Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:07, 4 January 2012

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Template:Archive box collapsable

Notification of mentioning

Hello this is courtesy notice regarding the mention of one your actions in a WP:RFC/U. The RFC/U is Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cirt. Thank you for your time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

add

Request for Arbitration Notification

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I will add my comment later today, when I get the chance. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Grant Cardone and whether he self-identifies as a Scientologist

Hi. I mentioned this point just now at Talk:Grant Cardone#Does he self-identify as a Scientologist? and Talk:List of Scientologists#Grant Cardone. It seems to me that the source cited for Cardone on the "list" page (a Hollywood Sentinel interview) might qualify as a documented self-identification, but rather than draw that conclusion all by myself, I would feel more comfortable if other people discussed it first. As for whether Cardone's being a Scientologist is relevant to his notability, that would be a separate question. Anyway, I wanted to call your attention to this since you had brought it up in the RFAR. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a great source, since Bruce Edwin is Cardone's manager, but I'm sure good sources can be found if someone wants to look for them. At least it is better than the original source. I just used that Cardone example because it was convenient. I don't edit Scientology-related articles or their talk pages, since I was warned for my sole edit to the BLP of someone who isn't even identified as a Scientologist. Thanks for your message and looking into this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not PROD

How can i propose the page to be deleted? All the other pages ("movies with adult-etc relations" "stuff portrayin adult-etc relations") have been deleted. Negativecharge (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AFD. You might wish to review the earlier AfD discussions first (there are links to them on the article's talk page). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make the requested page after reading the WP:AFD page. Negativecharge (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

.02

Inre: To phrase it as a support/oppose statement: In respect of the greater BLP issue, it is not appropriate to have an image of Rick Santorum...
May I suggest that your query, as phrased, invites more of a "Yes" or "No" response and "is it not appropriate" introduces the need for unnecessary and undesirable comprehensional calculus. Perhaps better phrased?...

Does the inclusion of Rick Santorum and/or Dan Savage photos legitimately improve this presentation?

...or something to that effect. Just my .02 FWIW JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping that we could reach a clear consensus on this so my phrasing as a yes/no (support/oppose) question was deliberate. On the other hand, I'm not trying to stifle discussion, so I will give it another try. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've no issue with your intent, it's just that the earler language introduced too much mental gymnastics into the equation. Your current edit is an improvement in that regard and I appreciate your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Still more. Reo raised an excellent point that your section title represents the obverse of your query. Perhaps you should rectify that by rewording the section title in some fashion to better associate the title with the question/responses. .02 JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to change it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Inre Santorum and Savage Images would work...but it's your call and your edit to make. I've been one of the few editorial voices active in talk over the holiday break and am concerned about the lack of other editorial input. That being said, I'm encouraged that this article development and oversight hasn't, as yet, been totally abandoned but is on a temporary hiatus. Thanks and sorry if this borders on pesky. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...

Just looked up Carbuncle and Carbuncle (gemstone). I think I would prefer the latter. Although I can't see either as being particularly delicious. -- Avanu (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Chacun à son goût, as they say. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

how?

how do you see this stuff so fast and how do you know if its true or not? Tide rolls 2 7/23/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tide rolls 2 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bot. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you really? — Waterfox 21:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I am. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: this

It's basically all kicked off because I called for a topic ban on LiteralKa, aka Leon Kaiser, Head of GNAA PR and almost certainly the 'Gary Niger' chap on WR. It was discussed at ANI. The topic ban turned into an indef-block when it was clear he was being a bit of a twat on the project, and now the GNAA are upset, and as a result are kicking off. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is clear to me now. Rather petulant bunch, aren't they? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Petulant gives them too much credit. Mr Kaiser is just - how do you say - 'butthurt', I believe. R,B,I and be done with it. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

...and the 'homeless shelter' and library editing is, as far as I can see, completely made up. Most of the details in the press release - even those about other people - are either flat out incorrect or woefully out of date. I spent a week editing from the British Library once (for Fishery protection Squadron) - but I'm not homeless. My room was, indeed, only half painted when the BBC chap came, but he insisted on filming there. I still don't claim benefits from the government, and haven't for several years now, ever since I stopped being a student. As for being dumpy, well... I'm 5'7" and 145ish lbs. If WR are reading this - no doubt they are - me and Panyd have now moved on to watching Battlestar Galactica and a nice bottle of Shiraz on our dates. Babylon 5 just doesn't cut it anymore. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the GNAA are known for trolling, not for accuracy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Blp issue?

There should not be citations posted there that are not WP:rs and have no chance of addition to the article - please revert your edit, thanks. Gawker , alonelton and the blog are not BLP reliable citations so we don't need to publicize them as adding weight to content inclusion in that media comment section. 21:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

Please explain to me what value you think reverting my removal of citations that do not qualify for inclusion to the article has ? Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the fact that those are not sources. The Misplaced Pages article itself has been discussed in those publications. With one exception, all are notable. If you would like to remove the last one and/or collapse the template, I would have no objection, but arguing that this is a BLP violation or an RS issue is a non-starter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You push BLP vio on to me too much - I often just work broadly without specific policy and within experienced editorial control - using what neutrality and common sense I have. - imo there is a violation in adding an unreliable external whether it mentions wikipedia or not - I won't remove it again, it belongs to you now. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Do you understand now that these are not sources for the article but citations of press mentions of the article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You ask if I understand , " Do you understand now that these are not sources for the article" - of course I do - I removed them for that reason. Its not a specific vio its just you are reverting my removal of externals you are giving high talkpage profile and those externals are never going to be WP:rs for addition to the article. What value do you see in a not wiki reliable blog mention of our article - the answer I will tell you is none at all - benefit to the blog and the not reliable but none to us, and none to the living subject, none at all. Anyway as I said I won't remove them again so, enjoy them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't for me to enjoy or not enjoy. The press template is used to denote press attention given to an article, which does not necessarily translate into benefit (or harm) for the subject of an article. It is usually a sign that someone thinks Misplaced Pages has done something right or, more often, wrong. Press citations do not usually make good sources for articles unless the controversy over the article becomes notable in and of itself. That was on the verge of happening in this case, but I hope reducing the protection level has let us avoid that. There really wasn't any need for knee jerk reactions - reasonable discussion will work just fine. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you adding unreliable externals to that section that will never have a chance of addition to the BLP - I see your additions as violations as they are of no benefit to the article you should not have added them to that section - I am happy to strongly oppose your additions in this case . Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Without meaning to be rude, I have tried my best to explain the difference between citations about the article and sources used in the article, but you just don't seem to be getting it. Feel free to take it to one of the noticeboards if it continues to bother you, but please do not keep posting about it here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX comments

The comments in the collapse template stand out as a proclamation against the entire thread. It is primarily an administrative-style action to close or collapse a thread, and in it, he declares a swath of editors 'trolls'. I don't see why this is the same as editing a 'comment', since it is pretty much a required part of a collapse template action. As far as removing the unsigned editor comment, the only reasons I removed it was because it was unsigned *and* directly in response to the semi-administrative-style action that I was trying to fix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages

I certainly don't advocate summarily changing Talk page information, but when it is uncivil and merely seems to serve a cause of making more commotion, it seems like a simpler thing to just prune it a bit. -- Avanu (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, would there be any issue with changing the collapse comment from:

"Topic has become a long magnet for trolls coming simply to complain. Content is being discussed on the talk page and looks to have some resolution. Closing to prevent further descent into chaos"

to:

"Thread has become off-topic. Content is being discussed on the talk page and looks to have some resolution. Closing"

And then just moving the other comment from the top of the thread, into the bottom of the body of the thread? -- Avanu (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

People are responsible for their own actions. If someone makes an uncivil remark, why not ask them to change it themselves? Put your suggestion to ErrantX and they may reconsider their statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurt by miscategorisation?

Please enlighten me as to how exactly you think Luke Evans or any gay actor would be hurt by miscategorising their sexuality. If you mean rumours and things which someone can see possibly written on Misplaced Pages, and for example, someone witnesses this and writes a blog post ~defaming said actor, I fail to see how that's really a concerning matter to policy here at all. There will always be speculation about people. Unverified statements will be removed. Also, to be honest, I really don't think anyone looks at categories and says, "Oh, wow, is LGBT, huh?" and this proceeds to what, epithet-calling in everyday life? I'm not sure what you meant. How is that "harming the BLP subject"? Claiming me as failing to acknowledge something you never made quite clear is pretty premature. (P.S. If you want to reply, please do so on my talk page, because I'll probably forget about my posting here.) Ss112 18:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't see how having speculation about your sexuality or religion stated as fact on one the top ten websites could be harmful? I doubt I can help you understand and if you're not interested enough to check back for my answer, I'm not going to waste my time trying. As to policy, WP:BLPCAT covers this, so that is what you should be following. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I remembered. Like I said, I very highly doubt a prospective someone would see the "LGBT people" category at the end of the article if said article was lacking an unbiased, sourced "personal life" section and that that would proceed to spread all over the Internet. I think you're placing a bit too much importance in what people take away from what categories a personality belongs to or not. Granted, it's there, but if someone weren't an editor, I have my doubts that they would notice. Ss112 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You are attempting to minimize the issue by making assumptions about how people use categories. Incidentally, how does one doubt something "highly"? Did you look down on it from a great height? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And you're attempting to overstate them. You know you had no real basis for disagreement in the first place if you're resorting to sarcastically picking apart my language, so nice work with that. If you've honestly never heard that phrasing before, I believe the appropriate phrase here would be "Google it." I think this has run its course. Good luck with your insinuations that the Internet will rage with commentary about someone's sexuality due to the inclusion of a category at the bottom of their Misplaced Pages article. If you want your pointless last word like so many people do, and like you did before the discussion closed on the talk page, feel free to take up your arguments there. Ss112 17:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not assuming how readers use categories or how noticeable they are is in no way overstating anything, it is simply not assuming. Thus far, you haven't actually advanced any arguments, only assumptions. My question about "highly doubt" was intended to show you the problem with it. If you don't want to listen because others make the same mistake, that's your choice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read your statement

Regarding your comment. Please read what you said again possibly update your statement accordingly if you feel it is warranted. I never "argued" if properly sourced information belonged in the article. I asked a question, simple as that. I feel your statement is a poor characterization of my edits on that page. Thanks. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, a poor characterization of your edits would be "neutral". You clearly have a conflict of interest - why not leave other editors to sort out the mess that you helped cause? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a red herring. Your statement that editors (presumably me) argued for leaving out unsourced information is false. If you don't want to make a correction, that's your business. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anything to correct. An IP added unsourced information. You removed it as unsourced. Someone offered a source and you immediately questioned whether the information needed to be included. That is arguing against including sourced information, but I am sure you will say you were simply asking a question. This is the trouble with editors who have a conflict of interest - the presumption of good faith can no longer be applied. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's a straw man argument that you setup and answered. Brilliant of you. My question was germane because Im not sure what infomation is appropriate in a "list" type article. If I had wanted to argue against it, I would have done so. Please be more careful in the future when you attempt to ascertain someone's motives. Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, you really should not be involved in that list at all because of your conflict of interest. If you don't know what information is appropriate, someone else probably does. There are plenty of eyes on that article now. Leave it to other editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Adams Author

Can the fact that she (Stephanie Adams) is an author or a spirituality author be added to the bio again? It was removed for some odd reason, as was her actual page on here, but being an author is her primary profession now. I guess, given the debates going on, I'd be pushing it to note that she also has a publishing company called Goddessy and it is documented along with her 24 books via Amazon. Being an "author" or owning a publishing company is not controversial to state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ju4on (talk • contribs) 20:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear here - I'm not taking sides in this dispute. My interest is in seeing that Adams' entry in that page is dealt with in the same manner as the other entries. From what you have said, it sounds like Adams publishes her own books. Unless there are solid third-party sources which talk about the books, they probably aren't going to get mentioned. If there are, bring them up on the talk page, not here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Only 5 of her 24 books were published by Goddessy. The rest, according to a seach for her books on Amazon, were published by Dubsar house, New Age World, and a few others:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_tc_2_0?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3AStephanie+Adams&keywords=Stephanie+Adams&ie=UTF8&qid=1314877935&sr=1-2-ent&field-contributor_id=B002HU467Y

As far as your request to see her prior articles, here is an early version:

http://web.archive.org/web/20051105221411/http://en.wikipedia.org/Stephanie_Adams

And here is a later one:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110301055229/http://en.wikipedia.org/Stephanie_Adams

This was the last edit according to Facebook's account of Misplaced Pages:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stephanie-Adams/108565435834571

I silently followed this page for years and noticed that IP User 69.143.17.59 and User Fasttimes68 are sockpuppets. User Hoary is a friend who also obstructed the article and made improper comments about the subject for over five years. Both should be banned from Misplaced Pages. You come to your own conclusions about the content in the article. Just trying to be helpful here. I will post this to the talk page too, if that is what you suggest. Ju4on (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For ease of communication, let's just pretend that you are Stephanie Adams and that Ju4on is simply the latest sockpuppet. I am not going to act as your advocate here. I am simply trying to ensure that your entry in that list is treated the same way as other entries, despite the past actions of all parties in this dispute. My suggestion to you is to quit while you are ahead. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not her nor am I a woman for that matter, unless I had a recent sex change, but I do admit that I have a great deal of respect for her and how she went about a different path from the usual models turned actresses. Ju4on (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate remarks

Whatever the outcome of a discussion about the advisability of allowing a minor to edit explicit areas in Misplaced Pages, this remark is highly inappropriate, and utterly unacceptable. Pointing a minor to a sexually explicit article is at best poor taste, and quite possible a criminal offence in some jurisdictions (IANAL). At any rate it is inflammatory, unnecessary and can only serve to bring the project into disrepute. Please rethink your approach, and consider that any repetition may well result in further action being taken against you.--Scott Mac 15:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Scott. As some editors have inexplicably found it appropriate to restore your comment, I suggest very strongly that you redact it yourself to stop the edit war. That might be a good way to avoid sanctions. Hans Adler 15:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully expected that some editors might not like my choice of example article, but the fact remains that Misplaced Pages has many such articles and under-age editors are free to read or edit them. It is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that I should be sanctioned for pointing out something that is frequently raised in discussions of the issues with allowing minors unrestricted access here. If it helps, I will retract my comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think this is a "Tempest in a teapot" (per your edit summary) then you utterly lack the judgement to be commenting on such matters In most jurisdictions, wilfully exposing minors to sexually explicit material is socially unacceptable, if not downright criminal. It is true that Misplaced Pages (in common with much of the internet) can do little about minors viewing inappropriate material. It is arguable that the responsibility of protecting minors from such material rests not with Misplaced Pages but parents and those giving minors access to the internet - and thus it is a fair debating point as to whether or not Misplaced Pages ought to take any steps to prevent minors participating (and our views will legitimately differ here). However, deliberately encouraging minors to view inappropriate material is beyond the limits of that wiki debate - and certainly not a matter to joke about. A philosophical debate about children protection and censorship is not within the scope of this project. --Scott Mac 16:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I was neither making a joke nor attempting to start a philosophical debate. In the case at hand, we have someone identifying themselves as 13 and joining a Wikiproject about pornography. The question of whether or not that very limited scenario poses a problem is a fair one to discuss on ANI, I believe. This isn't about hypothetical children looking at hypothetical articles. Would your response have been the same if my example article were breast or penis? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the main problem wasn't so much that you brought up the article in this context, but that from the way you did so it isn't at all clear that you meant it as an example of the inappropriate (for 13-year-old) content which the project is in charge of. Your comment could well be read as an entirely non-sarcastic invitation to contemplate some porn pages with you and maybe, after a few weeks, come over to your place. If I didn't get the sarcasm, the odds are a 13-year-old doesn't get it either. Hans Adler 16:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I had not considered that my comment could be taken as any sort of personal invitation. That block discussion would have been quite interesting, I'm sure. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a lawyer, my thought is that the suggestion was ill-advised. Given the draconian punishments out there for anything involving kids and sex, and the broad way in which these laws tend to be written better to send the kid a link to the Disney web site.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some of these laws are ridiculously broad. But at least in Europe they tend to be applied by the courts much more reasonably than they are formulated. Hans Adler 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course you didn't consider it. In the context of your comments on the topic today and at other times this interpretation makes no sense at all. But not everybody knows you. In fact, though your user name is familiar to me, you are one of those editors who just don't stick in my mind, so I had to search the site before I was able to write the second sentence of this paragraph. Part of the problem is the similarity of your user name with "supreme deliciousness", which makes me conflate you with that other user, resulting in an inconsistent overall picture. Perhaps more importantly, the number of active Misplaced Pages users is far more than Dunbar's number. Hans Adler 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Northamerica1000

Do you have any account in mind ? Mtking 09:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't, actually. It is obvious that Northamerica1000 is an experienced editor using a new or alternate account. That shouldn't be taken to imply that they are a blocked or banned user. Rather than making assumptions, I thought I would simply ask, but they appear not to want to acknowledge the question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Benjiboi, User:Jack Merridew and User:A Nobody are three accounts that contributed to the Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron page - with User:Benjiboi being the most active - Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not assuming that Northamerica1000 is a banned user (but if I were, those would certainly be solid guesses). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

california dreamin'

you beat me to that one, but i knew, somehow, it was going to be there.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You may get another chance. These things have a way of coming back. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User - Chicago2011

Hi there - this is Chicago2011. I'm posting because Chicago2011, my original account, has been locked, as you know. I was told that I should continue editing as meghan.reilly, but that account is not mine, nor has it ever been. In fact, I can't even find that account on a Google search, so I'm a bit confused. Anyway, I'll plan on using this account (and only this account) from here on out. Just wanted to give you the heads up so that you're aware the issue has been resolved. Thanks! SquarePotato (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you should expect to be blocked shortly. Perhaps you should listen to the guidance offered to you on Chicago2011's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Rooter

Please stop reverting back to the old version of this page. It contains false information that is damaging. The information i have placed is 100% correct and has been written by the company itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmpolito (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read the message I left on your talk page about why I am reverting and please read WP:COPYVIO. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we come to a compromise. i'm only trying to add facts about the company. Is it the references to websites? I can remove the famous plumbers and quotes section.. but I believe that services that the company provides is valid and deserves a spot on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmpolito (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read the message I left on your talk page about why I am reverting and please read WP:COPYVIO. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Junior Admin Squad

Misplaced Pages:Junior Admin Squad, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Junior Admin Squad and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Junior Admin Squad during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. œ 10:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot or concept art

I know for a fact that Triangle Studios is fine with the file being used on Misplaced Pages as an illustration to the article. Is it not sufficient to just correct the file's description from "screenshot" to "concept art"? It could still be used. Apart from this, the information on the file is correct. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave that question for those who are more familiar with free-use rules. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I ask you because you are the one who tagged the file. You obviously have some knowledge in the field, or you wouldn't have tagged it. Also, instead of removing my edits even after I've changed them, maybe it is better to discuss it first on the talk page of articles? Just as suggestion. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no excuse for singling out an individual who has been the target of harassment. Please stop before you get blocked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You might also get blocked because you too broke the three revert rule. Also, you didn't respond to what I said about you tagging the file. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about being blocked. I have already responded to your question about the image - let the deletion discussion work it out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Your recent editing history at Encyclopedia Dramatica shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Before you remove my edits again...

...be so kind to take a look here. I started a new topic on the Encyclopedia Dramatica talk page, and I hope you are willing to discuss this further with me on there. I am positive we will be able to reach some sort of concensus on this issue without engaging in pointless edit-warring. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

See above. Also, please go away. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Biker poetry

You could be correct on your suspicion of a self published author on the page... but to remove the whole section is really not appropriate. You must also remember that self published authors are often well known in their genre and often perform. So please do us all a favor and seek to make this a better article rather than just tear the darn thing down.

If you have an issue with a "notable author" fine, talk about it, follow up and do what you believe to be right and correct per the Misplaced Pages guidelines for editing. You removed an entire section that was just updated within the last few hours. We could have discussed this. I've put a lot of time into this and have noted that some people attempt to use it for their own links page... don't like that either, but the bottom line is that regardless of your feelings about the subject it is a real, and legitimate topic.

I spotted a link to a "prominent" poet that may have been questionable myself, but with you having REMOVED the whole section how the heck am I to follow up?

Sorry, but you appear to be a lose cannon. Please prove me wrong. Since first posting, I have made a few changes and spoken with another editor who helped me a lot. I will be attempting to address the concerns, I want this article to fall within Misplaced Pages standards. Thanks for you input. Akbikerpoet (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want the article to "fall within Misplaced Pages standards", you need to take the time to understand what those standards are. I didn't remove the list because I'm a loose cannon, I removed it because it has no place here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Biker poetry

Alright, I was able to reconstruct much of the section you removed, but please don't do that again. I noted that you took issue with the links going to personal websites... well none of these guys have made it into the history books yet, so links to their sites appeared to be the best option. If there is a Misplaced Pages standard that states this is not acceptable, I would be happy to comply.

All of these poets are well known in Biker poetry circles, at least one has a Masters of Fine Arts Degree, has a radio show on poetry and has edited at least one anthology. Another has a doctorate has performed all over the country, has numerous CD's out and is a professor... and has been published in darn near every motorcycle magazine I have ever read. Another has published a magazine been published in at least two anthologies, been a major contributor to special editions in periodicals and has a book out with another one the way. Another has been has a book out, a CD, has performed all over the East coast, been interviewed on radio been in at least a couple of anthologies and is like the others, well known in the field. All of the people listed are well known in their area or poetry.

The only site I work on is Biker poetry and I have received some very good input from editors over the time it has been under development. I visit it from time to time to verify links and have dropped or otherwise updated many since this project began. I do not need someone just going in and destroying things. So, please, I rely on people like you with the experience to make an article worthwhile. I will work on this over the next few days. Thanks for you input. Akbikerpoet (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As another editor has pointed out on the talk page, a list of links to personal websites is simply not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. I hope you understand that this isn't a comment on the genre of "biker poetry", but the vast majority of artists and poets will never be listed in Misplaced Pages. You may wish to devote your time to creating a website where you can give these poets the recognition you feel they deserve. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take another look at the article and attempt to make the changes. I should be able to find citations on 2 to 3 of these folks anyway that would solidify their position as prominent. I'll get those up and begin one by one to rebuild that section. Sorry about the short response, but man I'm not really good at editing this stuff and writing it was a real challenge for me. I have a lot going on as well but believe this is important and should be on Misplaced Pages. I do appreciate that there are standards and will strive to remain within the guidelines. I was able to track down two folks that basically added themselves to the article in a rather blatant attempt at self promotion. I told them that if they are going to "dabble" they need to keep what they post in compliance... or stay out. I'm pretty sure they won't be a problem anymore. One of the really pleasant things about bikers is that we do have a belief in respect and follow a hierarchy of sorts.

I want to point out that numerous issues were brought up by you but I have only been able to track down one... that of the "Prominent poets" list. What else is short of the standards? I have one heck of a lot of independent citations listed. Books, websites and even video... I've worked hard at updating links to assure they are still relevant...so what are the other issues you were referring to? Thanks, Akbikerpoet (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You should probably read WP:RS before you do anything else. Note that self-published, vanity-press, or small-press books are usually not considered reliable sources. (Yes, I know this makes up the bulk of poetry books.) Look at the templates at the top of the article and read the linked guidelines in each one, they may help explain the deficiencies. I think it is possible that Biker poetry could be a decent article, otherwise I would have asked for it to be deleted. Having said that, I doubt there is enough on any one of those authors to merit listing them individually. Perhaps it would be better if you tried to find better references covering the genre. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

_______ Would you mind looking at what I just did. I was having a big problem with the code for some reason on one reference... but eventually got it fixed. I've listed three authors as prominent and placed references in the reference section. These folks are very well known in Biker poetry but are also well known in poetry in general. I found independent articles in the Boston Globe and WGBN Boston on two of them and the biggest one of all, with the most ink out there is Dr. Martin Jack Rosenblum. I was able to find a story from the UWM Post in Milwaukee where he teaches. This guy headed up the Archives for Harley Davidson and has more ink than anyone I know having been a regular contributor to dozens of magazines. Let me know if this story works. I think it is in compliance with WP:RS Thanks for your time on this Akbikerpoet (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I believe the article falls within the "notability" requirements so I would like to see that notation removed. There are numerous links throughout the article that should satisfy notability. Thanks Akbikerpoet (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you posted a call in the Poetry project calling for someone to take an interest in Biker poetry. Well someone did and did a fine job. The article has received a major re-do and looks wonderful. It has been abbreviated considerably but the meat of the article remains. The work of Diane Wakoski was emphasized to include a wonderful quote from The Motorcycle Betrayal Poems. Thank you for taking an interest in this. The article has been improved a great deal. Akbikerpoet (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

New user wanting to help

Hi there,

So, I just created this account minutes ago and decided to spend part of the day editing Misplaced Pages articles that have poor grammar and punctuation (I'm a bit of an English snob ;)). So, I clicked on "Random article" and it actually brought me to one of the articles you recently fixed up (looks like someone was inserting garbage links or something). Anyway, I checked out your contributions and I suddenly didn't care about grammar and punctuation errors on the site anymore. I think I could gear my efforts toward fighting vandals and people who are just trying to get their own websites in the links sections of articles. So, I guess what I'm getting at is that I'd like some direction from you. Is there a certain page or program you use to alert you to dubious posts?

--WFF12 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider myself a vandal fighter (in fact, I think the whole paradigm of "fighting" vandals is misguided and leads to more vandalism). I would suggest that you stick with correcting grammar and punctuation until you have more experience with Misplaced Pages. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	You just make this a very fun place :) Monkeytrout (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I do it for the children. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about editing that other user's comments earlier. They had misspelled your handle, so I thought that was acceptable exception to the rule. Monkeytrout (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

I checked out the sockpuppet account. I wonder if some of the things "Tokyoboy66six" put down is deliberately aimed towards me since I've been removing the various spams that has been abounding about Hicks and Loughmiller. Thanks for catching that. I'd hate it if a guy like that were to do something to make me lose my account.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murder of Lakhvinder Cheema and User:Shakehandsman

The clearest reading of your rationale at this AFD is that you are accusing Shakehandsman (talk · contribs) of racism. Can you please comment on that in light of WP:NPA, or consider refactoring your comment if it is not coming across as you intended? If there is a problem, whether with his conduct or yours, I'd like to see it made express rather than merely insinuated and then dealt with. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am preparing an RFC/U which I hope will deal with the issues uncovered. As far as the rationale goes, I am stating an observation made while looking through Shakehandsman's contributions. Any reading of racism is yours. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Claiming it's a neutral observation and that "Any reading of racism is yours" is incredibly disingenuous given that I am asking you to explain why you went out of your way to comment in an AFD nom on how you think the article's author focuses on writing about "bad things done by brown people." You chose those loaded words and you chose to put them there as part of a rationale for deleting an article. So try again to explain that, or remove that statement from your AFD nom. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)