Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:34, 18 May 2009

Blue Ocean Strategy Examples

Why do you think it's Wii but not DS? Current DS sales in Japan shows that Nintendo is in a Blue Ocean market with this product already -- and it will take months or even years to do the same with Wii. Also DS but not Wii was presented as an example of Blue Ocean strategy by Nintendo's President Satoru Iwata at anual shareholder meetings this year and in 2006. Lr33 09:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think both the DS and the Wii probably qualify as blue oceans now that I've read the link your provided. The Wii has been cited among Blue Ocean wonks as a new market for those who don't want the best graphics, but like the ease of access of the new, motion sensitive controller. Nintendo added this capability while reducing cost that would have gone into the graphics and the Blue Ray disk. See http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2063714.ece?token=null&offset=12. It mentions both the DS and the Wii. Feel free to adapt as you see fit.Mattnad 13:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i'll have to look for more sources for some of those comments, thanks for messaging me about that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.166.183 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite of Wonderbra

Wow, you've done a lot of work on it. Please consider the lead section carefully. It (and the rest of the article, but the lead section is the worst offender) now reads as if this product is notable only in the US and Canada, which is not the case. --Dweller 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I may end up removing that lead completely (unless someone else does it for me). I agree there's a U.S. orientation to the explanitory lead, mainly because Europeans and Canadians have had a longer experience with the Brand than Americans. I've tweaked the lead to give a greater nod to the global awareness of Wonderbra. I would also welcome help on boosting the global perspective of this article (for anyone out there). - Mattnad 15:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

My "object" vote

I'm sorry to object. I came across so many serious (and a few trivial) issues in a cursory look, that I couldn't in good conscience support, even though it's a terrific piece of work. Please feel free to disagree vehemently with my opinions. I'll return later this week with any further thoughts. --Dweller 22:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the FAC page and thanks for the detailed response. I'm reluctant to view the article at my current computer because some of the images would be inappropriate for this setting, but it sounds like you've addressed all my concerns. I'll take another look at the article asap and hopefully I'll be able to support. --Dweller 13:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

fashion category

Hi mattnad, I haven't yet finished the fashion category yet so that is why the Giorgio Armani, etc. remain. When I was going through the category, I was making sure that all the articles were in at least one appropriate fashion-related subcategory. For instance, Vera Wang and Karl Lagerfeld are both in fashion designers by nationality categories, which are (easy-to-locate) subcategories of fashion, so I thought there was no need for them to be both in the subcategories and in the higher-level category (per Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Some general guidelines). In some cases, it is possible that articles should be in multiple fashion-related subcategories, and I was doing my best to place them into multiple ones where appropriate. For designers, I suppose, it may be necessary to go through that entire category of fashion designers later and flag all the articles (including ones that hadn't been in the fashion category previously) that have eponymous brands or companies, because this hadn't been happening systematically before. I don't think that I eliminated any articles from the fashion category that didn't already belong to another subcategory of fashion, but I can go through and double-check my work. Does my system sound like a reasonable one? If you have any other thoughts before I go through any more, let me know. Calliopejen 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple more things while I'm thinking about it:

The clothing brands category is not new--it's been around for about a year. I stuck it under the fashion header because it was a little more buried before, and a lot of clothing brands just ended up in the general fashion category. Maybe it should stay nested under clothing? I'm not sure, but I figured it was better having that category there than a random assortment of brands throughout the list. Also, maybe some of these should be reclassified as clothing retailers or manufacturers, but I wasn't sure of exactly how the clothing companies were being categorized and figured that "clothing brands" was more descriptive than "fashion" and that someone with more expertise could sort out those subcategories. (I think that "clothing brands" coexisting with "clothing manufacturers" and "clothing retailers" could definitely be least somewhat problematic.)

And just for confirmation, let me know if you agree with some of the general principles I was using-- Where an article belonged to both fashion and a nationality of fashion designers, I eliminated the fashion category. same for fashion and clothing retailers/manufacturers/brands/similar, fashion and models, fashion and fashion magazines. Those are probably the vast majority of the articles. (If we don't use these rules, it's probably necessary to add all the members of those subcategories to the top level.)

Sorry to leave such a long message! Thanks for your help! Calliopejen 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as an overarching vision for the category goes, I really didn't have one at this point. My goal in doing this clean-up was mostly to make the categorization scheme consistent, and then when that was complete maybe to look at what the category as a whole should look like. One big problem with the category before is that there was no consistency in which articles made it to the top category and which didn't. There are hundreds of pages on fashion designers (see Category:Fashion designers by nationality), but only a few random ones were on the top page. Likewise for different styles of clothing, fashion magazines, models, etc. So for now I was just putting articles that belonged to well-defined, populated subcategories into those subcategories, and later I guess we could sort out where we want those subcategories to appear in the bigger hierarchy.

I agree that the top page description doesn't match what's actually in the fashion category. Obviously the word fashion has two different meanings (social trends, clothing), which causes problems. It seemed like the past consensus (from the fashion article and in the category description) was that fashion includes things besides clothing, so I was just trying to stick with that for now. (I'm not sure if there are many articles about fashion other than clothing that should be tagged for the category though...)

At this point, I think I'll continue to move articles into subcategories where appropriate (because I think it is better for the scheme to at least be consistent) and I'll ask for comment on the category on the Category:Fashion talk page regarding the broader organization. Let me know if you think I should do something different. Calliopejen 16:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding Wonderbra to fashion project

Just thought I'd let you know that I added Wonderbra to the the fashion project mainly so we could get at least one FA within its scope, even though the work was done before the project was created. I hope you don't mind; it's not like we're trying to claim some sort of share of the glory. Daniel Case 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy it's there. You might also take the next step and add a relevant fashion sub-category to the article itself, rather than only on the discussion page. In an earlier version of the article, I had a link to the fashion category, but that link was removed by Calliopejen as part of her restructuring of the category (hence my queries to her on the logic and approach). Under the new fashion category taxonomy, I'm not yet sure there's a place for this article, so I encourage you both to look into it. Mattnad 21:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to go to dinner soon, so I'll be quick. There currently seems to be no policy for how to do it, and as a result I follow the unofficial consensus that they go in order of relevance or importance. The clothing categories it's in are already under the Category:Fashion tree; I also created Category:Brassiere because there are several bra-related articles in the underwear category already (actually, I suppose I should create a lingerie category and put all lingerie in there). Daniel Case 23:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and another note. Those links to the old ads at YouTube are going to have to go per WP:EL unless there's some way they're not copyright violations. No one mentioned this during the FA noms, but they will if and when it gets on the main page. Daniel Case 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wintour GA comments

Thanks very much for them ... they were useful. I hope it passes.

Main paging Wonderbra

On a semi-related note, I was "wonder"ing if you were planning to nominate Wonderbra for the main page. Obviously it would be a major vandalism target, but what FA isn't? (I ask because it would be a good way to promote the fashion project until we eventually develop one on our own into FA material). Daniel Case 04:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, people nominate their own articles for the Main Page all the time, but I'm moved by your modesty. I've done it for other people; I can certainly do it for you. Any date relevant, or does it matter? Daniel Case 18:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean, any date you want it on the Main page? Daniel Case 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been done. Daniel Case 03:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see it happen. We just have to be on guard that day ... I'm glad it's after the North American school year is mostly over. and not on a weekend, but it will attract vandalism. Daniel Case 22:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderbra

Just to let you know I've made some additions/tweaks to it (sourced, of course!!!!). I'm a UK female, so have some experience>>>>! 86.137.136.166 10:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, you may want to tend to your Wonderbra page soon. Someone vandalized it by putting pictures of an erect and flaccid penis on the page. --Bdj95 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Bose

While I agree with you, please don't spread the debate to the reliable sources noticeboard. I figured if we ignored it on that noticeboard it wuld help to highlight that UKP is just forum shopping because he doesn't like the link. Greglocock 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, more Bose silliness. I have explicitly asked UKP NOT to post on my talk page. Frankly arguing with him is like stepping in dog-shit (ie useless, deeply unpleasant, and memorable for all the wrong reasons). I don't care either way about the THX issue, it doesn't seem to me to illustrate anything other than a commercial decision. However, please do continue to keep him and the other fan-boys from taking the article over, one eyed boosterism will kill wiki, which is a shame.I actually think the article as it stands is not too bad... famous last words. Greglocock (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:47Z

Circumcision

Copied from my talk:

I'm wondering if we should include mention of female circumcision in this article - granted there are very different. I know this is all political and you have been in the midst of it a lot longer than I. Mattnad (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, we do include mention of female circumcision, in the 'hatnote' at the very start of the article. I think it would be a mistake, however, to include any more than that. My reasoning is that there is already a perfectly good article about FGC. Also, the concept of FGC is, as you say, very different, and articles should be about concepts, not words. Also, the term "female circumcision" is somewhat controversial, and many authorities argue that it is inappropriate (see the FGC article for details), which would make it an NPOV minefield. Finally, the article is already long, and this would not be helped by (inevitably) long to-and-fro discussion of viewpoints about whether FGC and C are similar/dissimilar (all of which may be mildly interesting, but which would tell the reader nothing about the subject of the article).

The problem, as I see it, is that some people passionately believe that FGC and C are alike, and that the analogy is therefore illustrative. On the other hand, other people believe (equally passionately) that FGC and C are radically different, and that the contrast between the two is illustrative. However, since we have to approach the subject from an NPOV position, we can only really illustrate the fact that there is disagreement over whether FGC and C are comparable, and while that may tell us a little about people, it isn't very illustrative about the subject of the article!

This is perhaps too much detail, so in short, I think it would do more harm than good. Jakew (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bras and Cancer

I was merely pointing out that, from may understanding of what the study' results showed, it didn't seem like a very controlled, scientific study on the subject. I'm not saying that we should include this view or such in the article, but I'm trying to point out that the study would not appear to support the opposing view that they (bras) don't cause cancer, because, as the study' abstract says, women who don't use bras have half the cancer risk of women who do wear bras, but it seems to have failed to study women with large breasts who would normally use bras, but don't, vs women with large breasts, who DO use bras, which in my mind would have to be done in order to study the bras as a factor, while removing all other factors.

In my mind this study hasn't properly looked into the subject, because they seemed to lack the correct controls for the subject.

I hate to play the Devils advocate, but 70 years ago people thought smoking was completely safe too, and 70 years ago there were few studies on the subject, but now we do know that is is a factor in causing cancer, and not just Lung cancer.

I understand completely your desire to keep the article from becoming filled with pseudo-science and such nonsense. However, if this article wasn't about bras, but rather, lets say, carbon nanotubes, and someone came in with a citation that showed there was a cancer risk, and then another person person cited another article that showed no link, it would be necessary to include both sides of the debate on whether or not carbon nanotubes where dangerous to one's health.

I don't feel it would be undue weight, therefore, to present both sides in a one-two sentience paragraph at the bottom of the health problem section (before Mastalgia). --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, I don't feel it would be a violation of WP:UNDUE to include a passing mention of the theory.

_{ps sorry for the late reply}--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Emile

Sincerely, thank you. I did not realize it wasn't Kosher to post these type of links. Thank you for being reasonable and everything. Please excuse my ignorance. Also the lists I was trying to link to do not seem to be working. (list of Musicians from Montreal) Thanks for your help and diligence. I feel you've been doing justice to the true spirit of wikipedia even when we are in opposition. (Is a radio interview fair game to note?) Whordwind (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderbra in Popular Culture

Thanks for clarifying why you reversed my Wonderbra in the Media contribution to the Wonderbra article. I will contribute to a Wonderbra in Popular Culture article, should you create one and reference it in the main article.xpanmanx (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job

On Eli Langer. I put a tag on the "current career section," only for now, maybe you or I or someone else will get to it. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

iPhone and Copyright

The iPhone article is held to a higher standard because it was picked to go on the Misplaced Pages CD eventually, but the discussion is ongoing on the talk page and should continue there, thanks. -- Atama 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

iPhone picture

Hey, I just wanted to drop you a line personally to make sure that I got across that I don't mean to be harsh or overly critical of your contributions and picture, I appreciate it a lot. Some folks seem more excited about arguing than improving articles, and you jumped right in to try and make it better, and did. Any picture actually showing it is better than that blurred mess, so thanks. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dressed to Kill (book)

So the anon "just happens" to be in the same area as the book's authors? How, um, curious. Have you left a note on the anon's talk page about conflicts of interest? Do you think it might be worthwhile? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dressed to Kill not refuted

To refute means to disprove. The references you have cited simply question the strength of the proof, which is something completely different. --Jonathan108 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. Wrong word choice. "dismissed" might be better. Mattnad (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MiniHT.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:MiniHT.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. --Mark (Mschel) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.Mattnad (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I responded to you at Talk:Ronald Reagan. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC) bla bla bla

FYI

• Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC_on_Joe_the_Plumber_tax_lien_on_house

Crazy, the page has been protected. Inclusionist (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Inclusionist (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Inclusionist (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber - D&B report

For a Misplaced Pages editor to identify the D&B report as "relatively dated" is POV analysis. Indicating the date of the information in the D&B report would be valid, but as far as I could see, the source does not show the date of the information. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That source doesn't because it's through a vendor repackaging the material. If we were to use that alone, the $510K would remain hidden. I've actually looked at the true D&B report and it's dated to 2007, and on top of that, D&B rarely update reports for small private businesses unless there's a request. At any rate, it's less reliable a source than what Joe has stated, as an employee of the the firm.Mattnad (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. W has some personal interest in how the company is percieved and to claim that he, as a primary party, is more reliable is questionable logic. And, you have not shown that the commentary "relatively dated" is supported by any source. Changing the wording to "A 2007 D&B report..." would be acceptable to me. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have your agenda to make Newell look bigger than what's been reported in the news (why I don't know). D&B reports for private companies are known to be inaccurate and are used only for general guidance. D&B gets their info by calling the business and asking, and they do that rarely. Even that 2007 date may mean they only checked the name and address and not the other information. So the fact that you think a full-time employee, quoted in October 2008, is a less reliable source boggles the mind. But go ahead with the 2007 qualifier as a compromise.Mattnad (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editors do not get to put their personal opinions of the reliability of any source within Wikpedia articles. We can lay out what has been published - leaving the analysis to readers or to quoted sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The D&B information has not been published. It's a private, pay service. Mattnad (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no feeling about the information at all other than if it is presented, it needs to be presented according to our NPOV stance. As a primary source, the inclusion of the information actually appears to be pushing the borders of our WP:SYN guidelines; but there is enough other BS and inappropriate information within the article that I am willing to wait until the editing drops down to work for more improvements. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Even Dem blogs use the $510K figure. It is not controversial. It is NPOV by that standard to be sure. See also http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/31137484.html Collect (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

D&B reports are not a "primary source" under WP guidelines, by the way. D&B is a compiler and publisher of financial information, and is no more "primary" than Bloomberg or S&P are. Collect (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In this instance it is being used as a primary source -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true for public companies, but D&B does a lot calling to get the figures for private businesses. Still, somehow I think JW has a better fix on the size of the company he's worked at for 6 years than you or D&B do.-unsigned

i dont think sjw has a good fix at all or he wouldve known that he had no chance of being able to afford buying it. Brendan19 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe may or may not understand finance, but I'm sure he can count higher than two! Mattnad (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

ha ha. Brendan19 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber talk page tangential conversation moved

Hello, per WP:TPG I moved a conversation that you were involved in that had moved from actively discussing improving article content to the other user's talk page. . Feel free to continue the conversation if you wish. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:

If the article's protected then we didn't quite get to stage of dealing with consensus on a BLP over deleted content, now did we? So kwitcherbitchin. Now if you don't mind I'm gonna remove your clutter from my talk page. Wait, why'd I ask if you mind? --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why? Not your style to do it. Mattnad (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing advertising

Since you're on a crusade to purify Misplaced Pages, I thought I'd help by pointing out hundreds of other commercial links.

In the peanut butter article, check out the link to the National Peanut Board.

In the toilet article check out these:

   * American Standard Companies
   * Arabia
   * Armitage Shanks
   * Caroma
   * Claytan
   * Clivus Multrum
   * Crane
   * Dongfeng
   * Duravit
   * Eljer
   * Evac
   * Gerber Plumbing Fixtures
   * Geberit
   * IDO
   * Karat
   * Kohler Company
   * TOTO
   * Twyfords
   * Victory
   * Villeroy & Boch

I could send you hundreds of other Wiki articles that have similar commercial links without a fraction of the redeeming value of the link to Health Benefits of Squatting which you deleted. Please reconsider. --Jonathan108 (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

JtP next steps

Request formal 3rd party mediation? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

Some thoughts. Usually or mostly WP:BRD applies but in this case it's different as I see it. I'll keep it in general so you can "add names" as you wish (and not blaming me to take a side which I'm not). There is indeed a long-term discrepancy between you and another editor, preventing this article to involve as it should since this is the main advantage of WP in comparison to written encyclopedias. When there are two extremely different views on how the article should look like and what should be included or excluded there is only one way out: Open up, think about what this article will look like in a few month or a year despite of what you're editing now and things can smooth down to a "normal" level (regarding editing). Just think about it and try to solve it. I'll post the same comment at "the other" editors talk page, thus staying neutral in this matter.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure - this has worked with other editors (non-neutral comment). I was just tired of one editor pushing us around without engaging is open and honest dialog (another non-neutral comment).Mattnad (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As I'll stay neutral I won't comment on your last entry but take notice of it as you see.

By the way: Thanks for dragging me in. *nice but also somehow sarcastic smile* *lol* --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we have a time out on this - we can now focus on improving wikipedia. Mattnad (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alien abduction

Most of the ugliness was caused by an unnecessary transclusion. Just wanting you to know that I removed the problem and the page looks much better now. :) Abyssal (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

what is RFC?

I try to find phrasing which is ambiguously side stepd the issue sometimes because it is not universally agreed, just generally agreed that he is not a plumber's plumber but he has done contracting work which included some plumbing. LaidOff (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC) LaidOff

I agree with youjr argument. where dom i post?| (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Final warning

Do not use my final warning to Collect as a carte blanche to revert the article to your preferred status. You are under the same warning - if I see you take further advantage of this, I will block you. Tan | 39 14:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

JtP

Like your edit. Collect actually fought against calling him a "former plumber" at one time. Let's see if he leaves it alone. You have my full endorsement to fight for it. You might want to change the infobox as well for accuracy. The Sarah Palin article has similar language on her former broadcasting career if you need an example of how's it been done on Wikipeida. Mattnad (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I was more trying to change how the article read... was called a plumber during the campaign which was awkward and not totally acurate to say the least. I don't really have a dog in this so I will watch and jump in if necessary. Collect has been helpful on the Palin article. I don't know the history on JTP and probably don't want to. Cheers! --Tom 19:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC?

Would you endorse an RfC regarding User:Collect, he is edit warring on Business Plot, using the same tired tactics as on Joe the Plumber, Facism, and Union_Banking_Corporation reverting well referenced material. Ikip (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Conversely how do you feel about WP:CANVASS? Collect (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not canvassing in my view, but clearly a case of wikistalking by Collect. Gross. Mattnad (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope-- Inclusionist told me he was going to do this. Seems if he says he is going to do something that it is not stalking at all. Collect (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you up for a RfC? Ikip (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mattnad and Ikip. I'm considering RFC against Collect as well. My primary problem is that he seems to ignore WP:Verifiability in line with his personal biases. If you have the same problem, I'd be willing to sign the RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so hes edit warred in Business Plot, Drudge Report , Joe the Plumber and in Rick Warren. What else? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If anyone files such an RfC, please ping me, thanks. (And FYI, I found this by way of .) I should also add that his accusations of canvassing are reminiscent of his accusations of outing directed at me in the Carver mess. Mike Doughney (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If it comes down to calling out User:Collect's tactics, I'd participate in an RFC although I don't know where that would go. I've had better things to do for the last few months, but if needed, I can help.Mattnad (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thx a lot, I'm planning to post the RFC either late this week or early next week. So stick around! Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Hulu App Store.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hulu App Store.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — neuro 21:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC) --— neuro 21:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hulu App Store.png

Thank you for uploading File:Hulu App Store.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Hulu_App_Store.png

Re , I realized I cut and pasted the wrong rationale. The current one may still fail a reasonable test, but let me know what you think. No great loss if it's pulled - there's plenty of easier to justify screen shots to illustrated the article, but it would be nice to avoid the rework. Mattnad (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've transferred this image to WP:FFD because I still feel it's not appropriate. You can comment on the listing by clicking the link on the image. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Collect

I added new evidence: . Please review your endorsement. If you still endorse the RFC, leave your endorsement. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I added my signature. I doubt it will make one bit of difference but I put in my 2 cents.Bruno23 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

About your vote, I think we should give it more time. Someone may post more evidence. It would be nice to have all the evidence documented at a single place. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute with respect to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Collect

Please fill out Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Evidence_of_trying_to_resolve_the_dispute and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Evidence_of_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute.

Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Uncertified_user_RfCs for further details. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Other editors for RfC

I'm handling Rick Warren, if you could tackle Joe the Plumber (all editors plz) and we could both do Palin that would be great :). Soxwon (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sign your posts

Remember to use 4 tildes rather than 5 so that people know that you made your comment. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Misplaced Pages from being used for fraudulent purposes. This barnstar is presented to Mattnad. For all your efforts to make wikipedia a better place. Misplaced Pages needs more fair and reasoned editors such as yourself. Misplaced Pages is lucky to have you here. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. Need I say more? Ikip (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep

The background to this is this set of edits which I reverted, explaining why. Hawkins then started to create a sandbox article User:Drnhawkins/Sandbox/joseph which I have just noticed is now a redirect to the new article. You can see from the history how he developed it. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

moved your comments

I moved your comments to the talk page:

• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Comments_on_Ferylodge.27s_section

Editors are only supposed to support the comments in each section. Ikip (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Joseph and Imhotep

The article was written specifically for WP in the last week and is my first attempt at it. I will probably try to publish it elsewhere aswell.

I would like to resubmit it to WP once I have sorted out the issue with references.

Misplaced Pages currently does not offer any candidate for the Personage of Joseph in Egyptian history and does not offer any explanation for why he did not make it into Egyptian history. It is therefore unfair to call this article a fringe theory. fringe theories. What is more, this article is not original research original research. I am able to quote original sources of quite some depth. In particular, Ronn Wyatt who conducted a lot of research in Egypt on this very issue. Misplaced Pages has disallowed them because Misplaced Pages dose not consider Ron Wyatt to be a reliablereliable source. His discoveries are, however, being increasingly recognised, in particular the site of the red sea crossing and the true Mount Sinai in Arabia. His also claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant in 1982. He was accused of fraud because he could not prove it. His reputation suffered as a result. Now the Israelies claim to have it in there possession and the Israel government has allowed the Wyatt team to reopen Ronn Wyatts explanations of the Calvary escarpment. The brown/red material that Ron Wyatt had analysed and was said to be living cellular material with 23 chromosomes turned out to be chiton - most likely of snail origin. He was not fraudulent, he was just wrong about it being blood. Given the nature of archaeology and science, we all make these type of errors. We propose a hypothesis, we test it and if it is reproducible then we keep the hypothesis until it is disproven and replaced with a better one.--Drnhawkins (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC:Collect

Do you think my earlier comments Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Collect#User:The Four Deuces comments re: Fascism article should be included? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. --Buster7 (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Collect has brought us together. I didn't know until today that you and I were in collusion. Collect has a remarkable talent for knowing editors better than they know themselves.Mattnad (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Savage NPR radio interview

You changed the Savage page back to "the United States Constitution's First Amendment right is designed to protect speech"

His exact quote was, "The whole point of the First Amendment was to protect offensive speech. Not polite speech."

What I'm saying is that it sounds retarded to imply that he simply said the First Amendment protects speech. Everyone knows that it protects speech. What he's saying is that the Amendment was specifically designed for offensive speech. Particularly speech offensive to a sitting government. As is, it makes him look like a doofus for informing them that the Amendment protects speech. Maybe let's change it back so it's accurate. -------------> Autumnal Obelisk (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Autumnal Obelisk

collect

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#edit warring by collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Brendan19 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrXqyNARjV0