Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:57, 16 September 2006

Nico Zandberg

Hi Peephole. After spending a few hours to create a new article for Misplaced Pages last night called BATracer, I was shocked to find today that it was deleted without discussion. I have been going through the rules and all deletion pages and is still unclear why the page was deleted. I first want to get all the facts right before I go to the deletion discussion.

I'm sure you probably had a valid reason to delete the page and respect that. I only ask that you inform me what that reason was and talk to me, to see if we can work something out, before just deleting it. Hope to hear from you soon.

Bye Bye --Zandman 09:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

steven jones

Hi Peephole. Just wanted to say that I like the edits you've been making and let you know that I re-stored the original wording of the into to the critics section. I think it is pretty good and don't really see a reason to chop it up ( if you feel strongly, of course, I would be amenable to changes). I think the original wording, coupled with your changes to the rest of the paragraph, make for a better article. Let me know if you disagree. Cheers. Levi P. 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I think the sentence, as it is, is important because it establishes three facts: 1) His paper has not been published in an academic journal; 2) it has thus not been peer-reviewed; and, 3) other scientists question whether it has been vetted properly. (It took some work to get these ideas presented within the article in such a stark manner.) I do agree with you, however, that it would be appropriate to better "summerize" the reception with which his paper has met (i.e., indifference and thinly vieled ridicule). I'm just not sure how we can word such a summary so that it is both sourcable and does not get immediately reverted. I suppose we would just have to paraphrase the ideas already expressed within that link. Maybe something like.."Jones' paper has been met, largely, with indifference in the scientific community. Since his paper has not been published in a scientific journal...". What do you suggest? Levi P. 20:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk alteration

Hi Peephole,

In general, it is a bad idea to alter the Talk page that way, unless there is blatant vandalism or a personal attack, or of course archiving/refactoring. In this case, the best thing to do is to add an {{unsigned}} tag if you can, or otherwise leave it. When it comes time to count votes, you can be sure it will be noted that that entry carries less weight than the others. Cheers, Tewfik 05:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice the header, so you were correct in your action (and feel free to fix it). In general though... And if you ever have any questions, feel free to ask me. Tewfik 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing or organizing polls

Hi Peep. Please do not do that again. -- Szvest 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

People have already voted and changing the layout or organizing it that way may confuse users and some may consider it vandalism. Just be carefull. Cheers -- Szvest 20:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Spacefed

Hey, Spacefed made a few other advertisement articles related to his non-notable gaming website. Think we can do a mass AFD? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

May I just list Unification Wars under the entry for the other article in your AFD? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lost: Season 2

Where on earth are you getting 24 episodes from? The official number is 23 episodes for season two. Lumaga 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Live Together, Die Alone is officially one episode. There are only 23 episodes in season two. Lumaga 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WoWWiki

"Disregarding the mess above, I think the article should be deleted as well."

Funny how you say that, because "that mess above" is a direct cut and paste of what you wrote on the FFXIclopedia AfD, only changing every "FFXIclopedia" to "WoWWiki". It's also amusing you claim to have put in the notability tag, when I was the one who tried to get them to clean up the article at least a week before you got there on . Amazing how you are able to trash your own words and then take credit for trying to get them to clean up their article. You are so richeous. --Ganiman 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --AbsolutDan 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jones article

Good edits today, man. rootology (T) 22:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why delete what I just posted on the lost page?

Can you explain to me why you deleted my work on the lost page? User:Norfolkdumpling

As said, if you looked. That was misleading. Not everyone looks at that part, and to some, it can appear as though they only appear in one episode. Regards, User:Norfolkdumpling

9/11 Family Steering Committee

I removed the {{prod}} tag from this entry. I feel it's notable enough to keep. If you still feel it warrants deletion, please feel free to nominate it at WP:AFD. - Duane 16:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Lospedia controversy

Hello there, Peephole,

In my experimental section in the Lost discussion page, I'm hoping the items that really matter will bulk out and begin to demonstrate consensus. I'm particularly hoping for the best solutions to become evident to casual readers. There's an element of "straw poll" to the solutions section. In reading through your other comments about fan sites and Lostpeda, I'm guessing you support some of the proposed solutions that you left untouched. If you care to register a couple of more comments in the "Proposed solutions" subsection, that would really help get this experiment off to a good start.

Thanks, --Loqi T. 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett

I reported the anon on 3rr just now, you have one more RV. rootology (T) 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

I could use your help over at State terrorism by United States of America -- the editors over there are blatantly disregarding Misplaced Pages policy with respect to citing blogs and self-published sources. Thanks. Morton devonshire 17:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

All be damn, you changed your vote. That is commendable. That is pretty rare. You are unique Best wishes. Please contribute anything you can to this page. We look forward to it.Travb (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jones article

Would you mind looking at this? Morton is causing what appears to be rather pointless disruption on there for no apparent reason. rootology (T) 01:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Noteability

Hi. I'd just like to make a constructive criticism. It seems to me that your depressing take on the issue of noteability would, if adopted by most editors, strangle this website. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a diverse font of knowledge, not a small collection of articles on things everyone knows about already. Obviously there must be some control to prevent a proliferation of spam/trivial topics with little merit, but your history indicates you've been responsible for wiping out many articles of genuine public interest, simply because they aren't subjects already so saturated with media coverage that their articles are merely a rearrangement of what we already know.

James H. Fetzer

Heh, Peep. Looking back at my talk page today, I noticed that you were interested in an Afd on the James H. Fetzer. The article is up for discussion/Afd right now. Morton devonshire 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

compliment

Thanks for the kind words, Peep. It means a lot, especially today. For what its worth you're one of the most fair and even handed editors on there. rootology (T) 21:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Hoffman

I see you are trying to say that I'm violating a revert rule when you're the one inserting all kinds of nonsense onto the page that no one has the time to take back out piecemeal. For example, you just put back in a reference to Jim's work being about nanotechnology and then a citation REQUEST along with it! Why are you inserting information with a citation request? That looks like a revert to me. If not, why don't you explain why you think his work is about nanotechnology since you inserted that back in and think that information is relevant. bov 22:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just now you reverted to a version which deletes the website which Jim Hoffman created -- why? What evidence do you claim to have that Jim Hoffman did not create 911review? You just deleted it, so explain why? I can count very well. bov 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

1) if you have evidence of nanotech, then show it or let that phrase be deleted, as I am trying to do.

2) the citation for "the discovery of new, three-dimensional morphologies for modeling block co-polymers" is already in there.

3) the reference to 911review under 'Websites designed by Hoffman' is no longer there. 911research is different from 911review which is different from wtc7 . . . but since you're reverting, I assume you wouldn't notice that detail. Those are 3 different sites.

4) why did you remove all the internal links so that it is only linked to 911 truth movement? It makes no sense when he is listed on the 9/11 researchers page. What justification do you have for taking out all the other links to pages? bov 22:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Since you're not responding to the questions or making any changes to your edits I'm going to go ahead and fix them. bov 22:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Report all you like -- you have no basis for the changes you are making and apparently are not even aware of them, which shows you aren't interested in content but in blocking anyone from changing anything you reverted to. bov 23:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies (even when they make mistakes)

Thank you for your readiness to participate in discussion and constructive edits to the lost pages. Just a quick note to say I thought your recommendation that a new IP address editor buy a dictionary when correcting his spelling error may have been close to biting a newbie. I understand it's hard to maintain the assumption of good faith when maintaining a page that attracts a lot of outside attention like Lost (TV series) but it's important that we try to help new editors develop into useful contributors.--Opark 77 13:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

UBL

Hi Peephole. I was wondering if you would be interested in droping by the bin Laden article and putting in your two cents re: the intro. Cheers Levi P. 21:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yo momma

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Information Clearing House -- violates WP:WEB and WP:NOT
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium (second nomination) -- POV fork of Alex Jones and 9/11 "Truth" Movement for nn event

Morton devonshire 00:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your work on the LostCasts article deletion controversy

Just wanted to say thank you for all your hard work and many reverts! And don't get frustrated. Hopefully the sysadmin will instantly see past all the single-purpose account advocacy that's going on and make the right call. My view is that this campaign is going to completely backfire on them, and that they themselves are showing themselves to be clueless as to what Misplaced Pages even is. By the way, it looked to me like you're manually putting in the single-purpose account stuff, rather than using the {{subst:spa|user_name}} formulation, which would save you time. Give it a try, and thanks again. -- PKtm 01:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

TBW

The Big Wedding up for Afd. Morton devonshire 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Hey Peep. You might want to check this out . Bov and an annon (sockpuppet?) want to move Jones' WTC radio appearence into Crit again. Levi P.

Hey peep

Your deletes on slingo page... they aren't advertising links. The referenced the publisher of the game. Why do keep deleting?Dave635 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

List of indie game developers

Hi. You may want to join in the discussion at Talk:List of indie game developers#Advertising_vehicle. (At least it will be a break from all these 9/11 conspiracy theorists ... ;-

9/11 hijackers

Greetings. You've been deleting information from articles on 9/11 hijackers. Please don't do this without first discussing on the talk pages. Sometimes, you've alleged in the edit summary that the information was unsourced, but often the information was actually sourced (e.g. this edit). As you might imagine, information on the hijackers is often contentious, and that's why it's especially important to discuss major changes before deleting other people's work. All the best, – Quadell 12:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Afd

No one has voted on this one, needs input. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 13:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And this one Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kevin Ryan. Morton devonshire 20:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Complete(?) List of 9/11 Conspiracy AfDs

Given the sheer number of recent 9/11 conspiracy AfDs, I thought it would be useful to create a list. See User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. Thought you might be interested. Please feel free to add anything I might have missed.

GabrielF 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your Afd vote was vandalized

In need of fixing, it's late and I need to get to bed. --Geneb1955/_CVU 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

I think he's hit 3RR. Go ahead and note him up on the appropriate bad boy page, and I will support. Morton devonshire 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Now he's using an anon. Morton devonshire 00:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your turn at The Terror Timeline Morton devonshire 00:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Deserted" versus "tropical" island on Lost (TV series)

Please see my comments at Talk:Lost (TV series)#"Deserted" versus "tropical" island. Also, please consider not reverting multiple times without reviewing the editor and the quality of the changes first. I've been a long-term editor on this article (since May 2005) and my edits are rarely without due thought. Thx, --Leflyman 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Thompson's Terror Timeline

Have you read it?--Thomas Basboll 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you nominate an article on a book you have not read for deletion?--Thomas Basboll 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What gave you the idea to do such a thing?--Thomas Basboll 20:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow.--Thomas Basboll 20:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You are of course under no obligation to read a book in order to ascertain its notability for an article. However, the answer you gave to the question, "What gave you the idea to do such a thing" was "I guess I just felt like it". I suggest you take process more seriously, as, if you mean your statement, it is an abuse of wikipedia. If you don't mean it, then your flippant and deliberately provocative remark shows an UNCIVIL attitude and lack of respect to a fellow editor, and perpetuation of such behaviour will lead to being blocked. Tyrenius 22:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

link to Rolls Royce

Hello, when you want to link to the article about a Rolls-Royce, please do not link to Rolls-Royce, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as Rolls-Royce plc by writing out ]. Regards, Jeff3000 02:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You linked to Rolls Royce in this edit. -- Jeff3000 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Terror Timeline

You deleted material from the above article without any edit summary or attempt to discuss on the talk page. Perhaps you did not notice the request for this in my own edit summary or the discussion already on the talk page. It is a good idea to check the latter before making changes to an article. Tyrenius 12:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)