Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:19, 29 July 2006

• Archive 1 (13 Nov 2004 to 23 Feb 2005)
• Archive 2 (24 Feb 2004 to 27 May 2005)
• Archive 3 (29 May 2005 to 17 Sep 2005)
• Archive 4 (18 Sep 2005 to 9 Nov 2005)
• Archive 5 (from 13 Nov 2005)

Please write any new question at the bottom of the page.

This may help

Here, have a strange flying thing. Jkelly 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, cool. And great color registration. Thanks! -- Hoary 07:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more of your recent wielding of the cluebat. Jkelly 00:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

İlham Əliyev

Hi, in another vein altogether... Would you mind having a look at this article and especially the discussion that has started on its Talk page? Since you have a grounded perspective (as it were) on the issue of naming conventions I think we could benefit by your thoughts on whether this article ought to be moved back to "Ilham Aliyev". In any event, having an administrator who is aware of possible brewing trouble could be helpful later on. Thanks! Pinkville 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I had a feeling you would go the way you did on this article - and I'm still glad to have your input. Thanks for joining the discussion. Pinkville 03:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but I'm not satisfied with what I wrote, which I wrote when too sleepy. One good thing is that the argument is an intelligent one (or anyway was before I came along and mucked it up; I haven't looked at it since): I hope it continues that way, and I may return to it if I can sort out my own ideas first. -- Hoary 03:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a borderline case, I believe... which makes it more interesting than usual. You've mucked nothing. Pinkville 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

Left a post for you, I've done ALOT of research on this chick, she has NO pr people here , and never has, read the comment on her talk page that was "mysteriously" reverted. I have talked to her on the phone as she had a tv blaring and was drinking and talking to Home boys in the background.

She wasnt even the playmate of the month, just a lady in playboy, the rest of the stuff about her has been CREATED by her to make her APPEAR something she is not. READ all of her comment archive, she has been proven to have MANY sock puppets, and was eventually canned from Wiki.

This is a lady who claims to make 70 million a year.

Yes, yes Im sure she does.

/sarcasm ...added at 07:55, 27 May 2006 by 65.184.17.216

If the above is true, you clearly have hugely more interest in Stephanie Adams than I do.

You make one surprising claim: that Adams wasn't a playmate of the month. This is incompatible with what's written on this article. That's very surprising, as that's the kind of article (dealing as it does with commercialized softcore porn) that we can expect to have been edited assiduously. Please either (a) explain this misunderstanding on the talk page of that article or (b) retract your claim.

Also, please sign your comments. This is easy: "~~~~". Thanks. -- Hoary 08:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is evident that 65.184.17.216 has zippo credibility and has an established track record for harrassing other users, making false claims to be friends with Jimbo, making idle threats of being able to ban other users AND admins. At what point does WikiPedia find permabanning an IP the only responsible thing to do? Stephanie Adams, by the way, was undoubtedly a Playmate of the Month from Nov. 1992. Cumberbund 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the IP has made various bizarre statements about other users (Wales included). I haven't encouraged these but I have mostly ignored them. I also have good reason to think that Adams was a playmate, and indeed the IP confirmed this on the talk page of that article shortly after denying it here. These oddities aside, I haven't been worried by what I've noticed of the conduct of this IP. Amid all the bluster, he has (rather windily) made an interesting point: that Adams's "books" aren't actually books. I've tried to investigate this claim, that's all. -- Hoary 23:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Eugene Richards

No problem with POV on talk pages. So if you have the passion, why don't you start the article with a stub at least and then the name can go on the name space page of photographers? Doc 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Presley

Elvis Presley and User:Onefortyone

I am wondering if it is time to invoke this remedy. What do you think? Jkelly 01:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It was stuff like this. But there now seems to be some sort of collaboration being hammered out on the Talk page, so I'm less inclined to fuss now. Jkelly 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've invoked it. Jkelly 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks... that was terrible. Jkelly 22:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, you made a great point about the opening to the Elvis article. I'd like to see your version of last we put together. I'm using the Louis Armstrong article as a model, and would like to see this page become a candidate for a featured article in August around his passing anniversary; if we can hammer out an acceptable article in length and content - like the Armstrong one. Hopefully Onefortyone will collaborate with this effort, I've been trying to get him to do this all along, and requested page protection until we hammer out the best article - section by section. The AOL user is quite annoying - not sure why he doesn't get an user account and contribute rather than disrupt. I welcome any criticism of myself, as I might have become a little abrasive with Onefortyone after reading his past history with celebrity pages; and any criticism of my edits - the most important task in my book, is to get a NPOV, balanced encyclopedic article done, that can be featured. --Northmeister 02:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think Onefortyone isn't interested in working straight, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems he works in circles and in a confusing manner - per the opening where he wrote a pretty good one, I then improved the ending a bit, you offered comment on that, I agreed that it needed work (take out icon, etc.) he then eradicates his good version down to nothing as somehow all that information was wrong because it is "fan stuff." I concur with your comments about his music style in the opening or music...as mentioned above, if you take the last good version I edited on the talk page and edit it yourself to include some material on the music, replace icon with better wording, then we can have a good opening. I proposed a first section as well, that I would welcome input on improvement to. Thanks. --Northmeister 03:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you to include the first paragraphs from the 'Sandbox' in the Elvis Presley article (see ), as there seems to be a consensus concerning these passages now. Thank you. Further, I am of the opinion that the "Allegations of racism" section should not be removed, as there are other peer-reviewed studies deeling with this topic. See, for instance, . What do you think? Onefortyone 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is no longer protected, so you can proceed -- but please keep a sense of perspective and provide sources for what you write. Hoary 07:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi User Hoary. Since unprotecting the Elvis Presley a number of questionable comments have slipped in from allegations of homosexuality (which were debunked numerous times in the discussion forum) to allegations of incest. These claims are all from the same User time and time again and really do diminish the article. I believe the page should be protected again. Thanks. Lochdale

Very interesting citation regarding Dee Presley. That said, I'm starting to lose interest and patience with the Presley page. I'm learning more about the man then I ever cared to know. This is just an out and out hijack of a page by one user and one user only. Is there anything that can be done or is this going to be a never-ending battle? --Lochdale 16:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is indeed something that can be done. Better still, it has just now been done. -- Hoary 22:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Would you mind chiming in at User talk:NicholasTurnbull? Specifically, there seems to be some concern about whether there was any poorly-sourced material added. Jkelly 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but it will have a wait a few hours: the demands of the real world beckon. -- Hoary 05:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Done (and in an appropriately sickly green). -- Hoary 11:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Presley: movies section

May I ask you to have a look at the Elvis Presley article and related pages. User:Northmeister has started an edit war concerning the movies section. He has repeatedly deleted material which is well sourced. This is not acceptable. See , , , , , etc. Onefortyone 21:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he could justifiably claim that the material he deleted is horribly verbose. Still, let's argue over this on the article's talk page. Meanwhile, I've locked the article (again). -- Hoary 09:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Gay Presley (or not)

Hi Hoary, I noticed that your an administrator and also edit the elvis presley article frequency, so I was wondering if i could ask you a question. I'm not a mega-fan of presley, but when I came across this page i noticed that it was particlary biased toward the negative aspects including some bizarre notions of homosexuality and incest. I left some comments on the 'male friendships' section of the discussion, but there is a user that is determined that this fringe agenda supported by a few secondary sources stay (excluding the majority of sources that disaggree in the process). Surely this is a breach of wikipedia's NPOV policy isn't it? Someone in the discussion also mentioned that this user is on probation for this very matter, I'm not sure how it works but is there a reason why it isn't enforced? Thanks.--58.169.8.139 06:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I too think that Presley deserves a fair article just as much as the next (dead) guy. My problem is that I'm even less of a fan than I suspect you are, and have little appetite for reading about him, let alone paying money for the books I don't possess (and I don't possess any). There seem to be two processes going on here. In one, a particular long-time contributor who has some obsession with "personal relationships" in general and actual or imagined homosexuality among 50s Hollywood stars in particular is keen to introduce all this stuff. Yes, he (she) was banned earlier; he (she) seems to be much more scrupulous now (though just as obsessed). In another, an IP seems very keen on Michael Jackson and somehow sees Presley as some sort of obstacle to world recognition of the greatness of Jackson. (Teenage level thinking here.) He/she is repetitive but lazy. ¶ Let's look at the former. You say: you are only including sources whose content that you happen to agree with.... What I see here are secondary sources that support a fringe agenda with an exclusion of the vast majority of sources (including many primary ones) that disagree with this. You may very well be right; I don't know, as I'm not familiar with the literature. What are these sources that disagree with the assertion that Presley was gay? Please name them, in the talk page. ¶ If the conflict heats up again, the article will be semi-protected. When that happens, you won't be able to edit the page. This is a good reason for you to get and start using a username. -- Hoary 07:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hoary. Noted my edits to the sections on Male Friendships in the Presley article. I'm a little concerned, however, that there needs to be a direct refutation that Presley was not gay. He was married and had open affairs with numerous women. He is arguably the most documented entertainer in human history yet there is scant evidence (if any) to suggest that he were gay. Other than a Playboy article written long-after his death quoting someone who was not intimate with Presley inner-circle there is nothing there. It seems a little harsh to cite sources proving he wasn't gay other than pointing out the obvious sources like Guralnik who make no mention of it. Lochdale

Presley - Allegations of Racism

I was wondering if I could edit this section. It's overly dependent on one or two articles written on race in America and it seems to have far too many quotes with a slant towards painting Presley as a simple racist copy-cat. For example, the notion that he stole from Little Richard is fairly questionable seeing that a number of his recordings predate Richards. I think the section should be wittled down so that the controversy is mentioned but that should be about it. Thoughts? --Lochdale 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the blanking of my talk page. (^_^) ···日本穣 16:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding naming order

"PS Oh, I see, it's discussed above on this very talk page. Then we must follow the rules, I suppose. But personally I'm happy to see that Utada (whose music doesn't interest me) and Matsu (of whom I'd never heard) have somehow broken free of a rule that strikes me as stupid. Is the "normal Japanese order" really SN-GN? Yes. Or at least it's that way in most of the Japanese-language print literature that I own that contains Japanese names written in romaji. Japanese-language literature that contains Japanese names written in romaji constitutes a minuscule percentage of Japanese-language literature."

But English-language literature from Japan, such as Japanese newspapers like the Mainichi Shimbun, uses Western order. Look at the English-language edition of the Mainichi Shimbun at http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/ and tell me what order you see :) WhisperToMe 19:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no longer any English-language dead-trees edition of the Mainichi Shimbun. It's a web-only edition. Still, that's a minor niggle. Yes, English-language Japanese newspapers, perhaps afraid of offending the delicate sensibilities of their conservative anglophone readers, invert the name order. But this isn't the rule in academic books, and WP purports to be an encyclopedia. Further, WP frequently discusses the past; figures from the past have their names in uninverted order, leading to a bizarre (and in my view entirely arbitrary) division between those born before and after the Meiji "restoration". -- Hoary 00:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Tikal the Echidna

Given that Tikal the Echidna has gone through three Peer Reviews, FAN, and two GAN in the past four months, I request you be a little more specific in your complaints. Nifboy 07:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a second comment here. -- Hoary 07:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What a...

...tedious recurring necessity to revert these butt-related users. Thanks for your improvements to Ueno (regardless of the Ga result). Kikai is looking excellent! Pinkville 02:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see things your way

I have thought about it and decided that you're right about vandals being glorified too much here on Misplaced Pages. I have even taken the liberty of simplifying WoW's page.--Conrad Devonshire 06:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd noticed. Good work!

Next job: make all his templates really drab and unimpressive. -- Hoary 06:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also simplified the page on the North Carolina vandal, another attention-seeking vandal.--Conrad Devonshire 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Long term abuse/Mr. Pelican Shit, and feel free to agree or disagree there. -- Hoary 07:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

One other thing...

I have nominated Template:User Jimbo v. Willy for deletion from the template namespace. You can find this here.--Conrad Devonshire 07:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rollback slip-up

Hi. Sorry about this. I must've hit the rollback button accidentally while reading the diff. I just noticed now while going through my contribs. Weird. Jkelly 00:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Normally nobody rolls back one of my edits and lives to tell the tale, but since you did recently give me that extraordinary flying thing, I'll make a rare exception. -- Hoary 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad mood

Sorry I put you in a bad mood. Could you please tell me why? --Gnewf 06:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Mentmore

If you want a ref:

• Sotheby, Parke, Bernet & Co. Mentmore, Vols I - V. London 1977.
• Clarke R & R. Mentmore Catalogue. Edinburgh 1884. Privatly Published.
• Molinier, Emile. Le Mobiier Francais du XVII et fu XVIII Siecle. Paris

Good article nomination reminder

Hi, thanks for reviewing articles in the WP:GA project. However, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder for you to 'finish the job' when passing or failing a nominee. It appeared that you failed Eevee (legitimately), but did not change the template from GAnominee to failedGA, or remove it from the nomination list. I went ahead and did it, so no worries, but I wanted to leave you a reminder for the future. Make sure everything on the "Passed" or "Failed" list gets done when you review an article, it can be hard to identify 'orphans' who've only had part of the process completed. Thanks for your help. Phidauex 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm . . . actually I did change the template and I took it out of the nomination list too. I see that you've already read and responded to what I wrote here. Perhaps what I wrote was poorly expressed: I mentersay that I was surprised that my comment was simply ignored. (Perhaps I should be grateful that the Eevee fans didn't go one further and simply delete my comment.)

And now see Donut (Red vs Blue). -- Hoary 04:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok... My bad! They just renominated it so fast that it looked like you hadn't removed it from the list. I've recently had to remind a few new reviewers about removing things from the list, and I wrongly put you into that category. I'm getting a little annoyed by the editors who feel like they should just nominate something over and over and over, until they hit a lenient reviewer who'll just pass them without reading the comments... Phidauex 15:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit like eBay, isn't it? Think of some product area in which you're vaguely interested, and look among it for an item that, though written up with unusual care, seems absurdly overpriced. Come back later. You'll see, it will keep coming back, week after week, until some damn fool appreciative connoisseur buys it. ¶ Since you're interested in Japan -- and might have had today's fill of purportedly good articles (which seem to me rather to overrepresent juvenilia) -- here's another minor diversion for you. ¶ Got hold of a copy of the big photo book yet? -- Hoary 15:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I know enough about Japanese script to know that I don't know anything about Japanese script. I thought the English language was a convoluted system, until I started learning Japanese... I haven't been able to find a copy of the Kikai book yet, it's not as easy as I had hoped it would be. Phidauex 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you think Ellegarden was bad, you should see the pillows... Phidauex 21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Laurence Olivier

References have been altered as per your request, though dividing up the Coleman bio will take a lot of time. ...._(Complain) 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Issues adressed. ...._(Complain) 02:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You've given me a lot to work on, but I'm sure that when I'm finished, the article will look a million bucks. And it's all doable. Thanks again ...._(Complain) 04:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

And now, I've adressed your points, answered some questions, and there's only one point that will be a real hiccup.

You're doing good work. Well done. However, I think you're rushing. For example, as an illustration of Olivier's early rise, you say what he was doing over a decade after he started, which is after the Shakespearean breakthrough described in the following paragraph. ¶ There's no rush. If somebody (me) posts a dozen (?) questions or objections on the talk page, there's no obligation to respond to them the next day. Take your time; get it right. ¶ Incidentally, here's another question for you. We're all familiar with the stern paper who thwarts his son's dramatic ambitions. (A ghastly example of this stereotype is in the well-acted but dreadful film Dead Poets Society.) In this article, though, you first say that paper was a stern sort of person, and then, without explanation, say it was he who decided that his son would be an actor. This seems remarkable. ¶ And how about the unusual surname? (Is it Huguenot?) -- Hoary 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:GRDT

Thanks for your help on GDRT. I thought of changing the text when I added it to my user page, but I figured only those with Windows or a Mac would need help knowing where to put it (and I don't know where it should go on a mac). I really doubt a Linux, Unix, GNU, or other OS user will need help putting it in the right place ;) — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll probably provide a link. A lot of people are computer-illiterate, though, so a note about what to do with the file is probably good. Do you think I should just say "your fonts folder" and then specify that for windows it's C:\Windows\Fonts\? The vowels are educated guesses. I'll see if I can find a way to link to an article that explains reconstruction, but as far as I know, no such article exists yet. Regarding footnotes, I always put them after the period. Why, are there some before? If so, I'll fix that. A couple are in the middle of a sentence because it's referencing a specific part (while another reference in the sentence references the other part). Again, thanks for your help. The article is now a GA :). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Elvis Presley Article

Hi. I thought I had noted my changes in the talk/discussion page. My apologies if I did not. I had mentioned the Greenwood removal several times in the Male Friendships section of the discussion page. Will be more careful in the future. --Lochdale 15:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you please reinclude the "Nick Adams stuff" in the article. Here are some more quotes from Guralnick's book, Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, relating to the time when the close friendship between Nick Adams and Elvis Presley began (p.339-340):

"Nick didn't have anything better to do, so he was going to come to Tupelo ... Elvis was looking forward to showing him Memphis for the first time. They flew into Memphis on Saturday, September 22, and went out to the fair briefly that night. On Monday they visited Humes, where Elvis introduced Nick to his old homeroom teacher, Miss Scrivener... They visited the Tiplers at Crown Electric, too, and Nick put his feet up on Mr. Tipler's desk while Elvis explained, said his former employer, "how he had his money arranged so he wouldn't get it all at one time." They even went by Dixie's house one afternoon, and she told Elvis she was getting married, and he congratulated her and wished her well. On Wednesday they left for Tupelo around noon." etc. etc.

p.343:

"Elvis and Nick had returned to Hollywood by the weekend..."

Does this sound as if Guralnik only notes "that they were friends but nothing more", as Lochdale has falsely claimed? Of course not! Such a close friendship must be mentioned in the article, as it is part of Elvis's personal life. Onefortyone 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)