Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:18, 11 June 2008

Who needs an archive when you can just look here?Kww (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan's Album AFD

• I was originally intended to delete it, but there was a bit of improvement (although no quite enough) and some have suggested a merge so i've though of leaving it open for another 12-24 hours. Although no one else seem to have hoped in the keep bandwagon since yesterday. So it will be deleted shortly and if anyone wants some merging or to be userfied then can contact me.--JForget 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've actually merged some of the content into the main article.--JForget 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

If you haven't noticed, two of the members have started votes for topic bans on both of us. Once again, they seem to be completely ignoring the actual issues. I can technically understand myself using their logic, but I don't know why you're included. I don't know what you're going to do, but I won't be around for a few days. If you get a chance, e-mail me if anything changes. TTN (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth, I disagree with the above ban and would have jumped into the arbitration myself had I known about it. Reason I say "for what it's worth" is because it seems everything comes down to the voting process and mine seems invalid. Never the less I'll voice an opinion in some form then just return to working on Eevee and hope the best for ya.*shrugs*--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kww, I certainly disagree with essentially every word you have ever said about policy for articles on fiction, but banning you from them is a misapplication of anger that may be justified with respect to other people, & I've commented to that effect at the Arb discussion. DGG (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

At least it seems you're out of the line of fire now. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

About The Brad Pitt

Noted dude... Fleurbutterfly 20:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Celine Dion

If that's the case, would an article RFC convince him? Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, I know you didn't mean it that way but your note to me does recall this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From Daniel Case's page

I'm not going to raise a big stink about it, but just would like to point out that Journalist has been edit-warring a bad change into the article for a couple of days, with his change being reverted by multiple editors. He jammed it in one last time, requested protection, and you complied. Hopefully, spending three days finding out that no one agrees with him will make him understand that he, and he alone, believes that US record sales are unimportant for Canadian artists. He might have learned not to edit war a little faster if you had given him a stern warning and blocked him the next time he reverted his change in. Kww (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, Kww, you need to assume good faith, as I have done with you. I have not been edit warring a bad change, but have simply reverted a change that I believe is unsuitable in the lead (with the reasons explained on the talk page). Frankly, the only ones who disagree are you, the editor who first placed the info into the article, and a couple IPs that may belong to either/both you you. I never said that US sales were unimportant, I said that it shouldn't take precedence over everything. And the protection of the article wasn't a tactical move. You changed in shortly after I edited it, and I change it back, realized that we may have both violated 3RR, and notified both you and a third party (I could have really been unfair and abusive and block the article myself, but decided against it). And lastly, as you are as guilty of "edit warring" as I am, a stern warning and a block may also be warranted for you.

Daniel, I think that we should go to mediation and/or RFC. Orane (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow ... you claim that I didn't assume good faith, and you accuse me of IP sockpuppetry in the same breath? Me, another editor, and two IPs are four editors against one. Normally, most of us call that "consensus". Kww (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, would an article RFC convince him? Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not if he's going to assume that anyone that opposes him is an IP sockpuppet of mine. His response here doesn't encourage me to believe that he understands that he has taken a solitary position unsupported by any other editor.Kww (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I ever say that you deliberately logged off your account to make the edits? No, I said it may belong to any or both of you (if an IP suddenly starts making an edit that both of you have started to push into the article, it's a very reasonable assumption). And no, we don't call that consensus for the very fact that it's too few people: You, another account that has made about 30 edits to Misplaced Pages, and two IPs that have hardly edited Misplaced Pages. Actually, the fact that I may be alone in this doesn't mean I'm wrong, and it in no way puts me in a disadvantage. Wikipeia isn't a democracy; people won't simply get their way by voting "for" or "against" a point, or by outnumbering others.

Also, do me a favour: we're both adults here. Stop acting so childish, stop patronizing, and stop jumping to spurious conclusions about me and about the situation. Orane (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, I know you didn't mean it that way but your note to me does recall this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, which is why raising any kind of fuss is inappropriate.Kww (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

I have listed this dispute at WP:3O, since it is primarily between two people. Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also put it up as an RFC at the Canadians' noticeboard. Hopefully this will attract enough editors to establish a consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bundchen image

Thanks for the heads up - blocked. Neıl 龱 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Inquiry from me as well

Re: this. Are you referring to the general warning, or are you under the impression that I have been specifically named at some point? The only Arbcom case I have ever been a party to was as a complainant in the Sadi Carnot case.Kww (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kww. Yes I have no doubt that you have been instructed and warned a couple of months ago. -- FayssalF - 02:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly understood the general warning to apply to all. Your phrasing in your vote made it sound as if you were thinking of something aimed specifically at me.

Certainly wish I could understand why discussing the appropriate way to treat the creation of articles that violate policy is being considered an "attempt to inflame the situation." I suppose it has something to do with our views being diametrically opposed ... I consider actions like undoing the redirects that were in place before the arbcom freeze, creating ANI and Arbcom reports on people that have not violated the terms of their Arbcom sanctions, and threatening to perform mass unredirection of articles that still don't pass to be attempts to inflame the situation. I hold a similar opinion towards admins that have stretched the interpretations of sanctions beyond the breaking point, and towards admins that believe that "short blocks up to a week" can be interpreted as "two week blocks".

I've been in favor of maintaining status quo on the existing articles, neither creating new redirects or undoing redirects unless the article was repaired prior to undoing the redirect. I do feel, and thought that I was free to state as much in policy discussions, that editors that repeatedly create articles on fictional topics that have no third-party sourcing should be treated to a succession of stiffer and stiffer warnings followed up by blocks, i.e., treated as we treat any other disruptive editors or vandals. It would certainly solve the underlying problem more effectively than anything that has been tried to date.Kww (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles in question suffer a lot because of the opposing views and there is no doubt that you and TTN are more responsible than others in this mess. Topics bans are for the best of anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations. It is for the best of the general atmosphere. There are really plenty of areas where your actions may be useful, but not here - at least for the moment. -- FayssalF - 03:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Topics bans are for the best of anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations.", I'm sorry, but arbcom is not the one dealing with these situations, and you guys shouldn't be making these kinds of assumptions. Arbcom is making very uninformed decisions in relation to our case.

We were making progress in how TTN handles things, and we asked for clarification, because Lord knows the guy isn't going to be perfect over night. The only reason TTN got blocked or had an ANI thread in these last few weeks was because arbcom ignored our request. It was sitting there for so long that we went and made a second one. TTN told you guys on May 4th that he would do exactly what you told him to do, and he told you that he wasn't clear on several issues and wanted help.

He gets two blocks in gray areas, pleads for clarification both times, and you guys jump out of your chairs to do a total topical ban. Kirill fired off those proposals with bad assumptions on everyone (including myself, who he was dead wrong about), and with a hot head. The proposed topical ban for Kww should be a huge red flag to Kirill's laps in judgement there.

This last block, especially, needs to be clarified, regardless if TTN gets a topical ban or not. The only reason TTN got blocked was because he started a thread, rather than replied to an existing one, that was to a notice board in the project namespace (so basically he wouldn't have gotten blocked for starting a thread in the user name space). Several of us, including those on opposing extremes of the debate, were under the impression that he was simply restricted to direct action, and that he was not only allowed to discuss, but was encouraged to do so. Even if TTN's ideas in discussion were flawed, his participation in those discussions would help him understand why. He wasn't being disruptive at all in those discussions, and no one was even getting worked up. It was not until days later, after (and because of) the block did things turn heated. So why is it that this action has lead to a topical ban?

Can you not understand our honest confusion here? -- Ned Scott 05:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Headstrong

Hi! Kww, I want to ask you please to control the article Headstrong of Ashley Tisdale, since some users have begun for several days to erase a lot of information and someone without any motive, for example the covers, date of singles, charts, information that my brother wrote, i feel badly because curiously both users who erase the info are fans of Brenda Song, and this relates that my brother 2 days ago I erase a few false charts of this person, then I think that these users in vindictive form begin to do these damages in Ashley's articles, ask you please to take measurements with regard to these.

My brother was blocked of wikipedia only for trying to save the information that with a lot of effort he wrote, always he was hanging of false information erased that other users ponian in these articles and now it seems to me that it is unjust that for trying to save the article is blocked, I ask you to do something with regard to this. Please. Now I me encarge of placing something of the former information that this in the article but deseguro, these persons were managing to cause damages. Ojala this is taken responsibly since I for my part am not playing, Thank you very much.

My english forgives, is a bit basic. Fotesh (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was filled with fake references and fake positons the editor who did that was blocked for not responding to edits and submitting fake references and text even soemtimes the user who is by the way dienaked, reverted and posted non free images not to mention reverting most of the brenda song article and posting more fake references. In that result dienaked was blocked. That user received several warnings about that article. I have discussed this with other admins and that resulted to a block towards dienaked. And now fans are reverting the edits because they think it is not fair. Well hiw about reveiving the article first. It took me 2 hours for reveiving and over 30 mintutes for removing false references and fake chart postions not too mention 3 kiloybytes of trivia and fake sales. Most of the references were from fansites or forums which is not exceptable. Dienaked was blocked in that result. I am not a Brenda Song fan that is categorizing a trusted user as a strategy. Fotesh is now accusing me of being a vandellism user, he or she does not know why and seems to stick to the conspiracy theories made by Dienaked. I doubt that Dienaked is not connected with Fotesh. Your so called brother was blocked for removing text with no reason given, submitting fake references and text eg fake chart positions and then vandellising several pages after being given several warnings. And doubt that you arent Dienaked.

I have warned several admins on wikipedia about this and after that they blocked Dienaked. I have removed the text that was trivia, fake or fan based from the article with reasons given in the history page while Fotesh just reverting my edit with no reasons and started accusing me of being a crazy brenda song fan rekated with some ip address when my real ip is 81.155.226.185 and here is proof.

Have you even considered looking at the references posted in the old revision. They were all forums and fansites, and some of them were in different languages i translated the brazil newspaper it does not even mention headstrong's sales. They are fake and the user was blocked. Some of the text was just downright fake claiming that the album sold over 1 million and adding a fansite reference as a source. And then adding a billboard best album award reference. And the international sales links were forums in some areas and they did not even mention the album's sales/ And in soem cases we had refereneces that did not say anything about the album or included any thing about it. Dienaked though he could get away with posting fake references. And the critical reception was very fan based. Some of the reviews were made by fans and had several typos and they were not referenced and that is why we removed them and then we had about two referneced that stayed. I doubt that this user isnt Dienaked sinc ethe spelling errors, timing and opinions are exaclty the same. IntoCreativeJan (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not putting my side, Dienaked and Fotesh are connected and Dienaked was blocked for reverting my edits, submitting fake references and text and then removing large amounts of text without any reason and now his so - called sister is defending him and reverting my edits. Dienaked was blocked for doing that, he/she was vandellising and submitting fake references and text not to mention uploading non free images for that article. The images that were non free are now set for deletion. There arent any sides this is a matter of vandellism and inaccuracy made in that article. The article is now fine not a mess. I made sure that everything is accurate well nearly everything. The Brazil one about sales may not be accurate. But the reast is very accurate. That issue was not the only problem because Dienaked also submitting befor ebeing blocked a fansite link in the external link and i am quite surprised that users can get away with doing all of that and still get defended or may be sockpuppets there is a high possibility that Dienaked and Fotesh are sockpuppets or may be just relaitives like what Fotesh claims. IntoCreativeJan (talk) 2:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good thank you very much undoubtedly ... this user who has begun to edit the article has erased things that are not necessary, as charts and covers! Having checked the record is obvious his intention of causing damages, I speak normally in Spanish thank you for your response, which I do not understand is because he erases the information that wrote my brother, I understand some sources but it can be repaired, and I comprometemerme to looking for other sources but because he erases the covers or the record of the singles? Fotesh (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not release the singles. The singles were repeated two times and the target cover was exacltly like the original cover. So i did not earease your brothers information. If i did that with no reason i would be blocked like your broter. Do you ever wonder why you brother got blocked. For god sake. He got blocked for submitting fake references hot about looking at those references and the fake chart positions and sales, anotehr note how about looking at that. And he also submitted a fan site reference for god sake fan site references are not reliable they are fan based and the critical reviewes were fan based with typos and by the way that fan site exernal link was against wikipedia rules. DO you not understand what i am saying. Seems like another sockpuppet case.IntoCreativeJan (talk) 3:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

no is exactly like the original, change the color in the "HEADSTRONG" and you erased history dates release of teh singles in the worlwide why?... and yes some sales are fake but i removing but the sources i can add today but stop off deleted please!!! Leave me to contribute!!! Please!!!!!!! you erased the style that i put in ashley's template that after your it you put in template of brenda .. I can to deduce that you erased only to place it in brenda .. because your you are not blocked if she was a person so little objective. Fotesh (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not erease the history dates they were repeated in a seperate sectio, the teplate has broken links and had other songs which was not needed and that image was exactly the same target is not a internation publication or country which made is very illusive and your brothers edits were vandellism and i did not place anything ob brenda's that style was not ahsley's style it was a worlwide template style not by your brother. And discussion is over. If you revert my edits again, it may lead to another block. I have discussed this with other admins. the discussion is over revetring my work will be vandellism and would result to a block. This is your final warning.IntoCreativeJan (talk) 3:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: One more question

Your quote above anyone feeling it is too complicated to remain patient enough when dealing with difficult situations confuses me, and I really would like clarification as to why you think I should be forced to basically stop editing for 6 months (note that the topic ban is not over fiction, it is over all forms of art: films, movies, TV, music, characters, and by easy extension, actors and actresses, and includes any comments, which would include policy relating to them ... that's a huge swath of the encyclopedia). When have I shown signs of impatience? I discuss policy (including policy about fiction), and I try to maintain the status quo on existing redirects until there is a stable policy that says that the underlying articles are permissible or not. I protested when admins made interpretations of sanctions that could not be justified under the text of the sanctions, and I protested when people brought complaints to Arbcom that seemed to be for the purpose of getting their opponents blocked or banned, as opposed to being sincere reports of actual violations. At what point did I show signs of impatience?

I've just opined on the matter here. -- FayssalF - 03:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Photoshop vandelism

How the hell do you get to that conclusion??? Alotbsol (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a real candid picture taken by a paparazzi. It is in a lot of celeb web sites. It is, of course, not a free use picture and I tagged it as a copyvio on commons. --NrDg 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale

Please don't remove information from this profile. It has been sourced and it an evolving event. This is against Misplaced Pages policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawsheard (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources used so far are unreliable and don't meet the needs of WP:BLP. The information was properly removed as required by wiki policy. --NrDg 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mickey Mouse Club

Removing sourced information goes against Wiki policy. The sources meet EVERY Wiki guidline for viable and competant information. The sources cited were Official Disney publications. They are independant, reliable and official. To say that an "uninterested" editor has to author the information is ludacris. That goes completely against the purpose of Wiki in general. Editors write about what they are interested in. Please assume good faith. Sources were asked for and provided. It is half assed, and completely against Wiki policy to delete sourced information due to a lack of motivation to verify the sources. Other editors and admins are getting involved.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also Zachary Jaydon was a cast member on The Mickey Mouse Club. Please do not revert/ delete well sourced information as you may be blocked. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I must apologize for what i said earlier. In all fairness I am oblivious to the Mickey Mouse Club. I know very little on it. www.imdb.com is like wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. Therefore not making it a reliable source, so therefore you had every right to delete it. Once i again i apologize for that. If user:TragedyStriker has violated the WP:3RR then i strongly suggest you report him at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. If he is using two accounts, this means he is violation WP:SOCK. So i also strongly suggest you report him for committing sock puppetry (having more than one account) at WP:ANI. Sorry for any convince, he just complained to me about you. I don't know why. Ive never talked to him before. He just complained about you to me. I'm not even an administrator lol. So I just thought I'll act the "good guy" and place a warning lol. Anyway report him for what i have said and this should put an end to his inconvenience. ;) 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

haha. its annoying lol. Sorry anyway, he made out to me that he was the good guy and that you were that bad guy. Now i know thats the other way round. Anyway peace friend ;) Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

Hi. I saw you opened an ANI on Zachary Jaydon and his claims of being on MMC and I thought I'd let you know awhile back, I attempted to verify this info and came up with nothing. As you stated in the ANI, there is nothing online (outside of user driven websites) that indicate he was ever on the show (the only thing I did find was an interesting link that seems to debunk this claim although it's not official or even reliable). I'm not sure what to make of the references he provided because I don't have the magazine, but after having attempted to find any confirmation of this when the web is pretty full of MMC cast member info, I'd say the information is dubious at best and should probably not be included until someone can at least verify the sources Jaydon provided. IMHO, it's not assuming bad faith if you're truly questioning the claims and the sources can't be verified. Hope this helps a bit. Pinkadelica 07:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey sorry to revert you there but the reference is actually there, although I don't think it's significant enough to change anything. The author told me on my talk page that he's working on scanning some articles that prove this is true - so we'll have to review those soon too. BradV 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the following link:

http://zacharyjaydonwiki.blogspot.com/

I am continuing to upload additional scans. This will be at the very least, a show of good faith, and a non-refutable proof of at least a portion of the information in question. Thank you. Skyler Morgan (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)