Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:28, 18 May 2007

Hi Tendancer, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. Here are a few suggestions you might find useful:

• First, check out the tutorial and learn how to write a great article
• Find out more about what Misplaced Pages is and how it works
• Check out the manual of style and maybe the picture tutorial if you're interested in adding images to your articles
• Write from a neutral point of view, use wikiquette, and last but not least, be bold!
• Check out the community portal if you're looking for something to do.
• Finally, feel free to contact me at my talk page if you have any questions! Remember to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing!

Oh, and by the way, I love your screen name—I'm a bronze 10 dancer, minus the paso doble =). So, yeah... I've got a long way to go, but it's alot of fun! --Spangineer (háblame) 02:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. KazakhPol 01:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that last revert here. I've been reverting a lot on that article and so I held off but I've been really wanted to do what you just did. (→Netscott) 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article, but I noticed that several of your edit summaries are personal attacks on another editor. Please see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thanks! Jokestress 04:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with Jokestress, several of your edit summaries are clearly personal attacks against User:BusStop. Refering to another editor's work as "idiotic" clearly stands outside the boundaries of civility. There was NO Grammatical error in the two sentences which you have been warring with User:BusStop over. Your understanding of the rules of grammar is somewhat askew. Regardless, the section in question was written by me, not BusStop. He only pointed out the error in your edit summary and restored the original text which was clearer. It seems that there is a pattern of you instigating conflicts with User:BusStop. I would appreciate it if you'd leave me and my writing out of it. Cleo123 20:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, after I corrected these terribly written sentences: "The Laugh Factory has since stated that Richards is no longer welcome to perform at the venue. They have also banned the use of the word "nigger" since the Richards incident." and explicitly listed my reason "Laugh factory seemed to have changed from singular to plural in consecutive sentences". You come to my talk page and:

1. First claim I instigated a conflict after User:BusStop reverted me for personal vendetta reasons while calling me a sockpuppet which's against WP:NPA (oddly you seem to have no issue with that) 2. Refuse to acknowledge there was an English mistake 3. Violate WP: NPA and come to my talk page and write my understanding of grammar is askew 4. Formulate a strawman argument that there was "NO Grammatical error". _Where_ did you see me claim there was a grammatical error? It was bad English due to incongruent sentence structure, not to mention a very weak second sentence that barely satisifies the concept of an independent subject. What is "They"? You look at the paragraph and find out it's "The Laugh Factory" from the previous sentence, which used "has". You honestly want to claim "They has" or "It have" would be valid?

I too would appreciate it if you would refrain from instigating conflicts and stop going to other's talk pages and write accusations against another user without checking facts. See WP:CIVIL about escalation. Tendancer 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your conduct stands outside the boundaries of civility and YOU are clearly attempting to escalate this situation with what can only be considered personal attacks. The Michael Richards' Talk Page and its archive show a clear cut history of flaming on your part. You have been accused on more than one occassion by more than one editor of being a sockpuppet. Moreover, other editors are in agreement with me that your behavior is uncivil. Rather than calling my work "terrible" writing" - I would suggest you stop and consider why so many other editors seem to have taken issue with your behavior.

There was absolutely nothing "wrong" with the two sentences as originally written. The verbs of two seperate and different sentences need not agree with the two different subjects. "They" refers not to the establishment known as the Laugh Factory but to the people who run it. The subject is implied. These are two seperate thoughts. Your edit created a confusing and unclear sentence structure, which another editor found objectionable. Regardless, I adjusted the sentence in a good faith attempt to address your concern and end conflict on the page. Why are you continuing to pursue this? As I see it, you are grasping at straws in what appears to be yet another attempt to create conflict and discord on the Michael Richards article. Cleo123 08:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Again you purposefully failed to address half of my points--you false claim of instigation as well as your violation of of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by coming to my talk page with personal attacks. Instead you formulated red herring arguments of sockpuppetry and more claims that I'm instigating when I never paid attention to you until you came here with a diatribe. I've seen one anti-Richards user accuse me of being a sockpuppet of BusStop, and then BusStop himself accused me of being a sockpupeet of another anti-Richards editor: I take it I must be doing an excellent job of maintaining neutrality if biased editors from both camps (and yourself) always resort to personal attacks as they are initimidated to debate with me based on reason.

Obviously you are not a fair-minded person, otherwise you would've taken issue with BusStop's instigating through his reverting my changes with a personal attack comment. Instead you chose to come to my page with a diatribe because my original edit was on your terribly sentence and you took umbrage. Worse, you keep on insisting your changes are fine and refuse to accept responsibility.

1. The original sentences before you edited them were structurally fine: "The venue has since stated that Richards is no longer welcome...The Laugh Factory has banned the word "nigger" since the Richards incident. " Notice TWO "HAS"s.

2. You came along, and combined them while changing Laugh Factory into plural only in the 2nd sentence: "The venue has since stated that Richards is no longer welcome. They have also banned the use of the word "nigger" since the Richards incident. " STILL you false continue to "grasp for straws" and claim you are referring to "management", where was management referenced in the paragraph then? and in that case why didn't you change the first one to "The Laugh Factory have"?

3. I made a simple change, mentioning only TLF changed from singular to plural and corrected it to "The Laugh Factory has since stated that Richards is no longer welcome to perform at the venue, and banned use of the word "nigger"." Nowhere did I make the edit personal nor did I even know or care you made the error.

4. BusStop reverted my change and made a personal attack by calling me a sockpuppet with false reason "previous version clearer". I would also like you to explain what exactly was not clear in my edit.

5. It culminates with you coming to my talk page, instigating as well escalating with a long diatribe, revealing you were the one who made the original error and still pig-headedly refusing to admit your English mistake when I couldn't have cared less. Ironically now you give another strawman conflict that I'm trying to "create conflict and discord on the Michael Richards page", when all that had happened is you came from nowhere to personally attack me on my talk page because your ego was insulted and took my edit personal.

It would seem logical if you insist on wanting to "be left out of it", you should stop going to people's talk pages and write long diatribes to insult them as it's against WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. In addition, for the sake of Misplaced Pages feel free to post this whole exchange on e.g. the newsgroup alt.usage.english for advice if you truly believe changing a subject from "The Laugh Factory has" to "They have" is correct. 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Truce, then. I won't revert to my edit, but I will continue to insist the sentence could be made more accurate. Insisting that no modifications be offered until full consensus is reached is broadly untenable, and in this case, specifically diminishes the quality and relevance of the article. Jovriel 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries

It's a hot humid day in Australia here so it's fun to find references for almost completely unreferenced articles. -- CHANLORD / 06:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words

Hey Tendancer, I just wanted to thank you for defending me against the vitriol filled false accusations I was being inundated with on that Richards incident AfD and elsewhere. You hung right in there and let the truth be known. Much appreciated. Cheers. (→Netscott) 07:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're a pretty darn good Wikisleuth. Nicely done there on the "outrageous" find... ;-) (→Netscott) 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

voluntarily waived issue and moved to user talk page

Many WP editors take great pains to maintain neutrality, accuracy, professionalism, and a certain level of "emotional detatchment" so as to keep WP articles moving forward, on-topic, and reflective of the highest ideals of open content and authoritativeness; without too-quickly attributing malice, tendentiousness, incompetence, or bad faith to others. I do not presume any expert knowledge on the matter, but it appears to be a safe bet that you are one such editor. I too, believe in a constant striving toward the embodiment of these ideals.

Consequently, to demonstrate good faith, and to keep the signal-to-noise ratio on articles and article talk pages as high as possible. I moved a discussion topic off of an article talk page on to my own user talk page. I include this notice here to indicate what was done because you were one of the participants in the thread, and to note that this was done for the sake of promoting (and not thwarting) a low-stress environment consistent with WP policies (both in letter and spirit). Feel free to contact me on any matter related to this, and best regards. dr.ef.tymac 21:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

KDND Radio

Can you please explain your reasoning for restoring dead links? and where it says in Misplaced Pages that even though the referenced links no longer exist and are no longer accessable you have to keep them in the article. Like any dead link it should be removed article until a new source can be obtained. They call me Mr. Pibb 19:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE is very specific about this: "When a link in the References section or Notes section (a link to a source for information in the article) "goes dead", it should be repaired or replaced if possible, but not deleted." The guideline then provides a list of strategies on where to look to find replacements. And even if those strategies fail, WP:CITE specifically states:

If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.

Tendancer 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're back!

Where've you been? A new round of contentiousness per WP:LEAD explaining that "notable controversies" should be mentioned in the lead. (→Netscott) 05:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah that explains it. Well it's all good... it looks like this WP:LEAD business is drawing to a close at this point. Thanks for getting back to me. Take it easy. ;-) (→Netscott) 05:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Its not copyright infringement b/c the clips are for educational purposes provided by political commentator Michael Beckham http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=michaelbeckham (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop

Thanks for the recent comment. As I stated before, I'm kind of new to the system. Also, for what it's worth, as I already told Cleo on his/her talk page, I did in fact contact one or two other places, and was basically told to go to "x", in the last case RfA. With any luck, though, the situation will resolve itself shortly. I will try to avoid getting into any similar situations in the future though. And thanks for the effort of creating the list of the actions of the Deadly (or is that Deadhead?) Duo that you referenced earlier. :) John Carter 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)