Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:13, 22 September 2011

Barnstar

In the fine Misplaced Pages tradition, I am happy to give you this barnstar to recognize all your hard work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For a great deal of hard work to improve articles on a wide range of topics. TeaDrinker (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nepean HWY - Supposed Tram Line

I know depths and depths of information on topics related to Westfield Southland, Melbourne Tram/Train network as well as the suburb Cheltenham, Victoria. I study these 3 main topics daily, and I know nearly everything there is to know about those topics. I was just wondering, if you would be able to provide a source or reference to an edit of yours on Nepean Highway "There were plans to run the tram line down the middle of the highway from Glen Huntly Road to Westfield Southland Shopping Centre in Cheltenham, however this looks highly unlikely to ever go ahead." Please provide this reference, or Im afraid that it will be removed. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse article -- gay marriage

Given what the beginning of the Marital status and relationships section says in summary, I am not understanding your removal of the gay marriage information at all. As I stated in my edit summary, "This has to do with sexual intercourse just the same as other things that are prohibited. Gay marriage is prohibited due to one's sexual orientation -- who to have sexual intercourse with. It's why there is a Sexual orientation section."

So... Exactly why should other prohibitions in relation to marriage and sexual intercourse be mentioned, but not gay marriage? We all know the main reason gay marriage is objected to is because of the disapproval of two men having sex or two women having sex. If you want this made clear -- its relation to sexual intercourse -- then that can be done. You don't simply remove relevant material because of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, especially not when such information has been agreed on the talk page as needing inclusion. Did you think I would not revert you without sufficient explanation on your part? Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a lead-in on what it has to do with sexual intercourse. Flyer22 (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your second revert makes even less sense. Like I stated, "Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on homosexual sex. It's one of the main reasons for opposition. Refer to the sources." Does a gay/lesbian sexual orientation have nothing to do with homosexual sex to you?

If I need to take this to WP:RfC, I will. Because getting into an edit war as silly as this is, well...silly. Flyer22 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carrillo Gantner

The article Carrillo Gantner has been proposed for deletion because, under Misplaced Pages policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 12:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of idle curiosity...

I don't actually follow Sex party but I cleared up some spam recently while doing recent changes patrol. I saw that you were the next edit after me and you removed the historical material. I was just curious to know why, since the page is in projects outside my usual scope. I can see that a fair amount of the text you removed was more of a "in popular culture" type thing than historical. But as an outsider to the project, the 1970s stuff seemed potentially useful (though it seemed to be in the wrong section). Knowing stuff like this helps me with recent changes sometimes. I'll come across stuff that looks off to my eye and then find out there was something in the project MOS behind it. So yeah, just curious. Millahnna (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think I've gone too far, feel free to revert. I just thought that a random historical note is worse than none. Those issues can be expanded in the linked article. Ewawer (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I truly have no clue which is why I'm asking. I mostly edit film and tv articles myself (and predominantly anything "genre" within that group) so when I'm doing recent changes there are often articles I'll look at where an edit is totally up in the air for me because I don't know it's ruling project guidelines. Usually, if that happens, I leave the edit be for more well versed editors to look at (or maybe drop a note on the project page if the article has few watchers/little recent activity). Since I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic outside of pop culture mentions and some passing research, I really had no idea. Millahnna (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you use sources?

I saw you at the article called United States debt-ceiling crisis and went through your contribs and saw that you don't use sources. I understand not using sources for general things, but it appears that you don't use sources for things that should have them or will likely be contested either. And then sometimes you get reverted. So why don't you use sources? And if you do, why so rarely? Do a lot of Misplaced Pages editors work like that? 121.12.115.15 (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Cupless bra, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Binksternet (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)