Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:33, 24 September 2017

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your comment (by adding ~~~~ at the end) to assist the bot that archives this page. Please add a new thread to the bottom of the page if you wish to leave me a new message. If you're following up on a previous message, keep your comment in that same place: If you leave me a message here, I will reply here and {{Mention}} you here or leave a {{Talkback}} template on your talk page, unless you indicate that you are watching my page or no talkback message is necessary. If you are responding to a message I left on your talk page, please reply there so the discussion stays in one place. Please {{Mention}} me in the message there or leave a {{Talkback}} template here so I know about the message, unless I indicate that no talkback is necessary in my message. If you are commenting here on a message or warning I left there, don't be surprised if I move the discussion back to your talk page. This page is set for automatic archiving every 7 days. I will remove talkback messages as acknowledgment that I have read the related reply, and I reserve the right to summarily remove any uncivil comments. Thank you, and happy editing!

Response and Thank you!

Hello C. Fred,

Thank you for your response to my edit; and for your guidance on this. Info removed was no longer contemporary in nature, and I did employ the reason for edit box/section. I'm very sorry if this was not seen or otherwise picked up! This is the paragraph in question:

In 2008, a profile in The Palm Beach Post on Newsmax and founder Ruddy indicated the company generated revenues of approximately $25 million per year, and, according to the company, has been profitable for the past five years. In a 2009 Forbes.com interview, Internet expert Nathan Richardson was asked to identify the "smartest thing on the web" today. Richardson identified Newsmax, among several websites, citing its success "monetizing the web."

Thank you.

Dulcamara1 (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Dulcamara1

Nick Bougas

Oh dear. Not sure this guy can take a hint. Home Lander (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Yeah. That's why I just left a notice on his page about 3RR. This isn't one of those cases where the changes to the article were pure fluff; that's why I didn't just roll all the way back. I want the community to help refine what's been done to the article, but removing tags hurts that process. I don't think a block will help the situation, but given the level of incivility, it's starting to look like the lesser of the evils. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your composure handling this. Home Lander (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

My, what a stress-filled job you Wikipedestrians must have. Being made to fret and feverishly convene like stammering schoolgirls when the subject of one of your profiles takes exception to being called 'pretentious" and "self promoting" by one of your unimaginative tribe. Sorry to have rattled your composure, ladies, but y'see I hail from a time long ago when a site like yours would actually graciously welcome the input and insights of a featured subject. As your corporate nightmare machine fueled by litigation fears and bean-counting lackeys lumbers soullessly forward, you've left something very valuable in your dust. The human element. Simple consideration and gratitude for the efforts of someone who's trying to add some quality to your uninspired and vacuous standard presentation. You're now sitting there ringing your hands like the world is ending because I called you on viciously hacking the brief and informative bio I supplied down to a splinter and then complaining in your tag box that it still needs extensive work when there's NOTHING LEFT TO WORK ON. Pardon me if I find your screeching and flailing a tad excessive over a bio that consists of THREE STODGY SENTENCES. I'm officially asking you here and now to leave the current page alone, as criminally spartan as it is, and quit marring the appearance with ugly tag boxes with meaningless alarm text, or else just remove the whole page, which is utterly fine with me. From what I've seen of your ridiculous behaviors and attitudes, I don't want to be associated with your silly enterprise. Frankly, I don't know how I wound up on sticky Wiki in the first place. I certainly never solicited or campaigned for inclusion ... and I have good reason to suspect that there's more than a smidgen of "agenda" going on with all the incessant harassment I've faced since my first post but, alas, that's the current trend ... the conditions that prevail, as they say. At any rate. Kindly use your noodles to find a way to leave the bio page alone or pull it once and for all. It's that simple. From the heart of my bottom, Nick Bougas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megerflit (talk • contribs) 22:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Megerflit reported by User:Home Lander (Result: ). This is regarding the above. Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Zetron

RE: Zetron

Hello, The edit does not contain incorrect information. While the article does not mention Spillman, the story for Abilene FD) references issues with a new Spillman system that was used to replace an aging Zetron system. The story states that the issue is with Spillman, the story states that Spillman is being sued. The link gives the impression that Zetron is the issue when that is incorrect.RollsKanardly (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC) RollsKanardly (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)RollsKanardly Sep. 21, 2017

@RollsKanardly: The title of the cited source article does not mention Spillman. You changed the reference to indicate it does. That's clearly introducing an error into an easily-verifiable item (the title of the cited source). —C.Fred (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The reference was changed back and I understand why it was. The title also does not mention Zetron. Makes the reference a little misleading. RollsKanardly (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@RollsKanardly: It's the text in the reference that really matters, not the title. That said, if the title were really problematic, we'd insert a quote to go along with the title. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Rumer image

Hello. I have one you can use. If you tell me how to send it to you I will provide it. It is free. It is my photo and you are welcome to use it and it has the approval of the artist. Please tell me how to send it to you.

Yes please C. Fred if that is what is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELOJeff10538 (talk • contribs)

Thread is at your talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what this means. Please use any free picture other than the one being re-inserted. Something like this one perhaps. Or can you advise how I can send you one? http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/lifestyle/features/article/Rumer-Learning-to-dodge-the-fame-and-concentrate-on-singing-0b4409ec-05d8-48ad-b78c-e5fa4666400b-ds

The image you keep using is one that is not liked and is not the best free image as you state. Please consider using another, or advise me on how I can send you a free one to use. Thanks.

@ELOJeff10538: That picture is not free. Almost every picture on a newspaper website is copyrighted by the newspaper or a wire service; it is not free for Misplaced Pages to reuse. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If you can tell me how to send you a picture I can guarantee that it is free as I took it, I own it and it has the approval of the artist. You may have it for free for this page. Can I email it to you as I can see no way of adding it here. Thanks so much

@ELOJeff10538: If it's free, it shouldn't be added here. It should be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. There, it's easily accessible by anybody who wants to use it in any derivative works. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This makes no sense. If its not free its not allowed and if it is free is shouldnt be added here. Why can it just not replace the picture you have here. You are talking in riddles and I have no idea what wikipedia commons is, how does it get from there to here after that?

Please use this picture that I have now uploaded to Wiki commons, it is mine and would be preferred. Thanks. https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Rumer_my_own_personal_photograph.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by ELOJeff10538 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please help

I am not trying to violate Michael Bair page I am just trying to create my page which is Michael Hernandez. Michael Bair and Michael Hernandez are two diferent person and as you see Michael Bair is redirecting My name Michael Hernandez to his page and that is not fair, because his name is Michael Bair not Michael Hernandez I am the real Michael Hernandez and he is Michael Bair please help me to create my page.

@Mhmusik: I reviewed the page you attempted to create at Michael Hernandez, and there is no evidence that you are either significant or important. Rather than speedy delete the page you created, I turned it back to a redirect.

Really, you should not create a page about yourself at all. If you want a page created for you, you need to show that you meet WP:NMUSIC and that reliable sources document your notability. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

someone arbitrarily has removed a very large chunk of data from the Dallas, TX page that has existed for a very, very long time

Fred C.

We exchanged some communications a few months ago about an update that I performed to the Dallas, TX page concerning the employment data. We resolved that very easily once I explained the text update was being made based on the links always reflecting the latest data and new links did not need to be made. You can go to the page and see where we discussed that.

I have invested a great deal of time over the last few days updating that same section of the Dallas, TX page that you and I discussed back several months ago. Today, out of the clear blue, someone takes exception to it and arbitrarily deletes a huge section of data. I reverted it back and he then did the same thing and so forth. I am now at 3 reverts and cannot change it. He has now enlisted the help of one of his buddies to have yet another person delete all of that data that I have labored so hard to gather, document, update and provide appropriate citations and so forth to the text.

Will you please help me? Can you please put it back to what I had and lock that part of the page from any further arbitrary deletes while this is being resolved?

Please, I spent a great deal of time to make the data current, correct and to annotate everything correctly to now see someone who doesn't apparently like the fact that Dallas has eclipsed Houston in several categories make arbitrary deletes and get someone else to back it up by doing it again (knowing that if I do I may be banned because it would be my 3 revert).

Please help me! Texan44 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC) September 23, 2017

• See this at WP:ANI, Texan44's talk page, and the page history of Dallas. - Tom | Thomas.W 21:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Texan44: I see Thomas.W's concern about the text, that it relates to the entire Metroplex and not just Dallas, so the Dallas article is not the best place for it. I would suggest that you discuss why you think it's appropriate for the Dallas article at Talk:Dallas. It's possible it should be moved to the article on the Metroplex, it's possible it should stay in Dallas, or it's possible it shouldn't be in Misplaced Pages at all—but the best thing to do at this point is get a wider range of inputs about what to do with it. The talk page is the best place to do that, but if you get yourself blocked for edit warring, you won't be able to participate. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fred, the data is not new, it was not being expanded, it was merely being updated. The whole paragraph is prefaced by the fact that Dallas is the central economy in the region and the data that follows is only available as an MSA form of data. If the update has upset someone because of the data, then just put it back to the old version and let it be. This is crazy that merely updating existing text with current released data is creating this. I do not know how to start a discussion on the Talk:Dallas board or I would do so. I think what this is telling me is there are very petty people who cannot tolerate data that is not what they want it to be.Texan44 (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Texan44: It doesn't matter that the data is just being updated. Somebody has a good-faith objection to its inclusion on the page at all. You need to assume good faith in them as well and not call them "petty". And you posted a comment here, so you can certainly start a thread at Talk:Dallas. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason they gave to me that they didn't like it was that I "expanded" the data ... I didn't expand it was updated. And I have updated this section off and on for a very long time and never had anyone object, until now. And I believe it is a safe assumption that it was the actual content of this latest update that is the basis for this this time. As mentioned, I have been updating this section of the article for a very, very long time with population, GDP, etc. and until today it has not bother a single party. So today, a single party takes exception to it and now "poof" it all gone. This is not encouraging people such as myself who have taken the time to research and document and provide very valuable input to this forum to have it arbitrarily deleted by a single party that takes exception to the data being "expanded" when that was not the case at all.Texan44 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Texan44: Where did they say that? The explanations I see are that "Not relevant here since this article is about Dallas *only*, the DFW metropolitan area has an own article", "it's outside the scope of this article, belongin in Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex instead", and "it doesn't matter if it has been in the article for years or not, it DOES NOT belong in Dallas!!" All three of those are from the edit summaries in Dallas. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

He sent that to my talk page .... can you see it on my page? Yes, he says those other things too but when I responded directly to him about this his response to me was because I "expanded" the text. All I am asking you is if you will please restore the text and lock it for now, let me open a conversation on the Talk:Dallas page and get input, if there is consensus it should go then it will go and I will never waste my time on Misplaced Pages again with this topic. But with it being deleted and gone it makes it difficult for people to see what it is that is being discussed. If you will please, as a temporary measure, restore it, lock it and then let it be discussed over a period of time then it would seem more fair to someone who has invested, not just today but for a very long time adding updates to this very page. Can you do that and let me then see about how to start a new conversation on the Talk:Dallas page about this? I said I wasn't sure how to because I went over to that page and looked and didnt' see an easy way to start something (like it seemed with reaching out to you).Texan44 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Texan44: What I see on your talk page is that he feels it's not appropriate for the Dallas article since it pertains to the Metroplex. I don't see anything where expanding the text being the reason for the removal, but that it was the thing that caused him to notice the entire block of text in the first place. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Then it is on his talk page ... because that was what was stated ... that because I "expanded" it it caused him to take notice and object to it. Anyway, since the page has contained this data for a very, very long time it would seem that the correct and fair thing to do is to restore it to the previous existing state, allow a discussion to be opened in the Talk:Dallas page, let input and feedback occur, and after that has occurred than action can be taken one way or the other. This approach right now is very one-sided ... if the party has an issue with it then why didn't they take it to the Talk:Dallas page in the first place than starting the editing war? The other party started the edit war and did not take the time or courtesy to post his issues in an appropriate setting for discussion before his taking arbitrary action that has led to this dispute. Wouldn't that have been the more civilized approach? Create a discussion in the appropriate forum about the matter FIRST before removing text that has been in place for a very, very long time and creating this level of dispute?

So I am asking you to do much as an unbiased arbiter would do, restore it to what it was, allow a discussion to be opened in an appropriate forum (Talk:Dallas) and monitor that for whatever is an acceptable period of time, then action be taken one way or the other that would be a consensus. Right now, the action taken is not one of consensus but completely arbitrary which seem to run counter to everything you are saying you support.Texan44 (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Texan44: So start the discussion already. There's a "New section" tab at the top of the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If you will please restore the text, lock it for the timeframe that it is under discussion, so it can be visible to those who will participate in the discussion, and then final action be taken one way or the other. As stated, this is arbitrary right now and is not what a court of law would do in a similar circumstance. Longstanding text that has been there for ages should not be stripped away at the whim of one person ... I will be happy to start a discussion if the text can be restored, locked, and left in place for the duration of the discussion and then action taken that is fair and equitable to all parties involved, not just one which is what it is now.

If Misplaced Pages is about fairness then that is the correct way to go ...Texan44 (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Texan44: I will not protect the article. I am discussing with the last editor to remove it whether he agrees with restoring it. Just start the discussion already, and don't worry so much about how the article appears for now. —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)