Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:41, 23 June 2011

• Archive 1: March 17, 2005 - April 22, 2007
• Archive 2: April 26, 2007 - August 10, 2008
• Archive 3: August 12, 2008 - December 26, 2009
• Archive 4: December 28, 2009 - March 21, 2011

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19

The Real World: Las Vegas (2011)

The only primary source for this is MTV's website, which is the official site for the show. She's not listed there, and shouldn't be listed here. A forum post is hardly a legitimate source. That's like suggesting we should reference realitysteve.com on articles about The Bachelor. - Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it, and a web forum post isn't valid in any way. Again, per your example, RealitySteve has been correct in regards to information for the Bachelor for many years now, but that wouldn't be right to use as a source at all. Same thing here.. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess we both interpret "Internet forum postings...are largely not acceptable" differently. You take a more liberal approach. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms vs. criticism in titles

Editor Marcus has again requested a move at Talk:Criticisms of socialism#Requested move 2, despite the failure of the 10 December 2010 to 21 January 2011 attempted move. I am notifying you as you were a commenter in the original discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

There was actually no reason for you to "echo" your "colleague" on my talk page. I'd like to first point out that we are all colleagues on this site. Some have just posted longer than others. More importantly, your addition was overindulgent as if trying to gain strength by numbers. I completely understood MarnetteD's post on my page. I also explained to him that it was an error. I have absolutely no reason or any desire to "sockpocket" a login.

Why don't you keep abreast of all the rules yourself? (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers)

Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account.

What was the point of your addition after MarnetteD's post? 2obessed (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)2obessed

Response:

I chose to leave a message of my own on your talk page in order to both address the specific diffs and to address the issue of sockpuppetry, which MarnetteD had not done in his/her message, which is not only my perogative as an editor, but one of my duties as an administrator, as MarnetteD is not one himself/herself. This has nothing to do with "gaining strength by numbers" or with the notion that you are somehow not capable of being a colleague yourself, as I never said nor implied either of these ideas. If I observe an editor repeatedly violate the site's guidelines or policies, those same guidelines are the only thing I need to take administrative action, so I don't need "numbers" to do so.

"Sockpuppet" and "meatpuppet" are not "disparaging names". They're the accepted terms for editors who attempt to use multiple accounts in order to violate the site's rules. If one observes this activity, then rightfully pointing it out does not constitute "biting the newcomers". Calling a spade a spade is not biting a newcomer if the description of the behavior is accurate. (Though if you disagree, perhaps you'd like to work to have the Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry policy page deleted because it calls sock puppets sock puppets?) The only relevant point, therefore, is whether you engaged in the behavior in question: You were observed removing sourced content from the Matt Stone article not once, but at least twice, without any valid policy-based rationale, but merely a personal aesthetic or philosophical bias against personal information in biographical articles that is not reflected by accepted practices among the Misplaced Pages community, and even attempted to claim that someone "requested" that you do this, without offering any further elaboration on this. You also ignored the edit summaries of other editors who pointed out that this was inappropriate when they reverted these deletions, as well as the messages that were left on your talk page regarding this. A new account was created with the apparent purpose of making just one edit to date, which was to blank the same content you had. That's sockpuppetry. Therefore, placing a warning on your page regarding this was entirely legitimate, and does not constitute "name calling". The rationales you provided on the article talk page and MarnetteD's talk page do not justify your edits, as MarnetteD pointed out. But if you feel you've been mistreated, then feel free to report my messages to the Administrator Noticeboard. Nightscream 06:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Nightscream. Just wanted to drop a note of thanks for the time that you took trying to explain things to the "newbie/editor of long standing/admin" that was deleting info on the Matt Stone article a couple of days ago. I notice that you joined WikiP just a few weeks before I did in Mar of 05 so I'm sure that you've dealt with this kind of editor before. They always wind up taking time away from the kind of editing that we would like to do. Again I appreciate the time and effort that you put in on this. Happy belated WikiBirthday and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Actually I am male. The Arnette is French by way of Ireland and comes from my grandfather on my mothers side. It is a fun coincidence to bump into someone who has been here as since 05. Take care and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Article copy

Your moving content from I-35W Mississippi River bridge to redirect I-35W Mississippi River Bridge wasn't good. Doing this would lose the edit history of the article. If it should be moved you need to make a request for this. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've moved a number of articles and thought I did it correctly. How is moving done properly without losing the edit history? Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a down arrow on the upper right with a "move" menu option, goes to , and moves are allowed sometimes, but some rule disables a move due to too many edits/editors, after which case you have to request a move, and leave a time for comments by other users. If it is disabled think you might just start with a talk page section "== request move==" and explain the request and see if others agree. I don't know what the proper convention is for upper/lower case in article titles. Goodluck! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Why secondary source

Would you please comment at WT:Verifiability#Why secondary source? as to why you think a reliable secondary source is necessary to demonstrate that a particular social networking page belongs to a particular person, and why a reliable primary source is unsuitable for this purpose? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Angel Medina (artist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angel Medina (artist) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Angel Medina (artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gigs (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Respond

Hi, I did not add a My space source, please check that revision you linked. Thank you Wrestling0101 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This confirms http://www.myspace.com/apriljeanettem is her my space http://superluchas.net/2010/09/02/aj-lee-la-favorita-para-ganar-la-tercera-temporada-de-nxt-%C2%BFque-opinara-aj-styles/ so the source with her my space saying in the photo album that she is in the Mendez family was correct Wrestling0101 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping Wrestling0101 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Did i Put the My space proof source (Superluchas) in the right spot? Does it go after the actual My Space source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestling0101 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ariel Olivetti

American is for a whole continent, not only a country. I'm Argentinian, and I'm tired of having that discussion with native english speakers. The proper adjective is U.S. American, and i'm not the source of that rule. The people from Canada, USA, Argentina, and Brazil are all American. It's like calling Borges "An American writer", it's not specific. (Erechel)(talk) 21:52, 11 April 2011

Fear Itself response

Because I thought we only had to add references to the issue, not the full details. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Thank you for your edits to The Donald. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie

Hi!
Thank you very much for helping me! :)
"Also, terms should not be wikilinked more than once per section." - what does it mean? Sorry for not understanding what you wanted to say... You mean that for example Acharya S should not be linked everytime it is encountered in the same section (for section you mean the whole "Scholarly responses" section?)?

I can't add my personal viewpoints and that's ok. "Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, is a nearly 600 page book full of the kind of evidence that Dr. Forbes claims doesn't exist." - this is not my viewpoint or comment, this excerpt is present on the website that i've put in the footnote. Can't i write it? Otherwise tell me how to include it, it contains (the link in the footnote) the response, evidence which Dr. Forbes claims doesn't exist.

You also deleted all of my other addings at the bottom of the "Scholarly responses" section. Why? Maybe i was adding those infos in a wrong way, not conforming to the guidelines and rules of wikipedia.
So, now i'll write you here what i'd like to add and why. And you tell me if and how can i add these things. Thank you, your help is greatly appreciated!!!

From the article:
Forbes states that there is no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin
So i'd like to add an excerpt from the book Christ in Egypt where is the response to that claim that is wrong. This is the excerpt:

The Pyramid Texts speak of the great virgin (Hwn.t wr.t) three times (682c, 728a, 2002a, cf. 809c)
In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares: "I am the great virgin".
- Christ in Egypt, page 152
And i put as a footnote the book Christ in Egypt. So, please tell me how can i include this little excerpt from the book?

Can i add this information? -> The Pyramid Texts are 4,400 years old. linking Pyramid Texts to its wiki page.

Another response of Acharya S to Dr. Forbes is about the sun/son issue. And i want to write it like this: Acharya addressed the sun/son issue. Obviously with its appropriate footnote with link to the response by Acharya S.

And can i include also this: Acharya S/Murdock currently has several books with over 2,100 pages of text, including over 5,700 footnotes/citations to primary sources and the works of highly credentialed authorities from a wide variety of relevant fields, adding up to over 1,600 bibliographical sources. Her books also contain over 300 illustrations. It's information, facts, no opinions.

For now help me with these things. Thank you again!!!

--Mtx1 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As for the material in the book Christ in Egypt, does Murdock specifically mention Forbes' criticism when discussing the issue of Isis' virginity? No, she doesn't mention Forbes. If she doesn't mention Forbes it can't be inserted in the article? The fact is that Forbes states: "there is no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin". And in the book of Acharya S, supported by evidence and sources, is stated the contrary.

Why did you delete this External link: Skeptic Mangles Zeitgeist (and Religious History) If because it is already mentioned in the article, also another external link (not mine) has te be deleted. And, from what i understood, in the external links i can't put links to blogs, forums and so on. Why then there actually is one link to blog?

Grazie per l'aiuto!!! ;) (Do you speak italian?)--Mtx1 (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Capisco, va bene. :) Do you have parents, links in Italy?

Well, this one is linked to a blog: Zeitgeist Debunked with guest Tim Callahan --Mtx1 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, good to know. :) Well, i actually live in Italy. But i'm not Italian, i'm from Russia. I've been living here for 13 years. I'm here because my father, doctor of sciences, nuclear physicist, was invited in Italy. Nice to be acquainted with you :)

You didn't respond to everything i wrote. I'll post it again below. In case you are/were busy SORRY for posting it again...

As for the material in the book Christ in Egypt, does Murdock specifically mention Forbes' criticism when discussing the issue of Isis' virginity? No, she doesn't mention Forbes. If she doesn't mention Forbes it can't be inserted in the article? The fact is that Forbes states: "there is no evidence in Egyptian sources that Horus' mother Isis was a virgin". And in the book of Acharya S, supported by evidence and sources, is stated the contrary.

Why did you delete this External link: Skeptic Mangles Zeitgeist (and Religious History) If because it is already mentioned in the article, also another external link (not mine) has te be deleted.:--Mtx1 (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Grazie mille! Great response, thanx for explanation. ;)

Ok, so now waiting the answer for the other thing i've asked you about the External Link :) --Mtx1 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i'm agree with that. So you have to remove also another link from external links i suppose, not mine, not put by me. This one: Skeptic: The Greatest Story Ever Garbled by Tim Callahan . It is already present in the footnotes, footnote 20. And also another link, this one: Interview with ancient historian Dr Chris Forbes at Centre for Public Christianity , footnote 29 --Mtx1 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Meetups in NYC

Hi, I have been to two - one at Columbia a year ago, and one this winter at NYU. Coincidentally, my new partner is defending his Ed.D. dissertation next Thursday at CUTC and teaches nursing at NYU. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC on Sat April 23 starts at 5:00 pm. See you there!--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

On the significance of indentation

Please see Misplaced Pages:Indentation. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

See example 3. Note also that we've wandered far off subject, and that article talk pages are for discussion related to the article. Cool Hand Luke 14:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As for never observing a different convention, please see any forum with a significant volume of comments. Go to WP:ANI and pick any heading with many comments. You will note that chronological order is not followed except within the same indentation level—the comments are made sensible and responsive toward each other by their indentation level. Cool Hand Luke 14:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not pretend I am not a part of this disagreement, but it is now clear that it doesn't belong on the talk page of an article. Cool Hand Luke 14:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the conversation here, so that no one will be influenced by my perverse ways. I consider the matter closed. Cool Hand Luke 14:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page meta-commentary

Cool Hand Luke, please stop inserting new messages in between old ones, and out of chronological order, as it screws up the flow of the conversation. The fact that my message above that starts with "No, because..." was made in response to DenningLJ is made to look like it's made in response to your new post. Please put new messages at the bottom of the thread. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not responding to "No, because," I was responding to your post above, and the indent level indicated I was not responding to DenningLJ's comment. You were clearly able to figure it out. Don't move my comments. Thanks. If you don't like it, you can move your comment up, indented so as to show you were responding to DenningLJ, and that my comment was responding to yours of 05:24, 7 April 2011. Cool Hand Luke 03:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you weren't responding to "No, because", that was the last message in the thread before you posted, so that's the one you follow. No one uses indent to indicate of who they're talking to. If you want to address a specific person, you can just address them by name, or quote them before providing your response. Sticking your responses in between others instead of putting them at the bottom is confusing. The fact remains that my message above that starts with "No, because" was made in direct response to the post by DenningLJ above it. I was the first to respond to him, and that's where that message of mine belongs.

As far as not moving your posts, consider this: Which post is being moved is a matter of perspective. I don't have to move your post. I can just move my own back to where it was, right after DenningLJ's, where it belongs, and that's what I have just done. Are you going to tell me that I can't move my own post? Please stop being tendentious, and observe a proper chronological order for the discussion. Nightscream (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Users do use indent level to indicate who they're talking to. Take a look at any board with lots of posting activity. Take WP:ANI (please). You will note that the indent level indicate threads, and that strictly chronological commenting had never been a convention of this site. Cool Hand Luke 14:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indent levels do not indicate threads, and chronological commenting has always been the standard on this site. In the six years I've been on this site, I've never observed the opposite to be the case, particularly the former point. The bottom line is, you have no business placing a message in between an earlier one and the subsequent one I made directly after it in response to it. This is disruptive, counterintuitive, and can more easily lead to confusion. Nightscream (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page to "Please see Misplaced Pages:Indentation", I refer you to the following statements on that page:

A reply should be placed beneath the original comment. The reply should be indented.

If two replies are made to one specific comment, they should be at the same level of indentation with the later reply at the bottom.

A response to a reply should be placed below that reply, but above all later replies.

A new comment or sub-thread that is being added after a number of replies should go at the bottom. Do not add a new comment or sub-thread where it will separate an earlier comment from its replies.

At the bottom. Not inserted in between the first statement and the first reply to it. So the page you point to supports my position, not yours. The closest it comes to saying anything similar to what you said is when it says that two separate responses to a comment can be at the same level of indentation, which is not quite the same thing as saying that indentation "indicates threads", since the entire discussion is a "thread", and this does not bear upon inserting new posts in between two prior ones. Nightscream (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Zeitgeist? I posted on your talk page because this is no longer remotely about the article, why are you continuing to quarrel here? Cool Hand Luke 14:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason you have. This is where the discussion diverged from that one, and you and I both continued it here. Since you expressed a number of ideas here where others could see them and possibly be influenced by them, responding them in the same place was logical. It takes two to "quarrel", and you certainly responded to my points about indenting here yourself, didn't you? Please do not pretend that you're not a part of this disagreement. Nightscream (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Last request

Would you mind adding to the indentation level of your comment so it's clear that I was not responding to that comment? Cool Hand Luke 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Trey Parker marriage info

Hi again N. I just wanted to check on your recent edit to TP's infobox. His marriage has two sources in the "Personal life" section and the CNN interview mentions the Emma S by name. I do agree that determining the years is guesswork and should not be there. As you take such good care of both Matt and Trey's article I would certainly defer to your opinion of what should and shouldn't be there but I did want to check on your interpretation of things so that I can be ready should any of our pesky IP's show up. Cheers and have a great Sunday. MarnetteD | Talk 22:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. The first time I looked at the CNN article I had to read it through twice to find the info about the marriage. Thanks for taking the time to reply and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Cebulski

Hiya, M. Night Screamalan. Personally, I'd say the one without the flash, File:4.14.11CBCebulskiByLuigiNovi2.jpg. The one with flash creates some very harsh shadows and burn-outs. You might want to lighten the flash-less one in Photoshop just a tad. Hope this helps! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, the one with the flash. In Photoshop, go to Adjustments > Brightness/Contrast. You can set each to 1/100th of a degree, so it's very precise. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thunderbolt Ross

Hey there. Well, Red Hulk punched The Hood, and it pretty much destroyed his face. By that, what I meant was that one of Hood's eyes swelled completely shut, the other was disfigured, his nose was smashed, his mouth was cut open etc, for all intents and purposes, the face was wrecked. RobbieNewton (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, here is the panel - http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2919/avengers12oroboroscps02.jpg RobbieNewton (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:XFactorV3-202Cov.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:XFactorV3-202Cov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jamesrandi9999

Was it really necessary to edit my comment there? The editor had been indef'ed before my last comment on that page and I had already given him a (low level) warning for the edit on James Randi - had I not used Twinkle (which doesn't have a preview), I probably wouldn't even have left that second comment. In this case, I don't care too much as I don't think this account will be re-opened, but in the future if you think something's wrong with my comments, please ask me to fix/change them rather than doing it yourself. Thanks, --Six words (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Celeste (pornographic actress)

The article Celeste (pornographic actress) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Three sources: a directory, a directory and... a directory. Zero biographical sources, zero biographical information, zero evidence of mainstream (i.e. reliable) coverage.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiki reliability

Hi, I saw that you edit the reliability section on the Misplaced Pages article. That should eventually turn into an article and have a Main.

How about setting the goal of making Misplaced Pages "the best encyclopedia" in the 2nd ten years? I started Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Misplaced Pages reliability because there was no project for that. The Misplaced Pages reliability article will eventually be part of that project. Want to join the project? History2007 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, great. Could you please add your name to the list of participants so the projects starts to gain some momentum by having users who endorse it? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Celeste (pornographic actress) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Celeste (pornographic actress) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Celeste (pornographic actress) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You were quicker

Good work on getting to the question that the IP posted just now on Trey Parker's talk page. I was looking at the refs to try and give them an answer and, by the time I was done, found that you had already taken care of things and fixed the ref in the article space. You missed a chance at a zinger though. To their question "am I missing something" you could have replied "Yes your signature to go with your posting" :-) I hope that you have a good weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 17:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. The joke works better between longtime editors like us. On another note I don't know if you saw the kerfuffle that went on yesterday on the Matt Stone article. I was distressed at the actions that I had to take in pushing and/or violating 3rr but I felt that CatholicW's continued attempts to alter Stone's words as stated in the interview linked to was a violation of BLP guidelines, Since you had mentioned this previously on her talk page I tried to explain further how what she was doing was a problem. I may not have been diplomatic enough. When things get going that fast I find it hard to do all that might be required. If I deserve a trout slap - or worse - I will take it in good grace. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 18:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops I forgot to mention that I am not averse to mentions of his changing stance on religion over the years it is just that specific statement should not have been altered to say something that it didn't. MarnetteD | Talk 18:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE READ: Notice of Reverting of Last Edit; Major Response Requested

Hey there,

I wanted to let you know that you last deleted the crucial information in America's Next Great Restaurant article. Additionally, I have put such information about this on the article's talk page, yet you have failed to read them. The sources where I was originally writing the article are coming in as I speak. I initially put a saying about the preemption in the Pacific Time Zone, but I had to wait due to a minor editing problem. However, you wrecked my plans by reverting them before I tried to add references to where I got those information, which are considered invaild after I have verified them through several sources. Now I am forced to put those references on your page until you have vailidated my verified sources (those just coming in). I am not sure why you have reverted this, which in my reason, is due to some confusion in the article herein.

IMPORTANT NOTES: If you wish to respond, please read my notice page (do NOT click on my talk page) before you do so, as I am very strict on postings. The references below are from various sources after you deleted those crucial information that I posted up, but because of editing problems, I was unable to post them until just now. Please let me know immediately if any of those references are valid or not (please use reference numbers in your response). None of those below are spam.

• REFERENCE 1: TV Ratings Sunday: Bin Laden News Scrambles Ratings, But ABC Likely Tops The Night
• REFERENCE 2:
• REFERENCE 3: Sunday's Broadcast Ratings: ABC Sneaks Past NBC
• REFERENCE 4: TV Ratings: President Obama's address turns Americans to their TVs
• REFERENCE 5: TV Ratings: Bin Laden announcement wreaks havoc with Sunday numbers

Also, I have confirmed that the show has released information about this show. You can view it here.

I hope those references will convince you, but I will leave the decisions up to you. CHAK 001 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:10.1.10HumanCentipedeByLuigiNovi.jpg

Hi there, thanks for uploading this great picture of the actors from The Human Centipede (Full Sequence), a cropped version of the picture is on the article and has really helped to improve the piece.

The article is currently nominated to become a Featured Article and I am making changes to the article as requested in order to fulfil the requirements of a Featured Article. However, one concern that has been raised is that of the photo credit. I've been told that having a credit on a photo in this fashion might not fit with the established guidelines for a featured wikipedia article, and therefore I'm probably going to have to remove the photo from the article to ensure the article becomes FA.

Therefore, I'm writing to ask that you might remove the requirement from this photo so that it can remain on the article. You would still have the credit on the filename and description page attributions, and the picture would probably receive a great deal more attention from being on a featured article.

I hope you will consider this request, the article certainly benefits from this picture.

regards Coolug (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Since the main WikiProject Comics Noticeboard has not been significantly updated since 2009, and since the 2011 merger/move noticeboard is seldom used, I'm asking a few Project members to spread the word that this page exists and that there is a current merge proposal at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics/Notice board/Requested moves/2011. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:173.12.50.13

Hello. Sorry to disturb you, but can you reblock 173.12.50.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It's due to the same old vandalism, putting dubious sci-fi references on Sanrio articles. I've reported him to WP:AIV, but it is currently unactioned. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 01:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Soul Daddy

ANGR Holdings and Soul Daddy (in effect a division of ANGR Holdings) are effective one and the same. They don't have much history seperately from each other (than the registration of the other America's Next Great Restaurant as trademarks). Jess4clovers, see find in getting everyone to duplicate their effort by continuing Soul Daddy seperately from ANGR Holdings. I told him he should have have moved the ANGR Holdings page to "Soul Daddy" as they are one and the same. I have been chastied by other administrators that I shouldn't do a "copy move" as it disrupts the authoring records. --Spshu (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Another Request...

Hama

I'm afraid I don't think anything is harmed by waiting a few days and making everyone feel like part of the process. That said, if an editor is replacing a clearly terrible picture with a reasonably decent one, then, yes, I agree a quick change can be fine. Otherwise, there's no need to rush — talking and discussion are good things. I'm certainly happy you've added a lot of much-needed photos to the Project! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Because you're replacing clearly inferior images with better ones. If you had replaced the existing image with the one the other editor did, I would have reverted and asked for a discussion first, as well. In any case, I agree that your image of Hama is the superior one, and I think in any discussion, other editors would agree. Keep up the great work! --Tenebrae (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. What you or I might consider a lesser image replacing an existing one, the editor who placed the inferior image believes it's not inferior. So let's agree to disagree: My take remains that for anything as important as replacing an infobox image, discussion is of paramount importance. Indeed, discussion is the very lifeblood of Misplaced Pages. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

While I didn't personally ask for discussion on your infobox changes, I would have supported any editor who had. There's a distinction to be made between my own personal tastes and standards for photos, which coincide with yours, and policy. In other words, simply because I personally didn't ask for discussion doesn't mean that another editor would be wrong to have done so.

In any case, one relatively minor difference of opinion doesn't change my feeling that you're one of WikiProject Comics' best editors, and a colleague whom I value a great deal. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

what does 'ce' mean in a edit summ?

S*K*A*K*K 09:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Denotes a "Copy edit". LeadSongDog come howl! 15:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

911 CTs, DNFTT

Dear Nightscream, thank you for leaving the note at my talkpage. You will find that another user has identified iknowthetruthandyoudont as a troll as well and closed the discussion. I do see your point, and I am definitely in favour of civility, but this user was obviously pulling legs. Regards, Sören Koopmann (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Prometheus class starship for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prometheus class starship is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prometheus class starship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Cerebus page edits

Hi. Thanks for taking the time to do some clean-up on those Cerebus pages. The only thing is that User:JasonAQuest insists the pages should be removed, so you might want to wait until there's a consensus on keeping them before potentially wasting any more time editing pages that may find themselves in the trash. CüRlyTüRkey_Contribs 23:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we've reached a consensus to keep them. CüRlyTüRkey_Contribs 11:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Chrissie Zullo

Hey Nightscream! It's been a while but I'm slowly getting back to editing wikipedia again. Anyway have just created a new stub for Chrissie Zullo, the current cover artist for Fables's spinoff Cinderella. It's been marked for Speedy Deletion, wondering if you can help edit to try and save this article. Thanks in advance! Stextc 03:38, May 18, 2011

Thanks for the advice! I have added the interview link from cbr to the bottom of the article. These some reviews of her work from Fables 100 which I will also add. As the creator the article I'm not allowed to remove to the speedy deletion tag. However there's enough material covering Chrissie Zullo to warrant saving her from Speedy deletion. Would you remove the Speedy Deletion tag or ask a 3rd party to review and remove? Stextc (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your advice. It's always appreciated. I have done your suggestions and have modified accordingly. (01) Issue numbers have been added to the bibliography. (02) Details from her 2 interviews have been added as well. (03) I have also found a review of her work. (04) Added links to her blog and deviantart. Please let me know what you think. Anything else I can add? Stextc (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! The article is really taking shape now. I will incorporate all your suggestions in any future articles. I've said it twice (but it can't hurt saying it more), once again thanks for your assistance. You can turn my terrible articles into a much better standard. Stextc (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Rehab Update

Thank you for cleaning up my post on this page. I believe I was right, however, to err on the side of caution by putting "Apparent" in front of overdose as there were conflicting reports then, and it has been outright denied at this point. Now, the article I cited did not show a conflict so it made sense to me to let "Apparent" be taken out without much of a fuss. Since it has been denied and there are still conflicting reports out there, wouldn't it be correct to put "Apparent" back in? Thanks again. Cmetian (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks again. I have a new article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2011/05/23/2011-05-23_jeff_conaway_did_not_overdose_is_tenuous_in_coma_as_he_battles_pneumonia_says_dr.html which denies the overdose and adds some worse news not related to the wiki topic at hand. As both stories have different sources, it still seems to be one persons word against another, hence the confusion. What I personally believe isn't relevant, of course. Cmetian (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. The only reason for hesitation at this point is that his publicist, who should theoretically be speaking for him has never recanted his belief that it was an overdose. 68.229.162.234 (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Pawn Stars

I don't now if it is exactly incomplete of inaccurate, I did a quick assessment, but in comparison with B-class TV programs 24 (TV series) Dallas (TV series), and the most similar Las Vegas-related article No Way Out (2008), it is missed from some technical stuff (production, ratings, awards (if it has). As WP:Nevada/Assessment says "The article reasonably covers the topic ,Y and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.? It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article,Y although some sections may need expansion,? and some less important topics may be missing.N Tbhotch* 02:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Production like Dallas_(TV_series)#Production_details or Brothers_&_Sisters_(2006_TV_series)#Production_notes. Tbhotch* 02:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

But their information (sourced or not) still being more than PS. Look, if you have *any* objection with the assessment of Dallas, take it to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Assessment; if you have an objection with my assessments Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nevada/Assessment exists for a reason, and by the way, still failing the fifth point if you want its B-criteria. Tbhotch* 03:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The PS history section is actually its history (background) section, and has not enough material to call it its "production". If you want to compare professional production sections look House (TV series), 30 Rock, The Simpsons, South Park; all are featured content but since you apparently do not have enough with B-class articles, GA/FAs will help you to understand its "obvious omissions". Also, I see no critical reception, and as I noted before there's no ratings. Also, it has no images, videos or any other material beyond title card. The "In 2011, Facebook launched Pawn Stars: The Game applicaton for their website." argument is irrelevant to its section and there are some dead links. As you can see, it fails point #2 and 5 of Nevada's wikiproject (and it actually may fail Business/Television B-class). Tbhotch* 03:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As you are going to excuse yourself with valid arguments on topics and invalid on WikiProject assessment, such as the "this is real TV, not fiction" I left this discussion. I simply won't waste my time with this nonsensical conversation. I'm one of the very few crew that assess/re-assess articles, and with users like you that believe the assessments are factaully wrong, especially those articles they are involved enough, I understand why those users practically do not exist. On a side note, if you didn't notice it, Brothers & Sisters (2006 TV series) is C-class not B-class, and I referenced as a production-kind I was refering, not that you should do a piece of crap like that. As I told you Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Nevada/Assessment exist, if you believe I'm wrong go there not with me. Tbhotch* 05:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill Sienkiewicz

That sounds like a good idea.

He really didn't like the photo there now? Gotta tell you, the guy should quit complaining and take his own darn picture!   : )   But, yeah, your idea sounds right on. Thanks for being cool. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And dude: Nice to see a fellow Taxi fan! (Assuming that's the impetus for your Jeff Conaway work.) --Tenebrae (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was nice to think so! Dude, I had no idea you were an admin. Bravo! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Geez, all my Wiki-friends have become admins since I got here. I admire all the extra work you guys take on, mediating disputes, overseeing merges, enforcing policy ... it's hard enough finding the time just to edit and keep up with one's watchlist. So I say again: Bravo, buddy! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be a cache issue on my computer, but your cropped photo shows up on the photo's File page, but not on the article itself. Weird. Just a head's up. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Touré

Hi I am Touré. You gave me a warning for adding something to my page but I don't understand what I've done. Why is it wrong to add a verifiable fact to my page? I am now teaching at CUNY and I added that to the page about me. What is wrong with doing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.54.246 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Johann Rall

hi Nightscream, i just saw that you added unreferenced to Johann Rall, but it has a references section at the bottom, am i missing some subtlety here? thanks -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

no worries :) cheers -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops!

Hello there. I did not add the sentence. I was just trying to revert the content removal from the IP address that he did. I am not the one who added the sentence. --Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 22:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:USSPrometheus.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:USSPrometheus.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Brent Spiner

Just FYI: you tagged a user talk page without editing the referenced article, and without signing the user talk page. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:USSPrometheusTopAndSide.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:USSPrometheusTopAndSide.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Knight

Dude! Good to see you! Guess we're both having an exciting Memorial Day...!

Didn't mean to erase the "fact" tag, and I'll put it back in; I'd seen that my newly added info was redundant, so I returned quickly to merge it with the existing material, plus the original citation for the news. One thing I might ask, though: I Love the '70s really isn't what one would call a documentary; it's non-fiction, like a reality show or a news program, but it's not journalistic the way a documentary is. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Retrospective" is perfect ... much better than non-fiction. Ah, that writerly joy when you hit just the right word. Nothing feels quite like it. Good working with you, pal! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. When I see your signature on my talk page, I smile even before I read the comment! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Jamie Chung

I am not "removing where someone is from", please do not take my edits so personally. All I'm saying is, most articles in Misplaced Pages note that the person was born there. They do not say s/he was also RAISED there. See Mariah Carey, Natalie Portman, and the thousands of other articles. Unless it states further on in the article that they have moved in their childhood, it can be assumed they are raised there as well. Estheroliver (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, we may very well challenge the thousands of Misplaced Pages articles that only state the subject's place of birth. No one is really raised where they were born, simply due to the lack of sources. Yes, it may be true she is not as famous as the other women I used as examples, but if she really has been on TV, I would think she would mention where she grew up and memories from that time period and such. I think Chung is really born and raised in SF. And I hope you do not take this the wrong way, as is often the case with written words online. I am not trying to give you an "attitude" or whatever. Estheroliver (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're reading into it so much. I was very surprised when I went to my talk page and saw the huge response, all about where somebody was born and raised.

1) The reason why I mentioned Natalie Portman was because her article clearly states she moved from Israel when she was three years old. You told me that Jamie Chung was probably born and raised in SF. I don't know if this will, once again, come off as extremely confusing to you, but I said "I think it is easy enough and enough just to say that Chung was born in SF. People WILL GET THE HINT and they WILL SEE that she was RAISED THERE." Unlike Portman's article, it does not state that she moved in her youth.

2) You were telling me, "Just because it says s/he is born in one city does not necessarily mean they were born and raised there." See #1. Yes, this is true, and I told you, "But we can assume, if it does not note that the subject had moved, that yes, they were indeed born and raised in their birthplace." You responded, "However, that is a very unfair statement. Sometimes, the subject in question has indeed moved in their youth, but there are limited sources or sources that have not been checked/read/discovered upon. So how would we know that their place of birth is where they have been raised as well?" My response to you (basically what it says there in different words): "If that is really true, why do you challenge Chung's article in particular? Why don't you go around to every article that has a similar format that is very vague and only states the person's birthplace? Maybe they moved, too. Why is her article in particular such a big deal?"

3) I already explained to you clearly that I objected to it because I believed that it was not necessary to state that she was born and raised there. Most articles I've seen clearly simply note that the subject was born in a place and that was enough; they were really born and raised there, and that was the end of it. However, now you're telling me, "If this is really true, there is no MoS that denotes that, so therefore I think either format is acceptable. A lot of notable articles still say that they are born and raised there." Estheroliver (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone still doesn't get it. Then again, I can't say I should be surprised by the response. Use of quotation marks being incorrect or not, that was me summarizing what I thought you were saying and addressing those points. I'm not going to use it again because you're most likely going to crawl back to me with a similar response: "...However, that was totally different from what I had in mind." I had tried to be diplomatic and respond to you in a way that would follow you, trying to clarify what you were telling me. Unfortunately, now what you're telling me is that everything I'm telling you was just taken out of words and it doesn't even follow what you were telling me originally.

Oh, wow. Just because I didn't mention it until later on means it's not true? It does indeed (and has all along) say in Natalie Portman's article she moved. She did not stay in Jerusalem. Additionally, everything else you're telling me is basically the same thing that I was telling you before. Oh, wow. Why does it matter anything if it says she was born and raised there in the source? If you put that she was born there, most people will get it.

The second bullet point is the exact same thing I had assumed you were telling me. What's the issue about dancing around what I thought you were saying, and then saying it again? Sure, it may not be exactly what you had said, but it was pretty close. And I still don't understand why you haven't added such a line to all of the other articles that say the subject is only born there.

BTW, even if it doesn't say anything about the MoS, that really is what it is. Some articles do say the subject was only born there. Shrugs. I'm not going to resort to writing huuuuuuuuuge paragraphs that resort to blowing steam off somebody I don't know in real life, however. If you really wanted me to be like other Misplaced Pages editors, you would of done the, "Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not going to talk about this matter with you any further." and explain why I was wrong right away instead of letting me go off into all these false statements, and, from the way I took it, overreacting over a simple edit. I'm sure readers won't really care either way. Estheroliver (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And the edit history just goes as further proof of this. I was truly surprised somebody would write me a response that says that I need to work on quotation marks and that my summary of the responses was totally wrong. Are you serious? No one's ever been that concerned to say something like that to me; instead, they would say that that is not what they wanted to say and make their point. Now you're on to personal attacks, such as how you responded that you didn't know what I was talking about, and especially the last little nasty paragraph of your (unsurprisingly lengthy) response. What you've just said in bullets is the same thing that I was saying all along, except for the first one. Instead, you decided to be picky and say that the words were different, the quotes were not quotes, could not be quotes because you had never said them word-for-word. Well, I'm sorry, but the main points are still the same.

Why should I even waste my time? I see you've wasted a lot of yours. Estheroliver (talk)

I saw you still kept beating the dead horse and wrote me something. Not sorry, I didn't bother reading it. Estheroliver (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, don't write me anything anymore. I don't know why people bother. You should of taken the message and just screwed off already, instead you had to resort to these nasty words. Somebody must have issues in their real lives, and BTW, that was not brief. I still didn't read it but I'm not gonna be bothered to scan the chunk. Estheroliver (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Real World: New Orleans (2010) Reunion

Hello Nightscream. As the current Real World season (Las Vegas) is winding down, I just now noticed that the previous RW season (New Orleans) did not have a summary for the reunion special. So I took the initiative and added a reunion summary the best I could (without copying verbatim from MTV). Check it out. I'm sure you'll likely make some tweaks to that reunion summary.

Thank you. DPH1110 (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)DPH1110

Pancake images

Tx for your work on images. One thought -- the MOS suggests not sandwiching text between images; I wonder if some of the images at the pancake article are at odds with that. Tx. (You can reply here).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for informing me of that; I wasn't aware that MoS had a guideline for that. What's ironic is that I myself don't generally care for sandwiching images like that, but in trying to make the images work in that article, I thought they ended up looking all right. Can you link me to the relevant MoS page? I'll look it over and remove some of the images if need be. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 7:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Sure. See MOS:IMAGES, fourth bullet. I agree w/the application of common sense, and that at times this is a rule that deserves to be ignored if for some reason it makes more sense to do so. And that would be in line w/the language of the MOS, which says "Avoid" rather than "Never". I defer to you. BTW -- I just had a similar discussion with an editor whom I respect but disagreed with on this point re here, which I should point out to you to reflect in all candor the fact that not all editors have the same view here. (Though I had a different view there, I dropped it as I respect the editor and didn't see the value in a long conversation on a point as to which we simply had different views ... which in the scheme of things was a bit shy in importance of a cure for cancer)--Epeefleche (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Andre Birleanu

If you are board, it would be great if you could have a look at Andre Birleanu. I feel as though the entire thing needs a massive edit, but have not had a chance to do any serious editing. Most of the edits are by WP:SPA, and it's hard to tell what is actually true, what is simply fluff, and what is important. If you don't have time, then no big deal. I will most likely revisit it in a day or two. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 04:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Administrator... I am the creator (last one) of Andre Birleanu page... The subject is known in 32 countries and most of them not only in English .. All material was accompanied by links from various news, entertainment, fashion, publication websites... As plasticspork admits above " he doesn't know what is or isn't true" but not because it isn't true simply because he doesn't know because he isn't in the fashion market, so he doesn't care to know, it's understandable.. it's like me and space travel... the page was edited by you and OF COURSE by plasticpork who all he does is delete not add, that is NOT true editing my friend, do you only cut trees or you also replant? The page I view it and is fine at the moment.. thank you both.. But to say it needs a "major editing" then that is really crazy... ALL deleting over the past 3 yrs has been done 80% by plastickpork as if it's a pers vendetta against a subject he doesn't know... and if I read it correctly it is also a form of vandalism to deliberately delete others work when there is clear obvious data and links attached to all the work... And that too is deleted systematically ... thank you both for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaphoto (talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dreyfuss

I would like to include information about Richard Dreyfuss' Masonic membership. I was personally present at the ceremonies, and I saw him join the Masonic fraternity. I saw him take the degrees of the Scottish Rite, and become a 32d degree Mason. He is proud of his memberships, and I am certain he would have no objection to this being included in the Misplaced Pages page. A major article is forthcoming in the Masonic journals, and his membership is public record. Cemab4y (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Please advise me how to cite proper accreditation,etc. Cemab4y (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

This message is being sent to inform you of a Misplaced Pages picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)