Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) at 13:31, 22 February 2011 (→Discussion involving you at []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please reply here. If you leave a message for me, I'll reply on your talk page. I'd much rather be editing than have to watch your talk page. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ Thank you.

Why have you reverted all the uncited information on the AUSU page? West Eddy (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Me-123567-Me, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  GreenJoe 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

National Capital Freenet

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the National Capital Freenet article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Athabasca University

To put it simply, the article reads like an advertisement. The underlying tone of the article appears to be promotional, which is accompanied by redundant detail and peacock terms. -Reconsider! 12:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Read my paragraph in "Discussion"

Read what I wrote on "Discussion", and just go away. Do you seriously think editing the list of the University of Toronto is similar to editing the list of Athabataca university? Wake up. If you want to refer to other university lists, name proper ones. (In Canada, McGill, in the US, Umich, NYU, Illinois etc) Your actions are completely incomprehensible, because alumni lists of other universities like U of T look similar to U of T's generally. Citations for a few, but not all. A few redlinks (especially in business sections). I've said enough. I don't own the list, but you put all the contributions of me and others into vain for no justified reason. All articles need to be verifiable? Yes, but read what I wrote on "Discussion". I've said several times. The list has sufficient citations. If one wants verification, one could just visit the alumnus's wikipedia article. I've said it enough. --Wisdompower (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Me, you're violating WP:3RR yourself. Please take a Wikibreak from this and relax. If you insist, I'll go to WP:ANI but why get into Wikilawyering. As my thought on the list page says, Stay mellow. Enjoy spring. Give USer:Wisdompower a chance to put the citations in. Peace. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Article disputes

Hello Me-123567-Me. Though Wisdompower has been temporarily blocked, I hope we will not see you continuing to revert any of the disputed articles. Sanctions can go both ways. Wait for consensus on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hello Me-123567-Me. In the Ryerson University Article, even though you may think that WP:PEACOCK is most applicable, you did not give any opportunity for discussion on the talk page. In addition, the Peacock terms in the article adhered to the following requirement on the WP:PEACOCK page: "When using these terms, make sure you have sources to support them, and that the reader understands why the person or subject is so regarded." Objectivity is Essential (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: AlexRampaul

I already have an account in place. 99.233.133.187 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Rhys Meyers

Hi. I assume you mean well, but that's a good edit and if you've an interest in this issue, please pop by WT:ACTOR#Sortable tables. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing again, Jack. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What stunning hypocrisy.—Chowbok ☠ 06:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR

I didn't make 3 reverts on the Jonathan Rhys Meyers ‎article, your 3RR warning was premature and unwarranted. Jack Merridew, yes. Me, no. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry about that. Won't happen again.—Chowbok ☠ 20:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

comment about List of domain name registrars.

The quoting of the top 30 gTLD registrars from the registrarstats.com website is fair use. Dumping 500 of of them into the article is not. This is why I reverted. Also there was a previous attempt at adding registrars that were not even in the list of top registrars. Jmccormac (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:FP President AU.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FP President AU.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ΔT 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have sent an email to Dr. Frits Pannekoek, requesting that he release an image of himself under a free license. ΔT 21:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Me-123567-Me, I think it's important you read and understand WP:NFCC #1. Therein it says "or could be created". The application of this policy across the project is that photographs of living people are considered to be replaceable. Whether free licensed material exists at this moment in time or not has no bearing on this. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy also covers this where it says that we do not retain non-free content in almost all cases for living people. Simply because no one has uploaded or found a free licensed image of him is not a reason to retain this image. He's alive, he's not imprisoned for life, etc. He is the president of a major university and frequently appears in public. Obtaining free images of him is easy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Pannekoek appleby.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Pannekoek appleby.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Misplaced Pages may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Codf1977 (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dalmar Abuzeid and several others

Hi 123567. You've just written "delete per nom" on multiple AfDs but the nom was recommending redirecting, not deleting them. Perhaps you could clarify...? Thanks. Paul Erik 21:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

List of universities in Canada

reverting an edit twice by an IP user trying to make a WP:POINT that has been blocked does not seem like an edit war to me. I have also commented on the talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

reversion without reason

In your recent reversion on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, you reverted a change without giving a reason for it (neither WP:AGF nor WP:BOLD explain the reversion). In this case, you were reverting an edit done specifically to match policy in WP:NOTBROKEN, which indicates that wikilinks should not be piped simply to avoid a redirect, and discouraging piped wikilink when a redirect will work. As such, you're not giving me reason not to revert your reversion to return the article to being in line with policy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think I violated WP:POINT, you may want to review that policy, because I neither disrupted Misplaced Pages nor did I do anything to prove a point. I did revert an edit to leave the article in better alignment with WP:NOTBROKEN, which is another policy you may want to review - it indicates not to pipe a wikilink that is working as a redirect not because it's a waste of time, but because Misplaced Pages works better with the simple wikilinks. (If you have disagreements with that policy, then the policy's page is the best place to raise them.) It is not "biting" anyone to correct their edit, nor to summarize the policy and put a link to the policy in the edit summary - and in general, "biting" on Misplaced Pages regards a concern of what one does to newcomers, and the editor in question has over a year and hundreds of edits in experience. Assuming good faith does not need assuming good edits (if we assume all edits are good, this place will be even more of a mess quite quickly), and being WP:BOLD does not carry with it the expectation that you will not be reverted; that's what WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is about.

If you take the time to review policies, you may also want to review WP:PA.

Now, do you have any reason why the article is better if we overlook WP:NOTBROKEN in this instance? Because barring that, I will be restoring it to the simpler wikilink. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you do not wish to be seen as engaging in WP:PA, then you should avoid calling people jerks, even in the past tense. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see here, the editor I was reverting was not offended by my reversion, and was actually befuddled by the reasoning for your revert.

Given that, I really think you should be carefully considering your actions in general during this affair. In particular, you may wish to review WP:AGF; "good faith" is more than just a label one hangs on edit to avoid the appearance of malice, it's an attitude that can serve one well on Misplaced Pages. In this case, you -- from what I can discern of your comments - read a tone into an edit summary, and on that basis 1) edited an article to be further from guidelines, 2) made a baseless accusation (the WP:POINT claim), and 3) posted a WP:PA (even if, as you suggest, the personal nature comes from some sloppiness in your wording rather than in intent), none of which would have been an appropriate response even if my summary had included a "bite". Had you assumed good faith in my edit and simply had a problem with the tone of the summary, then a simple message on my talk page would have been the appropriate move. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Canadian mobile phone companies

Could you please engage with the conversation at Template talk:Canadian_mobile_phone_companies instead of reverting the template to the version you want? This just looks like a slow edit war and doesn't reflect well on either of you, although kudos for bringing this issue for dispute resolution. Bigger digger (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Bigger digger#Your message's talk page. You replied at my page so we'll keep the conversation there. Bigger digger (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Ping! Bigger digger (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Grenfell College Student Union

I am deeply dismayed that the Student Union page for the Grenfell Campus was removed with little notice or reason. This page provided general information regarding the student union which plays an important role at the Grenfell Campus, Memorial University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryrandell (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Grenfell College Student Union Logo

Hey Me, You can proceed with the deletion of the Grenfell College Student Union logo. I am not sure the merit of keeping around a logo for an organization which has been deemed not notable, so it really isn't worth the time to forward on that documentation from the Grenfell College Student Union. --Terryrandell (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Green Party

Hello Me - 123567..

I've just made some edits to add pictures and remove personal political attacks at the Virginia Green Party.

I see that you have identified this as "vandalism". May a respectfully suggest that is not a correct allegation. As I am the person being attacked, and I lived the events addressed first hand. I would appreciate the opportunity to open a dialogue on this subject. Picture's as they say are worth a thousand words. Thus I've posted these pictures to tell a more fair, and just version of events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carey Campbell (talk • contribs) 06:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Barelinks}}

Thanks I appreciate your note--and this is likely going to come across as rude, but I honestly don't mean it--but I simply don't care enough to fix the references on List of Universal Life Church ministers Universal Life Church. There are hundreds of cleanup templates on tens of thousands of articles and I'm not usually interested in doing the work of fixing the articles, but tagging the problems. I really only make substantial edits to a handful of articles that really interest me and this one doesn't. I simply looked at it and saw the references are in contravention to guidelines, so I can easily add {{Barelinks}} and someone else who is actually invested in the quality of the article can sort out how to fix it. Please post on my talk if you have more to say. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

John Percy (politician)

Hi, this is just a courtesy 'pre PROD' message. The article you created has been in the new page patrol list for a month because ostensibly , none of our patrollers know what to do with it. The fact is, that as it stands it is a candidate for deletion because it clearly fails our criteria at WP:POLITICIAN - apart from being the leader of the Canadian greens, he appears never to have held political office, or done anything to merit the criteria of our policy at WP:RS. He may have done something notable outside his political career, but I can't find anything on that either; indeed the only Ghits seem to be blogs, social networking sites, and self-published sites. I'm not a deletionist, and I would like very much to be proven wrong, otherwise I will have no alternative but to propose this article for deletion in the next day or two. --Kudpung (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Grenfell response

Same-sex marriage

I just clicked on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yermi-brenner/gay-couples-bypassing-con_b_785580.html and it worked fine. Are you saying it's not a reliable source for some reason? Dylan Flaherty 23:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: OVH

Hello Me-123567-Me. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of OVH, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Although previously deleted (see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/OVH), the fact that WikiLeaks is hosted on OVH's servers and this is generating news coverage means that it may possibly meet notability. If you feel this should be deleted, please start a new AfD. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your revert of OVH talk page (Wiki is not discussion forum)

Hello, I just noticed that you reverted my addition to the talk page of the OVH article. As far as I understand the purpose of the talk pages they are the right point for discussing errors in the article. It was not my intent to discuss the content of the article, but rather to mention an error in the article which I didn't want to edit without having a confirmation first. If the talk page of an article is not the right place to ask, where should I go instead? I could have just edited the article, but am unsure about correct phrasing and would like to kindly ask that someone else edits the article based on sources mentioned in my entry. Would be nice if you could get back to me on that topic since you seem to have more experience in Misplaced Pages than me. --Mastacheata (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the discussion entry. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Mastacheata (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OVH AfD

Hi Me-123567-Me, could you take a look at the AfD? I found some articles that to me demonstrate that WP:CORP is met. If you agree with this then withdrawing the nomination would save everyone time. If you disagree then could you explain why? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Percy (politician)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John Percy (politician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Razakel19 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Status and Advice

this article's deletion was declined by another administrator, and I agree. Saying someone is head of a party in a state or province is at least a claim to notability. However, the article as it presently stands must have some references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. I advise you to do this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process.

More important, your comment on User:Razakel19's page was not conducive to future cooperation. Once we start accusing other editors of retaliation, matters quickly degenerate; such things do happen, and are indeed very improper things to do, but I would be very unwilling to use such a term with respect to just this single article. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Politics

I am not sure why you remove the OPC from the list of unregistered active party despite 20 sources of information I have provided. Do you have any reason to keep reverting my edit with presenting your case?Chloro (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bell Internet

We already have an article on the concept of usage-based billing as a whole at bandwidth cap. I feel that there should be coverage of this on the Bell page since this is an issue involving their operations. However, I will plan on redirecting it the bandwidth cap article. Plus, the UBB article contained multiple lines copied from a CBC News article, so it is technically not allowed to exist in its current form as it is a copyvio. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

List of ministers of the Universal Life Church

That's odd. It's almost as if the guy has something against the church. I wondered about the list I found but if it was from the Misplaced Pages list they forgot the disclaimer at the bottom. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

PROBLEM

I do not know what articles you are referring to, as I have not moved any Green Party related pages today. If you are referring to the discussion that took place in December, a notice was added to the talk page of every article affected, as well the Canada notice board. If you again violate the decision of a well advertised, and discussed naming convention and article move, you will be reported. 117Avenue (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Procedure is to add the notice to the talk page, so that all editors can see it, it is only your fault, if you decide not to be notified by events that may affect you. 117Avenue (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion involving you at WP:AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Inappropriate blanking by User:Me-123567-Me. Thank you. postdlf (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, WP:LISTPEOPLE and common practice, it is probably not a good idea to remove people from lists where they have a Misplaced Pages page that includes citations documenting their affiliation. More useful is to import the citations. With other, unlinked members, a certain amount of discretion is called for. For example List of ambassadors of Sweden to Ukraine has a list of uncited red-linked ambassadors (despite citing some of the the consuls) - it would not be helpful to remove these items, because common sense tells us they are almost certainly correct, someone has added them who had access to a reference, it makes far more sense to either leave well alone, or find a reference. On the other hand, List of ukulele players, even disregarding the injunction at the top (which is a self ref and should probably be removed) is correctly kept cleaned of any people who are both uncited and unlinked (in this case they all have articles). I hope that makes sense, it really is a question of either using common sense or exhaustively searching for references and following links. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC).