Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 6 June 2005

Please note: If you leave a message, I will be glad to reply to it on this page. Thank you. --- TC Wilkes

L/R

In biographies, I kind of like the small portraits aligned to the left, next to the name of the individual. You don't? -- Viajero 20:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Buck Parvin

Creating disambig pages

When moving articles to create disambiguation pages, be sure to fix all links to point to the proper place. Also use {{disambig}} on the page. As an example, see hardcore. CryptoDerk 20:31, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Good work

You've been busy! I've edited on some of the same articles previously and your name keeps popping up on my watchlist, always with good edits. Thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages and especially to the actors of the 20th century and related topics. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:42, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oscar categories

Please do not remove them from articles. Cburnett 17:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Buddy Rogers

Thanks for starting that article! I was meaning to tackle it myself. I had the pleasure of not only meeting him, but jamming with him as well. He had trouble walking, but he sure played a mean tailgate trombone...and he had a handshake like a vise! Best, Lucky 6.9 06:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mary Ure / Countries

Ted, in response to your message, I thought I'd set out my thinking: I obviously agree that not everybody in the world will know of Glasgow, or even London. However, in this context the nationality of the subject is stated in the previous sentence, which would give most people a clue. Failing that, surely clicking on the link provides the answer to the curious? My main reasons for making those edits:

• London, England is just a redirect to London, and I believe it's better to have links point to the actual article. Same argument for loads of other cities.
• Giving the names of cities as "London, England", "Paris, France", etc is an Americanism - the natvies of those cities don't use that convention

I appreciate that you and others think that having the link read just London is not clear enough; If the country is not clear from the context of the article, then something like London, UK would (I believe) be a better way of stating it. Regards, Steve Sc147 23:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bugatti images

Thanks so much for the images! Even though they're fair use its still nice to have an image. If you have those AQ issues, would you care to contribute some more text content to the pages as well? Thanks, --SFoskett 13:58, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Date preferences

To set your date preferences, go to Special:Preferences, and select "Date format". Gdr 21:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Showmen's Rest

Your image is a great improvement for the Showmen's Rest and related Hammond circus train wreck articles, which are up for inclusion to the Did You Know? feature on the main page within the next few days. Template talk:Did you know. Thanks, Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 16:14, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ted Wilkes!

Thank you for your contributions to the Edgar Ray Killen article. I saw all those contributions you had made from your user page...I think its about time you gain a barnstar so I posted one here.

Take care, Dbraceyrules 06:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Caribbean politicians

Hi. Noticed this category. I think you set it up the wrong way round - you have it as a subcat of a number of "X-ian people" cat's - I think that rather you should have "X-ian politicians" as a subcat of this category. Guettarda 15:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

CfD

• Hi, I noticed you marked Category:British racehorse owners for deletion but never added it to WP:CFD. I've removed the tag for now. If you definitely wanted to delete this category, please make sure you complete both parts of the procedure. Thanks! --Kbdank71 19:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Years in television

Hi there!

This is a message to all users who were at one point of time or another actively involved in editing the "Years in television" articles.

I have developed a new format, that I am currently proposing to apply to all "xxxx in television" articles. If you could take a look at 1976 in television/Temp and leave your comments/objections/propositions at Talk:1976 in television/Temp, that would be much appreciated.

Please note that the Temp version is by no means final. It is there to give an idea of the new proposed structure. Please do not be critical of the actual layout; it will most definitely not stay unchanged.

Any ideas you might have will be quite welcome. Thank you for your time.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn image

Hi, I'd just like to ask you why you have replaced the image on the Audrey Hepburn page with a different one. I realize some people have been doing so recently with lots of actor/actress pages, and I don't see the point. Surely one picture is as good as the other (in this particular case, a colour photograph has been replaced with a B/W one), and looking for an image that does fit in with Misplaced Pages's copyright policy is a time-consuming affair. Shouldn't we concentrate our efforts on things which are really needed?

I'll put the old pic further down in the article.

All the best, <KF> 13:51, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out your reason for removing the image. I would never have guessed it. I was solely thinking in terms of 1960s fashion, hairstyles, makeup, etc. I wonder what other people have to say about this: Should we protect our children from reality (and smoking was a reality even among nice people not so long ago)? Should we also delete images such as Image:TrangBang.jpg and Image:Vietcong.jpg? Personally, I don't think so.

Best wishes, <KF> 15:31, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

David Bret

I have protected this page at your request. I urge you to resolve your dispute on the talk page. However, I request that you watch your behavior in this manner:

1. Your revert comments focus on the fact that the other party is an anonymous user, who you also accuse of vandalism on his page. Just because a user is anonymous, you can't assume bad faith.
2. You actually did violate the Misplaced Pages:Three Revert Rule on the page; as you are new, I will assume you were ignorant of the rule and I will not block you for it. However, when the page comes out of protection, you should not revert any page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period.

Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:03, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wilkes is violating the three-revert rule over on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, deleting another user's (anonymous) comments, misguidedly calling them "vandalism". *Dan* 15:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes reply: - You stated on my talk page: "Wilkes is violating the three-revert rule over on Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, deleting another user's (anonymous) comments, misguidedly calling them "vandalism". *Dan* 15:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)"

Sorry Dan, you are wrong. I first moved the ANONYMOUS users comments to the talk page. But, they repeatedy reinstated it. That is in fact vandalism according to Misplaced Pages. I reverted vandalism in accordance with the statement of OFFICIAL POLICY on the page of Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection that says:

• "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies."

Thank you. Ted Wilkes 15:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is with the attitude? All I said is that 1) You violated the 3RR, which is true but I didn't block you, 2) Your version removes the guardian link, which is also true (whether or not you were the one who removed it), and 3) you make a point of emphasizing the fact that the other editor is ANONYMOUS, which I think is immaterial. Instead of focusing on the fact that the other editor is ANONYMOUS, say that he appears to only be focused on this one topic. As I stated on the protection page, I am recusing myself from this matter as I am going on vacation. I am leaving it up to the other admins to deal with this issue. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of vandalism

Vandalism has a specific definition on Misplaced Pages, referring only to intentionally bad-faith edits such as the insertion of completely and knowingly irrelevant material into an article, the blanking out of an article, and so on. It does not refer to any and all edits of which you disapprove, and should not be invoked in conjunction with a good-faith disagreement about the content of an article. You (and you're hardly unique in this) seem to be quick to bandy about this term in response to users you dislike; however, the mere fact that you disagree with the content of an edit, or the fact that it is made by an anonymous user, does not make it vandalism. *Dan* 16:17, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes reply: - You seem extremely quick to make statements without bothering to make certain of the facts. Doing it twice in a row is hard to excuse and I'm not sure what your mission is. To leave a message on my (or any other) talk page that casts me or any Misplaced Pages user in an unfavorable light is disrespectful to the goal of Misplaced Pages cooperation. I think it is good thing to actually read and gather facts before openly criticizing any Misplaced Pages contributor on their page. Unfounded criticism has the effect of impugning that users reputation and certainly gives others who might read the incorrect comments a false impression. First, never state as fact that I or anybody "don't like" another user. That is an insult and uncalled for. Second, vandalism in fact occurs where any user knowingly and deliberately and consistently inserts fabricated information – let me repeat that: fabricated information -- pretending it to be fact. That is the most destructive type of vandalism possible. Vandalism also occurs when that person's only edits are on one topic in which they have inserted their fabrication(s) and repeatedly bully others to get their way. Note that in the case of the Elvis Presley article, the user who tried to intimidate me had previously done it to other users. (A fact that I posted on the Presley talk page yesterday.) Vandalism also occurs when a person who has fabricated information repeatedly reverts other's attempts to correct their misrepresentations. I'm certain you do not condone the insertion of deliberate fabrications into Misplaced Pages and as such will want to actually check my assertion as to deliberate fabrications, said assertion already posted by me prior to your message on my talk page. Perhaps once you do, then you will do the gentlemanly thing in keeping with the spirit of Misplaced Pages as I'm certain your intent is only to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 22:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your deletion of others' comments meets the definition of vandalism better than anything your opponent has done. *Dan* 17:11, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding John Hay Whitney

I sort-of liked my intro (which merged yours) more, its gets to the important bits about this guy- Ambassador, New York Herald Tribune, etc..

John Hay "Jock" Whitney (b. August 27, 1904 in Ellsworth, Maine, d. February 8, 1982) was an American multi-millionaire, U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom (1957-1961), pioneering color-movie producer, soldier in World War II, sportsman, financier, philanthropist, art-collector, diplomat, publisher of the New York Herald Tribune, among others, and a member of the prominent Whitney family.

What do you think?

Eric

Eric - I was only doing a cleanup of all the bolding plus putting in links and categories. If my complete re-pasting wiped out some of your work, it wasn't intentional and I apologize. Please make any changes you feel necessary. Thanks. Ted Wilkes 15:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh- cool. I'll merge the intro again, then. I was thinking the same thing about trying to use some of the original 37k(!!!) article on Whitney to make a page for Payne Whitney, and perhaps there's good material for Technicolor and some of the studios Whitney worked at as well!

I do grow a little tired of writing about rich people, though, unless there's something redeemable to say about them other than how they philanthropized charities with money they inherited.

-Cheers

Eric

Deleting comments

Deleting other people's comments is not acceptable. Stop it. Proteus (Talk) 18:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleting other users' comments

Please don't remove other Users' comments from Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection(); your edit summary was false — the definition of vandalism doesn't come close to including what you deleted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That users often include comments on this page is a simple fact, and even if strictly-speaking it goes against the text at the top of the page, that doesn't make it vandalism, and certainly doesn't justify you in deleting it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to delete other Users' comments from Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection you will be blocked from editing for a period for vandalism. The instruction at the top of the page does not constitute Misplaced Pages policy, and even if it did, that would not justify your actions. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR Violation

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the Three Revert Rule (3RR) at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Additionally you have been warned at least three times before about removing other people's comments, if you persist in doing this when you return from your time-out, you will be blocked again. Thryduulf 19:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ted, I'm not sure what's going on here, because I have not yet looked up all the page histories. I will do that research if necessary

But it looks like you've been caught by one of the gotcha games around here. (1) You saw vandalism. (2) You tried to correct it. (3) You "ran out" of "tries". (4) You got zinged for "violating the 3RR". (Note: this analysis assumes both good faith and correct judgment on your part.)

In an attempt to be "democratic" or "just folks" or something, the vigilantes around here have decided to "treat all violators the same" - like a school teacher who punishos a boy for "fighting" when all he was doing was defending himself from a bully. I have never accepted this rule.

On the other hand, I might be wrong about this all. So I will help you (a little bit), but cautiously. I'm going to unblock you account, but I'd also like to ask you to follow "Uncle Ed's Misplaced Pages:one revert rule" until all the dust settles. If you see vandalism, you can revert it ONE TIME only. If it re-appears, DO NOT take further action but REPORT it and get HELP.

Do as I suggest, and I will take your side. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:16, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I am not going to unblock your account. After a cursory glance at some of the pages in question, I feel the others acted correctly. But my offer to assist you in similar future matters stands. Only: ask for help BEFORE deleting someone's comments or reverting their changes. Don't abuse the system even when attempting to correct the "abuses" of others.

They made me an admin (and bureaucrat and Mediator) because I understand the system. Lone crusades are not part of that system; you've got to work with others and stay within the rules. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

FYI

Reality Check

Having watched a previous situation that turned me off from contributing much to Misplaced Pages, I'm going to comment here with respect to the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule as it was applied to the User:Ted Wilkes referred to here.

Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule stipulates:

• "After making a reversion, do not do so again more than twice within 24 hours of the initial one. This policy does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism."
• If you find yourself reverting a considerable amount of edits by a banned user or a vandal, it may be appropriate to block the user or IP address. If you are not an administrator, you should list the person on vandalism in progress.

Further, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR it reaffirms this:

• "if you find yourself reverting edits due to simple vandalism, you should list that person at vandalism in progress."

Wilkes followed Misplaced Pages policy and went to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress and provided the specifics of what he saw as vandalism with User: 80.141.x.x. As well, when the vandalism continued he followed proper procedure and posted a notice at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. At this point, the matter is in the hands of the Misplaced Pages authorities to act. They did not and one must wonder what is the purpose of all these pages of procedures and a few hundred Administrators if no one acts on the vandalism or even to overrule Wilkes.

Wilkes followed procedures and went to Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection and inserted the names of the articles which he wanted protected with the required reason. The User: 80.141.x.x. then inserted a personal attack and argumentative comments, similar to those he had used on the talk page with Wilkes and the previous users that they (User: 80.141.x.x) had driven away. Wilkes then rigidly followed Misplaced Pages policy as specified on the "Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection" where it says: "This is not the place to discuss or dispute articles, users, or policies" and noted his action as such:

• 00:58, 2 Jun 2005 Ted Wilkes (Moved comments by anonymous user to proper location on the talk page)

Despite being reported as a vandal, User: 80.141.x.x reverted Wilkes until finally Misplaced Pages:Administrator User:Thryduulf stepped in and confirmed Wilkes statement as correct with the following edit:

• 21:01, 3 Jun 2005 Thryduulf (→David Bret AND Nick Adams - removing section. request actioned, both parties aware. This page is NOT a place for comments.)

Wilkes request for page protection on the Elvis Presley article was assessed and agreed to by Misplaced Pages:Administrator Smoddy who inserted a Vandal notice (Vprotected) as follows: 21:45, 3 Jun 2005 Smoddy (protection template)

After having vandalised the Elvis Presley page and it now protected, User: 80.141.x.x then ignored both Misplaced Pages Official Policy and Misplaced Pages:Administrator, Thryduulf's assertion that This page is NOT a place for comments, and reinstated his comments into Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection .

Having filed a detailed complaint as to vandalism in progress and having his request for page protection granted by Misplaced Pages:Administrator, User:Smoddy for vandalism carried out by User: 80.141.x.x, then Wilkes' reversions did not violate the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule because it states that the policy does not apply to correction of simple vandalism.

Assessing this situation, and the conduct of User: 80.141.x.x whose only contributions are to the three disputed articles, it is obvious something is wrong. Worse still, User: 80.141.x.x had previously done the exact same thing to others on the Elvis Presley page and after getting away with it then, was free to attack Wilkes. Once he got rid of Wilkes yesterday, he then was free to start reverting the Presley article again which he did and when User:Equintan stepped in to try to correct things, User: 80.141.x.x then reverted him. Adding insult to injury, User: 80.141.x.x posted his personal insults against Wilkes on Your Talk page. (18:16, 5 Jun 2005 80.141.217.19)

It seems to me that people with a record of consistent quality work should not have to spend their time, nor be forced to deal with the aggravation, just to defend the integrity of a Misplaced Pages article.

Talk about a good way to turn off contributors, this is it. Karl Schalike