Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoLeafsGoJedi93 (talk | contribs) at 23:25, 17 August 2005 (Name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• User talk:Zscout370/Archive 1: Zscout370 22:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• User talk:Zscout370/Archive 2: Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• User talk:Zscout370/Archive 3: Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:

Because the user in question is a sockpuppet and a vandal, who has dishonestly added one image (a crest, aka "no-brainer") due to a grudge against its uploader. As for the Castro image, there is a more appropriate place for questions concerning it, and protocol should be followed. See Misplaced Pages:ANI and do a quick ctrl-F for "Coqsportif." Shem 04:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Stiil, just say "keep" the images at IFD and you can say about the image source and also that futher discusion is needed before we can delete the image. And, sure enough, the image will be kept so we can find out what the issues are. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think it wise to encourage disruptive behavior by vandals. He's using Misplaced Pages as a playground for his entertainment currently, backed up by feigned Wikiquette and cheap wiki-lawyering. Shem 04:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have *never* vandalized a single article. Shem throws around angry words for reasons that can be only speculated on. He even insults me with words like wiki-lawyering, which I don't even know. I hope he can get over it. Coqsportif 04:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems like you two have been fighting each other for a while. While I do not know what caused it, nor that I care, I want you two to stop messing with IFD to wage your wars. What I will do is instruct the admins to carefully look at the image, and for you, Shem, to ask for the images to be kept. Then, we will deal with copyright issues and all of the other stuff. Deal? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll not hear this addressed as two users "fighting," or as my being involved in some "war." He's been watched and tracked as a vandal since he joined, and chose to "mess" with IFD as payback against another user. You're coddling a troll here, Zscout; just check his contributions, watch his disruptive wiki-stalking, and don't buy this obvious sockpuppetry. Shem 04:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

That is the solution I am offering to you both so you both might actually work things out. Take my solution and put it into use or leave it. My final offer. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever in "working things out" with an obvious troll. Shem 04:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Then take your fight somewhere else. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Gladly; and please, spare me the patronizing "fight"/"war" rhetoric. Shem 04:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you zscout, I don't want to fight with Shem at all, I avoid him where I can but he follows me around unfortunately :-(. I will go along with your decision about how best to resolve it and hope it can all work out amicably. Shem is angry about something, which is a shame and I will do what I can to mitigate that anger. I think there are several copyright breaches in images I have seen and they should go, it seems that Shem will oppose such moves for the only reason that it is me nominating them. Oh well, perhaps he'll get over it soon. Either way, he will have my best wishes and encouragement as an editor, I respect his contribution and hope he can learn to respect others' contributions too. Coqsportif 04:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to offer a solution to this problem on IFD. Because if one editor objects to the deletion, it was be kept by default. So, we could look at the image and see what can happen. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we please protect Jesse James Garrett too?

We've had a problem with vandalism on Ajax (programming) and Jesse James Garrett all day. Can we please revert to the version with criticism and protect it until some sort of agreement can be reached? Someone is removing both the links and the criticism sections as you'll see from the history. I sincerely appreciate any help you can provide. - Sleepnomore 04:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will protect it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

ZScout370, the protection on both these pages is ridiculous. Look at the edits that you reverted; one of them was an edit of the Jesse James Garrett page by me to remove a quote that Sleepnomore added to the criticism section, a quote that does not exist in the linked article. He has invented a quote, and added it to a section about criticism, all in the name of slandering Mr. Garrett. And now it's impossible to correct this. Likewise, take a look at the talk page of the Jesse James Garrett article, and see that it appears Sleepnomore is alone in his opinion, an opinion that he has reverted back into existence any time someone has dared question it. Please get in touch with me however -- this talk page, the Jesse James Garrett talk page, my own -- to discuss this, but please also unlock the pages; there's no call for it. Jason 20:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition, before taking Sleepnomore's word on supposed vandalism, take a look at what he considered vandalism: history of JJG page. I removed the falsely-attributed quote, made the section concise, and removed a POV link to criticism on Sleepnomore's own website, and he reverted the page and called it vandalism. Can this possibly be tolerated? Jason 20:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hold on a second -- why did you also issue protection for Tobin R. Titus?? Seeing as the page doesn't exist, and that's the real name of the user, Sleepnomore, who has asked you to protect Ajax (programming) and Jesse James Garrett, this smacks of controversy. Is the protection there so that it's impossible for someone to create a page about the controversy that Mr. Titus is causing with his grudge matches here? Please reply to this; I'm curious about the justification of permanently prohibiting the creation of a page about Mr. Titus. Jason 00:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I protected the Titus page because it kept on getting recreated even though it has been deleted. Because of that, I locked the page so that it cannot be created again. Plus, when I looked at both articles that I protected, the section that has been constantly removed is any criticism over the person and the Ajax program. We have to be neutral, we have to have the criticism section. I found out about these problems at the Misplaced Pages IRC channel and it was not brought up by the user who is fighting with you at the said articles. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

When was the Tobin R. Titus article originally deleted, and where is the record of the VfD conversation? He is the author of four books on programming, and is certainly a candidate for an article; I would like to see some discussion of this before the article is protected from being created. As for the other two articles, I am one of the users who specifically edited (not entirely removed) the information of criticism on the Jesse James Garrett article, and the user in question reverted to his own without even a discussion. (And when I edited it, I put clear information about why I did so on the talk page.) Now, the article is locked in a state that contains a falsely-attributed quote -- the first quotation in the Criticism section -- and there's no way to correct that. In addition, the talk page clearly shows that the user who wants the Criticism section is in the minority, but there's nothing the majority can do to fix that. Jason 02:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

It wad deleted via speedy deletion. I played in no part of the deletion, but if an article that keeps on being deleted is recreated, I have to protect it from recreation. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was a mixed vanity/attack page and had been flagged for speedy deletion. If you want it undeleted, submit a request and make your case. --MarkSweep 03:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for unprotecting the page; I have added a divbox banner asking people to try to behave and be rational and careful. I'm hopeful. Jason 02:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

SD Meetup

Hi. I'm interested in a San Diego area meetup. I'm based in Encinitas/Carlesbad. Bovlb 15:09:25, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

• I am in Oceanside right now, was in Vista for a little while. I was thinking about a San Diego meetup, but I think that they decided to head up to LA for a weekend and have a meetup there. But, if the folks from LA want to come down here for a weekend, fine by me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

24SevenOffice

I'm trying to figure out why 24SevenOffice is relevant on Misplaced Pages. The company is a complete unknown in the business. With only 1000 customers, there are pieces of shareware that have more users than that. The consensus was to delete the article. The exception to that was the employee of 24SevenOffice who originally posted the topic who voted to "rewrite". Can you help me understand what reasoning went behind keeping the article? I've tried providing a neutral point of view on this, but its hard since the product really is an uknown in the industry. A google search for his company brings up 2000 articles -- most of which stem from blog posts, forum signatures with url's to his company, and information from Misplaced Pages itself.

The article went through a VfD. Three voters voted to delete it with only the company employee voting to rewrite the article. For some reason User:ABCD decided to keep it. I know wikipedia isn't a democracy, but the only person advocating that this article stay is User:Sleepyhead81.

Additionally, the same employee of 24SevenOffice has spammed his links across several technology articles and competitor pages in an attempt to bolster his position. Its an obvious attempt to market his product. I've fought with User:Sleepyhead81 on this (he is the employee) with no luck in finding common ground. Please feel free to contact him or myself for more information, but I would be very interested in finding out what criteria was used to keep this product page alive. Thanks in advance. - Sleepnomore 15:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

User:ABCD, acting as an admin, has to be careful on what he or she deletes. If, the article could be saved if it sounded like a spam ad, he decided to give it a chance. However, if time passes and no one has made a rewrite to the article and it still does not gain notability, then you can always send it through VFD again. However, if you do that, you must note the first VFD vote and and explain why you want the page to be deleted and also explaining the situation about the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The first VFD was in April, and it was closed with just 3/1 in favor of delete, but others who voted to delete said the article could be rewritten too. So, if you want to place it on VFD, fine by me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This is such crap. The same user, Sleepnomore, that has such a grudge he asked you to lock Ajax (programming) and Jesse James Garrett so that he could fix them in his "unvandalized" (POV) state is now asking you to get involved in a VfD against the user who caused Sleepnomore to actually join here (hence his name, Sleepnomore, a pun on Sleepyhead81). Please don't take the bait. Jason 20:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If he or she wants to put the page up for deletion, then by all means, they can do it. Enough time has passed, and the user thought the program is still not notable, then they can put it up on VFD again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not ask for protection on Ajax. I asked for protection on Jesse James Garrett to protect the article. A user had been deleting both the links and the criticism sections repeatedly. He refused to join the discussion so I was forced to ask for intervention. If we can agree to talk about the issue rather than just having them randomly deleted, I'm fine with asking for Administrator intervention to remove the vprotect. Obviously that only works as long as we can discuss before making sweeping changes. I'm open to opinion on how to make Mr Garretts page more neutral. I'm even fine with removing a criticism section as long as it still describes the other side of the "argument", as it were. - 68.58.169.30 22:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (User:Sleepnomore out of town)

I'm glad to see that you'd be willing to endorse unprotecting the page if people can agree to stop randomly deleting the section. Of course, it's disappointing to me that you didn't agree with this sentiment two days ago, when I did exactly what you now say would be fine (history page showing my version of the page, edited to collapse the "Criticism" section into the preceding paragraph, maintaining the sentiment while removing the falsely-attributed quote and the POV links). At that time, you just plain reverted the page (diff), again calling it "vandalism" when it was no such thing. I even wrote on the talk page (look for the timestamp at 22:08, 13 August 2005 UTC) what I had done and why I had done it, but you called it vandalism and reverted without so much as a discussion. So can we now undelete it and revert to those edits, and use that as a starting point? Jason 22:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

We have to keep them, just incase if either myself, you, or other editors get flagged by someone over some type of Request for Comment. Plus, while I did come over to your side of thinking, I just needed to get the facts right and take a look at most of the stuff myself. Sure, it does take time, but once everyone got calm and got to talking, everything is just fine now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how this sectino got side-tracked into a discussion of Garrett and Ajax, but as a side note, I've received sufficient evidence from Sleepyhead81 that his company's software is regarded by a relevant 3rd-party that it deserves inclusion in Misplaced Pages. I won't be seeking a VfD since the evidence provided speaks for itself. - Sleepnomore 15:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Heraldry

I very much appreciated your work on the article Canadian Heraldic Authority (I awarded you a Barnstar, remember?) I have just nominated the article Heraldry for This week's improvement drive, please vote to get it improved! Oh, by the way, have you seen the changes I made to CHA? I added 9 images! --Mb1000 01:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I will see what I can do to the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mb1000 21:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Eastern European board

Just started at Misplaced Pages:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board. Please take a look and I will post announcements to BE, PL, RU and UA boards. Also, re Belarus, I remember there was an active editor User:rydel. And of course Mikkalai would probably we willing to help. You may contact Rydel about that. Also, please copyedit my announcement for a better English. Cheers, --Irpen 02:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I bookmarked it, and I can see what I can do. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I will probably post announements to the boards tomorrow. Hey, Славяне! --Irpen 02:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

As you can see by my talk page, being an admin changes everything that I do on here. I still want to work on Belarusian articles, but I have now clue how much time will be spent on here doing admin stuff. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No rush. Check you email, BTW! --Irpen 04:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Replied. While I had to change my Misplaced Pages email address to Google since I became an admin, you can go ahead and still use my Hotmail account. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Replied, I think it is close to acceptable anyway, and if you don't have time to take a quick look, I will just announce it around as it is.

Remember, there are plenty of other admins too, so don't worry about not doing all the admin work you would have done if you could. Also, we had an interesting discussion with Sasha about copyrights at talk:History of Kiev. If you would like to share your thoughts there, you are welcome. We are serious about making both Kiev and its history become FA's. It will take time, though. Cheers, --Irpen 16:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I could try to add my say about copyrights, and I think we should have a page of national copyrights so we can place templates there. I could also help on the Kiev article too. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Irpen 23:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vote or die

Hi. From the looks of things the Current Events Barnstar proposal should be voted on, but nothing's happening. What are the necessary steps to take so it can be put to a vote? Is there a help page somewhere? --Kizor 09:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Just set a subheading under the Current Events Barnstar and see if the Barnstar idea is accepted. Then, we can fight over the image. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Unused files

There is a special page for unused files. Some have been unused for years. Could we clear this out without putting any of them on IFD? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I'd be against speedy deleting files from Special:Unusedimages. People should be given one last chance to review these before they get permanently deleted. (Of course, some might be candidates for speedy deletion.) (Also, note that there's no way to tell when an image was last used. Special:Unusedimages is sorted by upload time, not time of last use.) dbenbenn | talk 15:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

False account Deifuego

I assume that nobody's gullible enough to fall for the vandalism done to this page by the new user Deifuego and think that it was me, but I'm throwing it out there to keep the record clear. Jason 01:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

We have had a lot of problems with these types of vandals, called the doppleganger vandal. I blocked the vandal, accordingly. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, I love the name doppleganger vandal. Awesome. Jason 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a problem that is exploiting how text is read and presented on Misplaced Pages. Some others have been using Unicode text to cause problems. But, the vandal only made three edits before I blocked him, so no real damage was done against your repuation. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I came back

Okay, sorry about my attempts to leave. I guess I'm desperate. I am going to give you a Purple Heart to add to your award collection. D. J. Bracey (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (rm Purple Heart)

While I welcome you back to Misplaced Pages, I cannot accept this Purple Heart. Please try to find another award that I could accept, please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

While I welcome you back to Misplaced Pages, I cannot accept this Purple Heart you gave me. Please try to find another award that I could accept, please. My father is in the US military and I knew of several people (including one widow) who were presented this medal. I hope you understand my decision. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I hope I did not offend you. I'll give you a Working Man's barnstar instead.

Happy editing, D. J. Bracey (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not personally offended, but I am just letting you know that in the future, try not to present the Purple Heart as a Wikiaward. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I won't D. J. Bracey (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have also replaced them with WMBs for everybody I put those on except Redwolf24, who had already acknowledged he had it. Thanks for warning me, I should have not been so incoherent about people possibly getting upset. D. J. Bracey (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. If others choose to accept the Purple Heart, then they have the right to do so. But I am encouraging everyone to not award the Purple Heart. However, I will think that people should go to Barnstars, but I do not mind if people award defunct honors, like a Hero of Socialist Labor. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Good evening, Zach. I've seen your great work getting pictures for Gay Nigger Association of America, and I was wondering if I could ask a favour, unless this is too much trouble, I don't know. Some time ago, Misplaced Pages received two new articles, Rami Nuri and Gopal Das, which were related to a small religion called Eckankar. Although I'd never heard of the religion until that day, I strongly defended the articles when they went to VfD. I felt that, if they are important to a notable religion, they are in and of themselves, notable. They survived, just barely. But they didn't look good; unreferenced, filled with questionable material and perhaps with hoaxes/jokes. So I researched, merged them, rewrote them, and referenced them in a new article called ECK master. I also added material, all insanely referenced. It's a notable concept. User:Flowerparty left me a flower on my talk page for this. But I still have some problems: You see, I had to remove two pictures, because there was no copyright information on them. They were from the Eckankar official website. I thought it might look good to have pictures, though, but I can't upload them. I was hoping you could help. Also, other problems: Anons have either reverted the Gopal Das and Rami Nuri redirects back to the articles they were before, which are full of, as I suspect, hoaxes, and just now they tried to merge the questionable material into the new article. Is there any way to protect the redirects? Thanks for reading, CanadianCaesar 04:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can protect the redirects. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the pictures, you can upload them, denoting the source. If there is no copyright information, say so and declare the images as fair use. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. CanadianCaesar 04:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoops

Hey, next time please edit my talk page rather than my main page, otherwise I won't find your message as easily! Scott Ritchie 07:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

i understand how u would assume this is a personal attack however,it was not it wasnt my intention ,i looked up the name of j philippe rushton on the internet and found his bio,read it and decided to do a cross refrence on wikepedia,when i looked on the page i found it odd that the author copied his bio verbatim minus his south african history ,i provied a link, and accomplished two things: a)questioned the authors bias,not on an attack but an authentic question of facts b)provied more insight to mr .rushtons background,if there was any misunderstanding i apologize

Sorry about the Scott, my goof. As for the above, I need to check and see what is going on before I comment. I might have reverted or deleted something in the past, but I need to see what I did. But, apology is accepted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

{{Olympic-stub}} icon removal/addition

I noticed that on 23 May, you removed the flag pic on this stub. I'm presuming you did so because the size reduction on Image:Olympic-rings.png resulted in an unacceptable icon representative. I've uploaded another image, based on that original, to Image:Olympicsicon.gif. Comments? --Durin 16:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Perfect. I still have no clue if stub icons will be used, but I can find that out for you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for your sources

I'm still waiting for your sources. You are reverting my edit and disputing that Leo IX was the most significant of the German popes of the middle ages, yet you have not shown me any sources. If you believe there were other German popes who were more significant, you are the one who needs to prove it. You cannot revert without explanation. That is vandalism. 83.109.138.29 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No, since your introducing POV information about Pope Leo IX being the most important pope of that time period, it should be up to you to provide the information. Plus, I locked it again not because of you, but because of the Palpatine vandals again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to show you a source for a basic fact which you can look up yourself in any standard work on the history of the Catholic Church in the middle ages, or in any encyclopedia. If you are reverting an edit which was made with good intentions (and especially when the same edit has been reverted without explanation by a person who seems to be an anti-papal POV pusher (Jtdirl)), it up to you to provide a relevant reason.

In fact, all other German popes in the middle ages were pretty unsignificant. Only Leo IX is remembered as a pope who had significant impact on the history of the Church, for many reasons, among them the great schism which broke out during his papacy, for his important contributions in defining the role of the pope and for instituting the College of Cardinals.

A short summary can be found here "Between 1046 and 1049, Henry III of Germany had appointed a string of Popes. His last, Pope Leo IX (1049-54), was tremendously significant. A cousin to the Emperor and a bishop in an important reforming German diocese, Leo's major achievements are two.

1. He made strides to reform the government of the Church and make it independent from Roman nobles as well as secular rulers. He set up a body of high Church prelates at Rome to advise him and play the central role in future nomination of Popes. This 'College of Cardinals' he stacked with close reforming colleagues, such as Hildebrand, who had already served as Papal secretary; and Humbert, a leading ideologue of Church reform.

2. Leo initiated a ruthless campaign against clerical corruption in the form of marriage and simony. After a series of synods in Rome that legislated against such abuses, he, like a feudal monarch, traveled throughout Europe, holding court in the major diocese centers. From the spring to fall of 1049, he went throughout Italy, Germany, and France. At Reims in particular, anti-simony and anti-clerical marriage decrees were published, accusations against prelates were heard, and clerics were challenged to swear before the Pope that they had not purchased their offices. Several were deposed, replaced by more reform-oriented clergy. Thus, by the death of Leo's successor in 1057, the leadership of the Papacy as secular-moral judge of the Church was finally firmly established among most clerics."

Here is a Britannica article as well with interesting literature references. 83.109.138.29 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What I did is that I rewrote your statement and made it NPOV: "Coincidentally, April 19 is the feast of St. Leo IX, a German pope and saint who instituted major reforms in the Middle Ages during his papacy." Does this work? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That's fine too, although I don't see anything POV with my version. 83.109.169.195 20:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I just think the phrase "most important" was considered POV. But, I am glad we got this resolved. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Vprotected

Zach, I've temporarily protected your page to stop vandalism. It is under siege right now. Unprotect whenever you wish. FearÉIREANN\ 23:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)