Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 8 April 2007

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Hello, Risker, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Misplaced Pages Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Kukini 05:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

james blunt girlfriend

unfortunately my bin has been emptied! it was last week's issue of the newspaper, probably 2nd nov 06 but not sure...

update: found it! http://www.varsity.cam.ac.uk/arts/424/1/

James Blunt

Raise the issue on the discussion page for James Blunt. This often brings resolution to disputed issues. Kukini 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Helpme request

I am trying to figure out if there is a way to get massive copyright violation off a page sooner than the 7-day holdout. The page is James Blunt entry. Since it is a very active page, whoever winds up removing the copyright violation will be spending hours reconstructing the whole thing. I'm not knowledgeable enought to know where to go for help on this one. Risker 03:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You can just remove the copyright material yourself, there's no need to go through the 7 day waiting period. Just mention on the talk page that you have removed some material and why.--Commander Keane 04:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: New Wikipedian Petadeo - James Blunt Edits

Hi there. Sorry for the slow reply, I have only been able to be on Misplaced Pages sporadically over the last day or so. As far as Petadeo is concerned, you seem to have a good handle on things. If you have any other questions though, feel free to ask. Happy editing! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Frenzyboard

There has been a load of edits recently, but the main problem with this article is that it doesn't belong in the wikipedia. --Jason 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

James Blunt External Links

Sorry! I was over-keen on my removing of links, please feel free to put my mistake right! Robdurbar 20:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

James Blunt singles

Sure, I'll add in the extra releases.

Thanks! Camcallister 11:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no way to add them in the chart without making a mess, so I just listed the re-release info in the Notes section below the chart. Camcallister 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi, some of the userboxes on your userpage have moved location, so the code on your userpage needs to change to the new location. My bot updates the location for you so we can delete the old location of the userbox. To fix the two remaining userboxes just simply copy the new location (which is in the orange userboxes) and paste it over the old one. For more information on why this is done and how to do it, see WP:GUS. If you need any assistance, feel free to drop me a line.--Andeh 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

not vandalism

My addition {{;a|Chemistry}} to WP:MVP was not vandalism. it was a typo of {{la|Chemistry}}. I saw that you corrected it calling it "vandalism". -- FrostytheSnowman 22:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jeffery Bennett Article

I am compiling a list of awards and honors for Dr. Jeffery Bennett and will need some time on that. Perhaps I praise him too much by calling him world renowned. I felt he was noteworthy enough for wikipedia but if not, so be it. EnjoysButter 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rush (band)

Ah, very good. :) I guess to clarify, "simple vandalism" has a pretty narrow definition (which is part of why we can block for it so quickly, of course). I do get the impression that the user's being a bit disruptive, since I don't think I see any attempt at discussion on their part; there's always still 3RR and general disruption (either WP:PAIN or WP:AN/I as appropriate). Good luck. Luna Santin 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Jeffery Bennett

You're welcome. The article's gone already (WP:CSD#A7). Being impartial is not a requirement if you use {{prod}} (as I did) or if you go through WP:AFD (which is a lot more work) – other editors will look at it, after all. If you feel uneasy about suggesting deletion, you can add {{notability}} to the article to (hopefully) attract the attention of other editors. Rl 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

About World Innovation Foundation

Thought I would take a moment to explain my actions with respect to the AfD of this article here on my talk page in case anyone was curious - and partly so that I will recall them myself. I have added several comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Innovation_Foundation and also in AN/I for this date because I was very concerned by the quality of the debate and the logical fallacies - particularly the appeal to authoritythat was clearly evident. It concerned me that far too many assumptions had been made about the behaviour of a new wikipedian. Many new editors may come to work on one article, slowly branching out as time goes on, usually starting out with subjects that relate to their "first" article. There is practically no mentoring or contact taking place. Many new users may never look at their user page or discussion page. Thus it is easy for even a well-intentioned newbie to cross an invisible line that draws a reaction from experienced editors and/or admins, and the brickbats can fly. In this case, I felt it was unfair that the person nominating the principal editor of this article first blocked the editor then nominated the article for deletion. The logical consequence was to prevent the person in the best position to defend the article from participating in the debate; this was rectified once it was pointed out, of course. It was also worrisome that not one person had bothered to comment on the talk page of the article itself about their concerns and permit the primary editor to try to address them before putting the article up for AfD.

What I hoped to see was a realistic assessment of the problems with the article and whether or not they could be addressed. The original reason for the AfD was non-verifiability - however, not much had been done to determine this was the case. Several editors spent time actually doing some research trying to find supportive (as well as unsupportive) information - and they should be credited with doing the true work of the encyclopedia. Other editors reviewed the information from a different perspective and assessed the article as being about a non-notable subject, which seems to me much more defensible than the lack of verifiability.

I actually have no opinion one way or another about whether this article should be deleted. My interjections into the debate were primarily to ensure that the process in this case was transparent and fair, which I now believe it is. Risker 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Blunt, Bristol, etc.

I have nothing citable at the moment, nor do I want to divulge the nature of my source. There must be some way of looking into who registered / matriculated at which UK university and when. --5telios 09:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: BW Expert

You might want to put this under AfD rather than PROD. I had previously PROD-ed the article, and the original author removed my PROD without any notable improvement to the article. He will probably do the same to yours. If you list it as an AfD, it becomes more publicly open as a potential delete, and it is harder for the original poster to remove the deletion warnings in bad faith as is the case with this article. I might do it myself. I will keep you posted if I do. --Jayron32 02:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed your PROD to an AfD. In the furturem, if someone deletes a PROD and does NOT make changes to the article to correct the problems the PROD was for, set it up as an AfD. Check WP:AFD on how to do this. This makes the deletion debate public and makes it impossible for the original author to restore the article merely by deleting the PROD template. --Jayron32 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: AfD usage

Be certain you use AfD only for contested deletes. Check the history first. The first time you propose to delete a page, use PROD. If someone removes or objects to the PROD, then consider moving it to AfD. --Jayron32 04:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: James Blunt discography

Thanks! The only advice I can offer you right now is when you do cleanup the James Blunt article, remember to cite your sources. Looking through the article now I see a lot of claims, but nothing to back them up. Also, most articles are moving away from trivia sections so you might want to remove it from the article. If you need any help or have any questions please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I hope some of those suggestions help. Good luck! -- Underneath-it-All 01:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

James Blunt Uni

Fair enough - I must have got confused somewhere. Thanks for the supporting info.--5telios 12:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

James Blunt

Nice clean-up of the article; I had it as a to-do, but I think you've done a better job than I would have. I see your point about the "Personal Life" section. The only concern I have is the statement that Camilla Boler was the subject of the song "You're Beautiful," and the lack of a reference for that, particularly as an interview with Boler indicates the subject was Dixie Chassay . I have not found any references indicating that Boler and Blunt were in a relationship prior to the writing of that song, which seems to have occurred prior to Blunt leaving the military. Do you have any published information that would support those statements? Thanks. Risker 14:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - one of those "fan" articles that just keeps growing, and then needs a lot of pruning. In retrospect and looking around, I agree - Boler is pretty clear the song is dedicated to her on one occasion, but about Chassay. Suggest you rewrite - Rgds, - Trident13 18:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing Prod

A mention in the Guiness Book of Records is sufficient notability - and the Prod was on notability. If this had been challenged and removed I would not have had a problem. 08:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Razor Gator

I'm not quite as active as I should be, but from what I can tell, the result of the afd wasn't carried out. If it was, then it's obviously been recreated :)

Place an AFD on it again, please... but reference this. Then, call for a concensus speedy delete... I'm sure that'll work, ;)

If it continues, I suppose we could put one of those "This article has been deleted for a reason. Don't make another one" temps up...

Thanks for the comment about the M&M article, I'm glad you liked it :) Kareeser| 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I followed up on Razor Gator. Turns out the AfD Result wasn't carried out (since the history was intact... I should've seen that one long ago). Anyway, I speedied it as a G4, and it's gone for good. This time, it's been protected, so we won't be seeing that again... Kareeser| 05:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all! As you've probably realized now, proper communication is key, and lots of things can be done if you notify the right people or tell people what's going on. If in doubt, always ask, but don't forget to be bold once in awhile! Kareeser| 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikiproject - Musicians: James Blunt tag

It's nice to see someone taking an active interest in a musician article. Honestly, in my opinion the article is very close to a "B" rating, but I marked it as a "Start" based on the following:

• The length is closer to that of a Start article.

• Infobox: could use a bit more information in it. The template is located here. Some of these fields could be benificial.

• Singing Career and Reactions to Success could use a bit of breaking apart (i.e. seperating Singing Career into two parts such as Pre-fame and Post fame)

Perhaps a small Trivia section would be a nice addition to the article as well, provided it is well policed. Unfortunately, it could be a magnet for vandalism. One or two pictures of James, or an appropriately placed picture of an album would be nice. Also, the inclusion of:

at the end of the article could add a bit to the article.

I certainly wouldn't raise a fuss if you wanted to tag it as a B article. I leave that entirely up to you. Cheers, --Thereen 07:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Disobedient Child is still linkless, I think..

I saw that you removed the linkless tag. I wondered why - of the 4 incoming links, 3 are from lists of unlinked pages, and the 4th is from a talk page. I think the same applies to at least 4 other articles you removed the tag from, that were in my watchlist. --Alvestrand 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Query

So, did I accidentally change it from Blount to Blunt (on the James Blunt page) or did I revert an edit by an IP? I must admit I'm not so quick on the uptake today, really tired for some reason. So I either got confused and messed up an edit, got confused by your talk comment, or both. I gotta get some sleep... But I also gotta study (exam argh). Edward Wakelin 01:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, speaking of ways to make the note on not changing Blount to Blunt clearer... Is there any way to bold a bit of an edit box? Or put a note on an edit page? Or maybe just put in two notes, one before Blount (as the family name), the other after? Edward Wakelin 01:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

James Blunt protection

I protected James Blunt on request at WP:RFPP. I saw that the article has been heavily vandalized (few dozen vandalism/vandalism revertions in the past few days). Usually if I see an article is being vandalized frequently, I will protect it. That's usually how protection policy works. For more, see WP:SEMI. Thanks, Nishkid64 00:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

James Blunt Vandalism

Thanks for the tip. Actually, I just started using VP today and it is a little more confusing than Twinkle that I was using before. It's going to take some getting used to or I may just switch back to using Twinkle as it was easier to follow the edits and reversions. Warfieldian 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Short term" vs. "brief"

Greetings, I noticed you changed the lead sentence to change the word "brief" to "short term". This does not correspond well to the facts. The phrase "short term" leaves open the idea that his employment was only going to be short term whereas the word "brief" doesn't. Does that make sense to you? (→Netscott) 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds better if a bit longish... not meaning to demean teenager values but "brief" employee isn't going to have such connotations for a mature audience. (→Netscott) 03:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest something like "briefly employed at Wikia". (→Netscott) 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy

Nice work :) Glen 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I do agree. That was quite the glaring nugget of WP:OR and soapbox ranting you skived off. Gwen Gale 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What would Bob Dole say? I hear ya! Thanks for the note that brought me a smile. ;-) (→Netscott) 03:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The name "tjstrf"

Don't worry, I'm used to it. I've had the ID for over 6 years now, and people have been quizzing me on the meaning that whole time. The answers to both the inspiration and why I keep such an unusual ID can be found starting in sentence 3 of my user page. --tjstrf talk 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Essjay controversy

Thank you for editing this article. Please note that the "typo" you have been correcting is actually a direct quote in which the original author made a misspelling. So that we do not change the quote, the expression has been inserted to confirm that the "error" is intentional. Pardon the note, if you are already aware of this; nobody wants a revert war on such a fine point. Risker 08:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Regards. Wiki Raja 11:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy lede

Thanks for your kind note. I'm afraid I still think the old lede was superior because it gave the reader more information faster. But the article has already seen enough reverting. Thanks again. Casey Abell 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

organizing the article

Reaction section should be refactored/split up, or may be too long (identified byUser:QuackGuru, splitting up supported by User:Risker)

You have a disagreement with the other editors too. Or have your changed you mind. Please clarifiy your position. If possible, I would like you to divide the huge section into two separate sections.

• Reaction

• Outcome

Currently, the article is cluttered. I know you agree with me on many points. We were doing a good job of working together in the beginning but then somewhere all focus was lost. A few minor adjustments will make the article readable, presentable, flow better. Many people are reading this article and it is below par in quality. The style of the article can be improved. Thanks. QuackGuru 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you specific questions which you are not interested in answering at this time. Please tell me your position. Your comments on my talk page have little to do with my questions and suggestions. QuackGuru 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

undue weight

Agree on the blockquote. Gwen Gale 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:FORTHEPEOPLE

Yeah, I actually added that today--thanks for the edit. That sort of mindset had been bugging me the past few weeks (and other people, from comments I saw) but there was no 'thing' for it till today. thanks for the copy edit--I try to write too fast I think... - Denny 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

response to your note

just a note that I left a note on my talk page in response to your note on my talk page ;-> -- Kavri 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Information

upon using these false credentials in "content disputes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=115468890&oldid=115461506 When you get a chance, please add this information back to the article. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 18:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: Additional academic resource: http://www.cornellsun.com/node/22155 Risker 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tactfully tacking, sailship tactics, and a most taxing exercise in English.

The other option that sprang to mind was that it could be related to the word tactics, but upon checking my word derivations, that's from Greek and means "to raise an army". A funny coincidence, given that the two both can refer to skillful management of a situation. So long as it's not changing tax. --tjstrf talk 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay

The edit summary was disingenuous because it made it appear as if it was just to correct the phrase "External Links", when in reality the links were being deleted altogether. Quatloo 05:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misread it, is all. Gwen Gale 19:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

WP:MFD. I'm gonna tag it in a couple minutes, to get it out of the way before it gets dumb. - Denny 06:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the correct link to the New York article. Check my edit. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Check my edit. It is in my edit that was reverted. The correct link to the New York Times is in the slightly expanded article that I also well organized. I did a great job of moving the wikiboxes where they were originally. Drive-by editors did a poor job of modifying the boxes. If the pictures have BLP concerns then they should be nominated for deletion and have a full discussion there. If they survive the nomination for deletion then do not have BLP concerns. Question. Do you think I am being disruptive by organizing the article and better detail. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 03:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Overview my edit and be my voice on the talk. Click on my edit and remove what you believe was not necessary and keep at least the organized article, the missing letter, the corrected link, and the proper wiki boxes. At the moment the wiki boxes looks funny. The see also section looks funny with the boxes there. Please let me know what you think about me edit. Thanks. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 04:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The corrected link is in the article. The other link I will find and add if I find it and after you edit and clean up my last edit. The letter and a few other things were done that was an improvement for the article. I will wait for your clean up edit first. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no rush. I will wait for you to clean up my edit first. :) - Mr.Guru (/_contribs) 04:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. - Denny 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery