Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:29, 17 September 2009

Rainier Club

I replied on my talk page. The short of it: yes, it is on the National Register, but the Register lists it as being of "state significance", not "national significance". I know that's confusing; my reply on my talk page gives a couple of relevant links that should make it clearer. - Jmabel | Talk 16:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant&action=history

I don't know where or how to start a "talk" on Oscar Grant page as you apparently suggested, but you rudely removed a valuable link I added regarding the Justice for Oscar Grant Movement. In what sort of way do you "own" this issue? Why would I need your permission to add a link? In what way are you an "expert" on the facts of the case and the demonstrations? The www.indybay.org/oscargrant page linked to includes more information on the case than any other single source on the murder and the following related events, definitely more so than wiki here. It is probably THE definitive archive on the subject. There is a ton of original material found no where else on the web, such as the actual court transcripts from Mehserle's preliminary hearing, unedited audio from related BART meetings, a tribute video by Oscar Grant's family, and much much more. It is rather problematic that you would assume only corporate reports have value when I could go through a good number of the corporate "news" links here and point out factual and contextual issue after issue with their reporting. (Also, the SF Chron page linked to hasn't even been updated since March. Yikes.)

I would greatly appreciate you undoing your deletion of that link. I actually intend to include more links to specific indybay.org posts relevant to certain passages in the wiki Oscar Grant piece as time allows. The first link is just to the Oscar Grant overview page but more specificity can be added to the wiki page over time.

• To see an article talk page click on the "discussion tab at the top of the article page. I have copied this over there as well.
• I removed the link per Misplaced Pages:External links not to be rude or because I think only corporations have the right to present news.
• Indybay is s biased coverage of the event and does not meet standards. You can ask about it here if you plan on using it as a source. Even if consensus says it is OK for a particular inline citation, we can not use it as an external link. The first thing the reader sees when clicking on it is "Justice for Oscar Grant" and that Grant was "murdered". This is coverage that can not be trusted due to its bias and we do not need to facilitate leading the reader to a conclusion in that way. There is still a criminal preceding to see if it was murder and to determine what sort of justice is required.
• I'm not an expert. I am someone editing a Misplaced Pages article. Don't be so snide and try to assume good faith or at least follow the civility guidelines.
• If you can stay neutral, take a look at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and start contributing.Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherds

Thanks for the help in this section. I'm not anti Sea-Shepherds but the more POV pushing that keeps coming from some of the people defending them really seems to be ruining the article. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Again, great job with the Seal hunt section. Very NPOV. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We were editing at the same time. I may have accidentally edited over a change you made. Will you plase check your last edit to make sure it still exists? My appologies. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll stick around to help with that cleanup stuff. I need to learn about proper refs anyways. :) This is fun now that the revert wars have stopped. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears the pendulum is swinging back to the pro-Shepherds side again. All eary history has been removed. The article has become whitewashed. Help! --70.55.234.108 (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherds Racism edit

Hi! Just wanted to point out- I'm not lobbying for the inclusion of something about possible racism on the part of the Sea Shepherds as much as I am attempting to defend an argument made by the original poster to that thread that I fell has merit, but that was dismissed out of hand by someone else. And as far as the edit you responded to, I pretty much had to respond to the previous user's claim that since they have been seen eating sushi the Sea Shepherds aren't racist! That kind of ignorance cannot go unchecked, as it is thinking like that which is the source of much of the trouble we have with race in society today. Thanks, SpudHawg948 (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag at the bottom of SSCS

Hey, I added that tag at the bottom category section to demonstrate that there was a disagreement over the categories. It may be the wrong tag. If you find a more appropriate one for that section, please add it. I would like there to be a tag just until we all figure something out with that section. Thanks. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Whale Wars Edit Warn ing

Hi, Cptnono - I appreciate that you're watching the "Whale Wars" edit page, but if you're going to issue warnings, I'd appreciate it if you warn the correct person. If you look at my edit, you'll see that I made two changes; I corrected the spelling of Pedro Monteiro's last name and the spelling of Peter Hammarstedt's last name in the adjacent text box. I think you were looking at the next edit; the anonymous "pothead" and "loser" edit. SuperHamster correctly identified it as vandalism to my edit and reverted it. It was a very friendly warning, but an acknowledgement that it was unwarranted would be nice. Candideyam (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads up for anyone reading my talk page - That was completely my mistake!Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please fix formatting of comments in Talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

There's a bunch of wiki markup in the section headings of your comments near the end. I don't like touching others' comments without their permission, but if I don't hear from you in a few days I will correct this myself. Thanks — Mike :  tlk  19:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are Wdl1961's.Cptnono (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Somehow it looked like your signature was at the end of that jumbled mess. Sorry! — Mike :  tlk  22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

POV admin discussion

I believe you were requesting a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society Peace and happy editing. :0) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute for Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Hi-- I have posted a blurb on the NPOV noticeboard here regarding the article categorization. Could you please make sure that I have represented your viewpoint correctly? Thanks. MichaelLNorth (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you didn't mean anything malicious, but please don't edit my comments . No need to go back and change it, and no harm done, I just am very particular about it in general. Thanks. MichaelLNorth (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Just for the purposes of making a point, hypothetically, would you object to me categorizing Glenn Beck in the Conspiracy Theories category? He debunked the "FEMA concentration camps" conspiracy theory, and thus is involved in the issue. If this is a BLP violation, why? MichaelLNorth (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for playing my game, I appreciate your time. I am trying to understand your rationale, and separating the "is a category a label" issue from the topic of "is SSCS a terrorist organization" (it seems that this is the question people think I'm asking sometimes) helps. It seems like you would consider applying a category the case of Beck as more than simply applying an organizational tool (like adding an article to a wikiproject). Would you say that this is accurate? What with the necessity of having an appropriate number of sources, and the category having an appropriate amount of pertinence to the topic of the article, it seems that there is some importance on it being an accurate descriptor of the topic, backed up a substantial amount of fact. The thing is, this is not the way categories are supposed to (read: should) work. Pejorative labels like "war criminals", "terrorists", "conspiracy theorists", "stupid people", should either be disallowed or have very specific criterion necessary to use. I'll let this issue percolate while we wait for some more responses on the NPOV notice board. MichaelLNorth (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is an interesting merge discussion going on at Talk:Cupcake. You might want to poke your head in on it. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merges for Food and Drink

Based on your recent participation in several Food and Drink related merge discussion, I would like to point out several open discussions that might interest you:

• Proposed merge of Jumbals to Jumble (cookie). Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Kerala porotta and Malabari paratha. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Maple spice cake to Spice cake. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Patty melt to Cheeseburger. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Butterfly cake to Cupcake. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Majboos and Kabsa. Discuss here.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Zitwer

Barbara Zitwer -I see you removed the notabilty tag from here, and I've comment about that on the articles talk page, have you read the general notability guidline? This gives a requirement for multiple sources which cover the subject directly in detail. It doesn't call for 100's of trivial references. As you removed the tag perhaps you can pick out the references which are covering the subject directly in detail. I'm actually going to disengage now as to date my involvement in trying to get the user in question to understand the idea of what is required to demonstrate notability, seems to be not going anywhere. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC) : If I didn't think she met the requirement, I'd have nominated it for deletion. The notability tag is the correct one to use where the article doesn't demonstrate the notability properly, as the template says: "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic.". i.e. please fix this by adding the things it lacks. Again since you removed the tag presumably you believe it meets that requirement, can you please let me know which of the numerous references do that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A request

Hi there. First, I inserted some additional links to the bottom of the Talk Page, some of them are for you. There's no one but you who can do with them something. Second, as a leading expert in military affairs, I have a request - there's an unresolved discussion, "Hamas response to rocket attacks", between Cryptonio and myself. Not the most important issue, but if you'll spare couple of minutes - that would be nice. In a nutshell - he inserted Hamas response to rocket attacks criticism in a controversial place. The question is whether to leave it or move to another section. Thanks. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice the source about termination of the Iranian unit of Hamas? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice the reply on my talk page (because sometimes the notification doesn't pop up).

Couldn't understand what is the disputed edit in Al-Fakhura school article. Wanna take it to the talk page? --Sceptic from Ashdod 11:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a line about Iranian unit can be compacted along with 'Several high-ranking Hamas commanders were killed...' etc. I'm sure more of similar info can be found in ITIC bulletins, but it will give an undue weight to the whole thing. Maybe later I'll have a look for additional info. As for Naval stuff, I'm really quite ignorant here and don't recall other publications on the topic. Maybe in future, when we have time and desire to construct serious section on weaponry used in the conflict, we'll make serious effort to find out more. --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC) One more thing. Take a look, if you missed this testimony. --Sceptic from Ashdod 09:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC) And this is how it was reported in KUNA. --Sceptic from Ashdod 10:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Started new section, I think you'll like it. Anyway, your opinion would be appreciated. --Sceptic from Ashdod 19:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your repeated removal of vandalism on the Sounders FC page and for regularly keeping the riffraff under control when they try to act up on the page. SkotyWA|Contribs 06:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok

Ok, i will. By the way, i read it partially and i noticed someone requested for japanese sources. I know a bit of japanese (very basic, but i can read well) and i may be able to obtain them.

I found this one already: Http://www.j-cast.com/2008/01/16015654.html

-187.21.252.221 (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Thanks!

..for the barnstar. I blame Family Guy. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Corey Mesler

Hi, I've removed a PROD notice you added to this article and thought you'd like to know. If you PROD articles in the future can you make sure you say that you are in the edit summary? You probably just forgot but I'm not 100% sure. Thanks Smartse (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jay Jennings

Jay Jennings Image/Summary

Can you be more specific and detailed regarding your comment left on the other page? I'm not too familiar with it. What exactly has to be done, added, and where? Timemachine1967 (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Jay Jennings/Vogue Theatre Correction Made

Under Career/Films, you mistakenly internally-linked The Vogue Theatre to Misplaced Pages's article on The Vogue Theatre in Vancouer. Loanshark premiered at The Vogue Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard (which is obviously a different theatre with the same name), which is what the "L.A. Times Best Bet" section is referring to in it's headline. It's important to mention Hollywood Boulevard in the sentence because there are alot of old, famous theatres on the boulevard, including The Vogue, therefore that connection has to be made. So, I corrected that little section to reflect that. Timemachine1967 (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Jay Jennings Deletion Made No Sense

The consensus was to keep, but the article was deleted anyways? What a farce! There is no legitimacy here, as elitist administrators have the last word. Truly pathetic. Thanks for your help nonetheless. Timemachine1967 (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your userfied article is at User:Cptnono/Jay Jennings. Please let me know when you have some specific sources to review. Spartaz 05:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All this back and forth bickering with administrators is pointless and counterproductive. In my view, if Mr. Jennings' article couldn't be accepted as is with his films and author info intact, then it's pointless to continue trying to get it accepted in some alternate form that's missing bits and pieces from its original article. If only the author stuff is included, then omitting his film work is unfair, and visa versa. As I said, this is my opinion. At this point, it's probably best to just delete the article from your talk section, userfield, and from Misplaced Pages. Perhaps myself or maybe another fan will give it a go another time (maybe sometime next year). Once again, thanks for your help. Timemachine1967 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jennings Newspaper Articles/Interviews Have Been E-mailed To You

This should help. Timemachine1967 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor editing, slight grammatical corrections, and clarifications made to article on your user page. I like what you've done with it so far. Timemachine1967 (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing the article

I'm sorry but whats there sint helpful for you because i can't access the sources or the source xdoesnt appear reliable or the depth of coverage of jennings himself isn't clear. You can see fuller comments on the talk page of the userfied article. Spartaz 19:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

notable players

no offense, but apparently you don't know history. over 30 players since 1975 have played for both the timbers and sounders. if you want to be a history stat nazi, like you have proven to be. then you either include some of them (notables), or ALL of them. Kevin Forrest is in the second category. He has only played for these two clubs since 2008! Once again, if you want to include him, then include the other 30 players. I highly disregard you do this, we don't need a list of players that most fans have never heard about. they will definitely know who bain, hugo, keller, etc are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.195.34 (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism

I admit that I can be a deletionist at times but there are also articles that I have saved recently such as Kakha Kaladze, Sunil Chhetri and Baichung Bhutia. Spiderone (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 5f304a1824a59a0595cd609572c92995

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

User:Barbbiggs

I'm going to take the liberty of archiving the talk page for User:Barbbiggs. I'd like to get to the point in which the two of you work more collaboratively together on any concerns either of you have; in the meantime, though, if you have any direct concerns or criticism with her edits or comments, would you consider emailing me or leaving a message on my talk page, first? For a short while, maybe it would help if I serve as a "middleman" of sorts; once the two of you are both on the same page, so to speak, you can then "cut me out."  :) This is completely up to you, I just think it might be a path to slightly more harmonious editing in the future. Please let me know (feel free to respond here). user:J aka justen (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving you a message at all. I was a little pissy after the repeated accusations and although I was seeking resolution it was not the most polite of messages. Hopefully, you won't see anything form me in your email or talk page!Cptnono (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, it looks like you have a unanimous consensus, I do believe, for the proposed text. Would you like to do the honours of reincluding the content? user:J aka justen (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

HA! Just did it. Thanks for spearheading this.Cptnono (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I did make two small fixes. You should feel free to pare any refs after the rallies blurb that are unnecessary, I just shifted them upwards for right now. Sleep for me now. Thanks, again, for helping improve that article. I really do appreciate it. Take care. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Get some sleep! I'm going to bring up the refs on the talk page so let me know when you get a chance to review it. This is an aesthetic thing for me mainly and not meant to be contentious.Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

László Marton

Dear Cptnono!

Thank you for your information! You are saying in your note that I should finish editing the page.

Is there a way I could finish it? Of course I am willing to cooperate in order to get it done. I could get all the information off that seems promotion like to you, and just leave minimal information. FACTS, if you prefer.

If I dont't finish it, It's just hanging there...

Thank you,

and looking for your further help:

DvornicsekDvornicsek (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some information changed in my article is wrong.

László Martons "international" carreer started in Weimar, his Hungarian started in 1967. So below the picture, him, being active from 1974 is a mistake.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvornicsek (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but he is active from 1967. Thnak you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvornicsek (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate all your help. Really! So as you suggested, to sort thing out, first I'm trying to go for a subpage. DvornicsekDvornicsek (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

ok!

Thank you soooooooooooooooo much! :) DvornicsekDvornicsek (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cptnono!

I'm not a wikipedia guru, as you can see, but I'm trying really hard. :)

The best I could do (trying to focus on your advise) is that I created a sandbox for my article (I could'nt manage something you call a subpage). But this is what I did: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dvornicsek/Sandbox

so I tried to do a cleanup.

I have two things to say/ask:

1. I erased almost every theatre review, leaving only 4 (one for each important show). So maybe this helps with the problem of being too promotional. But I would like to do the right thing and if you say, 4 reviews is still too much, I could erase more.

2. I got a notification that I should do the article in prose. The list of directed plays and awards can't really be turned into prose. It is a long list, a work of 40(!) years. And I see other wikipedia pages with artists/writers/painters/directors listing their lifetime work. So am I doing something wrong?

Hope I'm not bugging you too much! THANK YOU!!!!!! Dvornicsek (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Progress!

Hi Cptnono!

I think my article looks better now!

This is what I did:

1. As you suggested I looked for other director articles on Misplaced Pages: "Theatre Directors" (and "Well-known theatre directors"). I got some styling guideline from articles on "Lee Stasberg", Julie Taymor" and "Mike Nichols". Those pages seem to be ok, so I took editing ideas from them. 2. I erased every extra information, I think it is dry and neutral enough for an encyclopedia. 3. The long list of productions looks professional now, I edited it according to how "Well-known theatre directors" do itz on Misplaced Pages. 4. I moved "Awards" way down, so I'm not pushing that information. 5. I brought theatre reviews to a minimum. Four all together. 6. I put "About him" back. Just as I saw this on other Misplaced Pages articles. For example: "Péter Esterházy". That page for example is not taged, so I think this is acceptable.

What are your thoughts?

Here is my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dvornicsek/Sandbox

Would you be so kind as to take a look at it? I trust you and I would love to know what you think.

Do you think it is good enough to post it? Who gets to deside that?

Thank you!

marton

I got rid of all the reviews. I kept it strictly professional (most of the directors don't add a "personal life" catherory) and I focused on "career". I think this is the best I could do. Would you please take a look? http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dvornicsek/Sandbox Thank you:Dvornicsek (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

photo

Hi Cptnono!

You deleted my images earlier and I'd like to know how is it possible to get them back. As the article is much shorter than before, I would need just a few production pictutes, not the whole pakage.

But I'm having a REALLY hard time with licencing the photos. I read the wiki pages about that but I ABSOLUTELY don't understand how to do it.

The picture of the director that is still on my page needs to be licenced as well, otherwise it'll be deleted soon.

Thanks AGAIN for your help. Dvornicsek (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

photos

Thank you sooooooooo much for offernig your help with the photo licences. I'm lost!

Here is the gallery of my photos: (though I don't need all, now that the article is shorter) http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-img_timestamp&img_user_text=Dvornicsek&ofs=0&max=50

I read the pages you suggested (about choosing a cathegory for the licence). But I have no idea.

I took the photo that is on the page already: "László Marton theate director.jpg" (I MISSPELLED the word "THEATRE". Could that be corrected, and could I change the names of uploaded photos?) It says: "No license tag".

All the other pictures are from his productions. I got permission to you use these pics earlier for a book (as you know already). Two are marked: "No permission". Why those two?

SO WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO AS A FIRST STEP?

Thank you: Dvornicsek (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

wow!

Wow! That sounds too good to be true! Dvornicsek (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

pics

Yes, understood. It is not a consern. I'd like to go with it. Thanks for the tip.

1. Now I have a really basic question. I'm sure I should know this. But I don't :(

I'm not sure I did the right thing. I signed in at wikimedia commons. Edited the photo: where it said "permission" I wrote: =

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/CC-BY-3.0Creative Commons Attribution 3.0truetrue This template should only be used on file pages.

Is that it? Something still seems wrong to me:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Marton_theate_director.jpg

2. And my other problem:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=File:Marton.Platonov.jpg&action=edit

Here's a picture I licenced before (and a coulpe more with my very same question). IS THIS THE same LICENCE YOU CHOSE? So is this ok? Or something's still missing from this one?

Could you please show me (once we actually chose the licence:

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/CC-BY-3.0Creative Commons Attribution 3.0truetrue This template should only be used on file pages.

WHAT EGZACTLY IT IS I DO?

I mean basic things like what do I type whrere... And how do I place the photo into my article. (It seemd easier when I uploaded them, but now that they are there I don't know how to build it in the article.) Thank you and Ohhhh. Dvornicsek (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cptnono!

I uploaded my photos and licenced them according to your suggestion: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dvornicsek/Sandbox

Are they ok?

All my photo files say they are "uncategorised". I read the wikipage about catgories, but don't have a clue what caterory to put them in.

Thank you: Dvornicsek (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

deleating

Oh no!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/User_talk:Dvornicsek Dvornicsek (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

photos

Hi Cptnono!

I finally uploaded all the photos I would like to use in my article, licenced them and put all of them in a category. Would you take a look at my sandbox page, please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dvornicsek/Sandbox

I got the bad news today, that all my uploaded pictures are up for deleating and I do NOT know hat to do!!! :( Dvornicsek (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you CPtnono, for responding.

I took some of the pictures (I don't know how I prove that) and some (taken by other authors) I already got permission for to use in earlier works (book). Do I need to e-mail permissions somewhere that they agree to give the photos for this article for wikimedia commons? Where do I e-mail the permissions?

Dvornicsek (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would ask LX at the link I provided. He is probably more knowledgeable on the images and what you can do about the ones you did not actually take. I would expect it to be something like getting the original author to send in a quick email Although it is easy enough, is it worth bothering with it? For the ones you did take yourself, it isn't about proving a thing. The info on some of them looked off and it came to LX's attention. Simply tell him that you did take some of them and I am sure he will understand. Thanks for the honesty on it and I am sorry if I gave you the wrong impression on copyrights :( .Cptnono (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

no.

No.No. It wasn't you! It was me. :) I misunderstood. Thanks for everything you're doing to help me!!! Dvornicsek (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cptnono,

I'm sorry I have to get back to you again, but I am still in the prosess of working on my page. I REALLY would like to finish it! Would you take a look at my sandbox page and would you please tell me, if I am ok to go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dvornicsek/Sandbox

I only left the 5 photos I have the permission for (1st one is my own work), the rest I'll only post once the permissions arrive.

Thank you,

Dvornicsek (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

laszlo marton

Hi Cptnono,

I'm sorry I have to get back to you again, but I am still in the prosess of working on my page. I REALLY would like to finish it! Would you take a look at my sandbox page and would you please tell me, if I am ok to go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dvornicsek/Sandbox

I only left the 5 photos I have the permission for (1st one is my own work), the rest I'll only post once the permissions arrive.

Thank you, Dvornicsek (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cptnono!

I am so tired and dissapointed, I cannot tell you! I see articles on wikipedia, a few sentences all together with hardly any info, and they are good to go. Anyway I did some work again, but I have doubts at this point that I'm ever going to finish. :(

1. I cleared my article, trying to avoid sentences like: "He is known for.." (I left a few, to avoid using Marton all the time. Is that ok?) 2. You'd like to see a "personal life paragraph". I started to do a Biography/Early life and education (as seen in other articles) but I would REALLY like to avoid the personal life, kids and marriage stuff. This man is very personal. His entire life is his work. But I see other directors (Julie Taymor and many more) who keep it just professional, no marriage and kids talk.) Please tell me, this is ok!!! 3."Influences" - what do you mean? 4. "editing and conflicts of interest" - do you think I can EVER finish this? You know how hard i'm trying. :( You say you don't expect there to be a concern if I make some edits to the article. What else do I need to do??? 5. Sourses. I'm sending some links from English language newspapers and a Hungarian encyclopedia. (below) Would you REALLY do the formatting? Wow, thank you! + About: "stacking of images". You say we might format it into a table so keep it all in. HOW do I do that?

sourses: http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=537eb8ab-48d4-4b3a-ac26-147ea66bac2a&k=67333 http://mek.niif.hu/02100/02139/html/sz15/209.html http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/Theatre/article/439345 http://www.nowtoronto.com/stage/story.cfm?content=163514 http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/Theatre/article/251167 http://www.irishtimes.com/events/theatreawards/winners/2003_winners.html http://www.rte.ie/arts/2004/0301/danceintime.html http://www.jsonline.com/entertainment/arts/38834887.html http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/27/theater/a-budapest-theater-casts-off-its-soviet-past.html?pagewanted=all

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Dvornicsek (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

about photos

Hi Cptnono!

As you suggested, I replied on the following link: "Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dvornicsek", and I made it clear which is my photo and which is not, and that permissions are on the way and permissions-commons already contacted me... Is this what you were thinking?

Thank you soooooooooooo much for EVERYTHING! Dvornicsek (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

list of production

Cptnono, I'm also thinking the list of "Productions" is so long, do you think I should break it into 2 subsections: "Hungarian" and "International"? It might look better, I'm not sure. What do you think? Dvornicsek (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

tag

Dear CPTNONO, my copy-paste tag is finally gone, but what do I have to do to get rid of the two thats left?? Thank you, Dvornicsek (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ok

Ok. Thank you!!! So the tags on my Sandbox doesn't matter. Dvornicsek (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

book

The book is on the following website:

www.pepperman.hu

But you have to clics on: Enter/Our work/book & brochure/and click on the second and third icon. There you find two books about him. But I know this is not something you would call a link. :( Dvornicsek (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ISBN

There is an ISBN: 963 06 0189 3

Backlight - (masterworks through a new lens) Chekhov and Ibsen directed by László Marton

Copyright © 2006 by Pepperman Productions. Foreword copyright © 2006 by Richard Christiansen. Design Copyright © 2006 by Mari Behán. Published by Pepperman Productions. All rights reserved.

Here is the description of the book on the website of the Hungarian National Library: (on the following link: http://www.oszk.hu/mnbwww/K/1123/S.HTML#11981, file number: 11981 /2007.

11981 /2007.

  Backlight : masterworks through a new lens : Chekhov and Ibsen directed by László Marton : with notes from the director's scripts / ed. by Virág Csikós. -  : Pepperman, cop. 2006. - 51 p. : ill., színes ; 23x26 cm

ISBN 963-06-0189-3 fűzött Marton László (1943-) Magyarország - színházi rendező - 20. század - 21. század - színielőadás - fényképalbum 792.027.2(439)(092)Marton_L. *** 792.091(100)(084.12) *** 77.041 MARCANSEL UTF-8

208.124.200.218 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

list of works

His works are listed on his wesite (until 2005): http://www.laszlomarton.net/marton.htm Dvornicsek (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

note on permission

Good morning! I received a note here regardingh my permission request: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Uncle_Vanya_Soulpepper.JPG I am not quite sure: what is it that I need to do? Thank you, if you could just please clear it for me. 208.124.200.218 (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I did not see the email but it looks like it needs to be resent with:

   * Please copy the URL of this file in the email to assist OTRS volunteers to find it.
   * Do not send emails containing only the text "OTRS pending", as this is not of any use. (Provide an explanation of permission granted)

If the email was sent with the above done maybe it is just a place holder until an OTRS volunteer has a chance to review it.Cptnono (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

ok.

Ok. Thank you!!! :) Dvornicsek (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Guardian!

Dear Cptnono!

I think WE did it! Emphasis on "WE". :) You were truly my Guardian Angel, who according to wikipedia :) is: "an angel assigned to protect and guide a particular person." That particular person is me, Dvornicsek, who had a couple of meltdowns during this journey, but you helped me in every possible way, and I am truly grateful for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am astonished by the extreme amount of wotk you have done with my article.:) Wishing you all the best, a happy: Dvornicsek (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about Synergy Beverages

I didn't know about the no-space rule between lines and in-line refs. Thanks for telling me. And I agree with your take about the sources. I agree the J Glasscock article should probably be deleted, but perhaps an article about the business might be more notable? I don't know. There wasn't tons of stuff about this company but I have a feeling it will grow, but who knows; maybe people who work for it can point to more sources. Thanks again! Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer

GAN notice

Hi Cptnono, you currently have at least one article up a WP:GAN in the Sports and recreation section. In an attempt to clear out the backlog there, User:Wizardman asked all sports WikiProjects to review at least two articles from that section. I'm now going around and asking anybody with an article nominated under Sports and recreation to review at least one article in that section to help us clear the backlog out so your articles can finally be reviewed faster! iMatthew  at 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Review

Thanks. :) Wasn't expecting a review for about three months. Better finish the referencing. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There we go. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all statements are cited on Qwest Field. Looks good though. Fix up those and I'll start a review. Regards. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done some random copyedits on Australia V Bangladesh. Cleaned up the article. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. :) Now time for your article. Have printed it. Haven't read it yet. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

		Tireless Contributor Barnstar Award
		Thanks for helping to clear the GAN backlog and for your hard work on Qwest Field, which I hope to pass soon. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WOW! Thanks wasn't expecting that. Thankyou. Anyone I've started reading over your article but its AEST 9:34pm in Tasmania so I might head off. I'll finish your article tomorrow morning AEST. First one off the rack. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You're a breath of fresh air around here, with your friendliness and good humor :) Aaroncrick (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, should be reviewing again shorty. Have things to fix at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Ricky Ponting/archive1 and been expanding York Park. Bit smaller than Qwest Field. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the stand needed burning down! You may want to visit Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/York Park/archive2‎ in the future. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that history should come first. Hopeing someone brings it up at FAC. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

History used to be first but It was requested it be moved in the GAN. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

-MBK₀₀₄ 18:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Commented line in Talk:Glenn Beck

Hey, the line that you added makes the addition of new sections difficult (the "+" button will put the new section where it won't render on the page). Was this your intention? Is there a better solution to the rape-pushers that doesn't get in the way of normal use of the page? Thanks. — Mike :  tlk  05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

JRA_WestyQld2 08:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:What?

Listen Cptnono, I think you're a nice guy. But you don't seem to understand how what you are saying is offensive and wrong. I edit here to share information. Really. Both good and bad about Israel, Palestinians, and all other kinds of topics. I take my commitment to WP:NPOV seriously. I try to make sure I add both sides of the story in all my edits. When you write that I edit here "primarily to demonize Israel", I view that as a serious attack on my personal credibility. That's not my motivation for being part of Misplaced Pages - in fact, it's not even a motivating facto for me in any part of my life. You may think that to be so, but its your own speculation, and its one I find offensive.

I've asked you to strike that particular sentence on the talk page and I hope you will. I'm not planning on running to a schoolteacher to report you for "bad behaviour". I'm asking you, adult to adult, to retract what I view to be an incorrect and offensive statement about my motivations for writing at Misplaced Pages. I hope you will oblige. Don't be offended or anything yourself, but I really am done discussing there for today. I think RomaC's advice is good. Others can pipe in now with their own thoughts. Tiamut 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The talk page discussion looked to get more and more heated when we both seemed to be on similar pages. I clarified instead of striking but will be happy to put a giant line through it if you insist.Cptnono (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. But I do insist that you strike the sentence I indicated is most offensive in my last talk page comment there, about "demonizing Israel" (perhaps you meant "defending Palestine" ;). Either way, its not my reason for writing here, and I'd appreciate no further speculation about my motivations or anyone else's unless there is strong evidence that its related to an ongoing "fucking up" of article mainspace and is said to identify the problem and deal with it. Tiamut 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think my amendment was just as to the point but if you are OK with the observation then it is alright then.Cptnono (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw it now. Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion that my edits "come cross as pro-Palestinian". I don't think there is evidence for that, but its a more subjective and positively phrased characterization than your last one. I still think its better to avoid making such statements altogether, particularly when they have nothing to do with article improvement. But if you think that's a fair re-phrasing, while I disagree, I'm not going to argue about it with you anymore. This has taken up quite enough time already. Tiamut

It is allowed. Don't worry about it. That is my observation from your recent edits to the page and edit summaries. If you have a problem with it you can adjust your style but it looks right on the mark after looking at your user page. As I alluded to before before: I could care less as long as you know it when making changes to the main article. And it has everything to do with article improvement.Cptnono (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I think you're mistaken in your impression. If you can point to specific edits where the content I added to the article made it unbalanced in a "pro-Palestinian" direction, I'd be happy to hear that critique, and reflect upon how I can do better in the future. Like I said, I don't think there is any evidence to support your conclusion. The content of my user page is only evidence of my honesty about where I am coming from. What did Gramsci say? All intellectual inquiry begin with an inventory of self. I'm open to hearing how I can improve when that critique is a specific one. When its just a generalization based on impressions, in the course on a discussion about something else, its not useful to me, nor is it useful to article improvement. With respect, Tiamut 15:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't say with respect when you know it isn't. You want me to point it out? Go hit the history button on the page and check your edit summaries. Take that and look at the edits. Then go look at the sources. Add all of that up and point at one edit (besides the revert to the vandal) that was not done in a Pro palestinian fashion. I can witch hunt you all day long but if you don't do it to yourself it doesn't mean anything.Cptnono (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I did mean it when I said with respect. I'm sorry you're offended by that. Like I said, I'm open to hearing about how to improve, but not when you make general statements that malign my editing contributions without pointing to specific things that could be improved. You're not helping me, and if you don't want to help me understand that's fine too, but then don't accuse of POV editing. Its slander when you do it without evidence and just antagonizes me, which has nothing to with article improvement. Tiamut 16:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an offence thing it is a simple to the point thing. Go look at your contributions to the article and let me know if you have offered anyhting that does not make Israel look bad. I'm not going to debate something that is clear in the edit summaries. You come and tell me what you have done otherwise and I will change my opinion. Until then I am a huge fan of if it looks like a Palestinian it is more than likely a Palestinian (or an editor who identfies with the people and therefore only edits in a fashion that makes them look better when making contributions to contentious articles).Cptnono (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go digging through my diffs to prove wrong an unsubstantiated accusation you are making that you have not bothered to provide a single diff to support. I'll take your "criticism" then, for what it appears to be; i.e. prejudice against people who identify with or as Palestinian, because the only evidence you have cited so far is my user page. I'll reiterate what I said at the article talk page, any problems you have with my user page can be discussed at my talk page. Any problems you have with specific edits to Gaza War are discussed at that article's talk page. Please do not mix the purposes of either page. And please refrain from making unsubstantiated bad faith accusations in the future. Tiamut 16:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't turn things around. I don't have to prove anything to you. You have not provided one diff and yet still claim your right to make accusations. I claim my right to take issue with your characterizations. And your refusal to point me to any one edit that would help to understand what you mean by POV editing so that I could avoid doing such things in the future makes it clear that you are not interested in helping me "improve", only in slandering and insulting me. And I don't have the right to point to a Star of David on your user page and then accuse you of making biased edits on article talk pages without pointing to any evidence. That's called assuming bad faith. Tiamut 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono, please dont continue saying these things. Calling another user a liar is an unacceptable personal attack. What Tiamut places on her userpage is not relevant to what she writes in article space. If you take issue with an edit she made make it clear why that edit would be an issue. I left a note about the actual edit in question on the article talk page, but please do not continue to insult my favorite editor. Thanks, nableezy - 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)