Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:53, 16 December 2006

Archives
1 2 3 4 5

ok, seriously

ok, ive tried twice to change the name on the Neurotically Yours page of the pizza delivery boy, i even sited it and you still deleted it. On the main website itself it says that his name is Anchovie. it isnt a big deal i just dont get why you keep changing it. heres the site, see for yourself.

also, the whole "Your test of deliberately adding incorrect information worked" kinduv a dick thing to say, especially when the information was correct --Nicmunsch 08:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Input (James Kim)

I'll have a look and see if there's anything I can do to help. (ESkog) 12:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You might try a Request for Comment; in general they aren't as serious when targeted at articles as they are on users. (ESkog) 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Crossmr, could you be any more specific re: your comment on your Talk page? I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Thanks. Moncrief 19:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as "enforcing consensus" goes, the three-revert rule usually does an okay job of dealing with this in most low-level edit wars. If it gets more problematic than that, it may be time to escalate to an RfC to see whether that stops the problem there or if the dispute is such that it needs to go to arbitration. (ESkog) 13:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your reluctance to warn users about a conflict you're involved in is well-placed - it's always better to get a fresh set of eyes to look at the situation, and I'm glad to do it. I have already warned the user who violated 3rr, and also put a note on the article talk page to that effect. (ESkog) 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've left a note on the user's talk page that the discussion is probably getting too heated/uncivil and we should all probably take a step back. After all, it's just a question of whether a barely notable biography should include a timeline of events or not. Nothing on Misplaced Pages is worth getting in a fuss over in the long run, but this is threatening to border on WP:LAME. (ESkog) 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bah

You're right, although only an edit conflict with you stopped me from commenting further. I just wanted a rollback, going to do other things now, taking it to P's talk. Thanks again. - 152.91.9.144 04:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The isonews article

I can vouch thats the same person, as its me :) I'll revert because you had no way of knowing that but thanks for looking out for the article anyway, incedently the old link wasnt me (long story, one of my "fans" from isonews has been having some fun at my expense on[REDACTED] it seems), the new one I added was, you can feel free to verify by sending me a pm on isonews if you're in doubt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.178.228.20 (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Too late I already had done by the time I read your message, although I must say you could have phrased it a little more friendly, if you want 100% proof it can be provided no problem, let me know. 85.178.228.20 15:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here you go : http://www.theisonews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1437663#1437663 , but like I said before, im ok not having a link but the old link went to a wiki profile that has nothing to do with me, I know exactly who it is but theres very little I can do about profiles created pretending to be me. 85.178.228.20 15:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

oh by the way, I'm going to edit that isonews article back to what it was before so let me know when you've seen it dude, I picked a pointless thread but dont see why it needs to remain like it currently is :P 85.178.228.20 15:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bud, probably didnt make myself clear about the "changing back" thing, I meant the post I just linked to on isonews, I edited it specifically for the purpose of proving that the link on the wiki page was the same UncleMart from isonews (me), there was a time stamp left there so you could verify I edited the post on isonews, but I felt this was one way to verify with 100% certainty that it was me that just changed the link on wikipedia, however im going to change that post on isonews back (now you've seen it) because its going to look a little wierd if anyone else strays across that post ;) but like I said before, im fine with having no link where my nick is in the article also, I just saw that someone had been messing around on[REDACTED] using my nick (and I've seen that the isonews article has been REALLY messed with many times). Incedently the guy being a pain in the ass to me is a member of isonews who not only lives in the same country as me but annoying uses the same ISP as me so if theres anyone claiming to be me in future that cant edit one of my posts on isonews, its not me. I noticed that you've kept a good eye on the article though so I guess I should thank you, we have many idiots on isonews and they seem to think messing around with wiki articles is amusing.... Take care sir :) 85.178.228.20 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

James Kim external link

Just FYI, I sourced and reverted the external link on the James Kim page. I tried to find a mention of it from the OSP but couldn't. Tragic romance 18:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Calgary Misplaced Pages meetup

Frymaster has been talking to me about putting together another Calgary Misplaced Pages meetup. Unfortunately, our discussion got sidetracked so the date we had agreed to didn't get posted promptly. Anyway, we're still going ahead with it—so if you can accept short notice you may want to attend:

Sunday, December 17, 2006, 3:00pm, at Haymarket Café (1101 Macleod Trail SE). That's on the SW corner of Macleod Trail at 11 Avenue SE—just up from City Hall.

Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First warning to cease removing the contributions of other editors.

WARNING: You keep removing contributions to the James Kim article. Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Misplaced Pages articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 07:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I have been watching the same article since it was created, and this user is NOT vandalizing the article. I think other people on the Talk page will attest to this as well. Tragic romance 11:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only does he keep removing removing contributions to the James Kim article, he is removing comments from the Talk page as well. Very very questionable. Jake b 19:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Any editor may remove comments from a talk page which are not directly related to the improvement of an article. The talk pages of articles are not general discussion pages for the subject of the article. The comment you made on the talk page was not about improving the article but was instead commentary on Kim.--Crossmr 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Any editor may remove comments from the Talk page, but that doesn't mean it is good form. In fact it is sleazy and self-serving. Jake b 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)