Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:35, 8 September 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

William E. Reynolds

Thank you for moving the article I created on Coast Guard Commandant William E. Reynolds. I did not realize my error until you moved the page from William F. Reynolds. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I noticed it while searching for past tenants of this building. APK that's not my name 02:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

On raleigh religious buildings...

Why not just include only those on NRHP? It would give a clear criteria for adding them to the list, and would keep the number managable... --Jayron32 02:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Actually, a section covering all Raleigh NRHPs and NHLs would be a good idea. APK that's not my name 02:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Eastern BarnStar

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) APK that's not my name 23:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Surratt House

Hi, i came by to ask if you could take a pic and work together on a DYK for either of two recently featured NRHP listings:

• Mary E. Surratt Boarding House, Washington, DC, featured August 28, 2009, or for
• Dred and Ellen Yelverton House, Wayne County, North Carolina, featured September 4, 2009

And i see above mention of a Surratt house pic you took!

I am happy right now, having a different DYK with pic featured on front page right now, also a NPS featured listing, a collaboration with Lvklock and Jameslwoodward. For the weekly featured listing, the full NRHP docs are available on line, linked from here.

Assuming it is the same place, do u want to collaborate on a DYK article for the Surratt one? Let me know if you'd like to. You or i could open a sandbox page. doncram (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I'll start a sandbox on the Surratt House later this evening. The NPS site is down, so I can't see where the Yelverton House is located. (I'm curious since I grew up near Goldsboro.) APK that's not my name 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Indeed, meant to hit "undo" as I did with the other edits, it was just a slip of the mouse. - Schrandit (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. APK that's not my name 02:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

PCC revert

Just wanted to drop you a note regarding your excellent partial-revert on the PCC article. You did a really good job in keeping the best of the edits in question, while restoring the content that had been removed. Kudos to you, sir! — Kralizec! (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. :-) APK that's not my name 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect tip

I noticed you created Hubby Hubby as a redirect to Chubby Hubby (Ben & Jerry's flavor), with the edit summery "redirect". If you just want to say you redirected something, you don't even need to type an edit summery. Just leave the summery blank and (using Hubby Hubby as an example) an automatic edit summary will be added saying "Redirected page to Chubby Hubby (Ben & Jerry's flavor)"--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip. I wasn't aware of that. APK that's not my name 02:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

?

"good faith" you mean ignoring the source and not using it honestly and ignoring the clear precedent? What he is doing is clear vandalism. I think I am being as polite as I can be. JohnHistory (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory.

If you think labeling his edits as vandalism is a good idea, I suggest you read this. You've already violated 3RR, so it would be in your best interest to take a break from the article. APK that's not my name 08:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

regarding your comment

first of all, if you are going to address me in this manner, you should be using my talk page, not responding in a discussion page I may not have even seen it.

second, the comments I removed from the thread I felt were not necessary to the fluidity of the article. I was editing in good faith. If I was wrong to do this, I accept that and I'm eager to hear what is and is not acceptable to remove from a discussion. I urge you to review the threats that the other user put on my talk page. the user did not assume good faith, the user threatened me with a ban, and the user stated that he/she is not interested in a discussion.

I may have been vocal on the Van Jones discussion page but I am trying to stir up the debate on what should be included in the article amid a flood of WP:POV from the other side in the discussion page. namely ObserverNY. although I do feel ObserverNY edits to the article are mostly acceptable, unlike other user's overt POV edits. I feel strongly that JohnHistory posting "WE DID IT!!!!" when Van Jones resigned has no place on Misplaced Pages. also I noticed you scolded me for quoting ObserverNY talk page. well, he did the same thing to me in the Beck discussion page.

"Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue."

it seems these people want to play hardball on the discussion pages, yet can't take the heat when someone disagrees with them.

Reliefappearance (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This manner? It was a very civil reminder to not remove good faith comments made by other users (especially on a controversial article's talk page), and to not "stir up the debate" on the article talk page. It doesn't matter if he quoted you on another talk page. Starting an argument at Talk:Van Jones isn't going to solve anything; justifying it with "He did the same thing to me..." sounds juvenile and really isn't going to solve anything. If you have a problem with that user, then take it somewhere else, but not at Talk:Van Jones. Also, if you're going to accuse someone of being a POV hypocrite, then don't be surprised if that same person accuses you of having one as well (your comment at Talk:Glenn Beck asking about Beck's mental health; suggesting at Talk:Van Jones that there were racist motives for Jones being in the recent spotlight; calling Beck a right-wing lunatic at Talk:Van Jones, etc.). APK that's not my name 15:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, Although it was a good faith edit intended to stay on topic, I can see I was wrong to remove the text that I did remove regarding the other matter. I can see the standard is to only remove FORUM.

Second, if you are going to issue some sort of "warning" or scold me in some way I prefer you do it on my talk page. Chances are high I may not see a reply in a massive discussion page. Had I not seen it and continued to make good faith edits not knowing they were inappropriate, I could end up getting banned, and people would never believe my "story" despite it being true.

Third, Regarding ObserverNY and others spamming POV, look at it from my position. I am not arguing or debating with other users personal reasons. If I try to remove their WP:FORUM posts, I will get scolded. So my response is to reply to their POV with opposing POV specifically to expose their POV and avoid false consensus. I can comb the article removing WP:FORUM, but I'm sure I would scolded if not banned for doing so. I was not accusing anyone of being a POV hypocrite, I was accusing them of doing it and then tattling when someone else does it to them. My edits are virtuous and in good faith, as I said to avoid false consensus.

I can see you are some sort of Misplaced Pages expert/fanatic. That is fine with me, but you have to look at this in context. I am not forcing POV on the article itself, just striving for fairness on the discussion page.

Reliefappearance (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

taps mic (Hello? Is this thing on?) Read my first reply. I said it was a civil reminder. I knew you would see the message at Talk:Van Jones because you obviously were going to check for replies to your comment. You're admitting that you POV debate on article talk pages; stop while you're ahead. Lastly, this "fanatic" has looked at it from your perspective and is suggesting you drop it. APK that's not my name 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, now you are being just plain rude. And IMO you are not looking at this from my perspective nor are you doing a very good job explaining yourself. Also now I've noticed you have begun to troll my edits. I see where this is going. This will be my last edit to your talk page. Goodbye.

Reliefappearance (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Advising you to stop debating (which you now seem to have brought to my talk page; thanks) and pointing out your recent comments is not rude. In regards to the trolling accusation, I have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about. When you POV debate on article talk pages and make false accusations of someone being a "troll", don't expect others to give you much credibility. APK that's not my name 17:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

police officer wiki link

Why not remove it? Maybe I don't understand the standards for Wiki links. Should all possible Wiki links be made? Reliefappearance (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why this deserves a discussion, especially on my talk page instead of the article's talk page? (rhetorical) There's no reason to remove the link. APK that's not my name 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not put it in the discussion because I don't believe it is pertinent to the discussion on Van Jones. I'm asking politely for an explanation as to why we should not remove certain Wiki links, or not include as many as possible? You seem to have knowledge of this. Why are you responding combatively?

Reliefappearance (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think my reply was combative, then ObserverNY's replies must seem like Armageddon. There's no reason to remove that particular link; it's quite simple. G'day. APK that's not my name 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think what I'm asking is why? Why not just populate the article with every Wiki link possible? Is it basically OK to assume that since there is a Misplaced Pages article that Wiki links should be used whenever possible? I ask this because I have had Wiki links removed in the past.

Reliefappearance (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

APK that's not my name 17:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)