Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:44, 10 January 2010

Welcome to my page, and go Celtics! Leave a message for me below, and I'll respond on this page unless you ask otherwise.

Ain't no Sunshine

hello Daywalker, thank you very much but I just dont understand why you keep deleting my addition to "aint no sunshine" or better why you describe my addition as not notable enough or non notable? Tell me why you think the subject is non-notable, and what you understand by "non-notable". and in the list of "covered version of ain't no sunshine" there are also other artist with a redlink (have no own page on[REDACTED] yet) so why they don't get deleted?

thank you in advance for your time and answer.

Nancy Pelosi

Thanks for the help. I was starting to worry about a 3RR violation if someone didn't help me. This guy's been listening to too much Beck/Limbaugh. Thanks again. --Manway (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

De nada. That sort of thing is vandalism on a BLP, so if it happens again, don't worry about 3RR. More importantly, the guy's a returning sock of Geraldstraker (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked earlier tonight. I'll fill out the AIV when I get a moment. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your addition to the Mcdermott article

Did you really mean to insert this content? . Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to talk it over, I saw an IP removing sourced material that had stood for several months, and there was no talk page discussion or explanation about its removal. At first glance, it looked like the standard blanking of negative material from an IP, so I reverted the change pending some kind of discussion or explanation. Now that I've read your thoughts on the matter, I agree with you that it seems undue, particularly in relation to the size of the article. Good call, thanks for letting me know. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, easy done..I have done the same myself more than once, thanks for commenting, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Leavitt

Your addition there has grown on me as being excessive, to start with the section title, of assault allegations was excessive and I went to trim it for weight and I took some content out and looked at the citation and it just appeared of no value and in the end I removed it again, I hope you are ok with this, I have also discussed it another experianced editor who suggested this position also. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw, I can understand about removing the section title. It seems fine where you had it, as part of the other section. I disagree about removing it, though, because of the initial (and ongoing) press the incident got.

With the further stories about coaches (especially with Leach getting fired), Leavitt's name is being pulled back into the news again. If you google him today, the name shows up in all sorts of places (1900+ articles) because of the recent allegations of coaches and player abuse. It still seems to me that the proper thing to do here would be to give both sides of the story, to indicate to the reader that there were allegations, but they were quickly found to not have any merit.

I understand your point, though, I just feel BLP is better served by showing the widely-reported allegations, and also the rebuttal. If consensus is against inclusion though, I'll certainly go along with it. As long as it's clear the accusations are rebutted, and not still pending, it seems okay.

By the way, not sure if you saw but Little Mookie was not only blocked for their attack on you, but is also now the subject of a sock investigation. Things should go much smoother at the page now in terms of civility and consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mookie and the lawyer were socks of COM, so things there will be quiet, COM was only there wanting to remove the so called assault story, I was approched by an editor with the opinion that COM was right and it was excessive and I trimmed it and then it just seemed worthless, we are not bound to follow google activity, the press have a desperate desire to report anything that will titillate and sell papers, we don't and in the lifelong biography of this person this press stimulated non event is not worth inclusion, I also feel to remove the other disputed comment that is a bit isolated and unexplained about his teams being in the top ten fouling teams, this is in need of explaining and to do so would give the whole issue undue weight. As regards Bios of living people it is best imo to always err on the side of caution, thats what I do, regards. One of the things I found to be rewarding was to take someone you really dislike and to defend their bio from attack. Sorry to rant on, these comments are not related to you, I am rambling in general. Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New discussion at the Pete Townshend page

I see your comments there. Would you like to join the current discussion?Pkeets (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

song

Thanks for attempting to intervene. That guy's way-overreaction suggests that he's a wacko, so I reckon I'll let him have his way with the article. For now. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Olilers/Titans

I understand but the link for the Houston Oilers takes you right to the Tennessee Titans page. The Oilers link is better by itself because it brings you right to the part of the page for the Oilers. Thanks Carthage44 (Carthage44) 18:22, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

YOU PLEASE STOP NOW

Sorry but you incorrect. The records should reflect the teams final record because the game is over. Look at previous bowl games in the past and they all reflect the teams final record. Thanks for your input. Carthage44 (Carthage44) 20:44, January 9, 2010 (UTC)