Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:13, 5 December 2012

List of emoticons/editcopy

Hi there! You've probably noticed this already, but I moved List of emoticons/editcopy to Talk:List of emoticons/editcopy, because we don't usually have subpages in article space. If you intended it as a personal copy, then you should also feel free to move it to something like User:M0rphzone/List of emoticons. See also Misplaced Pages:Subpages and Misplaced Pages:Workpages. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 06:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That works. Thanks! - M0rphzone (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Slashdot effect

I was really tired earlier this week because I didn't get enough sleep before a huge con and it caught up to me. I'm better now. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to hear. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Netac Technology

In regards to your recent edits to Netac Technology, I am wondering if you're aware of WP:SELFSOURCE. Do you feel that the cited material is either 1. unduly self-serving, 2. involves claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities), 3. involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, 4. the article is based primarily on such sources? Or do you think that there is reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material? Fleetham (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article previously used 11 self sources out of 19. I know it might be hard to find sources for the topic, but in this case, the chance that the sources are promotional is very high. I'll re-add some of the sources that may not be as problematic. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, it is unnecessary to provide multiple citations using the same sources for a single sentence. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, there were too many primary sources on that page but not many others available. Fleetham (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Astropecten articulatus

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Astropecten articulatus, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://oceanica.cofc.edu/TRCH-Echinos/web_Seastars/page01.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Note - if you slightly modify a paragraph, what you have created counts as a derived work, and is still tainted with the copyright of the original copyright holder. When entering text into Misplaced Pages, the only safe thing is to use your own words. I've regretfully tagged the article for removal. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, why don't you spend the effort to fix the article instead of tagging it? Seems like you're another one of those editors who don't take the time to fix things and like to put tags instead. You could've used that time to fix it. And if you're going to tag it, why don't you just move it to a subpage under my username and remove the problematic content so I can work on it? You could have just deleted the offending information then - those sections that were "derivative works". If you don't have time to fix the issues you brought up, then move the article to the userspace, and the article creator can work on it some more. Simple as that. So I've moved the article to my userspace and hidden the copyrighted derivative content for now; I'll rewrite it again. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"Still tainted with the copyright of the original copyright holder." - Is it really necessary to word it like this? Use more appropriate words next time. And don't go on about some derivative work or copyvio policy cause I know. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've spent much more time around lawyers who know about copyright law than I want to think about. They talk like that; I'm afraid I tend to use those words too. Where do you get your legal advice from? --Alvestrand (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Had a busy night....

It was a slow holiday, and not to steal your thunder, but I spent some hours creating and expanding an article on Jason Zada. Check it out. :) Schmidt, 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine. Nice job creating a full article! I guess I'll just redirect my version and merge some info into yours if you haven't already. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The awards were the clincher. :) Schmidt, 23:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yea I didn't think it would be possible to find so many awards with references as well. Nice job on that! - M0rphzone (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I had the time and the willingness to dig. Last March we would not have had the awards and nominations for Take This Lollipop, and while improving the early version during the pressure of a lkely AFD would not have been impossible, it certainly would have been more difficult. Good that we have brought this to mainspace in such now-terrific condition. Be well, Schmidt, 00:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the Barnstar! --Tow Trucker talk 13:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome :) - M0rphzone (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwiener (talk • contribs) 05:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You may just love this...

Check the new article. I created it so I could have a two-fer at DYK by combining this with the new one for Jason Zada. Like it? Schmidt, 23:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Er..that's great! I didn't think it had enough info to have its own article. I'll be looking for the DYK feature on the front page. Nice job again! - M0rphzone (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I researching Zada, I learned that EF had decent commentary and analysis since 2006. Enough to meet WP:Notability (web) and WP:notability (films) for different but related reasons. Just took digging. :) Schmidt, 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Apology for spam

Hi M0rphzone, and thank you for replying to me so promptly. May I apologize to you for spamming your talk page with the warning notice - the first one was placed with Twinkle, and my net connection died while I was posting it - I didn't realize it had gone through, you'd seen it and removed it, so I posted the second one by hand, resulting in me incorrectly "undoing" what I should not have undone. Sorry for the error, I'll be a bit more careful next time :)  BarkingFish  20:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You actually deleted part of my talk page instead. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Mundaring Weir

Hello, please do not use popups' default reversion summary for anything that is not obvious vandalism. The edited you reverted at Mundaring Weir is 100% correct and I've added a source to that effect. Don't act on these types of edits unless they are outrageously wrong; leave them for people who have some knowledge of the subject, unless you notice a pattern of suspicious edits. Or just Google keywords from the edit yourself; you may find a source on your own. Graham87 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you are very familiar with the topic in question, that's great. I don't particularly care about the articles that I've reverted, nor whether you are familiar with it or not. I don't specifically check every single (unconstructive) edit for accuracy. I go through a routine recent changes sweep, speedy-reverting any questionable content change that is unsourced and unconstructive. Is it necessary for you to reprimand others for reverting unconstructive content additions without citations? If you know the added content is correct, then simply re-add it with a citation, and let me know that it was a correct fact without unnecessary opinions or POV included in your comment. Next time I might take the extra time to add a tag or look it up, but that is unlikely as I speedy revert recent changes, and that doesn't mean I won't just revert an unsourced addition. Also, if you didn't figure out already, the popups summary is the default edit summary that is automatically submitted regardless of the edit. There is no need tell me what to do like this; just let me know about the issue itself and what people generally should do. Thanks for informing be about it. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello and apologies

Hello - with regards to your edit here and my response here, I thought I ought to let you know that it's not your edit I objected to; it was the original edit made by an editor who is playing games by persistently baiting me every way he can. The matter is over at AIN at the moment. Sorry to bother you with this. Best wishes. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the issue. It's good to know that it's been resolved. I hope you'll continue to contribute to Misplaced Pages without having such incidents interfere :) - M0rphzone (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Mexican Wave

Hi M0rphzone

I think I was being a bit mischievious/facetious on that day! Though I'm still working on my Coriolis/Mexican Wave theory  :-)

annatto / Neil. Annatto (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for any confusion M0rphzone. Please assume good faith. I just came across an old edit I'd made to a talk page. I found it mildly amusing the notion that the direction of a Mexican Wave could be affected by the Coriolis effect. Best Regards. Annatto (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amazon Appstore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page App Store (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Google, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kansas City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

la:Latifundium

Please feel free to edit... in good Latin of course!--Jondel (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, someone finally created it :) Thanks -M0rphzone (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

EDGE

--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Culture of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breaking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Video game music, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alias and Lost (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

I'm sorry! Please pardon my mistake. Webclient101 (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article iPhone 5 has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Tell me in your own words next time instead of dropping a random template message, but I won't be submitting that kind of summary again. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Americana?

In your criticism of the content of American culture, I was flattered to see you put a link to my speedily deleted article Icons of American Culture, now relegated to my user page. That came out of an attempt to sort out a reasonable definition of Americana. Well now that definition is being challenged, I guess, by a series of new edits, and I'm wondering if I got it right, or if usage of the term is changing. Maybe you'd care to give an opinion? ProfDEH (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you flattered? I never put any links to those articles. You may have confused my with someone else. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you're talking about the talk page. Yea, I think the content in your userpage is somewhat representative of American culture, so I was hoping that some people with more knowledge/experience could merge them (and descriptions/explanations) into the article. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libyan people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit revert

You stealthily reverted a bunch of things and restored things including a typo in this edit and marked it as minor edit. This is not considered a minor edit. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Instead of accusing me of stealthily doing anything, why don't you follow the policies? If you think that edit changed a bunch of things and I did that "stealthily", then I don't know what to say to you. It's minor because I only added a ref to an uncited sentence, and did a minor rewording of a sentence. You got a problem with the article? You might want to watch your mouth and think what you're typing before accusing people of doing harmful things, etc. And this doesn't even count the flame wars in the Talk page between you and YuMaNuMa. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I forgot to remove the typo changes and the external links since I did an undo edit. If that's what you're talking about, then that was not intentional. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You did a roll back AND marked it as MINOR EDIT, which would fly under the radar when "hide minor edit" is used. . It was not a minor edit. That is the issue. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Then thanks for letting me know. I have a habit of marking edits as minor since minor edits are what I usually do. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And this reversion?? Ideally the source does not impart opinion, but provides an impartial information. WP:V and WP:RS explains whats reliable sources. Having a bunch of disreputable sources don't add up as multiple reliable sources and it just invites webmasters to tack on websites that say similar things. If you have reliable secondary sources to replace those disreputable three, then great. If not, this reversion is lowering the quality of article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it lowers the quality of the article is your opinion, and we've/you've already been discussing the reliability of these sources. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Slenderman

Right now, "Slenderman" redirects to the internet phenomena page, but "slender man" redirects to Fakelore. Personally, I feel Slenderman is still a growing phenomenon and needs room to expand. It will get that room in fakelore, but not crammed into a paragraph on creepypasta. Serendious 08:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Re on your talk. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slashdot effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Much appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Re on your talk. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User:legobot/Tasks

Thanks for this, but unfortunately because of the way I coded the updater, it'll keep over-writing that with what was listed at the BRFA. I'll fix that eventually. Legoktm (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ustad Hotel

Previous message below posted on User talk:112.79.40.121: - M0rphzone (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted the edits you made on Ustad Hotel and Talk:Ustad Hotel. In order for the article to be listed as a good article, it must pass a GA article review and the GA criteria. For more information on the process, see here. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on Good Articles; I have a few doubts though. Can an IP user nominate the article for good article status? And where can I find experienced editors who can copy edit the article? I have seen many good articles being copy edited by some experienced users who have not contributed to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.44.251 (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend registering an account so that talk page messages stay in one place where everyone can see them since it seems that your IP address changes often. An article "can be nominated by anyone" (as it says on WP:GAC). I've tagged the article for copy editing, but you can also place a request on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

I changed the edit in question again. Please consider my editsummary and if you still disagree please start a discussion at the article's talkpage or let me know on my own talk. I respect your point of view but can't concur with it as it goes against factual bases. Thanks. TMCk (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Re on talk page. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Lighting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grease

Minecraft (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Walkthrough

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

THQ

I've reverted your edit on THQ because that 1UP source you've added is unreliable and contradicts the sources from both the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Business Times.

Your source says said that Jack Friedman founded the old THQ in 1989 when the LA Times and SF Business Times (both with articles dating from 1990) say that the former THQ was founded in 1990. Trinity Acquisition is actually the one that was founded 1989 and it seems that he guy from 1UP got confused between Trinity Acquisition and Friedman's THQ. Also, THQ was never formally called Toy Headquarters. Even when Friedman founded the old THQ in 1990 (that merged in 1991 with Trinity Acquisition), the company's official name was always THQ.Inc. But its acronym does indeed stand for Toy Headuarters.

Also the claim by 1UP about most toy companies switching to video games because of the Nintendo boom, is quite dubious and laughable. Most toy companies obviously did not switched to video game manufacturing. Only a handful of toy companies have been involved in the video game business.

Although video games websites can sometimes be great sources on Misplaced Pages , they should be taken with a grain of salt when they contradicts mainstream reputable newspapers, especially when the sources from the newspapers are dating from 1990 and 1991 and have not only the year Friedman founded THQ, but also the month (May 1990).

Also, don't pay attention to the edit summary I left on the article. I originally thought what you've wrote was original research. But it's not. It's simply the source that was not reliable. Cheers Farine (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Got it, but my intention was to add info about the logo changes (hence why I added the image on the 2000 logo). The 1UP source was the only one I could find that discussed the logos, and I assumed the article would be reliable, since its other articles are generally reliable and it's a gaming website. But why don't you assume good faith next time, instead of mindreading and pulling the trigger before understanding or asking why I added the content? Jesus, pissing me off. I don't really like editors like you who revert the entire edit based off some personal assumption. Only revert the part that has the problem, instead of reverting all my other edits/work. If you know so much about the topic, can you add this information into the article? And how long have you been here? Since 2006? You should know all this by now. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's because, except for the small paragraph I had reinstated, pretty much all of your edit deserved to be reverted altogether.

Logos are copyrighted so it's never a great idea to decorate Misplaced Pages with past logos in the first place. If anything, that's fancruft more than anything else. Not that it bothers me if you absolutely want to put these logos. But they are far from being necessary to the article.

Secondly you've added a bunch of templates that were not even necessary in the first place. That's overtagging for nothing. If you feel that the dates should be in proses, then just put them in proses. You don't need to use a template just for that. And you didn't even bother justifying the use of these templates in the article's talk page. That's not very responsable.

So the only thing you can criticize me for is for leaving a wrong edit summary. But your edit, in almost its entirety, was justified for a revert. Farine (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Be patient. I don't have to do everything all at once. I've added a section to the talk page and also expanded the article, but I'm not great at rewriting timeline-style content so I haven't rewritten anything. And let's see what contributions you did: reverting? check, not bothering to help with the cleanup or add new content? check. So why don't you try expanding the article or attempt to fix it? If you're too lazy to do anything besides reverting new changes, then don't criticize others for what they're doing. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Instead of getting angry and attacking, go the contribution history page of the article. You will see that I'm the one who pretty much added everything that is currently on the "1989-1999" sub-section of the "History" section. Farine (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol I'm far from being angry. Good job and I applaud you, but the article is still a mess/incomplete. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Farine (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Microcosm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Jennifer Lopez

That user has a tendency to revert others for no valid reason. See this as an example, and most recently the edit warring here. Till 12:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't feel guilty because a "retirement consideration" notice has been put up. He did the same thing back in July and came back a few days later. Till 00:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Regarding Talk:Jennifer Lopez: I understand that you have been concerned with the edits that have been made at Jennifer Lopez, but that's no excuse to personal attack other editors here at Misplaced Pages. Remember that everyone is trying to help the article itself, and it is proper to talk about it in a kind matter. Now, I'm not exactly sure of the situation and what edits are being proposed, but I hate to see these personal attacks happening, and I'm not taking sides or anything. You've been here since May 2011. You should be aware of the rules. Calling fellow Wikipedians "not experienced", "blind", or "ignorant" is extremely inappropriate, specifically when you are claiming that the other contributors are performing personal attacks on you. It is also very rude to state that a specific user is not worthy of user rights. The rules clearly state to comment on content, not the contributor. Specific comments are wrote directly at Talk:Jennifer Lopez, and you know this. Status is obviously very upset, as per their talk page and such. I'd imagine that you are a great editor, but you just need to stay cool. Thanks, TBrandley 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Status is a massive hypocrite if he is offended with this, because he called me blind and told me to get my eyes fixed back in August. I am seriously so sick and tired of his contradictory and hypocritical actions/behaviour. Till 02:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)