Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:53, 3 January 2010

Archives

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Flags in golfer infoboxes

Flag icons in infoboxes are "discouraged" not forbidden per wp:mosicon. They are commonly used in the golf world (European Tour profiles, PGA Tour profiles, leaderboards on those and other sites, etc. I'm reverting the changes you made to several golfers articles. Tewapack (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I think you should perhaps defer to the long-standing practices of editors who actually work on these articles. Removing them in the manner you have, with no substantial rationale or discussion, is frankly not what I expect of an apparently vastly experienced editor (more so given you are an admin). It is precisely that kind of editing that precipitates edit wars. _wjemather 09:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Murphy template

You removed them all already, didn't you? My browser was starting to slow down and I need to reboot, then I was going to do that. I, however, was distracted too long. I removed the filmography part of the template and left a note for the creator. Thanks for cleaning up after me, I was a wayward child. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jude Law

Hi. If you have time, could you please look in at Jude Law and Talk:Jude Law regarding the edits of one editor (essentially a Jude Law single purpose account who first ended up pushing the section covering Law's appearance in Hamlet in Great Britain and the US. It has become a problem. First the section grew until it was as large as either the complete 1990s or the 2000s sections, because the editor insisted on adding every positive review from London that was written, and in a couple of cases, cherrypicked only the small positive parts from a couple overall negative reviews. Another editor reduced the section and left critical review on both sides of the fence. When that happened, the first editor removed all critic reviews citing "no need for any reviews, because of a maintain a neutral, unbiased POV. (WP:NPOV, WP:NPV, WP:NEU)". I returned it and then he came in and challenged everything. This is getting to be a problem. Also, just to mention, he's notorious for not responding. In the 2 1/2 years he's edited on Misplaced Pages, he's posted once to an article talk page - in late 2007, and once to another user talk page - in late 2008. Other eyes would be great. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OJ Simpson info box removal

I noticed you removed the infobox that contained legal information about . I believe the infobox was active for quite awhile and it contained very valuable information. Other portions of the article however could use some clean-up. Was the infobox removed because you feel it shouldn't be there or was there a reason it was removed that would benefit others?Woods01 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks...

red means stop? It seemed like such a (quite surprising) mixed response that I'm not sure what to say. You're the administrator. :) I think I was fairly clear with what I said - he's deliberately keeping the list free of redlinks, which is not, in my view, at all in the spirit of what WP:REDLINKS says. I was a bit taken aback by the responses. I am anxious to see what Erik says, but he's not been around this week. Maybe on holiday? What do you think? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre. I had no clue you were irrational. Geez, what does that make me? I've begun to notice that I end up involved in nearly as many disagreements as an administrator. Still, I do not want to be one. Let's hope Erik pops in with rationality, eh? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Razzies

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I know why the WP:FILM people have not commented yet. I know Erik isn't thrilled with them, but then, he's not been back yet to edit. Any ideas on how to raise the awareness of this discussion? Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talkheader

What's the problem? I'm partecipating to the 2009 Tag & Assess Drive for the WP:Films WikiProject. If I find an article talk page without the talkheader template then I add the template to the talk page. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(IMHO) All articles' talk pages need the talkheader. The articles here on WikipediA are read by millions of people and the majority of them are not so familiar with Internet and WikipediA. They do not know waht a discussion page is and how to use it, and that template could help. I read those old/archived posts /o\... and I got a migraine. I find that idea of the bot that automatically adds the talkheader really smart! Have a great week. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

NO! If and only if it is necessary, and by using common sense and good editorial judgment, and by following informations, policies and guidelines in Talk page, Talk page templates, Misplaced Pages Guide to Talk page Layout, Talk page formatting, Talk page guidelines.... –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

idk... wikipedia is having prob and i had a couple of pages ready to be saved... probably that page was one of them. i wrote something in the template talk page... please, read it when you have time. anyway, i thought i was doing a good thing by adding that tl to all those pages ~ lol ~ cheers. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you Garion96! Karim Masri (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Homo Futurus image for Barbara Rosenthal page

I have been trying to put this up for a long time. It was recently deleted by an editor, MBisanz, who says on his page that he's going to law school and will only be checking in sporadically, so I'm writing to you because you wrote to me in the past. The artist is located in the picture next to her artwork. I took the photo. She has given me permission to use herself and her artwork in the photo, and to use it on Misplaced Pages. I am sure I noted that fact, and the fact that I want copyright credit and notification if this image is to be used in any other way. I can't find my way back to the code for this. And every time I work with this image I am asked to start all over again and enter the whole description and everything. Can you find my photo, please, and just add the correct code for what I just wrote you, and get the image, with the text below it, back onto the Barbara Rosenthal page? Billcreston (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bad faith edits?

Please adjust your edit summary for the future. Since when is removing unsourced content from a completely sourced list a bad faith edit? Garion96 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I let my frustration show.

Nevertheless, it is not good practice to arbitrarily remove contributions from other editors without at least affording an opportunity for the editor to explain or justify their edits (including adding missing references). The best way to accomplish that is with a "citation needed" tag (a friendly mail message is helpful too). Granted if there is a genuine reason to think that the edits are vandalism, blatant fraud, or in some other way a significant and obvious violation of WP policy then, yes, a quick removal is justified. In this specific case the original edits contained links to well-sourced articles so there was no legitimate basis to think that the information was fraudulent in any way. Hence the reason I took offense. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that your edits weren't necessarily "bad faith," though you have removed sourced facts regarding Hong Kong from List of red-light districts. But the larger problem is that it's not actually necessary to have a citation for every single entry on that list. Per WP:Verifiability, a citation is needed for any material challenged or likely to be challenged. There are many well known red-light districts that are not listed simply because some editors have prosecuted a campaign of removing unsourced entries without regard to likelihood of challenge. It's a larger issue and I think I'll post on the talk page about it as it's gotten out of hand. Someidiot (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I use often enough, but to add these tags to a completely sourced article is just degrading the article. If your edits were blatant vandalism or something like that I wouldn't even have bothered with an edit summary but would have just rollbacked your edits. I stated in my summary "remove unsourced", you understood that, so why bother with a message on your talk? Yes, these messages are nice but sometimes you can never get anything done that way. Plus it really is (and is now done) up to you to provide sources. I didn't had time (or at that moment interest) to look for the sources myself. Garion96 (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, again, I'm sorry. I was being unnecessarily nasty.

I wasn't suggesting that you should look for sources only that removing text every time it doesn't technically meet standards is not necessarily the most efficient approach.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure of the best way to link to a diff, but here: you removed sourced info on Hong Kong. Someidiot (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Looks like you have your work cut out for you. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

userpage edit

Thanks for changing that on my page there, I was confused as to why it wasn't working. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome!

Thank you for your welcome! Your friend, Karim Masri (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Nice to see your name pop up on my watchlist. I hadn't seen you lately and had considered stopping by to see if you were about. So, hi. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Joropo.jpg

You deleted File:Joropo.jpg, but this file doesn't appear to be available at commons. Is it under a different name? — RockMFR 15:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Wjemather has found and fixed them all. Yay! — RockMFR 17:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME, but shouldn't you have warned the uploader first? Or is it customary for you to delete images wihout warning? I was the original uploader, and I protest! AVM (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas template

Hi Garion96,

I saw your edits to the Christmas template ({{Christmas}}). You agree with me right? Stupid IPs... :/ --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 16:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it makes the image too large and unwieldly if every single christmas movie or music has been added to it. And it makes the template an easy target for Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion. Garion96 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Thanks for your input, I appreciate it. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Duff

Would you please take a look at this article and the way that Chasewc91 is deleting content, which includes the entire personal life section? His current edit summary includes "3rr has passed, so removing the tabloidy personal life section again." I reverted it, noting that waiting 24 hours does not relief one from violating the intent of 3RR. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Nothing in there is violating WP:NPA, as far as I can see. If you'd like to discuss the matter and attempt to come to consensus instead of giving orders from on high, I would be open to that. Yzak Jule (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. (P.S. Your edit to WT:3RR, which was merged into this page, was months ago, but we haven't had much participation in the survey so far this week.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:SM U-25 001 Cruises.jpg

Just a question, you recently closed the FFD discussion on this image File:SM U-25 001 Cruises.jpg, I had assumed the discussion also covered the few hundred other similar images uploaded as mentioned at the start of the discussion. As you only deleted the nominated image do we have to create the 200+ deletion discussions for all the others? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on both accounts

I wish I could say I took that photo, but I cobbed from someone else. Heh. Hilary has calmed down, but only because Brittany Murphy has roared to the front! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Public domain is my hero! As for the Murphy thing, think Karen Carpenter. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon

to you. How insane has that whole thing become?? Sheesh. Thanks for your observations. I would suggest you not post to that page in case someone would say you are me! That's me all over the place. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC) or as Rossrs would say MisterBeyondMyWildBettySoupLoganhartlivie (I'm feeling a little schizo today!)

Hold on, please...

As far as the rollbacks, here's what happened: I haven't even been home at my computer since before 2pm PST. While I was gone, I did try to view some stuff on my watchlist from my cellphone because of the events of today surrounding a Wikiette report I filed. My phone is a touchscreen, and at times it is difficult to get it to respond on the right spot - when I thought I was hitting "diff", my finger must have hit "rollback" both times. I'm sorry for the error, but it really was beyond my control. Look, it you need to, check the IP address for the rollbacks and you will see that it was through a different IP address than I usually use and coming from Verizon Wireless. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)