Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:15, 24 October 2006

Archives

/Lucky 6.9 talk archive 1 /Lucky 6.9 talk archive 2

Hello! Please feel free to leave a message at the bottom of the page. Coming soon: A really tricked-out monobook version! Woo-hoo! Eye candy!

I'm working...

I'm translating the article of the Constitution of Cúcuta from the spanish Misplaced Pages. Please don't erase my articles.

Ricardoramirezj ✍ 01:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Joy of Satan

I was thinking about labelling that article for speedy deletion as G1 nonsense but did find which is labelled to be from the Joy of Satan Ministries and thus I think the sect in question may actually exist. –– Lid 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They do, and they were part of the downfall of a scion of the national socialist movement in the U.S. recently. so they are quite notable. What's more, all that was said in the 'deleted nonsense' has been said in the press albeit in a slightly more believeable style. Not sure if they need their own entry though. But it might be an idea to research/google a bit more thoroughly before marking something for speedy delete in future?Merkinsmum 02:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for reverting the "vandalism" on my User page and dealing with Madeleinedean. Also, thanks for your work with the new pages; recently I've been sorting through pages needing speedies there, and it's nice to be beaten to the chase. No need to respond, just wanted to let you know you're appreciated. —Keakealani 05:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Copywright violation?

Ok here we go. What is the alleged copywright violation of an article titled "Who is black?" How on earth can you violate a copywright violation for the title of an article! There is a "Who is a Jew?" article, and THAT is not violating a copywright. The information in the articles are not violating any copywright. What is the deal man? --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free Ryu (who was supposedly restoring the original article's title) and Lucky (who was simultaneously trying to delete the entire article) to say that you were both acting without inappopriate intent. Which one of you were going to win out? --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:(

I should have stopped a while ago, right?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this the edit you're looking for?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe this?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cuckolded

Why did you delete my article without even telling me about it. If there was something wrong with it I could have tryed to fix it. There is such a word http://www.dictionary.net/cuckold so I just don't see why you deleted it.Coorsman 07:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User Zaphnathpaaneah

I'm shocked it took this long for someone to block him. He totally destroyed the black people article, transforming it into an uncited POV personal essay and edit wars causing it to be protected. He even managed to destroy the black people talk page which is dominated by his ranting, raving, and race baiting. I got so tired of trying to deal with him that I put all my energy into the Definitions of black people article. If someone can redirect the protected and POV black people article to the well cited and neutral Definitions of black people article, that would be great. Timelist 09:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just unprotect it for him, please? He's spammed this in three different places by now. :( —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for all your help. It's great to see an administrator who is not afraid to show leadership, take action, and confront controversy head on. Timelist 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It was actually not his work. He just redirected it to a strange title he liked better. He created none of the actual content. He didn't even produce the parts you feel were plagarism. Timelist 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think a permanent block is warranted. He contributes nothing productive but just inserts his own POV and in a very uncited way. For some strange reason he is obsessed with the idea that various dark skinned people who live in South Asia and the Pacific islands are black, even though he does not belong to those ethnicities and can not speak for them. When we try to explain to him that this is one perspective, but that a lot of people (most?) define black people as only those of African ancestry and that we need to present all views in a neutral way, he goes ballistic and claims we're trying to tell black people who they are and that the article must state as a matter of fact who black people are (as he defines them) and ignore the census, dictionaries, biologists, and African-Americans who reserve the term for only those of African ancestry. He's very wierd and very fanatical and seems to be on some kind of strange and pointless political crusade to get dark skinned people of the world to unite under the label black against white oppression. Timelist 16:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough. Now that you unprocted the black people article I just merged the content from the article he was trying to retitle into the black people article to replace all the uncited POV he put there. It's great having you around and the more you can participate the better. The black people article is plagued by constant controversy and POV pushing and we need a strong leader like you to hang around. Cheers! Timelist 16:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Navjit

I seem to have accidentally marked Navjit Is Gay for deletion AFTER it was deleted, thereby bringing it up again. My apologies. ^^; -WarthogDemon 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Bunnyzilla

I thought about userfying his page, but he gives his full name, hometown, school, age and the names of his friends. That should probably be deleted, huh? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent NP patrol

Excellent new page patrol, If there was a bold/good admin barnstar It'd be in this message. Keep up the good work. :) --Andeh 01:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User Lucky 6.9 (talk) deleted this article after you started editing it, with a reason of: and I was quick to it, you are bold.--Andeh 01:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Point of order....

Hi, A page you just deleted and protected from recreation, Jason Dunn (singer), did, in fact, assert the notability of its subject as a member of Hawk Nelson. Other band members have pages. The page was, of course, dreadful, but did appear to contain some valid information (admittedly I'm dubious about the pet pancake) and might have benefited from a swifty cleanup. You might know something about this subject ot this user that I don't, but it looks to me like you might have just bitten a newbie.... TheMadBaron 01:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I was just a little surprised at the swift execution of justice, having submitted much worse garbage to afd after finding it had been sitting around for months.

If I were to create a proper stub and put it on my watchlist, would you unprotect the page? TheMadBaron 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Um.... thanks, but actually I didn't mean, like, right now.... I can work on a stub later, but I've got to be at work myself in fifteen minutes (just for a couple of hours, I hope) so if the page is a frequent target for pancakes, I'm afraid you're on your own til then.... TheMadBaron 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

broker's price opinion

Why do you keep deleting the new article I posted on broker's price opinion? There is no disambiguation in Misplaced Pages for this meaning of BPO. --His son1 01:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked - LEGAL WARNING

Thanks for looking out for me. I'm not sure I want to know what that page said... -Patstuart 02:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)