Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 22 August 2008

If you post to my talk page, I will reply exclusively here. If I posted recently to your talk page, I will read responses exclusively there.

I am disinterested in hate mail or rants; if you want to blow off steam, go join a gym instead. Yes, this means you.

• Archive #1 - Entries archived from June 2005 - March 2006
• Archive #2 - Entries archived from March 2006 - May 2006
• Archive #3 - Entries archived from May 2006 - December 2006
• Archive #4 - Entries archived from December 2006 - April 2007
• Archive #5 - Entries archived from April 2007 - June 2007
• Archive #6 - Entries archived from June 2007 - November 2007
• Archive #7 - Entries archived from November 2007 - April 2008
• Archive #8 - Entries archived from April 2008 - July 2008

Re Article: Promotion_City

Hi, you recently deleted my article due to section G7. If you noticed, the top of my post (in red) was a message asking for help regarding making my article noteable for wikipedia. Could you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil-One (talk • contribs) 08:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so, no. First off, it's a definite offense to recreate a deleted article, and you are at risk of being blocked if you do so. Secondly, several editors now have found the subject just plain not notable enough to sustain a Misplaced Pages article. The website has an Alexa traffic ranking of just under 700,000, and doesn't have enough page views to crack its graph. The only way an article can be sustained is to demonstrate conclusively that it meets one or more elements of WP:WEB; to wit:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
   • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
     • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
     • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
   • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

I couldn't turn up any evidence your website had met any of those criteria. Good luck.  RGTraynor  16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer some useful advice regarding the noteable criteria. I noticed that one of the points mentioned was regarding winning an independ award. I can proudly say that Promotion City have been nominated every year since 2004 in the Urban Music Awards (http://www.urbanmusicawards.net) which is a well known UK 'urban/underground' award ceremony that rivals the UK's popular MOBO awards (http://www.mobo.com/). And more importantly Promotion City were winners of the Best Website award back in 2005 (pic: http://www.promotioncity.co.uk/images/UMA-Winners1.jpg - if you look clearly, you can see www.promotioncity.co.uk sketched into the award that I am holding). As previously said, Promotion City were nominated in the Best Website category in the following years (2006, 2007, 2008) alongside Myspace.com and Facebook.com in 2007 (of which Facebook.com won). There are many published articles on the internet about the UMA's in 2005 which list the winners of each category - and show Promotion City as winners, here is an example on an archived page at the UMA's website: http://www.urbanmusicawards.net/_index.htm - Finally, Promotion City have also been nominees in another music/clubbing awards ceremony entitled Musik 4 You Awards (however Promotion City did not win this).

Although all these facts are based around "Awards", would this be reasonable enough reason for having a Promotion City article on wikipedia? Neil-One (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say not. Being nominated for an award almost never confers notability (unless we're talking about the level a Nobel or an Academy Award nominee). Beyond that, one rule of thumb for whether awards are notable enough to be the sole prop for WP:WEB is whether the awards themselves have a Misplaced Pages article (see Category:British awards). As far as I can tell they do not.  RGTraynor  08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

chelsea darling

I have spent so much time writing this article for Chelsea Darling for you to come up and just nominate it like that, I'm very upset. I am not hating, threatening, anything of the sort.. I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. I am trying to become a better writer, I would like to know where I went wrong and what I can fix. Deletion seems pretty extreme if its just something I can edit or change. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylecmdftwe (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It was obvious to me that you did spend a good bit of time on the article, and in terms of meeting proper style and format, your goal of becoming a better writer seems well in hand; that wasn't the problem. The problem is the subject. This young model is obviously a go-getter and good at self-promotion; the world just hasn't noticed yet. WP:BIO specifically holds that a model must:

• Have received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them;
• Have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field;
• Have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions;
• Have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; or
• Have made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

From what my own researches have turned up, she's done none of that, and so far the consensus of all other editors who've chimed in are unanimous. I'd certainly like to see a writer of your skill continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages; my sole advice to you is simply to verify with the appropriate criteria (WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:RS) whether a subject is notable enough for an article before proceeding with creating a new one. Good luck.  RGTraynor  16:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello RG, I think the article Paulina Gretzky, needs to be nominated for deletion. But, it probably wont happen. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

She probably passes in that independant articles have been written about her (possibly a side effect of her dad), though they should be referenced on her page. -Djsasso (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are just enough credits that I doubt a consensus would be reached. In looking a bit further, I see a feature article on her on CTV.ca, the writeup on the Flare cover shoot, a couple others.  RGTraynor  22:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Francis T. Bowles and his role at Fore River. Arthur Busch's role building IJN first five (Holland Type VII) at Quincy.

For some reason, neither men are mentioned as being present at Fore River during the Russo-Japanese war. Mr. Bowles is not even acknowledged on Misplaced Pages. This whole entire story is distorted and (biased) no thanks to the mismanaged company known as Electric Boat. People like Lawrence York Spear and Frank Taylor Cable lacked integrity and "conspired in silence" to keep certain crucial information (about the origins of Electric Boat) at bay and concealed. Much, much more to this somewhat politically incorrect story that was never honestly rendered to begin with. The truth will not always be what "they" want us to know, nor can it always be Kosher, as "they" would prefer to have it be. It... (what is correct) will also (many times) be offensive to those who are. Middim13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea of starting a new article about Admiral Francis T. Bowles, President of Fore River Shipbuilding Company.

Maybe you would see fit to start an article about this man... (Admrial F. T. Bowles) who once complained to Congress over the high cost of the A-class/Adder-class submarines developed at Lewis Nixon's Crescent Shipyard in Elizabethport, New Jersey. He didn't whine and complain over that fact that Rice moved "his" submarine operations to Bowles shipyard in 1904. Got Fore River "out of the red" at this time. Middim13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources relevant to the Electric Boat article, they may well be pertinent there. That being said, if you have reliable sources stating that Japan commissioned Fore River to build it submarines, I have no problem with that being in the article. Where I differ is in your inference that there was something sinister in this; the IJN had to have had the subs built somewhere, and that was during a time when relations between the Americans and the Japanese were good. Furthermore, I am unsure what is notable about Bowles' or Busch's alleged presence or "role" at Fore River or anywhere else ... the shipyard has always had superintendents and project managers, after all.  RGTraynor  20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Nixon and Arthur Busch

A great majority of the works of these two men (and the contributions they made to advancements in U. S. Naval Seapower) were downplayed and overlooked in the Naval community and (in some cases) by the companies they used to work for. There are reliable "sources" in "contricdiction" to other versions but one must know where to find these facts. Much of these mens story have been overlooked and underappreciated. I will say that the United States Government remained "neutral" during Japan's war with Russia in 1904/05. As far as having "good relations" as "allies" with Japan at the time; you could say they opened their doors to the west by then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you do have reliable sources, and they don't place undue weight on the accomplishments and actions of notable subjects, I'm sure the information can find its way to appropriate articles ... perhaps articles on themselves.  RGTraynor  23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Article concering Timothy Hodge

i dont think the article should be deleted, regarding Timothy Hodge he is in fact a real person and have done all of the jobs that are listed in the artcle. Informations is on the world wide net and listed on various websites. I think its wrong and disrespectful for u to have deleted the article the first time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy404 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:RS for information on Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and verification, but to phrase it more briefly, it's not our job here to "respect" the subjects of articles, but to apply the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. No one's suggesting that Mr. Hodge doesn't exist. He just does not meet the criteria listed above, and does not qualify for a Misplaced Pages article.  RGTraynor  00:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Hodge

I was wrong about exactly what happened here. They just re-created the same article without the "W" to dodge the AfD, then blanked the original article. I have tagged the new one as a speedy, but I thought you'd like to know what was up. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Purple Line stations

Please explain your justification for redirecting every single WMATA Purple Line station stub to the central Purple Line page. Doing so is inconsistent with other planned Metro stations such as on the Silver line. In future it would be much less antagonistic to propose your changes on the talk pages instead of merely plastering over pages with a redirect.

Dkendr (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple: they are stations that at this time do not exist, may never exist (these are, after all, stations on a proposed line), won't for a minimum of seven years, have no notability or verifiability beyond the proposed line, and about which nothing is extant other than that they are proposed stations on the proposed line; this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue, and preferable to them being AfDed outright. If indeed there are other projected stations on other projected lines with similar articles, they ought to be redirected as well.  RGTraynor  00:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, inconsistent with other planned WMATA articles, and certainly not for you to implement unilaterally. What's more I find your argument "if I can't have my way by redirecting them I'll just have them deleeted" to be unconvincing and arrogant. Dkendr (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the purple line green lighted yet? Its still in the proposal stage right? ccwaters (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed my opinion, and whether that opinion is consistent with the way you've put together WMATA articles (which would be your opinion, would it not?) is irrelevant to deletion policy and whether these articles meet Misplaced Pages-wide notability and WP:CRYSTAL standards. I'm sorry if you've forgotten WP:AGF in the mix.  RGTraynor  15:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, more in point: Don't assume you're the sole authority, because you're not. And don't assume you have the right to set standard, because you don't. And don't assume that just because you've memorized policy tags means you have the right to decide what applies. My opinion was that the articles could be stubbed in and later if found irrelevant by the usual jury process redirected or deleted. Your idea was that they were irrelevant and you didn't need no jury to back you up. Now stop blathering about policy; if you have an AfD nomination or two in mind, make them, and quit pretending the rules don't apply to you. Dkendr (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If what you want is for them to be taken to AfD, fair enough. In the meantime, perhaps you should take a peek at WP:OWN. Plainly you want to pick a fight, but I can't much be bothered.  RGTraynor  23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Plainly, looking at your talk pages, your MO is to delete or alter pages, then quote policy you don't understand, then wave off complaints about your autocratic behavior as "bothersome." Grow up and stop playing with Misplaced Pages. Dkendr (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In looking at your talk pages, I see you have a history of vandalism and personal attacks, including at least one block for the same, and I even see that you've redirected pages without warning. I strongly recommend that you spend more time on learning more about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and less on insulting other editors.  RGTraynor  15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ross Singers should not be deleted

The ross singers pages should not be deleted, do your research on them. --Daisy404 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show us the results of yours. What elements of WP:BAND - and meeting one or more of these elements is required - did this group fulfill? -

• It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble, or works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
• Has had a charted hit on any national music chart or has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
• Has released two or more albums on a major label.
• Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award.
• Has won or placed in a major music competition.
• Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network, or has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

And so on. Misplaced Pages policy does not require anyone to prove they are not notable - it requires the editor wishing to save the material to demonstrate that the subject is. So far the unanimous consensus is that these subjects are not.  RGTraynor  04:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Hodge

You nominated Timothy W Hodge for deletion but it got speedied. It has now popped up again as Timothy Hodge but I couldn't delete it G4 because the previous AfD had been superceded by the speedy so it is at AfD again. This is a courtesy call to let you know that I shamelessly stole your original nom statement (with due attribution of course) - it was too good to waste and was better than anything I could have come up with. :) kind regards nancy 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipoff!  RGTraynor  23:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Hodge, The Ross Singers, Musician artist agency]]

did u take the time and do ur reasearch on them , if u did i dont think u would be putting them up for deletions, and u talking about news paper articles, awards its all over the internet, i search for hours. --Sunpop (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2008

I have a better suggestion. You do the research on them. Several editors, myself included, have spent time researching these non-notable people and groups, and we have found nothing: no newspaper articles, no magazine articles, no movies or TV appearances, no released albums, no nothing. The premise upon which I am working is that no such sources exist. If you have found any, please feel free to include your sources in the article and let us know where you found them; nothing and no one prevents you from doing so. Until then, I'd appreciate it if you and Daisy404 stopped spamming my talk page unless you have new and concrete information to add.  RGTraynor  23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning - inappropriate edits

Please do not delete article contents especially reference citations, especially after an AFD and Deletion Review, and the "dust has not even settled yet". When you have a concern, please ADD appropriate "Clarify" or "Fact" tags/templates rather than deleting content and references. LeheckaG (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not inappropriate to delete references that do not pertain to the subject of the article. If you can point out any references I have so far deleted that do contain direct references to the subject, I will be happy to revert them myself.  RGTraynor  21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to see

...Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Bridges#What is notable?, where we're discussing the notability issue relating to bridges. - Denimadept (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipoff; I've made some comments.  RGTraynor  20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hockey nicknames

Regarding the removal of nicknames; I had no idea the discussion was happening, since it occurred on the project talk page, and not on any articles I edit. It seems the decision was made with only project editors in mind. Asher196 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the consensus was determined on the Wikiproject, but that's the case on all the Wikiprojects; we presume, not without cause, that the editors involved in such projects constitute a quorum for discussions based on them. In this particular case, the ice hockey player infobox was created by a WP:HOCKEY editor, and has been edited and maintained by WP:HOCKEY editors; it's not particularly unreasonable for us to discuss what's to be included on it amongst ourselves, as has always been the case. You're certainly welcome to put your oar in, and try to change consensus to your POV if you wish.  RGTraynor  22:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean I can create and use my own infobox and replace yours, including fields I want? You have no special authority over articles just because you participate in a project. Asher196 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No we don't have special authority, but the members of the project can revert your edit unless you have a consensus of other users to change it to your version. -Djsasso (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat surprising, since I see that you belong to a Wikiproject. Looking through that project page, it sure sounds like some folks are causing quite a stir by unilaterally changing the name of "Lighthouse" articles to "Light." Seems like WP:Lighthouses works with consensus as well.  RGTraynor  02:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. My issue is that nicknames were removed from the infoboxes with no warning unless you were a member of the project. I have no problem with consensus. I also have an issue with having properly sourced infomation removed. Asher196 (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The template was changed, and the warning came where the template was generated, which is out of the project. If your point is that we failed to notify the tens of thousands of editors who haven't gone out of their way to display an unusual interest in ice hockey articles -- and thank heaven we didn't, because no doubt ArbCom would have some very serious words with us if we spammed the system on such a scale -- I'd have to agree with you; so stipulated.  RGTraynor  02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about notifying individual editors, but putting a notice on the talk pages of the articles that use the infobox. Is that a practical possibility? I don't know enough about Misplaced Pages in that area. Asher196 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That'd be several hundred articles, anyway, and people updating just one or two individual articles without coming near the project page are far more likely to come in with WP:OWN arguments defending their favorite players anyway.  RGTraynor  03:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

3800 or so according to AWB, just for an idea of how used it is. Which is why if people are that concerned about whats on a template its probably easier to just watch the template itself. -Djsasso (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooof. THAT many? Well now.  RGTraynor  04:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

why are you deleting virginia association of counties?

And how do I create a page of my association without you deleting it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharter (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

By submitting proof of how your club fulfills the criteria of WP:ORG and WP:V. Good luck.  RGTraynor  17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kelley Gulledge

It seemed pretty clear to me. While the counts were similar, Brmo's rationale for his deletion basically trumped their arguments about the all-star appearances being notable. Plus, minor leaguers are not prima facie notable, even at the AAA level, they have to prove something else. Note that after Brmo explained his side as well there were no more people that voted keep. AfD's not a vote, and the delete voters simply had much stronger arguments. Wizardman 13:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor league debate

They have reopned the minor league notability debate on the Baseball project talk page.. You might want to participate. Spanneraol (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Spanneraol, would you please go to the delete voters on the various AFDs and let them know about the discussion as well? Otherwise, this and this are an egregious violation of Misplaced Pages:Votestacking. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You may want to direct that to the proper user page. This is my user page, not Spanneraol's.  RGTraynor  18:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with possible deletion entry

Please see The Karlz. I am concerned that this new article, although well intentioned and somewhat well formed, is not in conformance with various style and copyright guidelines. I initially thought of posting an AfD. After reading the policies there, I thought it would be better to add a WP:PROD template to the article, which would have included the following reason:

The entire article consists of material copied verbatim from other sources. The "Biography" section is copied entirely from the band's Myspace profile and the "Set List" section is copied entirely from the band's official website, both subject to questions under WP:COPYVIO. The "Members" section is nearly entirely a copy of the Todd Bowie article. The entire article is also subject to WP:BAND issues.

However, I am unsure that either method is appropriate. Please look over this article and either take an appropriate action or let me know what you think should be done, if anything. This would be my first deletion action on Misplaced Pages and I would rather have a little more guidance before proceeding. Thanks - Sswonk (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Heck, this is a slamdunk; I wouldn't hesitate in AfDing this for a moment. This is a local garage band duo that haven't come close to meeting any of the criteria of WP:BAND. They're not notable individually, either, and I'd AfD both their articles as well. If you don't AfD them all, I'll do it when I get home from work. (grins)  RGTraynor  15:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead when you get home, I am interested in learning from the debate. I will definitely add comments to the AfDs. Sswonk (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'll make sure to notify you. One reason for waiting for me is that I have Twinkle installed on my WP setup at home, and it makes slogging through the process a bit easier and faster.  RGTraynor  16:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Karlz

Looks like Twinkle didn't finish the afd for you, it's still red linked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, I fixed it. P.S., do you really contribute to Misplaced Pages nekkid, or is that userbox just there for giggles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(grins) I do when I'm at home, at least. Possibly a TMI moment.  RGTraynor  14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Col. Adelbert Mossman House AfD

You said you were surprised that a veteran editor with over 9000 edits wouldn't know of alternative notability criteria. I would say I was surprised that a large number of editors were using the guidelines of a Wikiproject to over-rule the Misplaced Pages policy at WP:V. But hey-ho, --JD554 (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be surprised were that the case as well, but surely you're aware that WP:N and the various sub-level notability sections have a wide range of criteria to establish notability beyond WP:V.  RGTraynor  13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the myriad of sub-level notability sections, but I have yet to find one that would cover Col. Adelbert Mossman House. I'm not saying one doesn't exist, just I have been unable to find it. I would be grateful if you could point me to a policy that would cover this so I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks --JD554 (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gemstone IV

You reverted my edit for this entry as "inaccurate/POV". First of all, nothing that I said was inaccurate. If you've ever played the game, (and I feel fairly confident in assuming that you have not), you would know that the GMs do indeed monitor player actions constantly, and do get involved in the instance of ANY sort of conflict. As to my edit being "POV", the only statement that could possibly be construed as such would be the last sentence saying that this policy is a major negative of the game, but this statement is no more in the realm of opinion than other remarks in the subject, such as "Among others, the reason that GemStone continues to thrive is because of the interacting between different characters, each with their own developed personality, creating a world full of excitement and enchantment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.70.60 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Having been playing the game for over fifteen years now, I feel fairly confident that you know a good deal less than you fancy. I also know for a certain fact that GM intervention in player conflict happens far less often than you seem to believe - more often than not, they sit on their hands unless they catch someone redhanded, and even then bend over backwards to try to find some way to blame the victim. (Heck, let's just start with that if every single GM on Simu's staff logged in during prime time hours, that'd be around one GM for every thirty players; monitor everyone's actions? Unlikely.) That phrasing would likewise be a POV violation, as is of course the sentence which you cited, which has been removed.

Beyond that, other statements of yours such as "Even instances of verbal conflict are not allowed in Gemstone" are flat out wrong. I recommend looking over WP:SOAPBOX for a better understanding of why Misplaced Pages is not an advocacy forum. There are certainly other websites and forums where you can complain because a Gemstone GM cut you off at the knees; good luck there.  RGTraynor  14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, there is no "edit war" going on in the Gemstone IV entry. You people are hypocrotocal, and I fixed the problem. Period. Secondly, don't think you can threaten or intimidate me by name-dropping as to where I work. I'm not foolish enough to use my computer there at any time other than scheduled breaks, which is all they would care about. If you think a Fortune 500 company would care that you don't like the edits one of their employees made on Misplaced Pages during their off-time, you're very much deluded. I will make whatever changes I see fit, to whatever article I see fit, whether you in your arrogance think it's "warranted" or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.70.60 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity that you refuse to wrap your head around the various policies and guidelines governing conduct on Misplaced Pages, but there it is. In my experience, large companies don't care about their employees looking over websites during their breaks, but care quite a bit about their computers being used to vandalize websites to the point of provoking multiple blocks.  RGTraynor  11:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lazerblast & Darien Lake

While I totally agree with you on the point of "Lazerblast" not needing its own article, I find your additional comments regarding the Darien Lake articles annoying.

which doesn't merely have its own article, but a List of attractions at Darien Lake, a number of which have their own articles. No doubt there's an editor or three who think that this park is the greatest place ever, but not even its own website goes into that much detail.

For the record, the "List of attractions" article was split off from the main article simply because it was getting pretty long to be aesthetically pleasing on the main page, (you'll note, this is commonly done... hence the {{SubArticle|}} template on its talk page.) As for the information listed in the "list", I see nothing wrong with it, its accurate, and I've certainly seen articles with more info than that, so its not bad.

As for the rides "which have their own articles" - there are 9 rides there that have their own articles (Wow, that's a lot! Soon I'll have to start counting on my toes!) - over half of those are generic ride articles written about rides of the same name/design at multiple parks (The Mind Eraser, Skycoaster, Shipwreck Falls, etc). Any other wikilinks are to articles about companies, ride types, etc.

While I admit I am one of the major editors to this article, I only do so with the intention of keeping things accurate. I'm sorry if in your book that automatically means I consider Darien Lake "the greatest place ever", but those are your words, not mine. BTW, Walt Disney World has nearly hundreds of articles dedicated to it. Do those primary editors automatically think that its the greatest place ever? Do they deserve to be slammed for wanting to have an accurate article regarding the largest park in its "chain"? →ClarkCT @ 05:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Short of Disneyland itself, Walt Disney World is the most famous and notable amusement park in the world, and it is the world's largest such resort; that there are seventy-one associated articles makes a certain degree of sense for a resort with over a hundred times as many Google hits as Darien Lake. I wouldn't figure that to be a valid point of comparison.  RGTraynor  06:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're going to complain that a fairly notable park anyway (in that it used to be one of the larger Six Flags parks, and has had numerous "firsts" in the amusement park industry) has 5 articles directly associated with it or its rides? Its a regional park, not an international one, so yes, its going to get fewer searches than Disney. That doesn't mean it should be banned to one article, which is what I got from your original quote. Just because it doesn't have a name like Disney or Six Flags associated with it (anymore) it means its worthless? →ClarkCT @ 16:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was one of the larger Six Flags properties (I've been to 3: Great Adventure, "...over America" and Darien). Its a midsize park: not in the class of Disney, Busch, or Cedar Point, but its no Seabreeze. What do you aim to accomplish with this discussion? ccwaters (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who started comparing Disney World to this local park, sir. If it suffers big time in the notability department by comparison ...  RGTraynor  19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Francoism (Gaming)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Francoism (Gaming), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Francoism (Gaming). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MuZemike (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Northeastern v Huntington News

No big deal... but I disagree that it shouldn't be included. They themselves said that they were changing their name. It clearly falls under the first exemption noted: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." But for sake of avoiding an edit war, I'll wait until the first edition comes out. Jheiv (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an "event;" it's what a thing is called. A couple weeks from now, it'll be called something else.  RGTraynor  22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ray Carver (dart player)

My edit to this article is in no way, shape, or form, vandalism. Your favorite thing to do here is to throw away WP links; however, you never seem to understand what they actually are. Quoting from the policy itself:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism.."

Not only is a personal opinion clearly stated as NOT vandalism, but my edit doesn't even fall under the category of "opinion". I stated several FACTS, which anyone who knows Ray Carver would confirm. I am a member of the darting community myself, and have played Ray Carver on several occasions, in addition to seeing him play and others, and listening to others views on him. Have YOU done any of this? Do you even know who Ray Carver is?

I am tired of your constant tactic of arrogantly deciding what YOU think should or shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages, quoting policies that you clearly don't understand, and then counting on the quantity of your edits and contributions here to see your way through to "victory".

If you continue your crusade against me, and most especially in this particular article, I will make you show cause on your reverts to the powers that be here.

Feel free. Look at the very words you quote: "harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith ..." and "adding a personal opinion to an article once ..." Did you understand what you were quoting? You have not added your personal opinion - which Misplaced Pages does not allow - to that article only the once but many times, enough for you to get reverted by five editors multiple times; have you at any point stopped and considered that we genuinely meant that your edit violates Misplaced Pages policy against original research and defaming living people without ironclad sources?. You've ignored relevant policies, such as WP:BLP, which holds explicitly: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (emphasis in the original) You have been blocked several times already for vandalism and repeated violation of the civility policies, and are editing from other computers illegitimately to evade that; have you at any point stopped and considered that your repeated blocks mean that you are wantonly and repeatedly breaking the rules here?

What you are or are not tired of is not my problem. Your constant and willful ignoring of civility, vandalism and content policy is ours, and happily, there are means to deal with that. They are in the works right now.  RGTraynor  03:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As per the usual with you, your points and quotations are baseless and false. My "several" and "repeated" blocks amount to TWO. And the second of those was rubbish, done by the same person who did the first simply because by having already blocked me once, he just saw my name and did it again. He's also probably a friend of yours.

As to my "illegitimate" use of more than one computer, it's simply a fact of using one during the day, and one during the evening, when I'm in two different places. Oh yes, I'm so sorry that I don't bow to the dictates of you and your cronies and refuse to use any other computer to operate from. "Well, here I am at another computer that I can edit from, but gee, they blocked me from one, so I feel obligated to refuse to edit from any other until they've said it's okay." Get over yourself, son. You don't wield that kind of moral authority, especially not with the bogus edits and reverts that you put out.

And once again, your continuous use of threats and name-dropping.."We know where you work", "Plans our in the works...Oooooooo" don't fly with me.

1. Examples:

   • The webcomic When I Am King has been reviewed by The Guardian, Playboy, The Comics Journal, and Wired.
   • The blog Daily Kos has been covered by Los Angeles Times, Time, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, and The New York Times.

2. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
3. See Category:Awards for a partial list of notable awards. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.
4. Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais had a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial.