Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:14, 28 May 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Rodrigue, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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 need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Scientizzle 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: CNN Pipeline

If you feel as if they would enhance the article, go ahead - I don't think they'd be of much use, however. --Mrmiscellanious 03:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

AXxo

You know this guy is pretty knotable since most of his dvd rips come before the films are realeased on dvd and they are are perfect quality.How does he do it, Is he some insider who gets advanced copies of films and then distributes them?Rodrigue 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Elves? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what your responce is.what do you mean when you say "elves"?Rodrigue 17:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you asked how he gets the advanced copies, and I honestly can't tell you. Perhaps from magical elves? I strongly encourage you to review the notability link I provided above, if you can make a good case for this gent (or lady) meeting it, I can unsalt the article, but it seems rather unlikely. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Firefox giant.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Firefox giant.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Death of Marilyn Monroe

I completed this nomination for you. If you have trouble completing an AfD nom in the future, check out Template:AfD in 3 steps, as it explains each step. -- Scientizzle 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Splitting Articles

When splitting articles, please copy categories also, a GFDL notice is nice, and definitely put an edit summary. I almost reverted assuming you were a blanking vandal. — RevRagnarok 16:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not recreate deleted articles

Timeline of the 2007 North American pet food recall has been deleted multiple times under criteria CSD A-1. Recreation of deleted material is a blockable offense, so please stop. Editorially speaking, specifically regarding the content of the article, it does not make any sense to make a sub article that provides no information or context. Sub-articles are only meant to provide an expansion on the topic, so simply copying the relevant material does not make any sense either. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the deletion criteria I cited. Under that criteria, there is no need to go through AfD. I have deleted thousands of articles under similar criteria without having to go through AfD, and this has nothing to do with the subject of the article or my prior involvement therein. I would actually be happy if someone created as many comprehensive, detailed, sourced, sub-articles as they wanted, but the article you created simply does not meet even the most base standards for inclusion. We have policies and procedures. Please follow them. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaming to 2007 pet food crisis

This was discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2007_North_American_pet_food_recall#Separate_Article_on_China.3F I have no strong position on the issue. Just wanted to let you know where it was discussed. Abby Kelleyite 13:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not abuse the page move function. Because you failed to participate in the discussion is not a reason for moving a page. Attempts at putting it back without discussing it on talk first will be reverted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My attempts to discuss JOG's behavior with him have been deleted from his user talk. I now think that it is reasonable to begin a request for arbitration and I am interested to know if you wish to participate. I believe that there is sufficient evidence and precedence () for action to be taken. I plan to request that he be blocked from editing pet food recall-related articles and that his administrator privileges be reviewed. Let me know if you are interested in helping. Jfwambaugh 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Action Comics -1 page 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Action Comics -1 page 1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Pet Food Crisis Footnotes

You seem to have taken a number of them away. I miss them. Abby Kelleyite 19:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Despite what you think, I am not targeting you. You are violating policy and are risking a block. You cannot remove NSD tags from images without properly giving the source of an image - Indeed, you are not permitted to upload images without a source. Additionally, you are not allowed to remove tags noting the lack of referencing in articles without addressing the sourcing. Your article on List of most valuable comic books fails WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:ATT. Like I said on my talk page, it is not the readers responsibility to find sources for your poor writing. That was the same problem with your article split at 2007 pet food crisis. If you keep it up, you will be blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... it isn't enough to provide a link to the source. You need to provide fair use justification, which, aside from a plain image of the cover will be hard to establish because CGC owns copyright to the header, DC to the cover, yet it was on a commercial website. The image still violates our policies. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And again, about 2007 pet food crisis, Jfwambaugh agrees with me about the inappropriateness of your attempted split, at the moment. You seem to think I am against sub articles for the article. Quite the opposite, I am decidedly for them, although my thoughts on what they should be differ. Nevertheless, we should follow proper Misplaced Pages:Summary style when creating splits. When you split an article up, you are responsible for fixing references, writing a proper summary, and putting the proper context into the new article. Jfwambaugh, myself, and AbbyKelleyite have been working our asses off there, and we can't be held responsible to try and fix your errors. As we have seen, an improperly formed split causes huge problems for an article of this size, and improper splits, non-consensus splits, or random renaming will be reverted. And it is evident that you have had problems with article splits in the past, and have a tendancy to expect others to do your work for you, which will only lead to your edits getting reverted. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of most valuable comic books

I've nominated List of most valuable comic books, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of most valuable comic books satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of most valuable comic books and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of most valuable comic books during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove other editor's comments in an AfD discussion, as you did by removing my remark . You have no right to determine if another editor's opinion on a subject does or does not deserve to be part of an ongoing open discussion.

I have restored my text to the ongoing discussion and will treat any other inappropriate alteration of my words outside of the main namespace as vandalism. -Markeer 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List of most valuable comic books

Please, stop tagging the article.If you want to know what the source of the info is, go to the First appearance article, because that is where all the content is from and it has the sources.I don't know why you keep editing things that I write.I don't know if it is personall or you just like being a administrator who vandals pages.You can put the links in yourself, I was just too lazy to, but you can't say that the information is not true. Rodrigue 21:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:ATT. The article fails all three. It is not the readers responsibility to find sources for your poor writing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I see what you said, and I still dont think thats true.If you read the article that I pointed out you will see the references are there.If you dont want to put them in fine, but leave the tags out.Further more User_talk:Jfwambaugh#Problems_with_JOG that page looks pretty bad huh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodrigue (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it just doesn't work like that. And, yes, that page is just awful because I am an evil human being and blah blah blah. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with your assessment of the article, but it didn't seem to me to fit any speedy citeria. Therefore, I've nominated it for deletion. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen, thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats the Hell??!!.Why did you delete my image that I uploaded.Even if you were right that the image was not allowed, which I still don't believe, the tag said I had 7 days if it was a fair use image or 48 hours if otherwise to justfy it, but you took less than a day!!.I can't believe this, do you mind telling me why you didn't even wait.

Because you have a history of abusing image uploads and ignoring policy. For instance, Image:Firefox giant.png was a blatant copyright violation. Image:Action Comics -1 page 1.jpg was tagged as no source which you simply reverted without providing a source. Finally, in my administrative judgment (of which I have eighteen months), Image:Action Comics -1 June 1938.jpg was an outright copyright violation. Period. Not everything you find on the internet is fair use because you stick a tag on it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And secondly, Its interesting how you saw my image and tagged it for deletion, just like you saw my article on The list of most valuable comic books and my article on History of Firearms.If your not targetting me perpusly tagging and deleting my pages like you said, then why are you looking at everything I do and looking to see if it is ok?.regardless of how right you were in editing the pages, its as if youve watched my edits and waiting to see what I do wrong, how else would you know? Rodrigue 13:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, another administrator nominated the article for deletion when he agreed with my assessment of the problems (although we differed on speedy vs. afd). And it doesn't matter who or where, if I see a violation of policy, I am going to follow up on it, no matter what. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to tell oyu that the only reason I did not put the sources in myself is that I didn't know how to format it into a proper list of refrences , I only kmow how to put external links which is what I did for the article knom, so it is sourced.So if you want to format the refrences properly go ahaid, but don't say its unsourced.

It is unsourced. Period. That hasn't changed. And the links provided don't cover it. But that's only half the problem. The problem with the article is that it is entirely original research. You took a table (an unreferenced one, at that) from an article on superhero first appearances, copy and pasted it into this article, and called it the "24 most valuable comics." You took a seemingly random and completely unrelated list, made a claim, and then completely failed to justify that claim. Even if you found a source to the prices of the books, the whole premise of the article "most valuable" would be thrown out. Additionally, if you were able to find out the most valuable comics sold at auction, you would need to back it up with independent third party sources to support every contention, not just shifty Overstreet listings or stuff crimped from the back of Wizard.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And I have to ask that you try to not be so vidulant about my edits.The edit you reverted on Action Comics 1 was not even a justified edit.That sentence was just speculation and should not have been there.I think the eitor was refering to the fact that most people and historinas believe that the book was the beginning of the golden age of comic books, and perhaps a sentence like that would be more appropriate.

The revert at Action Comics 1 was sourced. Period. It wasn't just some editor. It was sourced. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

But you can't deny that you saw that edit that I did by looking at my user page, because I know it is not a coincidense that you came across that page and saw my edit, just like my other edits you keep changing. Rodrigue 14:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the three revert rule at List_of_most_valuable_comic_books, history here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, another admin is reviewing my block of you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rodrigue (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Gave a valid reason for my edits and also discussed on his talk page.Administrator also violated edit policy when reverting me, see .also see User_talk:Jfwambaugh#Problems_with_JOG

Decline reason:

User did violate 3RR. (don't do 3 reverts to a page, even if you edit elsewhere or discuss inbetween) — Kim Bruning 16:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocking

you know its interesting how you decided to block me from editing for a day.And you said your reason was that I violated the WP:3R rule, which is true.but didn't you violate the same rule when you kept reverting my edits?.And haven't you also admitted in the past to violating the same rule regarding the pet food crisis article?.its bad enough you violated that rule yourself as an administrator, but then you punish me for doing the same thing as you.And if you say you had good reasoing for it,so did I.I was only trying to put in refrences for the article so it would no longer be unsourced, and I told you I didn't format it properly.I'm just wondering if you can explain what you did, and why your administrator privelages shouldn't be taken away. Rodrigue 18:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I reverted your removal of the {{oringinalresearch}} and {{unreferenced}} tags, which was vandalism because you did not fix the problems the tags pointed out. This was discussed off-wiki for nearly an hour between myself and another administrator, User:Kim Bruning. Reversion of legitimate vandalism is not applicable to 3RR. Second, yes, I did violate 3RR a full month ago (it's an old and boring story now), as did Jfwambaugh, (which I did admited to and apologized for, otherwise you wouldn't even know about it, surprise, surprise) but the admin who was handling the situation, Johntex, chose not to block either of us (not what I would have done, but I am not Johntex). But, of course, that has nothing to do with you anyway. Third, it was not just your attempt to put in the references, it was your refusal to address all the unreferenced info and the original research. Fourth, my actions, including the reverts and the block of you, were reviewed and supported by other administrators. Period. Perhaps, instead of wailing against me you could learn from your mistakes, especially how the last few times how you attempted page splits and it has been reverted or removed by the page's editors or nominated for deletion. Instead of taking to heart what others have tried to explain to you, you are just ignoring them. And it doesn't help that you seem to ignore all the problems brought forth, for instance the image violations I mentioned above, or your vandalism of other user's comments at the AfD). If you keep it up, you will just be blocked for longer and longer periods of time (and not just from me, but from other admins who are aware of you now). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Follow this link to learn how to properly format AfD's: WP:AfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. If you do not follow this process, no-one will see the AfD and it will not be processed. Being the nice guy that I am, I have properly formatted Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Comic book collecting and added it to the appropriate AfD Log for you. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of long-living organisms, however, you will have to do on your own, or it will be deleted. Again, you cannot be expect other people to keep doing your work for you. Please follow the clearly spelled out processes. Thank you. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Only Warning

In regards to Image:Action Comic -1 June 1938.jpg/Image:Action Comics 1 June 1938.jpg, this is your final warning. When the image was deleted yesterday, it wasn't even deleted by me. It was another admin altogether. This image violates policy. I have repeatedly told you, it needs a source. You repeatedly upload it without one. I repeatedly tell you, it needs fair use justification. You continue to upload it without any. You complain to me that you want me "to wait before delete anything That upload." (Again, its not just me deleting this stuff.) Quote: "I will try to find the proper info for the images if nessesary soon, you can tagg it if you want, but don't delete it before I even explain the image yet." Again, It DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. You must provide "proper info" ready before you upload any image. There is no exception to this. As noted above, this is not your first image violation. If you upload the image, you WILL be blocked. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't you huh?Well I'de like to know who the admin was who deleted the image, because right now I have every reason to suspect it still is just you, because I don't think other admins would do that. Rodrigue 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you really that irrationally paranoid to think I would just make that up? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, for something non-admins can see. I'm the other deleting admin, and I agree with Jeffrey here. Image:Action1.JPG serves the purpose of illustrating the comic in question better: it doesn't have copyrighted content (from the grading company), a plastic case that can mess it up, and it's a relatively low-resolution image. Besides, there's no proof that the image is actually the comic in question (unless I'm missing something...) Veinor 17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to step in anything here, but the image can actually serve a purpose for the article on the grading company, Comic Guaranty LLC. To that end, I have attempted to beef up the fair use justification as well as note the respective copyrights for DC Comics and CGC. --GentlemanGhost 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal denied

In an AfD, the goal is to find consensus. The consensus was to delete. Sr13 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be more appropriate, in my opinion. Sr13 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of most expensive comic books

How about pasting the complete link onto the talk page? That way I or someone else can fix it later. Also would you mind copyediting the page? There are numerous minor style issues. --Martian.knight 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The link worked for me, so I don't know what the problem was. Will you add it or I? (Also please remember to sign posts.) --Martian.knight 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice this: "this list is an estimate" is not a good way to start an encyclopedia article. If it were a list of the most valuable recorded comic book sales it would at least satisfy WP:V, but not like this. (from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Comics_and_animation). Thought that might make things interesting. --Martian.knight 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, but it isn't needed in the article. It was just because Kiefer Sutherland guest starred in GI Doh. It has nothing to do with this episode, just that one. Gran 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I just don;t see how a promo shown on one channel for a different episode, has anything to do with this one. But feel free to add in that Sutherland previous guest starred. Gran 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. Additionally, the problem with Image:Robert Wadlow.jpg is not the tag, but the source. All images must have a source listed, or it will be deleted. Do not remove tags without fixing the problem. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you wish to contest this block, consider it reviewed and endorsed by me. You commited a blatant violation of our No personal attacks policy and therefore the block is completely justified. Cool down and don't resort to name calling again. Phaedriel - 19:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)