Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ShortJason (talk | contribs) at 20:30, 1 September 2006 (→harrassment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Domestique

Sorry, I'm on wikibreak and didn't notice this earlier, but any chance you can review your decision on Talk:Cycling domestique? I created a dab page at Domestic to fulfill the wishes of the anonymous user and the comments by User:Vegaswikian seem to indicate that s/he didn't pay attention, as s/he calls for the creation of the article I wanted to be renamed. Even though there are other uses for domestique (it's French for domestic after all), I still don't see a compelling reason to not reserve the term for its most common use. (Wikitionary agrees) Thanks. ~ trialsanderrors 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) is a pretty longstanding editor here (longer than me at least) so I'm loath to disregard his/her input. If you want to discuss the matter further with him/her, feel free, but the lack of support for this move is pretty clear from my bipartisan POV. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on his/her talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 18:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

ESS & Bishop-Cannings theorem merge

hey Trialsanderrors, I think we already had a discussion, but I can't find it. I was wondering if you wanted to convince me to make the effort to merge, at Evolutionarily stable strategy#Merge Bishop-Cannings theorem? Pete.Hurd 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom Hess

Thanks for the heads up. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dave Matthews Band tours

Hi, I, personally, don't see using a fan site as a source for things like this as a problem, since there's no POV involved, it's just dates and song lengths. I believe the majority of people who participated in the afd agree since no one else brought it up. If you disagree, you could use the {{fact}} template on parts you think need better citations (or just remove them, I think the article is crufty enough as it is), or tag the whole thing as unreferenced. Thanks. - Bobet 09:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks so much for voting, Trialsanderrors!Thanks so much for your support vote on my request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future! —Mets501 (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, change it back

There's more than one famous Tim Cain in the world. See http://www.timcain.com/ -- Solberg 06:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have a WP article though. As soon as he has one, turning it back to a dab page is no problem. ~ trialsanderrors 06:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It'll probably happen sooner or later-- Sons of Champlin is pretty famous from what I know. I'd rather set up a disambig page now then force some ugly monstrosity like this: Jason Anderson later. -- Solberg 07:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg

I don't see the Tim Cain connection, but if you want you can turn the Tim Cain article into a stub for the author and add dab headers to both. If it's only two Tims, we still don't need a dab page. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation and bodybuilding

Hi, I didn't notice there was an AFD going on about the article, but I still don't think it'd deserve to stay. Even if it made any sense, it would still be OR, since it had nothing to do with the google scholar search results. The only votes in the AFD were to speedy. I think WP:SNOW applies here. - ulayiti (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Samurai copyvios

If you think other articles are copyright violations, you should mark them with the {{copyvio}} tag and follow the copyright problems process. I wouldn't use AfD, unless you feel the articles should be deleted even if they WEREN'T copyright violations. However, I can't just go deleting a bunch of articles based on what you said. That's the thing that sucks about people making a mess on WP.. it takes a lot of effort to clean it up. Mangojuice 05:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I that wasn't really my thrust. I left a note on the editor's talk page. Let's see how he responds. ~ trialsanderrors 05:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Verification of Creation

I am indeed very sorry to bother you, but I was wondering how one is to verify to others that they have created a certain article that is deserving of their credit. This certain article is Basilisk: The Kouga Ninja Scrolls, in which I at one time created a article named "Basilisk Kouga Ninpu Chou" which was the japanese name for the anime. However, someone copyed the information that I wrote from my article and pasted it within the Kouga Ninja Scrolls article making it appear that the creator of Ninja Scrolls wrote my information. Now I was wondering if there is any specific way I can show that I created it, such as saying "information listed below written by: Darin Fidika". The formation of the article is very similiar to my other articles that I have created such as Mystic Heroes and Otogi 2: Immortal Warriors. I thank you deeply if you could assist me in my cause.

-Darin Fidika

If the article was deleted (which it seems) you might want to request a "history only" undeletion at WP:DRV and make sure the history gets merged into the new article. ~ trialsanderrors 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for your vote

Firstly I wish to thank you for your comments in my RfA. I would like to point out some points regarding my statement in AfD. I am aware of this policy where Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, according to this essay, it is stated that There is no official policy on notability. There is no absolute rule about this and this is very subjective as well. Moreover, looking at the sub-section 8 of Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, it does not explicitly refer to the above-mentioned article. The article in question does not belong to the seven points under the sub-section. The article is not a travel guide, instruction manual or Internet guide. Anyway, I wish to thank you for your vote. Good luck for the future! --Siva1979 09:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for noticing. Second, while I somewhat agree on the weak connection between WP:NOT and WP:N, at least 50% of AfD's these days are decided over editors' assessments of notability. So while it is perfectly ok to use this argument as a voting editor, I would have a problem with an administrator who uses it to close AfD's. Third, the list-of-seven under WP:NOT is not exhaustive. It allows editors to form their own opinions on what articles are indiscriminate collections of information. ~ trialsanderrors 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Theta Beta Potata Deletion Review

T&R, i'm not sure if an a section on the punk house article would make much sense. There aren't any other houses that have their own sections so why should this one? Instead It would make more sense to have this article stand on its own. There are numerous news articles written about the Theta Beta Potata and the list of bands which played there is both pretty long and also includes many notable bands. This is makes the article notable because this was just a house in iowa/wisconsin and not some big-name venue. Granted this is not the only house venue of its kind but what else does a venue/punk house need to assert to claim notablility? Xsxex 17:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, first, the deletion review is usually there to discuss whether the closing administrator made a mistake. If there wasn't a mistake the closure will usually be confirmed, and in this case I see no reason why it shouldn't. Most editors opted for delete. If you think there should still be an article you can simply rewrite it, but make sure it is not just a copy of the old one, or it will get speedily deleted per WP:CSD. Also, if you want to write an article on it, you should first look for news sources (see WP:RS) that covered TBP, rather than write down your own experiences (see WP:NOR). I looked around and couldn't find any news sources, so I'm fairly certain any article on the house would get deleted again. That's why I suggested you write more in the Punk house article, but maybe you have access to news articles I don't know of. ~ trialsanderrors 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I did write an in depth article with a number of news sources from magazines and from periodicals. However this article was deleted by a an user unknown to me. I have now written this article 3 times and I dont feel like re-writing it for it only to be deleted. If I really should re-write it I will (and I'll remember to save the article on my own computer just in case this time) as for articles check out: , , , , , , etc.. etc.. Xsxex

Of those I'd say the Daily Iowan and Iowa State Daily article come closest to WP:RS, but the Iowa State is merely a passing mention and I can't access the Daily Iowan. More importantly, are you contesting a speedy delete that happened after the AfD? Often articles that have gone through an AfD are speedily deleted as reposts (same content), even though they are actually rewrites (new content on same subject). In that case you should point it out in the DRV and administrators can confirm that it wasn't merely a repost. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review sockpuppet question

A deletion review doesn't quite seem like the place to discuss whether or not I've had another accounts but, yeah, I've had more than one account, though I've never used them to support or even interact with each other and so I don't believe I violate the sockpuppet policy. Love, Coyote (t) 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This wasn't a sock question. There are legitimate reasons to switch accounts, but it's generally considered good behavior to disclose it. ~ trialsanderrors 23:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Love, Coyote (t) 13:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Breut Disparu.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Breut Disparu.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I included it in the Françoiz Breut article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Tinney drv

Thanks for the heads up. I think I'll just let others decide this one. She seemed pretty danged obscure to me at the time but maybe others know better. Cheers. --Fang Aili 02:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RfA/Consumed Crustacean

Thanks for the support. It passed, and I've become an administrator. Now I can deal with all sorts of uninteresting administrator chores. Yahoo. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Teke's RfA thanks

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Misplaced Pages in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Justin Bonomo

In that article's current AFD, you would suggest that you would consider changing your vote if the article were sourced. Please note I have now attempted to source it, there are many more potential sources to be used in both the first AFD and the deletion review, and that you're welcome to modify the article yourself. Thanks. Grindingteeth 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the Bluff article establishes verifiability in my opinion, which is why I voted overturn in the DRV. I don't see enough evidence for notabiity though, so I will continue to monitor the article and AfD. I noticed there are many sources on Bonomo and "ZeeJustin", but very few can be considered reliable. Thanks for notfying me. ~ trialsanderrors 22:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re : AfD/Julie Costello

Done. :) - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Toeic bridge

Hi,

Weirdly enough (I only know this because I happened across it the other day), WP's guideline for copyvios in article histories is relatively lax, Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations on history pages. Taken together with the assertion of authorship made OTRS, I think the hist. undeletion is fairly safe, even if a little suspicious. If you find definite evidence, though, let me know. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Are you interested in adminship? You'd certainly make an excellent addition to the mop-team!

Well thanks for the trust first. I thought abut giving it another two or three months, as I'm not overly confident it would pass this time around. Unless you're getting tired of running the admin side of DRV alone, in that case we could give it a try. Although for myself I'm currently perfectly content doing the minor chores at DRV and taking care of the stuff that doesn't require admin attention. ~ trialsanderrors 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

DRV things

Hi,

I'm happy to see that you've got comfortable closing those things, because I can use the help. :) One small note, though: you don't need to archive format changes like Date Koji (at least I haven't been doing it), because we only need entries in "Recently Concluded" for matters that are really finished. If someone has trouble figuring out that sort of format change, my guess is that the bottom of the page is the last place they'll look. I also don't archive mistaken questions, by the way, unless they result in some change (administrative or editorial) to an article (redirect, etc.)

As for your other message this morning, I'll send an email about that tonight -- some things are better answered off-wiki. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I partly did it as note to self and in case there's "where is my request?" complaints from editors, you established a pattern I'm not going to try and change it. You want me to remove it? Awaiting your e-mail, trialsanderrors 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Email sent. No need to remove anything: that might provoke cries of "cabal conspiracy" or something! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This might not have gone through. I just e-mailed myself and no dice either. In any case, you can use my login at gmail. That should work. Sorry, ~ trialsanderrors 06:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yipes! Well, if it didn't go through, I think I'll have to rewrite from scratch, as WP doesn't save copies for us, AFAIK. Darn 'pedia! My penchant for the verbose had produced quite a long one too. :( Best wishes, Xoloz 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Great Lakes Myth Society

Hi trialsanderrors. The AMG page that Bobet referred to said that they had two albums under the name "The Original Brothers and Sisters of Love" (albeit on an obscure indie label), which was pretty much the same band: , and I thought they barely met WP:NMG. When WP:NMG is met only in letter, I usually default to other arguments mentioned in the AfD to ascertain a sense of notability. Aside from the Google test, I didn't see anything either way in the AfD and, as such, I didn't think consensus was achieved. Had Mailer Diablo not already reposted this AfD once already, I would have reposted it.

Incidentally, I'd encourage you to reconsider your decision to defer applying for adminship. I'm very much in agreement with Xoloz that you'd do admirably with the mop, and I think your RfA would have a very good chance of succeeding now -- Samir धर्म 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't sure if the nominator was in favor of keeping, deleting or if it was a procedural nomination. The AMG link is definitely more elucidating than the Google hits discussion in the AfD. On admin, I might reconsider if Xoloz needs an aide with admin tools, but after my Wikibreak I've been trying to do more work in the article space. Of course I always find myself drawn back into WP space... ~ trialsanderrors 09:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

supermayan

Thanks for your note, on what?

Judging by the edit summary, you are "busy too" So what? Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

harrassment

Per this dif, you are a part of it too Keep it up amuse yourselves. Who cares? Cheers,  :) Dlohcierekim 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. ~ trialsanderrors 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Drini and the CVU deletion

You, like so many other Wikipedians, seem to have felt that Drini's actions in the CVU deletion proccess were wholly inappropriate and did not follow policy. As a result, I'm forming an ad-hoc group of sorts composed of people interested in removing Drini. If you'd like to be involved, just drop me a note. ShortJason 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)