Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 31 January 2013

Talk Page Archives: 2008-09|2010|2011|2012

2013

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Milowent. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members.

 Happy editing! Northamerica1000 08:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Crowder

What do you feel "we" need to resolve regarding Crowder's page? I see that you have been repeatedly told not to attack other editors, and you continue to use profane language in regards to me and/or my edits. I have not reported you...yet. The INFERENCE of a racial epithet satisfies the requirement regarding the controversy without resorting to racially inflammatory language. I personally don't think even that needs to be included, but feel it is a fair compromise for those that DID infer it. On the other hand, this is such a minor part of his life and career maybe it shouldn't be included at all, since it was only at a political conference and meant for its attendees. I mean, we don't include every time other comedians say, elude, or imply a profanity. That may be the best option, deleting everything other than he made the video, and let the READERS decide on their own.

Otherwise, in "office talk", please explain what you want to talk about? JohnKAndersen (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

• Why do you so slavishly want to avoid the import of his knickers joke? He looks at a black guy in the video and says basically "what? I can say knickers, I'm wearing them". Its a reference to the use of the term "nigger" in rap music, to deny that is to deny common sense. He is not using it as an epithet, and anyone who didn't "infer" what the joke was is not credible. That being said, if you want to discuss the matter further, let's do it on the talk page of the article itself. It may well be that Crowder isn't notable at all and shouldn't have an article if events like this are not notable. I'm open to discussion on that chers. BTW, re attacks on other editors, you'll see I have an extremely favorable track record when I engage with editors, I'm not afraid to call bullshit when I see it, but I am reasonable.--Milowent • 13:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't find the bullying and foul language "reasonable". My references were to the various warnings that you've gotten from admins.

Re:Crowder I think the current version completely deleting that one indcident out of an entire career is best. I don't understand that THERE MUST BE CONSENSUS, in other words, you want two people who simply do not agree on a point to agree. Even if things are as you say, does that merit inclusion in his article? Every double-entendre that every commedian says should be on their page? I think deletion in the best option. Also, just like anyone else's personal page, their basic bio is at the top. Why does this keep being moved around to the bottom?!

I will change that and believe that this is the best compromise, deleting the event that can have more than one interpretation, from his entry. JohnKAndersen (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen

Jessica Dykstra

A while ago you participated in the deletion discussion for a model named Jessica Dykstra. I've recently been made aware that she is making her major motion picture debut in Pain and Gain with the Rock and Mark Wahlberg. --Johnny Spasm (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories

Hi Milowent, I'm sure your edits to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories were in good faith, but I'm concerned they don't conform to NPOV. While these theories are certainly worthy of ridicule, I don't think it's appropriate to present them that way in an encyclopedia. Check similar articles, such as Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories, for examples. Best, BDD (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't a picture make the article more interesting though?. I am bit concerned by the use of the passive voice in the article now, because we don't identify the purveyor of these theories as internet whackjobs (or whatever the diplomatic term for that it).--Milowent • 00:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the closest thing we can do without violating policy is to report criticism of the theories that has been published in reliable sources. I've tried to represent some of that with existing sources, but you're welcome to expand on those. Just remember, with articles like these, it's best if just about every sentence is supported by a ref. --BDD (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Millowent, I respect you as an editor, but you are developing a bad habit of editing to make a WP:POINT. Just because you don't like a topic, don't sabotage it. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Gaijin42, not sure what you are talking about. Obviously I knew the tinfoil hat would be reverted, but its a cautionary tale we all need to keep in mind with an article like that.--Milowent • 02:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Was referring to your edits/!votes on the defensive gun use article, adding in slave owners/overseers killing slaves, and arguing for inclusion of Nazi's killing escaping Jews. If you knew something would be reverted, thats disruptive isn't it? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My edits to the defensive gun use article were sound, the article was making it sound like all defensive gun use is a good thing, when in actuality it is dependent on the context, since you had a problem with my additions. On the instant article, I was being WP:BOLD, but as that says "Don't get upset if your bold edits get deleted."--Milowent • 03:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Crowder Article

Finally got Andersen to start talking on the talk page. Currently trying to get him to understand the concept of "consensus". 5minutes (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mahanoro

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mahanoro, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://hewgill.com/~greg/wikiblame/simple/Asyut.html.

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.)Template:Z119 MadmanBot (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Bot, you screwed up. :-) --Milowent • 13:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Marolambo

Hello, Milowent, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Marolambo, appears to be directly copied from http://hewgill.com/~greg/wikiblame/simple/Asyut.html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Marolambo if necessary.Template:Z120 MadmanBot (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• oh, for pete's sake.--Milowent • 15:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration for the Signpost

Hi Milowent. I've created a (empty) draft space at User:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages/Signpost. Let's collaborate there on the Signpost article, for which I'd like you to be a full fledged co-author. I've got lots of business travel ongoing, so we'll need to press in order to get this done for a Saturday(?) deadline. Let's continue the discussion over there. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I am done for the night. I know I've made a ton of edits today, but I'd appreciate your feedback and extension on anything I've written. I'm not looking to push any particular story/agenda/outline, just excited and trying to be proactive about our start! Be bold! In particular, I think you'll be valuable in taking my technical and lofty research language and turning it into something accessible by the broader WP community. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Look forward to working on it! My time on Friday may be limited, but should be able to bring it together on Saturday, and we'll see where we are then. My article creations have run the gamut from the Trillion dollar coin to The Annoying Orange so I bet I can find some good angles!--Milowent • 03:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Between the user and talk pages, I have now sketched out most of what I wanted to show/say. There is obviously lots of formatting, wiki-fication, and language-level stuff to take care of, but I am happy as a conceptual unit. Get in there and say what you think is important and modify anything/everything. I tend to commit changes early/often, so I hope my frequent editing isn't discouraging you. Since you haven't done the weeks top-25, I am imagining something else is keeping you for the time being (and that's fine). Are we going to push for this week or next in the Signpost? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope to finish the top 25 in the next hour or so, unexpected events at home have caused some delays. Will also see what I can do with text. There are a lot of concepts and topics covered so far in the draft, but its easy for SP editors to suggest cutting down if necessary I guess.--Milowent • 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

New Top 25 list is complete, at WP:5000/Top25Report.--Milowent • 02:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pageview stats data may be wrong

as discussed here and here. LittleBen (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ben, what do you mean exactly? That the stats.grok.se data is incorrect at times (if huge spikes are seen in charts), right? Not WP:5000? (Btw, if stats.grok.se aggregates redirects, it would have included the big spike in Wsn at Wireless sensor network, but did not).--Milowent • 05:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Georgina Bülowius for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Georgina Bülowius is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bülowius until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--Petr Ferreira (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fascinating how you so deftly joined wikipedia to do that!--Milowent • 18:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Article Rescue Squadron and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)