Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:59, 8 March 2006

This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages.

Who am I? I'm a law boy nee art boy who should probably be working, sleeping, or eating right now rather than contributing here. But what can you do.

My main projects on here have been articles on U.S. law, politics and history, art, and local interest topics in Washington, DC, New York City, and Columbus, Ohio. Oh yeah, and comic books. I've also been quite active in trying to shape a sensible category structure.

Category is populated

Category:United States Supreme Court cases without an infobox is now chock full of cases meeting that description. Cheers! BDAbramson T 02:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ace Young

Sorry about that. Paris, Taylor, and Elliott are my favorites. Lisa, Katherine, and Ayla are pretty good too. Va girl2468 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Elliott's definitely one of the better ones. As with Ace, I'm sure we'll be giving him back his own article once he makes it to the finals. I was surprised that David Radford wasn't voted off...his performance was terrible. Postdlf 02:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

How come you didn't put a redirect link for all of the current semi-finalists? You didn't do that for Lisa Tucker. Va girl2468 04:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Because being an Idol semi-finalist isn't her only claim to fame...she was also a Star Search finalist and had a role in the LA production of the Lion King musical. The combination of those three merit her an article. Postdlf 05:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Katharine McPhee

I think that Katharine McPhee article, it will revert if she'll be in the final 12. - ApprenticeFan - 11:39 GMT 02/25/2006

Yes, absolutely. The final 12 always get an article of their own. I'm fairly confident she'll be one of them too...but until that happens, she has guaranteed herself no more place in history than Season 5 trivia. Postdlf 17:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

American Idol (Season 5)

Why are you redirect semi-final articles in AI5? I will restore it and why did you delete anyway? because I was changed my mind to restore them.

Because semi-finalists don't merit their own articles. Give them articles only once they reach the finals. None of the previous season's semi-finalists have their own articles unless they've accomplished something in addition to being an Idol contestant. There's simply nothing to say about them beyond including them in the list on the season article. Every time this has been put to a vote in the past, the result has been to redirect, if not to delete outright. Postdlf 22:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Several of the (currently deleted) articles have links to news items or further information on semifinalists which is useful during the semifinals. These contestants are being viewed by millions three times a week, and however voting has gone in the past, the consensus so far this year seems to be that the semifinalists deserve article pages at this point in time. Maybe when the semifinals are over we can ditch the people who didn't make it, but in the meantime, more people are complaining about the redirects than asking for them. Misplaced Pages has changed since last year, and I don't think that we should necessarily be married to decisions made on the subject a year ago. Furthermore, since nulling whole articles and turning them into redirects is fairly major, there is discussion on the AI season five talk page. Please participate in the discussion before making major changes. As a final note, I don't feel your editing comments present a neutral POV, which concerns me. Please try to maintain a neutral POV. --Emperial 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've left my views on the Idol season 5 talk page. But I'm very confused about your POV comments. Could you further explain what you mean by my POV "editing comments"? Do you somehow mean my edit summaries? Postdlf 00:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I very much do mean the summaries. Even if no one aside from other editors will see them, I personally found the comments mean-spirited and sometimes derogatory, and thus they call into question the neutrality of the edits. It would be like if I edited an article on Nazis and made the summary "Nazis are pigs" on my edit. Who would trust someone who makes a comment like that to be able to make neutral edits? (I admit that's an hyperbole.) Take for example your comment on Stevie Scott, calling her "honey" and implying she's unworthy compared to Lisa Tucker. Maybe she's not as worthy to have a Misplaced Pages article in your opinion, but in my opinion, someone like KaDee Strickland doesn't deserve to have an article. My opinion, however, is not grounds for an edit. Therefore I refrain from editing KaDee's page since some other people want that page to exist. --Emperial 00:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who Strickland is, but that might be because I've only seen one of the movies listed in her filmography...also, achieving FA status means that plenty of Wikipedians have already considered her sufficiently notable for an article. I think I see where you're coming from regarding the edit summaries, but our POV policy covers content, and my occasional flippancy helps keep me entertained. Regarding the worthiness of Stevie Scott and Lisa Tucker, um...Scott was one of the first two semifinalists eliminated, while Tucker is still on the show, so on that measure alone... Additionally, Tucker was previously a finalist on Star Search, and had a role in the Lion King, while Scott has done what else? Yeah, I'd say there's a difference in worthiness there, and it's not POV for me to say so because the difference in accomplishment can be easily documented. I even consider Tucker herself to be borderline notable, so Scott certainly isn't going to pass the standard. Again on the issue of POV, I'm not even a Tucker fan; I thought her performance was rather pitchy/screechy and kinda boring. On the other hand, I'm quite fond of Katherine McPhee, yet I readily redirected her meager article. But who're you gonna believe... Postdlf 01:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Judging by my experience, you'll believe you and I'll believe me. ;) Oh well! Agree to disagree? (And if you check poor Miss Strickland's talk page, you'd see she sparked a major debate on her lack of noteworthiness, particularly with regards to her having been featured. Next time, they should feature someone important like Froda instead.) --Emperial 01:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd want FAs to be limited only to the most important topics, but I do wonder why anyone would care to invest so much time on someone like Strickland. BTW, you might be interested to take a look at how inclined towards deletion or redirection past discussions have been involving finalists, to get an idea of how little chance semifinalists would have of independent existence: EJay Day (who?), Mario Vasquez, Constantine (ignore the misspelling in the discussion) and, yes, even Carrie Underwood when she was just a wee finalist. These were all less than a year ago. The deletion discussion for Kimberly Caldwell was more favorable, but mainly based on the fact that she's had a post-Idol career.

Also, regarding those who were "notably" bad, or otherwise cut prior to even the semifinals, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rhonetta Johnson, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Hoover, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leroy Wells, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mary Roach. Postdlf 01:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ace Young

Thank you for pointing that out. --Revolución hablar ver 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

CFD

A category you recently commented on (Category:Wikipedians that poop) has been listed for deletion. Please see it's discussion here. Thanks, xaosflux /_CVU 05:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Candy products of Mars

This template has been nominated for deletion by an anonymous IP who has continually vandalized the template (constantly adding links to a Doctor Who Website) and who calls himself "Hartnell on WHEELS!" (as seen through his vandalism and his comment on TfD). Being that I am still a few months new here and you are an admin, could you please suggest the best thing for me to do? --TBC 05:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The "on wheels" reference is an old one, a recurring vandal (or his copycats) known as "Willy on Wheels" who is always blocked on sight. However, anon IPs are tricky, because you never know who's using them; the IP that nominated the template on TFD has no other edits, and the anon that vandalized the template has an unrelated IP that is an AOL proxy, and vandalized too many hours ago for me to block now. I did put a warning on the talk page of the one registered user who vandalized the template. It really comes down to a game of Whack-A-Mole. I'll put the template on my watchlist. In the future, you can always put a notice on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress if you notice that a particular article is getting repeatedly hit. Postdlf 05:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the compliment you wrote on the category wikipedians that poop saying that you are quite a fan of the cheap laugh it provided, and I agree with you that that should have been deleted it was quite useless.

Fancruft discussion

At Misplaced Pages talk:Fancruft, I reposted the comment you made at the Village Pump about the right and wrong way to wikify fictional universes. I thought it was perhaps the most useful observation I've read in my short time here at WP. I've gotten a couple of seconds for the idea of codifying this distinction. Nareek 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been trying to urge policy on this for awhile...I'm glad you agree. I'll take a look at the fancruft discussion when I have more time... I also recently posted something on the fancruft of canon that you might find relevant. Postdlf 20:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

David Bridie

Well spotted on noticing this article. I have done some preliminary cleanup work on the article but it still needs more work which I hope to do over the weekend. Nevertheless, I believe that the article now establishes his notability against WP:Music and I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa.

Good day,

The remark removed from the G.A.M.O.W article was done because the note about the redirect is no longer true. Feel free to verify that the Gamow link actually goes to a disambiguation page.

It had crossed my mind to send you this note before your reversion, but was concerned it might be perceived as Wikispam. In hindsight — considering the unintended appearance of unbecoming conduct — the courtesy note would have been apropos. Better late than never, methinks.

At any rate, please pardon my uncouthly revert.

Cheers. Folajimi 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, just remember that explanations on talk pages are never considered spam. I went ahead and just removed the reference to George Gamow, as that is not appropriate unless people would actually be coming to the first article looking for the second, particularly because of a redirect. Postdlf 19:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Censorship

As you're online it might be good if you did some last minute copyediting to the policy. Gerard Foley 02:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

List of SCOTUS clerks

Thanks. I hope to be able to fill it out quite a bit. Many law clerks became SCOTUS members, other jurists, or other famous legal minds in their own rights. All I have up right now are a handful of upcoming and future clerks, but it will come along. Perhaps you can fix my goof here, while getting the initial page ready, must have hit Save rather than preview one of the times before I thought about the WP:Naming conventions. Let me know if you have any suggestions. I stole the organization from one of the SCOTUS lists, perhaps there is a better way? Phil 22:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I already redirected the miscapitalized title to the proper one, so that's fixed. My only thought so far is that it might be better to have separate list articles for at least the longer serving justices, but that's something that can be split off later as needed. Postdlf 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

mc hammer

in response to your edit summary "revert removals of unflattering facts--I'll block anyone who does it again".....that's highly inappropriate. Admins are not supposed to use their powers on entries they are involved with. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 01:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)