Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Esprit15d (talk | contribs) at 17:54, 17 August 2006 (invite). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

your edit on music video director

hi, why did you comment out the warning here ? A few hours later, the problem user came back and added back his list: . Peter S. 09:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I commented out the warning to comply with Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style and to avoid self-references. I don't think that it's necessary to have the warning displayed to everybody who reads the article, because it's only for editors. And I think that if that problem user still refuses to discuss his changes, you should open an RfC. — getcrunk what?! 12:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer :-) I can't do a RFC because I can't talk to the person in the first place: He has no wikipedia nickname, has a quick-changing IP (can't reach him on his talk-pages), doesn't read page comments and doesn't know the rules (doesn't read article talk pages etc.). I don't think he's a vandal, we just need to bring him on the right path, which is by talking to him which is the very thing I tried to accomplish by writing this message on the article page. Have you got a different idea how I can reach out and talk to this guy? I think posting this message in plain view until we have first contacted him is the best (yet unconventional) way. Peter S. 12:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, haven't heard from you in a while. How do you respond to my point "rfc won't work cause we cannot talk to the guy in the first place"? Cheers! Peter S. 11:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure; an article RfC could be opened, to deal with article problems and not necessarily this on user that keeps switching IPs. However, I think that problem has ended, so far the user hasn't edited List of music video directors. — getcrunk what?! 13:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he just edited the old article again today: . The fact that he didn't move to the new article shows me that the guy only reads the article with a peripheral vision / doesn't understands what's going on. All the more a reason to contact him directly on the article page, imho. Peter S. 13:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you have certainly attempted to talk with him. I'm not sure about what can be done besides simply reverting his edits on sight. A big commented message wouldn't hurt, too. — getcrunk what?! 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey

Thanks for the work you're doing on this article. In the last few days, a few vandals have hit the page with unsourced pics, unsourced and POV text, and continual reverting of good versions of the article. Refer to this discussion for more info, but basically User:Editingoprah and User:Zorklift are the main problems. Please feel free to revert their edits when they say things like "Restoring pretty pictures" and so on. If this continues, I'll look to other admins to indefinetely block them. Thanks. Harro5 00:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Just as I received your message, I made a post at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Oprah_Winfrey_sockpuppets. Happy vandal-fighting! =) — getcrunk what?! 00:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

About the images, I 100% don't buy the elderly people in resting home story. These guys are trolls looking for a fight - would your grandmother engage in a revert war the first time she used the internet? I'm going to indefinetely block them if and when they re-upload the fair use images. Just giving you the heads up. Harro5 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just as the key piece of evidence to support this case, no old lady is writing "you've contributed nothing to this article. Why are you even here?" on their first days at Misplaced Pages. These guys have gone on long enough. Harro5 21:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that Editingoprah and the other pack of users may be unrelated. Anything is possible, though. I really don't know/can't tell. — getcrunk what?! 00:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the description page at Image:Oprah.PNG, the article's lead image. An anon removed the source here. The claim to fair use is identical to the one used for Image:Lohanspeak.PNG which was on the Main Page a few days ago, so this should now be undisputed. Off topic, maybe consider allowing editing of individual sections on this page? It's a bit annoying having to scroll through the entire 60kb of text to give a message :). Harro5 00:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see the image issue resolved! I've archived (finally!!) and allowed section editing too. — getcrunk what?! 00:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack?!

I have looked back through my contributions, and can't see what you're referring to. Todd Bridges 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about general incivility. You should be aware of Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Georgewiliamherbert_and_Todd_Bridges. — getcrunk what?! 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of that either. As for this bit on the Administrators noticeboard, that's just nonsense. I did not vandalize the Gorilla page, that was ThuranX (and his vandalism was reverted by UtherSRG). There is absolutely no connection between me and those other users, so the "investigation" will turn up nothing. It is ThuranX who should be investigated. I don't know what you're talking about when you mention "general incivility." Could you be more specific? I really don't know what you're talking about. Todd Bridges 00:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The CheckUser case has identified that you, User:Georgewiliamherbert, and User:Mr. Conky are the same person. (Editing from the same IP) Using sockpuppets isn't tolerated on Misplaced Pages. — getcrunk what?! 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your RFA

I would've voted for you if I'd noticed it in time. -Hit bull, win steak 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I think I'll hold off on running again for a while; I have JS and that works extremely well. PS: nice username! — getcrunk what?! 12:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I never replied to your message apropos of my tendentious, rhetorical RfA question, for which failure I apologize, but I should say that yours was the response for which I was looking–I was largely, if not altogether, in symapthy with your submissions–and that I will be happy, in the future, once more to support you. Joe 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

That is straight from wiki. What I did to the Ying Yang Twins page was exactly that. Pay special attention to the part that says "is not vadalism". I changed absolutely nothing on the second edit. Did you even bother to look if I did change anything? No, because you called it vandalism again even though it remained the same as your version of the page.

It doesn't fall under the "attention seeking vandalism" either. What I said was clearly an opinion. Which brings us back to my quote above. Where is the vandalism? 72.161.62.57 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

From WP:VAND#Types_of_vandalism: "Attention-seeking vandalism: Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc." (emphasis added). Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. — getcrunk what?! 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I will take note on signing my posts. But quit dodging the subject and talk with me. Your above quote means nothing to me as what I stated on the page was an opinion. It wasn't any of those things mentioned in your quote. It was an opinion. Nothing was changed on the second edit, yet that is "vandalism" as well. Even though I didn't resort to attacking you on your page, you keep deleting my very valid complaint. What gives? 72.161.62.57 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You did change on the second edit: . Also, it's your opinion that what you wrote was "an opinion". I see it as an insult. — getcrunk what?! 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I should have double checked that. It was when I reverted the page back to your page and you came along and reverted it back to the page it was already on and said it was vandalism. Either way, it makes no sense.

While you are here, wiki the word "opinion". You apparently don't know its meaning. Also "bias" would be another good read for you. The only way you can see my opinion as an insult is if you are being bias. Anyone with enough gray matter to not drown in the shower can see that is clearly an opinion. 72.161.62.57 00:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. — getcrunk what?! 01:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

User:67.165.181.119

This anonymous user doesn't appear to have made any further edits after I placed the first Vw warning on its talk page. Is the blatant template still needed in this case? -- JHunterJ 20:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't realise that the user made no further edits after you placed the warning. Even with that, I think that based on their edits, {{bv}} was a good idea. PS: You may like to check out User:Voice of All/RC/monobook.js to add to your monobook.js file. It adds a whole bunch of nifty vandalism-fighting features! — getcrunk what?! 21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Good article

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template that puts a star on the article's mainpage (you voted in the original deletion debate). the vote is here Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oprah socks?

Hmm...if you think something fishy is going on, then I guess send this to WP:RFCU. User:Zscout370 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been! — getcrunk what?! 02:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)=

Hi Getcrunk

You added a copyedit tag to the Oprah article but forgot to provide any explanation for doing so on the talk page. You seem like a reasonable person so I didn't want to disrespect you by removing the copyedit tag myself, but if you could remove it yourself or at the very least provide an explanation for the copy edit tag that would be really cool. Editingoprah 00:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA thanks

Hello Getcrunk, and thank you for your cliché support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Misplaced Pages. The 💕. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

About Redirecting

Can you remove the warning? It was a mistake I wouldn't redirect a page for no reason. Sorry for the mistake. Thanks --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User page revert

You are very welcome, and many thanks for the very kind award of a medal. Much appreciated. Best, Gwernol 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A little help?

Hey how are you? I was randomly going through some articles on current singles on here, and came across the "Ain't No Other Man" page. Since you and I have been editing "Call on Me" together, I can really see you know what you are doing. The charts section of the "Ain't No Other Man" page is terrible, I've already removed about 20 non-important charts, but the list just goes on and on, so if you want to just check it out, I know you know which charts are "important" and not. Thanks :) Thankyoubaby 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello =) I've trimmed some of the charts on that page. My edit will probably be reverted by an IP soon, so I'll keep the page on my watchlist! — getcrunk what?! 01:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Hi just came across your suggested merge of Pre-order status and iTunes. However you only added the {{mergeto}} tag. Please remember to add the {{mergefrom}} tag to the target next time. Thanks in advance. AlistairMcMillan 02:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't abuse the new users

I reverted your revert of the Maxim link on Beyoncé Knowles. I noticed that your tagged the user's talk page with spam2, skipping spam1. Take it easier in the future, please. -- JHunterJ 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hello. Please don't edit others' comments on talk pages and please don't remove them unless you are moving them to an archive page or if they are vandalism. Also, please subst templates on user talk pages. Thanks — getcrunk what?! 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you think you are doing? You are not only reverting information which is uncited Original research onto the biographies of LIVING PERSON's you are also removing fact tags from information which is original research. Do you have any understanding of the principles of Wiki policy on living individuals and original research? for example. I have been told by an administrator that this is perfectly acceptable.--I'll bring the food 15:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. I didn't revert your changes to articles because those are acceptable. the {{fact}} template isn't meant to be used on talk pages because they are not articles. — getcrunk what?! 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

And where on that guideline page does it say that? It doesn't anywhere. Revert my changes back to default.--I'll bring the food 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is polite to not edit anybody else's comments on a talk page - by default, I presume we are supposed to take them as personal opinions. If something looks potential deflamatory, reply and ask them to give evidence rather than edit their post. When posting up removed sections, however, such tags do indeed make sense. LinaMishima 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion of material in whistle register category

I'm having problems sorting out that whistle register category. After adding hundreds of fact tags to original research statements as you proposed and removing singers from the category one by one who are not sourced as having the ability (over 100 actually), a user is now rv'ing hundreds of changes . Can you stop this, it is incredibly frustrating to have someone put back hundreds of unsourced statements and original research items on living person's biographies talk pages --I'll bring the food 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This user doesn't seem to understand that I only reverted his changes to others comments on talk pages. I think it's been cleared up by now. — getcrunk what?! 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If you check out our talk pages, you'll see I already asked for confirmation of the point you are making. best just to roll eyes at the overkill in this case, I feel :P LinaMishima 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Musicians Article guidelines

Because of you interest in th past, you input is welcome here.--Esprit15d 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)