Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:37, 9 May 2006

Ok, let us assume that I wanted to make this work a prime example of what not to do, how would I go about that? --Relex333 01:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.

Archives
Archive01 12:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) Archive02 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Archive03 10:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Archive04 12:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Archive05 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Archive06 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Archive07 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Importance

Since nobody has answered my question on the Infinitism (religion) deletion discussion, I'll ask you directly. If I create another article, and someone else tags it with {{importance}}, do I have to expand it until the tagger deems it to be important? If not, how do I determine when it is appropriate for me to remove the tag myself? Sketch051 21:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How about answering my question instead of making demeaning comments about mistakes I've already admitted to as a first time article creator?

• "Nobody else objecting" is a useless standard, as the tag would have to first be removed, missing the entire point of my asking about how to determine before I remove it if it's acceptable to do so
• Responding to the tag on the talk page is not "doing nothing"
• Since you're such a stickler for Misplaced Pages policy, perhaps you should reevaluate the use of phrases such as "weasel-worded" after reviewing WP:CIVIL; that addition, as I've already said, was an off-the-cuff response to the first {{importance}} tag and no conclusions should be drawn from it. That being said, I'm removing it now to avoid further confusion.

Sketch051 02:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying "nobody else objecting" is not the same as saying "ask on the discussion page;" I've repeatedly said that I'm new at this, so get off your high horse and be specific. I did not just remove the tag, I added the comment which you quoted on my talk page; I see now that was not up to your pontifical standards for discussion, but just say so. Once again, as I've said, I'm new at this; your first use of "weasel-worded" without a link just seemed insulting and was not a useful critique. Sketch051 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Say what?

You sent me this:

Tucson Rodeo Parade Museum

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We appreciate your contributions to the Tucson Rodeo Parade Museum article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Calton | Talk 01:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Some nitwit inappropriately pasted a lot of nonsense about the rodeo museum on the Tucson, Ariz., entry so I cut/pasted to create a separate page. That's it. I have no clue where they got it. It was just housekeeping. Feel free to delete the material.

um....you deleted an article within fifteen minutes of its creation

while i was posting a message on the talk page, please let it be so that it can be developed.Carstenboswell 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)carstenboswell

James Joyce as an atheist

It's interesting how some people love to just add categories without bothering to provide any useful information in the article itself. I'm pretty sure Joyce would object to just being branded a simple atheist.

While there is no doubt he abandoned the Catholic church in the late 19th century, it's up for debate whether he was an atheist in the strictest definition. He just preferred disdain towards discussion of religion in general after his break with Catholicism, without ever making a distinct statement, although he made cryptic ones - in later life, when asked when he left the Church, his reply was "That's for the Church to say."

It's a testament his unwillingness to even discuss the matter that a few terse statements like these, all in the first 66 pages of the book, and the somewhat amusing fact that whenever he'd start fighting with Nora she'd use the threat of having the children baptized as her final trump card, is all there is about Joyce's religious outlook in Ellmann's massive 900 page biography. - dharmabum 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I gathered that your interest was just in the cat tag... thought you'd like some ammunition in case the tagger turns it into a revert war. :)

While I was a science major so have never been forced to study him (outside of a reading of "Araby" in a first-year English course), I acquired an interest in Joyce years ago. The ending of "The Dead" is one of the greatest in Eng. lit, and I've read Portrait a half-dozen times... I loved Ulysses, although I admit it's at times a chore and a good book of annotations is crucial... but Finnegans Wake. I made an effort to actually read it this year. I made it about a third of the way through (comprehending maybe 10% of what I read) and had to stop; it's almost like an exercise in cognative dissonance, it does funny things to your brain. It's wise to be scared of it. - dharmabum 00:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mortimer Gerald Bredon Wimsey, 15th Duke of Denver

You, sir, are a spoilsport. I put Category:Fictional dukes on the article, after all. ;->

He's at least as important as several of the real nobles we have articles on; but the information is the Duchess and their relations, whom I will be getting to in the next day or so. Septentrionalis 04:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See what you think now. Septentrionalis 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

{{nonsense}}

Hello there! Thanks for the good work on the "clean-up duty" as you put it. May I suggest if you avoid tagging "nonsense" with {{nonsense}}. This tag is specific for Patent nonsense. You may conside {{db-empty}} instead. Cheers! --ΜιĿːtalk 08:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dutch wives

I dont think it's a candidate for speedy deletion, not under the "no context" banner. Thethinredline 08:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever... It's been deleted despite my objections. Nevermind Thethinredline 08:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Real Social Dynamics

Hi Calton,

I see you've marked out this page for speedy deletion. It was originally deleted as it was considered spam - I have no idea what the page looked like in that iteration, but I'm curious as whether you think is there now actually constitutes spam? If you look at my contribution history and my messages on the Talk page, you'll see, I hope, that it's part of a wider creation of information on the Seduction Community which various guys have been updating for a while.

My questions for you then: Are you marking it for speedy deletion because you currently think the page is spam, or is there some deeper reason I'm missing?

Thanks

WoodenBuddha 13:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As Shimgray mentions on the talk page, it doesn't fall under CSD G4 - the same content has not been reposted, like you suggest. I'm sorry you feel the entirity of Misplaced Pages's knowledge of the Seduction Community falls under 'thinly veiled spam' - are you intending to similarly mark all other commercial enterprises which have substantial media coverage and pass the google and alexa tests, as spam? I await Microsoft's speedy deletion tag with glee!

WoodenBuddha 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my last comment about David Cross

Carlton, I did provide a citation on your talk page yesterday (your most recent reverting edit summary was rv - I'm sorry, but what part of "not important enough for the article, not important enough for a category (even assuming its true)" was unclear? What part of "cite" was unclear?). Please stop reverting this; if you still believe it is something that you believe should not be in the article, please make your case on Talk:David Cross. If you have a problem with the Category itself, there are proper channels for you to express that; deleting references to it is not one of them. If you continue to revert it, you would be in violation of The Three Revert Rule. Thanks -- MicahMN | μ 17:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Pending arbitration

Please note that I have added a charge against you to the pending arbitration to which you are a party, regarding your alteration and deletion of statements I have made in that case. Monicasdude 03:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The CIA and September 11 (book)

I hate pestering people's talk pages about AFD votes (or votes at all... it's very bad form really) but I've just done a huge amount of work on this article, and it is probably 80% different from when you voted. I have found a large number of English language references, and I have used <cite> so any reader or editor can identify where each individual statement in the article came from. That ought to deal with WP:V and WP:RS. As for notability, you can make your own decision: the relevant guideline says "Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify". Which doesn't help really, since it's entirely subjective how you are going to compare notability of a best-selling paranoid gutter-press fantasy to a cookbook! If you rank this as below an average cookbook, I'm not going to argue with you :) TheGrappler 04:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"lectures"

Calton, whether you label them "lectures", "sermons", "homilies" or "hollering sessions", the comments you are leaving are being viewed by many (myself included) as personal attacks. I am asking you to simply check your tone and watch the sarcasm so that people aren't offended needlessly. In addition, it is the business of every Wikipedian to assist in the collaboration process and that is harmed when users don't treat each other with respect. Many regards, EdwinHJ | Talk 14:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Regarding the article Steve White (Baptist pastor and Lexicographer), which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "it is an article about a real person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because the article claims he has written a book and started a church, which is an assertion of significance. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:PROD process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kinky underwear problem

Hi, I un-prod-ed that. See the talk for my reasons... and AfD it if you'd like... it could use a wider audience. gren グレン 00:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Lionel Woodville

I removed the speedy from this article. He was the the first person to win an honorary degree from Oxford and a Bishop of Salisbury and therefore a historical figure. I added a verification link, stub and wikified. The articles needs expansion and cleaning up I know. If you still think it needs deletion please prod or AfD. Thanks.--Dakota ~ ° 08:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebekah Johnson

Hi. Thanks for the note. To delete the article on the basis of A7 it would need to meet the criteria defined here. Specifically the fact that the article claims she wrote a song for Kelly Clarkson probably doesn't meet the criteria that "only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered".

With regard to deleting it on the basis of A1 - I would say that, although the article provides little content, it does provide sufficient context to provide expansion (i.e. it describes the individual and her claim to notability enough that she could be researched and the article expanded). Thanks TigerShark 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Calton, are you interested in becoming an admin? It would be my pleasure to nominate you. SlimVirgin 05:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm just glad you'll consider it because it's long overdue, but take as long as you like to think it over. As for whatever you said to me, I probably deserved it. :-) SlimVirgin 05:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly cast my vote for you -- I've seen you in action long enough to have the idea that your occasional tendency toward tactlessness would be mitigated (rather than amplified) by the responsibilities of adminship. That's one of the reasons I became one myself -- to curb my tendencies to tendentious argument. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Shame it didn't work. SlimVirgin 08:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

See just how long people who've encountered the "er, straightforward" mode may remember it? I left Peer Review housekeeping because of you. But I've seen you mellow out and do good work over the aeons since, so I guess my vote would be neutral. Bishonen talk 18:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC).

Re-write of Terrorism

Someone is attempting a massive POV re-write of Terrorism; would you mind taking a look? Much appreciated. Jayjg 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude

Hey, does this look strikingly familiar? T K E 19:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

WPCP was posted in error, ask before you block.

en.wikipedia.org/Winter_Garden_Heritage_Museum We've never had a copyright notice posted on our sites, posters or printed materials... So as a result of this, uninformed attack: we've adopted this new policy on the site:

Text and Images are freely available provided there is a URL/link to http://www.wghf.org (Public Domain with source)

//Wiki policy --It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page

It would have been nice to at least ask first. Almost all PUBLICLY FUNDED institutions, like City/State/Fed Governments release their materials to the public, since the public OWNS the materials. The site clearly states that it is publicly and privatly funded through grants.

//-- policy of the Library of congress (another org that has the same policy that we do) Ref: About Copyright and the Collections

Whenever possible, the Library of Congress provides factual information about copyright owners and related matters in the catalog records, finding aids and other texts that accompany collections. As a publicly supported institution, the Library generally does not own rights in its collections. Therefore, it does not charge permission fees for use of such material and generally does not grant or deny permission to publish or otherwise distribute material in its collections. Permission and possible fees may be required from the copyright owner independently of the Library. It is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections. Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use requires the written permission of the copyright owners. Researchers must make their own assessments of rights in light of their intended use.

Curpsbot

Please stop being a dick. Thanks. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheila Liaugminas

Thanks for the note. The policy on deletion of vanity articles states that "only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered". The fact that the article asserts she is a host on Relevant Radio, would seem to provide at least a "remotely plausible assertion of notability" - hence my unspeedying.

Whether or not the article is expanded now, it does not meet the speedy criteria. Thanks TigerShark 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That's weird: I never used the word "vanity" in my note. I did note how the article failed to transcend the standards for CSD A3 and CSD A7 -- and why leaving an essentially empty page discourages the creation of actual stubs, none of which is addressed in your reply. --Calton | Talk 04:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The policy on deletion of vanity articles is an expansion of the criteria for A7. With regard to A3 the article 1) has content 2) does not consist only if links elsewhere and 3) is not a rephrasing of the title. You also mentioned A1 in your first post, but the article seems to provide sufficient context for expansion (i.e. it describes why she may be notable).

Whether leaving any empty page discourage the creation of an actual stub, is perhaps arguable on the basis that the article is not linked from anywhere else. Having it as a stub probably makes it more likely to be picked up. Either way, it does not match the criteria for speedy deletion - so please follow the proposed deletion or AfD route instead. Thanks TigerShark 05:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

With regard to A3 the article 1) has content.... That's really weird: I highlighted the relevant portions of the template text so you wouldn't be confused, yet you still cite the irrelevent sections as if they had some sort of connection with what I wrote. Maybe this confusion is related to your irrelevant application of vanity-bio standards to something which was not and has never been claimed by myself to be a vanity bio. It also casts doubt on your ability to recognize whether something "clearly" is not a speedy candidate, no?

For some object lessons, see:

• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Gigi Stone
• Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#John Scherer

the article is not linked from anywhere else.' A sure sign of the subject's importance, eh?

Time for a sing-along!:

Every sperm is sacred,

Every sperm is great!

If a sperm is wasted,

God gets quite irate!

--Calton | Talk 05:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did highlight A1 in you initial post, but then you raised A3 in you post at 4:57am without specifying which sub criteria of A3 you meant. I therefore addressed all three criteria to be on the safe side. Although you haven't directly used the word vanity, the policy on deletion of vanity articles is an expansion of the criteria for A7 - and is therefore relevant to a discussion on A7. Do you have an objection to pursuing the "proposed deletion" route, which seems suitable as the question of notability may be controversial? Thanks TigerShark 05:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 00:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A comment

They should name a wikipedia civility award after you. -- MicahMN | μ 01:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

You have made my latest Quote of the Week, and it's also my 2,000th edit. Rock on wid' cher bad self. TeKE 04:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"very realistic props"

Extremely well put, and the only way to properly describe infant "actors". Thanks for the laugh. Fan1967 03:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

S.C.I.F.I. World

Recently wrote up an article upon S.C.I.F.I. World/Temp.DrWho42 17:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

..Eh, could the copyright violation bit be torn down to make way for its replacement? It's what has influenced Sci Fi Channel to show merely marathons every weekday thereon to this very day. DrWho42 06:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Gracias...

Thanks for taking an interest in my notice at WP:AN/I. It's admittedly a minor incident, so a minor resolution was all that was needed... however hard it was to get. I appreciate it. Tijuana Brass 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I noticed you reverted my edits that removed the personal attacks against a subject of an article. I understood that personal attacks should be removed. Could you please explain to me why you reverted this?--JohnnyCanuck 00:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop your vandalism --JohnnyCanuck 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Before you make edits read over hte personal attacks, don't just make assumptions--JohnnyCanuck 00:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole page is full of false info. from one user, read it and check the facts--JohnnyCanuck 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Schartz

I'm genuinely curious why the Stephen Schwartz article took such a turn for the worse and why all traces of earlier editions were expunged. You wrote "Thank God for small favors" about my comment on the Talk page, "I'm not going to contribute to the article anymore."

That was petty. I guess it's my fault for opening the door to a comment like that, but nevertheless it was petty of you to leap so greedily through the doorway and bare your true spirit with so much aplomb. Griot 01:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

CFR/CFD civility, your lack of

What a bizarre concept that CFR/CFD regulars decision to delete categories be interupted by people who actually create and use them. Please make future CFR/CFD nominations in compliance with WP:CIVIL. Tim! 07:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Tim! 07:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Ashlee Simpson remixes

The nominator attempted to nominate other articles along with this one..."

Noooo, the nominator investigated whether there were any precedents other than the one he remembered -- the Mariah Carey remix list discussion -- and finding none, asked people's opinion on the applicability of the same standard applied previously -- and possibly to be applied in the current nomination. --Calton | Talk 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you said, this is the sentence that raised the issue: "If these lists are inappropriate, should these be nuked/merged, too?" At least one other editor (Ned Scott) thought you were including those other three lists in the nomination, so I was making the situation clear to anyone else who might read the debate. --bainer (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sarfatti

LOL!! I wondered about the wisdom of offering that. Maybe I can set up a dedicated gmail address. :-) E-mail for you, by the way; just FYI, no response needed unless you want to. SlimVirgin 00:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to links

On Gordon Ramsay you deleted an external link, saying "Hey, an external link that leads to...a list of other links! No, I don't think so". Is there a clear wikipolicy on this. The reason I ask is that such a link seems to be a good solution to a dispute in which I am involved. The problem is that there is a page for an organisation (a Catholic diocese, but my query is more about the principle than the specific case) which has 140 related organisations operating under its auspices. An editor is determined to place a link to just one of these: a particularly contentious body. I would hold that highly selective adding of links is non-NPOV. Clearly links to all 140 diocesan organisations is not a suitable use of wikipedia, and so I attempted to compromise with a link to the list of diocesan organisations: the other party does not seem willing to accept this. My solution would seem to fall foul of the rule you have invoked in the Gordon Ramsey case, but it would be interesting to know whether that rule is a wiki policy. Thanks Kevin McE 08:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

a disruptive user

Your view on an earlier MfD occasion was :-

"Delete. It's an IP page, not a User page. If he wants a real User page, let him register a goddamned account like everyone else. --Calton | Talk 02:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)"

Would you take note of this User_talk:86.10.231.219 and the user associated with it and his contributions, please? I think a new MfD on it may be in order, or possibly other actions. Midgley 10:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Schwartz (journalist)

Calton —

Can I ask why on Earth you deleted the link to the archives of the Stephen Schwartz talk page? If you've never noticed that talk page archives get kept and linked, I suggest you start participating in more talk page discussions.

Frankly, I thought your behaviour on that page has been both insulting and patronizing, but I haven't yet been able to understand whether this was out of a genuine desire to keep old histories hidden forever, or whether you were just sucking up to an administrator. Either option seems childish, so I'm at a loss. Surely even you can understand, though, that there is no point in an archive which no one can reach. While Michael Snow may have felt slighted that I opened the histories, he responded by archiving the page, not by re-deleting them. You then chose to make those archives inaccessible, while (pretty rudely) not even making an edit summary.

So what was your motive? This whole business has confused the hell out of me, so that question wasn't rhetorical — I'm actually asking. How does it benefit the project to keep people from reaching talk page archives or seeing version histories? Please let me know, — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for correcting my mistake at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marduk in popular culture. I was wrong to close it, and I'm glad that there are those who still have the courage to reverse others when they are wrong. I'd also like to note that I forgot to take my medication yesterday and was in a rather horrible mood—although it doesn't forgive my terrible judgement call, it may help to explain it to some degree. In any case, I'm glad that the right thing happened eventually. Thanks again, I really do appreciate it. If there's anything I can do for you, please let me know.--Sean Black 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review (Simon Strelchik)

Calton, it's hard to say what to do here. I have the feeling the whole sockpuppet thing is sort of like the O.J. case: the LAPD framed a guilty man. In other words, if all the puppets were subtracted from the three AfDs, I'm still not sure what the result would be. I'm guessing it would not be a consensus for deletion. (No, I'm not willing to do the math, but it looks like there have been a few attempts, themselves possibly puppet-infested.)

I don't think the presence of sockpuppets supporting an article necessarily justifies its deletion, if the article is otherwise supportable. I think Canadian Federal election candidates from the major parties can reasonably be considered suitable for articles, but I can be persuaded otherwise. We'll see how it goes. In any case, thanks for the clarification about the accounts confirmed by CheckUser to be socks. (I agree that the whole VaughanWatch think, unlike Simon Strelchik et al., was totally out of control.) Cheers, MCB 06:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sir, Having read your comments on this Deletion review, may I politely ask how many edits it is necessary to have undertaken (and am I right in assuming that you would only count constructive and unchallenged/unreverted edits) before one is qualified to comment on DRvs (and, I would assume, also AFD and similar issues) ?? Clearly, if such a qualification is required, then I have been an egregious offender -- Simon Cursitor 11:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

USCA

I lived at Barrington from 1974-78, and Rochdale Village 1978-81. I was board rep from both houses and had a great time in the co-op. I think I'm still an alumni member -- I went to one of the big anniversary dinners a few years ago in Berkeley, and they keep sending me stuff. Rewriting the Barrington article is one of my to-do list items; the present article does not do it justice. The USCA has a pretty decent amount of historical material that would be good for source material. Cheers, MCB 05:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

London Underground

Hello there! I thought I'd discuss this here, but we can move elsewhere if you'd rather. I don't think it is excluding United Statesians to call this . a full stop in a British-subject article, since I think the meaning is clear from context. Equally, in a US-themed article, period would be clear. However, writing all possible names like that seems rather informal and unencyclopedic, apart from ugly, and invites people to do the same every time there is an alternative word. As I'm sure you've experienced, this is in a lot of places. If there is a potential for confusion, as in the word is little-known outside the country, is unguessable from context, has a different, contradictory meaning outside the country, etc, then a more neutral word is often chosen, or the alternative provided in brackets once. In this case, I think people will gather the meaning from context, and the word is fairly self-explanatory. Perhaps we could wiki-link the word so that anyone who really can't work out what it means is not 'excluded'? Skittle 02:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Having found this at the article Full stop, I have decided nobody could possibly be excluded unlike they would be already excluded by the basic wikipedia policy of BE in British-themed articles, and thus wouldn't have reached this far having been sent mad by the mention of railways :-) I will, however, wikilink it to give everybody every possible chance. Skittle 02:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"A full stop or period, also called a full point, is the punctuation mark commonly placed at the end of several different types of sentences in English and several other languages. A full stop consists of a small dot placed at the end of a line of text, such as at the end of this sentence.

The term full stop is less common in the United States and Canada, but is generally differentiated from period in contexts where both might be used: a full stop is specifically a delimiting piece of punctuation that represents the end a sentence."

I did not say it was standard or well-known in America, just that it was guessable in context. I have wikilinked it to help people. Meanwhile, think about what international means and read wikipolicy on BE/AE if you haven't already. (I'll find the link) The Full stop article also suggests it is known in America, if not widely used.

]

] :-)

There was no need to bite user:jooler. Why are you acting so oddly about this? People try to change an article to conform to the manual of style (linked above) and you revert them and slap them with sarcasm. It's almost trollish, which suggests you've got rather worked up about it. Maybe a few deep breaths would help? 57.66.51.165 12:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Hiding"? I forgot to sign in. However, I put it here as a continuation of the conversation, so you might have guessed there was no hiding involved. I have read your comments (as was clear from me commenting on them earlier), and find them reminicent of trolls I have known. From this I conclude you are stressed, since you clearly cannot be like this all the time. user:jooler has some silly userboxes on not understanding AE, but they are just that. Silly user boxes. You can't use that to justify reverting his edit; it is not a reason. Nor are they a reason to be rude to him. Meanwhile, you are claiming (I assume, since your position is even more ridiculous if not) not to be able to understand BE, which is the exact counterpoint to Jooler's userboxes. Except Jooler only acted in a manner consistent with the manual of style.

You seem to have massive problems with the word Full Stop, and I don't know why. If you despise consistency so much, there is nothing I can do except suggest that an inconsistent article is a poor article, and recognised as such throughout the pedia.

If you're going to rely on aphorisms, perhaps think on 'Quotes are a substitute for thought'.

Ta ta. Skittle 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your recent support, Calton. SlimVirgin 13:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Players Committee

All of the articles I have just created are not vanity, my name is not Mike Carr. These are relevant articles pertaining to SW:CCG, please know what it is before deciding to dismiss it and delete it. CBenoit 12:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Second rude edit to Animal Rights

You have reverted my edits twice now and on both occasions have not addressed my stated reasons on the talk page. I would be obliged to you to explain your reasons on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Mccready 13:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

you

File:Http://images.quizilla.com/S/SX/SXE/sXeCaffeinePsychoX/1135867923 Middle Finger.jpg

Winter-een-mas

I restored the Winter-een-mas articles because there is more information now, and the CAD article does not cover it in enough depth. I was still working on fleshing the article out with another Wikipedian. I thought I had explained this well enough on that talk page, but I must not have. I plan on restoring the article, again, in the near future, but I would like your input, mostly so we don't run in circles.

Liastnir 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you had actually read the AfD debate properly, Calton, you would have seen the consensus was to redirect and merge. This was on the basis of a section in the CAD article about WEM. This no longer exists, and as pointed out by TexasDex on the talk page for Winter-een-mas, the debate was years ago and is no longer relevant, as several attempts have been made to recreate the page. I'll assume good faith and leave it as a redirect, but if it's created again please don't blank it without at least checking it has been merged into Ctrl+Alt+Del. Feel free to reply on my talk page if you think anything else needs saying. --Tim 15:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The merge didn't really happen. The information was quite scant, where there used to be an entire section if I remember right. But the AfD is incorrect. A major gaming chain (EB Games) recognizes it, as do gaming groups across the country. Sweetest Day and other holidays had worse starts. I think its now a real holiday, with real recognition. And the merge was substandard Liastnir 17:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to not like the idea of a gaming store recognizing a gaming holiday, comparing it to KFC recognizing a chicken eating day.... what does that have to do with the validity of the article? I'd like to counter with Hallmark creating holidays and cards, and the US government recognizing the birthdays of past Presidents. Of course thats what happens. Im not a Muslim, I don't participate in Ramadan. Gaming stores would recognize a gaming holiday, along with all these campus groups and individuals out there. But, really, this is a digression. Are you still totally opposed to the article? Liastnir 13:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis of the Satire of Eric "Erod" Brown

Moved from the top Excuse me for this edit, remove it as your pleasure. Ref: Synopsis of the Satire of Eric "Erod" Brown.

• The article is as it states, is a synopsis of a particular Satire. Since it is explicitly stated that it's a Satire, and indeed is entitled "Satire", the audience should have no trouble in understanding the extent of the inherent veracity. In addition, if such satires as George Orwell's Animal Farm and Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream can be included, than even those of lesser popularity should as well.

• I understand that it could possibly be seen as vandalism, but is the audience cannot understand what the word "satire" means, they should look it up on Misplaced Pages and not use it as complete fact, though as satire it includes a great deal of factual accounts and has its own worth in research.

• Furthermore, Misplaced Pages contains endless volumes of Bad Jokes, Examples of Vandalism, etc. etc., all with the intent of displaying humor. Though I do not wish to debate who has the right to decide what is humorous and what is not, since I am not commiting any infractions of Misplaced Pages Policy, I must protest.

Thank you for your time and considerations.--Relex333 00:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Busted

If you want to purse the matter, yes. Most of the articles I wrote aren't about writers. Also, why are you doing this? You know that Misplaced Pages isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this!--Primetime 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)