variants out there. If this isn't notable enough for the Wiki, we're going to have to remove a lot of articles about chess variants here.
On a related subject, I feel that the Gothic chess article is probably too long, and that the Ed Trice article should be deleted (Mr. Trice is simply not notable enough to merit a Misplaced Pages article). Just to clarify (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
27 Club
Greetings, DreamGuy. I've started a new discussion thread at Talk:27 Club#Musicians who died at 26 or 28. Feel free to join in. Note also that I modified your recent edit of the article with this edit and this one. (If you reply here I will see what you say, but it might be better to have any further discussion take place on the article's talk page. Thanks.) — Mudwater 18:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)