Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:56, 15 January 2015

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message .

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henri Cartier-Bresson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• He never photographed with flash, a practice he saw as "[impolite...like coming to a concert with a pistol in your hand."<ref name="Frank Van Riper 2002"/>
• - Lomography |first= |last=|work=lomography.com |year=2015 |accessdate=5 January 2015}}</ref>}. He disliked publicity and exhibited a ferocious shyness since his days of hiding from the Nazis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

I just checked your user page. Cool!! I especially like your Stone Age photos. Am something of a buff of that. You no doubt know of the Megalithic Portal--fabulous site: http://www.megalithic.co.uk/ I am most impressed by your prolific output for Misplaced Pages. Kudos!

On the other hand, I'm a beginner. I'm resigned to the fact that my struggles on the CMT page may be interminable. I have no idea where to turn for help in making improvements--even obvious ones like deleting the Grant quote. Seems like Wiki has a loophole here. People can just revert forever when they don't like something. Accusing them of edit warring doesn't seem to be the way forward, since I have to revert also. And since there are more of them, they win. . . Any advice you have would be appreciated!Renejs (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	love youself and don't shy to show the crowd your talent Pomsman Mudyanebanga (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

Please explain how my edits are promotional or "soapboxing". I simply don't understand how what I wrote can fit into either category. I have no desire to engage in either activity but just want to correct and improve on the content that was there. Please note that I have been working in captive insurance for more than 25 years including four years as a regulator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captive Practitioner (talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but your edit began with "A captive insurance company is the most effective risk management tool on the planet." this is an encyclopedia and content needs to be written in a neutral tone using reliable sources which your content didn't have. Theroadislong (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on 'Conflict of Interest' Theroadislong; much appreciated. Please can you advise on how I might therefore resolve an issue. Previously, the company who I represent had a page Change Tracker, which was linked to from the page on File Integrity Monitoring https://en.wikipedia.org/File_integrity_monitoring. The page content was however deleted because it was deemed too promotional https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Change_Tracker%E2%84%A2&action=edit&redlink=1. I am trying to get some very basic company information (non promotional) reinstated on the Change Tracker page, but am having real trouble.

One of my client's key competitors, Tripwire, also has a company page on Misplaced Pages, which is causing some confusion with my client as to why they can't get a reference live.

How can I resolve this? I would almost prefer to have the link to change tracker removed altogether and start from scratch if I can't get new content live on the change tracker page?

Thank you again in anticipation SMartin1234 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the company doesn't meet the Misplaced Pages notability guidelines WP:GNG so doesn't require an article on Misplaced Pages. I've tagged the talk page for deletion as it's not required. Theroadislong (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your feedback on my first page (Andrew Michael (Entrepreneur)). I'm completely new here, so wasn't too sure which bits were relevant and which bits weren't. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomharper1980 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A7 CSD nomination of Abbie Taylor (BMX)

Please take more care when nominating pages for speedy deletion. In general, pages should not be tagged for speedy deletion the minute of creation, as users won't have had time to develop them. The only pages that should be nominated so quickly are obvious problem pages (vandalism, attack pages and the like.) Otherwise, there's absolutely no harm in watchlisting the page and coming back to it later if it hasn't developed. Secondly, going through the preliminaries of WP:BEFORE is strongly encouraged - search for references yourself to establish that, yes, the person isn't notable. In this case a quick google search would quickly turn up reliable sources suggesting that the person is an important figure in British BMX. Such over-hasty nominations run the risk of losing useful content and chasing away potentially good contributors. Valenciano (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies guilty as charged...I've also added more content now. Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My post to the Burt Reynolds Misplaced Pages page...

My post to the Burt Reynolds Misplaced Pages page was properly referenced. It is factual. It is not controversial. When the post is read carefully, it is easy to see that it is a respectful statement of facts that may be of interest.

As far as I can tell (because I have never heard back from Burt) no one will even give him the information. Perhaps Burt would like to help determine the truth, if not, the mystery can be displayed on Misplaced Pages forever. The possible daughter should not be denied her identity. I would greatly appreciate it, if you would put the post below back up.

Thank you,

Bill Sween 801-556-4891

“Research is in progress concerning the possibility of a daughter born in Hollywood, California on October 5th, 1966. Five DNA matches to distant cousins have been found on ancestry.com as of 1/13/2015. Contact with Burt Reynolds has been impossible, but the co-author of his upcoming book "But Enough About Me", Jon W Winokur, said (on 1/5/2015) that he would give Burt my contact information (Bill Sween of Salt Lake City, Utah).” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billsween (talk • contribs) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was NOT referenced so is considered original research and cannot be added. You can discuss it on the talk page of the article if you wish.Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am very new to the contributing side of wikipedia and clearly need some help as my article keeps getting deleted before I have an opportunity to edit post reinstatement. I have taken all feedback into account and have re-written my article from scratch. Am I allowed to remove the "deletion debate" from the post so that I can start from scratch with a clean slate?B2Btechguy (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Undelete Request - Real Time Action Technology

I am very new to the contributing side of wikipedia and clearly need some help as my article keeps getting deleted before I have an opportunity to edit post reinstatement. I have taken all feedback into account and have re-written my article from scratch. Am I allowed to remove the "deletion debate" from the post so that I can start from scratch with a clean slate?B2Btechguy (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You would need to contact the user that deleted the article. Theroadislong (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

philipofBVM

Good afternoon, sir. I do not have multiple accounts. And, I did note that I used 2 different names. I was philipofJMJ but had to change it to philipofBVM when I got deleted. I feel it is unjust to have someone, other than yourself, as I suppose you did not delete me, to delete me, as I am new here, and need time to figure some things out. I have multiple sources that Saint Constantine the Great was "baptized", not by a heretic at death, but, rather by the pope himself, earlier on in his life. I will try and post the references as soon as I can. Thanks for you help, as well. Sincerely, philipofBVMPhilipofBVM 23:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipofBVM (talk • contribs)

You are getting rather confused, your user page for philipofJMJ was blanked because of the content, there was no need to create a new account. I suggest you remove the website address from your new user page too Misplaced Pages is not for proselytising. I look forward to seeing your multiple sources Theroadislong (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Human Evolution / Before Darwin

Why do you think that a Tibetan legend about humans evolving from earlier apes/monkeys is in appropriate for the section "Before Darwin" in the "Human Evolution" article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian M DeWilde (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the article concerns itself with the science and not the mythology? Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why does your scientific article on “Lunar eclipse” have a subsection on “Lunar eclipse in mythology” if scientific articles are to exclude mythological antecedents?

Why does your scientific article on the “Sun” have a section containing mythology in section 9.1 entitled, “Early understanding”?

Why does your scientific article on “Volcanoes” have section 9 containing mythology under “Traditional beliefs about volcanoes”?

Why does your scientific article on "Medicine" have section 10 on Mythology?

Damian Thompson

I reverted your edit to Damian Thompson, not because there was anything wrong with it, but because I needed to revert the previous edit and it wouldn't revert without yours as well, and I was too lazy to do it any other way. Sorry. — Anomalocaris (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep... no worries. Theroadislong (talk)