Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:53, 15 February 2008

This is Ioeth's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Working Group login

Hi Ioeth, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Misplaced Pages email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Looking forward to working with you as a fellow group member! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, Daniel. I'm looking forward to working with you too! Cheers! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland peer review

I Matthew, I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland and give us an honest peer review. The page has evolved quite a bit in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Maryland some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. Several of us have worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Misplaced Pages and its quality! Misplaced Pages:Peer review/St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland/archive1 Toddst1 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Greg Mesaros

You spoiled me the fun of tagging every single sentence in the article with {{fact}} or {{doubtful}} :( -- lucasbfr 20:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sutherland Institute Final Revisions

loeth,

can you take another look at the entry. i'd really like to post it and hope that i've been able to clean it to the point that it is a "real" entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ljswim/Sandbox.

thanks Ljswim (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ljswim, it looks pretty good. I rearranged it just a little bit so that the article has a lead section and bolded the title in the first sentence. Looks like you should be able to move it into the mainspace whenever you're ready. If you're not sure how to do that, just visit WP:MOVE. Cheers! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

loeth, many thanks on the edits. I appreciate your time and help! Ljswim (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OtakuOmaha

Why did you delete that article relating to an anime convention, I don't see you deleting other conventions like Anime Detour, Sogen Con, etc... The template used for OtakuOmaha was even the same as those because I copied another con's page into OtakuOmaha and changed it to have the appropriate information, so why may I ask was it deleted exactly? I know you siad "blatant advertising" but what made it blatant advertisement as compared to any other con? TVR Enthusiast (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a really good question. Looking back in the history, I can't find any good reason why I would have deleted that, especially with that template CSD reason that didn't apply. I've restored the article and give you my apologies for the inconvenience! Cheers! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of 301 STUDIOS article

Regarding deletion of entry 301 STUDIOS, what exactly did you view as promotion? Everything included in article was objective and was still in the process of being edited.

6fold (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask that you restore the content and allow the entry. Please put personal opinions aside.

6fold (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It was definitely not objective; the entire article was written like an advertisement. On top of that, the "references" provided predominately linked to social networking websites, which are not acceptable reliable sources. The article also did not assert the notability of the company. I'm sorry, but it just didn't meet the criteria for inclusion. If you want to continue working on the article to see if you can get it to a point where it's acceptable, please do so in your userspace at User:6fold/Sandbox. If you recreate it there, you can get opinions and help from other users on how to improve it before moving it back into the mainspace. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the response however. I saw no differences in the text content of the article compared to an existing article on the independent label Rhymesayers. The "references" you refer to were to give insight into who the artists on the label are and additional editorial media references were in the process of being added. The article will be recreated.

6fold (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, this isn't a battle. I indicated to you what was wrong with the article in the state that it was in and instructed you as to how you could work to improve it. Instead you came back here to throw it in my face, but no matter; as I said before, this isn't a battle and I don't hold grudges. I'm going to leave a welcome message on your talk page that has links to Misplaced Pages's core policies, and I highly suggest that you read and understand them before recreating the article, as meeting them is mandatory for an article to be included. If you need any help, feel free to ask and I will be happy to oblige, but please don't try to lecture me on subjects on which you are clearly uninformed. On a sidenote, and this is not a threat, based on your contribution history and your vehemence for creating this article, I think you might want to tone down the bullishness a bit or you are likely to be blocked for disruption, advertising, or both. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Loeth.

You response above: "If you need any help, feel free to ask and I will be happy to oblige, but please don't try to lecture me on subjects on which you are clearly uninformed." could go both ways. Before deletion, you could have approached me with your concerns. Honestly, you really didn't indicate what was wrong with the article, especially in comparison to other articles on independent record labels. Your note on why you deleted the article ("It just wasn't good enough, sorry.") didn't give much in the way of explanation either. Nothing in the text compared to other indie label articles was "promotional" or "spam".

Also, my contribution you reverted on the Atmosphere page wasn't vandalism either, it was a fact. Gives more insight on what a founding member of the group is up to now.

Have you any suggestions on how to better list artists on the label? I didn't really want to enter a bio on each, as that could get rather long-winded.

I don't hold grudges either. Have a good day. 6fold (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'll check User:6fold/Sandbox you'll see that I've recreated the article for you. I've also overhauled it to cleanup the layout and organization as well as comply with the manual of style. You'll probably also notice that I've reworked the article quite a bit; I've removed some irrelevant content and references and refactored some of the sentences. It should now be a good starting point for you. The most important thing to do at this point is to find reliable sources that comply with Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy so that you can prove the notability of the organization. As for the Atmosphere (music group) article revert that I did, unsourced additions can be removed at any time because they do not meet the verifiability policy. Plus, going around and making additions only about one subject makes you look like a spammer, so it's better to wait until after 301 Studios has been shown to be notable before adding a bunch of references to it in other articles. Let me know if you need any more help with that article or if you get stuck and need to know how to move forward. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Image:Inuteropromo.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Inuteropromo.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ChrisB (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Apologies for the name confusion, but you gotta admit you look similar loeth and Ioeth (At least to me on my browser and using my skin). Anyways thanks for implementing discussed modifications, I am always astonished by your flexibility to implement suggestions and accept changes to one of the most used scripts on WP. Thanks and sorry! =) Λua∫Wise 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it happens all the time! This is probably one of the funniest comments I've ever gotten about it, which you might like. Let me know if you have any other requests or ideas you'd like to see implemented for Friendly, and thanks for the ones so far. Cheers! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid he has a point :D. Λua∫Wise 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

EE civility inquiry

With regards to this, I would appreciate it if you could look at edits of Christchurch (talk · contribs), in particular: , . Arguments about "Polish nationalists" are common coming from him (another example, another...); do note that this is an old pattern, he has been asked not to do so as early as 2005. It appears his views has not changed and he is still ready to express them in discussion, which does not contribute to any positive atmosphere, I am afraid (if Christchurch appears in a Polish related discussion, it is almost certain he will accuse the Polish editors of nationalism...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember what I said about block-shopping, using past arbcom cases for that and using the civility tools in content conflicts? --Irpen 17:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)