Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:39, 22 June 2006

H4xx0r

Thanks for your comments. I've cleaned up the articles a bit more now. Hopefully they'll stick. —Pengo 13:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The pic

Youre very welcome.--Zereshk 13:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

21:34, 10 March 2006 ElKevbo (rv: link spam)

Hello, ElKevbo!

Please, tell me why you removed my links from the external links of the article? I have placed a related links. If it is an affiliate it is not a reason for remooving it, isn't it?

Please explain your decision

Best regards, A4Tech

--

I don't believe links to a commercial seller of posters adds to this encyclopedia or that particular article. It appears to me to be a transparent ploy to simply gain more business. You're free to add the links back to the article - I won't delete them. I'm sure someone else will, though. And if I'm wrong and no one deletes them then I'm clearly in the minority and I'll happily live with that.

In any case, I appreciate you asking and your willingness to deal with this rationally and respectfully!

--ElKevbo 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson Article

I know you're already looking but basically anything you can find on Thompson would help. Verifiable proof of his Note to Reno would be golden. Other topics you may want to look up which we know Thompson has had input on: Robida murders(slightly covered already) Elian Gonzalas, Diseases on Disney Cruises are Bioterrism, 2000 Elections, Washington Sniper Murders, Columbine, Kobe Bryant, Howard Stern, 2 Live Crew, Alabama Devin Thompson Trial (although its been sometimes reported as Devin Moore), the list just goes on and on... Tollwutig

thanks for you help

just wanted to say thanks for your help in helping me develop the site for my former school. i am still new to this wikipedia business and still have not really mastered all the editing techniques.

Refs

Hello, ElKevbo! I noticed that you were removing full date links from the <ref>s in George W. Bush. The wiki-linking of full dates allows MediaWiki to recognize the link as a date; users can then adjust how the dates are viewed in his/her preferences. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting for more information. Thus, would you mind not removing any more links and also adding wikilinks to dates to any further references that you add? This would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, thank YOU! I guess I got carried away... :) --ElKevbo 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Your mastery of the reference syntax is most admirable. :) Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Christdot

Hi, I've responded to your edit on the /. talk page --Nnp 20:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Response

I'm afraid that there's not much more that I can do. It's entirely possible that the two users are acting in concert but ultimately unprovable. I suggest raising the matter at the administrators' noticeboard. Best, and good luck, Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad

You might want to look here for info if you're attempting to get him banned. He really needs to go, thanks for standing up. After 2 months I am dead tired of it. a user subpage TheRegicider 18:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've copied information on UCRGrad from Tifego's user subpage and am currently editing it to submit as an RfA. The updated file is located here:

Please consider contributing a statement if you are still in support of this action.--Amerique 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Arg...

I don't appreciate that. ---J.S (t|c) 20:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Relax - I'm just poking your buttons. I *really* appreciate you weighing in on that *bizarre* article! :) --ElKevbo 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... I was really frustrated. You should have seen what I didn't post here. :) ---J.S (t|c) 23:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar I'd like to present you this barnstar in recognition for your efforts finding sources for George W. Bush. Good work! Kasreyn 05:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence I award this Barnstar of Diligence to ElKevbo for faithfully and carefully replacing my fact tags on the Geroge W Bush page. There were a lot of them! --CTSWyneken 01:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

EssayFraud.org

After further research and consideration, I withdraw my previous offer to allow essayfraud.org to remain linked to from this article. The site has little merit and is notable primarily for the controversy it has stirred up in Misplaced Pages and elsewhere; accusations (backed by some evidence) have been leveled that it is linked to other prominent essay mills.

I also object to the uncivil and combative behavior of in this discussion. She has exhibited similar behavior in past discussions of essayfraud.org. To keep from cluttering this page with further discussion related to SarahTeach's behavior and unrelated to the article, I recommend further discussion (if necessary) take place on SarahTeach's Talk page or my own. --ElKevbo 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy"? With who--you and the essay mill owners? Only essay mill owners oppose EssayFraud.org. That, I can understand, but what's YOUR reason? Do you support essay mill owners, ElKevbo? Why are you so ardently opposed to an anti-plagiarism site? If I didn't know better, it would appear as though you have a vested interest in opposing EssayFraud.org. "Evidence"? You mean the fabricated nonsense spewed by the Ukrainian essay mill owners to which you link above? Your opinion does not carry an ounce more wait than mine. It's funny how you accuse ME of being rude, when it is YOU who started that trend! Should I show everyone the proof? And, for the public record, what have YOU done to curb plagiarism? SarahTeach 22:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and uncivility are unappreciated and unwelcome on Misplaced Pages. Continue them and I will request that your account be blocked or banned. --ElKevbo 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, way to ignore my direct questions. You can issue false accusations, but when I confront you about it and ask direct questions, you threaten me? SarahTeach 01:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I ignore your accusations couched as questions because they are not worth the dignity of a response. I threaten you because you repeatedly and willfully violate Misplaced Pages policies and disrupt the community. --ElKevbo 02:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. If you have an ounce of intestinal fortitude, you will answer my questions. SarahTeach 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have left comments about this on SarahTeach's talk page and at Talk:Plagiarism#Essayfraud.org. Please remember that civility must be maintained and that the previous consensus was that this link was linkspam. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about your recent popup-aided reversion of the USMC article

You recently reverted the United States Marine Corps article. I believe that this reversion is in error. If you follow the link that you reinstated, you will see that the just changed version with the spelling "Ooh-rah" is an alternative spelling. The change was made by a relatively new editor who may not be familiar with the ability to link as ]. I'll wait to hear back from you before making any edits related to this. If you feel strongly about the reversion you made, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Thanks. —ERcheck (talk) @ 14:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The version I reverted had completely de-wikified the word and had a spelling mistake. Go ahead and correct the spelling if it's wrong. I think you may have just made a mistake or two in your edit that I noticed and reverted. No big deal! --ElKevbo 19:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't make the edit at all. I was just noticing your revert and wanted to check with your reasoning before I made the change. Now, I'll go ahead and restore the spelling and keep the wikilinks that you restored. —ERcheck (talk) @ 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right - you're not the person who made the edit. My apologies! Thanks for your messages and kind cooperation! --ElKevbo 19:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer external links

Buffy is nothing if not fansites. You've changed the category 'Unofficial Websites', which actually meant something to the buffy topic, to 'external links' which means nothing.

I understand your point of "Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links". Yet the links you leave on the page amount to nothing more than a collection of fan site links. I don't feel put out that you removed the link I added. I do feel put out that you haven't taken the same 'subjective' look at the links you've chosen to leave on the page. In fact I wouldn't have posted in the first place if the existing links hadn't given me reason to believe my link had just as much right to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.30.83 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I agree that the links in the Buffy article could use some more scrutiny. I noted as much on the article's Talk page over a week ago. We'd sure appreciate any assistance you can provide us in tackling this issue!

Second, I disagree with your characterization of the removal of the "Unofficial links" title. First of all, there should never be just one subsection in a section. That just doesn't make any sense. Second, the clear implication of the title "Unofficial links" is that there are "Official links." As of right now, there are no official links. Finally, I disagree with your assertion that the title "External links" means nothing. That is Misplaced Pages convention and is consistent with nearly every other Misplaced Pages article.

Finally, I disagree with your contention that "Buffy is nothing if not fansites" as there are clearly several websites on that list that are not just fansites in the broad sense of the word. And even your assertion were true, it still wouldn't matter as Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links and it's only appropriate to put one fansite link in an article. I'm more than willing to bend that convention when it makes sense and I think it makes sense when multiple, well-maintained fansites contribute meaningfully *and* differently to the article and the reader's understanding of the topic. --ElKevbo 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Moritz refs

I'm happy to provide references (as I was when you pointed-out areas in need). The article is still in its infancy and I welcome feedback in the future. The title of the "Notes" section is unimportant to me. The WP I used was not policy, per se, as the one you provided is. I'd like to keep it as "Notes" for now, as a "References" section will be added. Rkevins82 06:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

92.3 The Beat

Noting your post on WP:ANI, I tagged the above article for speedy deletion as an A1 (very short article/no context) but as an aside, please note that if a prod you place on an article is removed, you shouldn't replace it, see WP:PROD#Conflicts. Regards, MartinRe 10:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. We've had problems with the user that removed the notice reverting any and all changes to his or her article (he or she has subsequently been indefinitely blocked) so that slipped by me. --ElKevbo 14:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

URBAN MEDIA INC

Thanks for reporting that user, I see the account has been blocked now. I was hoping he or she would eventually heed the warnings but there's no reasoning with some people. :) I'm keeping the page on my watchlist in case any more text mysteriously disappears... --Grace 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting my page. I don't know what gets into people. Rkevins82 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your page was still on my watchlist from the message I left the other day. I'm pretty aggressive about reverting vandalism so I've definitely had my share of strangers reverting other strangers' vandalism on my User and Talk page. :) Misplaced Pages's like everything else in life - we just gotta stick together and look out for one another. --ElKevbo 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially us Kevins.Rkevins82 23:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wanna know what I hate?

Besides having large numbers of unsourced statements in biographies... those stupid pages in booklets or manuals that have "This page intentionally left blank" on a "blank page". I just don't get why they have it there. Were people complaining all the time or inquiring where their lost pages were? I just always think it's pointless. Just had to say something. Okay, back to work. --LV 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I know - that's why I did it. :) --ElKevbo 17:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You did it because you knew that I hated it? I really don't think you should be reading my mind. It might scare you. ;-) --LV 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably would. :) No, I always got a chuckle out of seeing that text on pages. I saw them a lot during my brief tenure in the Navy (the federal government seems to be very fond of it). I understand why it's there but it's still slightly amusing in a bizarre way. --ElKevbo 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

RFARB filed against UCRGrad

Please consider adding a statement here if you are still at all concerned with this.--Amerique 16:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for initiating this! Please let me know what else I can do to help! --ElKevbo 17:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)