Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.177.137.66 (talk) at 20:17, 9 January 2006 (→Regarding Elevator Illusion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I am: OUT

• I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
• If I posted something to your talk page, I probably added it to my watch list. I would prefer replies in the same page as the original post. However, feel free to reply here if you want.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Beldin Kee

See Skybluz and User:Skyblue70707 for where it came from. I had userfied the original under Skybluz and tagged that for deletion but the version of Beldin Kee I saw was vandalized so I tagged it speedy. As it is, I'm probably just going to AfD the article as it's vanity that has already been userfied.  RasputinAXP  T C 20:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Santosh style

Yeah, but you beat me to it!  :)) Nice catch. - Lucky 6.9 21:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Tjkphilosofe

I noticed you deleted Commentary: Earth Final Conflict as I was retagging it speedy. Nicely timed! ;)  RasputinAXP  T C 12:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I still had your user page on my watch list and caught you moving his comment from there to your talk page. --GraemeL 12:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying much harder lately to be WP:CIVIL about things like this, including not biting the newcomers. He'll come around, eventually.  RasputinAXP  T C 12:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's good. I have the feeling that he's quite young. Your patience is much appreciated. --GraemeL 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you (Travel)

Thanks for keeping an eye on Travel and reverting the creeping link spam. MCB 23:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. My watchlist seems to be about 1/3 articles I'm interested in, 1/3 spam targets, and 1/3 Misplaced Pages space. --GraemeL 23:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hi GraemeL! How are you finding adminship so far? I wonder whether my talk page needs a bit of trimming...that joke is still fresh in my mind. Thanks again :-) --HappyCamper 04:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Not too bad. I've deleted a couple of articles that could have easily been turned into geo stubs and had to restore them. Other than that, I think I'm doing ok. Your talk page does seem to be putting on a few pounds. ;-) --GraemeL 15:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

External links

to which page added commercial links? —preceding unsigned comment by 71.57.187.88 (talk • contribs)

To Marketing yesterday and you added a link which gives no information without registering to Yoga today. Both of these articles attract a lot of spam, so please consider whether the links you insert add to the understanding of the subject, or are just added to push traffic to the sites in question. --GraemeL 15:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

admins acting sensibly

I assume you were joking about that and yes admins every once in a blue moon do act sensibly. Jtkiefer ---- 02:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course I was joking. :-) --GraemeL 02:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Advice on dispure resolution

Hi Graeme,

You may remember we spoke recently about some of the pages I added to Wiki and I mentioned an issue involving a voluntary organisation? Well, I've been asked to find out more about procedures. I've found the following page on resolving disputes which will be very helpful.

What I can't find is information or guidelines concerning what is considered worthy of mediation or arbitration. I suppose this done on a case by case basis, so I thought I'd provide a brief explanation and see if you could point me in the direction of some more articles/ guidelines. You might suggest I get the 'mediation ball' rolling, but this is quite a sensitive issue, so the organisation involved don't want to go ahead with this until they've fully considered the possible implications.

Basically, our organisation has been subjected to criticism and accusations by another organisation for a number of years. Within the realm in which we operate (i.e. outside Misplaced Pages), the other organisation would argue that they have the right to do so. However, our view is that they have influence over the realm but we have independence within it - we have differeing views on this.

Given that the comments and accusations are one-way (we have never made negative accusations about them), and as far as we're concerned are unfounded and damaging, is there anything within Misplaced Pages that says one organisation cannot be subjected to criticism in this way i.e. on the page about their organisation?

I should say that a complicating factor may be that some years ago, events took place involving a demonstration for freedom of expression (by us as we felt our freedom was being affected) but these events can only be regarded as noteworthy because they took place - i.e. the basis of these events were subjective accusations and do not hold the objective truth that the other organisation would assert. So without their damaging views and accusations, the demonstration would not have taken place. So from our perspective, just because they believe their viewpoint is valid, why should our reputation suffer in the public realm? After all it's our organisation.

On the following page The perfect article I noticed:

... is completely neutral and unbiased; has a totally neutral point of view; presents competing views on any controversies logically and fairly, pointing out all sides without favoring any particular ideal or viewpoint...

What if these views are damaging to one party. If we were talking about something mundane like cheese, there wouldn't be a problem, its just opposing viewpoints. But in this case, we're just trying to present our own organisation, but their view is damaging our organisation - whereas ours does not affect theirs.

One possibility could be to suggest a separate page for their comments?

I hope this makes sense. Please let me know if you need any more information.

Kind regards, lorry108

Hello again. I don't have much experience of the dispute resolution process, so if my answer here doesn't satisfy you, you might try asking at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (assistance).

With any dispute, you should try to resolve it yourself first. If the dispute is over the content of a single article, then the article's talk page is probably the best place to start. This helps reduce the load on the other dispute resolution methods as you may be able to come to some sort of agreement and not have to take the matter any further.

If you feel that trying to deal with a problem yourself has reached a deadlock, you should move on to either mediation or file an RfC. Mediation will involve a neutral third party attempting to resolve the conflict. An RfC involves both parties posting statements which are then endorsed by other users in an attempt to reach consensus.

As to neutral point of view, it means that both sides of the controversy in question should be presented in the article and that they should both be backed up by external references. The fact that including the other side is damaging to your organisation, but not the other one, is unfortunate. However, if the other side can be supported by reliable external references, then it would deserve a place in the article.

Splitting an article where two points of view are in conflict is referred to as a POV fork and is strongly discouraged.

I hope this is of some use to you and that you manage to sort things out. --GraemeL 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, Thanks for your considered reply. I'll pass that on to my colleagues. All the best, lorry108

Have a good Wikibreak

See you when you get back!  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 00:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you block Locke Cole for his 7 rvt's the other day?

Or is he a buddy of yours? MagnaVox 02:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Locke Cole is breaking the three edit revert rule again

Somebody needs to stop that loose cannon! Use your power Oh great administrator! MagnaVox 02:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What rubbish am I supposed to have left on the Rangers page?

Esperanza elections

Voting begins at 12:00UTC on 16 December and all Esperanza members are encouraged to join in.

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please contact Flcelloguy. Thank you.

➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 09:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

News from Esperanza

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

Your help is needed

Hello, I am Robert, I have a cooking wiki already established that is in need of a few good contributors. I would be interested in giving Admin rights to a few good contributors. The wiki has mucho content but no real active community and just a handful of contributors. The project is located at Cookbookwiki.com and I can be contacted at wikimanager@yahoo.com, I recently removed google ads and such. I need help getting the community part of the wiki active. Feel free to stop by and add your comments to our home page discussion or get started. From my understanding, there is much content that can be added that is missing from wikipedia due to politics. So, if you would like a cooking wiki playground, please stop by or contact me. - Robert

AIV request

Thanks for the quick action. -- Jbamb 15:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Keep whacking those vandals. Oh, please remember to substitute the templates when placing warnings on talk pages. --GraemeL 15:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

Thanks for your revert. I was so busy I didn't notice. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Wishes

I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 17:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Best wishes to you and yours. --GraemeL 18:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Signa Vianen

Well after so much has been said and done, I just applaud to my perseverance. Please see the original article, as I then already provided a newsarchive newspaper link with recent articles written by this person, which proves a solid journalistic record. written by Amsterdam 20:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Amsterdam (talk • contribs)

The link goes to a foeign language site. I'm sorry, but I don't know the language, so I can't give you advice based on the link. Again, being a journalist is not a claim to notability. There needs to be something that makes the journalist stand out from the average member of the profession in their country. Regularly writing for a national newspaper, or having recieved a national award would suffice. The article remains in the user sub-page where I copied it to. --GraemeL 18:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

http://nl.wikipedia.org/Bea_Vianen written by Amsterdam 20:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

these are two different people, unrelated, plus i am still in the process of submitting other surinamese writers who are worth mentioning, i must admit that i still have to find out how this works. written by Amsterdam 20:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am tired myself now too, I am going to rest a bit. I do this because I truly admire all these people, but I do not get one penny out of this. :-( written by Amsterdam 20:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Page formatting

Heh, I noticed you inserting lots of breaks to format around your barnstar. For future reference, you can use a single <br clear=all/> to achieve the same without having to work out how many breaks to use. ;-) --GraemeL 19:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Forbsey 19:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Signa Vianen and Amsterdam

I'm willing to work on it, although I'm frankly not yet convinced that she's notable enough for a wikipedia entry. What I can do, is do some more research on her, so that I've got a better basis to make a notability judgment. You also said that you've been suffering from a language barrier between yourself and User:Amsterdam. As a Dutchman, perhaps I can be of service to you here. Aecis 21:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey -- just wondering, as someone new here, if there was a reason you reverted a vandalous (I guess that's a word) post I deleted from the Batman: Talk page. Simnel 22:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing other peoples comments from article talk pages is generally not a good thing. They should be left in place to provide a history of discussions. However, you can remove comments that were only left as vandalism. Adding something like "rvv" for ReVerting Vandalism to the edit summary is useful if you do that, because it lets other users know your change was just removing vandalism. I reverted your change because you didn't provide an edit summary. As you were removing vandalism, I apologise, though please use edit summaries in the future. If the talk page becomes too large, it should be archived, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page. --GraemeL 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

iPod: tell them, too

Hi GraemeL! When you revert link spam, remember to leave {{Spam}} on their talk page also. It tells them what's going on, and tell us of repeat offenders. See you again in WP:WPSPAM.  Perfecto Canada 18:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I normally do. No idea why I forgot on that one. --GraemeL 18:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: List of social networking sites

I appreciate your concern. I actually already had been discussing the revert with the user strangely named getcrunk. I am a member of a social networking service named EthicalNetwork.org, I fail to see why it does not belong on wikipedia's list of social networking sites. I strikes me as vandalism to delete it from what ought to be a comprehensive list of the web's social networking sites. All the best and Merry Christmas. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.104.37.14 (talk • contribs)

Well, you keep re-inserting a red link to an article that was deleted through the Afd process Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/EthicalNetwork.org. The link serves no purpose as the article was deleted. --GraemeL 18:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Aha, I see the problem now, I shall leave out the link. Thanks for your help.

User talk:Doom127

Why not use the new semi-protection on the page? Gerard Foley 22:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bah, didn't think of that. I'll go change it. --GraemeL 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Exxxxcellent Gerard Foley 22:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

TM page

Thank you for your numerous cleaning up of the TM page!

If you are willing, we could use some third party input, the editing is pretty polarized. peace Sethie 19:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I know very little about the subject. I just picked up the section blanking while on RC patrol. --GraemeL 19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Scripts

I added a subpage (as per your instructions) and copied the script to it. It worked, but I wanted to tweak it so that the monobook.js page would be a little more readable. After a couple of edits, the script stopped working. I can't tell which edit stopped the script because even after I refresh the browser cache (Browser=Opera so I used F5) changes seem to take a few minutes to catch up.

• Changes I was trying to make
  • create a heading (so I'll have a TOC if I ever need one) called "Edit Intro"
  • not sure if the no-wiki text at the beginning of the script should or shouldn't be on my monobook page but with it the script gets coralled in a nice box (very human readable).
  • wanted to change the text displayed by the script to "edit intro" instead of "edit top"

TheLimbicOne 21:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

monobook.js is a special page and everything on it is treated as raw code, so most wikimarkup like section headings do not work and will probably break the script. Though it is a good idea to wrap the whole of the page in nowiki tags as it stops some wiki markup being interpreted by the software when you save the page. Use /* <nowiki> */ at the top of the page and the same but with a nowki closing tag at the bottom. The /* is a javascript comment and will stop it being interpreted as javascript. The best thing to do, is to go back to the original version from the scripts page, then add the nowiki tags to the top and bottom, finally change the script to display the tab name you want. I can do that for you if this is all confusing. --GraemeL 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrapping the whole of the page makes the text VERY unreadable (and still apparently non-functional). "...I can do that for you..." ...but then I wouldn't learn anything (thank you for the offer, though). TheLimbicOne 21:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that is a problem with the Mediawiki software. It looks a mess right after an edit, but if you leave it and then load the page later, the formatting will all be back. Strange.

"...load the page later..." That's the frustrating part. I have to wait some unknown interval of time before a refresh actually loads the changed javascript. I wonder what causes the time lag (I get instant results everywhere else in the wikiverse. TheLimbicOne 22:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I just resort to editing it again if I want to view it and my own monobook is rather large. --GraemeL 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrapping the whole thing in nowiki tags is useful though if you want to have your scripts process wiki markup. An example of how some code would have to look with and without being protected by nowiki.

text = '{{subst:welcome}}';

text = '{{' + 'subst:welcome' + '}}';

Without the nowiki, you need to code like the second line, or the Mediawiki software will actually perform the substitution into your code when you save monobook.js. If it does, your scripts end up very broken. --GraemeL 22:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Would a "purge" link force changes to happen sooner than using a browser refresh? TheLimbicOne 21:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, the purge clears the server cache and you need to make sure that your browser cache is refreshed. --GraemeL 22:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have to log out now (my girlfriend's gonna kill me if I'm not ready when she gets here). TheLimbicOne 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Rocky Day

No worries. I have no idea why I thought it was a userpage. Maybe I've been editing my userpage a bit too much I'm seeing userpages everywhere.Gateman1997 23:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello GraemeL,

Happy Nerw Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

All the best to you in the new year too. --GraemeL 02:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont give me warnings

You have deleted the whole talk page, who gives you the rights, feel free to block me, since i have access to 100 IP's, we can go on forever... BUt I post what I post, so people can talk about it, not only contents, you administrators on wikipedia are totally messed up, your rules are totally unjust! Thats the whole point, too many people on few articles and everybody gets in on the act...

The above is by User:Projects, whom I have since blocked for disruption. --Doc 21:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. --GraemeL 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What

I am not vandalising or editing your info I do not even know how. I though you have to be an owner to edit websites

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of the vandalism on Fall Out Boy by SPing it. Reverting was getting stressful. Royboycrashfan 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. That was some of the worst rapid fire vandalism I've seen in a while. --GraemeL 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Referencing the new {{Usertalk-sprotect}} / Category:Semi-protected user talk pages

Good thinking. I've added a mention on WP:PP (in both RU and anon sections), and Splash already updated Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy. Can you think of any other spots where this should be mentioned? Owen× ☎ 16:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of WP:RFP, but the existing text doesn't make references to any of the other templates. You've probably covered all the bases. --GraemeL 16:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

AWS Edits

Per your comment the link for www.awsbook.com is not my own website. I believe this link is relevant to the entry.

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- GraemeL (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

However, it is a link to a page selling a book. Please read WP:EL. --GraemeL 17:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Links removed from bankruptcy section

Hi GraemeL --

We operate the site bankruptcy-canada.ca and I'm trying to place links to content that is unique and about bankruptcy (such as videos etc). These links appear to be treated as SPAM. I believe that our site has some great information which is totally free. Such as a blog where people can ask bankruptcy questions anonymously. Also why are the links to bankruptcycanada.com not considered SPAM?

Thanks.

You were adding multiple links to the same site to articles, adding the same links to multiple articles and adding your links to the top of the external links section to make them more prominent. Read WP:EL and WP:SPAM for more information. If you go back and add a single link to the bottom of the external links section on one or two articles, I probably will not remove it. Don't be surprised if somebody else removes it though.

These people appear to be professional linkspammers. 216.16.224.125 is the mail server of Nautalex, a "search engine optimization" service, who just happens to be involved with other reverted linkspam on that page. They're trying to fake their position on Google by getting a lot of links on Misplaced Pages. They were coming from another IP, and when I reverted them, they seem to have pointed their automatic spamming script at Bankruptcy. Maybe it's time for an admin block on anything that gives Bankruptcy the bad touch for a while. --Closeapple 00:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I must remember to do reverse lookups more often. --GraemeL 01:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As to links to other sites, sometimes inappropriate links build up over time. When somebody decides to go through and have a clean out, they might be removed. --GraemeL 18:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

AWS Edits & Review Other Entry

AWS Edits Cont. ...Ok that is fair, the site sells a book. I am confused about why this entry is allowed to exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/Amazon_Light >> where the external link does sell something? I was listing the site because of code examples that a developer may find usefull, also examples of sites using the aws api. I think for these external links you can't avoid the fact that they sell something. What compromise can be found?

The links to Amazon are allowed because the article is about a service supplied by the company. If the article was about a random product (e.g. a particular book or DVD), links to the Amazon page selling the product would not be appropriate. --GraemeL 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

links

Hello, I understand that we are not allowed to post links to advertise private companies. However, I thought that pages that already have commercial listings can be added to. For example, I wanted to add a currency conversion site to the currency page. This page already has sxternal links of this nature, yet the link I added was deleted. Furthermore, other links that I added that were relevant to information on the page were also deleted. Can you clarify as to how relevant external links and info pages can be added? If the information is relevant, and there are already external links added that are similar, how is it considered a spam link? Thanks —the preceding unsigned comment is by Igorn (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. Other commercial links will probably be cleaned up as and when somebody gets around to it. As you can see, when they are added, it only encourages people to add even more commercial links arguing that others already exist. Commercial links are only appropriate where the article is about a specific company and a link to their web site adds to the utility of the Misplaced Pages content. --GraemeL 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

From Dominick

Good job on the spamfighting. Maybe you would enjoy some truthroom vintage whine?

A quick update, Dominic has stated that he will continue to remove all links to www.truthroom.com that I post. It does not seem to matter on which article I post the external link. He even removes them from articles that I thought should have no opposition like the "rapture" article. Since his position is to completly censor any link to truthroom I wonder if I should go to arbitration now ? Can you please advise me on what to do. Thank you. Whatif

I never said I would not work within the mediation Cabal. Removing the link to a blog quality site is an activity more Wikipedians should pursue, IMHO. While I respect those who try and mediate, I have zero respect for this person. You can reply here, my talk or the spam site. Happy new year. Dominick 20:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year to you too.

I've actually removed most of the articles involved in this from my watch list as it seems to be in good hands. One thing to point out is that the registered user and the anon involved have edit histories almost entirely involved in either adding links to that site, or arguing over the removal of the link. If their histories were a lot more varied and the link insertions were part of a large number of more useful contributions, then their case would be a lot stronger. As it stands, following their histories from the start, it appears that they're only interested in having links to a specific site included in the encyclopedia. --GraemeL 20:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. --TantalumTelluride 00:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. - Akamad 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,

Thank you for your warm welcome. Just a word about your link policies "Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links."

You should know that your present links in the page "wiki/LGBT" are commercials because the first one is on NASDAQ for years and the other one are full of ads from affiliate program.

I was trying to add a reciprocal link to your page because as a GLBT directory we have added a link to your site to send you free targeted traffic for more than a year. Our directory is composed by more than 20 000 GLBT selected websites, so we have thought that this could be interesting to your users.

It is almost the same with "wiki/Wine" links ... I build BlueWine in 2000 as a wine lover and we have now more than 23 000 selected websites so we have thought that this could be interesting to your users.

Best Regards and Happy new year. Gerard Spatafora

Welcome again. Reciprocal links are not necessary. The about us sections on both the sites that you were linking to both state that they are marketing companies and thus not suitable for linking to from our encyclopedia. External links should be limited to sites that add detail to the subject not (yet) covered in the article they are added to. Yes, other commercial links do exist, but they are likely to be cleared out as and when somebody takes a good look at them. We have a huge number of articles and it is a impossible job just attempting to keep the external links relevant without even working on the article content. I hope you understand and have fun contributing to Misplaced Pages. --GraemeL 16:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

sorry, i was testing what happens if random people started deleting all the info. I was planning to re enter the info but then forgot about it.

Thanks you for your understanding. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 72.60.53.254 (talk • contribs)

It normally gets caught and reverted pretty fast. ;-) --GraemeL 00:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting my talk page

I guess I've iritated somebody. -- Dalbury 00:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Mikereichold 00:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC) talk page

Thanks. Whats a "Guizaldo"? Is he a problem of which I should be aware? Mikereichold 00:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No idea. trying to find out at the moment. --GraemeL 00:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

Hi. I don't know what you are mening about advertising? I have placed a few links to non-profit organizations with more than 1.000 members.

Best Regards,

Jens

The site is nothing but a few pictures, a couple of donation links, and links that frame in content from other sites. If it isn't a scam, it needs a major re-write to make it look legitimate. --GraemeL 14:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (second nomination)

Thanks for the housekeeping :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 16:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think it deserves deletion, but I'm not motivated to say keep either. --GraemeL 16:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Grrr...

I wanted to block that IP :-) Anyway, I'll see you around! --HappyCamper 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He was mine. I saw him first! Keep on stomping those spammers. --GraemeL 21:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sad day for Celtic Fans

Yes indeed I am a sad Celtic fan - if you look at my user page, you'll see. You say "almost certainly a Celtic fan" - I guess the name may be a give away? :( Camillus (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Irish flag in your sig is what tipped the balance for me to add the additional comment. I'm torn between commiserating with you and gloating at the moment. I will keep a special eye on your teams page, as it's likely to see some additional vandalism in the near future. --GraemeL 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. History

you want me to put it back, I will. the Celtic article was full. you couldn't add any more to it. I will do a summary as you requested if you like. please reply.

bad day for the Tic. Palx 15:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with splitting it out to its own article. Summarising the history in the main article would put everything back in context while keeping the size reasonable. --GraemeL 15:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

cool Graeme. nice tidy up job. Palx 16:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: 12.30.22.36

By all means, a one-month block sounds right. My initial 3-hour block was just to stop the mass-vandalism until I figured out what the story was. By then, I figured I'd let Drini's block run its course, but 31 hours is probably insufficient in this case. Owen× ☎ 20:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thought it best to check with you first. --GraemeL 20:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

not spam

I'm trying to include a community website. It is not spam. Especially compared to several other sites already listed here. A lot of work goes into the site with editorial review.

Regarding Elevator Illusion

Look the elevator illusions is copyrighted work. The workings / methods / etc. are copyrighted and are trade secrets. This information is not for public domain and needs to be taken off the site.

--Workings, mothods, etc. cannot be copyrighted. As long as our text is not a direct copy of yours, there is no problem. --GraemeL 18:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

--Email me via through my site. We can talk about this privatly.

--No thanks. Please keep the discussion in public view. You have posted to the requests for removal of content page. I will be keeping the content in place until an expert on the subject reviews the situation. --GraemeL 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

--The content posted on Misplaced Pages is based off a trade secret - one specifically designed by Peter Loughran. The work within the manuals which talk about the secret are copyrighted work. Maybe people here at Misplaced Pages have the two reversed - copyrights and trade secrets? Maybe a quick review of Trade Secrets as defined by Misplaced Pages should be review -> http://en.wikipedia.org/Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods#Trade_secret

There is obviously a big differance between information that can be easily found by the public as for one that cant...which in this case purchasing the product gives you the rights to use the trade secret to use in your act and not to divulge this to your audience. In this case it is easy to see that it is being used harmfully towards to the originator.

You can argue that this is just a method...but what you buy is what you have on Misplaced Pages...thus harming the originator of his profits...the method is barely even mentioned...which would be patter and how to rigg yourself...etc....instead what is here is mainly the trade trade secret he worked hard at and what you purchase.

XDCC REVERT

What is your deal? Why would you revert the page to support the spammer. Over the last week or so others have been changing the links and order of the links to support their site and they are changing the text on other links. I was not aware the admins of wiki supported spammers. The links have been a certain way for months and now you are supporting the spammers by siding with them and reverting back to their edits? You need to re-evaluate your purpose here.

You might have a point in there somewhere. none of the external links were adding to the articles content. I removed tham all. --GraemeL 18:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You are out of your mind man. Most all the links there had everything to do with XDCC, which is the topic. Some were XDCC clients and others were XDCC search engines. Is your nazi attempt at control and punishment the norm here at wiki? "You don't like my changes so I will remove everything"? You expect to get respect doing things like this? Just so you know I will be reporting your abuse of position.

None of them added to the encyclopedic value of the article. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is probably where you want to go. --GraemeL 19:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Celtic

"Please stop removing content that is factually correct and verifyable. Just because it is not an acheivement is no reason for it not to be in the article."

It was added to the 'Recent Achievements' sections !!!! Makes your statement above look absurd(downright stupid actually) Or ar you deliberatly mischevious. Find a better section if you have an absolute need to include this.

The section was badly named and I've now fixed that. Misplaced Pages has a neutrality policy and the article should contain both positive and negative facts as long as they are verifiable. The result was a major shock and is perhaps even more significant than the loss to Calley several seasons ago. For your information, the text about the cup loss was originally added by a Celtic fan, you can see his reply to my comment about it in the section above this post entitled Sad day for Celtic Fans. --GraemeL 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Prussian Blue Link

I think the link to the radio program is relevant to the article, and your basis for removing it (due to its being an MP3) is at the very least legitimately debatable. I do not feel strongly enough about it to revert (and I don't think it would be a productive way to make my point) but I think it should be discussed further on the the Prussian Blue talk page. I would like to hear other opinions.

Meanwhile: why did you accuse me of putting up a link to a "commercial" site, and why did you imply on my talk page that this was a link to my own personal site? This is baseless and completely uncalled for. The link is neither commercial nor personal. This isn't spam. We simply have different editorial opinions. Care to talk more productively about this? Thanks. 38.2.108.125 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the message was a standard template ({{Spam1}}), it doesn't always fit all situations exactly. It is a general warning about external links.

I have made my position known on the talk page already and don't see any point in adding to it at the moment. I will keep an eye on it though. If the consensus of regular editors is to include the link, I will not stand in the way of it being added back. I would also like to commend your actions in posting to the talk page, rather than just adding the link back. --GraemeL 19:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

mischevious

you are clearly using this page in a non-neutral way. Going so far as to change the heading when to suit your original 'argument' which had been exposed as nonsense. you are the vandal. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a fansite.

You are unsuitable in the roll of moderator

No, having only a section for achievements, without one for losses/disappointments would not be neutral. Naming it "Recent seasons" instead of "Recent achievements" encourages neutrality in the article. Removing information about a major loss is inducing a positive point of view to the article. You will note that I have not removed the information about a major loss that you added to the Rangers article. Such an event certainly deserves mention and if somebody were to remove it, I would add it back. --GraemeL 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)