Misplaced Pages

User talk:Rockstar915: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:01, 8 May 2007 editSamuel Blanning (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,108 edits →[]: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:40, 1 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(252 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{usercomment}} {{usercomment}}
{{archive box|<center>]</center>}} {{archive box|<center>]<br>]</center><center>]</center>}}


==]==
== Consensus ==


Thanks for catching the image size! :) ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 06:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I think you underestimate my training, experience and knowledge vis a vis global and Misplaced Pages definitions of consensus. I'm glad you didn't mean your remarks personally, and I'll be sure to endeavor not to take them personally in the future. You may in fact wish to read up on ] yourself, because it seems as if your understanding of the concept and its role in formal organizational decision-making may be flawed. The theory of consensus is in fact not only useful in organizational dynamics but also in politics and in computing, and in each case (for instance, see Misplaced Pages's own entry about ]) you'll find that the answer to disagreeing parties when building consensus is not actually just railroading the majority decision through, but building compromise and soliciting buy-in. This is the formal difference between what we experienced in DRV and what the formal definition of consensus and consensus-building in decision-making is in organizational and communications (and political science, to some extent) theory. You may wish to study up before asserting your opinion again to someone, who like me is formally trained in such fields. Do let me know if you have any questions or would like some tips on reading and research materials (but I think and hope we can be proud of the job Misplaced Pages's doing, too). Thanks for your concern. --] 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
:There is a difference between the dictionary definition of ] and ]. I was referring to ]. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::The linguistic difference would still be useful to differentiate. I think it's objectionable to call the use of supermajority "consensus", when it is in fact and practice actually supermajority. Diluting the meaning of consensus with a completely different behavior/decision-making process is a misrepresentation of both the word and the process. Call it supermajority if that's what it is. It's disingenuous to call it consensus. The fact that the use of supermajority-based (or in the case of DRV, limited-population majority-based) decision-making is recommended in WP:CONSENSUS does not mean the two phrases are synonymous. --] 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Ah, I see what you're saying -- and yeah, it might be good to qualify that. Maybe you should bring it up at ] talk page? I'd support changing around the nomenclature (especially for DRVs) to clarify the processes so that we don't run into this problem again. What do you think? ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I think I'll probably bring it up, but be warned that Xoloz already warned me that it's been tried 3 or 4 times to no real effect. Thanks for the suggestion, though. --] 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I'm not surprised. Per its nature, Misplaced Pages is reactionary and probably wouldn't appreciate such a semantic argument, as the policy remains unaffected... that said, there's never any harm in trying. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::From badlywrittenjeff's talk page, it looks like I can help Kim with trying to do that work, or she, me, depending, since while she and I disagree about the usefulness of policy, we both seem to agree that the extant policy can/should be fixed. --] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Cool -- let me know what you decide to do! ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


:No problem! :) —] 06:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
== question for you ==


== Talk page ==
hi - are there reliable third-party sources that say that ] is "worthy" of a Misplaced Pages article? I don't see any references there other than a MySpace page, a website and a fan club, none of which would be considered a reliable source. But I would absolutely not recommend that the article be deleted, and if I knew about an afd on it I would speak up for its continuation - why? because it adds to our knowledge of hiphop. While I agree with you completely that we want well-referenced articles here, I do not agree with your notion that we need third-party verification that a topic is worthy. Many, many articles would not pass that test. You and I stand on opposite sides of the deletion-inclusion divide, so I don't expect we'll come to any agreement on this, but I really am interested to know why you are taking such a hard line on the afd about covert references in songs, and seem to have a more lax stance on an article that has no real references at all. At least for the list in question, it's been acknowledged that a revised version would be better, probably the one that Joe Mabel has done some work on. Asked in friendship, not meant to be confrontational, which is why I'm asking here. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:] is a particularly weird instance. You can check out ] AfD (Shut up Stella) was included in it ]. ] and his army of sockpuppets (who I have been monitering for quite some time now) vandalized both Fan 3 and Shut up Stella almost beyond recognition. Shut up Stella was subsequently deleted per copyvio and ], who is helping out with the Josh Gotti situation, asked me to recreate the page. So that's the history of Shut up Stella. As per their references, there exist quite a few but I've been bogged down with university exams and haven't gotten around to it. But trust me, they fulfill ] (not to mention they're signed to a major label). In terms of the covert songs list, I just don't think that such an unencyclopedic list, which arguably fails both ] and ] per ], does not belong on Misplaced Pages. It's a breeding ground for individual ] and interpretations of songs, as many references can be misinterpreted as a "covert" reference to another musician. The reason why Shut up Stella belongs on Misplaced Pages is that the group fulfills ]. The covert list of songs, at least per my research, does not. And it doesn't help that ''no one'' has been able to give me a good reason why the list should say. Hope that helps, and I appreciate your asking in friendship! I'm not here to make enemies, I'm here to make Misplaced Pages as good as it can be. And the one thing I love more than anything in the entire world is having my mind changed about a topic following a good conversation. :) ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


There is a discussion on the talk page, please contribute to it. Also there never was consensus to make it more than an essay so please revert yourself until such a consensus forms. ] 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::Fair enough - I actually knew nothing about the history of Stella, so I accept what you're saying, and understand well the backlog problem, not to mention the intrusion of "real" life. But that kind of supports my position, in a way - a tremendous amount of work went into the creation and development of that list (by the way, I did none of it - this is not said in my own self-interests, I really just believe the piece should stand) - over three years of work by dozens of editors. We all agree that the list's new incarnation should be more consistently and thoroughly referenced, and that the list should be watched and kept to that standard. Joe has said that all along and has done some work apparently in that direction. So overturning the decision would allow him and others access to the initial legwork that was done by many folks in identifying candidates for inclusion, and then when reliable sources are found, the item can be added. To wipe out all of that raw material would be unfortunate and I think goes against what wikipedia stands for. Just like I think it was wrong, based on what you're saying about Stella, for its history to have been wiped, if indeed there were references there that had been vandalized. IN a nutshell - the real enemy here are the vandals and their socks - I've been fighting one too for a while who has been attacking some of the presidential candidates' pages (Obama in particular, also Edwards and Clinton) in a sometimes subtle way, causing a lot of work and annoyance. Ultimately I spot this guy easily, but you know that's not enough, so I do understand your point about vandals and socks. And yes, maybe a list like this is potentially an OR problem, but then it can be tagged or edited accordingly. None of it is exactly earth-shakingly important, but I really think it adds to our knowledge and is a useful tool for readers. The fact that I like it and it is interesting may not be reasons to keep, but they also are not reasons to delete. It's a tautology - they're valuable because people find them valuable. But why is that a bad thing that has to be exterminated from the encyclopedia? It makes us something different from the Britannica, and that's one of the reasons I and lots of others work here - to be responsible, but different. I too want Misplaced Pages to be as good as it can be, and I think the way to get there is to think more about including and less about excluding. But then, I am an inclusionist. Hope, maybe, I;ve changed your mind a little? <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 06:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I definitely see where you're coming from, but my argument per OR is that the OR actually runs much deeper than a mere tag on the article can ever portray -- the way I see it, the entire list ''is'' and will always be original research and cannot, per its essence, become anything else or ever move past it. And I don't really think that we can keep something that so blatantly violates ], or that is just an ]. No matter how interesting it is (and don't get me wrong, I think it's interesting), such a list just doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. To me, at least, our policies and guidelines make that pretty clear. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC) :Done. How about this: until consensus is formed on the talk page to either describe the page as an essay or supplement, we leave the page without template. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Yes, I see the danger - not said sarcastically - but that's why if it is well-referenced, if music critics, books, real sources say that Suite Judy Blue Eyes is talking about Judy Collins - then it's not OR on the part of wikipedia editors. Many sources are OR - the OR of the writers - but we accept them as reliable if they meet our criteria. That's all we're suggesting for this list at this time - sourced statements that explain references in songs. The jester sang for the king and queen - ok, it's subject to interpretation as to who exactly is the queen, but the other two are pretty well established, probably multiply referenced, but it's covert. And a kid coming along and reading this list will learn something - one of our goals in an encyclopedia. So I don't think it will always be the OR of the wikipedia editors at all, if we monitor it and keep it referenced. I'm willing to give it a shot anyway. Too many of the people weighing in are more concerned with some kind of all-important process than the fairness of the 2nd afd or the rightness of the action. Especially those who say go ahead and create a new article with the references - that's just unnecesary, and as I've said probably too many times, spits in the faces of the dozens of editors and three years of work that came before. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Here's my take on it -- time on Misplaced Pages or the number of edit counts does not mean notability. Furthermore, the processes are there for a reason -- to stop Misplaced Pages from being anything but an encyclopedia. Granted ] works too, but not in this case. I still don't believe that it's an encyclopedia article, or probably ever will be. And yes, some of the songs might be referenced properly, but I still don't see its significance as a non-context, ]. Right now, the list appears to be an indiscriminate unencyclopedic list of information. And references, in relation to lists, don't stop it from being that. However, that said, I would have no problem with it being userfied and worked on from there and then reinstated <nowiki>*</nowiki>if<nowiki>*</nowiki> it conforms with WP's standards. As the article stands, however, I don't believe that the article passes our standards, and I think we would all agree that we need the standards to stop anarchy. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::: I don't understand your first sentence above about time and edit counts, probably because it's almost 4AM in NY and I am falling asleep. But I don't think you've responded to my main point about the value of having access to the work already done. I guess if your position is kill the piece no matter what, rather than the position some have taken that the piece can be recreated with references but no, we can't preserve the work already done in any form - then I guess you're at least consistent. But as I say - it's late and I have to be up early, and part of my brain is shutting down - so will have to leave this for now. Good talking with you anyway. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 07:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I meant that just because a lot of people have worked on an article and although it's been on Misplaced Pages for a long time is not a valid reason to keep an article, so I was under the impression that I responded to your point. And it's not spitting in the face of those people who edited it -- Misplaced Pages is a community-driven, not individually-written, encyclopedia, and thus we can't get too personally invested in the articles as sometimes they get deleted. And yeah, I'm exhausted too. It has been good talking to you as well. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Leaving it without templates is a reasonable compromise for now. Though unless a consensus forms for it to be more than an essay in a reasonable amount of time it should go back as an essay. The reason for this is that an essay does not need consensus to be an essay as they are an exposition of opinion and it is made clear it is advisory not binding. ] 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
== Graph ==


:You know, the whole {{tl|supplement}} discussion is a strange thing. I would be fine to delete the template if we weren't so quick to give every single page a tag. Would it kill us for a non-mainspace page not to have a template? There ''are'' certain pages which have advice or behavioral guidelines that we must follow (unless we desire to be blocked or desysopped), but aren't necessarily appropriate for inclusion in the policy page (IAR/WIARM is a perfect example of the policy/supplement relationship being formed).
''On the help desk you posted the following post and I'm interested in that graph too. You said you found it yourself. Can you point me to it?''
:See, tagging a page like WIARM with {{tl|essay}} gives the wrong impression to new users who are confused about exactly what "Ignore All Rules" means. We've had many instances of someone coming along the IAR talk page (and other users' talk pages) asking "What exactly does this policy mean?" and we've pointed them to WIARM. They read the page and understood the policy better. If we were to tag the page with the essay template, the new user would read the template and be confused -- why are editors pointing them to a page that says that they're not obliged to follow it? I think excessive {{tl|essay}} tagging to otherwise very useful pages is unhelpful to new and otherwise inexperienced users. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
::I saw this brilliant graph a few days ago that showed, over time, the varying number of admins vs. editors and vandals, and that while the number of admins is only rising slightly, the number of vandals is rising hugely. I've searched and searched but to no avail. Does anyone know where I can find that again? Thanks! :)
-- ] 07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (aka ]; too lazy to log in)
:Hey -- here's the link to it: . Enjoy! ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 15:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree it is a rather strange dispute, I can imagine an outsider not understanding what it is all about. A user being sent to ] is well advised that the information is an essay and not mandatory. To tell them otherwise would be misinforming them. If the community wanted that pages content to be policy they could do so, but they have not.
== Thanks for the thank you ==


That being said, I think our fundamental disagreement may be one of semantics. Your comments have led me to believe that you feel the wording of ], without further qualifications, will lead users into performing actions that will lead to them being blocked. I disagree, as WP:IAR nowhere says that others need to accept you actions or that you will be immune to the results.
I really felt good when you and I made the connection over consensus lately. I appreciate the work you're obviously doing here too, and since you think they're silly, no smilies or other weirdnesses for you either. Good to build bridges instead of just being frustrated by not being able to communicate. Thanks for helping build ours. --] <small>] / ]</small> 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


If one reads the policies as a whole it is clear that certain actions such as disruption will lead to certain actions such as blocked. While WP:IAR invites you to violate those rules for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, it does not state any immunity to the consequences of your actions.
== Something to Ponder ==


Our disagreement about how the policy should be aside, I would like to talk about how policy is decided upon.
Hi there. I appreciate the work that you and other Wikipedians do. I have been watching the discussion over the article about my son's band, ] with interest. Obviously, I think it's exciting that someone took the time to create the article and that others are so interested in making sure it meets notability criteria, etc. What an interesting place this is. Whether the deletion is overturned or not is rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I just wanted to comment about your statements regarding kid bands in the business. Here's an angle that you may not have considered. First, these kids are actually very talented. You may wish to dispute this, but the fact is, each of these kids are musically gifted. Are they as good as the Red Hot Chili Peppers or some other older band? Of course not. However, without young kids pursuing their dreams and musical aspirations, who will be the future of music? As the Dad of one of the band members, literally every day I see evidence of the inspiration that these kids are to other kids and even adults. They are asked questions daily about how to practice, what kind of instrument to play, where to take lessons and how to start a band. We've seen comments such as, "You made me pick up my guitar again after many years of not playing," from one older musician. These young kids thrive on helping other kids to not be intimidated by the complexities of making music. They make it look easy and this, in turn, encourages others to give it a try when they may have otherwise decided against it. Have a look at the comments on the band's website guestbook or YouTube channel and you will see the type of thing to which I am referring. NAMM decided to partner with these particular kids for just this reason. Since there are so many other kid bands around, they could have selected any number of young bands. They chose Still Pending because of the impact they have on other people to want to make music. That's what NAMM is all about. The Cartoon Network selected them for some of the same reasons (they, of course, have some other motives, as well). So, while we can argue over the talent of these kids, the fact remains that the media coverage and other coverage they, and other young bands receive, is a positive thing for music, in my humble opinion. People young and old need sources of inspiration to pursue their talents. Seeing young kids, unafraid of taking risks and reaping some nice rewards in return should be an inspiration to all of us. I say, more power to them if they can get the attention of the media to help them spread the word to an even wider audience. To be frank, these kids have been an inspiration to me as well. Believe me, I have many issues with our media, but, like most things, positive attributes can be found in the messages that they are able to send with their broad reach. I believe that these, and other kids, are notable ''because'' of their age and it should be celebrated. We have seen comments before about people liking them only because they are young. There may be some truth in this, but my point is that this is not necessarily such a bad thing. Young athletes and others who are considered "prodigies" get media attention mostly because of their age. They are never as talented as their adult counterparts. I would make the same argument about their notability and their ability to inspire. I apologize for my long-winded comment. Thank you for taking the time to read it, and, again, thanks for your invaluable work in the Wiki community. ] 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:Let me first just say that I appreciate your comments and that I apologize for the length of my comment. Considering what I've said at the DRV, let me just say that I would expected a much less civil comment from one of the band member's father. So I just wanted to begin with the fact that I appreciate what you've said and that I respect your civility and your ability to keep a level head and not take comments personally during a debate about a subject that is probably touchy to you (to say the least). Let me also just say that it's late my time (1:30am) and I'm quite tired, so I might not be at my full mental capacity. But I'll try to respond to at least some, if not most, of your comments. First, I don’t doubt that Still Pending has gotten a lot of comments like the ones you’ve mentioned above; that does happen generally with media exposure. But my overall problem with Still Pending is that I just don’t think that there should be children musicians, simply because it is inevitable that they won’t be accepted or taken seriously both by the knowledgeable music community or the serious music press. A kid band is arguably destined to become another Hanson: plenty of press, sure, plenty of fans, sure, plenty of positive comments about the future of the music industry, sure, but in the end, never taken seriously. And by taken seriously I mean taken seriously by the folks who actually are shaping the industry. Unfortunately, and maybe this is pessimistic of me (I have, however, had quite a bit of exposure and experience within the music industry – I’ve worked at two indie labels and one major), but the future of pop music is determined not by the bands but rather by the major labels. But that’s just pop music. What shapes “real” music (if that term can even be applied) is true independent, forward-thinking music. The problem is that the chance that a band of children to be able to influence or even be accepted by such a community is very slim. Actually, knowing the community with great intimacy, I would say it’s close to none. So the question boils down to whether or not their press coverage is a good thing for the music industry? As a music purist (and a huge fan of both cutting-edge and pop music), I’m not so sure it is. I mean no disrespect to your son’s band, don’t get me wrong, but it worries and upsets me when bands get more press simply because of a schtick (or because of their age) than older, more experienced, and arguably more talented bands who really are shaping the music industry but won’t be appreciated for their contributions for years to come. I don’t doubt that the members of Still Pending have talent. But let’s not kid ourselves (no pun intended) – twelve-year-old kids are still learning to be talented during encounters with the opposite sex, so their musical talent, while it could be good, is arguably still relatively little in the greater picture. Furthermore, should the band be notable for their ability to inspire? I would argue, per my comments about the industry and my experience, that bands should be notable for their talent, not any attribute that is specifically ''not'' talent. If Still Pending has talent, as you say it does, then I would rather have the band mature both in age and talent and then debut into the scene when they’re at least in high school. If their talent is as good as it is claimed, then they should be able to generate the same hype. All this said, the band does fulfill Misplaced Pages’s guidelines and should have a Misplaced Pages page per our policies and guidelines. And none of my comments should be taken personally – I do wish your son and his band the best of luck in the industry, as it’s a tough place and a pretty nasty environment. And for what it’s worth, I do hope that I’m wrong and that Still Pending can move past being just a “kid band.” But it’s nice to have this discussion, and again, I do appreciate your comments. I hope that mine made sense too, as I’m too tired to read over them. I can't believe I wrote this much. But feel free to respond if you want! ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:: This is a good and intelligent discussion and I always welcome that. It has got me thinking. I am at work, so I don't have the time to really get into as much detail as maybe I would like right now. As parents of these kids, I have to be honest that we have really struggled with what is the "right" thing to do. We know all the horror stories about young kids in the industry. I can't remember the Hanson story, exactly, but other people have mentioned it as well. It's a bit scary to think about what could possibly happen to these kids if they get swept up into childhood stardom, which is a real possibility with all that is happening right now. One of the comments you made about being a purist got me thinking, though. There is clearly a huge base of music fans who are young. Kids are getting interested in music at very young ages now (maybe always). I know that my kids started showing musical taste at about age 8 or 9. My daughter is a huge Disney fan. Now, lots of people would make the same argument about these "artists" that they are making about SP. The fact is, there are tons of fans of this music. Sure, it's candy-pop, overproduced garbage by some standards, but some kids absolutely love it. My daughter has found a new interest in singing, largely, I think, due to some of these performers. The members of SP are actually quite opposed to Disney music and that entire genre. They all love classic rock and newer alternative and other rock. One of the really fascinating things about SP is that they appeal to kids who like alternative, punk and rock music - including many, many male fans, but they also appeal to the Disney set - mostly female. The alternative/rock kids like them because they appear to be genuine - they write their own material, they cover cool bands like Green Day, Zeppelin and RHCP and they really do rock. I don't know what you saw or heard (you said you checked them out), but I would encourage you to check out their YouTube channel and some of the most recent videos from their show at the Crystal Ballroom ]. I hope you can see that there is real talent here. Take particular note of the number of plays that some of these videos have gotten. Read the kids' bios and you'll see that they are real musicians - not produced by some label or network. This is their band - they write and arrange everything. They get comments every day from older teens - 15, 16, 17 who say things like, "I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think you guys are good." These kids are a pretty tough and discerning audience and yet they respond to this band. We have seen these same kids literally shred some of the other kid bands out there - they can see through the facade, and yet they approve of SP. I am the first to admit that the Disney set of fans probably like them first for their appearance. They, too, however, respond ultimately to the music. Well, here I go again getting long-winded. I'm almost to my point, so hang with me. The point is, there are lots of kids out there clamoring for music. You're suggesting waiting until these guys are older. Well, who are they going to appeal to, then? Perhaps the older kids, perhaps not. Why deprive these young fans of something that clearly appeals to them? Would you tell a young athlete not to compete in sports until they are older and more experienced? The fact is, these kids are gaining hugely valuable experience now by performing for live audiences that many kids will never have the chance to gain. Take a look at the progression in skill and performance they have made since last summer (the older YouTube videos). This came from lots of practice and lots of live performances (which, by the way, they absolutely love). I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that they will always be regarded as a "kid band." I don't have the expectation that they will be around for 20 years. Not many bands last that long, especially kids. I also think that with their talent, these kids could have a little run right now and then possibly re-emerge with other bands or in other forms later on. I truly believe that there is a difference between these guys and the over-produced stuff we're seeing in their age bracket right now. They are the real deal. Nobody is making them do this or telling them how to do it. I'm hoping that they can retain this "purity." This will be the tricky part. Well, I win the new record for length. Sorry about that and thanks for the stimulating dialog. ] 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry I haven't been able to respond as of yet, but I've been absolutely bogged down with work. I promise I'll respond within the next day or two. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 02:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I have no idea if you're even reading this anymore, so I'll keep this short. I think it's great that Still Pending doesn't like Disney music and that they're influences come from classic rock and punk. And to be honest, I don't have a problem with kid bands. As long as they don't get famous. For the most part, kids who are in famous bands burn out entirely and have zero chance for success in the industry when they get older. Except maybe Michael Jackson, but no one wants their kid to turn out like him. In terms of your argument about children athletes, it's comparing apples and oranges. Olympic child athletes ''can'' compete with the adults, and often win. In terms of music, there's no way that a kid band will have the same skills or talent or be able to write or perform the same songs as the Chili Peppers, Zep or Green Day (I'm using these as examples because you cited them as some of the band's inspirations). Children's minds just aren't developed enough to be able to discern what is good and what isn't, what's derivative and what's original. That is, ''unless'' they're a Disney group and have all their material written for them in the first place. But I'll end with this: I don't have a problem with Still Pending. I love that children are being exposed to music at a young age, and I love that kids like your son are picking up the guitar. What I don't like is the media fixating on a band like Still Pending ''because'' it's a kid band, because essentially the media is exploiting the kids not for their talent but rather a schtick (and it's not even the kids' fault), thereby setting them up to become laughing stocks in the industry if they do wish to become serious musicians later in life. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


My primary concern is that policy should not be written by well meaning people who are sure they are correct. Using the "supplement" to replace an essay tag does two major things: 1) It removes the statement that the page is advice and is not mandatory, 2) it labels it as a supplement to policy which gives the impression that it is policy.
==AfD possibility?==


This is all well and good if there has been a consensus to do so, but that is not how it is being used at all.
If ] of articles were nominated, do you think it might stand a chance of getting deleted? ] 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
:Responded on your talk page. :) ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::I'm certainly thinking about it - that level of detail doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me, and the amount of commercial links has the air of spam. Thanks for the advice; if you happen to make a nomination, let me know and I'll vote either to delete or drastically reduce in size. ] 05:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah, they really do reek of spam, don't they? But as per their encyclopedic value, I'm torn, and I can totally see people arguing for keep based on "]." But I'll definitely keep thinking about it and will let you know if I move forward with an AfD. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, but they fail WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT, which is what really matters! OK, we'll keep in touch. ] 05:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I agree, they absolutely fail WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. But for some reason closing admins often count those votes as legit. So it's just a matter of writing up the nomination as to stop those votes from being counted. We'll definitely keep in touch. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


All told, I am not opposed to changing most policy. I think that if there is to be an explanation of WP:IAR that it should be on a different page. I think that if that explanation has consensus to be policy it should be. But I do not think there has ever been consensus for that explanation of IAR to be policy.
== Nick Palumbo ==


While I did agree to the addition of the supplement tag, I will point out that at the time it was worded as such: "This essay supplements ]. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s). Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page."
He's hardly notable at all. He's made a number of ultra-gory independent films and has gone around the internet promoting the heck out of them. In no way has ANY professional article ever referred to him as a member of the Splat Pack (like they have with Rob Zombie or Eli Roth) or a founder the current horror renaissaince (spelling?) thats going around except for, of course, himself. He's spammed numerous horror boards and is generally considered to be a Grade-A Prick. I'm willing to bet he's the one adding his name to the article.--] 19:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
:Yeah, I figured he wasn't notable, and I've definitely removed his name from the Splat Pack article more than once. It's funny, because I can always tell that someone is not notable or is grasping for notability if his or her name gets spam-linked somewhere else in Misplaced Pages. Sigh. Well, I think that what we should do is cut the hell out of Palumbo's article, removing literally everything that is unsourced or possibly original research. He does, after all, fall under ]. I'll go ahead and take a shot at it. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 19:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
::Good job. If you need any help or nominate it for deletion, let me know and tell me if I can do anything.--] 23:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


With this wording it is really no different than an essay accept it has an associated policy. But with the current wording: "This page is a supplement to Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules" it appears to be policy, and that was never agreed to. ] 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
==Deletion Review==
thanks for calling my attention to the error or at least the complexity--I added my source. The various comments seemed to get it mixed up in any case, but that isnt unusual at deletion review. ''']'''


:I understand your position, and for what it's worth, I liked the old wording on the supplement tag, too. And don't get me wrong: I'm not wedded to {{tl|supplement}}. I guess my big problem is that tagging a page with {tl|essay}} is that a) on occasion, it does give out advice that is absolutely necessary and useful to new users, and that tag gives the wrong impression, and b) it puts a page such as WIARM on the same level as ]. That is unacceptable.
==VTech and social networking==
:We really do need some kind of consensus about what to do with the pages that are in between an essay and a policy/guideline. Maybe that tag is {{tl|supplement}}; maybe it's not. Maybe the answer is to not have tags on articles like WIARM. I don't know. What I do know is that tagging a page that dispenses very useful advice and then states that no one needs to adhere to it is disruptive. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
There have been newspaper articles written by media groups about the impact of social networking sites on the response to Virginia Tech: http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=350063&Category=14&subCategoryID=


In respond to point a), If the community felt the advice was necessary it can make it policy if it so chooses to, if they do not choose to do this than its necessity is an opinion not a fact. In response to point b) Just because some essays are not good advice, does not mean that anything tagged an essay is diminished, nor does it mean that a good essay is suddenly more than an essay.
Hence, the links to the social networking sites held by victims are very much relevant to the case. ] 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:Not at all. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and linking Myspaces isn't in the least bit encyclopedic. Remember, Misplaced Pages isn't Google and isn't the news. If there's an article about social networking after the deaths, then there should be a section about that. Don't interpret the news, report the news. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 16:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


You seem to be under the opinion that "essay" is a diminutive term, it is not. It means an exposition of opinion, and however good the advice may be it is still opinion until consensus decides to call it more. Wishful thinking or really thinking it should be so is not a basis for making an essay policy. Make your argument and reach a consensus, if you fail to reach that consensus then that must be accepted. The creation of this vague quasi policy state called "supplement" seems to create the illusion an essay is more than it really is, and I dare say there was some intent behind that.
==Jocelyne Couture-Nowak deletion question==


This whole matter has been confused by the fact that while consensus was reached for the supplement tag to be used, that tag at the time labeled the page as an essay and has since changed to give the impression that it is part of polict. There was never a consensus for it not to be an essay. If you think users disregarding the essay may have a bad result, then state that in the essay. But it must be clear that the page is opinion based advice until there is consensus for it to be more. ] 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Rockstar915. Could you please clarify the quesiton of deletions and reviews? On April 23, 2007, at 6:49, I had left a comment on a (to me) mysteriously blanked article on Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. You deleted my question (no problem with that), and your comment was "''you may request the undeletion for review at the drv''." I'm not sure how to request an undeletion (reinstatement), or what a drv is, but I am mainly wondering why the J C-N article was deleted. The instructions at the top of the J C-N page was and still is "''While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice''." In other words, '''leave and/or improve the article. Don't blank it.''' What is going on? Why was it blanked? You are an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, so perhaps you could help clarify for me what happened.] 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:Hi Que-Can, thanks for the question! Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was indeed an article, but it was nominated for deletion on April 17. The resulting discussion (which lasted for five days) can be found ], and resulted in the deletion of the article. Another editor disagreed with the procedure of the discussion, and listed it for ], and there is currently a discussion going on as to whether the deletion was handled correctly (you can read/add your input ]). My comment was that sometimes you can convince an administrator to undelete a page while a deletion review is going on, so that other editors can add to it. If you want to do that, you should drop a note at the DRV. Does that make sense? Sorry, I meant to write you a note on your talk page but I've been swamped with work. :) ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


:Feh. We'll be twirling around in circles for days if we continue here. The thing is, on Misplaced Pages, "essay" ''is'' a diminutive term. In their current form, essays mean nothing. Opinions? No necessity to adhere to the text? We might as well add "Sure, you can write an essay on Misplaced Pages if you want to feel better about yourself, but it won't do any good or improve the project" to {{tl|essay}}. Would that get the point across?
:That's the great thing about the supplement tag. It allows for certain pages to exist that help to explain a ''part'' of a policy that wouldn't otherwise fit into the policy page. Misplaced Pages is expanding, and with it, so are the policy pages. It's just as simple as that. And I think that one major problem we're dealing with here is the fact that it's nearly impossible to enact a new policy or guidelne. It would be all great and good to spout out the cookie cutter response ("Don't use {{tl|supplement}}, use {{tl|proposed}}), if the process actually worked, but as Kim has noted on many occasions, it doesn't. As it stands right now, we have a process that needs to be fixed. {{tl|supplement}} helps fix that problem. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 03:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


==]==
==hrm==
Those '''black''' and ''blinking'' versions of the projectpage back in 2007 looked awful, tho I can't recall which particular diff was most outrageous. However, I do have some saner showing the oldest, and older versions of the page, looking pretty much like the . Cheers! ] - ] 00:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Didn't like my edit? I kind of thought ] was starting to become a little too bloated/ideaological from the original one I created. --]] 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:Bloated and ideological?! Who gives a fuck? No, seriously, though, I don't. I personally think it's fine, and I <3 bloated and ideological things anyway. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 02:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


:I actually thought the black version was rather eye-catching. Good compilation, though! Although now that I refresh the page it looks as though you deleted them... to bad, I had some additions to some saner (and, for a while at least, consensus supported) versions. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
==Samaha==
Referring to adding the phrase regarding Lebanese descent: "::::Nope. Just remove it. ]"


::Those diffs are still at the link above. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page. If you want to make a list of revisions that are sane, you can do it in your userspace, that would be cool, I think. I wasn't involved in that episode, which anyway is well in the past now. ] - ] 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The media has reported on the descent:
*Here's a sample article: http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/reema-samaha/
*And another: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Reema+Lebanese&btnG=Search
*And another: http://www.daylife.com/story/0e3jfNh4Dyghg/1?lead_article=101000000020455340


:::Indeed, it is well in the past. That said, a chronicle of change is always a useful resource. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Internet sources make the point that she was Lebanese-American - She could be a second-generation immigrant (as in her parents immigrated) ] 01:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:There are two essays you should read: ] and ]. You have to use common sense in distinguishing what is encyclopedic and what is not. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 01:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
::Please check the talk page again ] 02:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
==changing sides==
(overheard you at BDJeff.) If you _are_ thinking of changing to become an inclusionist, let me encourage you to think it terms that a return to the wider use of stubs is a practical intermediate. EB has long had numerous 1 paragraph articles. The advantage is that it saves the fighting, and lets us all get back to editing articles. What most needs removal around here isn't inappropriate articles, but the excessive spam in a great many articles. ''']''' 04:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not so much thinking about becoming an inclusionist as I am thinking that deletionism is stupid. But the bulk of my issues is with DRV and AfD and how the processes don't work nearly as well as they should. That said, I'm a bit confused about what you meant by "EB" (could you explain that?) and I do agree that excessive spam has to be deleted, but I also think that we should be proactive in deleting articles that are obvious spam. I'm working through the List of Record Labels (a breeding ground for spammy adverts) and am nominating for deletion the ones that are obviously spam. I still enjoy deleting articles, but I do think that there is some merit to the inclusionist argument. Maybe I'm somewhere in the middle. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


==Sock puppetry==
==About WP:MEMORIAL and injured victims==
I was wondering if you ever did a ] on ]. I was going to put one in for one of the puppets (which is how I found your page) and thought I ought to check with you first. I notice you haven't edited in almost a month so I don't even know if you'll be reading this. You can reply here, I'll watch this page. If I don't hear from you soon, I'll just go ahead and put it in. Thanks —] ] 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:MEMORIAL redirects to ] - It states: "Memorials. Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." - It seems to be very open-ended and does not mention specifics. ] 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


==Proposed deletion of Comedy Horn==
Also, I posted the list of known injured victims describing their injuries. ] 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
]
:I know WP:MEMORIAL, and I think it's open-ended for a reason -- Misplaced Pages isn't a memorial, and memorializing can be dangerous, even ''if'' the subject isn't your friend/relative, etc. As for the known injured victims, awesome job! It's crazy how much work you've done on this article. Keep it up. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 07:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ].


Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
== Thanks for the link ==


==Proposed deletion of Zykos (album)==
I find myself frustrated that the logs cannot be searched for "IAR" as far as I know, because I think there are probably a lot of mentions, especially in Speedy logs. As for WP:IAR, I would love to see/make an edit there that would clarify, even just a more explicit spelling out of where IAR originally came from, to clarify that it's not about ignoring rules for administration's sake, but to encourage new editors not to get bogged down by trying to understand all the policies/guidelines/procedures while they're just starting out. --] <small>] / ]</small> 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
]
:My thought is as minimal as possible statement on the project page about alternate interpretations and some subpage or other type of clearinghouse (can you link to a search?) of links to those alternate interpretations. Currently, the See Also section doesn't cut it in my mind. I guess I would be OK with just having other essays/guidelines written that can be linked to in future discussions without modification of IAR itself, and some of the existing ones are also useful to know about.
A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ].
:One thing I'm very curious about is when IAR changed substantially from the original wording by the original founders. Maybe I'll go see if I can figure that out this morning. Also, I may look into coding or finding a tool that can search Deletion comments and other forms of logs. --] <small>] / ]</small> 11:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
==Misplaced Pages..Crystal Ball lmao==
==Orphaned non-free media (Image:Comedyhorn.jpg)==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 05:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
lmao wow i havent heard that one yet lol..=] ] 04:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free media (Image:Zykosalbum.jpg)==
:Ha, it's actually in Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines: ]. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 04:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] (]) 05:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
lmfao dats makes it even more funny..=] ] 04:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:Ha! :) ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 04:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


== Replaceable fair use Image:Theneinpromo.jpg ==
aww thank u..=] ] 04:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
]
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of ], but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our ] in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


# Go to ] and edit it to add {{tlx|di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, '''without deleting the original replaceable fair use template'''.
hey could u give me an answer for what x is in this? 2(x+3) - 5x = 12 ] 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
# On ], write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.


Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, ], or by taking a picture of it yourself.
:x = -2. :) ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on <span class="plainlinks"></span>. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice --> ] (]) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
oh ma god thank u!!!!!! ] 05:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:Haha no worries. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


==File source problem with File:ShutUpStella2.jpg==
=]..=]..=] (thinkin of doin somethin nice for Rockstar) ] 05:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
]
:There's no need to do anything nice... I always liked algebra! ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 05:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the ] status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.


If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following . '''Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged''', as described on ]. If the image is copyrighted under a ] (per ]) then '''the image will be deleted ] after 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)'''. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no source-notice --> ] (]) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
lolz..i like Math but Im not that good at it..=]..lol that reminds me do u know any record producers? ] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:Ha! Record producers? I mean, I'm friends with a lot of people at record labels (both big and small), if that's what you're asking... why? ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


== New Page Patrol survey ==
yea cuz umm i need sum help gettin into the music biz could u talk to them maybe u know tell them bout me..or atleast ,mention my name(Tamie )..=] ] 20:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:Well, the biz takes a very long time to get into, and oftentimes it's just coincidence. Do you have a myspace music page or something else that you can point me to so I can get a feel for your music? ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


{| style="background-color: #dfeff3; border: 4px solid #bddff2; width:100%" cellpadding="5"
i do have 1 but i aint get my music on it yet..=]..when i get it on..ill tell u and umm will u help me then? ] 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
| ]
:Sure, I'll see what I can do. Just let me know. :) ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 20:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
<big>'''New page patrol – ''Survey Invitation'''''</big>
----
Hello Rockstar915! The ] is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
* If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
* If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
'''Please click to take part.'''<br>
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
----
<small>You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see ]. ] 13:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)</small>
|}
<!-- EdwardsBot 0122 -->


==Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest==
ok i just dont know how to thank u..=] ] 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:Really, don't worry about it! :) ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the ], on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely <i>nine</i> edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I <i>will</i> credit links fixed by turning a ] page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the ], we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! ] ] 02:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Aww ur so sweet..=] ] 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32; because of the following concern:
== FYI - I just spent the day reviewing the entire edit history of WP:IAR ==
:'''Non-notable band.'''


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
Perhaps you or someone you know will find the summary helpful. ]. --] <small>] / ]</small> 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:I hope you save this link so that if someone asks in the future about the history of IAR we can just redirect them to this section. Awesome job, though! ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::I think it took a total of about 2-3 hours. I did it in chunks throughout the day, so it's difficult to know for sure. :) --] <small>] / ]</small> 20:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, dude. It's still not comprehensive, but it looks like it irritated Centrix, which I'm not sure is a good thing or not. --] <small>] / ]</small> 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm still very impressed. Comments like those from Centrx, however, bother me beyond words. You were attempting to make a point (and a very good one at that), and his comments were entirely unproductive and, in fact, disruptive. It's comments like that that often stop any constructive work being done in changing IAR. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 20:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Agreed. But it's also true that I am more stubborn than they are (if I'm convinced the cause is just, anyway). --] <small>] / ]</small> 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::In a case like this, it's probably good to be stubborn. :) ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 21:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::I hope so. It's good to see some support for this, my most often described as "obnoxious talent". :) --] <small>] / ]</small> 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Ha! Well if the obnoxious talent gets you somewhere, I guess it's a good thing. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
==Re Gael Garcia==


Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> –''''']''''' (] / ]) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
If he's a director, can you add the movies or productions he has helmed in his article page? Thanks. ] 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:It actually already states in the article that he's directing and producing Defecit, which comes out later on this year. I just added the info in the lede paragraph because it was pertinent information. Hope that helps! ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Okie saw it. Changed some stuff. Lastly, could you kindly give me a news or entertainment report link about Deficit? I'd like to know what it's about or why Gael's directing it and stuff. Hehe thanks! ^_^ ] 15:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Assuming you're not looking for reliable sources for the page, here's a few links I could find by a quick Google search: , , and . Hope that helps! I'm sure there's more out there, just try Googling the name of the film with "Bernal" or "interview" or something like that. :) ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
==Harrisonburg vs. Harrisburg==
<s>This is just a geographical fact - what would you cite?</s> ] 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:oops... my bad... I see the problem... they changed city and state... I concur with your reversion. ] 21:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
== Re: Hey ==
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692054221 -->
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Thanks. Glad to hear it. <tt>:)</tt> --]] 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 21:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
== ] ==


== New deal for page patrollers ==
Please don't remove templates like {{tl|weasel}} from articles without doing the required work (such as removing all the instances of "it was reported that", "it was announced that ", "Once seen as a label that championed underground hip hop, the shift away from this has left many with a bad taste in their mouths", etc.). --] (]) 09:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
:Maybe you should read WP:CHILL, WP:TIND or WP:PANIC. And, while you're at it, read WP:TALK before reverting a talk page. For the record, I was in the process of cleaning it up, and removing the template was just step one. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 23:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi {{BASEPAGENAME}},
First, perhaps you should read ]. Secondly, I have read ]; I also know that deleting a comment without response is ill mannered, and that removing requests and warnings is deprecated. Thirdly, the correct order is: do the work, then remove the templates. Fourthly, your edit summary ("naw, not weasel words but it does need to be cleaned up") clearly stated that you were removing the template becauuse you thought that it was inaccurate, not because you intended to do the work. --] (]) 07:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:a) Don't take things personally, I was being civil. b) I can do whatever I want to do with my talk comments, so long as I don't change the wording. c) There is no correct order, but thanks for sharing what you think it is. d) It did need to be cleaned up, and at the time there weren't weasel words. I cleaned it up. Get over it and go write an encyclopedia. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 16:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the ] is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group '''New Page Reviewer''' has been created.
== You deserve a cookie ==


Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most ''current'' experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
{{WikiCookie|Thank you for chiming in on ], where it is an uphill battle trying to get compliance with ]. I hope you will watchlist the page.}} ] 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Find out more about this exiting new user right now at ] and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. ] (]) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
== Notice ==
<!-- Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Mailing2&oldid=749223519 -->


== RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey ==
Having seen you on the deletion review, I thought you might want to be made aware of the relisted AfD for ]. It can be found ]. '''] <sup>]''' </sup><small><sub>]</sub></small> 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for the heads up. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


]
==A couple of votes==
<big>'''''Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!'''''</big>
Just hoping to pick up some deletionist support: (], ]). ] 00:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:I'm not actually a deletionist anymore, though I'm also not really an inclusionist either. But I'll go ahead and take a look at the AfDs and give my 2 cents! Thanks for the heads up. ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 01:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


This is a '''one-time-only''' message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the ''']''' that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
== ] ==


# ]
You voted in this article's Deletion Review. ] complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the ''']'''. &mdash; <small>]] &bull; 2007-05-05 18:32Z</small>
# ]
:Thanks for the note! ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
# ]
:I hope you blocked him again. Did you? ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 13:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
# ]
::No, I was hoping someone uninvolved would do something. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
# ]


Further, there are ] that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)
==]==


Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Actually, that would be his fifth warning, or sixth if you count a previous block. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:I hope you blocked him again. Did you? ] (<small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small>) 13:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
<small>Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{tl|User wikipedia/RC Patrol|}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.</small>

Best regards, {{u|Stevietheman}} — <small>Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)</small>
<!--Sent per Special:PermaLink/753582870#Request_for_mass_message_delivery:_December_6.2C_2016 at WT:MMS-->
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Stevietheman/RCPatrollers_list&oldid=753533319 -->
== Misplaced Pages:RUBBISH listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Misplaced Pages:RUBBISH'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 06:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
==] nomination of ]==
]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not ] how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about ].

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Vermont+%28band%29|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ''']''' <sup> ] </sup> 17:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
==] nomination of ]==
]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not ] how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about ].

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Vermont+%28band%29|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ''']''' <sup> ] </sup> 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:40, 1 March 2022

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives
1
2
3

Template:Supplement

Thanks for catching the image size! :) Rockstar (/C) 06:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem!  :) —David Levy 06:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

There is a discussion on the talk page, please contribute to it. Also there never was consensus to make it more than an essay so please revert yourself until such a consensus forms. 1 != 2 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. How about this: until consensus is formed on the talk page to either describe the page as an essay or supplement, we leave the page without template. Rockstar (/C) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving it without templates is a reasonable compromise for now. Though unless a consensus forms for it to be more than an essay in a reasonable amount of time it should go back as an essay. The reason for this is that an essay does not need consensus to be an essay as they are an exposition of opinion and it is made clear it is advisory not binding. 1 != 2 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, the whole {{supplement}} discussion is a strange thing. I would be fine to delete the template if we weren't so quick to give every single page a tag. Would it kill us for a non-mainspace page not to have a template? There are certain pages which have advice or behavioral guidelines that we must follow (unless we desire to be blocked or desysopped), but aren't necessarily appropriate for inclusion in the policy page (IAR/WIARM is a perfect example of the policy/supplement relationship being formed).
See, tagging a page like WIARM with {{essay}} gives the wrong impression to new users who are confused about exactly what "Ignore All Rules" means. We've had many instances of someone coming along the IAR talk page (and other users' talk pages) asking "What exactly does this policy mean?" and we've pointed them to WIARM. They read the page and understood the policy better. If we were to tag the page with the essay template, the new user would read the template and be confused -- why are editors pointing them to a page that says that they're not obliged to follow it? I think excessive {{essay}} tagging to otherwise very useful pages is unhelpful to new and otherwise inexperienced users. Rockstar (/C) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a rather strange dispute, I can imagine an outsider not understanding what it is all about. A user being sent to WP:WIARM is well advised that the information is an essay and not mandatory. To tell them otherwise would be misinforming them. If the community wanted that pages content to be policy they could do so, but they have not.

That being said, I think our fundamental disagreement may be one of semantics. Your comments have led me to believe that you feel the wording of WP:IAR, without further qualifications, will lead users into performing actions that will lead to them being blocked. I disagree, as WP:IAR nowhere says that others need to accept you actions or that you will be immune to the results.

If one reads the policies as a whole it is clear that certain actions such as disruption will lead to certain actions such as blocked. While WP:IAR invites you to violate those rules for the benefit of Misplaced Pages, it does not state any immunity to the consequences of your actions.

Our disagreement about how the policy should be aside, I would like to talk about how policy is decided upon.

My primary concern is that policy should not be written by well meaning people who are sure they are correct. Using the "supplement" to replace an essay tag does two major things: 1) It removes the statement that the page is advice and is not mandatory, 2) it labels it as a supplement to policy which gives the impression that it is policy.

This is all well and good if there has been a consensus to do so, but that is not how it is being used at all.

All told, I am not opposed to changing most policy. I think that if there is to be an explanation of WP:IAR that it should be on a different page. I think that if that explanation has consensus to be policy it should be. But I do not think there has ever been consensus for that explanation of IAR to be policy.

While I did agree to the addition of the supplement tag, I will point out that at the time it was worded as such: "This essay supplements Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s). Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page."

With this wording it is really no different than an essay accept it has an associated policy. But with the current wording: "This page is a supplement to Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules" it appears to be policy, and that was never agreed to. 1 != 2 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position, and for what it's worth, I liked the old wording on the supplement tag, too. And don't get me wrong: I'm not wedded to {{supplement}}. I guess my big problem is that tagging a page with {tl|essay}} is that a) on occasion, it does give out advice that is absolutely necessary and useful to new users, and that tag gives the wrong impression, and b) it puts a page such as WIARM on the same level as WP:Five pillars of evil. That is unacceptable.
We really do need some kind of consensus about what to do with the pages that are in between an essay and a policy/guideline. Maybe that tag is {{supplement}}; maybe it's not. Maybe the answer is to not have tags on articles like WIARM. I don't know. What I do know is that tagging a page that dispenses very useful advice and then states that no one needs to adhere to it is disruptive. Rockstar (/C) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In respond to point a), If the community felt the advice was necessary it can make it policy if it so chooses to, if they do not choose to do this than its necessity is an opinion not a fact. In response to point b) Just because some essays are not good advice, does not mean that anything tagged an essay is diminished, nor does it mean that a good essay is suddenly more than an essay.

You seem to be under the opinion that "essay" is a diminutive term, it is not. It means an exposition of opinion, and however good the advice may be it is still opinion until consensus decides to call it more. Wishful thinking or really thinking it should be so is not a basis for making an essay policy. Make your argument and reach a consensus, if you fail to reach that consensus then that must be accepted. The creation of this vague quasi policy state called "supplement" seems to create the illusion an essay is more than it really is, and I dare say there was some intent behind that.

This whole matter has been confused by the fact that while consensus was reached for the supplement tag to be used, that tag at the time labeled the page as an essay and has since changed to give the impression that it is part of polict. There was never a consensus for it not to be an essay. If you think users disregarding the essay may have a bad result, then state that in the essay. But it must be clear that the page is opinion based advice until there is consensus for it to be more. 1 != 2 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Feh. We'll be twirling around in circles for days if we continue here. The thing is, on Misplaced Pages, "essay" is a diminutive term. In their current form, essays mean nothing. Opinions? No necessity to adhere to the text? We might as well add "Sure, you can write an essay on Misplaced Pages if you want to feel better about yourself, but it won't do any good or improve the project" to {{essay}}. Would that get the point across?
That's the great thing about the supplement tag. It allows for certain pages to exist that help to explain a part of a policy that wouldn't otherwise fit into the policy page. Misplaced Pages is expanding, and with it, so are the policy pages. It's just as simple as that. And I think that one major problem we're dealing with here is the fact that it's nearly impossible to enact a new policy or guidelne. It would be all great and good to spout out the cookie cutter response ("Don't use {{supplement}}, use {{proposed}}), if the process actually worked, but as Kim has noted on many occasions, it doesn't. As it stands right now, we have a process that needs to be fixed. {{supplement}} helps fix that problem. Rockstar (/C) 03:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules

Those black and blinking versions of the projectpage back in 2007 looked awful, tho I can't recall which particular diff was most outrageous. However, I do have some saner diffs showing the oldest, and older versions of the page, looking pretty much like the current revision. Cheers! Newbyguesses - Talk 00:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought the black version was rather eye-catching. Good compilation, though! Although now that I refresh the page it looks as though you deleted them... to bad, I had some additions to some saner (and, for a while at least, consensus supported) versions. Rockstar (/C) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Those diffs are still at the link above. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page. If you want to make a list of revisions that are sane, you can do it in your userspace, that would be cool, I think. I wasn't involved in that episode, which anyway is well in the past now. Newbyguesses - Talk 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it is well in the past. That said, a chronicle of change is always a useful resource. Rockstar (/C) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

I was wondering if you ever did a checkuser on this guy. I was going to put one in for one of the puppets (which is how I found your page) and thought I ought to check with you first. I notice you haven't edited in almost a month so I don't even know if you'll be reading this. You can reply here, I'll watch this page. If I don't hear from you soon, I'll just go ahead and put it in. Thanks —Hello, Control 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Comedy Horn

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Comedy Horn, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. triwbe (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zykos (album)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Zykos (album), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. triwbe (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Comedyhorn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Comedyhorn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Zykosalbum.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Zykosalbum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Theneinpromo.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Theneinpromo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:ShutUpStella2.jpg

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:ShutUpStella2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Rockstar915! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shut Up Stella

The article Shut Up Stella has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable band.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Zykos for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zykos is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zykos until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Rockstar915,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:RUBBISH listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:RUBBISH. Since you had some involvement with the Misplaced Pages:RUBBISH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION 06:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vermont (band)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vermont (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. dannymusiceditor 17:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vermont (band)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vermont (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. dannymusiceditor 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)