Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:47, 10 August 2012

NOTE: I will keep my replies on my talk page unless you specifically ask me to reply on your talk page. -- Sperril

Carl Cameron

Thanks for doing cleanup on the carl cameron page. I had stopped checking for the last months or so, since editing had mostly died down. And now this mess.

Basically, the broken ref lists result from the vandalism edits on Sept 26, and the clumsy attempt to undo that on Oct 4th. I suggest, instead of reconstructing the references manually, restore the whole three sections with reflist to its pre-sept 26 state (to be seen in this version). I also offer to do this myself, but wanted to seek synchronization with your work as to not get in your feet :-) Wefa (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any big plans for that article. I actually wanted to do the same thing as you suggested but was afraid of stepping on any intervening toes. Feel free to do the restoration. It's certainly better than my ham-fisted attempt to clean it up. Sorry for the late response. I was in the process of moving my computer and hadn't been on for a while. Sperril (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image caption on the Vietnam War article

Sperril, We have gone through this a few times. Enlarge the photo and note the design of the tail painting, the appearance of the roundel and the numbers on the fuselage. US aircraft did not look like that. See Vietnam Air Force Then search the internet for Vietnamese Air Force 217 Squadron. You will find a color photo which clearly shows a red tail with yellow stars and compare it to the black and white photo. Lastly someone has already pointed out that the USAF did not use UH1 aircraft in Vietnam.Meyerj (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Still the photo credit from the source, the US Air Force, doesn't state this and simply identifies the helo occupants as "Air Force personnel." Sperril (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Palin page

Do you think Palin never said anything about death panels? Is that why you keep deleting this information? Do you think Palin didn't say much about death panels, or that no one noticed Palin saying much about death panels? She said a great deal about death panels over a period of months, and this is very well documented. This makes it very relevant to Palin. Her death panel statements are notable in that a large number of people noted them due to a firestorm of media commentary. Why try to pretend that her death panel statements are other than what they are: very well documented, very relevant to Palin and a very notable political opinion of Palin's?

Palin said much more about death panels than about issues that are given much more space in the article. It seems like an WP:UNDUE violation to mention more minor issues and not death panels.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote on the talk page? I said the "death panels" issue was notable enough to be mentioned under her Health Care position. I asked that we come to a consensus on how to do so. Her "death panels" statement was related to her opposition to the health care reform plan. This already has a bullet and any mention of her statement should be within her "health care" position. Sperril (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you delete that version? Also, Palin said much, much more about death panels than about tort reform or vouchers, so you seem to have strange priorities for persistent mass deletions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you think that Palin said more about the death penalty, gay marriage or tort reform than about death panels? If so, that would explain what you delete, and what you don't delete. Such an assumption would also contradict many WP:WELLKNOWN and well-documented facts to the contrary. If you persist with mass deletions, could you come up with a more consistent way of telling the story you're trying to tell?Jimmuldrow (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

However, if you come up with enough reliable sources to prove that Palin said more about the death penalty or vouchers than about death panels, I'll say your right as soon as this happens. Come up with some well-documented evidence for this unlikely story, though. The references you delete mention many things that Palin said about the issue, but are partial. She commented on death panels at least from August through November 2009. If you add the amount of statements made by others about death panels, compared to statements made about Palin's other positions, you keep deleting what Palin talked about the most, and leaving many statements that were very minor by comparison. Please come up with a better reason than that for endless mass-deletions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Try to understand why a huge number of well-documented facts make what you keep deleting, and what you don't delete, seem very upside down and backward. You should leave what Palin mentioned the most, and what was most notable in that so many people noted it. I hate to use a word like dishonesty, but it's very difficult to perceive an honest explanation for the overall pattern of your deletions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You are answering arguments that I've never made. I'm not arguing that the information is not factual. I'm not arguing that she didn't say much about it. I'm arguing that the information you are including is already fully covered in a different article and doesn't belong in a simple summary of her political positions. In any event, this is a content dispute and belongs on the talk page of the article so other editors can weigh in. My issues with your edits are clearly listed on the talk page. Sperril (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a summary. The main article should mention more detail. Most of the information you keep deleting is links to other articles to begin with. Also, it's very unreal for the main Palin article to communicate that Palin mentioned the death penalty, tort reform and maybe, perhaps a brief little mention of death panels as well. Maybe. How unreal a story is that?

A very, very unreal story to make up. You can still read current news stories that mention death panels most of a year after the story began. Could we avoid any more extreme WP:UNDUE violations?

However, it would be completely accurate to make it clear that Palin said many, many things about death panels and perhaps a very brief mention of tort reform and so forth. Let's be real. And honest. Especially before doing endless mass deletions of sourced material that is very WP:WELLKNOWN and well documented.Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article talk page so other editors can give their opinions. I will no longer discuss it with you here. My objections to your edit are on that page. Sperril (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

COIN

I replied at COIN in case you don't have it on your watch page. OlYeller 23:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Sperril! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Sorry for the biggest mistake I did, I assume good faith on being careful on Huggle. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give him/her feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his or her edits at Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Katarighe. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wave functions discussion page

Just quietly, I have no qualms about discussing my edits. Those people trying to remove my work are not out for discussion. If they choose to undo my edits then they should respond by being involved in the discussion with me. They are simply trying to bias the page because they don't want information there which runs contrary to their own interests; theories etc. I could see your point and have made the addition more encyclopaedic and that is helpful, but these people will continue to blindside the work without helpful discussion. That is unacceptable and indicates a desire to simply make sure my work is never allowed to be part of that page. It is my duty to therefore report that as exactly the type of behaviour that this site does not want to be involved in. I see no other course of action given I am not going to sit by and let the work sink because divisive tactics have been employed to do just that. There are people at the start of the page who commented about lack of understanding associated with wave functions and my addition has provided an essential aspect that is enforced in early physics anywhere around the world concerning that understanding. Again, I understand your comments and have acted accordingly however until those other people debate this correctly, I will continue to move down the path of a higher administrative review. These people don't own this site. Thanks

Nvallejo (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Like I said, I'm wholly unqualified to take part in the scientific discussion. My only issue at all was that the addition seemed more like a textbook or lesson plan than an encyclopedia. If the others involved in the content dispute are unwilling to work with you, and you feel there is a WP:OWN issue, feel free to elevate it. I haven't looked into the dispute in any detail and really can't comment on it. Sperril (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your reply. It would be better for this site if there were more people like you involved in it, that is the type of help I am talking about. Correction where correction is due.
Kind Regards Nvallejo (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Nazism in US today

Hi - Instead of vandalism how about a G10 - Attack Page notice? He isn't rally vandalizing...rather creating a page undermining the United States/Obama. Touch Of Light (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking the same thing just as you messaged me. I agree I used the wrong tag.Sperril (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for understanding! Touch Of Light (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I replied to your comment on my own talk page. Crypticfirefly (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Vale Fest

Hey Sperril. Just to double check what i've done this time is OK! Basically we dished out a whole load of retro flyers and programmes and i was just typing out what they said- i've tried to omit anything that seems not to be a) morally neutral and b) an advert for the festival. I hope this is ok, and thank you for the time to let me know what was incorrect! Bigfinn03 (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC) bigfinn03

It looks much better to me. Thanks for taking your time to consider my revert and suggestion. I have a few minor quibbles, but I think your edits are in a state now where any remaining issues can be taken care of by the editing community at large. Sperril (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

about Tagging

Why you tag my article as Promotional? Please remove that tagging. I explain about the article's on talk page.

Thanks

Shelley123 (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the article seems to be to try to put people into contact with the company. It uses obvious promotional language such as "to secure their retirement futures with insurance and annuity products they can depend on through all market cycles" There is no references to independent coverage of the company. In fact, the only external link is to the company's own website. An administrator will review the article and make a decision on it. But if you intend to improve the article, you are free to do so in the meantime. Sperril (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

hi i was not sure where to comment but any way i didnt write anything about hyuna i love her someone hacked into my account