Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:18, 17 February 2007

Chicken Wing, well done with Webster v. Doe! It's really impressive how well you followed the standards in the other case articles when you created this one. I'd encourage you to join the relevant wikiproject, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. Cheers!--Kchase T 08:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

boilerplate welcome:

Welcome!

Hello, Chicken Wing, 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! 

Thanks for the welcome. I actually didn't know that I was following any standards. I just took my notes on that case and wrote it out and wikified it. I'll try to look over the standards you guys have set up so I can follow them more precisely in the future. Chicken Wing 08:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

user:Lorieposes

Hi, Thanks for your note regarding the above user. Yes, I noticed that she had put a pic of herself on Negligee; she is evidently very single-minded in her intention to advertise herself and her website, and she persistently modified the Brassiere page in an attempt to do so despite repeated objections. I initially tried discussing the issue, but my patience has now worn pretty thin and I have begun going through the process of leaving warnings on her page. I will definitely escalate to a request for a block if it becomes necessary.

What she has done on the Negligee page is basically to follow the advice which another user left on her talk page - ie provide a GPL image, keep her web link off the article page itself, and use the image page as a more low-key means of promoting her website. I guess she regards this as second-best, but better than nothing. It's a difficult issue - it's a form of self-promotion, but at least she's not using the article to boost her Google rating, and she's giving something to Misplaced Pages in exchange for limited publicity. If she as an individual does that, I personally can live with it, although others might have a different view. There will however be a problem when lots of others running similar sites decide to do the same thing - I'm actually rather surprised it hasn't already happened. There is, I think, a limit to how many pics of women in brassieres or negligees an article can support, without ending up looking like a porn site directory. I'll keep an eye open for further developments --Stephen Burnett 12:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jacobson

The references are coming (a website and about four law review articles) ... I tend to prefer adding them after expansion is complete because it's easier to manipulate text that you're not sure is final when you don't have all the reference coding floating around (I suspect if we ever develop a WYSIWYG editing interface, we'll have a lot less problems with lengthy yet unreferenced articles). Daniel Case 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my interest in it ... I remember being intrigued by the 60 Minutes story. I also found it interesting that it was one of the few times Thomas has not voted with Scalia (and have often wondered if, given later disclosures about his porn interests, he had some empathy with Jacobson, as indeed one of the footnotes in Jack Chin's article suggests, that Scalia would not have).

I didn't intend for it to get so long ... just a result of doing all the research I could on it. But look at all the other entrapment cases I wrote up, too, as a result (I suppose I should work on improving the main entrapment article, too, which could use it). Daniel Case 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well ... thank you! I have been considering taking it to peer review, once I get it finished (the section on entrapment jurisprudence can be tightened up and made more connected to the case once I get the Casey article written and tidy up the appropriate sections of the entrapment article, and I need a couple more cites (airdate for 60 Minutes, for instance) and I suppose it would be ready. I'd love to go for bonus points, though ... some images, which are usually difficult to come by in court-case articles. But I bet Jacobson's booking photo might still be available, as well as covers of the fake catalogs or the political material the inspectors sent ... and those would be public domain. And maybe there's some sort of employee photo of Cal Comfort, too. And a screenshot from 60 Minutes. That would be my ideal for an FA of this. Daniel Case 06:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hydroxycut

Ok, I agree & am satisfied with how it is now; I'll return to the article for MuscleTech some other time. Take care. --MMX 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Yager edit

Sorry, its just i am getting fed up of Misplaced Pages articles becoming biased towards America and not the English speaking world. -Dynamo_ace Talk

Kristanna Loken

Actually I think the category is fine on the Kristanna Loken article since we have reliable sources, in particular the Curve magazine quoted in the article. The problem is there is no such source for Michelle Rodriguez so the category cannot be added to that article until we have one. You are absolutely right that we should keep a strict standard of evidence for all biographies of living people. Gwernol 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dread Central and Spam

Misplaced Pages:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided lists a long list of spam links to be avoided. Movie reviews are not included in that list. Dreadcentral (or any other horror review site for that matter) aren't 'mainstream' and thus probably wouldn't be in Rotten Tomatoes...but its certainly not spam or someone advertising the site.--CyberGhostface 00:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely agree but I'll stop adding them. I wasn't aware of the extent of one person adding all the links.--CyberGhostface 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you might be violating WP:3RR w/r/t the Sarah Michelle Gellar page. Maybe it's time to step back and let other people speak up on whether the Dread Central link should stay or not? Richwales 07:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's my understanding that WP:3RR explicitly does refer to any 24-hour period, not a single calendar day (a concept which isn't well defined from a worldwide POV anyway). And although 3RR doesn't apply to reversion of "simple, obvious vandalism", this specific case appears to be a situation where reasonable people could honestly disagree. At least to me, it looks like you and Garda40 have been having an honest, sincere disagreement — each of you believing the other is the one committing vandalism. Richwales 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Until you posted this message on my talk page

Please, do not attempt to antagonize me in edit summaries. I see from your talk page that you have engaged in adding improper links and being disruptive in the past. Don't drag me in to this. Just let it go without trying to aggravate me. Chicken Wing 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bring the subject up anymore.First of all I wasn't trying to antagonize you in edit summaries just pointing out writing "spam spam etc "makes it look like the work of a vandal whereas writing "Deleted spam link" looks like the work of a responsible editor

As for the allegation I have engaged in adding improper links and being disruptive in the past go read FLV history and talk page.I didn't put the links in originally but found them useful as did other people so when someone deleted them I put them back in and also tried to copyedit them to make them more acceptable .I also pointed out the logic of the original editor position re links and which they conceded was correct to another poster but which they then stopped following

I have no desire to keep any dispute going but just as you don't want to be antagonized neither do I and making allegations of improper editing and disruptive behavior doesn't help matters

If you didn't engage in the behavior mentioned on your talk page, then you should understand how loose language on someone's talk page and in edit summaries can damage someone else's reputation. Chicken Wing 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotton that I gave you the benefit of the doubt after the first weird message and only used the V word when you edited it again with a weird message not responding to the point I made in my edit summary .Loose language would be using the V word after the first edit

As for loose language on your talk page I didn't touch your talk page until today and only after you posted your message about me saying I engaged in adding improper links and making disruptive edits .I had no intention of posting here since the edit dispute seemed to be resolved Garda40 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing left to say to you. At this point, I'm convinced this is little more than an elaborate effort to get the last word. You've added no new noteworthy comments the last several times you've posted something. Misplaced Pages talk pages aren't chatrooms. Chicken Wing 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

An elaborate effort to get the last word (which seems to be assuming bad faith on my part ) I wish it was but I felt I had to repeat my comments since you didn't seem to be getting the points I was making.As for the "last several times" I have up to that comment posted all of twice on your talk page and now three times .Since as I said earlier the edit dispute was resolved why post those comments about me and not expect a response .Feel free to respond to that questions and I promise not to respond so that you can have the last word if it means that much to you Garda40 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dread Central

Why did you delete Dread Central. I have been working with the previous Admin to recreate Dread Central according to Misplaced Pages standards. Are you just angry that I did not respond to your talk personally?

Also, whay did you target me for links when other sites such as Rotten Tomatoes have just as many review links, if not more?

Emerald City Miracle

ESPN was a news network, the last time I checked. TheNewMinistry 07:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Gamebrink spammer

Thanks for the heads-up. I've removed most of the links (fortunately, it was only a few dozen, not hundreds). I left a few that might be considered "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" (per WP:EL) — specifically, when there was a link to a video about the game that didn't seem to be linked elsewhere. If the spamming continues, let me know and I'll block the IP. You might also want to discuss the links with the folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computer and Video Games; lots of the game articles had pretty big link farms, which invites spammers to add their sites. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the spammer came back and added another link to the site; I've blocked the IP. It's not an indefinite block, but if the spamming continues it will be. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The information regarding Melissa Keller is incorrect without the edits of Susannah Mills. There aren't any unsubstantiated links. Information regarding her sizes and resume were not up to date or correct with the version "Chicken Wing" writes.

On removing proposed deletion tags

Hi. I saw you had reinserted the prod tag on Marathoners after it was removed. I definitely agree with you that the article should be deleted. Process, however, dictates that if an editor has removed the tag, then the article should be sent to WP:AFD. (Incidentally, I have done so, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marathoners). Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 17:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've made my thoughts known on the Melissa Keller article. Despite the subject being pretty minor and despite the obvious conflict of interest in editing, I am pretty sure that the article would survive if it ended up going to WP:AFD so there's not much point in submitting it there. There really isn't much you can do about the whole thing except insist that every assertion be supported by reliable sources and if the conflict escalates, report it to WP:ANI. In the meantime, don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions on how to handle the problem. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 00:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability.

Re Melissa Keller edits, especially : please reread reliable sources and verifiability. Also please use descriptive edit summaries and clearly note when you are reverting a page, especialy when removing references. -- Jeandré, 2007-02-17t11:18z