Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Damiens.rf (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 23 January 2014 (Undid revision 592035292 by SteakEscape (talk) no need to worry or erase info from talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Expiry

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Steak Escape

Hello, In an effort to change content the correct way, could you give me a few pointers on my next steps. I did create a standard account, however this will be used by one person (myself). The Steak Escape page has not been updated in forever and since taking over in my position, I wanted to bring things up to date. Let me know and I will take the proper steps in doing so. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteakEscape (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You should really read Misplaced Pages:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. It may be the case that it's not a good idea that you edit that article at all. --damiens.rf 19:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I would think wiki would want current and correct information to be posted on their pages. Is the purpose of the wiki to have user driven content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteakEscape (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Should I send information to you to post or is this something that should be generated by random users? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteakEscape (talk • contribs) 14:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You can add information by yourself, and "random users" are just as entitled to do so.

Some information, even if real and uptodate, may be unwelcome in Misplaced Pages. Item #5 of WP:NOTPROMOTION says "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.". Keep that in mind when editing the article about your company. --damiens.rf 14:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Will Do, thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.240.199 (talk) 1:01 pm, Today (UTC−2)

You forgot to log in. You're exposing your mail.steakescape.com ip. --damiens.rf 15:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice catch, thank you again!

RE: reverting Jason Narvy

Hey, instead of taking the easy way out and reverting my edit, why don't you contribute to the community by Googling around and citing a source yourself, you laggard ineffectual douchebag? Here, I'll make your job even easier and paste the source right here: http://cuchicago.edu/faculty/communications-and-theatre/jason-narvy/ http://cuchicago.edu/faculty/communications-and-theatre/jason-narvy/ http://cuchicago.edu/faculty/communications-and-theatre/jason-narvy/ http://cuchicago.edu/faculty/communications-and-theatre/jason-narvy/ http://cuchicago.edu/faculty/communications-and-theatre/jason-narvy/ http://cuchicago.edu/faculty/communications-and-theatre/jason-narvy/ http://cuchicago.edu/faculty/communications-and-theatre/jason-narvy/

SSAntonioLopez.jpg

You obviously did not read the description. If you read the description on the image page, it clearly states the photo was taken by the US Navy. As such the copywrite is in the public domain, it would be so regardless because it was taken in 1898 and therefore is public domain in the US even if it were not taken by a government agency.XavierGreen (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We need more information than just "US Navy". The source must be verifiable. --damiens.rf 18:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As i stated before, regardless of who made this image it is till pd since it was taken in 1898.XavierGreen (talk)

Without verifiable source information, how can we know it was taken in 1898? --damiens.rf 19:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the event depicted in the photograph happened in 1898.XavierGreen (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Without verifiable source information, how can we know which event the image depicts? --damiens.rf 19:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a picture of the Spanish transport Antonio Lopez burning out after it was destroyed during the spanish american war. Given that the spanish American war was in 1898, the photo dates from 1898.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Without verifiable source information, how can we know this is a picture of the Spanish transport Antonio Lopez burning out after it was destroyed during the spanish american war? --damiens.rf 20:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(←)You can know this is a picture of the Spanish transport Antonio Lopez burning out after it was destroyed during the spanish american war because it says so HERE. Now, if Mr. Damiens simply did his HOMEWORK, as directed by the WP:AFD policy, it would not be necessary for Mr. XavierGreen to become a victim of this web. You are welcome. Mercy11 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it is the Antonio Lopez, you can go to San Juan Harbor and see the now sunken wreck yourself. ], ], ectXavierGreen (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Some Historical Background

Damiens, I'm writing this to you in a truly positive spirit, so please do not feel that I am criticizing you, because that is not my intent. I noticed that in the discussions for the deletions of photos regarding Albizu Campos and Lolita Lebron, you referred to Campos as "this guy" and Lebron as "this lady."

But it turns out that Albizu Campos is a highly regarded figure (controversial, but passionately regarded by many) in Puerto Rican history. To Puerto Ricans he is analogous to Eamon de Valera, Jose Marti, Simon Bolivar, Nelson Mandela, and other revolutionary liberators. Lolita Lebron (also controversial) has a passionate following amongst Independence and Nationalist parties and sympathizers in Puerto Rico. So I'm writing to provide you a heads-up -- when you refer to them as "this guy" and "this lady," it appears callous even though I don't think you intend it that way. How you proceed with this information is up to you, but I thought it might be helpful for you to know this.

Again, no offense intended. I'm only trying to provide you a little background. I hope it helps. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Damiens, I too found the "this guy" categorization as callous when you referred to Luis Muñoz Marín. I had already made a similar observation HERE and, with all respect to Damiens, I too provided him with a bit of information of how such wording ("this guy") is offensive to others. Insensitive at least. Ignorance of other cultures and/or other people's history at the very least. As for Albizu Campos, he is the Paul Revere of USA. Just some insight. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be more careful. No offense was intended. I use "this guy/that lady" because, for what's relevant for the deletion discussion, is that we already have images of those people, regardless of how historically important they were (the people). And thanks for such a polite notice! --damiens.rf 11:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Thank you for receiving it, in the same spirit that I wrote it. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, "the discussions for the deletions of photos regarding Albizu Campos and Lolita Lebron, you referred to Campos as 'this guy' and Lebron as 'this lady'" that Nelson is referring to above are THIS (Pedro Albizu in prison) and THIS (Lolita Lebron being arrested). However, what makes this doubly interesting is that it wasn't until, in a spirit of colaboration, Nelson mentioned above that "But it turns out that Albizu Campos is a highly regarded figure (controversial, but passionately regarded by many) in Puerto Rican history...he is analogous to Eamon de Valera, Jose Marti, Simon Bolivar, Nelson Mandela, and other revolutionary liberators", that Damiens then went back into the Pedro Albizu Campos and started turning over every other image there, at which point he stumbled upon the image of "Clemente Soto Velez, Juan Antonio Corretjer and Pedro Albizu Campos prior to their trial" and found it was being licensed under fair use. He went into trigger-happy mode and upped the ante and didn't just nominate the image for deletion but outright removed it from the article as "decorative" (no talk page discussion). After I reverted his removal with an invitation to the TP and/or WP:NFR, he entered into an edit war with me and reverted me going back to his preferred version of the article (the version w/o the PAC trial image). And this was all happening while he was also edit-warring with me at Noel Estrada. Then, fortunately for everyone, along comes Nelson and puts more text into the Pedro Albizu Campos at trial image's caption, returns the image to the article and civilly starts discussion in the PAC talk page. Unhappy with the direction of the discussion, and without allowing others to chime in, Damiens then quickly jumps the gun and aborts to discussion, premptying Nelson's goodwill and nominates the image for deletion. Damiens, in effect, within 24 hrsclosed a discussion that he himself was a part of while critizing others for doing the same thing after days of inactivity. Does this show Damines wants discussion? No. But it does show Damiens wanted to unilaterally terminate the discussion once he realized that there were more editors that differed with his opinion. This is called WP:OWN. With that said, I will AGF, Damiens, and assume that you are not targeting PR images. Mercy11 (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Need help with BLP

Damiens, I need help with El Boricuazo. I don't specialize on polishing content nor on BLPs. I'm more of a content creator and tend to focus on organizations/institutions. I need this BLP to remain and to be as referenced and neutral as possible. This person is very important to WP:PUR. Could you please lend a hand? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look. --damiens.rf 12:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noel Estrada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puerto Rican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)