Misplaced Pages

E-mail

Did you get my wiki-mail regarding the image of Princess Eugenie's Arms? -Rrius (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I did, yes. As you may have seen, I've been a bit bogged down. Let me try and upload again; if it doesn't work I'll email you shortly. Prince of Canada 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Made it work.. turned out there was an issue with the image, so I recreated it and presto. Prince of Canada 06:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, because I didn't get your email -Rrius (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the image—great job! -Rrius (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thank you. It was just a copy/paste job, really. Stole the thistles from Margaret's arms, and the rest from Beatrice's. Prince of Canada 07:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IMDb

Why do you and Beeblebrox keep vandalising the IMDb page? If you don't like the way the item is written then rewrite it, don't keep removing it. This is a major new development in IMDb, and needs to be mentioned on Misplaced Pages, to keep this site up to date. You and your fellow user's constant removal of my work is akin to a couple of playground bullies.

• I went ahead and took this matter to WP:AIV since the IP is unwilling to discuss it reasonably and is well beyond WP:3RR. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Righto. Let me know if you need anything from me. Prince of Canada 09:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As I thought, you are friends. Oh well, enjoy your games. Your censorship is wholly inappropriate and probably drives away many useful contributors. You both need to ask yourselves, who is actually helping the encylopaedia more - someone who adds interesting new information (whether written in language you don't like or not) or someone who just goes round deleting things completely, so that nobody can read them at all?

Hi. I haven't seen either of you give me any help. All I have seen is your desperate urge to completely remove my material, and then run off to report me when I defended myself. Where is the help in rewriting the information or suggesting better placement within the article? Also, how can I possibly supply a more appropriate link than the one directly to the release of the information? The only other possible link is here http://www.imdb.com/video/featured/landing and that seems more commercial to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.108.154 (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Conflict at Orissa religious violence & Jobxavier

Dear Prince- the article is at Orissa religious violence. A sense of the nature of the POV conflict can be found in these diffs: Some of my concerns are summarized on the talk page Talk:Orissa_religious_violence#NPOV_Dispute I appreciate your attention and concern. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it. And sorry for removing your comment--someone was vandalizing my page. Prince of Canada 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd thought I must have stopped at the preview. Thanks for the intervention. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I'm happy to consider all options at dispute resolution, but I'm not optimistic for the prospects of mediation in this instance. To be frank, I've been leaning towards an RfC. Of course, I've never gone through either before, so I would appreciate your advice. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not at that stage yet. Let's see where this goes, and move from there. Prince of Canada 09:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

saw your comment elsewhere. so you'll only be putting comments on the discusssion page, and won't actually edit the page?--vvarkey (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put up the list of WP:NPOV violations you requested. Best, Gabrielthursday (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

To Prince: I agree. The 'who is a hindu' link has been re-inserted after your message. It needs to be removed, as such.

Please see my responses to Gabriel in the other page. Jobxavier (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You know who I am

Theres no need to lie. I am:

• User:RickK
• User:kairiXd
• User:Ammar gerrard117
• User:KairiAl-Qaeda

Too much Wiki linking

Hi, I've noticed your anti-vandalism edits a number of times! If you're editing, it gives me a chance to get something to drink. Lol. I noticed you reverted an edit, giving "overwikifying" as the rationale. Does that work for you? Does it have some advantage over giving "overlinking" as the reason? ( WP:CONTEXT ) Regards! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. six of one, half a dozen of the other, really. If you would prefer I use 'overlinking' I shall. And get me a drink, too! Gin & tonic, easy on the tonic ;) Prince of Canada 09:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Have a large one on me. I ran out of "tonic", though, now I'm running on adrenaline.

I've never gotten any feedback from users when I refer them to WP:CONTEXT. I was wondering whether your technique might work better? Piano non troppo (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, just make it a large gin. This is the first user I've tried to send to WP:CONTEXT; there is zero response. It's so very close to vandalism, but not quite, and impossible to tell when the user won't engage. Prince of Canada 10:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cast-off being

Since you were concerned about the removal of the PROD from this article, you may want to express an opinion at WP:Articles for deletion/Cast-off being. Actually, I favor your view that PRODs should not be removed without a rationale, but I don't think current policy requires that. Anyone can remove a PROD for any reason. (Short of total vandalism, anyway). EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad; I was under the impression that they were not removable without addressing the issues raised. Cheers. Prince of Canada 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/KairiAl-Qaeda

I have reviewed your evidence and there is no way any of the accounts you suspected are sockpuppets (see the comments section of the page for explanations). If you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. I don't have the habit of watchlisting other user's talk pages because it can flood my watchlist whenever there's an update in someone else's userpage and there's a chance that you haven't read the message yet. OhanaUnited 04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Their contributions may be similar, but their editing timeline just don't fit at all. OhanaUnited 12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page!! LeaveSleaves (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Huggle makes me feel all warm and cozy and vandal-smashy. Prince of Canada 08:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Medcab on Orissa

Thanks for getting this going. Much appreciated. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. But as I will be busy for the next two weeks, I will not be in a position to contribute to the discussion.-Bharatveer (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Response in mediation

I made a response in mediation . I hope I am being fair. Thanks. Recordfreenow (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A pony...

Hawkania does not agree

I'm sorry you decided it was vandalism but it wasn't it was simply a mis-reading which another member kindly helped me with i would like to kindly ask next time you try and say it's vandalism ask me first why i keep doing it.Hawkania (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

idiotic warning

Don't do that. 86.44.20.177 (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Referring to your warning as idiotic is in no way uncivil. It was indeed idiotic. As was your subsequent template. Presumably at some stage you actually look at the edits you are referring to as vandalism or "what wikipedia is not"? Bizarre. 86.44.20.177 (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might explain to me in your own words why you are templating me. That may prove instructive. 86.44.20.177 (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So you made a revert you can't explain, and templated me twice for reasons you also can't explain, and are now resorting to lies and namecalling? Not very impressive. 86.44.27.254 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a revert I choose not to explain, and templated you for obvious reasons. Nor have I lied or called anyone names. You were blocked from WP for a reason. That includes, as far as I am aware, using anon IPs to edit. Consider yourself warned. Prince of Canada 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have mistaken me for someone else (i presume? otherwise you're plain gaga). You're cool with contravening policy? Also review what vandalism is, while you're at it. And stop talking nonsense. 86.44.16.184 (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have mistaken me for someone else

No

You're cool with contravening policy?

No, and seeing as I'm not, but you are, I'm not really sure why you're asking the question.

Also review what vandalism is, while you're at it.

I'm quite aware of what it is, thanks.

And stop talking nonsense.

Please see WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and related policies and thoughts. Any further edits by you to my userpage will be considered WP:VANDALISM and personal attacks, and will be dealt with accordingly. Prince of Canada 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been pointing out to you that what you consider—and revert as—vandalism, isn't. Simply considering it vandalism, as you have you stated you will consider this post, isn't relevant, templating editors for it is idiotic and harmful, and referring to editors who point this out you as "blocked troll"s is unacceptable. Take it on board if you're really here for the encyclopedia. If you're on some ego thing whereby you can't accept your error when it is pointed out to you, then forget it, naturally. I trust if you repeat this pattern enough it'll get dealt with in any case. 86.44.26.251 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that the revert you're talking about--namely your removal of relevant content from the Ten Pound Hammer essay, and your rude edit summary--was vandalism. Your abuse here is clearly part of a pattern. In addition to the links I noted above, WP:AGF appears to be required reading for you, Kurt. Then again, your history indicates that neither WP:AGF nor WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA have ever been policies that you believe apply to yourself. That is the last this talk page will ever see on the matter. Any further edits from you that are not solely "I am sorry for attacking you, questioning your motives, and generally being a jerk" will be reverted. I invite you to go enjoy the wide world beyond your computer screen. Anger management courses are widely available there, I understand. Prince of Canada 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Usertalk: Ugleekid

Ugleekid is my friend. He is new to wikipedia and asked me to clean up his page. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EntertainU (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remove HG from Twycross Zoo page

Hi Prince I'm not really into wiki but you keep deleting my posts using HG. I hope this is the correct way to tell you about my business. I am the owner of Pirates Cove at Twycross Zoo and am trading there right now. Someone is maliciously trying to erase my business from it's history but I can assure you that everything I have posted is 100% correct and I can prove it. I got my daughter to post some citations but I have even more than this as evidence if you need it. I could post it, if you don't believe me. Whoever it is, who is trying to remove my posts is doing this out of jealousy or hatred. I request that you remove HG from any posts made on the Twycross Zoo page by my self, Dartman501 at email address charles_t.benson@virgin.net I am the sole owner of Pirates cove and I trade under the name of Sliders Funrides Ltd. Our company registered office is:- Hawthorn Cottage Church Street Clifton Campville Staffs B79 0AR Limited Company Registration No 4947190 charles_t.benson@virgin.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.144.105 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

On the off chance you ever read this, I'll invite you to read about our policies on conflict of interest, notability, and verifiability. Cheers. Prince of Canada 02:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Awarded for your recent gesture of peace. -Rrius (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the atmosphere got quite charged, and you were both able to take a step back. -Rrius (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

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 (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:QEQM 100th birthday.jpg

The image in question has no fair-use rationale for either of the articles it is currently used in and therefore fails criterion 10c of the non-free content criteria, should this situation not change the image will be eligible for deletion via speedy delete criterion I6 seven days after the original uploader has been informed (In this case that would be the 28th of September). As I do not know much about the subject matter and the importance of the event depicted in the image I cannot judge if the image meets all of the non-free content criteria and so could not put in the appropriate rationales myself. The guideline for non-free content rationales can be found here. Please note that the boilerplate copyright tags setting out fair use criteria do not constitute a use rationale. I hope this hasn't caused any trouble; assuming that the image does indeed meet all of the non-free content criteria the situation shouldn't be too difficult to resolve for someone with a knowledge of why the image meets the criteria. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The criteria can be a pain but I think they're neccessary. It's a contentious issue with some people seeing Misplaced Pages as a free-content mission and thinking all fair-use should be banned (as it is - I believe - on the German Misplaced Pages) whilst at the other end of the spectrum there are those who see Misplaced Pages as only being based around free-content as a practical way to run the encyclopaedia and any non-free content should be allowed as long as it improves the encyclopaedia and no one's being sued. As I see it the current system allows for non-free content that will improve the encyclopaedia but also limits any potential legal exposure to the project and encourages people to produce and identify valuable free content by having the systems in place (WP:NFCC) whereby we need justify non-free use in each instance. I'm sorry for the mix-up with the original uploader, I'm coming back from a bit off a break and would have made sure I left messages on the relevent article talk pages had I noticed their situation. Anyway I hope the situation can be resolved satisfactorily, happy editing, Guest9999 (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to bring the image in to line with the non-free content criteria I have remove the image from the article English and British Queen mothers and replaced it with a free image of a former holder of the title and added a rationale for it's use in the article Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon . I hope this is satisfactory. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Coronation article

You asked me to let you know when I got the Coronation article ready for GA renomination again. I think I've just about gotten it where it needs to be; sometime when you have time (a LOT of time--it's ballooned out to 103 KB now!), might I ask you to check it out and let me know what you think before I resubmit it? You might also want to take a look on the discussion page for the GA Review section, and let me know if you think I've addressed all of Dana Boomer's concerns appropriately. Any help, editing, feedback or elsewise you might care to give would be deeply appreciated! Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about the "Charlie and the Chocolate Factor" Revert

The information was already stated in the article, in far, far more detail. There's no need to reiterate what would have just been read. There wasn't any need to revert those edits (this edit, if you don't remember). 24.145.19.247 (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Page header

Hi PrinceOfCanada. I'm not sure what you're talking about - it seems OK to me. What should it look like? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rlandmann, thank you for the incredibly fast reply! I've added a pair of userboxes at the top of the page to demonstrate the issue. The first one is FUBAR; the second is correct. Or is it possible that the issue is an artifact of my browser? (Firefox2, fully updated, on WinXP) Prince of Canada 03:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I definitely see the problem now. I've previewed a couple of changes that I thought might work, but unfortunately I can't see what's wrong. Probably the best people to ask would be over at the technical page of the Village Pump and see if someone can spot the problem. Sorry I couldn't help more! --Rlandmann (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. You've been a big help--I never would have thought to go there! Prince of Canada 17:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DUFFY IS A NOOB.

It's true, leave it on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.248.194.93 (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

RE:Orissa

Yea, I agree. Good idea. ;) —Sunday | Speak 11:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

:-D Xavexgoem (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans. Well, here's hoping.. Prince of Canada 17:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite Orissa violence

Thanks again for being involved in getting us to play fair. Have you been able to recruit someone for a re-write? How would we ensure that there are no apparent reverts? Thanks again. Recordfreenow (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have found someone, and we can't ensure it but we can ask editors to commit to not reverting. Prince of Canada 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cavill Heugh

See User_talk:Jeff79#Cavill_Heugh.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the word on Orissa?

What's the word so far on Orissa? By looking at the available sources, some research may be in order, particularly for background. I'm not confident that the sources used are the best possible (or reliable, even). That may take me longer due to my lack of familiarity with the region. If you think it is advisable, I can make introductions on the article talk page to prepare for this. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

ORISSA VIOLENCE PAGE

During the past 72 hours, many POV edits have been made in the Page. This cannot be allowed. The Page is under Dispute.

Jobxavier (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My editing was not disruptive. G2bambino had clearly agreed to a consensus via reverting the page here, indicating that the conflict was ongoing and clearly implying that further edits should not be made until the conflict had been resolved. This was acceptable to me, and obviously acceptable to him--right up until I took the issue to WT:MOS. All of a sudden, that was no longer an acceptable state for the page to be in, despite the fact that the discussion/conflict was ongoing. The consensus was clear; I was enforcing that consensus and nothing more. Indeed, I was reverting to his own edit, the one that he wanted to stay up until the conflict was resolved!

Decline reason:

Despite what you may believe , 3RR is not an entitlement. You were clearly disrupting things and knew you were doing it. Declined — MBisanz 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

No, I was not 'clearly disrupting and knew it'. He had agreed to a consensus until the conflict was over. He decided that was no longer the case. I made my extremely strenuous objections known, he went ahead, I reverted back to the initial version he had created. Prince of Canada 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=What are the chances of being unblocked if I agree to mediation with G2? |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=What are the chances of being unblocked if I agree to mediation with G2? |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=What are the chances of being unblocked if I agree to mediation with G2? |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}