Misplaced Pages

September 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test on the page a-ha worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. May Cause Dizziness (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Restoring Honor rally

Just curious

I'm just curious about your recent addition of Category:Mormon studies to List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. To me this seems to fit very well and is a logical addition. However I noticed you put the list it the Category then removed it very quickly. I would have left it in, so I’m wondering what you know that I don’t?--ARTEST4ECHO 13:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of -word

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gerardw (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Inés Sainz for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Inés Sainz until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Truthsort (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread

Please see here. It isn't really about you so much as it is a request for help because of my self-acknowledged lack of tact. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I dont think its appropriate that you as the major contributor to the article decide to close the afd. . Active Banana ( 21:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I posted a request for a third party to review and they agreed with your closure. Active Banana ( 21:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanx

Good Work The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ines Sainz

Thanks for all your hard work in bringing sourced content to the article. Nice job! Active Banana ( 17:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally

Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you be responding to the mediation request? AGK 10:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just read your message on my talk page :). Don't worry, mediation can be confusing at times. If you read the initial post, you'll see that it says "Please review the request page"; click the 'request page' link, which takes you to the mediation request. Scroll down to the "Parties' agreement to mediation" section of that page, edit the section, and add # Agree. ~~~~ underneath the other parties' agreements. Then you'll have agreed and you need do nothing more. Hope this helps, AGK 14:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you figured it out after my message, so you need do nothing more for now. Thanks, AGK 14:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Restoring Honor Mediation

Greetings!

I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart quote

Hi. I agree that the quote box is a nice touch, however, MOS says to not include the quote marks. —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper's t-shirt

The medal actually was presented to a t-shirt. I rather doubt it was really Cooper's, but Colbert acted as if it was, so it's not an in absentia award. Zuckerberg's medal is the only one that wasn't accepted, so far as I recall. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Diplomas

Yes, Exeter is 'old school' in some regards. I wasn't in classics so had never heard of this, but am checking with friends. It appears to be correct though. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just checked, and you are indeed correct about the classical diplomas. My error. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Zuckerberg and philanthropy

My god, Hodgson, a cataclysmic event has occured. I agree with your changes to the article. I just didn't want you to think I always disagree with you. :-) Well done.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

David Brian Mitchell

Why has the page gone into the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping page? If wikipedia has separate articles on the Lindbergh kidnap and Bruno Hauptmann (the criminal kidnapper) surely the same standard should apply to the Mitchell and the Elizabeth Smart Kidnapping? otherwise you'd also have to join the Bruno bio with the Lindbergh kidnapping. Or should this issue go to moderation? Wombat24 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of wp:ONEVENT, ie "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified" Surely now that Mitchell is convicted and covered extensively in the courts and media his role has grown larger and the event certainly has grown larger since 2003. Also as before the Lindburg case established a standard for wikipedia or precedent and it has 3 separate articles, for the crime, for the criminal, and the victim. Plus Ottis and many other criminals have separate articles although they are technically known for only one crime. Plus the bio in the Smart kidnapping article surely makes the article substandard and confusing to follow. What do you think? and maybe its better to get a third person involved to resolve this matter, what do you think? Wombat24 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Re from my page:

Not sure if I follow your thinking here. All I want to see is, like the Lindbergh kidnapping which was the most famous one in the 20th century, this one as probably the most famous in the 21st century will likewise have 3 pages or 3 articles. As long as people who hear about Mitchell can google the name and go to his bio then it should be ok. The stats from yesterday before the verdict show that some 6.1k people read the Mitchell article when most days it was just a few hundred so they were specifically looking for him or an article on him, hence wikipedia is useful to them. But true, that linking only has low numbers going across pages but many will look for the names separately not by links, however the links should still be there as an option I believe. Wombat24 (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

on we:otherthingsexistI understand it to be that "When used correctly...comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes" so hence if there are separate articles for the Lindbergh case and the criminal then the same standard should be a go for the smart kidnapping and Mitchell, as I see it Wombat24 (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

ps, one thing we do need to work out is how much information on the trials, competency and criminal, stays on the elizabeth smart kidnapping page and how much goes into the bio page for mitchell. Again i'd say the Lindbergh case should be the standard to follow, what do you think? (since very few others are involved in this editing) Wombat24 (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete page Mitchell

Please don't delete that page. They trial was US vs Mr Mitchell not Miss Smart. And, again, wikipedia is full of articles of single criminal know for one crime or one event but who are covered enough all in the media to justify a bio page, eg, Ottis Tool, Bruno Hauptmann, Curtis Alger and many more.But Mitchell has gone viral, articles on him are in many news media across the world plus the references have article on him only like "the making of Immanuel" and so on. But if you do manage to get this page deleted then you surely must delete the Bruno Hauptmann one too Wombat24 (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should only be discussing the merge and not delete too, but both tags are up there. Can you please delete one of them, preferably leave it for discussion for a merge since you are arguing that point and not a deletion per say Wombat24 (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Would I mind if you post my criminal-crime schemata as a WP essay?

Thanks for the encouragement! I'd rather you didn't post it just yet. I do think it would be valuable (not to blow my own horn too much), but I also think it could be simplified. A good essay needs easily understandable and quotable messages at its core, which I don't think this has just yet.

I totally don't mind you having a hand it it, though (this is a wiki after all). Would you might if I took a short while, posted a draft and then you can critique it and knock it about? --FormerIP (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking into this, but I must tell you upfront that I prefer to see a separate bio page for any well known criminal. I think the extent and horror of their crimes need to be known by others Wombat24 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess the main thing with "death of..." v "murder of..." v "homicide of..." etc is establishing the legal status of the event, which would just be a matter for talkpage consensus. Why not "Murder of John F Kennedy" I can't say, although I expect it has been debated. For recent events as with Michael Jackson, perhaps the title will change as and when a definitive picture develops. --FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I did a userpage draft: User:FormerIP/Crime. Please do take a look and leave comments. Negative ones included. --FormerIP (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. It was pointed out elsewhere that there is actually a guideline covering some of this. Because of that, I've posted here, just in case you want to look: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Misplaced Pages:Notability_(people)#Perpetrators --FormerIP (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't so much proposed contents from my essay as invited discussion about two things. Firstly, it seems to me that there's a loophole in the current guideline that should be closed, whatever else is or isn't done. It reads as if there is a higher-than-normal WP:N standard for criminals, but when you scratch the surface, the guidance actually allows criminals to be judged by the same notability standards as anyone else.

Secondly, looking at the pattern of how crime-related pages are actually named it seems clear that WP:N isn't the main deciding factor (ie very famous criminals often don't get their own article, whereas marginally notable ones often do). The pattern seems instead to reflect the operation of WP:N working together with WP:CFORK and the latter having the leading role. My proposition would be that that appears to be how the community likes it and it works, so the guidance should be changed to reflect that. --FormerIP (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter?

Didn't know he had any supporters. I prefer Silent Cal, Spotty Abe, we like Ike, and Washington. Since you believe in revealing political leanings, I'm Classical Liberal with strong beliefs in fiscal responsibility.--AerobicFox (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Carter too, & FDR ;-) Liberal here too, with Pro-Life leanings. DocOfSoc (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am truly amazed that we have had no edit conflicts today, good teamwork! Does "Hodg" work for you? Better than Whatever or Hog! LOL! Have a great night, day? DocOfSoc (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DERM:MA

We are always looking for more help with the dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push in which we are making sure Misplaced Pages has an article on every cutaneous condition. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would be willing to help with the Bolognia push? I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for new articles and redirects. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mitchell

C'mon Hodgson?? why are you doing this to the Mitchell article. Now it looks dumb with two biographies, a timeline of the kidnapping that should be in the kidnapping article, things like Ricci's death which wasn't related to Mitchell at all, and PLUS we have been through this argument of joining the kidnapping article with the Mitchell bio article and the result was to keep them separate. So can you, please, fix this up and put the kidnapping things back where they belong? please? We have already settle this argument, or rather an administrator did after we all discussed the matter. Redirecting the kidnapping article to this Mitchell bio one doesn't fool anyone.Wombat24 (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Udall, Udall, & Reid

I think the count is three. #17 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid D-NV, #72 Mark Udall D-CO, & #73 Tom Udall D-NM. But good Riposte. :D Dru of Id (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

TLC

Sorry for my overlapping editing on "the chart" at WP:MOSLDS. I just wanted to tell you that TLC members may also be called "fundamentalist Mormons", so we may want to move them up the chart to place them under AUB members. I would probably just mess up the chart if I tried to do it, so I thought I would just let you know here. Good Ol’factory 22:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We are on the same wavelength I think. I was making this edit at approximately the same time you were, and when I saved it I got an edit conflict. Ha! Good Ol’factory 23:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

EXCELLENT JOB!!!

Congrats on the superior job you did in creating and posting the "table of denominations" in the List of denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement article. That was really sharp-looking, informative, and first-class, all the way. It really enhances the article; thanks again for your contribution!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you