Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:16, 27 October 2006

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom and using headings, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: We, wikipedians, dislike fragmented discussions. If you leave a comment for me, I will most likely respond to it in here, in this same page, on my talk page, as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, always feel free to respond to it there, on your talk page. Remember we can use our watchlist to keep track and know when each other respond to each comment. But also feel free to send me an alert in here about a new message on your conversation side, as I might do it as well.

Thank you!

Archives

February 2006-September 2006

Regarding the Term Chlorokinesis on the Sky High page

Chlorokinesis is a Neologism, it's not a real word. The page you recently directed as proof that Chlorokinesis is a real word is currently being re organised (as visible in the Discussion thread there), and chlorokinesis is being changed. Layla never says her power is chlorokinesis, therefore it's not. It is plant control and growth since that is what she shows. That is my reason for reverting your edit. If you have proof it's not a Neologism (and therefore doesn't break Misplaced Pages:Avoid neologisms), then I won't revert it further. Jacobshaven3 12:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Since I can't edit again without breaking the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule, I'll leave it as it is until I can fix this error. Jacobshaven3 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If you feel it is "not a real word," then you ought to remove it from the main article rather than just telling everyone so. Be bold. And for the record, the fact that "she never says it" doesn't mean she is not; if someone has brown hair but never refers to himself or herself as brunette, it doesn't mean he or she is not. Shannernanner 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire section Kinetic Abilities is being revamped, not just chlorokinesis. See here if you wish to help with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacobshaven3 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC).

Sorry about forgetting to sign... Jacobshaven3 13:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of Image:Gabriel damon pd.jpg

Hi - I noticed your query at user talk:Who#Unspecified source for Image:Gabriel damon pd.jpg. The image is clearly tagged as a film screenshot, which means it's fair use only. That's the copyright status. Seems very clear to me regardless of who created it. Please remove the "no source" tag from this image (and you might want to review other such images you've tagged as "no source"). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not inquire as to "the copyright status;" I tagged it as having no source. On the "Upload file" page, the first item listed is "Note: Your file will be deleted unless you provide detailed information on... source of the file." As the template states, "If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added ." Shannernanner 16:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The source is that it's a screenshot from the movie (like it says). I don't understand what you're looking for, something like "I, user Who, created this image using xyz software package as a screenshot from the DVD of the movie at approximately x minutes into scene y"? What conceivable difference does it make? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It makes a difference per Misplaced Pages guidelines. See Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#Adding images. Shannernanner 17:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My view is that declaring something is a screenshot is adequately identifying its source. You seem to not agree with this. How about if we get some more opinions on this? Perhaps at Misplaced Pages talk:Image use policy? I'll start a thread there referring to this conversation. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You may if you want to. The existing guidelines seem to be abundantly clear about this. Shannernanner 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I just wanted to drop by and let you know that I appreciate your persistence in pursuing policy with regard to this image. user:Who is an admin, and has not actively edited in nearly a year. I trust that he was not knowingly violating copyright and was not making false claims about the source of this image. I hope you're not taking my defense of him personally. I think the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Image use policy about whether declaring an image to be a screenshot identifies its source is a useful clarification. With regard to this image, the film is in color, and the alleged screenshot is black and white which certainly looks like an inconsistency. I assure you I'm on the right side in this as well — I just want to make sure Who gets a chance to explain. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand, and am not accusing the user of making false claims; I'm just hoping that a properly licensed and sourced image can be found. Shannernanner 03:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request

You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. For an outcome to be achieved, we require you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. Also, a checkuser has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. Daniel.Bryant 01:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

Reverted edit

I am curious as to why you considered it necessary to revert my edit to Given name, which unlinked the word Hamilton. This link is undesirable for several reasons -- first, it is a link to a disambiguation page, which are discouraged; second, it does not appear to be relevant to the context; third, it is just odd, because Washington and Taylor appear in the same clause yet are not linked. What are your thoughts to the contrary? --Russ (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The disambig link currently contains information regarding the word as a name. If someone creates an article regarding the name, it can easily be disambiguated to such article. Washington and Taylor were not linked as neither of their disambig pages contained information on the words as names. Shannernanner 10:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you look over Billy Ray's article re: his family please?

I'm not any more knowledgable about Miley & Billy Ray than what I research on quick googles. Judging from your edits to Miley, could you delete the items you know to be untrue on Billy Ray Cyrus#Marriage and children please? The cite applies only to the last 2 sentences, and him marrying Tish on 12-28-93. TransUtopian 11:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not horribly knowledgeable on their family, but I do know that the rumor about his second wife being dead originated from Miley Stewart's mother being dead on Hannah Montana. I'll definitely work on that section. Shannernanner 11:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You're a star. Thanks for the edits, and the explanation on the rumor. I've never seen the show, but sometimes I find article facts that I like to source, and then I find more facts at the source. In the process, I learn cool things about people and things I'd never have gotten interested in otherwise. TransUtopian 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I understand, I do the same thing sometimes. :-) Shannernanner 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Checkered Game of Life

Re your proposal to merge The Checkered Game of Life with the Game of Life. IMHO this is flawed proposal. The Checkered Game of Life is a significantly different game from the modern day game. Certainly the two are related and I believe both articles indicate as much. But they are two different encycopedic ideas, both worthy IMHO of their own individual articles. Rob (Talk) 12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: you merge of the article - I accept the merge has gone ahead and don't proposed to change it. But I'm confused by your interpretation of the following paragraph from the wiki merge article "After proposing the merge, place your reasons on the talk page and check back in a couple of weeks for a response. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is a clear agreement after two weeks, that the articles should be merged then go ahead and merge them. If there is no response after four weeks then go ahead and merge the articles." - Did this really occur? The words "if there is clear agreement after two weeks"... what do you take these to mean? I'm not convinced there was clear agreement? You responded to my disagreement on the 8th Oct and then merged on the 13th Oct (since I didn't respond), five or so days later. Did two weeks really elapse between proposal and counter-proposal? Anyway, I'm not intending to start an edit/flame war. My intentions are well meaning and I am sure are yours. Happy edits. Rob (Talk) 09:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The section which you are quoting is referring to the multiple-page merge into one article. The main section, under "How to merge pages," states, "After sufficient time has elapsed to generate consensus or silence (at least 5 days), you may perform the merger or request that someone else do so." As you initiated the discussion on the 8th, I responded, and you didn't for five more days, I went ahead and merged the articles, as I stated (the tag was added on the 6th, so I waited a total of seven days). I'm sorry you feel I somehow neglected your say in the matter, but that was not my intention at all. Shannernanner 10:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel neglected, I just don't believe that consensus was reached. I see your point, thanks for seeing mine. All the best. Rob (Talk) 01:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT?

WHAT EDIT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.143.230.185 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC).

Your edit to the article Hannah Montana. Shannernanner 09:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ok first of all im not some kind of person you can just go on and tell them wat i did was wrong if your talking about editing production section on the HM page i reprted that and said to SOMEON else that it was incorrect information i really dont edit anything else. Please do not comment me after this there are other people who tell me wat i do wrong —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JustSome1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

If you are trying to remove information on an article, or editing an article in any capacity, please provide an edit summary. Shannernanner 02:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Award nominees

Simply wondering as to the possibility that could there be such a category (as opposed to Hugo Award winning works or merely redundant to their corresponding articles (like this: Hugo Award for Best Novel or Best Short Story)? DrWho42 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think that a general category would be fine. There are nominee categories for awards like Academy Award nominees and Golden Globe Award nominees. Shannernanner 10:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Hannah Montana Episode Information

Recently I added some information to the episode pages for Hannah Montana. I noticed that information was removed, I would appreciate it if you would come to my talk page and reply the to heading Hannah Montana Episode Information. Also, if you can think of others who might find this article useful please inform them of it or let me know where to link to it.

Thanks for your time > Brandonrc 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rocko's Modern Life

Thank you for all the work on the Rocko's Modern Life articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlk89 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

How kind. Thank you. :-) Shannernanner 23:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Eye color

Good work in Eye color. I'm wondering how to supply a citation to the sentence: "Elizabeth Taylor's physical trademark is her 'violet' eyes." Everyone seems to "know" that Taylor's eyes are violet, but they certainly look blue in every photo I've seen of her. Any thoughts? -AED 00:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Here's a page on snopes.com (the urban legends site) which discusses her eye color; it couldn't be used as a reference, of course, but it is interesting. As for a straight reference, here's a New York Times article which mentions them. Shannernanner 10:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for recommending Category: Midget and Dwarf Actors for renaming; I had started a discussion with the category's creator about changing it, but let the ball drop. And as an infrequent Wikipedian, I completely forgot about RfDs. Jjacobsmeyer 03:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Shannernanner 03:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn

Please stop making ridiculous edits on the Audrey Hepburn page. There is no such film as "We will all go to Monte Carlo" - it's merely a poor translation of the French title and no such film ever existed except on the pages of IMDb. Are you now going to go to the Jean-Luc Godard page and change the titles of all his films into English? I don't think you know much about Audrey Hepburn and especially not about her early career. In fact the whole section on her early career is riddled with errors and bad chronologies, not to mention wild speculations. Audreyfan

Please be civil. On the English Misplaced Pages, English is preferred when an English title is given. When one is not, the English translation should be placed next to the title in parentheses. Shannernanner 13:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Help With Permanent Links Archive Method

I was having trouble figuring out how to put my links into a Temlpate:Archive box, so I went to Recent Pages and clicked on the first user who uses the archive template. Any chance you can help me out, as I can't get it to work right. ^_^; -WarthogDemon 04:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. :-) Just enter: {{Archive box|]}} at the top of your talk page. Let me know if you need any more help. Shannernanner 05:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found it, and have tried putting it but it seems no matter what I do, I always get {{{1}}}. I'm sure it's a simple thing I'm overlooking but I've no idea what. O.o -WarthogDemon 06:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I copied what I typed exactly to make sure I had it right, and it created the box with the correct parameters. If you don't mind, I'll try the box on your page, just to see if I can figure out what the problem is. Shannernanner 12:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added the box, and it seems to be working. To create the archive, copy the contents of your talk page to the red link in the archive box (you can also add the header {{talkarchive}} to the destination page). You can pipe the link to the dates which you archived if you wish. Hope that helps. :-) Again, let me know if you need any more help. Shannernanner 12:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I must be very slow ._.;; no matter what I do (and I think I've tried almost every combination) I can't get my permanent linked archive to show up in the Archives box. And the one time I did, the archive box disappeared. What exactly do I have to type and where, in order to make my permanent linked archive on my talk page into the Archive Box? O.o -WarthogDemon 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to enter the old id into the box? That won't work, you need to copy the contents to the red-linked subpage (it's User talk:WarthogDemon/Archive1). Shannernanner 04:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I should move the talk page to a new page, THEN permalink? O.o -WarthogDemon 04:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you've got it. Shannernanner 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Any way to do that without having to copy/paste? I just tried moving it now and it ended up moving everything BUT the archived page. I was hoping to avoid copy/paste so it can't be vandalized or messed with. -WarthogDemon 05:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Decided To Use A Bot

I decided to use User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto rather than risk muddling my page up more. ^_^;;; Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for all the help. :) -WarthogDemon 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, it was no problem. :-) Shannernanner 07:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

School Year Tags

Shannernanner, once again you're removing content from a page (List_of_Gilmore_Girls_episodes) that you, and you alone deem inappropriate. I actually was not the person that added the descriptions of "Rory's freshman year at Yale.", "Rory's sophomore year at Yale.", etc. to the Gilmore Girls Episode list in the first place, but I do find them useful, so I added them back. Now you've seen the changes, deemed them inappropriate, and reverted them. Please explain your rationale (most likely some sort of Misplaced Pages policy, which you're extremely well versed in). As you've most likely surmised, I'm of the opinion that more is better -- Misplaced Pages is an electronic medium and it doesn't hurt to provide some extra information. I suspect you come from the minimalist camp -- more is distracting, and a page should only contain the minimal amount of content. I would hope we could reach a happy medium, but I suspect that you'll win out since you're continually editing on Misplaced Pages and I'm only a periodic visitor. Alchemistmatt 07:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you concluded all of that about me from one edit; I removed the information because the episode list is meant to list the episodes, as well as there are both the Gilmore Girls and Rory Gilmore articles which could better contain such information, especially the latter, as it could explain the extenuating circumstances which cause her to not actually be in one full grade each year, all year. As well, it implies to a degree to one not familiar with the series that it revolves solely around Rory, as no details are given about other characters. Shannernanner 14:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiro's

Just curious, before you went on the merging and relinking spree, did you aat all notice the title discussion on the Talk Page???? EnsRedShirt 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The correct title is "Hiro's." Shannernanner 08:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility what?

YOu left a civility warning on my page, but left no clue about what it may be in regard to. given that I've been quite civil, I've got no clue what it's about, and suggest you either clarify or revert. Thank you. ThuranX 20:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Diff, policy. Shannernanner 20:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Audrey Hepburn. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Irpen 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Your refusal to engage into a civil discussion at talk page and preference to revert warring speaks poorly about your willingless to work with other editors towards consensus.

Now that you finally started to use talk, I will continue it there. --Irpen 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert three times within 24 hours, nor did I "refuse to engage in a civil discussion on the talk page." I placed comments on the talk page as soon as it was requested, and was not in any way uncivil. Shannernanner 00:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You were clearly revert warring at Audrey Hepburn producing 5 reverts within 2.5 days:

• 14:08, October 26, 2006
• 18:14, October 25, 2006
• 13:58, October 25, 2006

• 12:38, October 23, 2006
• 04:26, October 23, 2006

Of which 3 latest ones where within 24 hours +10 mins. 10 minutes make little difference as 3 RR is not an entitlement or a quota. Giving preference to revert wars in favor of discussions is disruptive and may lead to blocks even while the editor stays technically under 3RR rule.

At the same time your accusing me of revert warring (I did make 3 reverts for that article as well) is like Pot calling the kettle black. It would probably a better idea if I added an explanation to a talk in addition to edit summaries, which I thought were self-explanatory, even though I also did not technically break the 3RR. But in any case you were in no way in a position to leave standard revert-warring warnings to other editors if you yourself were clearly revert warring. Having said that, I am glad the talk page discussion started that will hopefully resolve the differences. I will respond there on the disagreement itself. --Irpen 01:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)