Misplaced Pages

== Archive List ===

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 -- the learning curve

Thanks

Not sure if you want messages here...but thanks for the heads-up, I'll watchlist it. Thanks! PeterSymonds (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've finally seen it. I don't know what I was looking at last time but I feel it was a wrongful deletion on my part. The image is graffiti on a wall, and therefore it's too original for it to be a copyright violation. The colour's different, there's sufficient original lighting, and it's at an angle. It's a bit like using an image of a work of art. If it's not over 100 years old, then I can't use a photo of it; but if it's my own original photo, taken with original lighting and distance, it would be my own work. If you strongly disagree with my decision, I'd take it to WP:IFD, but if you do, please notify me and paste this comment on the page. Hope this helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Say no to fair use"

Have you ever considered that Fair Use is actually a freer system than GFDL? Fair use has a history under US law. Copyleft, as far as I can tell, does not. What happens if someone says "I change my mind?" I don't know - it hasn't been tested in court. More importantly, of course, we have thousands of images in Misplaced Pages which are tagged as GFDL, and ownership is claimed by a person known only by their username. If you were a company interested in reusing Misplaced Pages content (ie, one with real assets that made it worth suing), would you really trust an image tagged by a person known only by a username?

It's complicated, but I don't think that fair use is necessarily less free than GFDL. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Laughing man - Chicago Sticker Graffiti .jpg

I undid your tagging of this as a speedy as I can't see evidence that the image is a copyvio. --John (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No probs. :) I don't take it personally. I'll make a statement in a second. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

South Lyon High School

I think you left a message on the wrong talk page there chief. ;-) --Ryan Delaney 19:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My recent edits

So I made an none constructive edit to my own user page. Are you having a laugh? Please explain what i did wrong and explain how it was none constructive. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning?

What vandalism did I do on User talk:Hlrysks? I simply warned him/her for removing a SD template for a vandalism page they created. Pinkadelica 18:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Pinkadelica 18:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Articles

Hi, Misplaced Pages articles are intended to be the products of teamwork. No article should be owned by one Misplaced Pages editor in particular. Am I correct about this? Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

Hello!

I noticed that you have been placing vandalism warnings on some editors' talk pages after some edits that couldn't really be considered vandalism. Here are some examples:

• this warning was placed on the editor's page in regards to this edit of his. That edit was constructive.
• this warning with regards to this editor's edits on article Zude. He made no non-constructive edits there.

Also, barring some other aggravating circumstance, 1 warning is usually enough for 1 non-constructive edit. You have placed several warnings on user's talk pages after they were already warned about that edit. Examples: , , , and others.

Please be careful to check if a warning has been placed on the userpage already and, if it has, consider the user properly warned until their next non-constructive edits. Adding to that, if some other than yourself actually reverted the vandalism edit, chances are that they will be the one to place the warning on the vandal's talk page anyways so just keep an eye out for that.

But the most important thing to remember, by far, is to make as certain as you possibly can to never incorrectly accuse someone of vandalism. When in doubt, refer to WP:VANDALISM, the official Misplaced Pages policy on vandalism to help you determine if it is or if it isn't vandalism or feel free to ask someone for a second opinion.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I hope the fact that I incorrectly wrote user's instead of users' doesn't change the fact that , , , were warnings placed by you on other users' talk pages after they were already warned about a specific edit. You've been duplicating warnings and that's what I was trying to say. Check those links and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Also, I'm afraid that this edit is not vandalism. It's not sourced, it may be a BLP violation but it's not vandalism even though this warning stated that it was. WP:VAND requires an edit to be made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages which the above edit fails to prove to obviousness of such an intent.

I'm not trying to be a dick either but your warnings were incorrectly placed and I was trying to nicely inform you of that. Please do be more careful in the future. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there!

No intention of beating a dead horse but I want to come back to this edit. First of all, the subject of the article is dead, therefore, WP:BLP doesn't exactly apply here as strictly as it would if he were alive. Second, many men have female sounding nicknames and it shouldn't be immediately assumed that it's derogatory if a statement like that is made. A simple two step process might have led you to find out that there was no vandalism in that edit. In the first step, you could notice that the article, even before the editor in question got to it, mentions racing stables named Eve Stud Ltd after which the editor suggests that Eve is the male owner's nickname. In the second step, you could perform a Google search from which you might come across this article which specifically states In India Sir Victor raced under the pseudonym of 'Mr Eve'. When he established a stud at Newmarket he named it the Eve Stud. I agree that the above editor should have provided the reference but there are other ways to deal with a situation like that. Accusing him of vandalism is the most incorrect way possible because that's as bitey as one can get towards a newcomer.

Anyways, I'm glad you see my point of why we need to be careful about things like these.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiGoon

I moved it to the Extended Fauna list, where new discoveries belong (See Template talk:Misplaced Pages fauna). But if you were to kick some earnings upstairs, we could talk ;p xenocidic (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

CarolSpears

Trivial changes are not protection, and she did not always make said changes: for instance, look at the sentence in the first comparison beginning "Lake Kimilili is surrounded by sparse C3 shrubland dominated by Alchemilla, Helichrysum, and Dendrosenecio..." That's a very long passsage where the changes are as likely as not accidental, as that book cannot be copy-pasted from. The third diff has one complete sentence, unchanged at all, and one sentence that is simply slighly abridged from the original. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Nor did I show everything. Look at the Google cache of Agrostis gigantea and you'll find a lot more copyvio than I quoted:

In the end, the entire last two sections differ from the source only in a single word, and in having some footnote numbers stripped in one paragraph. There's similar copy-paste elsewhere. Please strike your comment, you were clearly unaware of the situation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I was perusing the Wiki fauna stuff, and some how I got to WikiGoon. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and wanted to thank you for lightening up my day a bit. Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard^Bloom (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:George Carlin

I'm not sure what AGF or NOTCENSORED has to do with it. The purpose of a Misplaced Pages talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. --Onorem♠Dil 17:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

In response of your comment here:

Put your dunce cap on, buddy, because that's the exact situation I was talking about. Nothing was "proven", so I don't know where you came up with that. It's laughably absurd to think that the edit he made with the alt account would have been a tactic at sock puppetry. Everyone knows by now that Beta uses more than one computer, he even has a "Betacommand 2" something account for the sake of some customized monobook or javascript setting. When he made the edit with the wrong account he did so without hiding who he was. He posted under that different account as himself, acting as he was just moments before. Given the way people have been treating him, it's no surprise, whatsoever, that he would have wanted to make a new account to start fresh with.

Just because he might have some problems with how he handled some past situations does not make him a dishonest user. You have no basis to say that he's done anything dishonest. He might be rude sometimes, be might be right or wrong about policy, but what you're accusing of him is completely out of character. You don't even have to like the guy to see this. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

NAMBLA

The conntroversial topics are always the most difficult to tag up. I have copied your comment to WT:LGBT. Please remember to sign your post next time. Thanks. ZueJay (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice there is also an LGBT project tag on Talk:Jesse Helms. He's not LGBT either! His article is within the scope of the project.

Dybryd (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

KoshVorlon, edits like this one are completely unacceptable. Whether said jokingly or not (I honestly can't tell), it is never a good idea to suggest somebody "off" them self; please don't do that in the future. And incidentally, the correct spelling is weird. - auburnpilot talk 01:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

re:TALK: John Edwards

I think you might have accidentally removed 2 user's comments: both "Intelligent Mr Toad"'s fairly innocuous comments, and "MrKing84"'s quite rude posting. When I restored your deletes I didn't notice MrKing84's comment and meant only to restore Intelligent Mr Toad's somewhat on-topic post. If you redelete MrKing's post I won't object. (That said, this particular talk page does have a history of somewhat overzealous censoring/undo-ing on BLP grounds which is why I was so quick to undo deletes.) DiggyG (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

Family trees

I got your message about family trees and I also received the edit conflict message. Please don't remove it or it will be reverted and taken as vandalism.--Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 13:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly safe as long as you can't prove that you are an administrator, and my reason for that is no risk of being blocked. I have reverted your vandalism. And will keep doing so.--Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 16:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, could you please stop editing Andy Bjornovich's various user pages for now? I have proposed a block of this user at WP:AN, and I think it's best to work it out there instead of possibly antagonizing them any further. Thanks so much! — Satori Son 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your message.--Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians

Stop trying to reopen this discussion. It was not the appropriate place for a deletion discussion, as it was not an article, and it was correctly closed. Do not reopen the discussion. - auburnpilot talk 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No template, but you've now attempted to revert the close three times. The close is proper, as pages that are not articles (in the mainspace) cannot, by rule, be nominated as Articles for deletion. You have been instructed to take the matter to MfD; please do so. This AfD has been properly closed, and needs to remain that way. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a particular opinion on the page itself, but it's not an article - doesn't matter what it is, or what policy justifies its deletion, it can't be reviewed under the Articles for deletion process. Pages like this are very specifically why we have Miscellany for Deletion, which is where it should go. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it another way; if the page were actually deleted at AfD, it would be overturned immediately at Deletion Review on procedural grounds, since it's not an article. By my math, we've saved you several days of headache. Best, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)