| Revision as of 06:55, 5 January 2007 editJim Douglas (talk | contribs)15,116 edits →[]: No need to be too nice; we have a zero-tolerance policy for libel.← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:56, 5 January 2007 edit undoGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits →Wondering About An External Link: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| I am probably not a good person to ask about this. I would leave it but I suggest you ask some other folks for an opinion if you have not already. -Regards ] ] 03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | I am probably not a good person to ask about this. I would leave it but I suggest you ask some other folks for an opinion if you have not already. -Regards ] ] 03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I will do so. Thanks. :) -] 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | :I will do so. Thanks. :) -] 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Re : I guess I was one of the "others." =) As for the link... hazy gray. On one hand, it's a link to a commercial website that doesn't really provide any real information beyond the article. On the other hand, one could say it is her "official" website. You could bring it up on the Talk page like Naconkantari suggested. Though getting other feedback might be difficult since I suspect it's a low traffic article. -- ] 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 06:56, 5 January 2007
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 13 days are automatically archived to User talk:WarthogDemon/Archive/Archive 7. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
 Archives |
Re: Cars
Re your message: I don't think you cut down too much. More like not enough. The whole "Box office performance" could probably be removed or at least seriously shortened, but I would discuss that first. None of the other Pixar movies have such a section. You might consider merging List of Cars characters (which itself needs cleanup help) with the "Vehicles and voice cast" section since it's pretty redundant. That should be discussed, too. -- Gogo Dodo 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Replied here > ]. -WarthogDemon 01:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Re your message: I don't have a problem with removing gender if the gender can not be determined. -- Gogo Dodo 01:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Still more thanks
I can't stay away long, can I...? :)) Just swung by for a moment and I was just signing off. Talk to you soon; don't hesitate to drop me an e-mail. - Lucky 6.9 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Lucky 6.9 Talk Page
Excuse me, I was trying to start a dialogue with Lucky 6.9 about his practice of deleting new pages, and you took it upon yourself to delete my discussion thread. Why, may I ask did you do that? It says on the history that you did it because it "seems to be a personal attack." The first thing I said in the post was "Ok, let me start off by apologizing if any of this sounds hostile...it's not meant to be..." Hardly a personal attack if the first thing I do is APOLOGIZE to make sure Lucky knows I'm not being hostile, or attacking him. In my third paragraph, I apologize, again, and ask him to direct me to an appropriate area where I can raise my concerns about the practice of deleting works in progress. So, even if that discussion thread was inappropriate, who are you to delete someone else's discussion page? Doesn't Lucky have the right to read messages from users addressed to him without you interfering? And, before you dismiss this post as a "personal attack" on you, please don't. Again, I am trying to start a dialogue. Not attack people. If I come across as angry, the reason is, I am. How would you feel if I took it upon myself to edit YOUR discussion posts on other user’s discussion pages? If you left a message for another user and I came along and deleted it. Well, that would be downright rude of me, wouldn't it? I am also a bit angry about the irony involved. Here I am raising a valid argument on page deletion, and you deleting my message. One last thought, PLEASE, PLEASE do not just delete this message and dismiss my valid concerns for the way Misplaced Pages is run. If this is not an appropriate place to discuss that, I ask you to please e-mail me at darrin.e.davis@gmail.com so we can continue this dialogue (not attack) away from the talk pages. Thank You -ZooCrewMan 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Replied here: . I feel better using the talk pages rather than email, if that is okay. -WarthogDemon 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Lucky_6.9 (talk · contribs)
"I am not taking any sides here, but just follwing Lucky's request for his talk page concerning abusive comments. Your post was removed the first time, due to the personal attacks. (Your concerns could have been easily stated without telling Lucky how you feel he should do his job.) However, with regards to respecting your concerns and WP:3RR I've struck out the needlessly harsh statements, but have otherwise left your comment untouched. Peace. -WarthogDemon 20:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)"
- Lucky is blatantly violating Misplaced Pages policy - specifically WP:DP and WP:CSD. The "harsh" statements where I tell him "how I feel he should do his job" are no different than any warning anyone ever leaves anyone who "feels" people should follow other rules. Unless his name is Jimbo, he may not disregard policy just because he feels like it. Nor should warnings be deleted from talk pages. Reswobslc 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Chick Hicks
Unfortunately, counting the number of decals yourself would be considered OR, unless there is a reliable source that specifically states the number outright. Granted, given how dense the decals are, it might not be possible to get an exact count anyway, so this might end up saving you some trouble. :) --Coredesat 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Replied with a second question here: . -WarthogDemon 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Might be a good idea to remove it, then, unless there's a source for that (as with Chick Hicks). I think I see more than eight anyway (which further highlights the problem). --Coredesat 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Lucky 6.9
Hello, WarthogDemon! How is your day going? Excited for New Year's Eve? I noticed you reverted this as an attack against Lucky, although it is merely critical of an unfortunately not properly explained deletion. This user seems to be new, so the best course of action would have been to explain how certain articles can get immediately deleted because, for example, it does not assert notability. Indeed the writing was a bit critical, but I do not see any personal attacks in the text. Mind to do a little explaining? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very noble that you would like to help Lucky, and great to see that you're concerned. No need for the mediation case against yourself; since you said you're going to be more careful, as long as you stick to your word! Do not worry, for you are not in trouble. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Replied here: . -WarthogDemon 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Very noble that you would like to help Lucky, and great to see that you're concerned. No need for the mediation case against yourself; since you said you're going to be more careful, as long as you stick to your word! Do not worry, for you are not in trouble. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
User 2206
User 2206's username is actually User 2206 per the history of his page. As such, I have reverted your page move. Let me know if this or my closure note on your associated RFD nomination does not make sense. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page . . . at the same time as you replied here, I believe. oO -WarthogDemon 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- And I just got an edit conflict replying to you so I think we're too fast for each other... :-) -- JLaTondre 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you might be right that usernames cannot start with "User:User", but his username starts with only "User ". His user page starts with "User:User ". A username that starts with "User:User" would have a user page that starts with "User:User:User". Does that make sense? I had to read that twice myself. -- JLaTondre 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you misread what I said (or maybe I misread what you said? Or both? Aiee...), but if all is in order I suppose it's no worries; considering the user in question seems to definitely be an honest contributor. :) -WarthogDemon 00:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you might be right that usernames cannot start with "User:User", but his username starts with only "User ". His user page starts with "User:User ". A username that starts with "User:User" would have a user page that starts with "User:User:User". Does that make sense? I had to read that twice myself. -- JLaTondre 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- And I just got an edit conflict replying to you so I think we're too fast for each other... :-) -- JLaTondre 00:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year
And a happy new year to you, too. =) -- Gogo Dodo 09:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Wondering About An External Link
I am probably not a good person to ask about this. I would leave it but I suggest you ask some other folks for an opinion if you have not already. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I will do so. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 03:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Re your message: I guess I was one of the "others." =) As for the link... hazy gray. On one hand, it's a link to a commercial website that doesn't really provide any real information beyond the article. On the other hand, one could say it is her "official" website. You could bring it up on the Talk page like Naconkantari suggested. Though getting other feedback might be difficult since I suspect it's a low traffic article. -- Gogo Dodo 06:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
User talk:71.76.172.222
BTW, you don't have to wait for WP:3RR with that sort of vandalism. Adding potentially libelous information to an article about a living person violates WP:BLP, and is a quick way to earn a block. In this particular case, the edit was clearly untrue and libelous. For this sort of edit, you can use {{blp1}} -- Jim Douglas (contribs) 06:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well I wasn't positive if it was true or not so I decided to go with 3RR just to be safe. (I'm still a bit too nice with these vandals...) Thanks for the tip! :) -WarthogDemon 06:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't positive either, but it was pretty clearly intended as a libelous statement, and a quick google search confirmed it. We have a zero-tolerance policy for libel, particularly since John Seigenthaler Sr. Misplaced Pages biography controversy. -- Jim Douglas (contribs) 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)