Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 21 February 2006

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Apologies for biting a newcomer. Misplaced Pages sometimes gets people using it for advertising. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Britpop

Actually half of the material is entirely mine. Entirely. With some minor exceptions from people that edited my work, the other half is mine... I'll write something new and I'll combine it with my material.--Painbearer 09:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rankings project is not

• This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
• It will be used only by users who want to use it.
• Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
• The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
• It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks --Cool Cat 08:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:60.240.178.196 Block

"I've blocked the anon for 48 hours. 24 hours for vandalism of All-women band and Pope Benedict XVI and 24 hours for the death threats."

Um, isn't making death threats a far more serious offence than vandalism? Why the same penalty for both offences? Djbrianuk 22:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• It is, but I was unsure about whether the IP was fixed or not. I'd be happy to block him longer if his behavior continues now the block expired. Mgm| 08:30, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, you have an answer on my talk page. --Ninam 02:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: Kobayashi Maru

I can't recall where I read that failing to attempt rescue leads to a lower grade--almost certainly it was from a source of less-than-canonical accuracy--but it's only logical, don't you think? Marblespire 09:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• I mean, look at the test: it's a no-win scenario. It would make no sense if you could obtain a "passing grade" by just ignoring the Maru as it breaks up. Having said that, no TV show or movie have ever mentioned any form of grade, merely that the cadet has to take the test and, in the process, decide between two bad choices. And furthermore, in the Diane Carey novel Dreadnaught, the viewpoint character achieves what appears to be a passing grade by taking her ship in and having it blown out from under her. If it's possible to pass even if you lose, then it had better be possible to pass if you bug out too. Of course, that's not necessarily canon. So, who knows. (My feeling is, since it's a no-win scenario, there should be no way to pass the test--you get an F no matter what you do. Hopefully it doesn't impact your GPA too much.) Marblespire 09:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Incubus (band)

Thanks for the note. -- FP 11:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

your message

You wrote: I've reverted all your spam links on The Darkness related articles. Spamming links is considered vandalism. Djbrianuk 12:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC) -

Why you would consider a non-profit Darkness fan club, which is clearly an homage to the band, a commercial link?

The other sites listed are all much more commercial than mine.

Who is the editor above you?

WikiProject Shannara

I noticed that you have made several Shannara edits, and would like to know if you would like to join WikiProject Shannara, a WikiProject devoted to creating and improving Shannara-related articles. Thanks, Template:User:Alex Nisnevich/sig (02:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)).

Emma Watson

The paragraph that the user changed states quite clearly that editors should not change the reference and gives a citation why this is the case. The user would have seen this when performing the edit, hence the warning about vandalism. --Yamla 04:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Radcliffe

I'm somewhat confused as to why you deleted the two sites I restored to Daniel Radcliffes page. You're correct in that neither is an official site, however neither was described as such. As there is no official site at this time, these two sites offer more resources for people interested in Daniel Radcliffe, including items of interest to them, but not appropiate for an encyclopedia entry. They are certainly of higher quality than the links that have been left (aside from the IMDB entry), without them further reading consists of a single interview and a bunch of pictures. I think they do add value as an external resource, and I'd like to add them back to the article. exolon 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't exactly disagree, as you'll see on the discussion page; however, others who maintain the page say no, so I've been following their lead. To be honest, I'd write them. RadioKirk talk to me 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something - I did look at the discussion page - one editor objected to the links and removed them, you put them back in in lieu of an actual official site (much as I did) and someone else removed the 'Whois' info. Can't see any other objections on the article discussion page, nor on your or the other editors talk page. I'm going to leave a note on the article talk page asking for opinions on restoring the links and leave it for 24 hours - if noone has objected, I'll add them then and see what the response is. Do you have any thoughts on this? exolon 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm... I seem to remember the discussion was more involved than what's there now. If it were me, between the two sites (I've looked at them); I would only include the first one (from the UK) with a different summary that doesn't sound like a rabid fan promoting his/her site; something like, "Fan site with assistance from the Radcliffe family". RadioKirk talk to me 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Geoff Shoesmith

I'll vfd it then - no problem. -Oscarthecat 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lawgiver Bullet Type

I got it wrong, the guide isn't actually official but it's the most collated source out there and actually get's it's information from the comics (sources for each entry are referenced at the end of each one).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312137338/002-3289983-9985659?n=283155

I used to read Judge Dredd comics as a kid and I've got a whole bunch of them back home. I'm a student at the moment so it's not possible to check the comics or the Encyclopedia (I actually got the original information from the book though, I just re-organised it into my own words. Saying that I should probably list it as a source).

I haven't read any of the Dice comics, they may have changed the name since I stopped reading them? My reference was from the plain old Judge Dredd comics and 2000AD. Most of the A-Z references seem to come from 2000AD and since Judge Dredd originally began in 2000AD then maybe it should count as the highest Canon?

I'll check the references when I go home in a few weeks, but to be quite honest I've never once heared of it being called 'standard execution' in the comics. I have, however, heared it being called that in the film. I don't think we can take the film as a decent enough source since they got a lot of things wrong in it and, quite frankly, it wasn't the best film either. Since the film actually dredged up it's information from the comics we should actually refer to the comics for our references because, like most movie adaptations, they tend to change things around. Since we're counting the Dice comics and fan sources here though, I'm not sure what to make of it.

I'll look into it and get back to you :-) --Vanguard 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your message at User_talk:Jappie

Please do not engage in personal attacks against other editors, even if they have vandalized articles (see WP:NPA for more information). Bjelleklang - talk 01:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Worse than that is your edit summary on the F-16 page:

"RV MORONIC VANDALISM BY STUPID ASSHOLE FUCKWANK"

In my opinion this is worse than the relatively minor vandalism the user in question is guilty of. Mark83 16:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)