Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:10, 30 July 2007

Elipongo is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages on August 1

Swirlex

I think I can clear up the situation with Swirlex. First of all, most of these people he just found when searching userspace to get ideas of things to add to his userpage. Marvelzombies, Dreamrelease2245, and I are people he personally knows. He's probably gonna kill me for telling you this, but I can explain the Zapsteel thing. He was Swirlex's original account. Then it got hacked and someone changed th password. He doesn't have e-mail, so there was no way he could retrieve the account. Think of Swirlex as the reincarnation, not sockpuppet, of Zapsteel. Supernerd 10 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. My PA was an expiriment to see how long I could do if I were blocked. I didn't know that I could just ask a sysop.

Thank you for your note. Would you mind also explaining this? Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer to that as well, since the guy signed my name on his comment. And all of this still seems a bit sockpuppet-like to me. So, please, explain. -- -- Gravitan 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've told you everything I can. I swear that I'm telling the truth. Supernerd 10 23:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure of that. What's bugging me now is that you claim to know about Zapsteel, yet I don't recall Swirlex ever telling you that. And you couldn't have gotten that info through E-mail, since (according to you) Swirlex doesn't have an account. Would you mind explaining that? -- -- Gravitan 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As I previously stated, we know eacch other pesonally.Supernerd 10 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but that still doesn't explain the things brought up on Swirlex's talk page. And if you're hiding something, keep in mind that we'll find out eventually, whether you tell us or not. So do you have anything else? -- -- Gravitan 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. Also, to what things were you refering? Supernerd 10 13:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean the sockpuppet thing. Things like that are grounds for blocking, and Swirlex has yet to even attempt to explain what's been going on. -- -- Gravitan 19:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see why that would seem suspicious. I suppose you'll just have to assume good faith. That IP is suspicious though, and you should prabably report him. Supernerd 10 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for all the help Thedjatclubrock :) (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank YOU for the smile! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I need your help

Hey there. I'm in a revert war with a vandal, who may or may not be using good faith. The article is Commerce Bancorp and the user is CAMDENBEER

Earlier this week he was adding a couple statemants that failed NPOV in my opinion. Recently he added information about the CEO resigning, which I incorrectly removed at first. Apon further research, I found that some of that information was correct, and I moved it to it's own section of the page under the header Commerce Bank Scandals.

The point is, this user wants to continue to edit war the NPOV statements like political pawn and whatnot, which clearly is opinion unless he can find a source that uses that exact phrase.

Please look into the article and the most recent edits. I admit incoorectly removing some information this morning, but I re-added it at the bottom of the page when I realized it was fact and was currently in the news.

Do whatever you feel needs to be done about the article and as always, I will respect your judgement.

Thanks! PanzaM22 19:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Mike

RE: Disputed images

The following was posted in the disputed images page in response to your query:

The Howard Frank Archives has been in business for over thirty years as an image archive and supplier of images to major publications and other media outlets. We have aproximately 1 million images in our inventory. Mostly in the entretainment industry. The bulk of the collection was at one time the property of Louis "doc" Shurr, Mr. Howard Frank's cousin and a respected Hollywood agent whose clients included, Bob Hope, Kim Novak, Ginger Rogers, Burt Lahr, Betty Grable, Debbie Reynolds, George Murphy, Andy Devine, Broderick Crawford, Larry Hagman, Barbara Eden among many others.

We have been major contributors of images to major books on Hollywood personalities. Including:

Lucy : A Life in Pictures by Tim Frew and Howard Frank Archives/Personality Photos Staff

Dreaming of Jeannie: TV's Prime Time in a Bottle by Stephen Cox and Howard Frank

Ball of Fire, Lucille Ball By Stefan Kanfer

Loving Lucy By Bart Andrews and Thomas Watson

Lucy & Desi By Warren G. Harris

The "I LOve Lucy" Book By Bart Andrews

Elvis, A life in pictures By Tim Frew

Lucille: The Life of Lucille Ball By Kathleen Brady

The Century By Peter Jennings and Tom Brewster

You can do a search on Google, Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble to confirm our claims.

And many many other publications and magazines. Our clients include all major television networks such as CBS, ABC, NBC, E Entretainment, E!, PBS and others. Major publications such as TV Guide, People, US, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Globe, The enquirer, Reader's Digest, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Harvard Medical Journal, Scientific American, Ladies Home Journal and many others too numerous to mention here. We have never had our right to rent or use these images disputed. As with any large inventory such as ours, it is possible that we may inadvertently by accident have posted an image to which someone may claim intellectual property rights. In such cases we will be more than willing to comply in removing such an image provided the standard provisions are met as stated below by contacting our intellectual property rights department

Anyone who believes that their intellectual property rights have been infringed, must provide our Intellectual Property Rights Agent with a notification that contains the following information:

1. A physical signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other rights that have been allegedly infringed. 2. Identification of the copyright, trademark or other rights that have been allegedly infringed. 3. The URL or product number(s). 4. Your name, address, telephone number and email address. 5. A statement that you have a good-faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the rights owner, its agent or the law. 6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate and, under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other right that is allegedly infringed.

You may reach our Intellectual Property Rights Agent, via email at sales@personalityphotos.com

--PersonalityPhotos 06:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your note. I have responded to this message where you posted it at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images#July 1. Thank you again for your detailed response. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Your reply has been poster on the other thread as well

• • • Since only the owner of the copyright can assign the license, you are asserting that you are yourself the copyright holder of these images- including a couple of images that seem could actually be in the public domain.
      
      Our images come in several categories. We have the negatives to most of the images in our inventory. In other cases we have the "Master Negatives" or in the case of other images the in-camera chromes from which they are printed. In some cases we have the only known original prints of the images. Until 1990 most studios discarded rather than archived massive amounts of imgaes literaly in the garbage. Thus most images taken during that period are lost to history except in cases where collectors like howard Frank through family contacts and friends acquired many of them. Being that we have the onl;y images in many of these cases we do claim copyright ownership of them. We have selectively uploaded imgaes of which we are sure of the provenance.
      

• • • Misplaced Pages has no interest in you removing images from your collection, but now that they are on Misplaced Pages's servers, Misplaced Pages has liability if a copyright holder should protest their being released under a free license.
      
      Misplaced Pages has no liabilty since they are neither the owners nor the source of the images, we are. We have a procedure as does Corbis or Getty for settling claims to Intelectual property claims as stipulated in my previous post.
      

• • • Misplaced Pages needs to be assured that you indeed hold the rights to these images.
      
      That does not present a problem, we can issue a standard open ended release of our images to Misplaced Pages as we do to television broadcasters, publications and other entities that use our images. They can keep it on file and forward copies to whoever "claims" to be the copyright holder of the image. All we need is an e-mail address where to send a signed PDF document release. Be aware that claiming to be the copyright holder and actually posessing such rights are two distinct things. Corporate lawyers will often issue threatening letters claiming intelectual property rights. They mainly do this to discourage legitimate use of images in an editorial or fair use context and in order to attempt to control the editorial context in which these images appear.. That is why we require as do the courts extensive documentation to back up such claims. After thirty plus years in this business we have yet to appear in court to dispute any of our images.--PersonalityPhotos 04:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did I delete the 'please add a free image' image?

It's tacky and draws attention away from the content of the article. A request for an image can be placed on the article's talk page. If a prospective image uploader doesn't know how to read a talk page, they probably shouldn't be uploading files in the first place. One 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I'm trying to modify it not to mess up everybody's, but I can't perfect it. I'm not trying to screw everyone's up, just trying to modify them Sarah Goldberg 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on original talk page where conversation was started for continuity. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for Patience

Is there a Barnstar for patience? you deserve one for Misplaced Pages:New_contributors'_help_page#Sonic_the_hedgehog. Pete St.John 14:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you very much! It's always nice to get positive feedback, and it also made me realize that I had forgotten to sign that post! Hm. I missed the fact that it is a blocked sockpuppet account though... 15:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Help Me Muthafucker

tht twinkle thing isnt workin',can u tell me how 2 get it workin' ? - Real Compton G 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied to user on his talk page. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Real Compton G

wot r u tryin' 2 start?,i seen tht u wrote shit bout me on Acalamari's page wen i've done nuthin' wrong,all i did was set up a new account and i've never vandalised anythin' - Real Compton G 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start anything. If you read what I wrote you'll see that I did say that you haven't committed any violations since and that the violation of policy by creating another account while the first one was blocked may have been done out of ignorance of the rules. Since Acalamari was the blocking and the unblocking admin, I thought s/he should know about it. I have no intention of hurting your feelings. Thanks for your understanding and happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

just 2 let u kno,i actually created this account b4 i was blocked,not wen i was blocked,but anyway how did u kno tht Compton G Playa was blocked ? Real Compton G 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right and I'm sorry. I must have had my eyes crossed when I was looking at the logs. I have updated my note on Acalamari's talk page.

I was able to tell when you were blocked and when your accounts were created by checking their respective logs. There're links to those logs from your contribution history pages.

As for having multiple accounts, you really should read this policy regarding them.

Sorry again for the mistake on my part. Happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

kl,i just wanted tht sorted out - Real Compton G 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Compton G playa

Thanks for sorting that out. :) Acalamari 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

CTXGuide editor

I'm not very happy with this guy's edits: it seems like the only reason he's adding the content is so that he can get his site linked instead of blacklisted. The writing style leaves something to be desired, as well -- it's going to require a lot of cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan 00:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I had forgotten to reply to his latest email, a situation which I just corrected diff. I would tend to agree with your assessment of the situation, but I have been trying hard to WP:AGF especially since he has been discussing things calmly. If the pattern doesn't stop shortly, though, I would agree that stronger measures may be in order. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fairfield County

Hi Elipongo; you're right, this is getting heated, but I have tried to step back. This is why I did in fact stop at two reverts. I admit to being frustrated by user:Noroton, but as far as I can tell, this has been a problem on the article for a while, and this editor has not been terribly willing to cooperate. But thanks for the cool head. I hope that this will all have simmered down by tomorrow. Cmprince 04:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it brings back pleasent memories of my father (of blessed memory, he died three years ago this week). He had this incredible ability to argue with me when I was in complete agreement with him. I think Noroton is justifiably sensitive on this subject because some people said some unpleasent things about it and he obviously put some good work into it. A short break should give everyone time to think a bit. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs)

hpsander456

How do you use sandbox {{helpme}} Hpsander456 19:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, I plan to use it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpsander456 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

thanx for asnwering my question. I was testing how to upload and download fotos, and ended up doing it on the user page instead of the sandbox!

--Ixyuxx 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. Happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Zapsteel and swirlex

Did you say you were wanting to talk about Swirlex and Zapsteel? Swirlex 16:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not lately, you all seem to have been behaving. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Humphrey Bogart and others

M. Eliongo, there seems to be a troll on the loose. Please check one newbie editor's completely erroneous edits on major movie stars. It won't take you long to trace the aforementioned editor down. I see you've had to revert a number of the submissions made by this editor. Can you refer this issue to an admin? Bzuk 05:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bzuk! He stopped adding erroneous information once warned. The only thing he's done since that wouldn't fall completely in line with the guidelines is that he's removed maintenance templates from the article he created. I plan to try to guide him gently in regards to the maintenance templates. Unless he starts to vandalize again, and fails to stop after repeated warnings up to and past a final warning, I don't think intervention will be required— nor do I think that an admin would take action given the current circumstances. I know it's annoying to see that someone messed with a bunch of articles, but since he stopped when he was told to, no more action need or should be taken. Thanks for writing and be assured that I will be keeping an eye out! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Golden Rod of Asclepius

Hey! I found you via your paramedic userbox and thought you might be able to help me out here. --|EPO| 21:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Hope my comment helped some. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 23:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Elipongo is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages on August 1

God, the Antichrist, the , and Satan

1. We do not say "the God", but "God".

2. We do say "the Devil" rather than "Devil" without the definite article.

3. But we do not say "the Satan," but "Satan" without an article.

4. We have a plurality of gods, devils, but only one Satan?

5. The is a usage of "Antichrist" as a proper noun as in "Antichrist will come."

5.1 It's like "Christ," meaning "Jesus" (there can be no other Christ).

So I think you were mistaken in Velikoe v malom in placing the definite article "the" in "the Antichrist."

I am --70.23.239.248 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC), a.k.a. Ludvikus

Here's another argument: Should one speak of

1. "the 2nd coming of Christ? Or of

2. "the 2nd coming of the Christ?

Yours truly, Ludvikus --70.23.239.248 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this out:

It shows (Google search) 2,130,000 uses of "Antichrist" without any article.

Yours truly, Ludvikus --70.23.239.248 15:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)