Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:16, 20 April 2015

Possibly unfree Image:Helenkeller.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Helenkeller.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Calliopejen1 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagremover disputes

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

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

Thanks, Tagremover (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Pop stars

Thanks for your comment at Beyonce Knowles. Beyond Beyonce, I see the late Whitney Houston's entry comprises more than 12,000 words. Sigh....

Sca (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case request closed as withdrawn

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an arbitration case request, named Tagremover disputes, in which you were named as a party has been withdrawn by the filing party. The commenting arbitrators felt that the community was able to handle this issue at the current time and it was withdrawn by the filing party.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tagremover (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Little Feat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantheon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sriracha sauce

Also, the reference for Panda Express didn't mention them using sriracha sauce at all. - Takeaway (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pablo.paz

Hello Marteau,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pablo.paz for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Blackguard 20:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. Was intending to create a user talk page and not an article. Marteau (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Kelly condition.

I agree that the chunk you just removed from was too much detail, but to answer your question in the checkin comment ("what is the Kelly condition?"), the person who wrote that text was presumably referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/Kelly_criterion . Application of the Kelly {rule/criterion/principle} to blackjack betting strategy is described a bit more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Card_counting#Ranging_bet_sizes_and_the_Kelly_criterion --Blogjack (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Veggies (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(copy-pasted from my reply on the talk page in question) As per WP:TALK "The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page(accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." I deleted everything from Objective3000 saying, "It's been an entire day since you apologized for claiming that I willfully misrepresented something on a completely different subject.:)" on. Another editor restored it, saying "Deleting comments on an article talk page is a NO-NO!" That is not always the case. I delete this as per WP:TALKO which says under the "Off-Topic posts subsection" which says. "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above." and "Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion." So deletion and sometimes moving material which does not contribute to the improvement of the article can in fact be deleted. That said, I will not delete it again and leave it to other non-involved editors to decide if they want this to remain. Marteau (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Marteau (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your response to my vote. Misplaced Pages is a great resource, but a few articles do reflect the biases of the majority of its editors. As a heavy user of Misplaced Pages, I would also like to thank you for your contributions.

JS (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of the term "redneck"

Marteau, you claim that the word "redneck" is offensive and bigoted in the context that I used it. However, I dispute your claim. "According to Reed (1986) and Hartigan (2003), a redneck is often thought to be a person who is ignorant, uneducated, or intellectually limited; who is from a lower social class; and who is prejudiced or racist..." That is exactly the type of person who reads and believes the kind of crap spewed by the right wing noise machine. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster, for when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss gazes also into you.” - Some German dude Marteau (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Just happened upon this talk segment, but as a point of fact, "redneck" is indeed classified as a pejorative word, regardless of the context in which it's used. Hence if one agrees with the contention that as sapient, reasoning beings we act immorally when we purposefully trigger an irrational, emotional response in others by using such emotive terms, then such terms should be substituted with reasoning arguments. My 2 cents, as a plurationalist. Fhburton (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Stoicism External Link to Circle of Reason

Hi Marteau, I won't press for reversal of your decision to revert/remove the old external link from Stoicism to www.circleofreason.org's plurationalist society; but limiting the article's links only to those modern practices named "stoic" or with ">x" number of uses of the word "stoic" may prove insufficient to highlight all real-world stoic practices in the public sphere, or even the most noteworthy ones. Plurationalists don't call themselves a branch of stoicism because the popularly-known stoic practice of moderationism is only one of the three behavioral practices of pluralistic rationalism (its others being factualism and skepticism -- both also lesser-recognized stoic practices); and because plurationalists believe that all stoic practices are reducible to a more fundamental axiomatic moral principle it seeks to emphasize, that Reason is the only moral source, test and conduit of knowledge. Nonetheless, aspects of stoicism are important elements of plurationalism. As one illustration, Zeno and Epictetus would probably have been intrigued by the Star Trek characters Surak and Spock; and were these Vulcan practitioners of "IDIC + Logic" not fictive, their practice's similarities with stoicism would be worth an external link. Pluralistic rationalists, however, aren't fictive. Best regards, Fhburton (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Neil deGrasse Tyson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I stand by every word. The bullshit surrounding this issue has got to be called out when it occurs. Marteau (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Striking

I appreciate your striking on WP:ANI. While I personally did not find the characterization to be remarkable in any way, your willingness to strike based on community feedback is certainly worth remark. Thanks. aprock (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Quakers revert

Hi Marteau. I am sorry if I've upset you. I am new to Misplaced Pages and am attending an American Literature course at Brigham Young University. One of our requirements is to add to or create a new wikipedia post covering some important information that is pertinent to our course. I have had a hard time figuring out how to cite things and am slowly working on this. I would love to add page numbers and will do so tonight once I figure out how to. Like I said, I am new to Misplaced Pages and honestly have never done any of this before. I need to publish this information so that I can receive credit for the information I have added in my American Literature course. Also, I think it provides a healthy addition to the scanty information provided about the Quaker colonial experience.

If I add the page numbers and then try to revert it tonight what will happen? I would love to add the page numbers tonight so I can have it published. Thanks for your help and thanks for watchin for this un-cited information on the internet. There is way too much of it and it makes doing research difficult when nothing is verifiable. Sorry again about being so slow and new to Misplaced Pages. Kyzun (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Matt Drudge

I think you completely misunderstood my reference to Drudge, but I can see how it was ambiguous, so I take responsibility for it. I'm actually interested in seeing you improve his biography. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

References

I read there was a rule about "References". Actually, that's all over the internet, that you need to use reference.

Perhaps you should be warning the other guy about that?

There's no heat on my side, there just no references, and the guy fed a bullshit line about the original Variety review from the 1950s because it was already being used in the article.

Why didn't you pull him up for those? --Salty Batter (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salty Batter: The other guy does not need assistance with Misplaced Pages rules... you obviously do. References are not required for plot, see WP:FILMPLOT where it says "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Marteau (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, there is no other reference.

I'm perfectly capable of discussing my rationale reasonably, if he starts a discussion and puts forward his. Even better, if he just adds some references. But that's not what he is doing.

He removed other edits. He used a false summary to make it look like he was changing it to someone else's when in fact he was just changing it back to his own version. I think the excuse he used about Variety was false. Now he's running off like a sneak to report it. WTF?

Who is this guy and why is no one pulling him up? Is this normal?

--Salty Batter (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salty Batter: It is normal. You will often run into people you don't get along with, and people who will try to push your buttons. I'm not saying Dennis is doing so, I'm just saying that becoming aggrivated with people and questioning their motives is common here and happens to everyone. In the case of a dispute, there is a path we follow to resolve the dispute, it's documented at WP:DISPUTE. It begins with seeking "consensus" on the talk page, and involved discussing your reasoning. Edit summaries are not really the way to discuss it, and I'm not into looking at what Dennis has summarized or whether it is correct or not... where it matters now is on the talk page. Marteau (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, there are dicks all walks of life, and we all get to be one now and again, but please allow me to underline that I am not aggravated one bit. People tend to show their true colors in life fairly quickly and this guy surely has. For me, it looks like he think he owns the page and wants to provoke some kind of conflict. Unfortunately using a dishonest summary and running off to report it and attempt to engage others on his side, rather than just start a discussion, raises questions about his motivation and challenges my respect for him.

I'm just a little concerned about fairness and onesidedness. I don't mind being pulled up if I am wrong, but where two people are involved, and there are reasonable questions about the accuser or provoker actions too, then it should go both ways.

Is the 1950s Variety review acceptable or not? I would have thought it highly value record of the response to the movie at that time which is important. If the the Variety review is acceptable, then he was clearly in wrong. --Salty Batter (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salty Batter: In this world, I pick my fights as any sane man should do. And I'm choosing not to get involved in this one any more than I already am. I'm not going to look at Dennis's edit summaries and see if they match up with his edits, for example. But I will say this much... the place where issues about the article are dealt with begins on the article talk page, or the other editor's talk page. If you cannot agree with the other guy, and you don't want to give it up, there are ways to deal with that and those are talked about in WP:DISPUTE. What you can do is ask other editors who are willing to deal with it, to comment on the issue by going to the "Requests For Comment" board at WP:RFC. Or, if you think things are really bad and need an administrator to deal with things, you go to the administrator notice board at WP:ANI. But personally, regarding the Variety quote issue, as I said on the talk page, I don't think it belongs in the article. Just because something is cited and has a reference does not mean it automatically gets into the article... there are many reasons it can be excluded, and I said on The Wild One talk page why, in my opinion, the Variety quote should not be in the article. Reasonable people can disagree, but in the end, what matters is "concensus" WP:CONCENSUS which is done by talking about it, and what gets "Concensus" stays in the article. If you think there are problems beyond that, or if you think something without "Concensus" is in the article and should not, you can handle it as a dispute as I said above. Marteau (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not the kind of guy to run off to momma, or snitch on others. Consensus among a small group of individuals can just as often be wrong as right.

What happens on the Misplaced Pages if you get two or three deluded individuals acting as a gang dominating one individual trying to keep things neutral and objective? Do the three just say, "we have a consensus" and win even if they are wrong or attempting to prejudice some article?

That's an honest question and I am not including you among the deluded or erroneous. However, I would like you to show me how I was using Varietyspeak, otherwise I have to consider that your argument is misleading.

If I was not using Varietyspeak, then why bring it up? Thank you. --Salty Batter (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not say you used Variety Speak. I said in an edit summary that I was removing Variety Speak, meaning I was removing the Variety quote "mob of youths". As I said on the talk page, I'm done debating this issue. If you have an issue with how anyone has behave, I suggest you use the means outlined in WP:DISPUTE Marteau (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Quit the deliberate provocation

Quit the deliberate provocation.

Appreciated.

Now please discuss. --Salty Batter (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Salty Batter: "Please discuss"? I already DID discuss the issues with your edit. I, in fact, started a new section in the talk paged to discuss that very edit which you insist on re-inserting. It's under the "Latest edit by Salty Batter" section in the talk page. You have not addresed ONE of the several issues I brought up. Not ONE. "Please discuss?". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Incredible. Marteau (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked you to please stop the deliberate provocation.

Let's not pretend that last total deletion/reversion was anything but a deliberate provocation designed to create the effect you want and make me look bad. There really is no need for it. --Salty Batter (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is "pretending" here? You, or four other editors and one admin? Your edits on this issue are simply disruptive, POV-pushing, and show a complete lack of respect for the process of arriving at and respecting concensus. Hopefully you will take your two day edit ban to re-think your appoach to dealing with other editors who raise concerns about your edits, and will in the future try to respect the processes the encyclopedia has in place for dealing with disputes. Marteau (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Brian Williams - Pinocchio

What if I uncheck the minor edit box? Then what? I am so tempted to put that edit back in there. As a more experienced editor, tell me why I shouldn't if you would please. Should I just walk away from this article and leave it alone? I don't want to get myself in trouble, but at the same time I really felt good about that edit on Brian Williams. I felt like it was absolutely true. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Michael W. Parker: The way such things are supposed to be handled is, to discuss the issue on the talk page and try to convince other editors of the merits of your edit, thus achieving concensus for inclusion. WP:BRD details the process... an editor "Boldly" edits, if it gets "Reverted" you then "Discuss" it. Of course, not everyone does it the recommended way, but that's the prescribed method. Marteau (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, great advice. I am learning how Wiki works as I bungle along and make mistakes along the way. I suppose I will just leave poor ole Brian alone. He is in enough trouble as it is. If he loses his job it will go down in history as self-imposed punishment I suppose. There is no need to pile on. The article is now more like a current event than a biography because of the fluid nature of the ongoing events. I am even feeling sorry for the original author, whoever that is, for they must now try to defend the article from full frontal assault by other editors. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Please remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for reverting vandalism and other edits where the reason for the revert is obvious
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback

If you have any questions, please do let me know, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Marteau, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Misplaced Pages Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Misplaced Pages with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Marteau! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Misplaced Pages at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tax evasion editor

I've requested semi-protection on the article to stop our spammer. Annoying. Interestingly, this person probably has been active on other article in the past. If you google the IRS case they used as a "reference", the judge in the ruling mentions the individual alleges a conspiracy which includes information about their invention being removed from Misplaced Pages. Kinda funny reading. Hopefully the semi-protection will stop the IP. Ravensfire (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And just noticed that the semi-protection has been applied. Squish! Ravensfire (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP is another sock of User:Timothy Sheridan (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Proposing community ban of User:Timothy Sheridan). If you encounter the editor again in any related articles, let me (or other admins) know and I'll block the new IPs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ravensfire:Heads up. Marteau (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do - thanks for the heads up on him. Ravensfire (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI: due to continued disruption today by this editor, I have started a new thread at WP:ANI#Persistent disruption by Timothy Sheridan. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Renee Richards

The page regarding Dr. Renee Richards has incorrectly spelled information and not complete and made uneditable This is referenced for you to change.. instead of Lahoya.....note the doubles partner was Brian Cheney. La Jolla Tennis Club Summer Tournament - Past Champions | La ... ljtc.org/la-jolla-tennis-club-summer-tournament-past-champions/ Past Champions 2012 Annual La Jolla Championship Summer Tournament ... Men's Champion – Steven Forman ... 1976 – Brian Cheney & Renee Richards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtsflorida (talk • contribs) 09:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Marteau (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A Dissatisfied Customer

I'm not going anywhere Marteau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.77.150 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

GPD edit

I have removed 'GUID partition table' from that page simply because it's certainly a mistake! The correct abbreviation is GPT, which already has that link. GPD, on the other hand, isn't mentioned at all on the 'GUID Partition Table' page.

On the other hand, GPD is a valid abbreviation for Gallons Per Day. I copied & pasted from a VERY similar abbreviation : GPH. Both are widely used in the industry.

I understand that you think you have done right, but please double-check your info before messing up other people's changes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.10.159 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I have removed GUID Partition Table, added Gallons Per Day, and put into alphabetical order. Including an edit summary can help prevent misunderstandings. If the change is minor, making the edit summary very brief (perhaps just "ce"... an abbreviation of "copy edit") is perfectly fine. Marteau (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jack Griffo

Hey Marteau,it's me, the guy that edited Jack Griffo's page. The only reason why I did this was because if you read the information where it said he was going to be on Sharknado 3, you would notice it says the name of the character is Billy. Thanks for getting the time to read this. (hopefully). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B813:C8D3:55BA:AA1:8E72:E0E6 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The version you edited has a table problem. You can see it does by the bold red text at the top of the page. I have reverted it to the last good version. Marteau (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Time for a topic ban

From NDT? Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Although it is not exacly assuming good faith, I think you'll have to do a lot more than accuse me of "soapboxing" before you get topic banned. Marteau (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 - Cwobeel (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)