Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:26, 1 June 2008

This is Damiens.rf's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

List of climbers

If you are interested in any information related to high asia mountaineering, just ask Eberhard Jurgalski the leading chronicler and statistician of world mountaineering. There is no need to correct his data. Pepto65 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Perhaps you find it helpful to ask Viewfinder to get a sense, which kind of source Jurgalski is. Pepto65 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Red Roof Inn

Anon editors are not de facto vandals. Also, there was tons of legitimate content lost; next time try reverting to a a better version. It doesn't need to be perfect; don't lose all that useful and referenced content because it may have issues. I've restored a good version and tagged it for the issues I saw. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words: :Weasel words are small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..." or "critics say...", etc.. A serious problem with weasel-worded statements, aside from their veracity, is that their implication is misleading or too vague to substantiate."

The statement you removed should, at most, be tagged for fact-checking via {{fact}}. It's kind of like "the sky is blue." Everyone knows it, but someone might require sources to verify it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "distinguished" doesn't even appear on the page. Can you clarify, please? Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless its original research, it must have come from somewhere. The info doesn't seem harmful, so it's better to search, or ask the creator/editor of the info, instead of just deleting it. If we can't source it or find similar sources saying a similar thing, we should then delete it. But that sort of info is valuable and something like it should be in the article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Truth" and "verifiability" are two distinct concepts here. We search for verifiability, and it is on that alone that the section should be tagged. If someone published it, and they are a reliable source, we should keep it. IF it's anecdotal original research, or contradicted by other reliable sources, then we need to document ALL of that. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Found this. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are valid if notable and verifiable. We cite music artists' sites when the announce the release of an album or song (otherwise we usually tag as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL). We don't take their peacock terms, but facts are acceptable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Trip hop

The trip hop page needs external links. Those websites are needed. What the hell is wrong with you? Fclass (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Foolish (Shawty Lo song)

Why did you take this to AfD if you think it should be merged? AfD is for deletion only, not for merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I speedy closed that AfD and merged the song to its album. However, I still feel that I have to trout you for taking a merge proposal to AfD instead of using the {{merge}} template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Angel Ramos

Sorry, that I took so long to respond. I have an important out of country trip tomorrow and you know how it is. O.K. I did fix the link. Stan Griffin is a writer and contributor to Deaf Friends International an online magazine for the worldwide Deaf Community. Stan Griffin is the author of various books: . Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

But still, can we use what he post on his webpage as reliable sources? The guy seems to have good credentials, but we must be careful to avoid an argument per authority here. --Damiens.rf 12:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just returned from my trip, what an adventure. Yes, I believe that we can use what he posted in his webpage since he posted his reference and source, which would be what is normally required by us. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comet

If you plan to rip out the majority of an article, please take it to the talk page. Thanks. --jacobolus (t) 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would re-revert each of your specific changes, and provide a justification, but I don't have the several hours to spend on it right this minute. Please leave the article for the moment, and take it to the talk page. I'll be happy to justify every section of the article. --jacobolus (t) 21:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But to throw you a bone here, as one example of where your removals and their justifications go wrong, see WP:N: “These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.” —jacobolus (t) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with WP:OWN. Note from that page: “In many cases (but not all), primary editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field and/or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership.” —jacobolus (t) 00:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please notice that Discuss is the key part of WP:BRD, and stop re-butchering the article until some consensus has been reached at the talk page. Thanks. —jacobolus (t) 19:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you refuse to continue a discussion on the talk page. I'm quite willing to entertain suggestions for (even drastic) changes to the article. It's only chopping out the major part of it, while providing limited and rather unconvincing justifications, that I oppose to, particularly considering I wrote the majority of the article. Please explain more specifically what you find wrong with it, perhaps one section at a time, so we can improve the article. If you keep reverting to the chopped-down-to-useless version, however, I will have to assume that your aim is disruption, not article improvement, and I will seek out some administrator to block you. That would be wholly unnecessary though, if you leave the main article as is for a bit, and work to reach consensus on the talk page instead. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 10:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Comet (programming). Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. This warning is for repeated reverting and pushing through your point of view instead of discussing the matter. Please continue discussion on article's talk page - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)