Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClemsonTiger (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 14 January 2007 (→Free Republic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, RWR8189, 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:

• 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --StuffOfInterest 12:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop blanking parts of pages

You can't go around blanking parts of pages which you do not like. There is no reason to delete an event if it is relevant. That's the only criteria Dr Debug 05:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Misplaced Pages pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Thanks

Nice catch at NSA - you missed the vandal's "complete bullshit" edit, but I got it. Metarhyme 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Surveillance Program

Thought you might like to know I created Terrorist surveillance program last week after Nareek's argument that the "Warrantless surveillance controversy" page was limited in scope to the controversy itself. My plan is to try to keep this new page limited to verifiable descriptions of the Program, and keep all discussion of the "controversy" at the other page. I'm sure once the others discover it they will try to skew it toward their POV. Any help you can give in expanding it and keeping an eye on it would be great.--WilliamThweatt 21:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing AfD notices

Hey -- please don't remove the AfD notice from a page while the debate is going on. (It's clear that the AfD debate on Democratic Underground will end up dismissing the nomination for being a pointless retaliation, but removing the tag is still disrupting Misplaced Pages process.) Mangojuice 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Help!

I am being attacked by Nescio with a punative RFC regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, which I feel is unwarranted. Please go there right away and comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Merecat. Thanks. Merecat 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• oh, and here you are again, I'm trying to ignore the coincidences, but the more I investigate this AFD mess, the more I run into you--205.188.117.6 00:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

*** Important - Your input requested ASAP ***

Please see this Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.

Merecat 00:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

URGENT! Your vote needed

Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

template:unsigned

in the future when copying the content of a template to an article or talk page, please make sure to close any errant html tags, such as </noinclude> otherwise it may add an article page to ], ideally the {{subst:unsigned|username}} usage would be prefered, as anything such as the above category that may be contained inbetween the <noinclude> templates won't be copied as well, that is why copy/pasting categorized templates is discouraged, thank you--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• see also WP:WS--{anon iso − 8859 − 1janitor} 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

I'm aware there is a debate as to whether the use of a spoiler template is suitable for Misplaced Pages. I would just like to draw your attention to it, as your edit to the Jimmy Smits spoils the story for any who have not seen it. You could say that its old news in the US, but the election result will not be shown in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland until Thursday and the UK for several weeks. --Mark83 19:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. You a WW fan? It was stupid of me to read the article anyway, the chances of reading something that would spoil the story were pretty high! Although in the back of my mind I always knew Santos was going to win. They would never have put Josh on the losing side. Also the first episode (the "three years later" intro was a bit of a give-away) — when Josh, Bartlet and co. are waiting for "The President" to get out of the car you can just see Josh beaming with pride. --Mark83 21:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually in the origional version Santos lost, when John Spencer died, they re-wrote the election episode--23:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're not interested in having this conversation I won't be offended, it's just I find this really interesting. I have several reasons for not believing Vinick was ever to win.

1. As I said I can't believe they'd put Josh on the losing side – too many viewers would feel like it was a betrayal.
2. Again, as I said, on the first episode of S7 where the new President arrives, Josh appears to be part of his staff and stands on the steps beaming with pride as the limo pulls up.
3. Jimmy Smits is given equal billing with Martin Sheen (WITH Jimmy Smits AND Martin Sheen) while Alan Alda is listed as an ordinary cast member.
4. The show followed Santos' journey to and through the campaign far more thoroughly. We saw Josh leave to run the campaign, the first faltering steps, how he raised his profile and eventually went on to challenge for the nomination. What did we see of Vinick? He told Josh he was running, his annoucment, then winning the nomination. Yes the story was that the Republicans had a consensus nominee but they could have written a story to raise Vinick's profile if they wanted to.
5. The producers invested far more in the Santos character, for example the rock star-esque montage at the start of The Mommy Problem (the campaign images to the music of "Jet Airliner"). Also they showed more Santos moments of brilliance, like the speech to the church.
6. While Vinick was always held up as an honest, honourable man, they associated him more with shady(ish) characters.

Just a few thoughts! Regards --Mark83 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

America, American

As you can read on Talk:American and Talk:America and their histories, the order of the first two entries on those disambiguation pages have changed order before and on occasion this results in intense discussion. So far, the U.S.-second position has prevailed. In my opinion it is not worth days of near-constant reverting for the U.S.-first position. -Acjelen 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pitt deletion proposal

I haven't gone through all the edits in detail, but it seems that some anon came along and tried to vote in the closed AfD on William Rivers Pitt. Told he couldn't do that, he ineptly slapped an AfD tag on the current article. You turned it into a full AfD, although you used the wrong template. (The AfD notice on the article should disclose that this is a second nomination. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Renominations.)

In general, we should encourage newbies, and not descend on them with righteous anger every time they commit an infraction of the rules. In this instance, though, I think you carried this valid principle too far. The article isn't even arguably within the renomination criteria of the policy. By my quick count, the legitimate vote (excluding unsigned and anons) was 15-7 in favor of "Keep". Since then, Pitt has only become more notable because of his involvement in the disputed truthout story, which now makes up a significant chunk of the article.

For these reasons, the anon's renomination isn't far from being vandalism. Instead of taking your time to complete the nomination, with the result that several Wikipedians will have to take their time to revisit this issue to no real purpose, you would've been justified in just removing the spurious AfD tag, and sending the anon a polite note explaining that we don't keep revoting on things over and over again.

At this point, I suggest that you might reasonably withdraw the nomination. If you want, I'll take responsibility for the note to the anon (and I'll try to keep it polite!). The anon could still take the time to do a proper renomination, but perhaps the time he'd need to spend looking at the rules would convince him that the renom was merely disruptive and wouldn't accomplish anything. (Note to self: Suggest policy change prohibiting anon AfD nominations entirely.) JamesMLane t c 06:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word American

Hello, I made some changes a few moments ago to the article Use of the word American. Please look over them and see if you agree with them. The article I found when I got there was incredibly biased POV and original research, all trying to promote the disuse of American to refer to American citizens. Obviously, an encyclopedia is not a podium to promote social change but rather a reflection of reality and truth. Uris 12:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

3rr (false accusation)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I made edits on Democratic Underground on

14:45, 26 June 2006

01:00, 27 June 2006

10:54, 28 June 2006

I most certaintly did not violate the 3RR rule.

Thank you for being able to count.--RWR8189 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

FRiend, you are the one falsely accusing me of vioating WP policy. If anything, you owe me an apology and should be more careful before making accusations at fellow editors--RWR8189 16:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment above, "Thank you for being able to count," is a violation of our policy against personal attacks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have my most sincere apologies for criticizing your abilities to count. In the future please perfect these skills before accusing other editors of violating WP policy--RWR8189 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you accused him wrongly. Its that simple, nothing else needs to be said. RWR8189, people do make mistakes, and it appears Hipocrite has made one. There isnt anything to be gained by pressing him further, I have looked and you certainly did not violate the 3RR rule, and infact didnt exceed 1 revert a day. Neither of you should continue this squabble as there really isnt anything to gain. Rangeley 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I accused no one of anything. I notified him that if he continued to revert, he would be blocked. He then began engaging in personal attacks. This is not acceptable behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI -- You can find Hipocrite over on my talk page accusing me of the same thing. It appears to be a technique Hipocrite commonly uses.

Atlant 16:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RWR8189 is very carefull about the 3RR rule. For quite some time now RWR8189 has been reverting the disambiguation pages America and American back to the user's preferred way, but never more than 3 times a day. -Acjelen 17:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view...please discuss changes on appropriate talk pages of articles, rather than edit warring. The number of reverts is important as that is policy, however, no one is "entitled" to 3 reverts daily as that is gaming the system. Discuss changes on appropriate talk pages to try and reach a concensus. Thanks.--MONGO 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment of George Bush

Saying that something is conservative is not being biased or "non-neutral." FOX news is "conservative" and many Bush supporters watch that channel. The poll results differ because of that reason, and that is why one should specify that FOX News is conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Reported_White_House_reaction Shouldn't you then also remove that "conservative"? --TheSun

Three revert warning

Thank you for your comment reminding of Misplaced Pages's three revert rule. As I have been editing Misplaced Pages for some time, I am, naturally, well aware of this rule and will certainly respect it, so I won't require any further warnings from you on the matter. Take care, Nat Krause 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem at all.—Nat Krause 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

So, the category on Jewish Politicians....is it based on religon or ethnic background. If it is based on religion then you are totally in the right. However, if it is more an ethnic background issue then the category should stay. What do you think?

Hey, on Debatus

I'm sorry. I thought that I was doing what had been suggested to me, which was to request that an "external link" be made on the discussion page. Indeed, I am trying to encourage someone else to make an "external link" to my site, so I can understand where you are coming from in blocking this. But, please, understand that I'm at an impasse here because I believe very strongly that Debatus would be held very highly among Misplaced Pages users as an enhancement to many existing controversial topics. Please, take an honest look at Debatus and tell me what you think in this regard. If you believe what I'm saying, is there any way to proceed under Misplaced Pages rules to "market" the idea to Misplaced Pages users? How can I talk with someone else at Misplaced Pages about somekind of an arrangement in this regard? Thanks for reading this, and I'm sorry that I've bee apparently breaking Misplaced Pages rules.Loudsirens 23:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Real Clear Politics - Do not Vandalize again

You arbitrarily removed sourced information because you did not agree with it, obviously because, judging by your post history and Reagan's picture, you're a right-wing conservative. Real Clear Politics is run by conservative columnists John McIntyre, Jed Babbin and Tom Bevan.

BLP

I believe you have misunderstood BLP. I suggest that you not break the 3rr under the BLP contingency, and instead seek unbiased outside editors to review the situation. Note bolding. JBKramer 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chad Castagana edits

Hi CP and RW,

You guys delelted a TON of sourced, cited, documented content.

'too long' as RW argued is nothing more than an opinion, (and not a very valid one as there are articles 5X-10X as long as this) and not a valid reason to delete content that meets WP, that CptK spent probably hours researching and writing. It was ALL sourced too. I hope you will add much of this back in RW.

All the claims were cited in the earlier version. You (both) took out the citing with your edits. 90% of it can be sourced to the one Daily News article. If you are demanding individual cites, please add links to this article, as it documents almost all of them.

Free Republic is a RS for something about FR, if it is a claim not being disputed. It's not. It can stay.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk • contribs) . - 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Killian docs

Hi, I opened an RFC about the use of blogs. Just FYI. Kaisershatner 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

SpeakOut page

Hi, just want to make sure I do this right, what would qualify as a correct citation for our recognition items? SpeakOut I'm in the process of maknig it a proper wikipedia article and adding more relevant content and references, perhaps you could give some advice? --GavinZac 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Political Bias

Please do not let your political bias influence your editorial judgment. AfD should not be used to circumvent the normal NPOV rules. IrnBru001 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I love Schaumburg!

I haven't been there for years but I used to travel to Chicago on business and stay in Schaumburg. I had more luck with women in that town than I've ever had anywhere else. For some reason those mid-western women loved me; and I, them! (sigh) Coincidentally, someone from South Florida (where I'm from) whom I'm quite fond of moved to Lombard (or close to it). I also love the upper-middle class Chicago suburbia portrayed in just about every John Hughes movie (e.g. Uncle Buck, Home Alone, Ferris Beuller, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, etc.) Ah yes...Schaumburg.  :-) Lawyer2b 05:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"LAME" edit war

Look, I don't see the point in listing the "cat owner" debate as humorous, except as an insult against those who hold one of the positions. You are not supposed to insult other Wikipedians. David Olivier 19:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic

Please be advised that FAAFA has withdrawn from mediation. As Jossi anticipated, both FAAFA and BenBurch have refused to engage and reserve the right to attack the article after we are done with it. In order to get you completely on board, I've removed the Robinson quotes. Please be prepared for a revert war. -- BryanFromPalatine 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi RW! I added some complimentary stuff on FR - See talk. ( I just wrote the last paragraph) Maybe you can find some RS V sources for the FR letter writing and gift campaigns for the troops, and other 'activities'? Didn't a bunch of Freepers attend the 04 innaguration and have their own event? I'm surprised at your AfD vote! Cheers! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Darn you RW! :-) You got my Santorumloser pic deleted! I was about to offer it to you for you to put on your userpage too! ;-) - F.A.A.F.A. 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

TrekBBS

Thank you for your opinions in the TrekBBS AFD. I do not agree with the closing admin's decision and have listed this now under Deletion Review. As you had participated in the AFD, I wished to inform you this in case you wished to voice your opinion on this --Brian_{(view my history)}/ 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuck E. Chaos

You said "Utter failure of WP:BIO, with 40 unique Google hits this person is just not notable. It doesn't matter if he is more well known than other non-notable persons, the fact stands that he is not notable."

With respect - he IS notable!! Are you ignoring the unique nature of Australian wrestling as well? I'm sorry, but I completely disagree and I would like an exaplanation as exactly how he failed when;

1. He is one of only three Australian wrestlers to participate in a pay per view event EVER!
2. He is the only wrestler in Australia to have broken another wrestler's back (not exactly a positive - but notable nevertheless!)
3. Australian wrestlers would KILL to have 35 to 40 hits on a search engine!
4. And saying he is not notable means that the whole Australian indy scene shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages! Are you serious? WP:IAR applies in this case.

And did you even see the updated article? CURSE OF FENRIC 11:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are not verifiable and reliable sources showing the notability of the subject, as seems to be the case here, then the article should not exist. WP:BIO says: Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level. You seem to be suffering from WP:ILIKEIT syndrome. This isn't a case for WP:IAR, its a case of recognizing what Misplaced Pages is not and dealing with it. --RWR8189 11:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There were no less than FOUR third party verifications on the article post update - and those third parties are not limited to newspapers or magazines. Television coverage also works. And those sources were not sponsors either. Therefore - it passed WP:BIO. If you limit the interpretation like that, I have a case for WP:IAR. And with that interpretation, the whole mention of the Australian independent scene should not exist - and I won't allow that at all because it goes completely against WP's root aims. Again, hence WP:IAR. I know what Misplaced Pages is - and you have refused to allow a perfectly acceptable article. CURSE OF FENRIC 20:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems a strong consensus has emerged that disagrees with you. If the article is repeatedly created claiming WP:IAR, don't be surprised to find the page protected from recreation.--RWR8189 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I maintain that consensus was biased towards American wrestling and against the unique Australian media culture to which I referred to above. Chuck E. Chaos is worth a Misplaced Pages article - and look at Professional wrestling in Australia under History (wrestlers) to see just how notable he is (edit was made at the suggestion of another admin). CURSE OF FENRIC 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you have a look at the contributions of User:CDlatch245 you'll see what I mean about bias. This is in all likelihood a sock of banned user JB196. I've alerted the banning admin. CURSE OF FENRIC 08:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant who nominated the article for deletion, each article should be able to stand on its own merits.--RWR8189 09:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So any troublemaker can start an AfD? That's ridiculous! CURSE OF FENRIC 09:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Any editor can nominate any article for deletion. If it is clearly frivolous the result of the discussion might be a speedy keep, however the community comes to consensus about whether an article should be deleted, not the one editor who nominates it.--RWR8189 10:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said - ridiculous. Nominations must be limited to established users, not any Tom, Dick or Harriet (who could well be doing it out of petty spite). That's certainly the case here. CURSE OF FENRIC 11:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand your point. "Petty spite" or not its the community that makes a decision. Like I said, if the nomination has no basis the article will be kept, and if a consensus emerges to delete, it will be deleted.--RWR8189 11:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)And you let troublemakers who have been banned continue to participate? THAT is my point. And it should be taken into account. CURSE OF FENRIC 11:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note I only became aware of the Misplaced Pages guideline Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep after this discussion. I then applied it to other actions made by this banned editor.--RWR8189 12:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Greg Bownds

Just thought I'd clarify the points I'm trying to make. I'm well aware of problems with verifiability on some of the article, and I'm planning to trim it down to what is verifiable. But before that I'm trying to find out if the editors who have commented to date agree that my comments about his notability make him notable. If they do, great I'll start work tidying up the article. I just didn't want to waste loads of time going to bat for an article I have no real interest in if they were going to still say he wasn't notable. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 12:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic

RWR8189, there's an article at FAIR.org that FAAFA is using at Free Republic to claim that Tony Snow criticized Bush in a particular way. I cut and pasted the entire FAIR.org article into Microsoft Word and used its Find feature, and the particular quotation from Snow cannot be found in that article. Perhaps you'd like to call him on it. I'm not going to bother. - ClemsonTiger 00:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also started a meatpuppet case against FAAFA and BenBurch, and I urge you to follow up on it. - ClemsonTiger 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)