Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:35, 24 August 2008

Feel free to drop me a line.   — C M B J   07:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Comment on the Episode Review Page

I moved your comment to the talk page, as it wasn't really a discussion on the KotH's notability. I invite you to comment there. If you feel that it should be on the actual review page, you may revert it, but I felt it was more a discussion on the process itself. Thanks. I   00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Hey CMBJ, I've seen your recent edits to the television episode article review project and I certainly understand how you feel. My pet project Futurama will likely come up for review in the next week or so and like you I feel the way the project has been handled so far has been less than stellar. That being said, I don't think they're targeting KOTH, it just happened to be one at the top of the list when they got started. Some episodes of other shows have already been reviewed if you look in the archive at the top (The Big O, Hannah Montana and Thats So Raven). If you check the discussion on the talk page the reason for bringing up the rest of the KOTH articles so soon was to go ahead and finish out one group before starting on another, not because it was any worse than any other show. I'd be happy to help you try to bring some episodes up to the guideline (once I've seen how the Futurama review goes) just let me know if I can help, I'd recommend starting with any that received more than the usual coverage in outside sources or received awards. Stardust8212 00:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey CMBJ, I just wanted to say that I happened to be the one that tagged the KOTH articles. I really wasn't just targeting KOTH, I just came upon one of the episodes at one point and tagged it, and since most have infoboxes that link to other episodes I normally would follow them and ended up tagging most. I did stop at some point since the review process wasn't working (though I did tag the rest later, but I'm not sure what's going on with the review right now so I'm not sure what will happen to those), so all of the KOTH episodes on there right now were what I tagged at the same time. At the time, all of the episodes from other series that had been tagged had their full episode lists tagged at the same time (see these and also Futurama I think), so I just followed for completeness. I think, if this whole review is what's going to be happening, then each series should be evaluated at the same time instead of people having to come back each day to say what they think of each new episode on there (the episodes should still be evaluated individually anyway that it is happening). I didn't only target KOTH, as I added the tag to one other (almost) full series of episodes before the tag was deleted. I just wanted to leave you this note to tell you what happened and that the review isn't really just targeting KOTH (like others are telling you also). Phydend 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming to let me know. It sounds like a legitimate coincidence, but the way that the reviews are being conducted seem to easily convey a misconception to those less familiar with the project. I had already previously dismissed my concerns about these articles, but it doesn't seem that I am the only one that felt wary; as there had been others opposed to merging/deleting them, and I even received two messages here on my talk page regarding the topic. I apologize for being a thorn in anyones side, but we must all do what we can to make Misplaced Pages the best place possible.   — C M B J   07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC for Angie

Currently an RfC is taking place involving Angie Y. (talk · contribs), here. Your opinions are welcome. Seraphim 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.   — C M B J   09:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Neuhaus

An editor has nominated Jim Neuhaus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jim Neuhaus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Autograf, Martin Luther, Nordisk familjebok.png

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Autograf, Martin Luther, Nordisk familjebok.png, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Autograf, Martin Luther, Nordisk familjebok.png is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Autograf, Martin Luther, Nordisk familjebok.png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

CMBJ/Contribs

I just moved the above to your user space at User:CMBJ/Contribs - I guessed you intended it to go in your user space! – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that you had moved it almost immediately after.   — C M B J   18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:212.107.116.240

Hi, I looked over the contribs and do see vandalism appearing all over the place. However, the vandalism comes in too sporadically to consider giving this IP a block/soft block. Blocks are meant to be preventive and not punitive. If this IP's vandalism starts come in more heavily consider warning them with the appropriate {{uw-vandalism1}}-{{uw-vandalism4}} series and reporting them to WP:AIV if they vandalize after a fourth warning is given. Usually we block IPs based on 4+ vandal edits in the past 48 hours or a rather heavy period of vandalism within the past week and up the durations of the blocks based on the IP's block log. Hope all this info answers some of your concerns :).¤~Persian Poet Gal 15:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer to your question

The answer to all your admin requests is right here: . Kind of obvious...but I guess you assumed to early. --haha169 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You answered. Good. --haha169 (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware that an admin had already restored the article's history. Thanks for pointing that out.   — C M B J   05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes, the easiest way just may lead to the answer. --haha169 (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, CMBJ. You deserve a barnstar. Axl (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Geography Barnstar
		To CMBJ, for contributions to geographical location articles. Axl (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wendy's and citations

The tag you applied is inappropriate because it tags the whole article as needing citations. Since the article is already cited in many parts, please tag the sections or specific facts you feel need citations with either a {{CN}} or {{unreferencedsection}}. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Memristor.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Memristor.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Megapixie (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I have attempted to address the concerns at Image talk:Memristor.jpg.   — C M B J   03:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I still feel there are problems with us using this image and have taken it to PUI Megapixie (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 Olympics attack on American nationals (2nd nomination)

I have re-nominated this article for deletion. Please provide your input to the discussion. --Elliskev 17:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese dissidents

Thank you for the needed cleanup on both the Olympics and the controversies articles Yupi666 (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics

CMBJ, why did you remove the 'Events controversy' section of this article? It is very important. A subsection over judging controversies (in gymnastics at least) should be added also. Cwenger (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not removed any sections from Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. I'm actually the one that restructured the article and escalated the events controversy section to the top, because it is most relevant to the games. Have you mistakenly identified me?   — C M B J   02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I somehow missed that you moved the section to the top. My bad, sorry! -Cwenger (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Saga

No more saga! Help me by keeping this page the way it is right now, alright? Overmoon (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend taking the matter to WP:RFC for a broader consensus.   — C M B J   12:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

Hi CMBJ

Thanks for the welcome you left on my 'talk' page. It's certainly interesting to take part in Misplaced Pages. As a contributor rather than a reader, I'm a newby with only one account. The only things I've contributed in the past have been a couple of typo corrections, made anonymously on pages I no longer remember. But in terms of technical writing, I do have some experience.

I would also not want to hide that I have an agenda... quite a long one, most likely, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered involving myself. In terms of topics on China, my programming team and some of my dearest friends are in China, and I owe them my allegiance. However, my best service to them is by serving fairness and truth, which must also be my best service to Misplaced Pages. The page on which I tried to offer constructive comment is not currently a page that gives any particular credit to the Misplaced Pages institution. It breaks nearly all of the submission guidelines, and in structure it is not a helpful component to which other articles can usefully link.

Anyway, I think it is a major challenge for irregular encyclopaedists to write emotionless, accurate and pithy summaries, ruthlessly self-edited to sit within those boundaries: they are not easy skills to master. So just for the moment, I'm going to keep to the role of providing constructive comment, and hopefully that will be judged on its merits and in accord with the submission guidelines. We'll see what happens. If I find that I'm wasting my time, there are lots of worthwhile things to do. (^_^) All the best, CMBJ! Tsuchan (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani

I see that you have now withdrawn the Wikiette request, but please permit me nevertheless to go into the matter with some diffs, so that you can better understand my perspective.

I didn't want to respond to Tsuchan's comments with a potentially embarrassing criticism of said user in the article's Talk page. Just because something is sourced, does not mean it's relevant to the topic in question. There appeared to be an emerging consensus which I just went ahead to execute, as I felt the same. What is more, I believe my antagonist refused to engage in a sensible discussion. He the "asked me nicely" to restore the deleted text. He then progressed to making a veiled threat that his semblance of civility would be revoked if I did not restore what he called 'massive blankings against consensus'. I thought I had clearly explained the basis of my removal of some blocks of text both in my edit summary and here, and my views were apparently in line with most of the other fellow editors on this talk page, with the exception of the said user himself. I believe that at some point, he started taking this personally, and said that he had "asked me politely" not to post to his talk page when he did nothing of the sort. He pointed the finger at me in a section heading, repeated after I removed it. Those who appeared to share an opposite view to his own also fell victim - another user was accused of being a sockpuppet. He reacted with great hostility when I attempted to question this accusation in his talk page. I did not initiate this debate on cleaning up content which did not belong, nor was I the one who tagged the article. He used use my edit to the sentence on 'Ode to the Motherland' as evidence that I had not exercised sufficient care while editing, to attack my removal of coatracks in line with apparent consensus. It was IMHO a massive over-reaction on his part. It was a simple problem which he could have fixed himself. Now, in his statement above, he is once again making an unsubstantiated accusation about my actions and motivations. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)