Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Risker (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 21 September 2006 (World Innovation Foundation - reasoning behind my activities). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Risker, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Misplaced Pages Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

• 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 have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Kukini 05:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

James Blunt

Raise the issue on the discussion page for James Blunt. This often brings resolution to disputed issues. Kukini 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Helpme request

I am trying to figure out if there is a way to get massive copyright violation off a page sooner than the 7-day holdout. The page is James Blunt entry. Since it is a very active page, whoever winds up removing the copyright violation will be spending hours reconstructing the whole thing. I'm not knowledgeable enought to know where to go for help on this one. Risker 03:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You can just remove the copyright material yourself, there's no need to go through the 7 day waiting period. Just mention on the talk page that you have removed some material and why.--Commander Keane 04:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: New Wikipedian Petadeo - James Blunt Edits

Hi there. Sorry for the slow reply, I have only been able to be on Misplaced Pages sporadically over the last day or so. As far as Petadeo is concerned, you seem to have a good handle on things. If you have any other questions though, feel free to ask. Happy editing! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Frenzyboard

There has been a load of edits recently, but the main problem with this article is that it doesn't belong in the wikipedia. --Jason 04:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

James Blunt External Links

Sorry! I was over-keen on my removing of links, please feel free to put my mistake right! Robdurbar 20:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

James Blunt singles

Sure, I'll add in the extra releases.

Thanks! Camcallister 11:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no way to add them in the chart without making a mess, so I just listed the re-release info in the Notes section below the chart. Camcallister 16:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi, some of the userboxes on your userpage have moved location, so the code on your userpage needs to change to the new location. My bot updates the location for you so we can delete the old location of the userbox. To fix the two remaining userboxes just simply copy the new location (which is in the orange userboxes) and paste it over the old one. For more information on why this is done and how to do it, see WP:GUS. If you need any assistance, feel free to drop me a line.--Andeh 05:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

not vandalism

My addition {{;a|Chemistry}} to WP:MVP was not vandalism. it was a typo of {{la|Chemistry}}. I saw that you corrected it calling it "vandalism". -- FrostytheSnowman 22:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jeffery Bennett Article

I am compiling a list of awards and honors for Dr. Jeffery Bennett and will need some time on that. Perhaps I praise him too much by calling him world renowned. I felt he was noteworthy enough for wikipedia but if not, so be it. EnjoysButter 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rush (band)

Ah, very good. :) I guess to clarify, "simple vandalism" has a pretty narrow definition (which is part of why we can block for it so quickly, of course). I do get the impression that the user's being a bit disruptive, since I don't think I see any attempt at discussion on their part; there's always still 3RR and general disruption (either WP:PAIN or WP:AN/I as appropriate). Good luck. Luna Santin 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Jeffery Bennett

You're welcome. The article's gone already (WP:CSD#A7). Being impartial is not a requirement if you use {{prod}} (as I did) or if you go through WP:AFD (which is a lot more work) – other editors will look at it, after all. If you feel uneasy about suggesting deletion, you can add {{notability}} to the article to (hopefully) attract the attention of other editors. Rl 19:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

About World Innovation Foundation

Thought I would take a moment to explain my actions with respect to the AfD of this article here on my talk page in case anyone was curious - and partly so that I will recall them myself. I have added several comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Innovation_Foundation and also in AN/I for this date because I was very concerned by the quality of the debate and the logical fallacies - particularly the appeal to authoritythat was clearly evident. It concerned me that far too many assumptions had been made about the behaviour of a new wikipedian. Many new editors may come to work on one article, slowly branching out as time goes on, usually starting out with subjects that relate to their "first" article. There is practically no mentoring or contact taking place. Many new users may never look at their user page or discussion page. Thus it is easy for even a well-intentioned newbie to cross an invisible line that draws a reaction from experienced editors and/or admins, and the brickbats can fly. In this case, I felt it was unfair that the person nominating the principal editor of this article first blocked the editor then nominated the article for deletion. The logical consequence was to prevent the person in the best position to defend the article from participating in the debate; this was rectified once it was pointed out, of course. It was also worrisome that not one person had bothered to comment on the talk page of the article itself about their concerns and permit the primary editor to try to address them before putting the article up for AfD.

What I hoped to see was a realistic assessment of the problems with the article and whether or not they could be addressed. The original reason for the AfD was non-verifiability - however, not much had been done to determine this was the case. Several editors spent time actually doing some research trying to find supportive (as well as unsupportive) information - and they should be credited with doing the true work of the encyclopedia. Other editors reviewed the information from a different perspective and assessed the article as being about a non-notable subject, which seems to me much more defensible than the lack of verifiability.

I actually have no opinion one way or another about whether this article should be deleted. My interjections into the debate were primarily to ensure that the process in this case was transparent and fair, which I now believe it is. Risker 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)