Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:15, 3 January 2009

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 This is because they refer to old situations or that the discussions are otherwise no longer current.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

• i had my doubts too Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Annie Chapman

Hi DG, I would like to take the opportunity to apologise to you over the recent Annie Chapman image dispute. I was acting in good faith and genuinely thought the image was copyright expired. I was wrong and you were right. I hope you will accept my apology in the spirit in which it is offered. Jack1956 (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I appreciate the apology. I do hope that you will not try (or support anyone who tries) to upload it and put a "fair use" tag on it, as it clearly does not qualify for that either. Apparently some of the editors who expressed n early opinion and turned out to be proven wrong were upset about it and seem to want to find some excuse to have it up anyway. That would be an example of bad faith, unlike your earlier mistaken idea about its legal status. DreamGuy (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point and I would not support any attempt to reupload the image. As I said, it was a genuine mistake on my part made in good faith and I would oppose any bad faith attempts to reinstate it. Jack1956 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

List of serial killers by country expand list tag

Hello DreamGuy, I noticed the removal of the expand list tag from List of serial killers by country and wanted to drop you a note. I disagree with its removal. The tag is a good faith way of asking readers to help expand it, just like stub templates. It is the subject matter that invites persistent unconstructive edits and vandalism, not the expand list tag. Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 00:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the tag is almost completely pointless anywhere, but it's actively damaging on any list which is already quite substantial. If we only had ten people listed there, sure, then we could maybe especially invite anyone who doesn't already know they can edit to edit. That would be a good comparison to a stub page. This article clearly has no reason to have that tag at the top. DreamGuy (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I won't reinstate the tag. I appreciate you help with maintaining that list. Regards, momoricks (make my day) 01:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Atheophobia listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atheophobia. Since you had some involvement with the Atheophobia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cunard (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dorkins

I think you should strike out your last comment about hoping he finds another reason, etc. Not only has he voted to delete the redirect, his edit contribution shows he isn't a SPA. AGF, remember? Thanks. Have a good holiday season. 19:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

All of his edits up until yesterday, save one minor edit about some hip ailment, have been to use Misplaced Pages to try to advance the term "atheophobia". Check his history if you don't believe me. He also created the Wiktionary article on atheophobia, and he created User:Dorkins/atheophobia as his third edit, after announcing his arrival here on a newly created user page. That's certainly about as clear of a SPA as someone can have. If he has finally moved on to other contributions, good for him, but that doesn't suddenly erase a very solid set of edits with a clear agenda. DreamGuy (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Myth Hypothesis

After a period of long stagnation the Jesus Myth Hypothesis page is moving forward again but trying to get the Fischer quote in is proving to be a pain. Comments at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#When is a peer-reviewed Journal not considered reliable? are welcome.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Li source discussion

Just posting this here, since it doesn't look like you always check the reliable sources noticeboard when you get on. Apologies if posting this here as well comes off as annoying, its not intended. Actually, since I posted my previous response, I had found a reliable source that states point blank these are not consoles here, The Mobile Revolution by Dr. Dan Steinbock, also a PHD and in the field of academia, but a well published author - 19 books to his credit according to Amazon and 4 in regards to portable devices. I went ahead and spent 6+ hours digging up resources for material and citations on the page. Kept the Li reference for the main console definition per your advice, and used the high score book's exact definition of handheld electronic games in the Origins section. (also per your advice of working in multiple references). If you can, take a look at Handheld game console and let me know what you think (preferably on that articles talk page). It only the article intro and the Origins section, I haven't touched the rest of the article yet (since it was these sections that all this was in regards to). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the article now, but it's all a bit much to digest at once. I'll have to come back and taken another look later and see if I follow it any better. DreamGuy (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As stated, the only sections related to all this are the intro and the Origins section. You can see the state before the rewrite here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn

I replied at AN/I, and have deleted the withdrawn nom. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm currently trying to figure out how to report 152 links to a sit that it is primarily copyright violations. I'm not sure when I'll get that article relisted, but it's coming. (Oh, heck, and that reminds me, I had another article speedy deleted as a copyright violation and told the admin I'd recreate it as new with a total rewrite, but forgot to check on its status because I never got a message here about it... looks like I have a busy day ahead.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

review your comment?

your comment here Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Black_Alchemist is a bit confusing,because you've conflated two names. You may wish to adjust that. ThuranX (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. DreamGuy (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles C. Beaman

Hey, DG, when you get a chance look at the most recent post from Juzhong over at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles C. Beaman. Is it persuasive? Unschool 03:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Persuasive? Not even close. In fact if that's all that person can come up with it basically proves the person is horribly nonnotable by Misplaced Pages standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Georgina Bruni

the source provided says no such thing from my searches for "Bruni" on the page in question... her book is cited, but nothing about working together'

Actually it's right there on the page, you didn't look down far enough. Your search is either defective or you didn't actually do it Artw (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, no need to insinuate that I didn't do it. That's a violation of WP:CIVIL and close to violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And I just did it again, and I still don't see anything of the sort. If you want to put it back, quote the EXACT line that proves it, because we can't just take your word that it's in there when I've looked at it and can't find it. DreamGuy (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

30 Jan 2001 : Column WA49

Rendlesham Forest/RAF Bentwaters Incident

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will detail the underground facilities at the former RAF Bentwaters installation; and what is the purpose of these facilities.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): There are no underground facilities at the former RAF Bentwaters.

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are aware of any involvement in the 1980 Rendlesham Forest incident by either Ministry of Defence Police or personnel from the Suffolk Constabulary.[HL321)

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Minister of Defence is not aware of any involvement by the Ministry of Defence Police in the alleged incident. The Ministry of Defence's knowledge of involvement by the Suffolk Police is limited to a letter dated 28 July 1999 from the Suffolk Constabulary to Georgina Bruni that is contained in the recent book.

Lord Hill-Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are aware of any investigation of the 1980 Rendlesham Forest incident carried out by the United States Air force, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations or any other United States agency.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Ministry of Defence's knowledge of an investigation by the US authorities into the alleged incident in Rendlesham Forest in 1980 is limited to the information contained in the memorandum sent by Lt Col Halt USAF, Deputy Base Commander at RAF Woodbridge, to the RAF Liaison Officer at RAF Bentwaters on 13 January 1981.

My apologies if you searched, but I see no way you could have and not found that. Feel free to tweak the citation if you feel you can make it clearer waht the relevant portion of the page is.

Actually, as a minor technicality, it's not clear from this that he's attempting to get documents relesed, so I have tweaked the text accordingly. Artw (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a "minor technicality," that was the entire claim in the article that you so insisted that this document supported, when it CLEARLY doesn't. So your "no way you could have and not found that" is ridiculous because there was nothing to find. DreamGuy (talk)

Oh, and WP:UNCIVIL back to you oo - your attitude on alk pages and edit summaries laely has been appauling. Artw (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So you just were forced to admit that you point was wrong, and your rude accusations made in bad faith were obviously wrong, and you are trying to pass your mistake off as a "minor technicality" to save face while still being condescending to me... and you claim *I* was uncivil?? Instead of being rude about it on top of it, you should be apologizing for your appalling behavior. If you are unwilling to do that, do not ever both to post to my talk page again, per the instructions at the top of this page. DreamGuy (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually rereading your edit comment (which, to make maetters worse, I quoted above) I see that you were not claiming you couldn't find anything at all, just that it didn't completely substantiate the claim. Apologies on that. Obviously things are getting a little over-heated. Artw (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility Warning

I would like to caution you against accusing others (presumably me) of stalking you, as you did here. In point of fact, you have made exactly three edits to the article, the earliest of which was on October 6th of 2008. My contributions precede yours by over six months, as noted by this edit, dated April 4th. Were I to assume the same level of bad faith as you, I would assume that you had been stalking me.
This is the third time I've warned you of civility issues in less than two weeks. I am unsure how to proceed. Do I report you to ArbCom Enforcement, AN/I or is offering you a final warning here going to have the necessary effect of nudging you into offering better faith to not just me but (as evidenced by the other complaints presented in your talk page over the last month or so)? I am genuinely asking you this, DreamGuy. I really don't want to see you banned, as I think your net benefit to the Project currently outweighs the liabilities that your often difficult behavior represents. That said, you seem either unable or unwilling to offer any of your fellow editors in the wiki-en anything approaching civility. I will await a response until the end of the day, and then proceed as if you were unwilling to self-police. - Arcayne () 17:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)