Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:20, 10 January 2008

Template:Archive box collapsible

Daniel_Geduld

• See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Daniel_Geduld. Anthony Appleyard 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Daniel_Geduld. Anthony Appleyard 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:ANI

I wanted to alert you to edits I made to ANI concerning other vandals and socks that have been uncovered as part of Rubber cat's block. If you believe I have made a mistake, please let me know on my talk page. Thank you for all your help with this! Cumulus Clouds 07:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of being careful and having an impartial block be placed I would prefer not to use my administrator tools any further in this incident. If the user accounts are vandalising, list them at WP:AIV and they'll be blocked (linking to the ANI discussion might not be a bad idea), and if it's ambiguous discussion can take place on ANI and we'll take it from the consensus there. Cheers, Daniel 07:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

user page?

Sorry I did not realize that the user pages are treated the same as encyclopedia pages, considering the type of utter nonsense many of them have, and it was not a personal attack either. Although if it was the owner of that page who was dismayed by my edit I suppose I must respect that, but if they didn't mind I don't see what the harm was —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32000BTUGasGrill (talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well since you are the owner of that account, you would know best if you were dismayed or not. Cumulus Clouds 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

FYAD invasion isn't over, keep an eye on that thread. They're pretty mad at you :hifive: Jtrainor 00:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you notice one of them vandalizing a page, notify ANI (or AIV) and specifically Neil, and they will be immediately blocked. Cumulus Clouds 00:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Cumulus clouds, You should block yourself from editing cause you vandalized me when I just put an external link about Kircher case in the section "external links" of Kircher case. I did a perfect and minimal edit, useful and respectful of all rules. You vandalized.

• I have reported this edit to AIV, you may respond there. Cumulus Clouds 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cumulus cloud, you should respond of your disruptive and genuinely anal retentive action. Do you know a cumulus of what you are pouring on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.191.107 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent job you're doing, Cumulus Clouds, in helping to keep the Meredith Kercher article accurate, concise and respectful. Isometimesthink (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a fake website!!!!!!

The link just didn't work. I have removed the Republican comments on the Pompeo article until I find another source, which will be shortly!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.73.103.253 (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Instead of removing information, you can leave it there with a {{fact}} tag. Cumulus Clouds 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But I am the one who put it there in the first place. My source is invalid and I am trying to find another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.73.103.253 (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

my images

Cumulus clouds,please explain why I can't upload images while there are more than one of the same source(E.g.a lab and a different lab).Also,I use the images for my userboxes.Please explain.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dov Charney

Why was Dov Charney's family background taken out? I still believe that a scanned advertise supports the argument and pictures taken of him while at his work supports the statement but I do comprehend the source of your arguement. But his family background, which was supplied with solid published source, should not have been taken out. Onjections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.128.130 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Benjamin.jpg

Hi. Image:Benjamin.jpg isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. The debate at WP:IFD will take care of it soon. (By the way, to the best of my understanding, the A-series of criteria only apply to articles, the I-series being used instead for images and media.) IceKarmaॐ 08:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Handbra

You reverted my edits claiming that "synthesis claim is false, see AfD. Restore source that provides clear example of use of term. Deleting sources to "support" a claim of non-notability is not legitimate." The same can be said for adding irrelevant sources and deleting those tags. Consensus on the AfD recognizes both the invalidty of those sources and the use of synthesis in the "modern prevalence" section. If you remove those tags or reinsert those references again I will report you to an administrator. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Your abuse of policy to insert a knowingly false claim of "synthesis" has been removed and will be removed again if reinserted. The use of the term "handbra" couldn't be any clearer in the sources provided. You are entitled to push your baseless nonsense at AfD. However, continued efforts to delete material that further support the claim of notability you blindly ignore are only further evidence of bad faith, and will be treated as vandalism in the future. Your bullying and threats will accomplish nothing. I must admit that I did enjoy your rather arrogant and presumptuous claim of "Consensus on the AfD recognizes both the invalidty of those sources and the use of synthesis in the 'modern prevalence' section" as the AfD has not concluded and you are in a rather small clique pushing for deletion. If you are going to follow through with your threats, I suggest you get started immediately finding an admin who will listen to your whining. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• You are the only one who is promoting the view that those sources conform to WP:V. I don't know what imaginary consensus you're basing your judgement on, but if you actually read the AfD, you will see where you are in error. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Your latest vandalism has been reverted. Feel free to push your crap at AfD. Leave the article to those with a genuine good faith interest in improving the article. Removing sources that clearly support the claim of notability while denying that there are sources at the AfD is teh height of hypocrisy. Alansohn (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• If you revert this article again I will report you for WP:3RR. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• You have already violated WP:3RR. As you have not been previously warned, let this constitute your WP:3RR warning of your own. Further vandalism will not be tolerated, merely to push your own personal bias by removing reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Further, if you request that another user revert it for you, I will report you for canvassing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• More imaginary threats on imaginary actions. It's time to shit or get off the pot with your threats. Alansohn (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

Since there seems to be some confusion, here are the details of your recent WP:3RR violation:

• 1) 11:57, 29 November 2007 - Undid revision 174551352 by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) - also not a source
• 2) 12:50, 29 November 2007 - Undid revision 174631463 by Alansohn (talk) - see my comments on your talk page.
• 3) 13:03, 29 November 2007 -Undid revision 174642911 by Alansohn (talk) - if you revert this again I will report you for WP:3RR. Alansohn (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Handbra

Misplaced Pages won't die if handbra stays on, but the 3rr can get you blocked and violations tends to piss off other editors. Not that I can criticize, 'cause my block log has two-3rr blocks and I've been guilty of over-arguing AFDs before. It's up to the closing admin to determine if the page is deleted or not, and everyone on the page is now arguing in circles. What I'm trying to say is, stay cool 'cause blocks suck and the poor closing admin has to read the entire page. My unsolicited advice for the day. WLU (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd venture that you're both shouting now (as am I). People have made their points and are sticking to them, and no matter how many times we repeat the same argument, somehow the other side is never convinced. It's hard not to get sucked in during AFD debates, and this one is tricky 'cause it's on the borderline of a half-dozen different policies and guidelines. It's almost notable, not quite a dictionary definiton, definitely a neologism, reliably sourced to non-discussions and must synthesize all of the sources in order to say anything. It's like dancing with Frankenstein. My guess is it'll survive the AFD and spend its life in the shadows of wikipedia. Meh, what can you do? WLU (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You ever looked into the meta section to see if you're a deletionist? You're preaching to the choir sir, the choir. Unfortunately, over the long term it's better for your wikihealth to fight hard for the AFD then let it go afterwards. Ideally during. I agree the page is BS and shouldn't be on wiki (though I also like looking at breasts, so I'm a bit torn), but since I'm not the boss of wikipedia, I've learned to let it go. You kinda have to, or you get too frustrated. WLU (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Seattle Press

Last I checked it was defunct... they do have an archive site up, but AFAIK it's not publishing again. --Lukobe 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:) I do miss that paper! --Lukobe 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Up to you really--you might write a stub article on it! --Lukobe 05:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dup cites

Hi, how do you use a cite that has already been used? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

admin?

If your are an Adminsterator an you delete Baby2heads3.jpg?

I goi to uploada better picture for my signature.100px¤~IslaamMaged126 14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

George Washington Bridge

Left a couple of content issues on its Talk page, which should be resolved before the article is ready for copy-edit. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi CC: I left you some suggestions on the article's peer review page; good luck getting it to GA! MeegsC | Talk 09:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Westland Mall Shooting

I did explain my problem with it here. KV(Talk) 20:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Edits

I like them. Thanks for taking the time to do all the fact requesting on the Washington State Cougars article. Ive realized that theres a whole lot of unessential information that some people put on Misplaced Pages without citations. People should at least cite where the information when they use it, and you did a good job at cutting out the crap and asking for sources. I appreciate it a lot!

		The Minor Barnstar
		This is for making people be accountable for what they write --DerRichter (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Call reassurance logo

I changed the copyright tag on the following logo and removed the notice. Please let me know if this is insufficient. Owner (Database Systems Corp.) allows free use of this logo. Thanks! Call-reassurance logo - pgillman (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Old Executive Building fire removal

A discussion has started on the talk page of the Talk:Old Executive Office Building page challenging your removal of the segment relating to the fire there today. I disagree with the removal and was tempted to revert you, but I decided to wait until I hear what you have to say.--CastAStone/ 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thestationx1 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)can you be more specific on which part of my article is against the csd?, thanksThestationx1 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thestationx1 (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)ok thanks, just getting to grips with wikipedia, i'm going to try writing about other things now then and see if i can get it sorted. also, for your info, i am not affiliated with the band, but now i realise i have not done myself any favours by choosing the name - oh well, you live and learn, thanksThestationx1 (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thestationx1 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)thanks a lot, but i have decided to give up, i want to be a writer not a programmer, I was going to try and use this site to write about things that interest me, but i can see it's not going to happen, thanks for your helpThestationx1 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Trivia tag from Paris Hilton article

Re Paris Trivia removal: I have carefully studied the WP:BLP and do not feel the information you removed was in violation. SomeSlasher has returned some of it, now placed within a proper section of "Paris in popular culture", subsection "Effects in the arts", sub-sub section "Popular parodies", presented in an organized manner, and with verifiable citations. I believe these factual informations should stay, as they are now per WP:BLP a Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiable, and contain No original research . Thanks, AnotherSearcher (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with SomeSlasher and user:AnotherSearcher, and politely disagree with you about your removing some interesting and cogent facts from the article. To quote directly from Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections: "What this guideline is not: There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. - Some information is better presented in a list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information should be included in articles — it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." So... you removed information that should have been left in... information that although poorly presented, was better being presented than not at all. More interesting, you tagged as "Trivia" informations that had already been properly handled as per Misplaced Pages:Handling trivia and which had been moved to a section titled "In popular culture". I agree with CelebPress that the tag you placed on the article should be removed. And I agree with the others that the information you removed should be returned. That one or another of us thinks information to be trivial, does not make it so. And to repeat "...This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all...(Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections)" L.L.King (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading the Paris article, I find that much of the information is not noteworthy. However, would it be better tif I take the informations presented under the "In popular culture" heading and combine it into a more succinct and readable form... a few paragraphs that can be better included in another section? I am willing to do the work if you feel it would be helpful. If yes, which section might best be used? L.L.King (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this....? Adding it to "Personal life" as "Contoversy" just after "Driving convictions"? Here's my idea.....

-removed-

I would appreciate any feedback you may have. Thank you, L.L.King (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Paris Hilton

Please do not remove the information you refer to as "trivia" from this article. They do not violate the protocols set forward in WP:TRIVIA. But please Do remove that tag, since the dispute over that information clearly isn't resolved, and that tag is misleading and unneccessary. Discuss any changes you make to that page on its talk page first, to be sure they conform to community consensus rather than make your own narrow judgement call.

I have read the essay in WP:TRIVIA. The informations you call "trivia" do not violate any "protocols" set forward in the essay. You are incorrect in your interpretation, and I am not alone in seeing this. I will not get into an edits war with you, but please re-read the essay. Pay special attention to where it specifically states "What this guideline is not - There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests: This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. - Some information is better presented in a list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information should be included in articles — it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies."

Wiki would be better served by you improving the article by finding ways to organize and incorporate these fatcs, rather than your eliminating them because of your personal interpretation of Wiki guidelines. SomeSlasher (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove information...

I went online and in 5 minutes found over a dozen verifiable references that proved Paris posed nude, naked, without-a-stitch... covered only on a layer of gold spray-paint... in order to promote an alcoholic beverage. Her actions, specially in light of her arrest, conviction, and incarceration for drunk driving, underscore the importance of the work of artist Daniel Edwards in educating teenagers about drunk driving. The information is placed in the proper place in the article. The information has proper references.ZeeToAaa (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no trivia list...

Placing tags where they do not belong is based upon your opinion and not upon fact. Please try to continue making Wiki a place where facts are paramount and opinions are left outside.

The guideline Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections states "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all."

More pointedly, the essay states "Such sections should not be categorically removed: it may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections; others can be grouped into a new section of related material. Convert bullet points to prose or narrowly focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "Continuity errors"), as seems most appropriate."

Also, as it was presented before your removal of it, the informations were not trivia. The essay elaborates by stating "In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list. These disorganized items are in need of cleanup, either by incorporating them into the prose of another section, or by filtering the list to be more selective. A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information within the article." The information as presented was about how Paris Hilton is repeatedly spoofed in popular media, and as the essay says "A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia".

You had an opinion that something was too trivial to include. Wiki is not a place for opinion... only for fact. The facts you removed were interesting, coherent, and gave dimension to the overall article on Paris Hilton. Wiki articles NEED dimension and depth. ManicAttack (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murder of Meredith Kercher

I have nominated Murder of Meredith Kercher, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murder of Meredith Kercher. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• The article in question ashould be deleted. You really need to get over pushing your opinions as fact. Please follow Wiki guidelines when creating articles orwhen editing the works of others. Your {{opinion]] about something does not make it so. ManicAttack (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

in contradiction to Wiki guidelines...

• Yes, I read it carefully... and I think more carefully than you... it says a "meaningless collection of unrelated facts...". The facts you removed were NOT meaningless (only in your opinion) and they were not unrelated. They all dealt with how public interest in Paris has resulted in her being repeatedly and continually lampooned in popular media. THAT is an important issue. Those were the instances in the section. There was no collection of unrelated facts. the WP:TRIVIA also tries to stave off heavy-handed editing like yours by saying "Such sections should not be categorically removed". Did you miss that? It also says "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections"... which you did when you removed instances of parody because you felt they were unimportant. By removing them, you removed the cohesive context of the article dealing with examples of Paris being lampooned. Without them, the article makes less sense and has less importance. AnotherSearcher (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Paris Hilton: Controversy

I see that many of us are doing a continued set of tweaks to improve this section to ensure that it is not "meaningless collection of unrelated facts". Keeping everything in context, documenting facts as presented, and avoiding a "bullet list", should keep this section centered. I do understand that you may feel these facts are unimportant, but others feel that an inclusion of these informations is quite important. The details surrounding a public figure help us understand that figure, their affect of society, and society's effect on them. One or two dis-jointed facts would be difficult to present if they had no relationship with the others, but in keeping all the facts well organized and related, any hint of them being "trivia" can be easily avoided. Thank you for your continued presence. SomeSlasher (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

W00t

Please stop blanking the page. At this point, you are fighting the current consensus as to whether the page should be retained and improved upon. Create a new AfD if you still have problems with this article, but at this point it is not proper to unilaterally take matters into your own hands. Thanks! --Roehl Sybing (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:MichaelQSchmidt

ROFLMAO! Sometimes I guess I'm too gullible, though I claim defence of not knowing anything about the nuttiness of the situation until you wrote your blurb.  ;) Kelvinc (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I removed some of your tags from said article. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)