Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:13, 18 January 2008

Welcome!

Hello Congolese fufu, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 20:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crime add'n

Hi there. I made a small change to the section you added. (Nothing major, so feel free to revert if you don't like it). Best, --Bfigura 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Way to work on the wiki-karma :) --Bfigura 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re TV Episode

THe episode was hacked off a networks server and distribuited on the internet. THe only place info can be found on this is on the sites the videos are, because fan sites refuse to talk about it. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, you can go to the sites and find it, but no other site reports it. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The fan sites don't talk about it cause they don't want people watching it. And FYI, I am an admin also, I just wanted another opnion. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

THere are NO refrences that say it was hacked, the sites don't say it, they just say they have it. The Placebo Effect (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONGO

My advice to you on WP:CONGO would be to follow the steps at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Direct questions on project formation to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Prius article

Thanks, man. I've been working on cleaning it up, as well. Great to know that there's others joining in on the effort to clean that monstrously huge article that really doesn't need to be that huge. >.> Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, just a note, cleaning up an article usually entails removing useless details and consolidating references, not expanding the article and increasing the already monstrous list of references... Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

on ANI: possible new user's committee?

Someone posted on ANI about a pedophilia userbox. Blocking was discussesd. I was shocked to hear of such userbox. I commented that we consider a committee or study group to formulate acceptable user conduct so we can welcome new WPedians, not let them display bad judgment and get themselves blocked, particularly if they have good content to contribute. We should encourage the good content and not have them start bad content.

I proposed a common sense guideline, not a page of legalese. My first proposal is to include in the guidelines:
1) Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/Help:Contents/Getting_started
2) No support of pedophilia, whether in edits, user pages, userboxes, etc.
3) Be nice philosophy. No 3RR. Try to compromise and discuss. If there is a dispute, try to form a convincing discussion, don't resort to socks.
4) AGF
Congolese (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC) 5) The choice of username must be made carefully to avoid being denied editing ability. Please do not test the limits of what is permitted, such as if the name is barely acceptable.

FAC/Reese Witherspoon

Hi there, thanks for your suggestions. I've made some improvements per your review and responded to a few matters. :) Please check on my edits and review the article; and if there are more that need correcting, please don't hesitate to tell me at the FAC. Thank you! PeaceNT (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, me again. Concerning the same article (tired of me yet? ;)) Several kind users have helped me with fixing the article and I suppose all the copyediting has finished. I see your opposition still stands, so I was wondering if you could review the article again. (I'd love to hear more suggestions about how to further improve the page and make it qualify as an FA). Thanks for your time and take care, PeaceNT (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

rankun's space plox

Seton Hall University

I need your help moving this to a ga nomination for the same reason i wanted it fa.. im also looking for a wiki mentor if your willing Rankun (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

im willing to bet princeton and harvard but let me look —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankun (talk • contribs) 04:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

YEah apparently harvard and princeton arent... oh man the admin is gonna love this one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankun (talk • contribs) 04:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand you... i just like the fact that the small school i go to could beat out harvard in exellence Rankun (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Where do you suggest i start? Can you help me archive the talk page Should we make a seporate whitehead article and then merge it back in with the main or no?``04:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankun (talk • contribs) Could i get you to add yourself to the wikiproject seton hall.... i want more members.. to take over the world withRankun (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC) veritas, vivicum, and hazard zit foward...

MEETING

If possible theres a meeting going on in irc.freenode.net in channel #SHU about seton hall Rankun (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dartmouth Medical School FAC

Hi -- I've been away, and I was unable to finish addressing your suggestions at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dartmouth Medical School/archive1 before the nomination was closed. I just wanted to respond to your comment that My comments are meant to help improve, not to say that the article is bad -- I fully understand and didn't mean at any time to suggest that I thought otherwise. I appreciate your comments, and I'll work to incorporate them so that the article passes next time. Thanks! Dylan (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all! Please feel totally free to help out -- I don't stake any more of a claim on that article than any other Wikipedian. It would be greatly appreciated. Dylan (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.

Thanks for your support and a good, if tough question. It was a sort of generic editor I was thinking of, who always exhibits the behaviour exactly as you've described (I've come across three of them, so far). Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAM

FYI, I got out of the debate at WP:ANI because I was getting tired. Sorry, I had to walk away. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn

In other words, lighten up! Known liberals and a known conservative? Jeez, cut down on the drama juice. I am a moderate myself but I cant speak for the other editors. Neither can you. Who are you anyway and why are you watching/observing/stalking other editors? What business is it of yours? Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI is about the most public forum on WP. That's not stalking. Ok, you may be a moderate but your reputation is a liberal. You can speak about others. For example, Howard Dean is a liberal. There's no question. That's not saying he's bad or good.

Ok, yawn (per your definition). Congolese fufu (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So from looking over my edit history you have cleverly deduced that I am a "known liberal" with a "liberal reputation"? Still, what business is it of yours? You have the gall to say that we should keep fighting on the page and that nothing has been settled? The two editors most heavily involved both agreed to the solution. What is your issue? Turtlescrubber (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It looked to me like there was not a strong effort to reach a consensus. Just read ANI. Sounds like a brawl.

I never said "we should keep fighting on the page". Ferrylodge is a known conservative as reported in the national news. I just assumed that you were liberal but did not research your edits, just your ANI comments. It does sound like a brawl.

The issue is that if you reach a consensus that includes Ferrylodge and if he reaches a consensus that includes you, you will have made an achievement. Both of you brawling is not good. Why hasn't Ferrylodge attacked me (yet)? I have not said he is right and you are wrong. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was reached by about a dozen editors on the talk page. If you don't have the ability to take the time and figure out what is actually going on then you shouldn't accuse people you don't know of shifty behavior. Your comments were rude and completely inappropriate. I tired of discussing your rude behavior and trying to reign in a disruptive editor (not you). Take care and think more about what you are doing in the future. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have anything more to say, please don't argue it with me. Try Elkman or Pairadox. Congolese fufu (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on my talk page

Right. Well, bringing in your characterization of my politics in an AN/I discussion that I was not a central party to, just trying to help settle - and that you had nothing to do with at all - was way out of line and unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, so let's just stop this conversation, ok? But having read the above, I must say you sound awfully familiar. If you are who I suspect, stop now before this goes to its inevitable conclusion. If you are not, let's just stop the conversation anyway. Tvoz |talk 07:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I stuff

You know, it could very well have been what you attributed it to. I've lost comments once or twice on AN/I, but always my own. What I'd suggest is that on AN/I, because it's such an active page, type your comments, then highlight them and do a "CTRL+C" before hitting post. Then, once you hit post, if edit conflict comes up, go back to the page, re-enter the edit mode, and "CTRL+V" paste your previously typed comments back where you wanted them, and try hitting post again. That's the process that I've had to adopt, but it seems to work for AN/I as a very active page... Edit Centric (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Sorry for the dealy in responding. At least one of the parties involved in that instance seems to have a history of perhaps falsely presenting a reasonable front. It's really hard to deal with anyone like that, as I know from experience. I've added a few comments myself, and asked for clarification on a previous restriction on that party. If it does seem to be the case that one side just isn't willing to discuss or acknowledge potential weaknesses, though, there's really nothing you can do other than do what was done there, and try to get additional input. I think it unfortunately happens more often than anyone would want, but that does mean we should be ready to deal with it when the situations arise. In this case, it's already on the admin board, so some better informed parties will probably be able to figure it out. John Carter (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

You have been confirmed via checkuser as the operator of several abusive sock puppets. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion. Do you have any comments? Jehochman 13:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask that you continue contributing, particularly your current work in bring the two articles to FA status. Archtransit (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you had been an operator of sockpuppets, as indicated above, that is a serious charge. However, that can be fairly easily dealt with by not using such puppets in the future. Certainly, the articles deserve to reach FA status, as all articles honestly deserve. Reasonable discussion among reasonable editors tends to be able to objectively improve all content, regardless of any other concerns. I also very sincerely hope that you choose to return. I would have contacted you via e-mail as well, but you do not currently have e-mail enabled. If you would wish private conversation regarding these matters, I would be more than willing to discuss things with you in such a forum. In any event, I also very sincerely wish to see you return, as you are an editor whose goals seem to be in accord with wikipedia's goals of improving content. All other concerns should be secondary to those. John Carter (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. :( In case you check this talk page more often than you mailbox, you have one new email. - PeaceNT (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppettry

I just wanted to remind you that abusing multiple accounts in order to avoid scrutiny is contrary to our policies. Your alternate accounts are indefinitely blocked, and I encourage you to refrain from creating such accounts in the future, or we have to remove your editing rights. Thanks. -- lucasbfr 09:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)