Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:13, 5 July 2012

Demo Sandbox

You can put examples either in this section, or here: User:Canoe1967/sandbox/sample

English will change

English will change. We have dropped many complex spellings of words in the last few centuries, and we will drop more. A few decades from now there may be only the shortest spelling: 'by' and ther(e) may be accepted for all uses of the words. The apostrofee(sic) may go altogether as we learn to understand words in context. If the writer wants to make the context very clear, then the older forms may be used to do that. I remember when British rules allowed 'color' because spell chequers(sic) kept dropping the you(sic). --Canoe1967 (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)--

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, Canoe1967. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Misplaced Pages:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Misplaced Pages:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Peaceray (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry I haven't had time to follow all the links yet, but I hope too soon. I had to shrink your cookies as well, my graphics fan howled every time they loaded.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am incredibly sorry SineBot. I am new and still learning. I sincerly hope you accept my deepest apologies, and believe that I will try my best in the future to sign posts. Canoe1967 (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

the owner of a statue

such as the one of the good admiral N, does not own the rights to a picture of the work. The sculptor, or his heirs own it. This is because the United States (the demon to your south) does not have freedom of panorama, among things. also, don't forget to type four of these things ` after your messages to sign them. It's hardcore wikipedia etiquette. Carptrash (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

PS. How did you know that I did sculpture stuff? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a picture of Weaver would make the article ready to go. In this sort of back and forth conversations consider using a :, or :: or even ::: at the beginning of your edit. It adds indents, which makes things easier to find. But stick around for a while and these sorts of things will become automatic. Carptrash (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Centennial Voyageur Canoe Pageant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pembroke, Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay, Deep River, Fort William and Selkirk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely aplogize for my error DPL bot. I have no excuse. This is know excuse, but I had linked 22 places en masse without checking, and then carried on creating my article. I will try and get them linked properly before the second centennial.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Interprovincial Standards

Have a look at Interprovincial Standards, it needs expansion. What trades are included? How do you get a seal? Are the rules the same in Quebec? Do employers look for Red Seals? How many people have qualified? And so on...lots of stuff, you could start off with what you'd tell your grandmother about it and even that much would be a worthwhile addition to the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Great article start. All of that info should be on gov.ca sites, perhaps just 12 links to the 12 children of Canada for now? I suppose someone should edit out canoe, and edit in specimen, but I think it is fine for now. When I created Canada in apprentice, Interprovincial showed as a red link. I suppose we should go through and blue link a few or all if we can. I am wondering if the title should be Interprovincial Standards, Interprovincial Standard, etc., but that will be another talk page section that I will avoid, lol. PS, does one answer you on this talk page or yours? I assume some are picky and many don't care., lol--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The red seal in the photo says "Interprovincial Standard". Their Web site sas they do "Interprovincial Standards". Any one person writes a test to pass an Interprovincial Standard, but if you're both a cook and a welder you might have two Interprovincial Standards to your name. I think the plural is OK in the title of the article because it will be writing about the program collectively, not just one Standard. We need references about the opinions on IP - citees to books or articles. I normally monitor talk pages if I put text on them, for at least a while - thogh we should discuss improvements to the article at the article's own talk page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has strict guidelines on plurals in article titles. I trolled for opinions at help desk, and also emailed the 'The Interprovincial Standards Red Seal Program' they may help clarify as well. I will leave it in flux for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed wikilinks from this talk page--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Expansion tag

Hi.

The tag you were looking for to put in Comparison of free video converters is {{expand}} but it retired and must not be used. The reason is that all Misplaced Pages articles except Featured Articles need expansion — a lot of expansion. So, no one cared about it. It just made a huge backlog of the entire Misplaced Pages.

As for adding more converters to the list, they must first have their own articles, then placed there. Fleet Command (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You might like to checkout Category:Video conversion software. Since Misplaced Pages has so little video conversion software, maybe you'd like to expand that article into Comparison of video converters. Fleet Command (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I felt readers should be aware that there are other converters out there, not just those that have articles in wikipedia. If they aren't listed, it may seem that these are the only sanctioned ones by wikipedians. Should we bring this up in the article talk for others to have input on? btw, sorry for my oops on removing the citation tag when I changed from a section to article expansion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Free software

Hi.

I am really sorry to be a reverting bitch but Free Software Portal only accepts free software entries, not just every software that is available free of charge. Currently, there is only one such program in the list: Handbrake. Fleet Command (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, my fault for not reading the fine print. I was just trying to draw more editors to the article and hopefully get all the freeware software added eventually--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added software portal tag and asked a few others to contribute. Hopefully, it will receive more input. Fleet Command (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation Loop on Mitch Gaylord

I am waiting for you to add an explanation of your recent revert to Mitch Gaylord on the article's talk page. Please explain why the citation I added constituted a "Loop." The citation was from Rotten Tomatoes, which seems to be a reliable source. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I just added explanation to his article talk page. The website cites an uncited article in wikipedia on his 1st wife.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Argh! Just noticed that. Sorry. Would you have any objection to my looking for a truly RS? Ebikeguy (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No objections at all. I just thought I would remove it until cited. IMDB has the same info, but it has no citations at all. Are marriage, birth, and divorce records public access somewhere? With biographies of living people I feel it is best to just remove the info until properly cited.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for the catch. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I would not have thought that something so obvious would require so much research. I did find this. While a Playboy reference may raise some hackles, Playboy does, in general, seem to be recognized as an RS (example 1, example 2). Plus, the photographic evidence presented on that page is fairly overwhelming. Thoughts? And, thanks again. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Another supporting sight at playboy.com, again with overwhelming photographic evidence. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I definately agree with Playboy being far more reliable than IMBD. It has one of the highest reputations for journalistc credibilty. I just ran into and edit conflict changing the high school yearbook ref to IMBD and adding a cite to the current spouse with the same ref. The other editor changed it to the Playboy one. I may just get an account on IMBD, write a cornball article on my boss, then create a wikipedia article on him with the same info and cite IMBD.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your sandbox

Wow. I never saw AWB pull up a user's sandbox before. I didn't notice that it was a sandbox, and just made the trivial change. Hope I didn't startle you. Happy editing! Chris the speller  19:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I ran across it was that you named it "Canoe1967/sandbox/sample" instead of "User:Canoe1967/sandbox/sample". Cheers! Chris the speller  19:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I added a userbox to your userpage, hope you don't mind. Penyulap ☏ 05:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The related image categories exist, but not the userboxes, I made that one. I think I might make some more, for the specific fields. Penyulap ☏ 05:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a category, Wikipedians who are tradesmen, with sub trades added. Then another caregory: Tradesmen that don't know how to make a userbox for their trade?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it is, I like it :) Penyulap ☏ 06:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted post

There is a discussion which concerns you at Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Deleted Birther soapboxing. SpinningSpark 19:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Please review Misplaced Pages:Civility. Calling another user a "gutless piece of shit" is not acceptable behavior, and is a block-able offense. I suggest you edit it out of your original post and apologize on the talk page. You are welcome to disagree with other editors but you may not use offensive language in your interactions with them. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

But Dad, he started it?, kidding. I have deleted and apologized. Sorry.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Squared5.com

The link www.squared5.com/svideo/about.html is now whitelisted as you requested. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it to the article, but don't know how to move the thread to the completed section of the whitelist.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother, that sort of housekeeping will get done eventually by me or one of the regular maintainers of the page. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Village Pump Discussion

On the template that you put on the discussion page, I was thinking of something a lot more simple and a lot more friendly.

This would be designed for anyone creating a new article - which may or may not be a new user

It would say something like this:

You are creating a new article. Please start this article in your sandbox to be assured that it will not be speedly deleted because of insufficient material and/or references. Thank you and welcome to Misplaced Pages and your first article!!!

I would like to know what you think. Mugginsx (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I know little of making templates. That one seems to have other templates inside it. Another idea would be:

This is an article recently created by a novice user. It is in the category 'Articles created by novice users'. Although it is in main article space it is open to discussion on the talk pages of the article and creator. The information contained in it may not meet wikipedia standards, such as REF, NOT, COI and POV; therefore it may be moved to user space or deleted.

Should we paste these two ideas to the pump, and let them hack and slash them?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see this sooner. Gave up over there. Seems no one is listening. If you have something like your idea to vote on let me know. I support your idea. Mugginsx (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I will just renew my passport so I can spend $1500, take a few days off, and fly over to your house.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Right adjust

Hi, Your animation file on Computer-generated imagery ‎ seems to want to just be left adjusted. I am not sure why. Could you somehow fix it so it will stay on the right and text will wrap around it? Good animation, but just a strange page layout. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It does fit there better, and I think I got it moved ok. I can take a nice screen shot of a VR for the section below as well. Those metallic balls seem too basic.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But let the VR item be from a different product not Machinima so it does not look like it dominates things. The page computer animation can do with some better items too. I have been planning to fix that for over a year... sigh.. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be machinima. Just a screen capture using the 'inworld' camera. Machinima needs 3rd party software to film. Any suggestions for a good background? Virtual tourist attraction, dance club, racetrack, etc? (btw, fixed typos above of yours, hope you don't mind)--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries about typos - talk gets forgotten tomorrow. Virtual tourist, virtual museum might be nice. More encyclopedic than racetrack probably. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is better one I filmed, but it will have copyright issues I would think. I could just change the soundtrack and that might be legal, but the subject may still cause discussion. (rem url)--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

But why fix it if not broken. What you had is good enough. There are so many other things to fix... History2007 (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I made find a PD sound file to add to the reindeer, then re-upload with sound. Is anything happening with merging the two machinima articles? I should put a link to those as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not involved with the machinima articles. The problem is the low text quality and references in the animation article, not the visuals as much. Anyway, I will leave the vid issues to yu and think of the text in a week or two. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

list of metal

I find your edit summary interesting when all you did was revert the revert. On another note I live in Edmonton as well.Curb Chain (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse welcome

Thank you Sarah. I hope my advice didn't lead any new editors {{astray}} in the Teahouse.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Joint attention GA

Hi, I'm intrigued by your GA assessment of this article. As far as I can see the entire review consists of "Looks fine. The lead may be a little long. You may consider moving some of the more detailed information in the lead to lower sections to further improve it." Are you saying that's assessed against all the criteria and you've passed it? I've only done a couple of GA assessments but even if they were perfect I wrote more than that. I haven't looked at the article in any detail and would agree that at first sight there is nothing jumps out as being glaringly wrong but to award it GA status on the back of a three sentence review does look like less than thorough. I can appreciate you've done the review asap to help out the nominators (I saw the issue raised at the Teahouse) but are you doing them (or you) a favour if subsequently someone else pushes this to GAR because it looks incomplete? NtheP (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to compare my revision of this talk section to yours.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never claimed to be a great copy editor! And the review was a copypaste of what you wrote so liitle/little was your error not mine. Spelling aside, I've no gripe if you think your review was full, fair and assessed the article against all the criteria, I'm just curious as to your thought process if that is all you think needs to be recorded. NtheP (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am curiuos how you can advise improvements on perfect articles. I would just summary: "Perfect, 'nuff said." Here is an article in good status that rambles into too much detail in the lead: Federation of Stoke-on-Trent. If I knew more about the subject, I would fix it myself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you'd just said "all criteria met . . ." I wouldn't have been asking because the explicit statement that it was a pass was there. Thanks for responding, now that I understand the way you wrote the review. Sorry if you've taken this as a slur on the way you conducted the review, it's not and never was but a comment on how you recorded the outcome of the review. Incidentally the lead on Federation of Stoke-on-Trent was originally a lot shorter and was expanded to meet comments at GA. NtheP (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you review an article you don't think needs any further improvements I would suggest using one of these templates {{subst:FGAN}}, {{subst:GAList}}, {{subst:GAList2}}, {{subst:GATable}} or {{subst:GAHybrid}}. They are easy to fill out if there are no issues to be addressed and it will let other editors know that you have checked the article against all the criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

RE:Angel wing gif

Thank You!! It perfect! ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 00:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Inadequate GA review of Joint attention

Hi,

Your GA review Talk:Joint attention/GA1 is inadequate. Please consult Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria and ensure you have addressed all the criteria in your review.

If you don't feel like completing a proper review, I will re review the article for you. This is a psychology article and must follow WP:MEDRS as well.

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many good articles that don't meet the criteria. Should one go through and tag all of those? I feel this one meets the criteria. It would be less lazy of you to just fix the minor errors as opposed to a full review. And please stop asking the authors to prove that the sky is blue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't review it. I will re review it, since you don't seem familiar with the GA review procedures. This is especially important as this is an Education Project article, and students learn nothing from an empty review. Your analogy to "blue sky" does not apply here. The statement is not supported. The reader shouldn't have to be a parent to understand the veracity of a statement that a two month old "Engaging in dyadic joint attention and conversation-like exchanges with adults during which each is the focus of the other's attention and they take turns exchanging looks, noises and mouth movements." - it's not equivalent to the "sky is blue". The table is OR and synth because the editor combines various sources into his/her own version. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please seek consenus before you continue with your disruptive edits, or request dispute resolution. 'nuff said?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you've had little reviewing experience, but please familiarize yourself with GA review procedures. I don't need consensus to initiate a new GA review. That's not how it works! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you initiate a new GA review I will constitute that as disruptive editing, as I have stated to you at least twice already. Seek either consenus for the review or dispute resolution.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Canoe. Mathew is within his rights to conduct an individual reassessment on any article he thinks does not meet the Good standards. You are welcome to respond to the review, but you have to let it run its course. Initiating a review does not always mean that the article will be delisted and if the concerns raised by Matthew are addressed it will be kept as a Good article. I will watchlist it and comment too as I have some experience with GAs and can hopefully help out. If Mathew decides to delist it and you or I disagree then we can start a community reassessment and get others input. This process is supposed to be lightweight so it is best to try and decide these things between individuals first. From my experiences with Matthew he is a good reviewer and his ultimate aim will be to try and get the article to pass. AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I consider tagging that article GAR as disruptive edit behaviour. The article can easily be reassessed without the template.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Nun killing a grizzly with a broom.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:Nun killing a grizzly with a broom.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Get stuffed, hoser-bot!--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Right

I was wondering what the guy was shoveling. Trolls here? On Misplaced Pages? Mugginsx (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox

Thank you for lending me your sandbox with the translated W. Stower WP:Germany article. It was useful, and I now have access to more information to help improve the English article. Feel free to delete, or whatever. ~Eric F (Talk) Don't talk:98.26.28.41 (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Did you ask in the de:talk page for the article for any Germans that may wish to help on en:WP?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't thought of that, sounds like a good idea. However, I think I have the translation situation under control. I just wish the de article had citations for the bio information. Btw...

Der Untergang der „Titanic‟

If you must "improve" Stöwer's lithograph, please upload as a new version, not replacing the "faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art" (unless there is a consensus to do so). I would really like to have a copy for his page that hasn't been tampered with. Thanks, ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please revert and chew my ass out in the comment section. You may also mention something like "Do not revert this image! Upload other versions as new files", type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Either I can't figure out how to revert, or I don't have admin access, or something. Btw, I have a copy on my computer that I have adjusted (histogram) that is more of a digital restoration rather than "improvement". I'll figure out a way to upload to Google docs, or get a Picasa account or something. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC) -- Btw, that new image wasn't really "higher resolution", it was simply enlarged -- compare the two, the smaller one actually is much sharper and less grainy. ~E 19:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I will revert it and leave a comment about uploading other versions as new files. I may be able to google the same image you have and upload that one for you. Can you not log in to your account because of lost password?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a WP account. The image I have is on my computer (not online anywhere yet) -- which is currently in the shop (HD crash) -- hopefully, the file will be recovered. Currently using a borrowed laptop; and need owner's password to access google docs; and if I remember correctly, you can't simply upload images to Google docs, must have Picasa "web album" or something,. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I've set up a Picasa album, and set copyright stuff to 'Creative Commons' licence:

• Link to Picasa Album? ~E 98.26.28.41 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
• On Picatom? ~E98.26.28.41 (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Direct link to image from Picasa?

Can this image be uploaded as an "Other version", instead of replacing current file (unless/until there is a concensus)? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)21:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we can just replace the existing. The picacom one won't load in my browser. The picasa one does seem slightly better quality. We should have the best quality b/w version in that image page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the upload!

Can you access this signature image file? ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk)184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see "talkback" here. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Булла, Виктор Карлович

According to the Russian wiki article he was killed on 1938 (shooted) or in 1944 (cancer of stomach). See articles on ru-wiki and de-wiki: ru:Булла, Виктор Карлович de:Wiktor Karlowitsch Bulla. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

ELBURDEN

Please note WP:ELBURDEN and please revert your edit to comply with WP:ELBURDEN. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

From WP:ELBURDEN: "Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard."--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Take your time looking over the policies and guidelines. There's no rush, and I see you're relatively new here.

I tend to be very brief and to the point, which some find upsetting. I'm happy to explain further and sorry if my editing or comments upset you. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard."--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad we came to an agreement with the DMOZ link! --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Me as well. I know WP has policies, but I think we can ignore all rules here. Many may look in WP first for a list of online directories. That is far better than getting all the spam from google for them. I added their postal code list to the postal code article. You may wish to spam check the other 3 links there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally. Someone calls me a veteran instead of a fucking newbie.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

See history

I removed all the wiki drama. If you really want to get off on tabloid shit then it is still in history.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments

This was inappropriate. My post there was a discussion of the sources and the way a COI editor should approach editing the article. Don't do that again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"My edits (the ones you reverted) were not coatracking. I intend to be rigorous about the COI issue." <--This seems to be a statement made by an editor that doesn't seem to focus on the article and just focuses on another editor.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

re this, please see WP:REDACT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The comments from Abhayakara and Nomoskedasticity that you deleted do not meet any of the criteria listed in WP:TPOC. The comments were about whether a particular text needs to be in the article and thus were entirely relevant.

In Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, the section titled "How to use article talk pages" tells you what you should add. The section titled "Editing comments --> Others' comments" tells you what you can and cannot remove. That section starts by saying "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." The above comment by Nomoskedasticity is clearly an objection. You should respond by indicating that you will not do it again. Also, please follow WP:REDACT. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a clash in WP policies then. One says that they are subject to removal (the same as irrelevant material in articles). At this point we should use the 'discuss cycle' to reach consensus on whether I can remove all irrelevant material, just mine, or none at all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Given what these guidelines say about others' objections, I think it's reasonable to anticipate that others are likely to object. If you really want to remove your comments -- and certainly if you want to remove others' comments -- my suggestion is that you ask those affected first. You appear to do good work here in other respects and I don't want bad blood between us -- my suggestion is meant as genuinely constructive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is confusing, and I believe that Canoe1967's removal was in good faith, although I disagree with his conclusion. I have asked for clarification at Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines#"Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)@Nomoskedasticity - I will avoid that article if I can and sorry if my edits seemed wrong to many. I can well understand why editors need to go off topic to help the discussion and article. It just isn't a thing that I normally do. You are a good editor and I hope we can just drop this with no bad blood.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a similar objection to your recent edits to the Magnotta talkpage. This wasn't even a sentence, let alone a claim. I get your general point, but I think you're taking it a bit too far here. If you must edit, keep other people's replies to what you're editing in mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Too mention the video as relating to a BLP is a violation of policy. There is no RS that confirms he had anything to do with the video.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's a big difference between someone claiming "Magnotta is the murderer in that murder video" in the article and someone typing the words "view magnotta murder video" (presumably intended as a question) on a talk page. Your intentions seem good, but I think you overestimate the defamatory effects of something so minor as this. We certainly do not need to verify our talk page comments with reliable sources! Anyway, I've changed it and you've said you're fine with the change, so we're cool. As for me adding the bit about changing it and the reason why, this is encouraged by talk page guidelines and was done in the interest of transparency. I would strongly advise you to NOT edit any more comments by others unless there is consensus on whether and how to do so. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sondra Locke

The following is meant to be a helpful/friendly note, so I hope you take it that way. I urge caution to you when it comes to "agreeing" and engaging in converse with brand new editors whose first edits are at Sondra Locke. It has been a very contentious space for quite a while, mostly due to the high number of sock puppets that have been there. In the two or three years since the issues initially began, Excuseme99 has appeared with no less than 10 socks to "defend" and "agree" with his earlier opinions. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not accusing you of meat or sock puppetry with your most recent edits -- but I am urging you to proceed with caution. Thanks. Erikeltic 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it is another sock or meat of the other socks. I still expect Rovi to change their date. I have sent their legal dept. an email recently which totals two sent to Rovi. I have yet to hear back from the publisher of the book. It does seem strange that I received prompt emails back from the sources that state 1944 and that the 1947 ones seem to just STFU. Although they may be just being thorough about their source checks before they respond. On the matter of the original sock. I went back in their edit histories and did find a few edits that were improvements to other articles and later reverted by admin after the investigation. They were good edits and I may just add the diffs to the talk pages and see if another editor wants to re-add them so I can avoid all the bullshit that I had to go through before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

So... let me get this straight. You're planning to re-add material of a indefinitely banned editor? You may be new to wikipedia, but that would constitute editing on behalf of banned editors. Furthermore, you really, really need to understand that your emails to various people constitutes original research and is therefore pointless. If you genuinely want to improve the article, I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP policies, rather than trying to rewrite the rules to make work that which won't. At this point I'll just take it back to the talk page, as my friendly note has very clearly fallen on deaf ears. Erikeltic 21:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is good (RS) material that improves/expands the article, I see no reason not to add it back. I think admin just erred on the side of caution when they removed it. I will check the sources, discuss on talk pages, and possibly have other editors do the edit. The articles may have changed too much to just paste in as it was. Asking a source to check its source and possibly change it is not OR. She was not born in both years, and it would be nice to have all sources agree on one year. The book can not be changed until a new addition is printed but the publishing company may find another way to correct it publicly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The luckiest man in Iraq

The article The luckiest man in Iraq has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An article on a non-notable video, used in a military press-conference like hundreds of other videos from aircraft targeting pods and probably fails WP:NOTNEWS as well.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Machine translated articles

Please don't create articles using machine translations as you did with Viktor Bulla, they are really too poor to be of any real use, especially when you don't even do it properly and create and article filled with s and s and untranslated sentences. WP:TRANSLATION describes the correct procedure, please follow it in future--Jac16888 17:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have the top third done and was hoping others could help. I had started it in my user space a while ago and thought I would move it to mainspace for others to finish. It seems all my work is being fucked up by a bunch of assholes that stalk me and mess up my edits. I will probably just edit at ref and help desks now or just leave wp altogether. I can't believe wp has so many childish editors that are allowed to power trip, bullshit the policies and admin and get their way like whining children.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, do you try and deal with the hundreds of terribly translated articles that people create then leave for someone else to fix? No? Must just be me then. Like I said, if you can't do it yourself then follow the instructions at WP:TRANSLATION instead of creating such a poor article--Jac16888 17:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The s and s aren't rocket science. They match the ref numbers and the untranslated sentences are just repeats of the english translation beside them. If I edit the article I am sure a few assholes will just show up and make a mess. They will prob add a delete tag to it because they are too lazy to do the simple fixes. It does add to the project, but it seems many don't think any edit I do does.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

So these assholes? They're too lazy to do the fixes that you didn't bother to do when you created the article in the first place? What does that make you then?--Jac16888 17:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to do it, but I am sure they will come along and fuck it up somehow. I will give it a day or so to make sure they don't slap a delete tag on it and delete all my edits with it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Rob de Luca picture

please read why I keep removing this pic, follow the history and you'll find the story behind it. If you have any newer free pic of Rob De Luca,, you're welcome to suggest it to him and post it, if he agrees. Contact Lovemberrecords.com for approval!

Thanks, Moonslide (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Template:Z10

Canoe1967 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Consensus was not reached. Most editors are sleeping now including at least two more that disagree with the current image. Other editors have pushed the issue in the meantime. Canoe1967 (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your claims that this image violates BLP are absolutely unfounded, as several people tried to explain to you on the article's talk page. Max Semenik (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I can't believe this bullshit. The way wp treats BLPs is atrocious. I wouldn't be suprised if a bunch get together and file a class action suit in Florida. I may be first in line to gather evidence for them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)