Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:22, 25 November 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Colonel Warden, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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:Where to ask a question, 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!  Karmafist 17:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Daylight saving time and Benjamin Franklin

Thanks for your comment on Daylight saving time. I responded to the comment and have toned down the discussion of Benjamin Franklin a bit; if you have time you might want to look at the page again. Eubulides 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain end date

Copyedit from my "talk" page: "Hi Bzuk, I contest the changes made to the end date on the BOB article. I know Churchill considers this to be the case, but he was not a military man but a politician. I would say that Saundby's and Taylor's argument for the 31 October would carry more weight than Churchill's. The ending of major daylight raids on the 15th Sept. did not end the Battle, it was to continue through the Blitz. To suggest the Battle ended on 15th Sept is to suggest that the Blitz was not a part of it at all. The Germans had every intention of invading Britain until Directive 21. The Battle of Britain was officially, at least, was still on until this date.Dapi89 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)."

Reply: Perhaps you have confused me for another editor, Colonel Warden who is a new contributor. I have made no changes to the date and support the contention that the Battle raged on into autumn 1940 as raids continued, albeit of a lesser magnitude. I will post your query on this editor's website discussion page. Bzuk 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

You may have to support the contention that "Battle of Britain Day" actually represented an end of major hostilities in the Battle of Britain. IMHO Bzuk 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

Towel Day

I think between us we have established some notability. --Drappel 18:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD query

I have asked you to explain yourself at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alfred de Grazia (2nd nomination). Please note that single-word justifications for AfD comments are not considered good form. Nondistinguished 06:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Human chemistry

Hi there, the article has been changed substantially since your vote so you might want to have another look at the new version. All the best Tim Vickers 16:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now a deletion review

I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Túrós csusza

DRV if you want, but the article was a spammy guide, in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#GUIDE. There wasn't much there - you can always rewrite the article from a more neutral standpoint. I wouldn't expect the deletion to be overturned if it were sent to DRV. --Coredesat 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no comparison. The references you used are all trivial passing mentions; the examples you gave do have reliable non-trivial secondary sources - adding notes next to each link simply reinforces their triviality. It's spammy because articles are not supposed to be written to directly address the reader ("You serve it and mix it..."). So actually, a look at the references does fulfill the concern about it being a non-notable dish. --Coredesat 18:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, please try to keep your cool in Diamond Lake. Being civil and polite to the editor in question is not only mandatory anyway, but can make a world of difference to him - and to the RPG articles you're keen on. (You can probably edit your comment in the discussion while it's unanswered.) --Kizor 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

All the same, a sincere "thank you" for your work in AfDs. :) I just consider incivility to be the equivalent of nuclear war in a strategy game - it gets used, and everybody loses. --Kizor 22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Antarctica cooling

Congratulations on your great contributions to this page. The final version before it was kept was great. Now a new participant chopped it, not just the NASA pic. It's worst than WC's edits, the whole references to scientific papers is gone.Mariordo 12:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for waiting. I think is important to see first the reaction of the other guys. I am surprise they did not delete it from the Climate of Antarctica article. Besides ilustrating the issue, what I don't like about insisting on deleting NASA's pic is that feels like suppressing information, which is not a scientific attitude, that really makes me very unconfortable with anything related to the global warming controversy. Science does not work that way. Mariordo 02:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus for the first time about what pic that should be included in the article. Since you have been a main contributor, I think is time you give your wise opinion. Mariordo 02:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. They have now deleted the NASA pic from the Climate of Antarctica article. If you get some feedback from NASA let me know.Mariordo 12:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's great news from NASA. Thanks. I'll be watching for the updated picture. That will be a good time for you to come back to the article.Mariordo 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple user names

Hi. You might want to sign in especially before commenting on AfD's because it raises suspicions when IP users comment on them, like here. I am assuming it is you from the comment you left here. Thanks, - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please be aware of potential WP:3RR violations in List of Internet phenomena. You may be blocked if you continue to add entries that do not have reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie 00:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is All You Get

If you use your edit summary like this again in reference to me or any other editor, you will be blocked for incivility. the_undertow 00:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)