Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:29, 10 June 2011

Welcome!

Hello, Kitfoxxe, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Saalstin (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Saalstin. I've been here before but now I'm making a new start. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

New federal states

Hi Kitfoxxe, I'm the one who rewrote/expanded New federal states. Of course there are nice thigs to say about eastern Germany, but the article focuses on what the new states have in common with each other: the communist-era legacy, and its effect on the east German society and economy today. For more specific (and possibly more positive) topics there's little I could have added that wouldn't have fit better in the article about the state itself.--Nero the second (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think the article has too much of a negative slant. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you develop that a bit more, maybe on the article's talk?--Nero the second (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I answered you on the tp of the article.--Nero the second (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Yes thank you for notifying me, I saw the first one, I will be along soon to comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I also read the AFD and will be making a comment. BTW I understand your rationale. Please feel free to make comments on Who is a Jew? Jim Steele (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure I'd be qualified to comment there since I am not Jewish, except perhaps by some very inclusive definition. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

		The BLP Barnstar
		Thanks for standing up for BLP priciples. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates

When adding new sources to Moonie (Unification Church), could you please format the citations - using WP:CIT? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. I am going to add another item soon. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please format such new entries, using WP:CIT? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The terrorists have won (phrase)

Hi Kitfoxxe- you left a message on my page regarding this AFD but I guess it has been closed. To give you some background, this article was created initially with a lot of examples, each with a provided citation, and several sources independently establishing the phrase/meme's notability. I see that since that time, the article has been heavily edited down, supposedly citing WP:NOT but only in an extremely vague way. I hope that some of the content from the earlier version can be added back in, as in its current form it is not very encyclopedic at all. Let me know if you need any help with that, although as the original author it would probably be not viewed well if I personally added back content that had been previously removed. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if you added some material. With me anyway. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Series of tubes

Thank you for the heads up about Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Everything counts (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, I'm glad I got the warning, as I don't think I would have seen it otherwise. Though, I am quite curious to know how my name came up. bahamut0013_deeds 19:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I notified editors of the article and people who voted on the 2 past AfDs. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I see it was speedy kept. I didn't want to remove the information. It's just that I don't see why we need two articles, one saying: Ted Stevens said "The Internet is a series of tubes." and the other: "The Internet is a series of tubes" was said by Ted Stevens. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacko Jacket

Just out of interest; "I would have guessed that 3/3 of the contributors to this article would have been MJ fans, not just 2/3" - I'm not a Jackson fan, not at all - I just help new usersout with their articles for creation, totally regardless of the subject.  Chzz  ►  22:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Sandon's analysis and critique of the Moon movement and its theology

Here's a nice ref for you: Korean Moon: Waxing of Waning? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Misplaced Pages's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. decltype (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to follow what the AfD page says and notify people who might be interested. I did not even try to guess which side they would take. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that you posted an explanation on the discussion page, so I replied there. decltype (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It would have been simpler to leave one post at WT:Nad. That might have avoided accusations of canvassing. --Ibn (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Sorry I didn't think of that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have retracted the warning as I realize you were acting in good faith, and I'm sure you will keep this in mind for the future. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:DICTIONARY

Hi. You asked the following question at the AfD for Lady:

Here is my understanding of WP:DICTIONARY: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." Please tell me why that is wrong.

Your errors are as follows:
(1) WP:DICTIONARY is longer than a single sentence and must be read in its entirety.
(2) The purpose of WP:DICTIONARY is not to bar the creation of articles about words, but to ensure that such articles treat the material in an encyclopedic fashion rather than in the manner of a dictionary.
(3) An article consisting of only a dictionary definition does not necessarily have to be deleted; after all, a featured article on a term will need to explain the history and etymology of the term itself as well as the concept denoted by the term. In many cases an article consisting of only a dictionary definition does not need to be deleted but rather expanded into a full encyclopedic entry.
(4) As an extension of 3, an article which is named for a valid topic but with invalid content is not a candidate for deletion. If there was to be an article on, say, "Green", but the content was to be gibberish, the appropriate response is to stubify it down to the text "Green is a colour generally associated with portion of the visual spectrum," as "Green" itself is clearly notable even if the associated content is non-encyclopedic.
So I'm saying that you're misunderstanding the purpose of WP:DICTIONARY, and you're in error in thinking that AfD is always the appropriate cure for breaches of WP:DICTIONARY. Hope that helps. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting your input

Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments needed

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.

Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.

Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I really don't care about the fictional history of Spiderman. Good luck with whatever you are trying to do.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Insight on the News - Obama and Clinton 'madrassa' controversy/scandal

Can you please read the two discussion pages on this subject? Literally scores of my hours went into forging a fair consensus on both of these articles regarding the 'madrassa' issue (and other people put plenty of their own time into to), and it is galling to see that you have moved all the text at Insight on the News - citing pov (or 'opinion' as you put it). Please be more careful on your wording, and please read the two relevant discussion pages, and the madrassa article too, as it properly expains the meaning of this word.

In case you have missed this crucial distinction – the Misplaced Pages-relevant 'scandal/controversy' here is all about Insight's report - ie its style of reporting, NOT their entirely unsourced claim that Hilary Clinton intended to attack Obama by using the Muslim aspects of his background (such as they were)! That cannot be a usuable controversy/scandal in itself, as it pure here-say!

My time is scarce and I am very serious about this matter.

The whole point of including any 'scandals/controversies' in articles is to describe those specific elements in the first place - otherwise what is the point of including them? As it happens, I do not think the United States journalism scandals 'prose list' has any positive value to Misplaced Pages at all, but the article/list has survived two 'Article for deletion' votes (although at the time AfD's were simply keep/delete headcounts alas, and were not value judgements at all). Enough people wanted to keep the list, in many instances patently to 'look after' their own pet scandals (the clear fault of the list along with problems surrounding the required brevity, ambiguity over inclusion, and potentially limitless size). However, the list/article remains, and Misplaced Pages must still represent facts and be balanced and fair.

THE IMPORTANT POINTS TO KEEP IN (THAT MAKE IT THE CONTROVERSY):

The word 'madrassa' was used by Insight in a pejorative and not a neutral sense - that detail MUST be kept in, as madrassa simply means 'school' (despite a vogue in the US media at the time - the New York Times had to make an apology when they messed up on this front). Insight's words "Is America ready?" can stand for itself regarding their intent, as it has done. Furthermore, it must also be stated that the allegation regarding Clinton was unsourced – you have removed that also.

Believe me, the whole matter can not be put less delicately than it has been while still being a fair apraisal. In many observer's views, the highly conservative Insight were unquestioningly (and very clumsily) being anti-Islamic and attacking both Clinton and Obama all at once, and without presenting any proof at all. The content for the two articles were ironed out in the lead up to the 2009 elections, where the Islamaphobia was an issue in Obama's campaign (though mercifully a minor one in the end in terms of the whole usa).

With your change, the articles are basically recording the detail of the original attack report. Such dissemination is not for Misplaced Pages, and the controversial elements are simply hidden. As Obama's education did have some Islamic religion involved, the only conclusion to be made in your version is that madrassa is a negative word. It isn't. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to nominate the article for deletion again you have my vote, even if it's not really a vote.Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Query

Why was zero use of edit summary used, when you reverted my copyedit, here  ? -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just putting in the word "the." It did not change the meaning of the sentence. I also marked it as a minor edit. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you note my previous edit, here  ? -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's about the "the," in my opinion it's a little more proper to say "Barack Obama is the president of the United States" rather than "Barack Obama is president of the United States." The other is not wrong however. That's why I marked it as a minor edit. Was there any other problem? Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please use descriptive edit summaries when reverting another user's edits instead of simply marking the edit as "minor" and employing zero edit summary. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't feel I was reverting anyone's contribution. Just adding a word.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So you did not notice my edit removing that exact same word, less than one hour before you went and added it back with no edit summary? -- Cirt (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I missed that.Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thank you for the clarification! :) No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Format with WP:CIT

Kitfoxxe, I think I have asked you this before. Regarding this, can you please format new entries to the page, with WP:CIT templates? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I will go ahead and do that.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding AFD

Hi, I think you should reconsider your !vote in the AFD on The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, following recent rename and content changes in the article. Marokwitz (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Faith Freedom International (3rd nomination)

Hello Kitfoxxe, thanks for your input on this AfD. I've responded to your comment and would appreciate it if you could consider my response. Oore (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tiger vs lion, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AfD is not for posting anti-semitic abuse - it is for discussing the article under consideration. If you continue in this vein, you will stand a good chance of being blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I thought my remarks were pro-Semitic if anything. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't ask

I'm not allowed to post anything on UC-related pages, not even a question on a talk page asking if it's okay for me to post. So please don't invite me any more, till the ban is lifted. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry to hear that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Gibson films

Hi, if you can provide third-party sources which discuss these films in-depth than please show them in the discussion, since I have not been able to find any. Also, WP:PROMOTION is written into our WP:NOT policy and violations of that are grounds for article deletion. ThemFromSpace 19:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• My "votes" were conditional on sources being found. I happen to disagree with that policy since I think "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a more important policy. I also recognize that articles are written with many different motivations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I see your point, as I also believe in open editing. But I still feel there needs to be limits on how anyone may edit the encyclopedia and editing for promotional reasons shouldn't be an acceptable form of editing. We are an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and writing in order to promote yourself isn't encyclopedic. ThemFromSpace 19:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • But people edit to promote, and demote, all the time without being paid. If the material is true and meets WP policies I don't see the problem with it being professionally written. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I will provide more third party sources for the article and associated stubs. SydMifflin (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

inre Kiss & Tail: The Hollywood Jumpoff

Sorry, I improved it makedly, but was unable to find decent sources. I gave it my best shot. Schmidt, 08:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

inre Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bloody Island (documentary)

I have been able to my satisfaction, show that Bloody Island meets our notability criteria per WP:NF#General principles in that it is verifiable as being part of the curricula in many major universities in its being taught in their African American Studies programs. Schmidt, 09:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kevin Short (Christian Brother)

Hello Kitfoxxe. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kevin Short (Christian Brother), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: all -BLP claims are referenced. Thank you.  7  04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your research is so very poor

Seriously. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No one disputes that the word exists. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful edits to the new article I created, at The Mystery of a Hansom Cab. Much appreciated! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not the best instructions!

... but if you look at the article in Edit mode, it turns out to be very easy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Run-on sentences

Please avoid degrading the writing quality of a WP:GA quality article and adding run-on sentences and poor grammar and text, as you did at Inchon (film). Please engage in discussion, at the article's talk page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

James R. Whelan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James R. Whelan. Since you had some involvement with the James R. Whelan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

James R. Whelan

Since you expressed interest in it, I just wanted to tell you that I've created James R. Whelan, and any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Good job. I will see what info I can find about the rest of his career.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As a Peace Loving...

Hi! Thanks for letting me know :)

I have no objections to the merge at the moment WhisperToMe (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

user:Ed Poor's talk page topic ban for Unification Church related article

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEd_Poor_2. I informed you about this because you regularly edited Unification Church related articles. Andries (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)