Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Otto4711 (talk | contribs) at 04:39, 16 November 2007 (→Any port in a storm: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Actual Discussions/Comments, etc Bot Notices and What Not

I'm a neat freak. I keep in my inbox scrupulously organized in all of my email programs, and I like to do the same with my talk page. So I regularly and frequently archive items from my talk page when the item under discussion is resolved or closed, hence the archive box over there ->>

If I've removed a warning, bot notice, etc, that means that whatever the problem was should now be solved (i.e. added a missing fair use, fixed broken one, etc). If I remove a conversation, it usually is because I felt it was closed or finished.

When leaving new comments, please remember to put new topics at the bottom, indent replies, and, most important of all, sign your comments! Thanks :)

Belgian TV thingy

I would speedy it. I can barely rememebr creating it -I can't see it ever expanding ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it can be speedy now that it is a failed PROD, since someone else removed the PROD tag I'd put on it. Collectonian 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

American Dragon: Jake Long Article References and Links

Why did you remove the references and links? The blog is from the producers of the show and the other link is from the initial creator of the show. I did revert your edits (and later reverted my own edit/revert until this conflict is resolved). I need to know why do you believe that it is necessary to remove those? Thank you for your time. TrackFan 00:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A blog is not considered a WP:reliable source source per the WP:SPS section of the verifiability clause. The two areas that are sourced with those items are also borderline NPOV violations and should be edited to be more neutral, and sourced from a third party, neutral source (the first one, in particular, should be sourcable from elsewhere if it was "announced" on that date. Collectonian 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what kind of statements should be referenced? (EDIT: I suppose the first statement could be removed) Could you also break down what you said into more layman's terms? (EDIT: Specifically, how do you make a statement neutral and sourced from a third party?) TrackFan 02:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the changes that you've made and I have to agree with you so I removed unreferenced sources and opinionated sections from the article. I believe that is the last of it. As a side note (this has nothing to do with the article), I saw that you are a fan of the Sci-Fi Original Movies. I also love watching those B-Movie monster flicks. TrackFan 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, its looking much better. Yep...the only bad thing about loving those movies, is I feel required to make sure they have Misplaced Pages articles whenever they come on :P Collectonian 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Userpage semi-protected

You seemed to have annoyed somebody with access to a lot of different IPs (Tor, botnet, proxies, etc.) so I semi-protected your userpage for 24 hours. -- Gogo Dodo 04:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it! Go eat some dinner, come back and was like "whoa!" Collectonian 04:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that will teach you about going to eat dinner. =) -- Gogo Dodo 04:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Simone

As a heads-up, Margarida's back from her block.--Dali-Llama 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And back to messing up the article. I'd stopped watching the article hoping she'd learned her lesson and stopped glutting the article. Instead, she managed to get the image deleted from WikiCommons and is back to trying to add in the fancruft. If she does her last trick, though, rather than attempting to dialogue anymore, I'd suggest just letting the admins deal with her. Since she's already engaged in meatpuppetry and violating 3RR, I suspect they would be less inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt in the future. I agree, though, careful watching by multiple editors will be needed until she either realizes that glutting the article with fancruft and bad info will not be allowed, or gets herself indef banned. Collectonian 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Any port in a storm

I love how, since you can't actually defend your actions, you try to dismiss my challenges to them as "ownership issues." Otto4711 04:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)