Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Why do you and Beeblebrox keep vandalising the IMDb page? If you don't like the way the item is written then rewrite it, don't keep removing it. This is a major new development in IMDb, and needs to be mentioned on Misplaced Pages, to keep this site up to date. You and your fellow user's constant removal of my work is akin to a couple of playground bullies.
As I thought, you are friends. Oh well, enjoy your games. Your censorship is wholly inappropriate and probably drives away many useful contributors. You both need to ask yourselves, who is actually helping the encylopaedia more - someone who adds interesting new information (whether written in language you don't like or not) or someone who just goes round deleting things completely, so that nobody can read them at all?
Hi. I haven't seen either of you give me any help. All I have seen is your desperate urge to completely remove my material, and then run off to report me when I defended myself. Where is the help in rewriting the information or suggesting better placement within the article? Also, how can I possibly supply a more appropriate link than the one directly to the release of the information? The only other possible link is here http://www.imdb.com/video/featured/landing and that seems more commercial to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.108.154 (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course. I'm happy to consider all options at dispute resolution, but I'm not optimistic for the prospects of mediation in this instance. To be frank, I've been leaning towards an RfC. Of course, I've never gone through either before, so I would appreciate your advice. Gabrielthursday (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
saw your comment elsewhere. so you'll only be putting comments on the discusssion page, and won't actually edit the page?--vvarkey (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed your anti-vandalism edits a number of times! If you're editing, it gives me a chance to get something to drink. Lol. I noticed you reverted an edit, giving "overwikifying" as the rationale. Does that work for you? Does it have some advantage over giving "overlinking" as the reason? ( WP:CONTEXT ) Regards! Piano non troppo (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh.. six of one, half a dozen of the other, really. If you would prefer I use 'overlinking' I shall. And get me a drink, too! Gin & tonic, easy on the tonic ;) Prince of Canada09:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Have a large one on me. I ran out of "tonic", though, now I'm running on adrenaline.
Oh, in that case, just make it a large gin. This is the first user I've tried to send to WP:CONTEXT; there is zero response. It's so very close to vandalism, but not quite, and impossible to tell when the user won't engage. Prince of Canada10:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you were concerned about the removal of the PROD from this article, you may want to express an opinion at WP:Articles for deletion/Cast-off being. Actually, I favor your view that PRODs should not be removed without a rationale, but I don't think current policy requires that. Anyone can remove a PROD for any reason. (Short of total vandalism, anyway). EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed your evidence and there is no way any of the accounts you suspected are sockpuppets (see the comments section of the page for explanations). If you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. I don't have the habit of watchlisting other user's talk pages because it can flood my watchlist whenever there's an update in someone else's userpage and there's a chance that you haven't read the message yet. OhanaUnited04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. But as I will be busy for the next two weeks, I will not be in a position to contribute to the discussion.-Bharatveer (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you decided it was vandalism but it wasn't it was simply a mis-reading which another member kindly helped me with i would like to kindly ask next time you try and say it's vandalism ask me first why i keep doing it.Hawkania (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Referring to your warning as idiotic is in no way uncivil. It was indeed idiotic. As was your subsequent template. Presumably at some stage you actually look at the edits you are referring to as vandalism or "what wikipedia is not"? Bizarre. 86.44.20.177 (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
So you made a revert you can't explain, and templated me twice for reasons you also can't explain, and are now resorting to lies and namecalling? Not very impressive. 86.44.27.254 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I made a revert I choose not to explain, and templated you for obvious reasons. Nor have I lied or called anyone names. You were blocked from WP for a reason. That includes, as far as I am aware, using anon IPs to edit. Consider yourself warned. Prince of Canada17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have mistaken me for someone else (i presume? otherwise you're plain gaga). You're cool with contravening policy? Also review what vandalism is, while you're at it. And stop talking nonsense. 86.44.16.184 (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been pointing out to you that what you consider—and revert as—vandalism, isn't. Simply considering it vandalism, as you have you stated you will consider this post, isn't relevant, templating editors for it is idiotic and harmful, and referring to editors who point this out you as "blocked troll"s is unacceptable. Take it on board if you're really here for the encyclopedia. If you're on some ego thing whereby you can't accept your error when it is pointed out to you, then forget it, naturally. I trust if you repeat this pattern enough it'll get dealt with in any case. 86.44.26.251 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Except that the revert you're talking about--namely your removal of relevant content from the Ten Pound Hammer essay, and your rude edit summary--was vandalism. Your abuse here is clearly part of a pattern. In addition to the links I noted above, WP:AGF appears to be required reading for you, Kurt. Then again, your history indicates that neither WP:AGF nor WP:CIVIL nor WP:NPA have ever been policies that you believe apply to yourself. That is the last this talk page will ever see on the matter. Any further edits from you that are not solely "I am sorry for attacking you, questioning your motives, and generally being a jerk" will be reverted. I invite you to go enjoy the wide world beyond your computer screen. Anger management courses are widely available there, I understand. Prince of Canada21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Prince
I'm not really into wiki but you keep deleting my posts using HG. I hope this is the correct way to tell you about my business.
I am the owner of Pirates Cove at Twycross Zoo and am trading there right now.
Someone is maliciously trying to erase my business from it's history but I can assure you that everything I have posted is 100% correct and I can prove it.
I got my daughter to post some citations but I have even more than this as evidence if you need it. I could post it, if you don't believe me.
Whoever it is, who is trying to remove my posts is doing this out of jealousy or hatred.
I request that you remove HG from any posts made on the Twycross Zoo page by my self, Dartman501 at email address charles_t.benson@virgin.net
I am the sole owner of Pirates cove and I trade under the name of Sliders Funrides Ltd. Our company registered office is:-
Hawthorn Cottage
Church Street
Clifton Campville
Staffs B79 0AR
Limited Company Registration No 4947190
charles_t.benson@virgin.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.144.105 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The image in question has no fair-use rationale for either of the articles it is currently used in and therefore fails criterion 10c of the non-free content criteria, should this situation not change the image will be eligible for deletion via speedy delete criterion I6 seven days after the original uploader has been informed (In this case that would be the 28th of September). As I do not know much about the subject matter and the importance of the event depicted in the image I cannot judge if the image meets all of the non-free content criteria and so could not put in the appropriate rationales myself. The guideline for non-free content rationales can be found here. Please note that the boilerplate copyright tags setting out fair use criteria do not constitute a use rationale. I hope this hasn't caused any trouble; assuming that the image does indeed meet all of the non-free content criteria the situation shouldn't be too difficult to resolve for someone with a knowledge of why the image meets the criteria. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The criteria can be a pain but I think they're neccessary. It's a contentious issue with some people seeing Misplaced Pages as a free-content mission and thinking all fair-use should be banned (as it is - I believe - on the German Misplaced Pages) whilst at the other end of the spectrum there are those who see Misplaced Pages as only being based around free-content as a practical way to run the encyclopaedia and any non-free content should be allowed as long as it improves the encyclopaedia and no one's being sued. As I see it the current system allows for non-free content that will improve the encyclopaedia but also limits any potential legal exposure to the project and encourages people to produce and identify valuable free content by having the systems in place (WP:NFCC) whereby we need justify non-free use in each instance. I'm sorry for the mix-up with the original uploader, I'm coming back from a bit off a break and would have made sure I left messages on the relevent article talk pages had I noticed their situation. Anyway I hope the situation can be resolved satisfactorily, happy editing, Guest9999 (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
You asked me to let you know when I got the Coronation article ready for GA renomination again. I think I've just about gotten it where it needs to be; sometime when you have time (a LOT of time--it's ballooned out to 103 KB now!), might I ask you to check it out and let me know what you think before I resubmit it? You might also want to take a look on the discussion page for the GA Review section, and let me know if you think I've addressed all of Dana Boomer's concerns appropriately. Any help, editing, feedback or elsewise you might care to give would be deeply appreciated! Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Question about the "Charlie and the Chocolate Factor" Revert
Hi Rlandmann, thank you for the incredibly fast reply! I've added a pair of userboxes at the top of the page to demonstrate the issue. The first one is FUBAR; the second is correct. Or is it possible that the issue is an artifact of my browser? (Firefox2, fully updated, on WinXP) Prince of Canada03:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep - I definitely see the problem now. I've previewed a couple of changes that I thought might work, but unfortunately I can't see what's wrong. Probably the best people to ask would be over at the technical page of the Village Pump and see if someone can spot the problem. Sorry I couldn't help more! --Rlandmann (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for being involved in getting us to play fair. Have you been able to recruit someone for a re-write? How would we ensure that there are no apparent reverts? Thanks again. Recordfreenow (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What's the word so far on Orissa? By looking at the available sources, some research may be in order, particularly for background. I'm not confident that the sources used are the best possible (or reliable, even). That may take me longer due to my lack of familiarity with the region. If you think it is advisable, I can make introductions on the article talk page to prepare for this. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
ORISSA VIOLENCE PAGE
During the past 72 hours, many POV edits have been made in the Page. This cannot be allowed. The Page is under Dispute.
My editing was not disruptive. G2bambino had clearly agreed to a consensus via reverting the page here, indicating that the conflict was ongoing and clearly implying that further edits should not be made until the conflict had been resolved. This was acceptable to me, and obviously acceptable to him--right up until I took the issue to WT:MOS. All of a sudden, that was no longer an acceptable state for the page to be in, despite the fact that the discussion/conflict was ongoing. The consensus was clear; I was enforcing that consensus and nothing more. Indeed, I was reverting to his own edit, the one that he wanted to stay up until the conflict was resolved!
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My editing was not disruptive. G2bambino had clearly agreed to a consensus via reverting the page , indicating that the conflict was ongoing and clearly implying that further edits should not be made until the conflict had been resolved. This was acceptable to me, and obviously acceptable to him--right up until I took the issue to ]. All of a sudden, that was no longer an acceptable state for the page to be in, despite the fact that the discussion/conflict was ongoing. The consensus was clear; I was enforcing that consensus and nothing more. Indeed, I was reverting to ''his own'' edit, the one that ''he'' wanted to stay up until the conflict was resolved! |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=My editing was not disruptive. G2bambino had clearly agreed to a consensus via reverting the page , indicating that the conflict was ongoing and clearly implying that further edits should not be made until the conflict had been resolved. This was acceptable to me, and obviously acceptable to him--right up until I took the issue to ]. All of a sudden, that was no longer an acceptable state for the page to be in, despite the fact that the discussion/conflict was ongoing. The consensus was clear; I was enforcing that consensus and nothing more. Indeed, I was reverting to ''his own'' edit, the one that ''he'' wanted to stay up until the conflict was resolved! |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=My editing was not disruptive. G2bambino had clearly agreed to a consensus via reverting the page , indicating that the conflict was ongoing and clearly implying that further edits should not be made until the conflict had been resolved. This was acceptable to me, and obviously acceptable to him--right up until I took the issue to ]. All of a sudden, that was no longer an acceptable state for the page to be in, despite the fact that the discussion/conflict was ongoing. The consensus was clear; I was enforcing that consensus and nothing more. Indeed, I was reverting to ''his own'' edit, the one that ''he'' wanted to stay up until the conflict was resolved! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
