Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikidudeman (talk | contribs) at 11:54, 28 February 2007 (→Explanation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1

  The five pillars of Misplaced Pages

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

File:Crystal Clear app kate.png   Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

Possible copyright violations

Please take a look at these articles. The images feature in them may not fit the criteria of fair use...

• Jay Cutler (bodybuilder)
• Ronnie Coleman
• Craig Titus
• Shawn Ray
• Lee Haney
• Lee Priest
• Markus Rühl
• Gunter Schlierkamp
• Alexander Fedorov
• Kevin Levrone

Wikidudeman 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of copyrighted magazine covers to illustrate an article about the person depicted on the cover is against our policy on unfree content usage, as is directly addressed by item #7 of Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Counterexample. Some of the articles contained one line like "John Smith appeared i a lot of magazine covers, including Magazine BodySmither". This is of no help, as this line is obviously a piece of irrelevant information used to try to justify the used of an unfree image (and even if this line was relevant, it doensn't need an image to convey it's information).

Thanks for the note. Feel free to remove any such images you find. --Abu badali 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well.Wikidudeman 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. When you find "fair use" images that violate counterexample 8, please be sure to tag them with {{subst:rfu}} (for images uploaded before July 13, 2006) or {{subst:rfu2}} (for more recent uploads). This marks them for speedy deletion and sorts them into categories by date. Thanks! —Angr 13:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's very difficult. Don't I have to mention them on the WP:PUI page also? There are literally dozens of them on the Bodybuilder pages.Wikidudeman 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use or not?

Do you think this image should be fair use? If not then please help me get it removed. Image:EdwardFace.jpgWikidudeman 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The image is already tagged as replaceable. I would say there's no chance the admin closing the case (by January 20) wouldn't delete the image. It's a clear and typical violation of WP:FUC#1 and WP:FUC#Counterexamples#8. Good work. --Abu badali 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I tagged about 25 of them last night.Wikidudeman 11:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Great job! --Abu badali 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone just reverted your deletion of that John Edward image.Wikidudeman 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. The editor seems to be convinced (in good faith) that that image is acceptable in Misplaced Pages. But as I said, that image is going to be deleted by the admin reviewing that tagging. I don't think it's worth to war for removing the image from the article right now. --Abu badali 15:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What about this image?Image:John Edward on stage.jpg. Does it fit the fair use criteria? I see it's been tagged by someone as having no copyright information. Will it be removed today?Wikidudeman 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreadlocke

A good rule of thumb on Misplaced Pages is...if someone finds something incivil, then you have to take that as just that. By policy it might not be incivil but policy and perception don't always match up. What I have problems with is that you seem to have made attempts to extend the discussion instead of just saying ok he finds it incivil. Let's move on. Instead, you mentioned him being afraid and all of that stuff and you seemed to exacerbate the situation instead of calming it down. And Dreadlocke did nothing wrong by mentioning Randi on the Edward talk page. Again. Let it go and move on. I would recommend taking a few days off from each other or maybe email Dreadlocke and work it out that way. Try to work with him. Yes you mentioned the forum but maybe he would be more comfortable working it out through a less public medium. Ask him. --Woohookitty 06:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So, If I said I found your accusing me of being uncivil uncivil that would make it so? C'mon. However, You're right about exacerbating the discussion with him about what would qualify or would not qualify as incivility. However concerning the James Randi discussion on the John Edward talk page. What Deadlocke was trying to do was debate James Randi on the Edward talk page. What he was saying about Randi had absolutely nothing to do with the Edward article. I suggested that debating the validity of James Randi's challenge on the Edward article was off topic and we should either take it to the James Randi page(something he didn't want to do) or take it to James Randi's message board and resolve it there. He didn't want to do either. Moreover Deadlocke has been continually removing my posts from his talk page. In the edit summary he claims they are "Abusive" but in reality there aren't. Here was my post that I left on his talk page in relation to a mediation he was supposed to do 3 weeks ago but said he was too sick to do.]

Wikidudeman 10:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have found this with Dreadlocke, in that his reponses almost always accuse editors with differing pints of view to be abusive, rude, uncivil and uses WP:NPA with a startling degree of regularity. Belbo Casaubon 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess "woohookitty" isn't going to address my rebuttal. Yes, It's true that Dreadlocke seems to cry "abuse" anytime someone disagrees with him.Wikidudeman 08:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. Generally though, once I respond on a talk page, I don't always go back to that talk page to see responses. Why? Because most users respond on my talk page when I respond to them on theirs. I know. It's a poor reason but that's why. Anyway.

Just a couple of points. Firstly, I did warn Dreadlocke about removing posts from talk pages. Secondly, I haven't acted on several of his posts to my talk page because I haven't found them valid. I am always very very leery of people who find me their "champion" because honestly, it just doesn't work that way with me. I don't believe in becoming "friends" with people on here with a few exceptions. Why? Because I want to be unbiased. So yes, Dreadlocke has been making a lot of accusations of policy violations on my talk page. But I'm not acting on a lot of them.

This brings me to the current situation on John Edward. I warned both of you on it because you both could've acted better. Dreadlocke should not have removed a part of your notice on his talk page. And frankly, both of you should have just taken a day or more off from each other so you could find a better solution. I didn't see any problem with Dreadlocke discussing Randi as long as it pertains to the article in some way. And from what I saw, it did. And honestly, you should've taken more steps to work with Dreadlocke on Misplaced Pages itself. I have no problem with mentioning 3rd party websites, but some users take that as ignoring the issues. Not saying that you were. But I guarantee you that that's how Dreadlocke took it if you read his posts on my talk page. My warnings were meant to get you too to talk to each other on each other's terms. Dreadlocke thought you were ignoring the issues. You thought that Dreadlocke was talking about a subject that didn't belong on the Edward discussion page. Discussing it for a bit is fine, but at some point, it becomes an argument. And you know. In my 2 years on here, I've learned that nothing good comes out of arguments. You just need to agree to disagree and move on something else. All arguments do is lead to rancor, blocks and arbcom cases. They are not productive. And that's the point I was trying to get through.

I will see if I can get Dreadlocke to be less...I don't even know what the word it. But I'll try. :) --Woohookitty 08:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Explain to me how discussing the validity of James Randi's challenge on the John Edward talk page has any relevance to the John Edward article itself. Secondly, I doubt Dreadlocke ignored my offer to discuss the issue on a message board because he thought I was "evading the issue". If he did then he would of decided to take the discussion to the James Randi page(but he didn't). The only reason he didn't want to discuss the validity of the challenge is because he knows he isn't right. He knows that if we were to bring the discussion to a place where it could be discussed in length, He would not have a leg to stand on. That's why he denied discussing it on the message board. A more open environment that's much easier to navigate than wikipedia.Wikidudeman 08:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It has relevance because Randi's challenges are mentioned in the article. As for Dreadlocke's perceptions, why don't you just ask him if that's what he thought. The impression that I got is that he felt as though you were ignoring the issue. But the best way to find out is just to ask him. That's all I'm asking for. Try to talk to him on his terms and not what you perceive his perceptions to be. --Woohookitty 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's mentioned in the article doesn't mean the details of the challenge itself should be mentioned on that talk page. Only on the talk page of the article about the challenge itself. Dreadlocke thought I was 'ignoring the issue'? Ignoring the issue by asking him to participate in further discussion? Hmm. Wikidudeman 10:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep I think so. In any case, even if that's not the reason, obviously, something about that offer bothers him in some way. As I said, just ask him. Try to work it out. And hopefully he'll do the same thing. That's all I can ask for. --Woohookitty 10:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What bothers him is his lack of any defense for his claims. No, I don't have time to deal with him. Anytime I post on his talk page he erases my post and calls it "abusive". I don't get into discussions with him unless I have to to help improve an article. I don't have time to waste trying to appease him. I'm too busy doing much more important things.Wikidudeman 10:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman I have two friendly observations for you. 1) Respectfully, you may have made a slight tactical error in regards to not wanting to discuss Randi on the John Edward page. Even though I haven't read much on him I'm 95% sure John Edward is probably evading the Randi challenge for the same reasons Sylvia Browne is, he knows he probably can't guess his way through an actual double blind test. If he accuses Randi of being biased, point out that Randi only puts up the cash and designs the test. As I understand it Randi wants neutral scientists running the experiment on readings given to believers. (I may have some of the specifics wrong, but you know what I mean in that he takes steps to show it isn't rigged or bogus.) If Randi himself were less of a prick, people would really have no reason to doubt the challenge. Because he is who he is the nature of the experiment must be explained, because when it is anyone who really thinks they have the "gift" is nuts not to take a shot at a cool million at no cost to themselves. If the person in question knows they are fake, and makes many times more than a million dollars a year they have everything to lose, which I have always found to be the genius of the challenge itself. 2) With User:Dreadlocke as long as you keep your comments about the subject I think most people will understand that User:Dreadlocke is just sensitive as opposed to your victim. Anyone who goes to as much trouble as he/she did to accumulate links to perceived incivility is hoping for you to cross the line even accidentally. A few years ago I would be tempted myself to give a person like that something to complain about, overly sensitive people used to bug me. It's just not very satisfying to give in because that's exactly what they want. As soon as you do something which can be called uncivil they become the victim and get to tell everyone how awful you are. I once tried to step up the niceness when dealing with "victimizer" and I could tell it really pissed them off. I figured because I was being so nice, they knew that there was really no legitimate reason to complain about me victimizing them. In one case a person actually started insulting me who had been complaining about others doing the same to him/her, it may sound sick but it actually felt good. That time, and pretty much every time since, I know that by actually being nice I've ruined somebodies day who was out to ruin mine. 99.9% it's wrong to take pleasure in another's pain, the .1% are the times said sufferer was out to harm you and you stop that by being nice. You may feel like a tool at first, but it does pay off and almost everybody wins. Sorry this post was so long, Anynobody 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Give Woohookitty

Woohookitty, Thank you for your observations. However let me address your points. 1. I would of accomplished nothing debating Randi's challenge on that John Edward talk page. Assuming I actually convince Dreadlocke that he is wrong and that the Challenge is legit, What would that accomplish? I can't say on the John Edward page that "Edward refuses to take Randi's challenge because he's a fake" because that would be POV. I could say "Some people accuse Edward of being a fake especially because he won't take the challenge" which I could do right now without even debating the legitimacy of the challenge itself. 2. I don't believe Randi is a "prick". Randi deals with con artists on a daily basis and it's not easy to be nice to people who are conning others out of money. 3.I highly doubt anyone would actually even take the time to read all of the long drawn out arguments between me and Dreadlocke, So I wouldn't be convincing any onlookers. The argument would be on some talk page of a 2nd rate "psychic" and be 'rebuking' dreadlocke would not get me anywhere. That's one of the reasons I asked to take it to a popular message board (Randi's) or to the Randi talk page itself.Wikidudeman 07:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I knew I should have explained the prick comment better. I am a Randi supporter, he does deal with con-artists for a living and it isn't easy to be nice to them usually (which is why I said prick rather than dick). In my opinion he has to play toward Edwards audience if he wants to make a real difference. People like us are the choir, and we really identify with his frustration (at least I do). He puts off a lot of people who believe in Edward just by his "prickish" frustration. Keep in mind we're talking about a person who has as a large portion of his fanbase are 30 to 80+ something suburban women who vote for people because they seem "nice". Facts mean nothing to people like that, and there are a lot of them. (I point to the 2000 and especially the 2004 Presidential elections.) Believe me I understand his and your frustration, it really angers me that some people make a living by exploiting human tragedy and not even provide a useful service. Say what you want about an ambulance chasing lawyer or a mortician, the former is out to get you (and him/her) some money and the latter is looking to provide you a tangible service. Edward, Browne, and the rest just want money regardless of how much they exacerbate a person's sense of loss. The problem is most people don't have a clue that's what's happening, even those who don't believe but ask "what's the harm" see him get short and assume he's a bitter old man out to spoil the magic, so to speak. (A note to women, I don't mean to sound sexist when I point out a large part of Edwards fans are women. I personally have not encountered a lot of men who really enjoy his show.) Anynobody 08:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought woohookitty left that message I addressed.Wikidudeman 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's cool, I didn't mean to come off sounding holier than thou or "adminish". Anynobody 08:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It did seem a bit less "in favor of dreadlocke" than usual so I thought that was odd.Wikidudeman 08:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV reports

Thank you for making a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report them. Thank you. Shadow1 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tabs/notification

I've got Misplaced Pages:Template messages open in another tab on my browser, and am doing a rapid copy/paste between the two windows. --Mhking 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? That must be difficult. I use scripts to add them but I can't find a script to add that specific message.Wikidudeman 21:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It takes a bit to keep up, but no worries....I've pretty well got the hang of it --Mhking 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, you need a program similar to VandalProof to automatically create notifications. Otherwise, you'll need to have the list of template messages open in another window (for rapid cut-n-paste), or modify an existing script to allow posting that notification. You can also give the illusion of posting those notifications at the same time by having multiple edit windows at once. ;) --Sigma 7 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that my page will be deleted, i was just wondering, what was wrong with it? I don't want to make the same mistake twice.

Sorry, the last message was from.

Lara11lara11

Just for the record...

I think claims about having psychic powers are a load of crap. So we're pretty much in agreement. =P It's just really not our place to comment on it in the John Edward article. After all, we're striving for WP:NPOV. Let people believe what they want... doesn't hurt any of us in the slightest. ;) – Lantoka (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use at PUI

Hi. Fair use images don't go to Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images -- we already know that they are unfree. If they fail Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria, tag them with the appropriate speedy deletion criteria or take them to Misplaced Pages:Images for deletion. Jkelly 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks for the advice, I will always remember it. I love this site, it is so helpful to me!

Lara11Lara11

Intelligent design

I undid this edit. Please do not change the spelling within quotations—if something is wrong in a confusing way, insert ‘’ there, otherwise leave them as they are. Also please do not change an article which is in American English spelling to British English. This is generally considered inappropriate and even more so in an article dealing with a phenomenon that is primarily American. Feel free to correct genuine spelling errors, but be tolerant of local varieties of English different from yours. (For the record, I prefer British English, too.) —xyzzy_n 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"unsolveable" is just incorrect spelling. In Britain and in America. "undergirds" isn't even a word.Wikidudeman 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this is what was written in the cited sources and we cannot deviate from them just for the sake of good English. As long as the quotations are intelligible, it is better to leave them literal. —xyzzy_n 06:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Govero

Is this true? Ƶ§œš¹ 07:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Jimbosp1.jpg

User_talk:Mhking#A_question_on_tabs...

An answer by me is waiting you on User talk:Mhking. Happy Editing by Snowolf_CON on 14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar most appreciated. Belbo Casaubon 21:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, thanks from me as well. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One for you

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your consistant, humane, and intelligent contriubutions in general but specifically Talk:Sylvia Browne Anynobody 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is belated, but I've found myself engrossed elsewhere and forgot about Sylvia Browne. I didn't want to put it straight on your User page, but rather let you decide where to put it. Anynobody 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe in psychics?

Simple question. Do you believe in psychics?Wikidudeman 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really a simple question : ) Honestly, I don't believe in pop psychic bull. I personally don't think parapsychology has provided proof of anything either. Evidence of -something- sure. I buy the statistical anomaly business, but don't agree that it is necessarily psychic. I do completely support inquiry into psychic phenomena, however, and haven't ruled out the possibility of it. I don't think the out of hand dismissal by people like Randi has any more merit than the absurd claims of Sylvia. Super-skeptics like him and others I'm not into because they don't seriously think about it. They simply dismiss it.

I support the notion that parapsychology is a failed science but probably for different reasons than you do. I think that some things are outside current experimental research. There's other approaches to study than the experimental approach and those are what I'm interested in personally. Parapsychology is tied mostly to experimental research. I don't think they're going to get very far with that.

All that said, my opinions don't matter. If it's a duck, and most of the scientists call it a duck, you say duck. The super-skeptics are just as fringe as the drank-the-kool-aid-believers and most scientists are somewhere in the middle.

--Nealparr 09:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply asking for your opinions to determine why you're supporting the bias parapsychology article. Anyone can see it's bias except for the people who have an inherent belief in it. So It's curious you defend it so staunchly. Even going as far as saying the article doesn't need a NPOV dispute tag is very disturbing.Wikidudeman 09:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the neutrality of the article, which does need work. I'm focused on the one issue of the factual accuracy of it being labeled "scientific" as a term. I completely agree that the NPOV tag is appropriate for now. I asked why it had the Totally Disputed tag, which I feel is not appropriate, especially since we have agreed on some things. Really simple things, like the dates of certain organizations is not in dispute and is factual. It would really help if the Totally Diputed tag was removed and individual NPOV things were tagged instead. Then we can work those out one at a time.

I personally feel I am pretty good at wording things neutrally. Tag something, tell me what it is, and I'll propose a neutral version.

--Nealparr 19:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The "totally disputed" tag needs to stay because both the factual accuracy and the POV is disputed. If you think you can make the article neutral then try and I'll tell you what I think.Wikidudeman 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

Explain..? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, you could start with an explanation of your edit since you haven't on that talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What's this?Wikidudeman 11:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar, it's my first. I really appreciate you taking the time to give one to me! abarry 07:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)