Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Douglasfgrego (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 15 May 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.

Thanks you for the welcome message

Dear Shoeness

Thank you for your welcome message. Very yellow. I am very much in the foothills of understanding how this thing works, but am in principal enthusiastic about the concept. And I think I may be making very slow progress in understanding just a very few of the more intricate 'whys' and (even, though this seems likely to take a little bit longer) 'hows'. I am sure the links you provided will help hasten the necessary learning tasks for me.

Sincerely

Charles01

The Number 4

LIBELOUS Content - Richard Walter site

Bturvey is adding LIBELOUS information to the biography page of Richard Walter

Mr. Turvey is upset because Mr. Walter had blocked his admission to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. To try to get even, Mr. Turvey has created libelous websites and is attempting to vandalize his wikipedia page.

I strongly suggest that the page be LOCKED at the point before Bturvey's vandalism.

To accuse someone of "perjury" and "fraud" is libel.

Please contact me so that we can settle this dispute.

Thank you very much,

User: Buzzle45

Testing The Bot

Testing The Bot

Coaching

Hi. I'd be glad to help you with advices. So if you have any questions, feel free to ask. However, my schedule is a bit hectic these days so it may take a day or two for me to answer. Best regards, --Tone 07:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...I do appreciate the help. Probably the first question would be; in reviewing my edit history, what area do you think I should work on before applying for Administration privileges. As you will probably note, I have worked and been a major contributor on several larger articles. However, a majority of my time is spent working on new articles to review for deletion. Any suggestions? Once again, thanks for the help. Have a great day. Shoessss 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at your edit history. You've done lots of good work already. Some suggestions I have:

• be a little more careful about edit summaries. Back in March and earlier, you didn't use them on several occasions.
• checking new pages is always appreciated. With admin tools, you will probably spend some time cleaning the CSD articles (this is why I use the tools for mostly). But before that, a good idea would be to spend some time at AfD discussions, you'll get experiences there. Often it's better to nominate an article for deletion instead of tagging it with sd, besides, many contributors are not spammers and act in good faith. But you know this already.
• (a technical one) it may be a good idea to write some general things about yourself on your userpage. Like what your fields of interest are and what articles you have heavily contributed on. It will make an evaluation at the time of nomination easier, writing new articles is hard to find among hundreds of reverts and article tagging.

So much for now. If I get some other ideas, I'll tell you. And ask me if you need anything. Have a nice day. --Tone 12:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the input. As always it is appreciated. Shoessss 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

DATASTRUCTURES AND DATABASES

This should be deleted; please dont bother with an Afd. refer to notice I've added to top of the article. John Vandenberg 12:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up John Vandenberg, too late though. Really doesn’t matter, you right in tagging it for speedy deletion. I was told I’m a little to quick on the trigger sometimes, so I am trying to be a more gentle, sympathetic editor. :-) Shoessss 12:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about Still Pending AFD

Hi there. I'm looking back through the edits on the Still Pending article and it appears that you "resurrected" a historical AFD discussion that was subsequently overturned. I am somewhat of a newbie to all of this so please forgive my ignorance. The original AFD is here: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Still_Pending and when I view the history on the article, this is what appears as the edit you made. It looks like someone then came in and moved your nomination to a new location. Perhaps you were unaware of the overturn of the deletion that occurred? Can you please help me to understand what has happened. I did quite a bit of research and writing for this article and it apparently meets the notability criteria since the deletion was overturned. Thank you. Stampsations 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Stampsations, I wish I was smart enough to resurrect anything! It seems that what happened is that the slight name change in the article did not reflect the previous Afd nomination and subsequence decision. When I nominated the new article and started the new discussion page an Administrator remembered the previous Afd and was able to pull the archives and place them on the new discussion page. Either way, it looks like a keeper, especially with the new sources added. Hope this explains a little bit if what went on here. Have a great day. Shoessss 13:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind adding your "official" Keep to the discussion? Also, you forgot to sign your entry on the discussion page. Thanks. Stampsations 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Stampsations if you look on the article’s deletion discussion page at the bottom, you will notice that I have already added my comment regarding the situation. You may have just overlooked as it appears as a separate item. Once again good luck. I f I can be of any help just ask. Shoessss 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Annie Wood

My bad on that, I think I jumped the gun. I listed on the talk page that the article is in SERIOUS need of re-writing, as right now it's nothing more than a promotional piece for here. I also have a slight concern that the author of the page is "LawsonArtistManagement" Wildthing61476 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I have been accused of the same thing and have recently been trying to be a more gentle and sympatric editor, per my coaches instructions. I left a message on the original editors talk page telling them of the situation and if they needed any help to just drop me a line. I have the article on my watch list and will keep track. If nothing happens in a week I’ll re-write to the guidelines. Thanks for your help. Have a great day.Shoessss 16:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my first Misplaced Pages experience. Are there users who can fix Annie Wood's bio? I am her talent manager (LawsonArtistManagement)...

Hey User:LawsonArtistManagement,like any encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages includes biographies of important historical figures and people involved in current events. Even though wiki is not paper, there are some criteria which may be considered for inclusion.

This guideline is not Misplaced Pages policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious). However, it is the opinion of many, but not all, Wikipedians that these criteria are a fair test of whether a person or related group of people has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research (all of which are formal policies).

This guideline covers small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors. It does not cover groups of unrelated people which are covered by the Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline.

Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under criterion A7 (Unremarkable people or groups). However, an AfD nomination may result in deletion, on consensus, after a 5 day debate.

In general, an article's text should include enough information to explain why the person is notable, and such information should be verifiable. Biographies of living persons are subject to additional rules and restrictions.

Regarding your specific questions, yes there are editors that are more than happy to participate. However, the majority of work in starting out the article should be yours. I’m than happy to give you a hand when I have the time. Good luck. Shoessss 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I figured it out.... I hope the page now is much better. LawsonArtistManagement 18:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job on the artical. Hope this is not the last time we see you contributing. Shoessss 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Need Your Help Again

Hey Tone got my second question/request for advice. Just ran a cross a situation where I have an editor that is just an out right bigot. While reverting some edits he/she made I noticed their username could be taken as racist, depending on your point of view. What is the best way to handle this situation? Thanks for your help Shoessss 13:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This one is a bit tricky. Which user do you have in mind? If a username is straightaway racist, the user probably gets a permanent block at the very beginning. But sometimes it is hard to judge. If you spot a user who is problematic, you should first contact him and try to reach a consensus. If this doesn't work and you are considering a block, the best solution is to report the user to the administrator's noticeboard so a third party can have a look at the situation and perform a block if needed. IMO, it is always better to ask another admin for a block if you are involved in a dispute. I hope I answered you. --Tone 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guy!! Yes you did. Appreciate your help. By the way, not an Adminstator yet! Holding off for a little while before applying. Just to make sure I put my best foot forward. Have a great day. Shoessss 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know you are not an admin but I presume you will apply when you feel you're ready (I can nominate you then if you want). I just tell you some useful things every now and then :-) --Tone 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User: Black people lol

Hey Edgar181 Thanks for the block on User: Black people lol. What do you thing of this user’s name? I’m not sure how to take it. And if I’m not sure, I know there has to be other people who think the same thing. What is the best way to handle this situation/? Thanks for your help. Shoessss 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That issue is moot as this point - I blocked the user indefinitely for his vandalism. But if he hadn't been blocked for vandalism, he would surely have been blocked and asked to choose another username. Inappropriate usernames can be reported here: Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again thatks for your help and the link. Have a great day.Shoessss 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder

I would normally agree with you about the race of the suspects being irrelevant, but unfortunately a lot of people on the right think otherwise. Many see this as a rallying cry for white victims of crimes by black perpetrators. Unfortunately, looking at what material is out there, that aspect of this story has legs. The majority of info out there about these two kids does have to do with allegations of the media covering this up in an effort to shield black criminals... and that's what the (semi) reasonable sites are saying. There's also a lot of false articles circulating around the web about black groups planning a celebration over this and other things from hate groups like Stormfront.org. These groups are all over this, and as this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit we have to work with the people we don't agree with. I say let them have African-American in the article, and trust me as a black man that really pisses me off to put it in there... but its a compromise I can live with (for now). A lot more information is going to come to light as the trial starts, and I think a lot of the "facts" are going to turn out to be nothing more than rumor and speculation fueled by prejudice. Until then, work with what we have. If you want to read an interesting take this incident, check this blog out. I never thought I'd agree with someone espousing Libertarian views and promoting the NRA... but there you have it. AniMate 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point!Before this gets into an all-out edit war, I would like to take a consensus of the use of race in describing the suspects, which is listed right under their photos. If I am shown a picture of a Caucasian – Asian – Afro/American and a Latino, I believe I do not need a description of race for it to be necessary for me to distinguish the individuals’ race within the group. The only reason I see it used in this case is for inflammatory reasons. For that reason alone I believe it should be removed.Shoessss 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with political persuasion. It has to do with common sense.

The race of the victims and the suspects IS relevant insofar as the controversy regarding the lack of national coverage of this issue is concerned. The brutality and savagery of the crime IS national news (or should have been.) That it wasn't IS an issue.

Calling the use of pictures or race (when someone keeps removing the mugshots from the page) "inflammatory" is your POV, and it is absurd.

Please leave your POV out of it.

Simplemines 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplemines First, if you notice in my comments, I have never mentioned political leanings. That was a comment by an editor responding to remarks left on the discussion page by other editors. Second, how does race enter into the picture? A crime was committed. Yes, a horrific crime. Does it make a difference if a white – yellow- tan – brown or green thing committed it? How relevant is your point? Are you saying it would be more acceptable by say; an orange person or are you saying that the individuals involved purposely committed the crime to the victims because they were white? I do not understand the point of your argument especially when there a photograph displayed. This was my point. I have seen comments that “….mirror site may show the article without the photos”; So? As an editor at Misplaced Pages, that is not your responsibility! One, Misplaced Pages would never ask you to shoulder that responsibility and two; the last person that I know that could handle such a situation was crucified. Lets let the mediators handle the situation and move on from there.Shoessss 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Shoesss, your political leanings are quite obvious from your posts. But that's irrelevant, since no one's political leanings should displace common sense.

Race enters into the picture in terms of the lack of national coverage of this story. Do you know why? I don't. It is an issue, no matter how much you don't like that it's an issue.

Since certain people keep removing the pictures of the suspects, and that this may come up in a search as just text, removing the photographs, the race of the suspects and the victims - combined with the lack of national coverage - is an issue.

You may not LIKE that it's an issue, but that is the reality. Removing the pictures or mention of race is very inflammatory when it is an ISSUE.

Removing the mention of race where it has relevance is absurd. There's no reason to do it, except to insert a political POV by its omission.

I'd be fine with leaving that in the "Controversy" section. That is where it belongs.

But make no mistake. It DOES belong in that article.

Please leave your POV out of the article.

Simplemines 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoessss, I do not appreciate you threatening to have me blocked from Misplaced Pages.

" Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing. Shoessss 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)"

Yesterday I posted a couple responses on the Channon Christian Christopher Newsom discussion page. Another user pointed out to me that my postings might be considered uncivil, and after consideration I decided that they were not contributing to the dialogue, so I removed only my comments on the discussion page.

I removed only my own comments, NOT page content.

I think that you have too much time on your hands, if a user removes his own ill considered comments from a discussion board, and it gets you so twisted up that you feel compelled to threaten that person with having them blocked.

Who is your Wiki-boss? I want to file a complaint about your conduct.--Douglasfgrego 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Douglasfgrego removing content, which contain warnings – advise – and other material, even from your own discussion page can be considered vandalism. All editors and administrators first look to the discussion page of an individual to see past history. Both good and bad. That is way it is important not to delete material with out a justifiable reason. Regarding my boss, I guess that would be everyone, including you! If you notice at the top of my User page I have a link especially for comment on my edits. Once again, both good and bad. I believe the open sentence states; “…..A review page for any and all comments on my editing. Please feel free to be candid in your remarks. Like all things in life…..I’m just a moving towards perfection…..not quite there yet. Hope this helps if you need any help addressing any of these issues please feel free to contact me or if you are more comfortable dealing with another individual please feel free to contact an administrator at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Once again, hope this help's.Shoessss 13:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Shoessss, this raises additional questions:

1) What is the Misplaced Pages definition of Vandalism?

2) Why would one user attempt to have another user blocked for removing their own ill-considered remarks on a discussion page?

What's your motivation here Shoesssss? Why are you threatening to have me blocked from Misplaced Pages for removing my own comments? They didn't contain warnings or advise. You wouldn't be threatening such drastic action unless there was more to this. If removing my own comments had a detrimental effect on the page content, then I can see someone getting in touch and saying "Hey, dude, that's not cool". But my alterations had NO effect on the content, and you rolled up and threatened to have me blocked. It's the exact same thing as if I jaywalked, at 3 am, out in on some country road where there's no traffic, and Shoessss the cop pulls up and threatens to arrest me.

And don't give me the regular standard "You violated Misplaced Pages policy" BS line. If that's all it is, then this is an uncommon level of anal-retention. You are overstepping your bounds, and your boss needs to get you under control.--Douglasfgrego 14:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not know what to tell you Douglasfgrego guidelines are guidelines. I may not necessarily always agree with them, but when I’m editing here I follow the guideline set-up by Misplaced Pages. If and when I am at another function or job, I follow the guideline as established for that particular situation or function. All I can tell you is everyone is got to do what they got to do. Shoessss 14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, if I'm your boss, then you're fired. --Douglasfgrego 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I got to give you credit, you gave me the first chuckle of the day. Thanks for that. Shoessss 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You went and put my deleted comments back up on the discussion page. You're a real piece of work. --Douglasfgrego 14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages definition of Vandalism:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages."

Removing my own comments from the discussion page is NOT a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages.

I'm going to keep taking my comments down. Go ahead and block me. I'll appeal. You are out of line. It would be best for both of us if you just left this alone. --Douglasfgrego 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Shoessss! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 07:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)