Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BX9438Q (talk | contribs) at 12:52, 21 May 2013 (→Disambiguation link notification for May 21: Removing disambiguation link notification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Numbering of U.S. presidents

Thanks for experimenting with the page Harry S. Truman on Misplaced Pages. Your recent edit appears to have added obviously incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in our encyclopedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Misplaced Pages, as you did to the Calvin Coolidge page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Coemgenus 21:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the White House, Harry S. Truman was the thirty-third president of the US. If you have more reliable sources than that, you'll need to bring them to the talk page and seek consensus. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• See also List of Presidents of the United States. Coemgenus 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolution: While there appears to be some support for dating the presidents such that Grover Cleveland counts as only the 22nd president (not the 22nd and 24th) See: for instance, the opinion clearly not standard. All edits were reverted.Flyte35 (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Image problems

Image tagging for Image:Duvalier-7.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Duvalier-7.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution: Image removed.Flyte35 (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:BaptistChurch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BaptistChurch.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution: Image removed.Flyte35 (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Mama_Doc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mama_Doc.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution: Image removed.Flyte35 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Duvalier-7.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Duvalier-7.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Strangerer (Talk) 15:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution: Image removed.Flyte35 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Linda Darling-Hammond

I see that you have added in content to Dr. Darling-Hammond's page that was removed. That content was removed because it is not a statement of fact on the work of Dr. Darling Hammond, but an opinion posted by someone with objections to Darling-Hammond's research. This is a biography page, and that study is one of dozens of studies Dr. Darling-Hammond has conducted over her long career. To give it that level of detail without doing so with her other studies on principal education, student assessment, school redesign, district redesign, and leadership preparation is inappropriate on her biographical page. As I suggested to others who object to her research, there is no problem with objections and debates, but those shoud take place on the page covering that topic (i.e., the TFA page), not Darling-Hammond's biographical page. If you wish to discuss this, I am reachable at bmckenna@stanford.edu. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaramckenna (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolution: Compromise reached. See Controversy section of Talk:Linda Darling-Hammond.Flyte35 (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Only warning

Your recent editing to Linda Darling-Hammond has been problematic. Please cease restoring that section by edit warring. Until you can demonstrate explicitly (ie. via an article RfC) that consensus supports readding the content, you cannot restore it; this is specifically noted at our policy regarding biographies of living persons. Please also aquaint yourself with this decision. Daniel (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolution: Compromise reached. See Controversy section of Talk:Linda Darling-Hammond.Flyte35 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Bettag

I undid your removal of Bettag from the Columbia J School "notable alumni" list. Bettag is one of the most important and respected producers of tv journalism in the industry today. While the list has him as former EP of Nightline, he is now the EP of Ted Koppel's Discovery Channel documentaries. It is an odd lacuna in the popular understanding of who does what in television that correspondents -- no matter how obscure -- are considered notable and those who are often much more responsible for the content of what we all see are overlooked. Bettag is an important figure in tv journalism and, as such, belongs on this list. Roregan (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolution: Tom Bettag retained in Notable alumni section of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.Flyte35 (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

CJS edits

Hey, Flyte, what's up with your pruning of the Columbia Journalism School "notable alumni" list? Your edits do not seem to be informed by knowing much about who is or is not notable in the world of journalism -- or at least TV journalism. Aside from Bettag, above, you now excise Phil Scheffler. Scheffler was the senior producer of 60 Minutes for many years. I understand (like you am irritated by) the unparalleled opportunity Misplaced Pages offers to puff up the importance of people who are truly not notable. But I think your bar is set improperly here. In the world in which the Columbia Journalism School operates, both of these guys are, in fact, very important people. While Misplaced Pages may not have (nor, possibly, need) independent bios of them their inclusion in a list of people who are important and notable is appropriate.

I agree that not every person who ever graduated from CJS who went on to get a job in the industry should be included in a notable alumni list, there are important leaders in the industry who are worthy of mention -- particularly in this context. Scheffler, like Bettag, is one of them. Again, I do applaud your diligence and share many of your sentiments. It is entirely possible that you are in the journalism industry, but are a member of a generation that has yet to learn about the people who have led it up until now. If so, I suggest you treat this as a learning opportunity. These are the guys who shaped the journalistic world we live in. If you don't recognize their names, that may illustrate a gap in your own knowledge. Before you assume such mentions as mistaken attempts to inflate someone's importance, find out who they are. Once you have, then your assessments of who should be excised may become more reliable. Roregan (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Notables

Re: Your idea that people are notable on lists because they have no separate article already devoted to them misses one of the main ways that Misplaced Pages grows. Quite often the biographies of people follow their inclusion in lists of things like notable alumni and award winners and the like. We're dealing with a constantly-changing and growing body of knowledge here. As you have explained, you look for people in lists of notables who don't have independent articles and then remove the mentions of them without having any idea who those people are. How is that helpful? As for creating articles about those people, while I appreciate your suggestion that I take your excisions as an assignment sheet for myself, I have other things to do right now. In the meantime, I reiterate my suggestion that you learn from this experience. There are reasons these people are notable, even if you don't know them. Roregan (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolution: see re: Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism at User talk:Roregan. Philip Scheffler continues to have no Misplaced Pages entry.Flyte35 (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

House of Iturbide

I note it that you are editing the articles about Iturbide Family, asking for references, there is allready one external link, at least. Would you want something else? There is a lot of references about this biographies, but mainly are writed in spanish. I am making some editions about this persons in spanish wikipedia. If i add the references woul you be so kind of remove the tag ? Let me know what do you think about it. Best Regards. --Henry Knight (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please check the article about Salvador de Itúrbide y de Marzán, I allready add a few references, if you are ok with this, please remove the tag, i will add a few references more after that, i have at least 9 more, you can check the article in spanish, the one is challenged about relevance, (we have a problem with nobility in spanish wikipedia), then if you agree with this, let me know, remove the tag of references, and give me some more time, for add references in the other articles about the family, I been really busy at this time. Thank you for your time. And like you can see, english is not my first language, sorry about that. Best regards. --Henry Knight (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolution: See House of Iturbide section of User talk:Henry Knight. See also Salvador de Itúrbide y de Marzán.Flyte35 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Times online ref

Sorry for that! I must have overlooked the ref when I was checking to see if the article is already there. Keep up the great work!Calaka (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Explanation: Referred to edits made to Gore Vidal.Flyte35 (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mexican presidents

Hi Flyte35, I've reverted a large chunk of your last edits; please take a look at Template:Succession box ("Mostly deprecated, the succession box template ought to be used only for the simplest succession lines"). That information is now written in the infobox of every Mexican president. Cheers, Esteban Zissou (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolution: See Re: Mexican presidents at User talk:Esteban Zissou. Succession boxes for several Mexican presidents restored.Flyte35 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Imperial houses of Mexico

I explained you, references were added and you're still adding that tag, if you do it again, you'll be reported. You can't add tags just because you are not agree with the references. --187.146.57.141 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You should use this tag Template:Citation needed.--187.146.57.141 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As I explained, there is only a reference for the first lines. The rest of the two articles, House of Iturbide and House of Habsburg-Iturbide, are unreferenced. That's why there's a tag indicating that the articles need additional sourcing. That tag should remain up until the articles are fully sourced. Does this makes sense?Flyte35 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All the rest of the article is referenced. If there's something you "think" is not, you should use this tag Template:Citation needed, no the other tag, because the article already has sources. --187.146.57.141 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that is true. Template:Citation needed is a template used to identify questionable claims that lack a citation to a reliable source.

The goal of this is to find authoritative references and then add citations. I realize that the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them. But I believe both of these articles, while potential valuable, are questionable since they don't appear to rely on enough sources. Please just look at the two articles. They only have sources FOR THE FIRST LINES. What the are the sources for the rest of the paragraphs in the articles?

Listen, the aim here is not to get in a silly edit war about two articles of limited interest to most people. The aim is just to try and produce something that is accurate and of reasonably high quality. I'm probably not going to put tags back on those articles because that's going to be a frustrating process. But because apparently this is a matter of interest to you, anonymous editor, I urge you to find sourcing for the rest of the article and include footnotes. If your only source for everything in the article is that's fine, but make that clear.Flyte35 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich

Hi, I saw that you are the one who changed Dennis Kucinich's wife from being listed as a British citizen to a British subject. I am wondering if there is a citation to show that she is, in fact, a subject, and not a citizen, as British subjects appear to be exceedingly rare. matt kane's brain (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I was wrong. British citizen is the correct term in this case.Flyte35 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian alphabet

If you don't mind, at Misplaced Pages we talk about unsourced or POV statements, after we label them properly and wait for other people to react. We don't just remove them on the spot as if they were obvious rubbish. We also enter edit summaries, especially when we delete chunks of text from an article. — AdiJapan 08:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to undue. It was all pretty minor passive voice stuff about things being "perceived as," however. Such things are obviously problematic and very difficult to source. Large portions of the article are actually unsourced, which is understandable, particularly in a chart-heavy entry about foreign grammar, but I only removed things that proved particularly difficult to cite.Flyte35 (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Maximilian I of Mexico

I'm trying to improve the article about Maximilian of Mexico but unfortunately, the lack of good quality photographs prevents me from beginning it. Do you have books with photos of Maximilian with good quality? --Lecen (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally try to stay away from photos now because I'm a little unclear on how permissions work. So I'm not really the best user to go to for help. Note that there are already 17 pictures affiliated with the article, however. I don't really think more would improve the article much.Flyte35 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Tank

I saw your removal of the obsolescence of tanks comment. I was the one who added the tag but I think it would be appropriate to at least say something more neutral like "Experts are conflicted about the usefulness of tanks in modern asymmetric warfare". Marcus Qwertyus 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think mentioning that some people think tanks are obsolete in contemporary warfare is really appropriate in the introduction, though it's certainly good to bring that up at some point in the article. I think including a statement like that, particularity if you can source "experts are conflicted," would be valuable.Flyte35 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

NUS School of Computing and dates

There is a need for some sort of date at NUS School of Computing. "Current" is a vague, temporally (as opposed to "temporarily") term and is discouraged. Using "As of ..." or something like that would work. In fact, I think there is a template by that name. Just a thought. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly being more specific would be nice. "As of" would be an improvement. But "current" is a not vague. It means now. "For many years" is vague. But the precise date that the current administrator took over, etc. is not necessary. Cluttering the article up with "when" tags when like that is not an improvement.Flyte35 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I don't think that tags are clutter if they are addressing a problem. The project is not meant to "look pretty" but rather to be accurate. "Current" only means "now" at the time it is written, which is why it is deprecated. Too many articles have the wrong name attached to a position etc precisely because it becomes set in stone and there is no context. As of, or a similar formulaic structure, is a necessity, I think. Anyway, I'll check the MOS and let you know. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was quick! WP:DATED and Misplaced Pages:As_of explain it fairly well. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, a date would be an improvement. The tagging, however, seems unnecessary to me since it's a relatively minor problem.Flyte35 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:MonthlyJulAug11.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MonthlyJulAug11.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct tag is something like http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:GFDL-user. Not really sure how to put this in correctly, however.Flyte35 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts at Misplaced Pages:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress. Cloudbound (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

François Blanc

I may have just repeated the fix you did at Princess Marie Bonaparte ; if so, my apologies, I'm just trying to be sure it's correctly linked. - Nunh-huh 06:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Red links

Normally, red links are not removed from articles. WP:REDDEAL say "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." I have no reason to believe that the red links removed from Vita Sackville-West are non-notable topics, do you? If they are plausible article topics, please return them to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems decidedly unlikely to me that anyone's going to create an entries for The Eagle and the Dove, Sackville-West's dual biography of Saint Teresa of Ávila and Therese of Lisieux; Rosamund Grosvenor, a woman who died before the age of 40; or Algernon Henry Grosvenor, an Army lieutenant and younger son of peer.Flyte35 (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'll take your word for it. The original remover didn't have much to say in the way of an edit summary. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Keli Goff

please check my talkpage, thanks Bartholomew Bartolini (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

addressed at Talk:Keli_Goff.Flyte35 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Green Mountain College

Structure

Please refrain from using biased POV to restructure a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vt catamount (talk • contribs) 04:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please be more specific as to your concerns. I explained each change I made to the article. It's standard practice for information about student activities/student life to come at the end of articles on colleges and universities, just before the references.Flyte35 (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the accusatory tone, Flyte35. I still don't think that this controversy subsection needs to be moved up, but I'm also not as familiar with the wiki entries of other educational institutions as you or other wiki editors are, so I shouldn't make this call. Lifting the subsection, in my mind, and as a frequent wiki reader, seems to only serve the purpose of giving the 'controversy' more weight than is necessary or due. But that may be a knee-jerk reaction on my part.Vt catamount (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Lists, like clubs or significant alumni, usually go at the end of articles about academic institutions. News items, even relatively frivolous ones, usually appear in the text of the article itself. There's no official guidelines for this, as far as I can tell, but if you look at relatively robust articles you'll find this is generally the case. This doesn't mean anyone is arguing that the controversy over the oxen is super-important; it's just standard structuring. I actually think this whole B&L thing belongs WITHIN the green campus section (because this is all about sustainability and the environment) but I'm not going to worry about any of that until we've sorted out the current debate about text. Thanks for getting back to me about this, btw.Flyte35 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

B&L slaughter discussion

Hi Flyte35! It looks like the content dispute will continue. Will you be joining the next stage with us? May I ask where you stand on my latest proposal? Regards. PE2011 (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I will probably not be continuing with this project. I don't know what your latest proposal is--there were many edits proposed and the discussion is now closed so I can't go to the dispute page and search for it--so I can't speak to how I feel about it.Flyte35 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

My latest proposal: “The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition stating that the two oxen, after working for 10 years, deserve to retire in a sanctuary.”PE2011 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you think of it, I would encourage you to participate in the next stage with us. Please :) PE2011 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think those additions you propose are necessary to the article, and I don't think they improve it, but I can live with them.Flyte35 (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Would you mind voicing your opinion in the GMC's talk page? PE2011 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I've made all the points I needed to make on the GMC talk page. I'm done with this discussion. I wish you good luck if you decide to continue. Flyte35 (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheick Modibo Diarra at Howard

I saw that you undid a revision that I made on the Howard University page listing Cheick Modibo Diarra as an alumni because there was no citation. I added a citation; however, I'm curious why you would single that one out when none of the other dozen plus alumni have citations. Mvblair (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Because your revision was made recently and it's easy to correct the error.Flyte35 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Henry VII

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Henry VII of England. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ross'coolguy 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)