Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cumulus Clouds

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MichaelQSchmidt (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 19 January 2008 (→Your violation of the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule....: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:04, 19 January 2008 by MichaelQSchmidt (talk | contribs) (→Your violation of the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule....: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Archive box collapsible


Daniel_Geduld

Re: WP:ANI

I wanted to alert you to edits I made to ANI concerning other vandals and socks that have been uncovered as part of Rubber cat's block. If you believe I have made a mistake, please let me know on my talk page. Thank you for all your help with this! Cumulus Clouds 07:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of being careful and having an impartial block be placed I would prefer not to use my administrator tools any further in this incident. If the user accounts are vandalising, list them at WP:AIV and they'll be blocked (linking to the ANI discussion might not be a bad idea), and if it's ambiguous discussion can take place on ANI and we'll take it from the consensus there. Cheers, Daniel 07:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

user page?

Sorry I did not realize that the user pages are treated the same as encyclopedia pages, considering the type of utter nonsense many of them have, and it was not a personal attack either. Although if it was the owner of that page who was dismayed by my edit I suppose I must respect that, but if they didn't mind I don't see what the harm was —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32000BTUGasGrill (talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Heads up

FYAD invasion isn't over, keep an eye on that thread. They're pretty mad at you :hifive: Jtrainor 00:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Cumulus clouds, You should block yourself from editing cause you vandalized me when I just put an external link about Kircher case in the section "external links" of Kircher case. I did a perfect and minimal edit, useful and respectful of all rules. You vandalized.

Cumulus cloud, you should respond of your disruptive and genuinely anal retentive action. Do you know a cumulus of what you are pouring on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.191.107 (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent job you're doing, Cumulus Clouds, in helping to keep the Meredith Kercher article accurate, concise and respectful. Isometimesthink (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a fake website!!!!!!

The link just didn't work. I have removed the Republican comments on the Pompeo article until I find another source, which will be shortly!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.73.103.253 (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

But I am the one who put it there in the first place. My source is invalid and I am trying to find another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.73.103.253 (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

my images

Cumulus clouds,please explain why I can't upload images while there are more than one of the same source(E.g.a lab and a different lab).Also,I use the images for my userboxes.Please explain.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Dov Charney

Why was Dov Charney's family background taken out? I still believe that a scanned advertise supports the argument and pictures taken of him while at his work supports the statement but I do comprehend the source of your arguement. But his family background, which was supplied with solid published source, should not have been taken out. Onjections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.128.130 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Benjamin.jpg

Hi. Image:Benjamin.jpg isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. The debate at WP:IFD will take care of it soon. (By the way, to the best of my understanding, the A-series of criteria only apply to articles, the I-series being used instead for images and media.) IceKarmaॐ 08:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Handbra

You reverted my edits claiming that "synthesis claim is false, see AfD. Restore source that provides clear example of use of term. Deleting sources to "support" a claim of non-notability is not legitimate." The same can be said for adding irrelevant sources and deleting those tags. Consensus on the AfD recognizes both the invalidty of those sources and the use of synthesis in the "modern prevalence" section. If you remove those tags or reinsert those references again I will report you to an administrator. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Your abuse of policy to insert a knowingly false claim of "synthesis" has been removed and will be removed again if reinserted. The use of the term "handbra" couldn't be any clearer in the sources provided. You are entitled to push your baseless nonsense at AfD. However, continued efforts to delete material that further support the claim of notability you blindly ignore are only further evidence of bad faith, and will be treated as vandalism in the future. Your bullying and threats will accomplish nothing. I must admit that I did enjoy your rather arrogant and presumptuous claim of "Consensus on the AfD recognizes both the invalidty of those sources and the use of synthesis in the 'modern prevalence' section" as the AfD has not concluded and you are in a rather small clique pushing for deletion. If you are going to follow through with your threats, I suggest you get started immediately finding an admin who will listen to your whining. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You are the only one who is promoting the view that those sources conform to WP:V. I don't know what imaginary consensus you're basing your judgement on, but if you actually read the AfD, you will see where you are in error. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Your latest vandalism has been reverted. Feel free to push your crap at AfD. Leave the article to those with a genuine good faith interest in improving the article. Removing sources that clearly support the claim of notability while denying that there are sources at the AfD is teh height of hypocrisy. Alansohn (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you revert this article again I will report you for WP:3RR. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning

Since there seems to be some confusion, here are the details of your recent WP:3RR violation:

Handbra

Misplaced Pages won't die if handbra stays on, but the 3rr can get you blocked and violations tends to piss off other editors. Not that I can criticize, 'cause my block log has two-3rr blocks and I've been guilty of over-arguing AFDs before. It's up to the closing admin to determine if the page is deleted or not, and everyone on the page is now arguing in circles. What I'm trying to say is, stay cool 'cause blocks suck and the poor closing admin has to read the entire page. My unsolicited advice for the day. WLU (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd venture that you're both shouting now (as am I). People have made their points and are sticking to them, and no matter how many times we repeat the same argument, somehow the other side is never convinced. It's hard not to get sucked in during AFD debates, and this one is tricky 'cause it's on the borderline of a half-dozen different policies and guidelines. It's almost notable, not quite a dictionary definiton, definitely a neologism, reliably sourced to non-discussions and must synthesize all of the sources in order to say anything. It's like dancing with Frankenstein. My guess is it'll survive the AFD and spend its life in the shadows of wikipedia. Meh, what can you do? WLU (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You ever looked into the meta section to see if you're a deletionist? You're preaching to the choir sir, the choir. Unfortunately, over the long term it's better for your wikihealth to fight hard for the AFD then let it go afterwards. Ideally during. I agree the page is BS and shouldn't be on wiki (though I also like looking at breasts, so I'm a bit torn), but since I'm not the boss of wikipedia, I've learned to let it go. You kinda have to, or you get too frustrated. WLU (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Seattle Press

Last I checked it was defunct... they do have an archive site up, but AFAIK it's not publishing again. --Lukobe 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:) I do miss that paper! --Lukobe 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Up to you really--you might write a stub article on it! --Lukobe 05:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dup cites

Hi, how do you use a cite that has already been used? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

admin?

If your are an Adminsterator an you delete Baby2heads3.jpg?

I goi to uploada better picture for my signature.100px¤~IslaamMaged126 14:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

George Washington Bridge

Left a couple of content issues on its Talk page, which should be resolved before the article is ready for copy-edit. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi CC: I left you some suggestions on the article's peer review page; good luck getting it to GA! MeegsC | Talk 09:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Westland Mall Shooting

I did explain my problem with it here. KV(Talk) 20:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Edits

I like them. Thanks for taking the time to do all the fact requesting on the Washington State Cougars article. Ive realized that theres a whole lot of unessential information that some people put on Misplaced Pages without citations. People should at least cite where the information when they use it, and you did a good job at cutting out the crap and asking for sources. I appreciate it a lot!

The Minor Barnstar
This is for making people be accountable for what they write --DerRichter (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Call reassurance logo

I changed the copyright tag on the following logo and removed the notice. Please let me know if this is insufficient. Owner (Database Systems Corp.) allows free use of this logo. Thanks! Call-reassurance logo - pgillman (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Old Executive Building fire removal

A discussion has started on the talk page of the Talk:Old Executive Office Building page challenging your removal of the segment relating to the fire there today. I disagree with the removal and was tempted to revert you, but I decided to wait until I hear what you have to say.--CastAStone/ 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thestationx1 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)can you be more specific on which part of my article is against the csd?, thanksThestationx1 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thestationx1 (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)ok thanks, just getting to grips with wikipedia, i'm going to try writing about other things now then and see if i can get it sorted. also, for your info, i am not affiliated with the band, but now i realise i have not done myself any favours by choosing the name - oh well, you live and learn, thanksThestationx1 (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Thestationx1 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)thanks a lot, but i have decided to give up, i want to be a writer not a programmer, I was going to try and use this site to write about things that interest me, but i can see it's not going to happen, thanks for your helpThestationx1 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Removal of Trivia tag from Paris Hilton article

Re Paris Trivia removal: I have carefully studied the WP:BLP and do not feel the information you removed was in violation. SomeSlasher has returned some of it, now placed within a proper section of "Paris in popular culture", subsection "Effects in the arts", sub-sub section "Popular parodies", presented in an organized manner, and with verifiable citations. I believe these factual informations should stay, as they are now per WP:BLP a Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiable, and contain No original research . Thanks, AnotherSearcher (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with SomeSlasher and user:AnotherSearcher, and politely disagree with you about your removing some interesting and cogent facts from the article. To quote directly from Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections: "What this guideline is not: There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. - Some information is better presented in a list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information. - This guideline does not attempt to address the issue of what information should be included in articles — it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." So... you removed information that should have been left in... information that although poorly presented, was better being presented than not at all. More interesting, you tagged as "Trivia" informations that had already been properly handled as per Misplaced Pages:Handling trivia and which had been moved to a section titled "In popular culture". I agree with CelebPress that the tag you placed on the article should be removed. And I agree with the others that the information you removed should be returned. That one or another of us thinks information to be trivial, does not make it so. And to repeat "...This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all...(Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections)" L.L.King (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading the Paris article, I find that much of the information is not noteworthy. However, would it be better tif I take the informations presented under the "In popular culture" heading and combine it into a more succinct and readable form... a few paragraphs that can be better included in another section? I am willing to do the work if you feel it would be helpful. If yes, which section might best be used? L.L.King (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this....? Adding it to "Personal life" as "Contoversy" just after "Driving convictions"? Here's my idea.....

-removed-

I would appreciate any feedback you may have. Thank you, L.L.King (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

W00t

Please stop blanking the page. At this point, you are fighting the current consensus as to whether the page should be retained and improved upon. Create a new AfD if you still have problems with this article, but at this point it is not proper to unilaterally take matters into your own hands. Thanks! --Roehl Sybing (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:MichaelQSchmidt

ROFLMAO! Sometimes I guess I'm too gullible, though I claim defence of not knowing anything about the nuttiness of the situation until you wrote your blurb.  ;) Kelvinc (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I removed some of your tags from said article. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I suggest you stop trying to threaten everyone to get your way. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)

I have nominated this page at AFD. Since you prodded the article, you may want to put in your opinion here. Thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A response to your comments are on my talk page — BQZip01 —  21:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

apologies....

I am sorry for any actions of mine that caused you grief. Anything I said about you or your editing habits was only a voicing of opinion. And no matter how reaches an opinion, opinion has no place on Wiki. My behavior was intemperate and wrong. I apologize. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your violation of the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule....

Deleting comments because you do not like them, does not make them go away, and reflects badly back on yourself. Any who read the history of this page will see my comments, my examples and your immediate deletion of same. Your removal of such as a violation of one of the most sacrosanct wiki guidelines... the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule. I've been doing my reading.

My friends and associates Tom Arnold, John Goodman, Dan Akroyd, Jack Black, and Patton Oswalt all have filmology and television projects listed in their artcles, despite that the information is also on IMDB. Per Wiki guideline, it adds to the informative and factual quality of their articles and acts to further the readers

understanding. Misplaced Pages requires that ALL information in articles be properly sourced to places outside of Wiki, just as were the filmologies you removed. If everyone followed your example in removing anything on Wiki that was sourced outside of Wiki, Wiki would not exist. What you are doing is an agregious affront that is totally outside the guidelines and protocols that are meant to keep Wiki running.

I ask one final time, that you reflect the editorial policies of Misplaced Pages in this instance and return the informations you removed from the article about me. The information was proper. The information was sourced. And it was informative.. all the things Misplaced Pages stives to be. I believe your removal is not keeping good faith with the spirit of Misplaced Pages... and is yet another attempt to de-construct the atrticle to make it as non-notable as you keep wanting it to be. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)