Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 1 March 2011

Category Worthiness

Question: why is Category:Wikipedians in the Article Rescue Squadron deserving of a Misplaced Pages entry when it is simply a directory of people (Misplaced Pages:DIRECTORY) which falls under Misplaced Pages:Not, which is exactly why you want the List of Notable Plot Twists deleted? Object404 (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Am attempting to fix the article List of spoilers. It is an attempt to list the most notable and significant spoilers in literature, media & history. Such an article needs existence and is not simply a random collection/directory of links and trivia. http://www.object404.com (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletetion of tha buddas

Why are you deleting it just because you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I don't fully understand what you are saying, but in fact I am not deleting it, I am merely proposing it for speedy deletion because it does not appear to be notable. --Korruski (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean because all I want to do is have the album on wiki for information explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read this page in particular before creating new articles. --Korruski (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So your deleting it Just because it doesn't have a recording year why did't you ask me to do that or do it your self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioluigi98 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah... no. I nominated it for speedy deletion because it does not assert the notability of the album. --Korruski (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I What know if I can still make that same page again And wait did you make a proposel to delete it.

Can you demonstrate why the album is notable? Has it had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? If not, I suggest you don't re-create the page. --Korruski (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

List of spoilers

Since you previously chastised him on it, I thought you might want to know that object404 is quite explicitly canvassing on reddit. He seems to be pretty slow on the uptake regarding Misplaced Pages's rules and norms, so I'm not quite sure how to deal with his continued somewhat-disruptive behaviour. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Agreed, it's been pretty frustrating watching the way the 'List of spoilers' article has been edited, quite apart from the inherent problems with the article. However, for the time being it seems to have been dealt with, so let's hope object404 is learning how to work with Misplaced Pages. If not, I'm not certain myself of the processes for dealing with disruptive users, so might need to ask for some help there. --Korruski (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Do not bite the newcomers

Please do not bite the newcomers , give them some time..--Shlok 11:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinvenga (talk • contribs)

If you remove a Speedy Deletion tag, please do not forget to edit the talk page to explain how you intend to improve the article. Thanks! --Korruski (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Rescue

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Stanley V. Henson, Jr.

Please be very careful when adding deletion tags on articles. You added one to the above mentioned article, based on old information. You added a speedy delete above the AfD tag, where there is current discussion. The editor whose request you read, has been indef blocked for disruptive editing and blanking the AfD page, among other things. You kinda came in during the middle of the discussion and responded to an old message. There are additional issues at Rise above the silver and gold. When an article is already going through a deletion process, with obvious tags on the article, please don't complicate things further by adding more tags and initiating additional processes. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you're objecting to. Other 'additional issues' at another article are not relevant here. The message was not 'old' - it was (and is) the latest message on that discussion bar 2 unrelated comment responses further up, and it was the creator and main editor specifically requesting deletion. Since he didn't appear to know how to do this, it seemed more useful to place the tag on his behalf than to explain to him how to do it. The tag is entirely appropriate in this situation, as far as I am aware, and an Admin appears to be happy with my decision as they have deleted the page. If they had felt that the tag was inappropriate, they were welcome to refuse the deletion request and remove it. Finally, I did not 'come in during the middle'. I commented on the Rise above the silver and gold talk page early on and have been watching both pages and both AfDs since then. I'm genuinely confused as to why my good-faith action is being objected to, and would be grateful for a fuller explanation. --Korruski (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am completely assuming good faith here. No harm; no foul. Really. ; ) The editor has commented on several other pages and has alternately requested to both keep and delete. Some of the other comments posted by others were actually her words, but we were trying to help her out by bringing her comments to the AfD. She deleted earlier comments and refactored others, some of which you probably never saw. She blanked the AfD, changed words on the edits of others, and made legal threats. She had earlier requested to have the article deleted as the author and was denied. She then began trying to argue to save the article. She alternately wanted to either keep the article or delete it, she was blocked. A few of us believe that she may request an unblock and come back in an effort to again try to save the article. Out of respect, we thought it best to let the AfD run its course. Then you came into the picture, saw an older request for deletion and responded to it accordingly. Note that she had made more recent requests to save the article on the talk pages of others, as well as her own. I honestly doubt that the admin reviewed the information fully. I noticed immediately when you added the speedy tag and I went to the article to remove the tag. I went first to review the talk page, returned to the article and the admin had deleted the article within a moment's time. There was no way possible for the admin to review the discussion or what was fully taking place. S/he apparently just saw the author delete request, possibly assumed you were the author and deleted accordingly. When the article is going through an AfD discussion, there is no need to then go and add a speedy delete tag. There was just a discombobulated cycle of misinformation all the way around. Again, no harm; no foul. I completely believe that your edits were made in good faith, in attempts to help the editor. That's a commendable trait. It's all good. I just hope she doesn't come back now, because it probably won't be pleasant. Cindamuse (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Also note that the db-g7 author request for deletion can only be honored, when they are the only substantial editor to both the article and the talk page. This wasn't the case with this article. Cindamuse (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Apologies if I got in the way - was genuinely trying to help the editor, but wasn't aware that there was other discussion on talk pages, etc. I kind of assumed that if I put the tag on, then the admin would make the right decision based on the facts. I'm pretty sure they did at least review the AfD as it's mentioned in the deletion summary, but they probably weren't in full posession of all the facts either.

So, yeah, apologies again, but hopefully it's better off just being deleted early. --Korruski (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all good. Also wanted you to know that after the editor posted that request that you responded to, she then began posting comments above, requesting to keep. The keep request directly above her comment, was her earlier request to keep. It just became very confusing. Again, I tried to help her on her talk page, on my talk page, and offering direction in the AfD, but she wasn't hearing it. Her last comments were legal threats when she was blocked. There is also an SPI, that will hopefully not be needed now that she is blocked, but others have their doubts. Cindamuse (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Texas Disposal vs Waste Management

During the AfD discussion you kindly offered to look at suggested edits to make the article more balanced if it was kept (which it was). My suggested edits are located Thank you for at least taking a look. Austex • Talk 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to take a look and see what I can do. It may be a day or two before I can give it my full attention, however. --Korruski 15:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's been quite awhile already. So a few days won't hurt. Thanks Austex • Talk 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010

As you've commented on a similar discussion earlier, I hope you would participate in this AfD and comment on the matter. Thank you. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Koji Kamoji

It looks like you intended to nominate Koji Kamoji for deletion, but didn't actually create an AfD. Because you use Twinkle it should be easy to do: just go to the Koji Kamoji page, and click on the Twinkle topbar, and you should see a dialog box asking you to type out a deletion rationale such as the other ones you see on this page. Then you can hit Submit and it will do the rest of the steps by itself.—Soap— 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Think my browser crashed halfway through and Twinkle didn't finish all the tasks. --Korruski 08:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Porter

Korruski

This is Chris Porter. Happy to be open to the joys of[REDACTED] but try to keep your information current. No good you follow in the footsteps of many who choose to change history by including their version.

Talk about past stuff but include current conservation work as well. Hope to see you at the Beyond Aquariums, Beyond Activism conference where the two sides finally come together and talk openly and with FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoteMyVote (talk • contribs)

Email via free the pod as have no idea where the TALK page of[REDACTED] is. ----

I'm sorry, I really don't know what you are talking about. Can you clarify?--Korruski 10:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you are referring to. I tried to write my additions to the article in a balanced way, but bear in mind that a biography must inevitably include past as well as current information. --Korruski 14:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok Korruski one more time... yes a biography must include the past but must include ALL the past.

There is no mention that Earth Island and Dave Phillips supported Free The Pod and put the PAST BEHIND. And we are working cooperatively for the release of the rescued Orca in Holland.

I AM NO LONGER SELLING OR HAVE DOLPHINS.

You use CDNN as a source?? There are many, many references in the press and media that tell the WHOLE story not the cut and paste job that you did which looks typical activist.

I am fair game for telling my story... but do it right. Your facts are also wrong regarding my history in the industry and time in it. I have had featured documentaries telling the story. You want to take the time to write about me... great but do it complete.

Happy to include the past stuff. You have not even scratched the surface of the articles and information on this that others have written about by sitting down and interviewing me for interviews, documentaries and television shows.

Use[REDACTED] as it was meant to be. Interview me, do the whole research.

Use your real name as well. This whole story I have watched people criticize and write through their computer, hiding behind walls of fire and stone. Put your points about you as well and why you are citing them. You want to be open and transparent about me GREAT I am an open book, let us see your book now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by NoteMyVote (talk • contribs)

Hi Chris. Thanks for your comments. I am not a typical activist (or even an activist at all) I simply wished to improve upon an article which seemed to me to lack a balanced point of view. I used the best sources I could find, including respected newspapers, and I tried to cover your whole career including the Free the Pod campaign. Since then, the article has been improved by different editors, and some of my additions have been removed, while others have stayed. That is how Misplaced Pages works - not by me needing to sit down and interview you, much as I think that would be interesting and enjoyable.

I'm afraid I find your tone and manner of dealing with me a little confrontational, and I would prefer you to address any comments you have about the article here on the article talk-page, rather than to me personally on my talk page. Thanks.--Korruski 15:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Peacock

Please excuse the intrusion, but I have made a couple of changes to your nascent Edgar Peacock article. I have changed one category. Also, I have assumed that you do not want the article to appear in the main space until it is ready, so I have commented out all the categories; you can easily remove the comment markers when your article is ready for the main space. Happy editing. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Very many thanks!--Korruski 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing titles, especially at ANI

If you change the title of a thread, it's best to add an anchor so that inbound links to the section end up in the right place. Just put {{anchor|oldtitle}} immediately under the new title.  pablo 12:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. It hadn't even occured to me, to be honest, but I'll know for next time. Thanks for doing it for me on this occasion.--Korruski 13:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Poke

I need to get User:Korruski/The Correspondents (band) turned into an article ASAP. I hope you don't mind me updating the page and moving it into mainspace when appropriate? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey - no, of course not, I'd be delighted. I'm afraid I never got very far with it, as I was struggling with reliable sources, but I'd love to see it turned into a live article.--Korruski 14:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Turned into one! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD comment-removal

This and related reversions of this and related removals is because the IP is a blocked as belonging to a long-term abusive sock-drawer. Crappy edit-summary for removal (or he should have struck and left a note about it instead of removing), but removal still looks reasonable to me. DMacks (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. I've reverted the whole lot of them already (there were more than the two I first spotted), which was boring and possibly unecessary. But the problem is that in the absence of an edit summary, it's impossible for an uninvolved editor to know what is going on, so it's bound to cause problems.

If the comments are to be removed, they are much better off being struck through with an explanation, which is more usual. However, as there were not multiple sock-puppet comments on any of these AfDs, I would argue that even striking through the comments is questionable. Being a sock-puppet doesn't necessarily invalidate your comment. I understand the reason for the removal, but I think it's pretty dubious practice. Thanks for the info, anyway.--Korruski 12:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As an observer, the user was evading an indef block and has repeatedly done so. In extreme cases (like this where the user constently block evades) an WP:INDEF blocked user judged irredeemable would effectively make the uncooperative editor banned by the community. and banning policy states their edits may be reverted without any further reason. Of course an edit summary would be ideal but when reverting a host of edits by a user do you expect each one to be painstakingly undone with an edit summary when they could be (much more quickly) rolled back. You should have really waited for a response or, if not, looked into the reverted users history before undoing all those. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, crappy note for each reversion, apologies, but the IP-hopping indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer (User:Tennis expert) wastes enough useful time (and this sort of thing is exactly what it would enjoy), so I'm not prepared to waste any more on it. To prevent an indefinitely blocked editor from participating in AFDs is perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, so, if you don't object, I'll go back and undo your reversions with a suitable edit summary. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't object. My personal view is that since the comments are not disruptive in themselves, they should just be struck through, but I think policy contradicts me on that one, so I'm not going to argue about it. Apologies for not waiting for an explanation on this which would, perhaps, have saved us both some time.--Korruski 13:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

While the comments may not have been disruptive, an indefinitely blocked editor should not be abllowed to participate in anything by evading the said block. If User:Tennis expert wants back in, he needs to appeal to Arbcom, not go around editing using multiple IPs. No worries on the undos, I had a spare few moments, hopefully my edit summary is less crappy this time round! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Misplaced Pages:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

On 14 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Leslie Hunter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On 20 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quo Vadis (restaurant), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Karl Marx wrote his Das Kapital while living in the building now occupied by Soho restaurant Quo Vadis? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)