Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mel Etitis (talk | contribs) at 23:05, 2 January 2007 (new message header & {{unsigned}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Useful links

• M:Foundation issues
• Misplaced Pages:Policy Library
• Misplaced Pages:Utilities
• Misplaced Pages:Conflict resolution
• Misplaced Pages:Peer review
• Misplaced Pages:Boilerplate text
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types
• Misplaced Pages:Template messages
• Misplaced Pages:Category
• Fundamental categories
• Misplaced Pages:List of WikiProjects
• meta:Help:Special characters
• Polytonic orthography
• Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of edits
• Misplaced Pages:Welcoming committee
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' how-to guide
• Special:Ipblocklist
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard
• Article AfD instructions
• AfD-closure boilerplate
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
• Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion
• Category:Images with unknown source
• Special:Newpages
• Recent changes by anons
• Misplaced Pages:List of WikiProjects

Pages I often cite

• Misplaced Pages:Use subheadings sparingly
• Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph
• Misplaced Pages:Make only links relevant to the context
• Misplaced Pages:Piped link
• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts

Pestering messages from an anon who refuses to read what I write

I refuse to accept your revert not out of ignorance but because i have proven this individual is a Muslim and he belongs to this category.

Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.5.54 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you a militant atheist intent on witholding info about ones faith or are you just reverting for the sake of it, perhaps you think unregistred users shouldn't edit at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.5.54 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to accept that Emre is Muslim, however you haven't explained why you have reverted all my other edits, People have a right to know who is Muslim, i thought that was what thee category's were for, an easy way of finding out what faith a celebrity is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.5.54 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

you really shouldn't bother after 1 or 2 trys. How about just reverting? Kingjeff 20:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I read your conversation with the anon user about the Category:Muslims. I agree with your perspective and think a football player's religion has no place on his article unless he is noteworthy for being of that religion. I just wanted to point out that several football player articles have the Muslims category, including Bouhlarouz, Toure, Job, Raidi, etc. Should I remove the category from these players pages? Best regards. Jogurney 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you create a subcategory, Muslim Sportspeople for example. People want to know what these sportspeople faiths are, we know Rooney is Catholic, Monty Panesar a Sikh, so why shouldn't people know that certain sportsmen are Muslim?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.5.54 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Please come back to Philosophy. We need your understanding.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Legend of light situacion

Hello, the reason why I removed the templates was because I was working on that page and I was still not finnished with it. I save my work constantly without finnishing it because my computer often turns itself of due to a cable problem so that I do not loose what I have done. Right now I am working on that page and I am still not finnished.

And yes the article was copy of a part of Hikari no Densetsu which I created, I was just using it for back up information (it was never meant to be the actual page, when the page was finnished it was supposed to be several pargraphs made of several links of information. I Just need time to finish the page that I started and like I said I hit save constantly so that I do not loose my work.Angel,Isaac 15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Intentions

I wanted to create an article that talked about the different versions of the legend of light series: when they were relesead originally, in what countries, in what years, recent work etc....Angel,Isaac 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It would have included enough information to stand on its own with a link to the main article.Angel,Isaac 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Presence

I understand what you're saying about the track listing, but could you please stop deleting the link to the review of Inside? Shaneymike 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Images from Artist Miguel Chicharro

Hi,

I don't understand why you have deleted my contribution to "Digital art" and "scanner art" pages. Please contact me to explain what I did wrong.

Thanks for your comprehension,

Florence Turbet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.15.114.237 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I've already explained at User talk:Florenceturbet; you need to log in. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Institute of Religion

Sorry, could only really see one instance of the wrong tone etc. i.e. 'hanging out'.Morrad 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, sorry about that. I'll be more thorough from now on. Morrad 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Images and creators

I don't understand what is wrong with my edition...if I understand well you mean that if I'm not the creator of the image, there's no problem to put an imagen in an article... but if I'm relationed with the creator I have to "prove" (how?) that I'm the creator and what else? In fact, I'm Miguel Chicharro's representant. "Alter ego" means that the artist uses the pseudonym that I've indicated to sign this artwork.

Thanks for your comprehension and excuse-me if there's not the place to talk with you about that (so where else?)

Florence Turbet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.114.237 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Checking over

Hi there! I was wondering if you'd give the Theoretical Assumptions (philosophy) section a once over on Kohlberg's stages of moral development. It was added a while ago by User:Lucidish (good fellow), but I was sort of interested in a second opinion and a second pair of eyes on it. My background is in psychology not philosophy, and thus my personal critique is far less effective. Possible? JoeSmack 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

derek marlowe

As the original author of this page, I would be pleased to "wikify" it, as you suggest, but I'd like some guidance on what aspects of this new page you consider wiki-deficient. Cheers. El Ingles 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revision. I don't know how helpful it is to list creative works out of chronological order, but certainly the categories are useful. El Ingles 17:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Indeed, this is in desperate need of your help. It would be much appreciated. Dbuckner 11:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

To give you a flavour of the current dispute. The page Philosophy was taken over on 27 December by a person I would classify as a 'fanatic'. This person has a theory that the meaning of the word 'philosophy' can be entirely explained by its etymology, despite the fact (as I have pointed out) that most experts consider the etymology unhelpful, if not misleading.

The opening of this version will give you an idea of what one is up against.

The person persists in reverting to these long and rambling monologues. I would appreciate your help. Best wishes for the coming New Year - Edward. Dbuckner 12:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Phil Elmore

Back in the middle of 2005, you tried to work with the editors at Phil Elmore to get an article going in a proper direction. I was wondering if you'd consider revisiting the article. I was contemplating AFDing it today. As it stands, it feels like notability for the subject isn't established through reliable sources. Every "source" for the article is his website, his forum, or his martial arts website. It appears that he might be controversial in the online martial arts community, but it also appears that that's only because he instigates and antagonizes everyone else. It doesn't appear that a bunch of people noticed his work and said "hey, guys, check out his ideas," it appears more like him saying "hey, look at me! look at my ideas!" to everyone else. It also looks like the article has some serious WP:OWN issues through Stephen Mallory (talk · contribs). Do you have any thoughts on it? Metros232 15:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim Tebow

I think you may have messed up when attempting to revert the removal of some content from Tim Tebow a couple of minutes ago... I think this is actually the revision you wanted to revert to, but rather than just changing it, I figured I would try to let you know, since I am not 100% sure, not being familiar with the subject of the article. —Krellis 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Occitan personalities

This has just survived a CfD; proposing it again within hours isn't on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't proposed it for deletion, I have proposed it for renaming. The previous closure was incorrectly handled and I am at a loss to understand how you can misunderstand a simple renaming proposal twice. Osomec 11:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No you misunderstood twice, first in the original discussion, then when I redid the nomination.but perhaps that is higher than you can count. I suggest you are in no position to be patronising. Osomec 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

See you Talk page for an explanation of the meaning of what I'd thought to be a perfectly clear sentence, in which I made no such error. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of Great Wall of China

Hi, I'm not really interested in contributing to the Misplaced Pages or going through the mega pages to find out how a person can contribute or edit...but while reading the article on the Great Wall of China I found some rather crude remarks that may express the purpose of the wall but are rather off color. I'm just wondering if someone can EDIT it before someone really gets offended. I hope you can help. BTW Your garden is beautiful. This is the portion of the article I'm referring to:

Characteristics Before the use of bricks, the Great Wall was mainly built from earth, stones and wood. Transporting the large quantity of materials required for construction was difficult, so builders always tried to use local resources. Over the mountain ranges, the stones of the mountain were exploited and used; while in the plains, earth was rammed into solid blocks to be used in construction.

the chinese wanted to get sucked off by the huns but they wouldnt. this is why the great wall was built. to show the huns they didnt need them to get sucked off in order for them to cum all over their faces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.207.229 (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

As you may have discovered, the vandalism had been reverted by the time I got there. We're generally pretty good at that. Thanks for the alert, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Film Poster?

Why did you rename movie poster to the far-less common term film poster? Not only that, you removed all mention of the term "movie poster" from the article completely. Between this edit and the One sheet (film) splintering, this article is going downhill. Appreciate any explanation as to your motivation for this change. -Jca2112 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. (I'm going to leave my reply on your user talk page since that's where the question started - please reply here to keep the conversation in one place). I understand following Misplaced Pages naming conventions of wanting to use "film" over "movie" where appropriate (and in most cases), but I think it is a mistake to rename the article and replace all instances of movie poster in the article with film poster, especially with no discussion. The "film" naming convention doesn't have to be absolute -- you wouldn't, after all, necessarily attend a "film theatre". The article doesn't even contain the term "movie poster" anymore, which makes the article inaccurate. As I understand it, Misplaced Pages naming convention says: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. I'm reverting the article name/changes back. Since we disagree on the naming of the article, you could propose the name change so others can help decide: "If you cannot rename a page, or you think that the renaming may be controversial, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves and list it there." Although, I would love for discussion of the move/merge of one sheet (film) to be resolved first. ;) -Jca2112 19:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled; I might have missed something. As the title of the article is "Film poster", and the article refers throughout to film posters, where's the inaccuracy? At the article on Film, the alternative term "movie" is mentioned, and I suppose that that could be done here. Would that resolve your problem, or am I missing your point?

Again, the usage in this article and in One sheet (film) and other articles was inconsistent, sometimes referring to movies and movie posters, sometimes to film and film posters. I made the usage internally consistent, and externally consistent with most other articles in Misplaced Pages.

I'd not go to a "movie theater" any more than I'd go to a "film theatre"; I'd go to a cinema...

If you want to change the names of this and related articles, why not make the proposal at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves? As my change was in line with Misplaced Pages naming conventions, and your claim is that this should be an exception, that's surely the correct approach. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not debating bringing articles in line with a "film" naming convention over "movie", but by following the absolute naming convention you describe, then movie theatre would be renamed film theatre. I'm not claiming an exception any more than you are claiming an absolute. Also, I think it is a mistake to dismiss discussion/etc before making the change because you believe you are following naming conventions. It's not necessary for me to revert your rename if you feel the article/name is now more accurate -- someone else can propose the merge/renaming back if they agree with me. The article needs more attention with regards to the content than debating the name at this point. :) -Jca2112 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to your first point, the difference is that there's no usage "film theatre" (at least, none that I've ever come across), whereas "film poster" is not only used by many people, but is even to be found in the versions of the articles before I found them (see, for example, here). That leads to the second point: both versions are accurate, but one accords better with Misplaced Pages usage elsewhere, and so its use gives more consistency of style.

Still, as you say, debate over this should come a long way behind improving the content of articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony esopi patra

Hi, I just saw this user signature and asked if he would reduce it. However, it turns out that he doesn't speak English. Can you translate the message at User talk:Tony esopi patra#Your signature. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Florence Turbet

Hi, I think you didn't read my last message... PD: If you want to talk somewhere else, please contact me to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.114.237 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did answer, and my original explanation and questions – at which you don't seem to have looked – are on your Talk page. I suggest that you log in to your account. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

New message

Hello.Thanks for sending me the message explaining why you deleted the text otherwise i would still be thinking you were just vandalizing the page.I apologise for such but i catch some guys lately that delete or degrade pages just for fun but by looking up at ur profile i see u are a veteran around here and u do have a point when that article should be in wikitionary not here in wikipedia.

Hey if u could do me favor i would appreciate.Yesterday i bumped into this article here in wiki and i dont think it has the least interest or quality so if u could check it out and delete it for me, since i dont know how to put up articles for deletion... The name of the article is "P0stall".

tnx again;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.Lost.Soul (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)