Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:42, 26 April 2006

Image copyright problem with Image:HypocotylArch.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:HypocotylArch.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or ask for help at Misplaced Pages talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you. -- Carnildo 13:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman has a period.

The idea that there's no period after the "S" is an urban legend. Harry S. Truman himself used the period both in his signature and on his letterhead. - Nunh-huh 05:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

yes i realized that after i read the actual article on ol' harry. i trust you have changed it back already? M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

But of course<g>! - Nunh-huh 05:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

George W. M. Reynolds

I have added some content to this article on a British novellist and journalist. I would be grateful if you could take a look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs)

That's more of an article. Do you think you could add more? also, sign your name with four tildes. M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Please use the {{prod}} or {{db}} tag if its not a controversial issue. Thanks in advance, --TBC 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

hm...i suppose so...i just don't like taking the risk that other will think its is controversial :( but if you say so.M1ss1ontomars2k4 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry. If others object to the {{prod}} or {{db}} tag, they can always remove the tag and propose the article on AfD --TBC 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark Rothko

Hi, maybe it is because I go slower and fall behind, but I'm noticing that several people are missing some of the vandalism. For instance in Mark Rothko you'll see that the vandal made two edits, but you only reverted one of them. Of course, maybe that was just you picking the wrong link to start your revert. Just being grumpy I guess. You are definitely helping. Shenme 05:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

SpaghettiO's

I turned that nonsense page into a redirect to the actual brand. I had no idea it was normally spelled without a space. "Uh-oh", indeed... Bobak 05:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Opera (web browser)

Hi, thanks for your contribution to the opera article. I admire your dedication to getting the information, but I had to revert it due to Misplaced Pages's no original research policy. If you can find a reliable source that backs it up, you can include it. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha...oops i forgot about the WP:NOR stuff. But does that mean if i got a friend to do research and I added it to WP, does that still count as OR?M1ss1ontomars2k4 20:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably... yes it would still be OR. It depends on who the friend is and where he publishes his findings. Here's the relevant bit from the WP:NOR policy:

Misplaced Pages articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Misplaced Pages articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Misplaced Pages) or through a public library.

- Motor (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

How's this? It's a little outdated, but the same thing happens today. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to reply... someone else posted on your talk page and I overlooked your note on the watchlist. That article is actually already included in the article, but under a different link. What you need is a reliable verifiable source (a news organistion, or even an Opera developer speaking in an official capacity), that you can use as a source for what you are saying today. (BTW: It's probably better to continue this on the Opera talk page. Thanks - Motor (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: My username

I was in an academic challenge club in high school too. We also did activities similar to quiz bowl. Your username is also very interesting. It's very longAcademic Challenger 23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Robert Federer

While I understand your concern, I do not believe the article should be deleted. A google search of his name reveals hits independent of his status as Roger's dad, and his study was published in a notable peer-reviewed, scholarly publication, indicating that it did in fact have some impact on the field in which he works (chemical whitening). We should definitely clean up and expand the article, but not delete it. What do you think? Stanley011 05:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code

Hey I went ahead and did it yea but student-rant is there usual. Adding links in mid page instead of external solutions they way you requested and set the page up.

Hi, I saw that you've added {{sprotect}} to the Da Vinci Code's page. I appreciate your desire to stop/prevent vandalism, but merely adding that template doesn't protect the page. Since anonymous edits continued while it was present, it doesn't appear to dissuade vandalism either. If you think protection is warranted (and it may well be; I haven't been following very closely), you really should put in a request at WP:RPP. -- stubblyhead | /_c 00:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello there! Erm...what does the sprotect thing do anyway, if it doesn't actually prevent nonsense edits?M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The template itself doesn't do anything, it's purely informational. Administrators can protect a page and can then put the template up to show that it's been done. You or I putting it there would be like adding Template:test5 to someone's user page--all talk, no action. -- stubblyhead | /_c 00:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. But that's boring. ;( M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but at least it's effective. If you really feel that vandalism is a major problem for that article, then by all means put in a request for protection. -- stubblyhead | /_c 00:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Request placed. Thx. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

SCOTW

SCOTW

Deryck C. 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Woodlawn Catholic

Hi, I see you marked this article for speedy deletion. I almost did the same but couldn't find a CSD that it fell under, so I used the prod process instead. One small thought: if you come across an article that is tagged for prod (or AfD) and you decide to nominate it for speedy, could you leave the prod notice in place? That way if it is not speedied, it will still go through prod. There is no reason not to have both on the article. Thanks, Gwernol 00:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting crap

Happy to oblige, though at 2am (roughly) local time it's about time I went to bed! -- Francs2000 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code's tagging

Hi. Concerning this edit you made at this article. Notice that the article was never protected or semi-protected. The {{sprotected}} tag is only to be added when the article has been protected. Ordinarily, the Admin who protects the article will add the tag. Please do not re-add the tag again. If you believe that semi-protection is required for the article, please post a request at WP:RfPP, or, alternatively, contact an Admin directly and provide evidence to support your claim. Once the article has indeed been protected, then the tag will be re-inserted. Thanks, Redux 02:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see it. I was browsing the requests for editing protected pages, where an anon had posted the odd request. But your request for protection was already up. I have reviewed it. Indeed, IPs have been spamming the article. I will protect the article. But since anons are doing it, semi-protection should suffice, and it will permit legitimate users to continue to work on the article. Thanks, Redux 02:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We are now trying to get the IP involved to stop before protecting the article. If he doesn't, he will be blocked. Then, if other IPs take over, I will protect the article. Redux 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I got your message. Thanks yea the user 67.101.128.6 who is telling me that I was going to get banned or something. Anyways you can see all day he has been messing with the page and other users have been continually reverting the page. Thanks M1ss Rodgerbales 03:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gwernol#da_vinci_code_page He is trying to blame this on the admin from my site when I am not even the one that is making the revision. Other people are making them because this guy is spamming. I did as you requested trying to abide by the rules of the wiki and even created a whole new blog just for the Da Vinci Code like you requested and he is blaming this one me. It's crazy especially since I am not even the one making the revisions, other users are.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgerbales (talk • contribs)

Hi, thanks for your comment about 67.101.128.6 on my talk page. I came across him/her while looking at Recent Changes and I agree, there was a lot of spamming going on, escalating into an edit war, vandalism and gross WP:3RR violation. Along with Pegasus1138 I made a case on WP:AIV and 67.101.128.6 has now been blocked for 24 hours. I don't know what will happen after that time limit expires, but I hope the user takes this time to cool off and accept that they can't go around vandalising articles like that. Best, Gwernol 03:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As spamming continued from different IPs, the article is now semi-protected. Regards, Redux 16:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Internet Threats

Hey, you seemed to be fairly knowledgable about Internet activity. This user from student-rant has create this page http://assfucked.blogspot.com and has threatened me. Is there something I should do about this? Rodgerbales 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

re webquest help links removed

I can't believe how you people run this place. WTF is wrong with you? There were 5 different linked sites that provided help on the Da Vinci Code webquests - 2 were for the original webquest and those links had been here on Misplaced Pages for several years without issue and were the most well-used resources for the webquests on the internet, and then 3 more links were recently added for help with the NEW Google webquests that just started this month. NOTE that these new Google webquests are not related to the older original webquests at all, and do NOT superced them in any manner. ONE person comes along who has created a new site that provides help ONLY for the NEW Google webquests (and no help whatsoever with the older original webquests), and this prat deletes ALL the links and information to ALL the webquest help sites both old and new, and replaces them with his own link, and when several site owners try to put their information back up, this clown repeatedly deletes it ..and then you mods back him up??? WTF is up with that??? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ACTIONS??? Your page now provides absolutely no links to help with the original webquests, and only one link for help with the new webquest, which is all thanks to this one selfish prat from googlefact.blogspot.com. Oh wait, there's one more link too, and that's to his mirror site at davinciquest.blogspot.com. How can you justify your actions? The owner of googlefact.blogspot.com also posted on the site of one of the links he removed (student-rant.blogspot.com), to laugh at everyone and thank us all for the traffic and the ad-impression revenue it is generating for him. AND THIS IS WHAT YOU PEOPLE SEEM TO CONDONE???? If you could give some reason for your actions then perhaps all of us site owners who were deleted could understand, but we do not see that there is any justification for what you have done, nor has anyone offered any. The ONLY message we're getting here is that it pays to manipulate Misplaced Pages for personal gain and delete everyone else's links but your own. WE HUMBLY REQUEST YOU RECTIFY THIS MATTER AND THEN LOCK THE PAGE TO STOP THE PERSON WHO STARTED ALL THIS FROM DOING IT AGAIN - which happens to be the one link you have left on the page. At a bare minimum, restore the help links to the original webquests so people looking for help with them can actually get some. I still can't believe how unjustly you mods have administered this matter so far. The person who instigated this 'war' appears to be the person who posted above - Roger Bales. Explain your actions Roger and try telling the truth.