Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xenocidic (talk | contribs) at 17:37, 15 May 2010 (Delivering courtesy note using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 / Archive 2 / Archive 3

Note: If you leave a message here, I will respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there. --Oakshade (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Donovan

You claim there is no such thing as SPAMing an image, but if you would have checked the history you would see the user tried repeatedly to upload it from non licensed sites and other tactics, further the image it self says the license is in doubt. I am also an inclusionist, if you will. However, I don't think people should abuse Misplaced Pages with copyrighted images licensed wrong. Seem fair? Nesnad (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Earlier you commented the following:

"Keep - Towns and villages are inherently notable regardless of size. I don't see why this town of over 1,500 would be an exception. The nom has only given reasons for article expansion, not deletion. The article could simply read "Apoldu de Jos sucks" and I'd still vote "keep" (and obviously rewrite). The Romanian WP article is a good place to start to find more content.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)"

If I wanted to add more information to the English version, what would you recommend I use as the translator to ensure the best possible accuracy?  T24G  17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you happen to be proficient at Romanian to ensure grammatical accuracy, sure. I put a translation/expansion tag in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User Niteshift36's response to personal attack notice on his talk page

Note: These are Niteshift36's responses to notifications of violations of WP:CIVIL on his talk page. The full exchange is here (an archived version is linked because it seems this user deletes anything that appears unflattering to them).--Oakshade (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. You made a false claim. I said I can see only 2 reasons for the false claim and left it to you to tell me which one it was. If there is a third possible reason, I'm sure you'll present it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I quite clearly stated the policy correctly. It was very clear that I said the multiple sources were preferred. Nowhere did I say they were mandatory. Therefore, your accusation was false. I believe your complaint is baseless and just whining. I am not angry about the AfD. Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. The fact that you believe that an AfD about some non-notable "artist" is important enough for me to get angry over shows that you don't. If I am bothered by anything, it is that I believe GNG is being misapplied. And there was no poor behavior in the AfD to excuse. I am done discussing this with you and any posts to my talk page about the topic will be immediately deleted unread. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Oakshade! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 8 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Caroline Cellier - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello! Concerning your remark here - what should I do next time I see such a stub (non-encyclopedic style, though the subject is notable) if I don't have enough sources or time to improve it? Thanks in advance. --Microcell (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As suggested, do a google maps search for the village. That only takes a few seconds. If you've determined the topic is notable but you're not interested in improving the article yourself, place an improvement tag on the article. But honestly, reducing the article to a decent stub doesn't take much longer than creating an AfD. It took me about 5 minutes to delete the non-encyclopedic content and replace it with an okay stub. --Oakshade (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

kelapstick (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Explain

You weren't even involved in that AfD so I'm not even sure what your interest is now. With all due respect, I feel no need to explain my actions to you. They violate no policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

2009–10_Toyota_vehicle_recalls

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Oakshade Astrakerie (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way, Astrakerie. As you are a new user, you need to understand you can't revert someone's edit three times, as what you did. Placing a 3RR tag back on my talk page after I placed one on yours is silly game playing.--Oakshade (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination)

Hi, Oakshade. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 7, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mislabeled

There is no "disruptive carpet tagging" when a lot of those facts weren't sourced. Great, you found a college newspaper to support some of them, but calling it disprutive is just you assumption of bad faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• (From previously written text) Carpet-bombing with tags is seldom a good-faith effort and usually represents someone's grudge, gripe, mission or burr of the moment. Articles that some people don't like frequently suffer from overcite when every sentence sports a reference tag or two. That doesn't help readablity and a number of them get combed out each time someone does the thankless task of boiling-down an article.--Oakshade (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Spin it how you want. The facts weren't there. And if you look at the PDF version of the small publication of the communications dept of the University of Vermont (not the wider circulation student paper, this one is just from the coummunications dept.) , you'll see it says The View on the left, then "From the University of Vermont" at the very top. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Afd

I just snow-kept the AfD while also replying to our discussion. I just realized that I effectively got the last word in and prevented you from replying. If you want to unclose it temporarily just to finish our discussion feel free, or you can reply to me here instead. Equazcion 17:21, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Chwele

Nice job. I think you saved it. Dlohcierekim 05:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Interviews

I've started a thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#Interviews as evidence of notability you may be interested in. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

the new york international independent film and video festival

I did not mean to blank entire section I WAS ONLY TRYING TO REMOVE COMMENTS THAT HAVE NO PUBLISHED SOURCES ANY LONGER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allinn (talk • contribs) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "NO PUBLISHED SOURCES ANY LONGER." If a source was published, it stays published forever. You in fact removed content, an entire section in your case, that had published sources.--Oakshade (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If their is no published source it does not belong on the page. That is the whole reason of having a published source.(user allin)11 march 20010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allinn (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is. Just because there's no long a hyperlink to it does not mean it magically never existed. --Oakshade (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

satna junction

Hi..if you are a railfan, do join my youtube channel named Kawanzeir, Just search SHIPRA EXPRESS - ANAS KHAN and watch all my links..do send me email anask14@gmail.com, I m the one who created pages like Satna Junction, hats off to make it standard..

Ventura Freeway discussion you might want to get in on

Hello! You might want to be aware of/or take part in the discussion at Talk:California State Route 134. It's about whether to eliminate the article about the Ventura Freeway by merging it into the two numbered highways (U.S. 101 and state route 34) that make it up.

Here's the background: The members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads seem to have it as one of their rules that anything related to a numbered route has to be merged into the article about the numbered route. On March 27 one of them reduced the Ventura Freeway article (14,000 bytes) to a disambiguation page referencing highways 101 and 34, with the editorial comment "article not needed". You reverted that change, saying "Notable topic. You need to gain consensus for such a major more." The original editor then AfD'ed the page, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway. That generated lively discussion, but when it appeared the consensus was moving toward "keep" the nominator withdrew the nomination, giving as the reason "This is something that needs to be discussed across the board; I don't think this is the place to do it though." Now someone has re-started the discussion on the talk page of the State Route 134 article and they are all talking about a delete-and-merge again. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith but I find it hard in this case; I feel like they moved the discussion to an obscure talk page precisely so they could make a decision among themselves without wide input from the Misplaced Pages community.

Since you were involved in this issue before, and took part in the AfD discussion, I thought you might want to have some input. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea Beach Hotel

Did you really mean to put the peacock terms back in? Did you actually follow the added sources and find them not as reliable and verifiable as the ones you put back in? Your edits do not seem constructive, unless you have proof that your removal of information was needed. Discussing opinions first before reverting in five minutes would show more respect for fellow editors. W Nowicki (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree about that "finest white sand beach" sentence, so I removed it. The other bits, like being recognized for its architecture, is sourced.

Thank you. Of course it is harder to verify sources now that the accessable ones were removed. The remaining questionable word is "renowed". Source #1 lists only the architect, not the firm. Source #2 points to an IP address that does not respond. Looks like an old google search result? That is the one you changed from pointing to the actual article, which does work: here to a non-working link. Source #3 is an airline magazine that calls the firm "noted", but also has this to say about the survey: "A cynic might argue that the whole idea is nothing but architecture's answer to American Idol." But that is mostly amusing, although points out the award is not for architectural merit but for popularity by 1800 random Americans. Source #4 is a AAA magazine article without a link given, but was easily to find here. This is even more amusing that it says "Rockefeller designed the Mauna Kea..." (he might have influenced the design, but my guess is the greenwashing of the design is a recent phenomenon). Source #5 is the one with the pay link. Perhaps the source was there at the time, but a quick search found this article from a more local paper that is even more up to date on the re-opening. Also questionable is the addition of the "Special Preview website" it sounds like was advertising for the re-opening, it redirects to a site trying to sell me the domain for $2,495. Does not seem to improve the article at all. Links should provide information on the subject, not try to make a sale.

Let me offer a compromise to avoid going to dispute resolution: I will develop an article on the bay standing alone (I now have published Richard Smart (actor) which covers the landowner), if you undo the "Special Preview" site and add the acessable links mentioned above. Your patience is appreciated. W Nowicki (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you took this personally; it was not intended that way. I was only adressing the removal of content from the article and replacing it with a commercial link and re-inserting the peacock words. I think the edit history will show who did what. I appologize for citing the wrong rule. W Nowicki (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations, which is now being revisited at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination). –xeno 17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)