Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:13, 15 September 2007

Thank you

thank you for your help i have since changed all spelling mistakes and got rid of any wrong internal links

spelling mistakes???

There is no spelling mistakes on the ciaran mitchell page

Reply

The only reason its red flagged is those people that are red flagged are not on the wikipedia database! im not going to make pages on every little person mentioned on the page

Flagging????

All the info on Ciaran mitchell is correct at time of editing

deleting this article http://en.wikipedia.org/The_Prancing_Horse

im am good friends with the website owner who assited me on making this article. it is all his own info and his own website.

Incorrectly accusing me of vandalism

Why are you flagging me for vandalism? I corrected a link for WHT, and cleaned up some other pages. Hardly vandalism. Who are you anyway? Ill be checking your changes out as well. 69.140.51.137 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just removed your "vandalism" warning.

What I did was hardly vandalism. Adding a link to something called WHT (Wometco Home Theatre) on a page where something else is also known is WHT (William Herschel Telescope) is not vandalism. Kindly explain why you singled me and accused me of vandalism, when all I did was seek to clarify two seperate things known as WHT. 69.140.51.137 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept that you made your change to William Herschel Telescope in good faith, and that I misinterpreted what you were trying to do. My apologies. However, I hope you will accept that you did not go about it in the right way, and that David Underdown has since sorted things out properly. I would like to think that we have both learned something.

You can find out who I am from my user page. You are more than welcome to check out any changes I make. Philip Trueman 16:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting what I wrote. I agree with your assessment here as well. If I accidentally omitted something in the course of my edit, I do accept full responsibility. I am only human after all. Upon further checking I see that a mistake was made, and I do appreciate David Underdown's rectification of that.

However, I also think that if you are double checking work (which is an important and commendable thing to be doing) you should not be so quick to charge someone with vandalism without carefully considering they could be doing something helpful.

Vandalism is a dastardly deed here on Misplaced Pages, and branding someone a vandal is really a charge that should not be made lightly. More helpful would have been a simple revert or leaving a message to check my intentions, rather than being a self appointed judge, jury and executioner of my credibility within a quick moment. I think anyone who invests time into improving this site is due a bit of consideration in that regard.

That is just my 2 cents. I don't mean to detract from your good work here on Misplaced Pages. Best of luck to you in the future. 69.140.51.137 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Recurrent vandalism by 204.38.101.7

Philip Trueman wrote

Hi! User 204.38.101.7, blocked by Gurch on 20th December for repeated vandalism, seems to be at it again on the "French wine" page. Please accept my humble apologies if I've gone about reporting this the wrong way, I'm a complete newbie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Trueman (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. The user seems to have stopped, so I won't block them again for now.

The best way to handle vandalism is to first warn them about it (a quick way to do this is to add {{subst:test}} ~~~~ to their talk page), and then, if they continue despite warning, leave another more serious warning by adding {{subst:test4}} ~~~~ to their talk page. If they still persist, report it at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and an administrator will take the necessary action. (That page is watched by many administrators, so it's more efficient than only notifying one person).

Also, when posting to discussion pages, remember to type ~~~~ at the end of your message (as I've done in the examples above); this automatically signs your name and the date. Thanks – Gurch 17:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to revert any changes I have made? Do I know you? Is that the 'Wikipedian' way?

Hello

Fancy seeing you here. Since no-one else has given you the "official" welcome. Here it is:

Welcome!

Hello, Philip Trueman, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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 need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Have you looked at The Proms yet? David Underdown 14:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Bold text

HI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am hoping that you will join the few of us at the disney wikia. We dont have alot of people there, so who ever we can get would be welcome. Want to know how small that thing is? I just now created a Jafar page. JUST NOW. and I became a member about a week ago. So umm....yeah, come help? thanks. My user name is the same as it is here. =]--AngelicDemon92 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:The actions of a certain casserole ...

Hey there! AIV is the best place to report vandals who need blocking after being given a level 4 warning. Your edit may get lost if someone else edited before you saved - so it's best to check after that your edit was saved. Keep up the vandal fighting efforts :-) --Sagaciousuk 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Liger

Semi-protection prevents newly registered users (accounts less than 4 days old) and IPs from editing the page. That user who vandalized has been here longer than that, so just revert and warn him for his vandalism. Nishkid64 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk page vandalism

Philip Trueman said: for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Is having your talk page vandalised a sign you've been doing something right?

Hi there. You are absolutely welcome. To have your user talk page vandalized, means that you've probably done something either so grossly correct that a vandal would take note of it, or so pifflingly, un-noticeably incorrect that only a vandal would follow it up and vandalize your page.

One of the two. Have a good day. Bobo. 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re ..Gibraltar

Hi Philip,

...deleting "KBE". ...I don't think so. There are lots of other orders of knighthood...

Fair enough; have restored the "KBE". If/when he's given more letters, I guess a new line will be needed!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism today, you are 100% correct. --Gibnews 15:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

H0tflick

A, i already reverted them. B, that was probably on ok palce to report them, they were on a roll. There are a couple of things that should have been done though. They should have ben warned with one of the series of spam templates {{spam1}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}} or {{spam4}} (which i did warn them with and they did not stop). Also, there username could violate WP:USERNAME which could be reported to WP:RFCN. I also posted a message about it at the administrators notice board WP:ANI to see what other admin think. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

PC as post-nominal letters

See Privy Council of the United Kingdom, specifically the first paragraph of the section "Rights and privileges of members". — Wereon 21:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Enumerated lists

CmdrObot's change to National Registry of Identification and Civil Status has replaced some hard-coded numbered lists with enumerated lists. Is it just me, or do all the numbers appear as '1' now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip Trueman (talk • contribs) 12:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, forgot to sign. Not having a good day. Philip Trueman 12:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil, yes, you're completely right, and I should have noticed it when I made the edit in the first place. My apologies. I've fixed up the numbering by removing the empty lines between each item. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

==================

I have no idea how to use this so....whoops if it looks wired. you sent my an e-mail thingy saying i was vanadlising but Honsest i reli di fink dat was true! I was only seven when i wrote it but im 8 now so i know better!! It was about Ethelred the Unready.....being unready :P SORRY ur e-mail just got me annoyed tho Cos i did reli fink it was true. So i have to say i fink dat the Vandalism e-mail r a gd idea ..but they wont work i dont fink....... sozzy again ...

===============================

Gibraltar NPOV

I have a huge respect for active wikipedists. I have made just a few corrections here and there (mainly in technical articles (no oppinion problem :)) and I know it is hard. But really, think for a moment that you are, say, from Japan and read the Gibraltar page. The obvious conclusion is that Gibraltar was more or less given by God to the British and that they have to suffer the bothering from Spain ever since. It is not objective. The claims from Spain are not explained or even mentioned. The UN actions and resolutions are not considered. I see 2 major issues (I can give you as many references as you want) 1.- The isthmus was not given in property by the Utrecht Treaty. Later on a neutral area covering the istmus was established. It was occupied later and the airport built on it. This is the reason for a lot of problem about air space in Europe, as it is (according to Spain, if you wish) a British airport in Spanish territory (It is not in the territory given in the Treaty). Other issues are with respect to air and sea space (try to land or dock in Gibraltar without touching Spanish territory). In all these issues UK has imposed their rules with just diplomatic complaints from Spain. When there was a resolution (not entailing, true) by an international institution it has been ignored by UK. 2.- The Utrecht Treaty gave Property, not sovereignty (indeed this is a newer concept). The question of sovereignty was raised when UK changed the status of Gibraltar from military base into colony, to avoid negative resolutions from UN in the global decolonization process. Still there were resolutions from UN claiming that Gibraltar should be given back, taking special care of the civilian population.

I would kindly ask you to widen your sources, and consider other facts than those given by the UK government. The question of a city inside a foreign country is something delicate (I'm also against for the Spanish cases in North Africa). But there are a lot of smaller issues that should be considered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.156.224.65 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I would reply with three points. Firstly, I am not a lawyer or an historian or a Latinist, and it would take someone who was all three (are you?) to determine the true meaning of the Treaty. But let's look at the relevant section (from the English version):

"The Catholic King does hereby for himself, his heirs and successors yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar together with Fort and Forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right forever without any exception or impediment whatsoever.

If there is a concept of 'King', how can there not be a concept of the king's powers (i.e. sovereignty)?. And which, if any, of those powers are not transferred by the all-encompassing wording? None, I think. True, the following sentence includes the words "without any Territorial Jurisdiction", but that sentence is concerned with maintaining the King's control over "the country round about", and refers to that, not to Gibraltar itself.

Secondly, I may not be qualified to interpret the Treaty but I think I can tell when wording violates the NPOV policy. Wording such as ".. and the British the denial to fulfill the United Nations resolutions about Gibraltar." That is POV, quite apart from not being true. UN Resolution 2231, for example, "Calls upon the two parties to continue their negotiations, taking into account the interests of the people of the Territory, ...". It is a fact that negotiations have continued. It is a fact that the British have taken care to consult the people of Territory, with results that are well known to you.

Thirdly, I hope I have demonstrated by my quotations that I have consulted sources other than the UK government. Perhaps you would be good enough to accept that. Philip Trueman 11:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again I'm not qualified to make any legal quote, unless my degree and doctorate in physics, like yours, gives me any super-symmetry power. So: 1st: "(i.e. sovereignty)" this are YOUR words, no Spaniard signed ever anything like that. You can claim that "property" equals to "sovereignty", but it is just your opinion.

2nd: you are right. I was offended by my first visit to this pages written from only one side. My sentence was argumentative. Still there is a fail in folowing UN resolutions (there is more than 1 and it is more than 1 sentence, check it).

3rd: If there are other sources you should use them. The fence was already made when Franco (that big bastard) closed the gate, Spain just made a second door under Spanish control to the fence so that the control would not be only british. The airport is in an area that was formerly a neutral area and occupied by the UK (it is like the UK claim sovereignty over the channel tunnel!). These are facts, check who controlled the gate in the 20's and were the line border was in the 19th century.

Anyway I saw that any change that will not follow the Foreign Office directives will be deleted by a horde of hooligans. I assumed I was not the first civilized person to try to make a change. You won. In the British way. I would just ask you to add at the beginning "British version"

1st. It isn't just my opinion. See this opinion of a lawyer http://www.gibnet.com/texts/gs1_tou.htm - an opinion I am sure you will dispute, but not mine.

2nd. Peace.

3rd. Well, yes, but I can only spare so much time. I think I had enough material to hand to justify my revert on NPOV grounds.

Please could you withdraw "horde of hooligans"? I regard it as a personal attack.

I hope you will reconsider whether to make changes to this article, or related ones. I have no doubt that you have insights into this matter which I and many other Wikipedians do not, and that you could make a valuable contribution. But for anyone's contribution to be of any value at all, it has to be in line with Misplaced Pages policies. Philip Trueman 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Beefday did you do a google seach because if you did you would seen in the usa some citys have beef days and so if people would put information on them thats would impover the article and make it not nonsence at all okOo7565 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How dare you

How dare you suggest that my comments on the late great BRENDAN MULCAHY is inappropriate. You incompetent fool! He is the basis of one of the world's largest cult's and you have insulted many with your comments on the great ritual that ocurred at the San Juan river. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freearena (talk • contribs) 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

carefull!

Be careful when reverting vandalism. You reverted one lot of vandalism (Thanks :) ), but that replaced it with more. Make sure you get all the vandalism when reverting. Anyway, thanks for reverting vandalism! Stwalkerster 14:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though what I said above, thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page :)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		for reverting vandalism on countless pages, including my userpage! :) Well Done! Stwalkerster 20:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Prancing Horse

Because it's only one user posting the page, there's no need to protect it. I've given the author a final warning. If that user posts it again, s/he will get blocked, which should solve the problem. Thanks, NawlinWiki 14:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And hi to you too

It's nice to see I'm not the only one who uses his real name. And thanks for being a sort of reminder about the Proms. No doubt, we'll bump in to each other there. BTW, I'm surprised there isn't an IBMer category. Or a prommer one. Or maybe there are. --Peter cohen 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jaques Cartier

It's my pleasure. I haven't got a clue why poor Jacques seems to be such a popular target, but there's no doubt he's a favorite of the vandals. Keep up the good work! Cheers --Folic Acid 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

PolkaSpots Speedy Deletion

Hello,

I wrote an article on a Wireless Hotspot company, PolkaSpots, last week that you marked for deletion. The comment you made was as follows: "This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia".

Before I wrote the article, I trawled Wiki looking for similar companies to see what others had written about them and copied their general format.

I'm starting to wonder what the purpose of this site is if we're not allow to freely write educated articles about our experiences.

Please advise.

Simon

It isn't the purpose of this site to allow anyone to write educated articles about their experiences. If you want one of those, find a blog hosting site - this isn't one. It's the purpose of this site to build an encyclopedia. Articles about companies are welcome, provided those companies are notable and the article is clear why the company is notable. Articles about companies sourced by the companies themselves are strongly dis-advised, for obvious reasons - no matter how accurate the article, the encyclopedia would lose credibility. Please could you sign your talk page messages in future? Philip Trueman 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

my article

my constant edits are a result of removing prank additions to the niles barnhart wiki article by someone from the same IP address. I'm merely protecting the correct content of the article.

All your mainspace contributions are to articles about Niles or his mother, and no-one else has made a serious contribution to the article. I'm not suggesting it isn't a serious article, though its subject is perhaps borderline for notability in a world encyclopedia. I am suggesting that you may be, um, too close to the subject to have an impartial view, and that, if true, is against Misplaced Pages norms. And I would be careful, if I were you, of referring to it as 'your' article - see WP:OWN. Philip Trueman 13:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A notice

If you look above I placed my comment or warning before you did some please change the warning you gave the anon so he/she won't go crazy saying I vandailise once and got to warnings,Thank you and I'm WP:AGFArnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No harm done we're all humans we make miskates all the time,Take Care-Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Henri Dumont

Thanks for the attention to typos! I've finished translating and will probably start editing myself one of these days...Sparafucil 06:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Globalize tag

Hey, I just saw you put the "globalize" tag on the Undrafted athlete article. Not being a fully up on all the many high level sports leagues that exist - is the draft a commonly implemented method of player acquisition outside the United States? If it is, then the globalize tag is certainly appropriate - I'm just not sure. At the very least, it's to bad that we can't tag it with "this article is just in horrible shape and it needs major work to be brought up to standards" :-) Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - i just marked this page for watching, so I'll see your response. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has already been flagged for cleanup; I know I'm not the right person to do that. To answer your question, I believe the answer is "no" - I know of no other sport where players are recruited in the manner I understand is in use in American football in the US; also, in some English-speaking countries the word "draft" would be recognised as an Americanism for military conscription, but not in the sporting sense, and the word "athlete" would conjure a picture of track-and-field rather than American football. I don't think the article is in too horrible a shape, but I do think that any future cleanup effort should include making it clearer that this is a precise technical term that applies only in the context of player recruitment to one particular professional sport in one particular country. I imagine it would come as quite a shock to some followers of American football that, within living memory, Yorkshire County Cricket Club only recruited players who had been born in Yorkshire. Philip Trueman 10:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• On the cleanup thing - i know - it's actually a merging of two articles and trying to clean up. I've done a bit of work on it...but more really needs. I see what your saying now on the globalization issue. I'm not in the best place to make these globalization edits. Would you suggest some changes (ie - like what do you think would be an appropriate title). I would venture to guess we may have some resistence from the sports fans here in the stats that think undrafted athlete is fine - but i'm totally with you on this. If we adhere to WP:D i bet we can get this solved. I'm about to bail for the rest of the day, so if i don't see your response now, i think we can talk about this then. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is the other article? As I see it, this one ought to be called "Undrafted player (American football)", unless it turns out to be more widely applicable than that. Globalization in this case isn't so much about making the article meaningful in a global context, as making it clear that the phrase only has a meaning in one highly specific context and saying what that context is. Umm, I hope I made myself clear :-) Philip Trueman 13:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for droping off the face of the earth. I'm going to move this to just undrafted sportsperson as that seems to be the most "disambigious" statement. You totally made myself yourself clear, this article needs to be exanded beyond is Am.F. content because this all "major" professional leagues in north america hold a draft. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• I just moved the article and removed the globalization tag! Let me know if you think i've satisfied the criteria because I definitely see the problem with athlete.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Default sort

Hi - Yes, thanks, I realised that after having done it! DionysosProteus 12:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

.

this there a reason why you reverted my edit? --Loanstale and Breadaeraand 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. "I went to Indonesia .." has no place in this encyclopedia. Try reading WP:NOR for a start. Philip Trueman 16:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy criteria

Speedy as non-notable is only for articles that do not assert any importance in the subject. (see WP:CSD. An article saying someone has won awards or published work in major publications asserts significance. If you do not think it significance enough to meet the WP notability criterion, use PROD or AFD. Also, please make sure the edit summary when you place a speedy says speedy deletion requested, or something equally clear, not "tagfest"--it helps the admin --and the author-- spot the edit. But please do keep up the excellent work in spotting vandalism that needs revertig and continue to look for articles that need deleting. DGG (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(For new joiners to this discussion, DGG is referring to my recent edit to Nancy Terrell.) Points taken, and thank you. I did wonder at the time whether the {{db-bio}} was quite justified. I'll be more careful in future. Philip Trueman 16:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry, I didn't notice that there were any linked articles to the terms on that disambiguation page for homes. Tmangray 18:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Philip, Re: Terrance lindall article

Just added material that may be of interest and make my bio more complete. If you see anything that is too subjective or inaapropriate, please edit as you think. Everything that i added is verifiable. Would appreciate your removing that header. If it hangs in there for over a week, i will make the adjustment. That should give anyone time to respond. Best Regards, Terrance Lindall —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrance Lindall (talk • contribs)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Misplaced Pages. Wikidudeman 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)