Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:05, 14 March 2010

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Beyond My Ken, 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!  - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the welcome message. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem - we always need more help here on Misplaced Pages! Before you remove or swap any more images on aircraft articles you should probably have a read through Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Images. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the pointer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to be working on aircraft articles you may want to join us at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aircraft. We have a very good group of editors there working to improve the existing articles and write many new ones each month. We can always use more help!- Ahunt (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll probably pass on that suggestion - not only am I constitutionally not much of a "joiner", but aircraft articles are just something I think I would work on in passing, rather than as a concentration. (My son is into Microsoft Flight Simulator, so I come to aircraft articles in response to his questions and suggestions.)

If it turns out that I wind up working on more of them than I expect to, I will definitely reconsider your suggestion. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Revisions of Jeff Manning

You have a new message on my talk page. Morning277 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Swine flu

I'm running Mozilla Firefox v3.5.5 on Mac OS X @ 1440x900 px. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your new try doesn't exhibit the spacing problem like before. I still think the centering is less readable personally, but I won't quibble over it. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(responded on talk page) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Pinewood Derby

This is an article about the Boy Scouts of America. In addition to standard style guides, the official BSA style guide Language of Scouting is also used. The name pinewood derby is in lower case except when referring to a specific event. This is in line with other major style guides. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  12:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the Boy Scout's style guide is relevant here, as we are not a Boy Scot site. "Pinewood Derby" is clearly a proper name, and proper names are generally capitalized -- I think that takes precedence over the Boy Scout's style guide.

Can you point me to a discussion in which the consensus has been to use lower case in this instance? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not disrupt an article

The Thong (clothing) article needs a lot of improvement anyways. Let us not hinder the process by putting sub-sections in ungainly places, and move the pictures about in in ways that disrupt the page layout for no good reason. If you feel strongly about anything, please, discuss on the talk page. Aditya 07:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement is not disruption, so please tone down your rhetoric. The article was a mess, both visually and textually, and what I did improved matters considerably, although I agree there is more to be done. As it stands, the article has similar material in multiple places, and it has absolutely no flow or logical structure. I'm not going to revert your misguided reversion of my edits, but I will point out that, generally speaking, it's better to be a contributor to a halfway decent article than it is to be the "owner" of a poor one. Stewardship of articles is an important, if usually unacknowledged, part of the Misplaced Pages process, since it protects articles from vandalism and edits which don't serve it well, but stewardship works best when it grows out of an understanding of what works and what doesn't work for the article, which I do not believe you have demonstrated by your reversion. Certainly, any specific choice that I made in visual layout or article structure can be discussed, and I labor under no delusion that what I did was perfect, but it's also apparent that in toto what I ended up with is quite a bit better than what was there before, and is there now due to your action.

Do as you wish, though, you've now laid your claim for stewardship of this article, and the shape it's in is therefore a direct reflection on you and your editing abilities. Let it be on your head.

Please do not respond, I'm not interested in further discussion, and as I don't plan on editing the article again, discussion is pointless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Betty Logan

Thanks. She has been a problem, showing up on someone else's specious Sock puppet investigation filed against me here. The other party even listed her name as a possible sock for me. This is ridiculous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:INITIAL

I hadn't considered your reasoning. On the other hand, I think the language of WP:INITIAL is probably unintentionally inclusive of what post-nominals can be listed. I have asked a question at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Post-nominal initials, should you have any interest. _matic 03:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you -- I'll keep an eye on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I may have deleted references on this page Battle of Hamra al-Asad as part of a series of parallel clean ups. Rodney J Philips was published by AEG a self publishing scam company. His website is pure conspiracy crap. Definitely not a RS or Notable.Cathar11 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Phillips is only a critic of islam. his view is valid. if the publisher is crooked then it dont mean the author is not reliable. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Muhammad_and_assassinations&action=history sorry. heres the link http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Muhammad_and_assassinations

Thank you, I will look at that discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, unfortunately that discussion is non-conclusive, as it's basically a few editors arguing their point of view in a "yes it is / no it isn't" fashion. I would suggest that all parties cease adding or removing content sourced to Phillips to all articles until a discussion has been started at the reliable sources noticeboard and a consensus has been found as to whether his work, and that of AEG, is reliable enough to be used on Misplaced Pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, please do not refactor comments on this talk page. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. i will try doing that. i didnt know that existed Comment added by User: Misconceptions2 at 15:34, 1 January 2010

Just wanted to say...

Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just saying the facts as I see them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen J. Press image

I reverted your image size change because the image is poor quality. I already tried increasing the size and it looks much better smaller. Check out the revisions, and I think you'll agree. If you disagree, maybe bring it up on the talk page is best, but you can also revert, and I won't revert again. It really is not a good picture. And it looks better smaller. That's a pretty good reason in my book. I don't take this to the talk page, as usually would be appropriate, because serious COI issue going on there already. --23:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much debated it the same way, but concluded that small, at least it just looks like a postage stamp. Revert if you will, I'll let it stand. I think my conclusion from the argument slightly superior to your different concusion to the same arguments, by 80 pixels or so. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not like that would hurt it... --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all the publications are notable. That is a pretty lame list. However, it looks like you're trying to clean up the article, so I'm going to , let you go at it. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol. The thing is sick. It could be a nice good little article, and I'd argue for its notability, but not with the angry clown attacking and going after everyone. I do hope someone AfDs it. That should take care of the COI. But, probably a good point, no matter the level of schlock, don't give them arguments at AfD. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 07:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your interpretation of Misplaced Pages guidelines

I was thinking about your interpretation of Wiki policy to include international editors and I came across a current case over at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents section. Here is a part of the text contributed by admins on the subject - "many non-native English speakers contribute much valuable information to the English Misplaced Pages. If their contributions are in less-than-perfect English, we can address that through simple copy-editing. To tell anyone that their contributions of useful information are unwelcome violates the spirit of the project." I and most of the Wiki community concur with that, it is a valid interpretation of the rules. There is no community consensus for another interpretation. If someone should disagree with the consensus the thing to do would be to argue the matter on the talk page of the policies themselves rather than to pursue a novel interpretation of the rules.

Also your bad faith analysis of my contribution record was unwelcome. I think you have more experience of Wiki policy than your limited time using this user id would suggest and certainly enough to know that such a bad faith analysis could be considered a personal attack. You said that you think the balance between civility and competence on Misplaced Pages was improper, however you should be careful following a novel approach that you have no consensus for. Weakopedia (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

halayeb triangle

dear sir

why you removed some information from the halayeb triangle article which are considered facts and i do repeat FACTS ?

i kindly ask you for an explanation. best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhamidelsayed (talk • contribs) 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

this message and the earlier one was by abd elhamid elsayed
abdelhamidelsayed@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhamidelsayed (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What facts are you referring to, and were they sourced? I believe the only hard information I removed was unsourced and had been tagged as such for a number of months. If this is the information you're referring to, you need to find a reliable source that verifies the facts, and then they can be re-added to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

dear friend i do speak arabic , while you do not so it is more accurate to say halayeb triangle instead of hala'ib triangle . this is something called logics or common sense and you can answer the people who decided to post an article as hala'ib why they did that , but if there is censorship in halayeb i will never trust wikimapia no more , because if you ask the majority of the arab speaking people that you can meet they will tell you that the correct wording for it in english is halayeb triangle and i am ready to talk to you if you want and if you do not want to spend your money just post your phone number and i will call you and if either solutions does not meet your concensus and indeed the triangle is egyptian and sudan claim it under wrong assesments and many people in the western world do not understand what is the symbol (') which is present in hala'ib and you try to pronounce both words in front of an arab and ask him to say which one is right after he writes in arabic the word halayeb by abd elhamid elsayed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhamidelsayed (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

dear sir why you canceled some facts about halayeb like the borders fence and others? isn't wikimapia about facts? Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)by abd elhamid elsayed

Misplaced Pages is about facts that are verified by reliable sources. Find a reliable source which says what you want to say, and it can be added to the article. In the meantime, I would prefer that all communication regarding this matter take place on the article's talk page, and not here. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

dear friend , you have not yet answered my questions regarding the facts you erased from halayeb a fence is a fact and can be seen in google earth and other facts , why you erased the fence paragraph , i saw it in august 2008 and it is there to stay not only for symbol of power but to stop contraband regarding my profile , i have no enemies because what i post are facts and more of my profile is available in facebook. i am not of that type that hides behind a nick name like you do and if i had more computer knowledge , i would post more and more in wikipedia. and if you threaten me to block me in wikimapia , this is the so called policy of some in the western world - either you are with us or against us , blocking me will not get halayeb from the egyptians because i firmly believe in deep of my soul that it belongs to egypt and the army is there , i saw this and our policy toward sudan is considering that the sudanese have not to talk about this matter the president of sudan was in egypt meeeting with the president egypt and at their backs was displayed a big map of egypt showing halayeb in our territory and the sudanese president was silent. you could have drugs in your home and i know about that , so i can come to visit you or not . why he came to visit egypt knowing that the egyptian control a part of what he considers his country . best regards , it was a pleasure writing to you. Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC) abd elhamid elsayed

I've answered your question in the only way possible on Misplaced Pages: it doesn't matter what the "facts" are if you cannot back them up with something from a reliable source. Go to this link to find out what a reliable source is, then do some research, find a reliable source that reports the things you want to add to the article, and they can be added. Without them, you will not be able to do so.

One other thing, please do not post on my talk page about this again -- all discussion should be on the article's talk page: Talk:Hala'ib Triangle. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Christopher Monckton Kilt Mug crop.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Christopher Monckton Kilt Mug crop.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock 06:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. The home page of the website from which the image came, as well as the specific page on which the image appears, carry the label:

This work by CFACT is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

I have added this information to the permission field of the taqged image, and, since this permission is indeed explicit, I have removed the deletion tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pygmalion confusion

Hi. In de-munging Pygmalion, I think you reverted a couple of steps too far back in the "Ending" section, and brought it back into the thick of the vandalisms of early January. (I fixed it :)) -- LaNaranja (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- and sorry for screwing it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/H Debussy-Jones. Thank you. 2Misters (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yesterday Was a Lie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. GedUK  14:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Administrators' noticeboard discussion

I have started a thread about you on the administrators' noticeboard. The thread is located here. Exactly one of your accounts may be unblocked to allow you to participate in this discussion, if you so choose. NW (Talk) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate this account being unblocked for that discussion. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 04:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like things largely worked out. Glad to see it. It might be a good idea to label the other accounts as simply alternate accounts of yours. Just a thought and glad you are back in the mix. Also, I got bit once for reverting vandalism (THAT'S A VIOLATION OF 3RR!!! BLOCKED!!!). Vandalism doesn't count. As long as it isn't a content dispute, I'll happily get involved and make your 4th edit to avoid such problems, just drop me a line on my talk page. — BQZip01 —  00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, and for your support on AN -- both are greatly appreciated. Nuclear Warfare has redirected the other user and talk pages to this account, and seems to think that is all that's necessary to do, since it links the accounts together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well

I didn't know THIS was YOU! Hi there. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Hi" right back at you. Yep - my attempt at low-key editing wasn't too successful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, we've all had our crosses to bear, haven't we? Mine is still around. Good to know who you are. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Egypt Sudan border fence

dear , do you consider www.fao.org a reliable source? if they mention a fence and a picture in an article on their website would you find extra excuses to erase my post? best regards, please answer back Abdelhamidelsayed (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)abdelhamidelsayed

• 1. Simply mentioning the fence shows nothing, as I've said to you before. If the cite describes the fence, fine, then the description of the fence in the citation -- and not your own, personal description -- can go in the article.
• 2. Please review the Misplaced Pages policies on assuming good faith of other editors. I've done you the courtesy of assuming your good faith, I would appreciate it if you would extend that same courtesy to me.
• 3. I've asked you a number of times not to post on this subject on my talk page, but instead on the article talk page. I'm going to transfer this latest comment and my response to the article talk page, but from here on out, any posting by you to my user talk page about Hala'ib triangle, Hala'ib, Shalateen or Wadi Allaqi or related subjects will be deleted unread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI edit reversion

Hi Beyond, I've reverted this edit on a hasty basis. It looks to me like some funky character substitution happened there that turned a lot of the thread into gibberish. Unless that was your subtle message on exactly where and when the aliens are landing. :)

Anyway, do you see the same weird substitution of characters? I think the edit you were trying to make was solely a -small- response to me, which you could re-insert if you wanted of course. Was it Joy? Or Dove? It was an iconic parody for a long time, I'm sure that Second City at least riffed on it. It's still good enough that I try to use it where I can, which is why I was so impressed to see you find a way. :) Franamax (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that it was simply a response to your comment to me. (It said something like "Yes, but when you're an old fart like me it's sometimes easier to remember the old stuff than it is to remember the new stuff.") Since it was just an aside, reverting it is fine, but I will say that it looked OK to me when I checked it after posting. I've had the gibberish thing happen to me before, though, when I was editing an article, so there might be something funky going on -- I'll keep an eye out.

The commercial was for Palmolive dishwashing liquid, and featured a manicurist named "Madge" (played by Jan Miner) who softened her customers' nails by soaking them in Palmolive. Our article on Miner says that the ads ran from 1966 to 1992, which is very long for a commercial series, I'd say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be towards the earlier part of those airing dates I guess. I remember Madge, but should have guessed we have an article on her. :) Do keep an eye on that editing glitch. I'm glad it was a passing comment, otherwise I would have undone the edit no matter what (reverse the gibberish) then be left juggling notifying ANI that I'd removed an edit, notify you, get the substantive content back in as fast as possible with appropriate annotation (on a fast-moving page like ANI), notify you of the fix, keep an eye on the angry orange bars every time I edit, explain the whole thing on my talk page at the end - whew, dodged a bullet there. :) If you have diffs of where this has happened before, maybe we can look for commonalities to pin down what is happening. It's usually something to do with charsets and encoding schemes, I've seen it discussed before but not sure if I've ever seen a fix. Anyway, please keep track if this happens regularly, you shouldn't be left in a position where you preview your edit, it looks good, then when you commit it other stuff gets trashed. Regards! Franamax (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to trawl back through my contributions to figure out where it happened before. I recall that I was doing a substantial amount of editing on the article, and all of a sudden I was aware of all these typos that I hadn't noticed before. At first I thought I just hadn't seen them earlier, then I thought that someone had edited during my session to vandalize the article, but finally I tracked it down to one of my own edits. I then had to reinsert the material from a previous version of the page and start the editing over again, which was a pain.

I've not been aware of it happening since then, until now, but I'll be sure to keep a weather eye out for it, and to check the entire article after I work on them just in case the gibberish bug has struck again below where I was working. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your advice I will do this.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

An old friend returns

Hi there Ed (although I notice you have a new name)

I believe that User:LatinoAussie is back at Latin American Australian (which he has just renamed to Latin Australian. I strongly suspect that the User:Plzppl is a sockpuppet of LatinoAussie/Cazique/TeePee etc - the name was created on the day the LatinoAussie account was closed, and show the same behaviour.

If you have time, could you please:

• lend your views to Talk:Latin Australian (and refresh your mind of the debate you participated in in June 2009) - remind Plzppl that this issue was discussed exhaustively last year.
• consider the evidence that Plzppl is a sockpuppet, and provide your views at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Plzppl
• use your admin powers to revert Latin Australian back to Latin American Australian

Thanks, Kransky (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look, and lend my opinion (later today, probably), but I'm afraid you are mistaken about my status -- I'm not an admin, and never have been. Sorry about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked in, and noted that the article has been moved back already, and that the SPI has been turned down because the CheckUser data was stale. I took at look at the behavioral evidence linking Plzppl to the Cazique socks (including LatinoAussie), but I don't think that it's conclusive enough to warrant refiling the SPI on that basis alone -- there's just not enough overlap between the accounts. Of course, that doesn't mean that you're not correct about Plzppl, just that the smoking gun isn't there... yet.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Blood Ties: The Life and Work of Sally Mann

Many thanks for expanding and ref'ing this article! Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. As I said, it never should have been brought to AfD, and certainly should never have been PRODed.Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations.

		The Original Barnstar
		For your glorious efforts on the 2010 Winter Olympics opening ceremony page. Be proud! Patar knight - /contributions 05:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Unhappy with unexplained changes to my talk page.

Please explain your reasoning behind your recent edit to my talk page that consisted of inserting
multiple times into my talk page. I am completely unable to understand the usefulness of such an edit, and would like you to please explain the matter on my talk page. Regards. Immunize (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page, as requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The layout on Neal Stephenson, et al.

Hi

I actually appreciate the layout changes to Neal Stephenson and personally am not going to re-revert your changes. Because IMO, Misplaced Pages is in desperate need of a graphic layout artist. All that being said, don't be surprised if some conformist admin goes ahead and eliminates it; there is an unspoken downside to "consensus". -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. We'll see what develops. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hala'ib triangle situation was created by a disparity between the 1899 and 1916 agreements.

Dear sir , i think that you are lacking a lot of knowledge.

The Hala'ib triangle situation was created by a disparity between the 1899 and 1916 agreements.

This above assertion is completely wrong and the correct version of it according to the egyptian and sudanese is:

The Hala'ib triangle situation was created by a disparity between the 1899 and 1902 agreements.

Please be sure of your information before posting it.

Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhamidelsayed (talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction, which I appreciate; however, my point stands: who controlled of the area in the 15th Century BC is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

dear sir , and i do ask what date is relevant to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdelhamidelsayed (talk • contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire issue of who should control the Hal'ib Triangle, which you are so greatly concerned about, is simply not going to be decided on the pages of Misplaced Pages, so you should stop trying to do so. Editing to "push" a certain point of view, such as your strongly-held belief that the Hala'ib Triangle is Egyptian, is just not allowed here. I strongly suggest that you stop, before you get blocked for continuing to do so in the face of continued advice not to edit in that manner.

Please do not reply on this talk page, at this point I am just not interested in having yet another (most probably fruitless) discussion with you. My next step is to seek help from an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is Ken and why are you so far ahead of him?

C'mon, slow down and let him catch up. This isn't a race, you know. HalfShadow 03:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

References

As you said, please take responsibility and save references by readding them to VRML and X3D:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=VRML&action=historysubmit&diff=344452957&oldid=344432273
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=X3D&action=historysubmit&diff=344452798&oldid=344434739

Otherwise they will be forgotten and sections of text will be deleted as nonverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.48.212 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No thank you, I'm not competent to judge their value. Please find another patsy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

becoming a confirmed user?

I need to be a confirmed user to upload a picture right? Is that because I didn't give my email? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec917 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI reply

Just so you know CBW asked me to comment. I would not have commented otherwise. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not concerned that you commented (after all, *I* commented, and no one asked me to), but that you are involved with the editor in question in an admin capacity, and you don't seem to be up on current practices. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not project myself as an admin, but as a peer. That was stated in the comment. I did warn him that the hammer would come down if he violated rules. Of course, that assumes he read the rules and I can see that he tried. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said on AN/I, I misread a comment you made on the editor's talk page, and thought you were actively collaborating with him on his unilaterally imposed "rule of editing" for the article. That was my error, and I apologize if that mistaken belief colored my remarks in a way that was inappropriate.

I still have reservations about the editor being an expert on the subject matter. A self-published book, a blog and no credentials (that I can find) do not an expert make. About the other, though, my apology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for responding. I have hopes that it should be possible to scale some venue of wikipedia where 300 enthusiastic editors can bring their intellects to bear on the good articles. That ought to be doable. Right now we have 150 000 editors and fragmented attention. In other words, there aren't enough of us using the machinery that currently exists. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Great username

Sorry to jump a bit offtopic, but... great user name. :) All the best, and Happy Editing! - Sinneed 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

You might look at File:ThedaBara-Cleopatra.jpg, File:ThedaBaraRisque.jpg or anything with Theda Bara , Greta Garbo, File:Nitanaldibain.jpg. I've a picture in my mind of some actress or another who posed often for nude or semi-nude photos and had film scenes in films in extremely skimpy outfits. I'll think on this and try to remember who that is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I thought of her and it wasn't her. It's someone from that basic era though, however not as well known. Harlow has lots of images with her holding her breast, but that's a bit tame, I think. I looked for over an hour and I'll look more later today. I looked at Vargas girl images, everyone listed in the Femme fatale article, all sorts of goodies. Some of these women have fairly risque images that aren't in the commons. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be the same reason I said I'd look again later in the day. Sleep well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Beyond My Ken. It's good to hear from you. I'll have a look tomorrow. I think Theda Bara is pre-pre-code. I've seen a really great image of Dorothy Mackaill sitting in a chair with her legs up on a dressing table, and her stockings showing right to the tops of her thighs. It's a nice tawdry image and it's the image that I think of, when I think of "pre-code". Whether it exists in a film trailer or what, is another story. I'll see what I can find. Ann Dvorak is another one that comes to mind. Rossrs (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But Bara is the sort of image I think he wants. The below the recall actress committed suicide by jumping out of her high-rise apartment in New York City. I CANNOT remember who she is right now. It's too bad that picture that is supposedly Peg Entwistle isn't free use. She wears a long black skirt and is naked from the waist up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was only thinking that in the Pre-Code Hollywood article, it says that the time period is "between the introduction of sound in the late 1920s and the enforcement of the Hays Code censorship guidelines, which went into effect on July 1, 1934." I agree that the Bara images are the right type of image, but she was earlier. I found the Dorothy Mackaill image here It's probably in the public domain due to its age as publicity photos of the period were usually not copyrighted, but no way to establish that for sure. Rossrs (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of I Cover the Waterfront which is in the public domain and according to TCM it has some "racy Pre-Code sexual situations". I don't remember seeing them but I'll have another look. Rossrs (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for these excellent suggestions, and for pointing me to images I hadn't seen before. The Theda Bara stuff is great, but I take the point that they're not in the period the article refers to. I do like the Dorothy Mackail shot, though, as well as one I found with Ann Dvorak and Warren Williams in Three on a Match. They both have the same problem though: publicity shots whose copyright status is uncertain. I'm thinking of uploading one of them here, under a publicity FUR, instead of trying for the Commons as PD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I ended up using both the Mackaill and the Williams/Dvorak, and also added the {free} Colbert/Cleopatra image to the article as well. I still think it needs maybe two more pictures, but I think they should be free and I'm not finding any in the film articles listed in the Pre-Code article -- so if you think of something or come across something that'll work, please do add it in.

While I was about it, I also started an article for Safe in Hell. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks very good, especially the Safe in Hell article. You could have a look at Maniac and some of the thumbnails here. It's in the public domain. Someone comments on that site about bare breasts at 27.30 and sure enough, they're bare. Poor quality though. White Zombie has Madge Bellamy in underwear and a wedding veil here. It's interesting, isn't it? Rossrs (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it is interesting. I'm not all that old (55), and yet I feel like I've lived through a number of really distinct periods where "freedom of expression" is concerned, and when you extend it back to before I was born, it's amazing to me the kind of stuff that pseudo-mainstream filmmakers were able to get away with in the 20's and 30's, that would be close to being labelled as porn these days -- and yet, in some other aspects, how much more we're able to express now that could only be hinted at then.

Anyway, not to wax temporo-philosophic, I've had a good look at Maniac, and I've beefed up the article and uploaded a bunch of (PD) images to the Commons. I may have added too many pictures to the article, but it's one of those situations where the restrictions are lifted and I couldn't resist. I would have added an image to White Zombie as well, but I couldn't grab anything that was of particularly good quality.

@Wilhartlivie - Did you ever come up with the actress you were thinking of? I've done some reasearching, but I haven't been able to come up with a name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The only New York suicide I can think of is Dorothy Hale but I don't know that she is particularly known as an actress. I think the Maniac images are very good. It's an occasion where a picture really does paint a thousand words. I wonder if the code had not been introduced, how quickly films would tackled the issues that they couldn't touch until much later. Rossrs (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Luftflotte 1

An article that you have been involved in editing, Luftflotte 1 , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Perseus71 (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Could you please explain this edit in your spare time? Thank you... Doc9871 (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Thanks for pointing that out to me. I was only trying to add the comment at the bottom, but somehow the comment above got munged in the process. This has happened to me before (see above), but this is the first time I'm aware of that it's happened to a specific part of a page that was above my input, as opposed to the entire page starting at some point below. I'm still not sure why it happens, although this time I was edit conflicted when I tried to post, so perhaps that's a part of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I see that you're the one who caught it and reverted, so thanks for that. And although it certainly looked as if I had deliberately munged up Camelbinky's comment, please do take my word that it was thoroughly accidental – mysteriously so, to boot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a pattern of problems with the way MediaWiki handles edit conflicts as of late (there have been many such questions across my watchlist), but I hadn't seen one quite that strange yet. I wonder what exactly changed in the last MediaWiki update? --Tothwolf (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes happen, and I assume good faith. You're clearly not a vandal, and the edit was obviously in error and now explained. I should tell you that if edits like that are caused by your computer (or by edit conflicts), I would just advise using the "Show preview" and "Show changes" buttons judiciously before using the "Save page" button to the article. This would avoid future "issues" like this, as we are all responsible and accountable for all of our edits (Man, do I wish I could take some of my older ones back!). Happy editing, Beyond My Ken! Doc9871 (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I didn't bother to preview, since all I was doing (I thought) was copying and pasting the two-line comment after the edit conflict. Now, it seems to me that I should take extra precautions whenever I get EC'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fond of "EC"'s either; I find myself going backwards to copy my initially intended edit, then "hunting' forward to paste it in the newer place (and, of course, fully re-typing my edit summary). All is well :> Doc9871 (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

Hey, if you could stay out of things that aren't any of your business it would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.25.97 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want others in your business, I would recommend reconsidering contributing to a public website where anyone can contribute. Understand, Mister IP? Whose business is it? Not just yours, I'm sorry to tell you... Doc9871 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the "business" of 173.53.25.97 appears to be pushing an anti-Japanese anti-whaling POV, and that their edits have all been gross violations of either WP:NPOV or WP:NPA, or both, I'd say that their "business" is the business of every Wikipedian who cares about furthering the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

James Cawley Article

Hi Beyond,

On the James Cawley‎ article, you revised this:

"secured the license to Buck Rogers, which will begin filming in late 2009,"

to say this:

"secured the license to Buck Rogers, which was scheduled to begin filming in late 2009"

As it may appear I have a COI (link to my User Page) on this article, instead of changing the grammar a little further, since you did the edit which improved it over it's original statement, I figured I would suggest (IF you deem my suggestion valid and non-COI) this change to make it more chronologically correct:

"secured the license to Buck Rogers, which began filming in late 2009"

I can provide dates and citations if needed (there are articles and production/filming still in various places online, including TrekMovie).

Best, Robert

Robert Mauro

Line Producer / Gaffer / Webmaster / Production Team Liaison

Star Trek New Voyages: Phase 2/Buck Rogers Begins

Cawley Entertainment Company/Retro Film Studios, LLC

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the page is created, but pending a release date or some other criteria that IMDB hasn't gotten around to deciding whether or not we have met. :-) Thanks for the change - I do my best to avoid any content edits on any page someone might think I have a COI with. Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Much thanks... here's what I found (still digging for the TrekMovie link):

http://scifipulse.net/?tag=buck-rogers (see 2nd and 3rd article)

On that one, I do have to admit that Ian took much of the text from our own press release for one of those, just to be honest and non-COI in providing the references.

The actual article links are:

http://scifipulse.net/?p=18178

http://scifipulse.net/?p=17198

Our press release for comparison

http://forums.buckrogersbegins.com/index.php?topic=80.msg341#msg341

http://trekmovie.com/2009/11/30/new-teaser-for-cawleys-buck-rogers-web-series/

Though it does not have mention of the initial filming date, it does have a poster that is made from a still from the filming that took place Sept-Oct 2009.

http://www.pressrepublican.com/sunday/local_story_311171623.html

The Press Republican is the upstate area's version of Long Island's Newsday or NYC's Daily News.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YY0-lSg3-k

Though I know (or am pretty sure) that YouTube links are not valid references or such, I am simply including it so that you (or anyone else interested) can indeed see footage from what was actually shot in Fall 2009.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 04:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think that the Press Republican, as a regular daily paper, best passes muster as a reliable source, so I used it as a cite. Please feel free to add others if you'd like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dan Goodwin Gallery

Viewers convey their appreciation for your addition of the gallery. Thank you! (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I could contribute to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Dennis Willis

Hi. User:DJWJR did not request the deletion of Talk:Dennis Willis, nor have they ever contributed to it. The request was made by the sole contributor, User:WildBot - a robot account that lists ambiguous links. The talk page was blank prior to the speedy request - Wildbot had removed the template it had previously added - as such there is nothing to restore and the history is simply the addition and removal of the User:WildBot/msg template. I feel that this deletion was valid under criteria G7 as the only content and history was of no further use. Having said that, I would be happy to restore the page if you still wish me to do so. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Madison Square

You reverted my edits and labeled them as vandalism. Removing 3 external links pointing to pictures on the same blog, and one duplicate link is not vandalism, please read WP:EL 195.177.83.221 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Responded on IP talk page: edit looked like vandalism because the final link was munged in the process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frankenstein Karloff.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Frankenstein Karloff.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Unfaithfully Yours dvd.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Unfaithfully Yours dvd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tunes of Glory Guiness and Mills.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tunes of Glory Guiness and Mills.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)