Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:14, 11 February 2008

Source for the section in "Movement to impeach George W. Bush"

Oh I know it was, it's on a lot of websites, the information is freely distributed. I know of the nightweed website, I sent her a few messages regarding current issues. I won't be putting it back on the article for impeaching bush because another person made a good point why it shouldn't be there. It's because it is more like regular evidence, rather than a direct impeachable offense. It may be on a different wikipedia article, but one that it fits with better. Preservefreedom (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for November has been published. December's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Misplaced Pages. Check it out!
• Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Iraq

User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Iraq, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Iraq and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jc-S0CO/Userboxes/Iraq during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. WebHamster 00:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• The US and the UK are the 2 largest foreign troop contingencies yes. You could equally have chosen an image from each force, but given all the patriotic userboxes on your userpage it's pretty clear what your intent was. --WebHamster 02:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the US and UK are the two largest entities. But being as I was not readily able to find a UK-related Iraq War image, I chose instead to represent the ground and air fronts instead of individual nations (again, the US and UK were not the only militaries involved.) If you can find some UK images, I would be happy to consider them. But this alone is not a basis for deletion. ~ S0CO 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive links to CommonDreams

Hi, I am wondering why you have decided (twice now) to delete a reference which is archived at CommonDreams.org, despite having the original reference at the Associated Press also intact. Is there something in Misplaced Pages policy that mandates that any article archived by a partisan site is unsuitable for inclusion in an article? Silly rabbit (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there is. But the bigger question is why an archive link is even needed when the original is still available on AP's website. ~ S0CO 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:CITE link, I see. Thanks for the info. In the future, you may want to consider fixing the issue with the reference rather than outright deletion. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. ~ S0CO 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IP

I would recommend that you sign up for an account. It's free, anonymous (no IP-Location backtracker on your talk page), and you are not restricted from editing semi-protected articles. ~ S0CO 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I have no interest in registering an account. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11

Talk:9/11 For future reference, Xiutwel, if you want your opinions here to be respected, please return the favor.

I was under the impression I was doing pretty well, but you show me I can still improve on that. I am being very patient with dozens of editors who are extremely frustrated and rude, and violate wikipedia policy all the time, erasing facts whereever they find them, because they have some dogmatic belief in their government's virtues. Despite this irritating behaviour, I am doing my utmost to remain polite. Please let me know specifically when you feel I'm being unrespectful, if you want me to be able to change. (You might wanna consider giving the same pointer to some other editors on that page, though.) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The wording of your post here is yet another example of the incivility which I originally called you on: you have consistently failed to assume good faith. If you cannot be brought to see the meaning of this, I shall not waste my time trying to explain it to you. As it is, the matter in which this dispute arose has now been closed. ~ S0CO 06:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Killian Documents

Please explain your recent edit to Killian Documents on the article's Talk page. Specifically, you removed from the opening sentence the critical information that experts have characterized the documents as probable forgeries. What was your reason for doing this? 67.168.86.129 (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it was redundant information - this is said again within that same paragraph. Besides, the use of "some" and "probable" softened the impact in the lead: they were confirmed as forgeries by many experts, with very few claiming them to be authentic. ~ S0CO 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi. A little back, after a Talk page discussion, I placed this graph on Global Warming with "Relative weight of warming/cooling radiative forcing components as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" as the description, and I had given some thought to have the description clear and brief for non-experts. But that was later changed by UBeR (while I was blocked) to "The radiative forcing in 2005 relative to 1750 as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," but I think this description is not as informative, if not being outright cryptic, for a typical user of Misplaced Pages articles for this type of subject. I had created a new Talk page section proposing changing the wording back to its original, and asked for comments. Only UBeR responded a couple of days later with just I like my wording, actually. I asked him to explain that but he didn't and after a couple of more days, I finally changed the wording back to the original. He then almost immediately reverted me. I reverted back and explained on his talk page how he had ample opportunity to comment before hand but didn't. But he only reverted again, and appears not to want to get into a serious discussion. I have to avoid even a hint of getting into a revert war (which he knows all about), so I'm just requesting some other GW regulars to stop by and offer an opinion on the wording if they have one. Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)