Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Nobody (talk | contribs) at 16:35, 31 March 2008 (→Did you catch this?: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page! Please be sure to make all posts civil and constructive, as I'll revert anything I deem to be vandalism. Also, let us try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles My Talk Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

References

March 2008 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter

The Germany WikiProject Newsletter Issue II - March 2008
From the editor This is the second issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts. If you think anything should be featured in the next issue, please leave a note at the Newsdesk	Other areas where you can help Assessment requests: Some open Requests for assessment need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watchlist the assessment page. More task forces and subprojects: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a Mainz task force, a Munich subproject and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics: Transportation in Germany German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians) German Democratic Republic Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it). Categorization: Uncategorized Germany stubs need to be categorized
Project news Cities and municipalities task force The task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities is happy to announce that there are now (at least) stub articles for all municipalities of Germany. Now the task force is looking for help in fleshing these out a little bit. The current phase of activity for the task force is to copy in infoboxes from the articles in German Misplaced Pages. If you want to help, even just for a few articles, look at the instructions and links here Article Assessment: There are now way over 26.000 articles tagged as part of our Wikiproject and many still need either an importance or a quality assessment. Also there are many more out there that do need to be tagged like approx 8000 municipalities. If you would like to help take a browse through Articles needing Importance assessment or Articles needing a basic quality assessment.

- Newsletter Bot Talk 15:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, - Newsletter Bot Talk 15:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the updates! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I am the creator of the Alien and Predator Timeline. I hope that the timeline either stays or merges with the Alien and Predator series page. I am going to add you to my friends/helpers list... you may contact me if you don't want your name on the list. But I thank you for participating in the AvP timeline discussion. --Tj999 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to add me and good luck with the AfD! Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out the new article I created: 2012 (film). Hopefully this one doesn't go through too much craziness like the AvP timeline. --Tj999 (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice start, but I urge you to add some additional sources if you can to be safer. I'll do a quick search myself now. UPDATE: Well, I started to do a search, but it appears your article has been redirected. Anyway, if you find more published sources or as the release comes closer, you should be able to challenge the redirect. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I talked with Erik who redirected the page and it just seems like I should keep a eye on the news about 2012 untill production for the film is for sure. It is all good. Thank you for looking at it and all. --Tj999 (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am always happy to help! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So, what times of day are you on wikipedia?--Tj999 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That varies considerably. I don't have any uniform times. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Yeah, I was just wondering. --Tj999 (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to go now. Tommorow I am going to try for a lot of edits to help wikipedia's lower class stuff. --Tj999 (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good night, then! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Help

Thanks for greeting me into Misplaced Pages. I actually do have a few questions. I need to know if it is possible to remove a tag on a page after the page has already been corrected. I also need to know how I can help with removing vandalism done to Misplaced Pages's pages better. Thanks Prepsear (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, if you have fulfilled the concerns for a tag, you may remove the tag. As for vandalism, you can simply remove it or revert the edit. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette

When you bring an article to DRV, as you did here, it is customary to so inform the editor who made the nomination. You should not rely on third parties to do this for you. That is simply good manners. (if you wish to reply, although none is needed, pls do so here.) Eusebeus (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to inform the nominator as the concerns were with others (the three banned accounts) who participated in the discussion, not the nomination itself. The DRV instructions said to inform the admin who closed the discussion, which I of course did. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok pumpkin as long as you are happy with your behaviour and would expect no more from someone toward you, then that's fine. Astonishing how we so rarely can admit our missteps but instead insist upon their being the intended anabasis all along. Eusebeus (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that I wish you would be more apt to admit your "missteps" and not instead tell others how to conduct themselves. If nothing else, I can say with full confidence that all of my edits have been to the benefit of the larger project. The rapid "I don't like it" delete "votes" and nominations I see so often that only turn readers and donors away from Misplaced Pages are another story. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have made plenty - plenty - of mistakes certainly, but you know it's hard work ruining Misplaced Pages for everyone so what do you expect? I might not characterise your edit history quite as you do, but then, as you yourself know full well, you are so much more right about all these things than me, so I'll have to simply se niaiser avec la merde and let you carry on lighting up the world with the brilliant glare of your own righteousness. Eusebeus (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rescued many articles from deletion, created numerous articles, uploaded images, welcomed thousands of new users, helped new users out, and much more. I have never come into conflict with any good faith editor. What I don't do is attempt to get other people's good faith edits deleted just because I don't care for what they're interested in and what they're willing to work on. Why anyone would want to do that baffles me. Even editors with whom I have politely disagreed have been able to work with me elsewhere as evidenced here. Am I perfect? Of course not. Have I ever made errors? Sure. Have I had some growing pains early on. Yes. Have I ever intentionally disrupted the project? Absolutely not. Will I ever? Certainly not. I have sought mentorship and frequently communicate with admins and experienced editors whom I respect for advice. And I have learned and followed suggestions given to me in good faith. I will not, however, support unproductive efforts to diminish an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit whose founder says strives to be the sum total of human knowledge whose First pillar calls a combination of general and special encyclopedias as well as almanacs and which relies on thousands of diverse editors and donors to exist, especially when all that time thrown away voting to delete an article that is not a hoax, personal attack, or copy vio actually could be spent finding sources or improving the article. If you would ever like to work together to improve an article, I am always happy to do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I simply disagree. You have rescued various articles from deletion that should have been and hopefully will be deleted variously as unencyclopedic cruft, hideous recentism, or otherwise unnotable guff. You steadfastly vote keep on practically every topic that comes up without general regard to the merits of the arguments being made. Your tendency to support your position typically amounts to little more than the robotic gainsaying of our policies with reference to your own peculiar reading of one of the pillars. You have a tendency to comment on every single voice that opposes your own, often making the same argument multiple times as if you feel other editors are so vapid and stupid that they cannot read what you have already plastered on the page. And now we have you trying to game the system via AfD to restore horrendously unencyclopedic cruft; yet you cannot even be bothered to inform the nominator - obviously since you know he will oppose your DRV. All bad Pumpkin. And let me say that, whilst I respect many of your efforts, the apparent virtue you derive from the grand inclusionism of your vision is not quite the warm and fuzzy that you think it is; it collapses standards and challenges credibility. As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that I have taken the liberty of correcting your spelling: inproductive does not exist; unproductive is what you were looking for. Your offer is kind, but as you may know, I am not a keen contirbutor of content, having only rarely done so. I prefer the ruining it for everyone part. Eusebeus (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to correct any typos I have. I type rather quickly and sometimes do not catch all of them. I cannot take seriously any use of the non-word "cruft". It is an unencyclopedic word not fit for use in a serious discussion. Considering that I have seen some vote "delete" in multiple AfDs in under a minute, I and many others have a hard time believing that it is humanly possible for the article as well as the discussion to have been read in their entirety so quickly. Attempting to have an article with real world notability and scholarly sources resurrected after an AfD in which multiple socks participated is hardly "gaming the system." Why shouldn't we have a new discussion when in the original MULTIPLE banned accounts participated? As I said, I would have myself argued more had Eyrian not posted immediately after me. He however has been harassing me (as he did others, which is why he is banned in addition to the sockpuppetry) and my mentor admin Chaser suggested I avoid/ignore him as much as possible. Thus, I and others were turned off from the original discussion. As it occurred months ago, a re-look at the article would hardly hurt the project any. Why not have a new AfD then rather than just a restore or the article? I did not contact the nominator, because I saw no need to do so based on the instructions, which said to contact the closer, which I did. I have only once else started a DRV and the impression I had was that we just need to discuss with the closing admin. If I am missing somewhere on here where it says to also notify the nominator, then okay, my bad, but I honestly do not see it. Anyway, I do not care if blogsters or comedians want to mock Misplaced Pages for some of the articles we have. These articles bring in donors and editors who benefit Misplaced Pages in many ways and actually make the project an even more valuable resource than it otherwise could be. I am here to build a comprehensive encyclopedia and to spread as much help and appreciation to anyone else who is also here for that purpose. I really hope you are not serious about wanting to ruin it for everyone. By the way, I may not respond for the next hours not out of a ignoring of you, but I am going to spend some time visiting with my mother. So, have a nice afternoon for now. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

• bows* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Always happy to extend kindness to good faith editors. Happy Editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Help(again)

I'm having trouble uploading images on to my user page and other articles. I was really hoping to add one of those "This user likes this and this" captions with a picture. Sorry if I am being a burden, as this is my second time asking for help. Thanks, Prepsear (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean new images or already established userboxes? To upload images, please see Misplaced Pages:Upload. For userboxes, please see Misplaced Pages:Userboxes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Glad to know there is someone else with good common sense! ChessCreator (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for the compliment! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you catch this?

Smile Foundation of Bali -- User:Bilby really did a great job expanding it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks nice. I just noticed your post on your talk page. Have you heard back from the ArbCom yet? Are they restricting you to one account or sanctioning you? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussions are underway, I expect; I've offered my views and will offer more, as asked. I am sorry about the deception, please accept my apology for any time of yours it cost. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My main concern would be if you used multiple accounts simultaneously in the same AfD or anything, i.e. if anything we closed as consensus but got there illegitimately. I was once blocked indefinitely for having an alternate account, but I never actually used it in a sockpuppet-like fashion to fix any votes or anything as confirmed here (notice no participation in the same AfD or anything like that; plus considering that I have edited several thousand unique pages with this account, the fact that I only overlapped on 28 with my alternate is statistically remarkable) and was ultimately unblocked on the proviso of being restricted to just this account. What helped my cause is that no one had any civility or other concerns with me and even admins pointed out that I made many constructive edits with the alternate account as well. Moreover, the checkuser did not find as many alternates for me as you indicated you had. Anyway, I am only really familiar with your Jack Merridew account. So, if you did use any multiple accounts to sway an AfD one way or the other, I urge you to indicate as much so that a new and more fair discussion could occur. I do not know the whole circumstances involving the other accounts you claimed were yours. So, I'm not sure if you'll also have to contend with civility or other issues to address as it looks from a glance on the AN thread that White Cat and others identified more than just sock accounts being their concerns. I think being honest and apologetic is a step in the right direction. If nothing else, I am happy that we were able to work together constructively and pleasantly on the Smile Foundation article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I never used multiple account that way; they were serial, not simultaneous. And I have always been civil. See the two contribs as User:Note to Cool Cat Special:Contributions/Note to Cool Cat and Special:Contributions/Davenbelle. See also; Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence#Evidence presented by Davenbelle (talk · contribs). I did not know any of your past history, so thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The block log for the Moby Dick account is a bit disconcerting. As White Cat proposed blocking you in the television and episode case, I suppose this revelation could have relevance there. Have you started a thread on ANI or are you just discussing with the arbitrators? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's after midnight here, so I'm just about done. And note that someone may block me for my confession at anytime. No, that block log does not look good, but the characterization of 'No useful contributions' is unwarranted. Really, look and you'll find things that were useful and good. I did tweak the WP:AN statement to strike the word 'not' and word of this is well-known through the mailing lists. I posted my acknowledgment because I felt it appropriate to get it out there before it got posted by someone else. If I am not blocked, I will politely participate in whatever public discussions occur, and, of course, will answer reasonable emails. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are blocked, your best bet of ever returning would be to avoid coming back as a new account, i.e. show the community that you can go without editing Misplaced Pages for some time. Part of the reason I was unblocked and have remained unblocked was because I did not just create a new account after Durova blocked me, but rather sat on the sidelines and email her once someone told me how to do that and I've been back under one account with success for months now. If instead you just create a new sock, it will probably evetually be discovered and it will just make it that much harder for you to come back with the community's respect and support. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew/Allison Sudradjat

Like to help fix-up another article? This was deleted as non-notable and userfied; there are some useful link on the talk page. The idea would be to clean it up and then move it to article space. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)