Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Centrx (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 3 December 2006 (→Removing.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Saxo Bank

I noticed your comments on the FXCM wiki page, and I was wondering if you could also evaluate Saxo Bank It seems like they are basically two different companys in the same industry --DrewWiki 05:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Saxo Bank has the same problem with sources and unknown notability, though it is not written like an advertisement. —Centrx→talk • 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Panorama Tools

I have added some sources concerning the notability to Talk:Panorama_Tools#Notability. --Wuz 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also try to add content (see talk page diff and article diff), but it is very annoying when John Spikowski always tries to start some fight. Sorry, I had to revert his new/old/new/old edit in his favourite External link section diff. Is there a chance that someone moderates his edits? I have no problem to contribute under the same conditions. --Einemnet 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason that all three of you seem to be interested only in this article? —Centrx→talk • 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at my contributions and you will see that I am also interested in other articles (also in the German Misplaced Pages) when there is enough time... Only someone disturbs constructive work all the time, and that leads to endless talks like this one. That particular person has a very long list of contributions, please have a look at that, too, and then compare the quality of the edits. And since this is definitely not the first time we try to explain this, please have a closer look at the RFI you recently deleted. It is all explained over and over. Another good read is that section on Wangi's talk page. Next question, please ;-) --Einemnet 02:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And while we are talking here John Spikowski claims some copyright problem he is not able to prove and deletes the link to panotools.org for the n-th time. Can someone please block him? He has a real world copyright problem on his site panotools.info, and that is the reason why the link to his domain is deleted from the Panotools article on Misplaced Pages. He doesn't know the difference between terms like trademark and copyright, copies content wherever he is not stopped and builds a Potemkin village to fake members of his non existent group. The whole panotools community left him but he is not able to accept that. --Einemnet 02:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please block Einemnet from editing here on the Misplaced Pages. His group took the PanoTools groups copyrighted resources to start their group. They violated the Yahoo Groups Terms of Service by using our groups member list and sent a false and deceptive e-mail to our members saying the group has moved. John Spikowski

Centrx, I won't revert his latest destructive edit. This already leads to another little edit fight and I don't want to end on the Lame edit wars page). May I just point you to Durova's final warning. It's not possible to insert all the information that Wuz and I parked on the talk page today into the article with those endless crap over the links. And no, that's no reason to delete the link to panotools.org since it's a valuable resource. John has no interest in creating a good article. --Einemnet 03:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The two authors posting here (Carl & Thomas) were part of a small group of PanoTools members that used our member list, use our group name and advertise they are the new PanoTools group. They have taken the PanoTools archives and wiki. Just look at the page hit counts between wiki versions and you will see that the PanoTools group is the caretaker of the original PanoTools wiki project. They left an establisted group to start another of their own free will. The were never ban or asked to leave.

I have tried to add content here but Thomas and Carl delete, revert or redirect all my contribution. (view history of the Panorama Tools page. John Spikowski

The content on the PanoTools site is property of the PanoTools group members. The NG group has taken these resources without permission.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:John_Spikowski"

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions_in_prior_cases by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All Saints Academy

hey, why was the All Saints page deleted from wikipedia? Me and a few other people from the school had spent a lot of time editing the page with newer information.

This article contains no reliable sources independent of the school. Misplaced Pages is not a directory of schools. —Centrx→talk • 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The 7th Portal

Why was the article for this topic deleted?!?!

If you are referring to Seven sorrows, it was deleted because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, the articles of which must be verifiable in reliable published sources independent of the subject. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what the 'Seven Sorrows' you are speaking of, I am referring to the Stan Lee online comic called "The 7th Portal" -- as can be found here (not the article in question, but an archive of T7P webisodes): http://www.stanleereturns.org/7thportal.php -- which was linked to the Stan Lee article

Responded at Talk:The 7th Portal. —Centrx→talk • 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Afd

Please see this talk page, I've made a suggestion about the template which is worth considering. --SunStar Net 01:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Responded there. —Centrx→talk • 06:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Special Request

Hi, since you're awake, and aware of the background, would it be possible to Sprotect User talk:Scherf ? The IP's are starting to turn up...Doc Tropics 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: It's not actually bad, yet...I'm just anticipating a flood : ) Doc Tropics 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I am familiar with this...? —Centrx→talk • 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're not; I'm losing my mind and my vision at the same time. I was somehow convinced that you placed the tag at the top of Scher's talkpage. I have no idea why...I'm really losing it. Please disregard, I promise I'll get some therapy, or at least some sleep. Doc Tropics 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello- Your Revision Was Appreciated.... Mine Was Blocked!

Recently Gwernol removed my addition of a non DMOZ listing, and ignored my request that DMOZ not be the only listing reference as it has been a CLOSED directory for years riddled with problems or self interested editors.(Misplaced Pages article).

When Gwernol (admin) complained about an alternate refernce which unlike DMOZ had articles, and was NOT advertising site, I corrected the link and discussed it... Updating it to the exact article which was a longer URL. Within mili-seconds I was "Blocked" and Gwernol assumed the worst, and used his advantage as a speed admin to block my correction, frustrating my good efforts... to fix the problem.

It was very upsetting and the site is Misplaced Pages, not GwernolPedia.. he had an ethical obligation to read the changes and notes.. before showing his swiftness at Wiki!

Please review my last change and the link and determin if it was appropriate for Gwernol to not have checked!

Thanks..

Link to history with Gwernol and my corrections

] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.180.170 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Removing.

Hello! Please don't take offense in my saying but, why did you remove my "deception"? I don't mind that it's gone but only if there is some kind of rule saying I shouldn't have it. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and misunderstanding. Cheers! (Could you respond on my talk page, please? Thanks!) —¡Randfan! 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just think you should reply to his/her quary since the rules say that you shouldn't edit smeone's user page unless if you have their consent. 76.188.7.83 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the rules quite well, and that does not apply in this case. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one would like to know the reasoning behind the removal as well. -- AuburnPilot 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of user pages is to facilitate contributions to the encyclopedia. They are not for juvenile practical jokes. —Centrx→talk • 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is John Zachman protected?

I understand that the material was deleted because of copyright violation, but wouldn't it have been simpler, and kinder, to have simply replaced the article with a few words and a pointer to the copied URL, plus references to his book, the Zachman framework, etc. I believe John has quite enough stature in his chosen area of the IT business to be "notable", and this way colleagues and admirers will be free to add material if they wish. Jpaulm 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• The copyvio had been repeatedly re-created over several months.
• The text was an unorganized dump. It was not even clear what the person did, let alone if he was notable.

—Centrx→talk • 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Portmanteau

Thank you for your post! I'm glad someone read my pet-peeve list :) I didn't know the facts behind your first point, and I 100% agree with your second point concerning the wikilink usage. I've never been able to express so academically or clearly the reasons that use of portmanteau should go, so I haven't taken much action, but I think you've said it just right. Any ideas on what wording we can replace it with? -- Renesis (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"combination" or "blend". "Blend" is the right linguistic term (and some portmanteau-fan merged it into that article, which was totally inappropriate, if anything the merge would be the other way around and we would be rid of it), and has a clear meaning, but "combination" still has the right meaning and is also understandable. Also, in some cases no replacement word is necessary; the sentence has sometimes been a mutated cludge just to fit in the favorite word, like "it is a portmanteau word derived from a combination of the words..." and things like this can often be replaced with just a straightforward sentence like "derived from". Also, Misplaced Pages not being a dictionary, it would be quite fine to simply say that "Televangelism is television evangelism". A problem someone related to this is the cluttering of the introduction with pronunciations and etymologies; to correct this, I have been thinking about making a template to include this information. —Centrx→talk • 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)