Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.143.153.74 (talk) at 19:22, 4 January 2008 (→Practise and practice: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Permanent link archiving :

• Archive 1, through January 31, 2007
• Archive 2, through June 10, 2007
• Archive 3, through September 24, 2007

Please add new comments at the bottom of this page, and sign them.
Although Misplaced Pages itself is not censored, I reserve the right to delete offensive obscenity and deliberately disruptive edits. If you're just complaining about me, though, I'll leave it on here, I've nothing to hide. (Except my real name, of course.) -- ArglebargleIV 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello ArglebargleIV. Thank you for fixing the mistake that I made in creating my sandbox. I had a feeling that I was doing something wrong and I had been too lazy to go to the section where they tell us how to start a sandbox. I appreciate the time you took in fixing my mistake and in letting me know about it on my talk page. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambig

Sure thing.  :) I've replied at Talk:T (disambiguation). Best, Elonka 03:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Originally drafted"

First of all, a player can be drafted more than once.

Secondly, "originally" creates better flow with the first sentence that says he is currently on this team. He is CURRENTLY on the Dolphins, yet he was ORIGINALLY drafted by the Jaguars in 1998. That's essentially how it's supposed to be read. It's better writing, and I'll continue to do it.►Chris Nelson 02:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've considered it. I think it reads better.►Chris Nelson 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond here, since obviously Chris won't let me take part of a discussion on his talk page, even though I've had the same discussion with him in the past. To say "originally drafted" implies that he was drafted more than once. In most of these guys' articles, the player wasn't drafted more than once, so the word "originally" is redundant and unnecessary. Ksy92003(talk) 07:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this point, but I don't feel like fighting it out, because as it stands it would be a fairly lame edit war. Maybe the American Football wikiproject talk page would be the place to gain consensus one way or the other. -- ArglebargleIV 13:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this discussion has already resulted in an edit war between Chris and I... well, kinda. Because of past actions, Chris can't make more than one revert on any page in a week span. It's kinda like a more limited version of WP:3RR, like 1RR, but over the course of a week, not a day. This restriction lasts for six months. Ksy92003(talk) 15:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Four color theorem and User:Fsswsb

Hopefully this will keep him down. If not, on to the regular Misplaced Pages vandalism messages, eh? (And he violated WP:3RR in 12h20m, just in case someone needs a further reason.) --Closeapple 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I should have quit with him while I was ahead. Ah well. It's uw-unsor2 for him. And 3RR if he reverts twice more today. --Closeapple 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And now uw-unsor3. That's my second revert for 2007-10-24. Your turn if he does it again, I guess. ;-) --Closeapple 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CDCSS - Capital District Council for the Social Studies

Oh, I see now, where the copyvio is, the carriage returns, that were not present in the article, but, were in the copied page, threw off my search. Thanks, good catch! :) S_QL 03:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

No problem, and thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it.►Chris Nelson 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fsswsb

Your messages on User talk:Fsswsb make it a bit awkward for an administrator like me to block Fsswsb because I have to go against what you're saying. I'm just telling you in case you don't realize it; it's not a big deal. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In regard to User talk:ArglebargleIV#Fsswsb, I think I'm confused here. I don't quite understand what I did to make things more difficult for you. I'd like to know so I don't do it again -- believe me, I certainly don't want to make life difficult for any administrator, y'all have enough on your plate as it is. Thank you. -- ArglebargleIV 14:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being so concise that I didn't made myself clear. If you say "You continued replacement of that with your latest twiddle of an image you created as your latest fallacious disproof of the theorem is considered disruption, and it has to stop now, or it is certain that you will be blocked", you are in essence saying that he won't be blocked this time. So when I did block him, I was in effect disregarding what you said and pushing through my own opinion, namely that Fsswsb should be blocked. I don't like to overrule a well-respected contributor like you. Also for tactical reasons it's better if we can present a unified front, so that it's clear what's allowed and what not.

Let me try to put it in another way. Do you think that Fsswsb should have been blocked for his latest edit to four color theorem? If you do think he should have been blocked, then you shouldn't say (or imply) that he won't be blocked. You should preferably find an admin to block Fsswsb, or if you don't have time or energy for that, not say anything about blocking. If, however, you think Fsswsb should not have been blocked, then your comment is fine, and we simply disagree about the matter. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Theaters Against War

Good job salvaging the article on Theaters Against War. You handled it much better (and quicker!) than I could have. Most impressive. ZZ ~ Evidence 04:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Barings Bank

I did indeed split off the collapse, but I would lean towards keeping the two articles separate. Arguably Barings is notable in itself - it was the largest in the world before its collapse. Jose João (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind other users adding the template, but Alice.S is stalking me and her disruption will not be tolerated. Jose João (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ZEDO

An article that you have been involved in editing, ZEDO, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ZEDO. Thank you. 69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re : Queensmount Edit

I think you got rid of way to much info,i redid it and got rid of what you think was chatty comentary.Please dont deleate the rest of it ,i think i fixed most of it. If you think i should change more please leave a messgage on my talk page. Leave what you think i should get rid of on it.

Mr.Deathhawk 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: RE: Queensmount edit

Theres no reason for the page to exist il Try to fix the page agin to your liking, if you dont like,im gonna just delate it, 1 senteance and a info box isnt enough for an article

Mr.Deathhawk 18:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Queensmount

I think it would be apporpriate to look at the west heights article 2

Mr.Deathhawk 18:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary Astrology entry

Hi - I saw that you flagged the article I wrote as being written like an advertisement. I was specifically trying to make sure it wasn't that! So I was hoping you could perhaps give me some advice or at least point so some of the sections that you think need to be revised or some specifics as to what you think the problem is? I'd love to fix it so that it's not a problem. My main confusion is that Jeff & Steven were the creators, so I do mention them a lot, but I'm not trying to say that evolutionary astrology is good or bad so can you give me a general direction so I can fix it? Thanks! :) --Amyherring 06:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Message

Read Queensmount Page.

And West heights.

13:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)13:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)13:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)13:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)13:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)13:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)13:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)~

i surrneder

i wont try to change your Queensmount Edits any more, cause i jus did that for fun. Ive decide to become and editor at],or il start my own encyclpedia website...with FLAPJACKS AND HOOKERS!jk (Refrence to Futurama episode) Plz reply at my tlak page. Again i wont tamper ewith the edits again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Deathhawk (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Moinsoon

I think he's stopped. My finger is on the block button. I'll give him a {{{subst:bv}}} and watch him.22:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

Hey ArglebargleIV thanks for telling me about the copyright issue. If I have permission to use the text from ListenUp am I allowed to post it if I prove it? Also, I get that it is directly a copyright violation, (should've seen that before you pointed it out to me) but how does the article qualify as spam? I feel like everyone is using the spam definition broadly-unless I'm missing something extremely obvious. Which I could be considering I didn't even think of the copyright thing. AdrienneAA 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A super awesome thanks for explaining to Adrienne why it was a copyvio – I was just going to do that when I saw you already posted. hbdragon88 23:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

New articles Bembridge Down and Bonchurch Landslips

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I have corrected the mistakes although as both are still stubs they do still look rather similar! Hopefully I will have time to fill them out a bit. Thanks again Suicidalhamster (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision to Giant Oil and Gas Fields

ArglebargleIV, thanks for giving me a heads up and flagging my new article on Giant Oil and Gas Fields. I've rewritten it (i was the original author yesterday) in what I hope is a more encyclopedic style addressing the synthesis flag that Carados left and your copypaste flags. I went back to my sources, reviewed new ones, and completely rewrote the entry citing all references and being sure it paraphrases the sources, does not lift right from them. Please have a look and remove the tag if you can, or add any more guidance if not. I separately wrote Carados about the synthesis tag, which I hope is also addressed. I wrote a featured entry on Black Seminoles more than two years ago, but had not come back to do any original entries since then, so I'm just getting my chops back. --Austinbirdman (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Declined Speedy Deletion

Thank you for expressing your concerns. When I view an article for speedy deletion as an advertisement, the first thing I look for is reliable third paarty sources and a proper assertion of notability. I felt that this article had alot of room to improve as it was written like an advertisement, however had a certain core value to it. In short, the article was not the best but in my opinion did not qualify for speedy deletion because it was cited, asserted notability and contained some valuable information that may have needed to be reorganized to adhere to a NPOV. Hope that helps! If there is anything else I can help you with, please let me know. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for figuring out and tagging those recently created oil field and coal field articles. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Celtic FC Official Anthem prod

None at all. Thanks! -Carados (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim Stried

Although admitingly the article is not important, and it may have funny references, but Tim is a good guy that is moving up in this field and people are always asking about his background so i posted it somewhat with jokes but also with information, please do not delete it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.126.190 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Super Bowl Winning Head Coaches

Thanks for the heads up. I actually just started the article about 20 minutes ago and used the MVP list as a starting point and just edited the names. It should be almost updated now. Also, it looked like the NBA had a separate list, so I figured the NFL one should be separate. If people decide to add it to the Super Bowl article, that's fine but its pretty long as is so I would advise against it. Jairuscobb (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, just curious, how did you find my article so quickly? It isn't linked to anything yet...

Jairuscobb (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Cars 2 AFD

no problem ... I was going to drop an AFD notification on your talk page, but I won't litter your backyard now that you've noticed it. Regards User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sony Ericsson S500

An editor has nominated Sony Ericsson S500, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson S500 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Practise and practice

Hi! Thanks for letting me know about this. I actually changed it because I thought that someone had just got the two confused, I honestly didn't know that it's different in American English. Strikes me as a bit stupid that it didn't even cross my mind. I'll be more careful about it in future. Thanks for letting me know! 172.143.153.74 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)