Misplaced Pages

• Archives

Buffy

Sorry, but please do not work against consensus. We had a page name discussion, consensus was that "TV series" follows the naming conventions guideline for television articles that share names. If you wish to reopen the discussion, that is fine, but please do not move pages against their agreed upon name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And the disambig page clearly says "see Naming conventions", which dictate that it should be "TV series". You're misreading that "primary usage" is refering to. Look at the examples, it's of words that have more than one spelling. The example they use is "Checks", and "Cheque". One is the US spelling, the other is the spelling used more around the world, hence why "Check" goes to a disambig page, and "US checks" fall under "Cheque". If this was a case of the show being called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in most countries, but "The Vampire Slayer Buffy" in a couple of others, then you would make the first one the real article, and redirect the second. That isn't the case. The show is called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", the movie is called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", so are many of the games, and other media. Per naming conventions, when you share you disambiguate, because determine which one deserves to be "THE" "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is rather POV, considering you couldn't have had the show without the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the disambig page should be retitled to simply "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", and let the reader choose where they want to go from there, given that at least 5 articles share the exact name, and the character herself is known by that name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please write to me about this issue on the article's talk page, not here. It's not a personal issue.

Consensus determined that the TV show is the primary usage, and I think that's right. Really, the vast majority of uses will be for the show. (Some will be for the character Buffy Summers, but readers ending up at the TV show article instead are not hugely inconvenienced I think).

The point is though that Buffy the Vampire Slayer has to be either the primary topic or a dab page, it shouldn't be a redirect to the primary topic! The guidelines are perfectly clear on this. Just about the only exception is when an article is primary topic for two or more phrases (The KLF, KLF); in such cases one of those has to be a redirect and the {{redirect}} dab template is used in the main article instead of something like {{otheruses}}. --kingboyk (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You have no consensus for the name change, and naming conventions say otherwise. If you feel the name should be different then bring it up on the talk page. If you continue to move the article against the consensus found on the talk page, I will seek administrative action.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Did you actually read what I wrote? The naming conventions are on my side. The closing admin even said that the way he closed it went against the NCs! I've merely fixed that part of his closure since, frankly, he got that bit wrong.

I'm not going against consensus at all: consensus is that the TV show is the primary usage.

Again, please talk about this on the article's talk page, which I will check regularly. You're not going to get any consensus just talking to me about it. --kingboyk (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not sure how I've offended you exactly. When did I say you weren't willing to discuss it? I agree with both you and Bignole to a certain extent... I'd rather have either the TV show to be called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", or for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to direct to a disambig page and have the TV show article titled "Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)". I think the problem is proving that the show is the most common usegage of the name... obviously it is, but we still need to prove it. I'd be happy with either outcome, but I don't like this funny compromise we have at the moment, where we have (TV series) even though BtVS links to that page.  Paul  730 18:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The other guy. He said on your talk page that I won't discuss it, he said on the page protection request that I won't discuss it etc etc. And, hopefully for the last time, I must ask: please discuss this issue on the article's talk page and not here! :)

If we're to follow the naming conventions, and I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't, we have a simple choice. The TV series is the primary topic and lives at Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or there is no primary topic and the dab page lives there. I thought debate had already settled on the TV show as the primary topic - I certainly hope so! :) Guidelines also state that if there's continued debate on what is and what isn't the primary topic it's a good indicator that there isn't one. I'd like to avoid that if possible as I really think the TV show is primary.

Anyway, Buffy the Vampire Slayer being a redirect is not an acceptable compromise nor is it sensible. In addition to the naming conventions I already quoted, article titles should be as short as possible. --kingboyk (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

If you want to reply to the "other guy", do so on his talk page and don't send your aggressive comments my way please. I do not wish to be a part of this conversation, I sympathise with both sides and can't be bothered repeating myself constantly about a topic I don't feel strongly about. Also, why did you move the Faith page despite the fact their was a discussion on the talk page with consensus that Lehane wasn't her common name?  Paul  730 18:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it in the article and why is she listed as such in the list of Slayers? Revert if incorrect and please fix the article. Sigh. --kingboyk (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the talk page to find out why. And fix what? Lehane is her name, just not her common name. It should be mentioned, it just shouldn't be the title of the article.  Paul  730 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Talk:Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)‎. --kingboyk (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Stubclass}}

I was using this template with my bot for a while, until I started getting complaints that it was putting "Category:Foo stub" on the talk page. I couldn't figure out how to turn this off, so I stopped using it. Any suggestions on how to turn this off? It would make things much easier! SkierRMH (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me an example? Maybe somebody introduced a coding error? My bot has used the template 10s of thousands of times without incident. (User:Kingbotk). --kingboyk (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - D'Oh... Found the problem in the one that I did for TV project that was the problem. I'm going to revert to that when I get back to that computer tomorrow! Thanks for the reminder. SkierRMH (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Odd request

Hi Steve. It's been a wee while since we last spoke. I need your help. My account here has been nicked on me - it must have been a determined effort too, because my password was *reasonably* secure. I have changed the passwords on my other Wiki accounts, so they will hopefully be safe now. I wonder if it's possible for you to reset an account password and e-mail address, and obviously to find out who 'hacked' my account and ban them? Please advise - I will offer clues if you can't guess who I am already. Cheers. --90.203.247.193 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I supposed to guess here? I'm pretty sure I know who you are anyway :)

I don't think I have any tools available to me to do this, nor if anybody can. I will however ask around - keep an eye on this page. Cheers. --kingboyk 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. :) --90.203.247.193 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found this page: Misplaced Pages:Contact us/login problems. I've also been advised that you might want to make a request via the OTRS system: "report the account as stolen, then someone can look for password changes/email changes and allow the original user to reset it?" I've no idea if they'd agree to this but there's no harm in asking. Or, you could try IRC. Altering user accounts and passwords is beyond the capabilities of us mere admins, I'm afraid.

Hope that helps and sorry it's not really the answer you wanted. --kingboyk 23:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm on holiday at the minute, though I'm in the middle of recovering from a nasty fever! I'll probably get around to attempting something in the next few days, or after the hols. In the meantime, Happy Holidays, as they say. ;) --64.234.75.105 (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rudd

Please come back. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To where? --kingboyk (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sealand

I'm of the same opinion. Initially he appeared to be doing some good work with non-Sealand micronation articles - but that all seemed to stop very suddenly, to be replaced by what appears to me to be a rampantly evangelistic pro-Sealand campaign. Irrespective of whether he's associated with the Bates family in some way or not, he clearly lacks any sense of objectivity on the subject, and also has a profoundly flawed understanding of NPOV. I hesitate to make any further changes to the article at this stage, because on past experience he'll simply delete them. How best to deal with it? --Gene_poole (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. He clearly has an agenda but he's not entirely unreasonable so no need to escalate at the moment I think. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like he's quietened down since your intro para re-write - which incidentally returns things to a status quo that existed quite some time ago - before I decided that removing the redundant weasely bit was a good idea. I shall be bold with extreme delicacy on this subject in future. --Gene_poole (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to tinker further with the lead (or, rather, please do!). I've been trying to come up with something which is neutral but readable and which is self-explanatory to the casual reader. I can't say that I've fully succeeded and am certainly not in love with my last edit or anything like that :)

Indeed this would all be somewhat easier if the article was more substantial (and the topic not spread over a multitude of articles); as a summary of the article the lead would pretty much write itself. --kingboyk (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Halton FM

Hi Sir, You deleted a page regarding a local community radio station. The reasons given was because it was regarding "a local club". Fortunately, that is not the case. Halton FM is a radio station that is based in Runcorn and broadcasts to an audience of up to five hundred thousand people!

I am a volunteer for said community radio staton and I will gladly provide information regarding the activities of it.

I ask that you return the page to its original state. If you wish to further discuss this, feel free to e-mail me at snoopsy10 (at) gmail dot com.

Thanks

Matthew Hughes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoomin (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what a community radio station is, and "potential" audiences mean nothing. The article didn't offer any assertion of notability or evidence of independent reliable sources. Feel free to start again if you can make an article which demonstrates compliance with WP:N (especially the first section), and after reading WP:V and WP:RS. See also "what Misplaced Pages is not". --kingboyk (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please be careful

I know you didn't want a reply, but I would like to give you one anyway... I wasn't using an automated tool. Littleteddy (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. --kingboyk (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon

This seems like a re-run of the McCartney article for me, but this time I'm being you, and someone else is being me (huh?) I think Lennon needs some advice from a wise sage like yourself about article sections and their placement in the scheme of things. They're all good people (no nastys) but they need someone to "move the goalposts" (copyright Vera, Chuck and Dave) and point them in the right direction. You're infinitely better at this than me (which means I'm still not you :) and it would be mucho appreciated, me old mucker. --andreasegde (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just had a quick look. Basic structure looks pretty good, but I think there's a few too many subsections. I'll try and have a proper look tommorow... send me a nasty message if I don't turn up. --kingboyk (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

West Hull Community Radio

Of course its important, every radio station is important. You arnt important or significant to me so maybe you should be deleted??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.189.179 (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a Misplaced Pages article, smart arse. --kingboyk (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Casbah Coffee Club

Am I right that the Lead shouldn't be sourced if everything in it is in the article? (Thanks for tweaking it, BTW.) --andreasegde (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally that's how it's done, yes. --kingboyk (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lennon page/Ono Section

Sorry I didn't write the summary of the change, I forgot. We've been working on knocking this article into shape for the past couple of weeks and when we fix somethings, other things need work. it's like a jigsaw puzzle. be patient, we'll have all the citations and everything after we get the facts down. Hotcop2 (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

List of the oldest people

Obviously you didn't read my note at Talk:List of oldest people, as you've completely ignored my concerns. It's about the fact that many many people claim to be the "oldest people," but the list only includes those cases that are verified. For example, Hryhoriy Nestor was mentioned as being 116 by the BBC (a very reliable source), but within the reliable source it was mentioned that his age had not been verified. Therefore, he was not included on that list. Only those cases that are verified are included (verified by the main sources for the article (at the bottom of the page). Please see the talk page for a fuller explanation. I am undoing your page move. Cheers, CP 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well actually you didn't revert, you moved it to a page name which is at least an improvement on what went before ("verified oldest" rather than "verified people"). I'm of the opinion that "verified" shouldn't be in the article title (all articles should be based on reliable sources anyway, and who does the verifying?) however that's not a debate for my talk page :) Cheers --kingboyk (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thank you very much, best wishes to you also. --kingboyk (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Badfinger

Hi, I reverted your change to Badfinger because album covers are generally only allowed in discographies - see Misplaced Pages:FU#Unacceptable images. Besides, the covers need rationales to be there anyway. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:The KLF - The Black Room.jpg

Can you please clarify, this revert with a source of the image, and attribute it to the actual copyright holder. Gnangarra 14:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of incorrect information, I didn't say I have the correct information. I've no idea who made it, sorry, I just know it's wasn't KLF Communications. --kingboyk (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide some source that can be verified, where did you get the image from? Gnangarra 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bootleg fan production. I've forgotten what the exact origin is unfortunately. However, I've been thinking about this and I think that in a roundabout way you had it right. It's basically an altered version of the cover of The White Room and as such - a derivative work - the copyright almost certainly rests with KLF Communications. I'll update the description to reflect this. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects

I'll finish - only a couple left now. Thanks for moving the main article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and you're welcome. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand

I apologize if I have given the impression of vandalism to the users of the page: Sealand. I intended no harm nor defacement to the page, I simply tried to add a better and more upgraded quality to the Infobox of Sealand. I added a notice at the bottom of the Infobox, trying to indicate that it wasn’t an official country and that it’s status was disputed. The Infobox was only meant to be temporary, until an improved micronation Infobox could be made. I also tried to give Sealand a better status since I have read about it’s popularity in the book, Guinness World Records 2008. Please understand that no harm was intended. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied at User_talk:Jughead.z(1)#Principality_of_Sealand. --kingboyk (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC) PS What exactly does the Guinness book say about Sealand?

My old user page

I prefer to keep it blanked for privacy reasons. Anyone who needs to know my new user name can get it from the page history very easily. If you need more information, please feel free to email me or see the drama around User:H. --B (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)