User talk:Missy2468

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Missy2468, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Perez Hilton. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg (chat) 04:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

The question you asked
You asked a question on User talk:John Vandenberg. I put an answer there, and for your convenience, I'll reproduce it here as well:"See the horizontal list of links on the upper right corner of the page? Click on "My talk". That will bring you to your talk page.  Next time you use helpme, please put it on your page instead of someone else's (it's still okay to ask specific people for help, but you don't need the template when doing so).  As for the second question, put stub at the top." -- N Y  Kevin  @258, i.e. 05:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

D== Andy Gibb ==

In regards to your question about Andy Gibb, it isn't what we would call a Stub - it has progressed beyond that stage. If you look at the 'talk page', at Talk:Andy Gibb, you will see a green 'B' near the top; that means it has been graded as a B-level article. See Good article criteria, Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria and Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria.

If you know that information is missing from the article about Andy Gibb, you can add it if you have the details on hand, or you make some notes on the page Talk:Andy Gibb, outlining the areas that need improvement. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I JUST WANT TO THANK JOHN VANDENBERG & NYKEVIN@258 FOR THEIR COMMENTS. THANKS FOR THE WELCOME & FOR THE COMMENTS/HELP. HMMM...I THINK MAYBE I'M STARTING TO GET THE HANG OF THIS. IF I GOOF UP ANYHOW/ANYWHERE/ANYWAY JUST LET ME KNOW. ALSO, PLEASE SEE MY QUESTION BELOW IN CASE IT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE AWARE OF. Missy2468 (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'M GOING TO PUT A GENERAL QUESTION HERE FOR ANYONE WHO MIGHT KNOW THE ANSWER: IS THERE A LIST SOMEWHERE IN WIKIPEDIA OF WIKI-EDITORS WHO ARE EXPERTS/WORKERS/PROFESSIONALS IN DIFFERENT FIELDS? HERE'S THE REASON I'M WONDERING: IT'S POSSIBLE TO SEE SOMETHING OF A TECHNICAL NATURE (ON WIKI) THAT SURE SEEMS LIKE A MISTAKE ACCORDING TO COMMON SENSE - BUT IF AN EDITOR LIKE MYSELF IS NOT IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD BY PROFESSION, I WOULD NOT WANT TO EDIT THE ITEM WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING WITH SOMEONE WHO KNOWS FOR SURE - IF SUCH A PERSON IS AVAILABLE TO FIELD THE QUESTION. (IF THERE'S NOT SUCH A LIST OF PERSONS IN WIKI - & IF THE SUBJECT IS SOMETHING I HAVE PERSONAL INTEREST IN - THEN I'D TRY TO TRACK DOWN THE DEFINITE ANSWER BY CONSULTING PEOPLE IN THE APPROPRIATE FIELD OUTSIDE OF WIKI.) Missy2468 (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What you're asking about is called a WikiProject. There is a directory of WikiProjects that you might find helpful in locating the specific WikiProject that you want (the specific field you want).  Also, try not to talk in ALL CAPS; it looks like you're shouting.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @782, i.e. 17:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The first place to raise potential problems is on the talk page associated with each page. For example, the page "Talk:Andy Gibb" is discussion about Andy Gibb, and if you want to discuss an aspect with other people, you can start a new discussion item.  You can do this by clicking here.
 * If you don't receive helpful replies to your discussion item, you can invite members of a WikiProject to join in your discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks/explanation/3 questions:

Thank you. Sorry about the all-caps without an explanation. I should've prefaced that w/an explanation & a note that it wasn't shouting. I simply know a number of people who struggle w/ their eyesight- even w/ their prescription eyeglasses- so I think of people like that when it comes to online type as much as I think of them when it comes to things like phone-book directories, books, & magazines. Many things like that are available in large-type print, but I haven't read that it's available online in any way. Different media also offer assistance in various ways for the hearing impaired, such as TV's 'closed captioned for the hearing impaired' & telephone recordings, etc, w/ enhanced audio. But online? I wanted the question to reach as many Wiki editors as possible & was thinking that the available pool of technical professionals on Wiki w/the time to study complicated technical Wiki pages might tend to have a relatively high percentage of retired persons in it.

3 Questions: 1) If I understand correctly now, there would only have been a couple of people reading that question on my talk page in the way I placed it here anyways (so I wasn't reaching a lot of people w/ my question)? By the way, I appreciate that you answered that question. 2) You mentioned that the 1st place to raise potential problems is on the talk page associated w/ a particular page. Is that also the place to report a possible malicious/purposely-incorrect statement on Wikipedia? There was a statement that appeared obviously (& maliciously) fake at 1st reading. (It happened to be about a living person). It was also not sourced. After I could find no corroboration for it online anywhere I edited it out. (Another Wiki page also contradicted the apparently malicious statement.) But it seemed obvious it was placed there purposely. Is there a way to make out a report somewhere in Wiki so that someone in an official capacity at Wiki could look into the question of who placed it there and why? That way, if it was malicious, there could be appropriate consequences for the person's Wiki account. 3) I can't remember the Wikipedia page that appeared to have a mistake about something technical on it. (I seem to recall it might've had something to do w/ audio-recording processes or technology.) Is there a way in Wikipedia that I can see the Wiki pages I have visited (but not necessarily edited) so that I can retrace my steps? Here's a positive, friendly shout-out of much appreciation: THANKS. :) Missy2468 (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Missy. I wouldn't worry too much about people that have difficulty seeing -- most people seem to do pretty well on Wikipedia, and pages can be magnified or even read aloud if necessary. Personally, I think the caps actually makes it more difficult to read, and there is also the shouting aspect.


 * As for your questions... One: The question on your talk page, if tagged with a helpme template, is usually only seen by a few users who help out in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel. If it's not marked with a helpme tag, then unless you direct people to it or people are watching your user talk page, it will not be highly visible. However, I believe you placed it on another user's user talk page. Please do not do this, unless you are asking that specific user for help (in which case you do not need the helpme template). Two: An article talk page is a great place to discuss changes to the article. However, if they are malicious or incorrect, the edits should be removed. What you did was correct. If it was obviously malicious, please feel free to use an appropriate warning template on the editor's talk page. If the user has made bad edits multiple times and already has a final warning, he or she can be reported to administrator intervention against vandalism. Three: You can see pages you've visited but not edited in your own browser history. There is no way to see these pages on Wikipedia itself. If you've edited them, you can see the edits in your contributions. Good luck! Feel free to replace the helpme template if you need any more help. — GorillaWarfare talk 04:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whenever you are on a page you feel you may wish to revisit, you might wish to mark it with the "Watch this page" option. I usually forget to do that.  That is why I usually try to find some trivial error - misspelling, punctuation, anything, to correct - which also improves WP as you go!  Just a thought.  Rags (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Naomi Wolf article update
Just a note to say I appreciate how you updated the section of the Naomi Wolf article concerning Yale. The text seems more coherent now, and rather more explanatory. The same is true of your previous updates. One small note: it would be good to cite a source for the paragraph you added at the end of the section, regarding the complaint and investigation. M.boli (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Scott Kevin Walker
Your edits to Scott Walker's article have been reverted as blatant vandalism and OR. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite or a blog. I regret that it took so long for the edits to be uncovered and deleted, but the page is now watchlisted and, as a courtesy warning, please be aware that similar edits will be automatically reverted, and may lead to your being blocked for repeated vandalism. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Question for administrator
Any guidance you can give on this will be appreciated. I sincerely want to understand: is any part of this specific complaint about my edit seen as valid by Wikipedia administrators? I just saw the above note for the 1st time today (1/3/12). I do not see the edit in question as OR (original research). I stated that there was criticism of the way the Governor won the election. That was the truth. I gave the major reason the Governor's campaign was criticized - and I named as an example a specific organization that was calling his campaign into question. Since I named a specific organization that criticized the way the election was won, I don't see how that is Original Research. Out of all of the possible charges against a Wikipedia editor's specific edit, I cannot think of one more serious than 'Vandalism.' I also do not see any basis for even a suspicion of 'Vandalism.'

I see a charge of vandalism as a very strong and serious charge. For one thing, it implies purposeful, malicious intent. If anything, the only possible malicious intent I can see would be the possible intent of the complainer to purposely try to get me booted off as a Wikipedia editor eventually - for political reasons. In fact, it is inconceivable that any encyclopedia article about a controversial politician could be considered objective if it does not include mention of the major criticism against him or her. I did not see this major criticism in the orginal article regarding the election in question, so - as I see it - I stepped in to add some journalistic integrity. The complainer felt it necessary to tell me that Wikipedia is not a "fansite." In fact, it was the original article (without my edits) that struck me as having been given the 'fansite' treatment - on behalf of a living politician. If there are any reasonable critiques of my edits regarding the Scott Walker article, I would certainly think they would be of some nature that is much less serious than the charge of possible 'Vandalism.'

Comment<-BLP comments removed by 7   - diff available in warning post above>

--Missy2468 (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am an admin, but you don't need an admin to give you this answer and I am answering the same way a regular editor should. Your edits were categorized as original research because you did not provide any reference, you just stated what could easily have been your (or some other person's) opinion.  Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.  Furthermore, your edits could easily be charactarized as vanadlism by some because they violate one of our most sensitive policies on information on living people, for both Mr. Walker and Mr. Koch.  Please read the original research and BLP policies above for more information.
 * However, please don't be discouraged by the label of "vandalism" - this does not mean your contributions are not welcome here, it just means that we all need to follow the guidelines that the community has established.  7  04:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. (I don't see a username for you, so I don't know how to 'address' you. "Admin #7?") Anyways, Thanks. :)

Missy2468 (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi there, Thanks for your recent edit on the borderline personality disorder page! You really helped clear up the wording on the 'promiscuity' controversy. Much appreciated! Firecatalta (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to 9/11 Truth movement
See WP:CREDENTIAL. We don't use titles, especially if they create the illusion of authority for advocates of WP:FRINGE ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)