Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smee (talk | contribs) at 07:23, 10 November 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

PJ

Hi. Your addition of what has been alleged to be XVE's real name to the Perverted-Justice.com page was reverted. As we have been discussing on the article's discussion page, so far there has been no real proof offered that this is indeed his name. Until such proof can be provided, the name will not be allowed to be added to the article. If you have proof yourself, please come to the article's talk page and present it to other Misplaced Pages editors who are working on this article. Thanks. · Katefan0 18:31, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I see that you have added a detailed explanation. Thanks for that. But until the community of editors have had a chance to evaluate what you have added and decide whether it's enough of a proof, the name should be withheld from the article. Thanks. · Katefan0 18:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

FYI Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Perverted-Justice.com SlimVirgin 01:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

James Robert Baker

Oops, its Imoeng :P. I have added an infobox, so you just have to fill that out. Also, I reckon it will be usefull if you look at Tolkien article, since it is a featured article (and he is a novelist :P) and see the flow and structure of the article. For the inline citations, sorry, but you have put it incorrectly. Try using WP:CITET and copy the suitable template between <ref> and </ref>. At the bottom, you can make a new subheading titled "References" or "Notes" and put <references/>. Hope that helps, please tell me if it doesn't work out. And I do want to hear again from you :D. Cheers -- Imoeng 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, btw, it is Imoeng, :P. About the article, everything looks fine for me, technically. I have changed it slightly, and moved the puctuations before citations. It looks cool. You might want to try WP:CITET. The way to do it is just copy the template (just like the infobox) and paste it between <ref>. Then you just have to fill it out. Good luck and take care -- Imoeng 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Jeff. Thank you for looking this up. Citing an everchanging webpage is not ideal, but I suppose anything is better than nothing to substantiate it. Thanks ! -- PFHLai 13:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review/Francisco Gil de Taboada

Hi Jeffpw, thanks for the Nexis tip. I really don't know anything about that site, so I'll give it a try. I suspect there is more on this guy and I just haven't been able to find it. I need to try a big university library, too. --Rbraunwa 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Etiquitte question

Hmmm! Tough issues! And delicate! Usually politeness make miracles (Oupsss! This is said by somebody who usually is nothing but polite!). Once I was also an intruder in an article, but I was definite I was right and I imposed myself, although my attitude to the initial editor of the article was not the best possible one. Of course, results vindicated me (the article is now FA), but I would now handle the whole issue in a different way.

To the point: According to what you told me, as a newcomer, you handled the whole thing quite skilfully. If he really wants to contribute and is a normal guy, you'll find ways to co-exist with him. Otherwise, you have a problem! If you see he insists in his way, one think you can do is ask him to provide sources for his edits. If he doesn't do it, you can revert. In any case, the best way to handle these issues is through consensus and compromises. We like it or not there is no ownership of the articles here.

Have in mind that if a quarrel keeps going, then there may be mediations, arbitrations etc. These procedures are not usually pleasant. You then have to do with more people, uninvolved mediators, ambitious administrators, with people who sometimes don't understand what you tell them etc. Well, nt everything here is ideal!

And something else: Have in mind the 3 revert rule. You are a newcomer here and you may accidentally violate it without wanting it.

Ah! And if you tell me the article and see the problem, I might be more specific in my remarks. Cheers.--Yannismarou 15:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• It was my Baker article, but the situation resolved itself quite nicely:). Someone else came along and backed up my point of view, so no editing was occurred (which was a concern of mine). Thanks for your response. Jeffpw 20:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kalinga Magha help

Hello Jeffpw. I'm not sure if this is the right place to get in touch - sorry if it isn't, but I'm a newbie! Thanks for looking at the Kalinga Magha article and altering it. I've a couple of questions.

1. The article was called 'Kalinga Magha' before I edited it, but I would like to change it to just Magha - how can I do that?
2. I also need an infobox, and would like to get another box made called 'Significant Rulers of Sri Lanka' and include links to the other Sri Lankan rulers' articles I've written. How can I get this done?

Thanks!DocSubster 08:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment of Drew Article

I think that Start is pretty fair. The article will , in time, grow, but the next time will be with a full list of both resources and references, and a more complete listing of all portions of his life.

Thanks for your time! --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 21:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Shrieking Harpy

That's a slick userbox. *grins* --Shrieking Harpy 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Douglas A. Warner III

Thank you for your comments on Douglas A. Warner III. I modified the article (as time permitted) and copied your comments to the discussion page of the article. -- Jreferee 13:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your new comments. A picture is worth 1,000 words, making those two photos worth 2,000 words by my count. LOL. As soon as I get better photos, I'll replace the two you mentioned. Right now, I like creating new articles, but not bringing them to GA or better status. I prefer to leave improving on my articles to others. -- Jreferee 13:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

James Robert Baker

Hi Jeff, I've left a comment. Good luck! :-) SlimVirgin 19:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

Thanks for your comments on the article; it feels good to have finally returned it to GA status.

I note, however, that you've failed to take it off the list of GA candidates, and to add it to the list of GA articles. Would you mind doing this? I could do it myself but think it might look a bit odd, given that it's an article I've worked so hard on. MLilburne 08:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff, much better. :) MLilburne 09:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems

Jeffpw; I saw your query on SlimVirgins talk page; please see WP:CV for the procedure. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Jeffpw. I was happy to receive your friendly greeting and it's nice to meet someone with similar interests. We also have in common an appreciation of travel, but looking at your user page you beat me hands down. You've been to so many places and lived in several countries - I'm envious. Thanks for the message. Cheers. Rossrs 00:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I love it, and I will use it. Thank you. (you've got some great user boxes, I must say!) Rossrs 10:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but I've just realized the userbox contains fair use images and they are not supposed to be used outside of the article namespace. I still love it, but... arrgg .... what a pain. Rossrs 11:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the Dorothy photo is in no way public domain especially as the tag says it was made before 1923 and the film was made in 1939 :-) I think the James Robert Baker article is very well written, thorough, interesting - all good. Congratulations. A very sad story though. How different things could have been for him. Rossrs 11:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tillie K. Fowler Article

I noticed the concerns you raised on Talk:Tillie K. Fowler regarding the article's content, and I strongly agree that all allegedly plagiarized content must removed or modified in a manner consistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I will contact User:Davidgilliland, who has recently made major edits to the article, to advise him of the concerns that have been raised. Furthermore, as the orginal creator of the article, I will be more than willing to assist in the resolution of this matter to the best of my ability. --TommyBoy 01:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Following up on my earlier comments, User:Davidgilliland has responded to my message, and based upon his response on the article's Talk page, it would appear that he is a little upset. --TommyBoy 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pederotics

Hi, I was surprised at your edit on the pederasty page. I would understand challenging the claim that all these relationships are sexual, since many are patently not. But if they are also not erotic, then what do they have in common? Haiduc 23:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I did a quick check,to make sure I was not presuming too much, and came up with this "Erotic = Relating to or tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement" here. To my understanding, the difference, say, between garden variety mentorship and pederasty is that that the man is in love with the boy, even though he may very well restrain himself from acting out his physical desires. There are of course many historical examples. If, on the other hand, there is no desire, where is the pederasty?! Haiduc 12:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely the catch - the chaste forms of pederasty remained on that knife edge where they were simultaneously erotic but chaste. Yes, I think it makes sense to restore the term. Regards, Haiduc 12:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jeffpw! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

PS sorry the last bach of welcomes failed to go out if you have readded your name can you please remove it thanks

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jeffpw! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

PS sorry the last bach of welcomes failed to go out if you have readded your name can you please remove it thanks

The Lifespring edits

Thanks for restoring that paragraph, and for your work to make the article a little cleaner. I started working on this article last week (it was a real mess when I found it, and completely POV).

The Lifespring people keep editing out all info they don't want shown to the public, which is not the point of Wiki at all. I am trying to make it as neutral as possible, but haven't had time to find a source for all of it yet. All the sourced statements you see are what I have found so far.

Is this page on your watchlist, too? Jeffpw 07:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• (I moved this discussion to your talk page here).
• No problem. Yeah, unless you thouroughly backup virtually every single statement with a source, it's going to be hotly contested on controversial articles like these. However, it is appropriate to leave the information up there with a "citation needed", whilst looking for sources. I have experienced the POV editing style of those directly biased towards certain articles, with a vested interest in the subject of said articles (employees, etc.) myself. As to the particular article topic, just beginning to learn, research it myself, so that's why I started with more organizational type edits. It's on the watchlist. Yours, Smeelgova 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC).