Misplaced Pages

User talk:Pepperbeast: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:11, 25 November 2022 editHaoreima (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers29,628 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit← Previous edit Revision as of 13:17, 1 January 2025 edit undoRiteze (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users578 edits →Convenient tag for a section name.: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App talk topicNext edit →
(166 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:
}} }}


== ] == == ] ==


This move was wrong - it is a unique object with a proper name, not a style of artefact. I hope you don't do others like this. ] (]) 01:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC) I think this was kept but ]. Do you want to nominate this again? ] (]) 19:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
⚫ :It is no more a proper name than ]. ] ] 01:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
::It is a proper name, exactly like ]. ] (]) 03:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


== Spinach vs Popeye == == Not unnecessary ==


not unnecessary. Some external site might want to link to some particular section. ] (]) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Pepperbeast—I'm a longtime animation scholar with the book credits to prove it, but I'm not here to brag... I'm just trying to establish my credentials.


== Unnecessary reversion. ==
I edited "Spinach in popular culture" today to correct the citation and source for Popeye's theme song (it's not just a catchphrase as indicated, has a different official spelling, an author, and a citable original source).


If some other page want to link directly to , how would it do that? ] (]) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
However, after I made the correction and added the citation via a new note, I found you undid my changes a few hours later, with the comment "Revert good-faith. Article has enough tangential trivia."


:What do you see as the value of deep-linking into a list with limited information? ] ] 17:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
But it's not tangential trivia—I was trying to correct the spelling of the phrase and cite its origin and author. I was working on some unrelated E. C. Segar (Popeye creator) research for a new book, noticed the misspelling and lack of source and thought it should be clarified and added. Isn't more accuracy better? ] (]) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
::Since there doesn't exist any independent page/section on Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, other pages are forced to link to the information where it is present. Thus, an anchor is necessary at this point, if another page want to link to this particular nakshatra. ] (]) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, it's tangential trivia. Popeye is just barely relevant to the subject of spinach. The name of the composer of Popeye's theme song is a couple of degrees less relevant. ] ] 14:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC) :::You don't have to make precise links to everything. If the information's not there, it's not helpful to the user. ] ] 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== Hello ==
You can explain me about your edits. And I can explain you too about my edits. We can cooperate to do more constructively. --] (]) 02:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC) ::::There are not only (wikipedia) users who browse these pages, but external websites might also want to make links to necessary information present there. ] (]) 02:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::There is nothing to be gained by deep-linking to information that isn't there. ] ] 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* Next, etymological explanation exists in many articles. Though not too much elaborate, we need some explanation, like word origin, etc. You will see about them more in academic articles. Because anyone from any parts of the world don't know what it means.
::::::There is important information about Astrological leader, Deity, Symbol, Indian zodiac, Tropical zodiac and more about the entity. ] (]) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* You should not remove ].
⚫ :::::::Where is it you want to link ''from''? ] ] 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I need to explain more. You can retain these things.
::::::::. ] (]) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* I think you are not well exposed to Meitei culture. You commit multiple spelling mistakes in Meitei names. Please take care that too. Because I can't recheck all of them, as those spelling mistakes are mostly found in the middle of the paragraphs.
⚫ :::::::::OK, no. Don't add unnecessary anchors to Misplaced Pages to suit the needs of your own web site. ] ] 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* Sometimes you remove parts of names of "proper nouns" (Meitei names, might be because you forgot them).
::::::::::There might be many others who might be trying the same. ] (]) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* Please don't remove Meitei language reference websites. Because they contain more information which backs the information on the article, that the English language references missed. I always care for ]. And in most of the cases, I don't violate this policy.
:::::::::::And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? ] ] 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Btw, please don't think otherwise. I am telling you these all because of the purpose of the welfare of the Misplaced Pages and us. --] (]) 02:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::If a copy of information from[REDACTED] is placed in one's own page, it will result in duplication of information. Moreover, readers will be deprived of timely updates to the information as and when they take place. ] (]) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:The etymology is completely unnecessary here. It's three perfectly ordinary words, and I've used the Lang template to mark up the translation. I would argue that the vast majority of articles do *not* need etymology sections, and ] is not a reason to include something.
:::::::::::::Well, I'm sorry, but deleting anchors that nothing on WP links to is just normal housekeeping. WP editors aren't responsible for your web site. Either maintain your own information or link in a sensible way. ] ] 05:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:The infobox is likewise superfluous. We have language templates. There's no need to roll your own.
::::::::::::::Can you suggest any other way (which you think is sensible) of linking? This and its peers are significant topics, each of which deserves an anchor of their own, irrespective of weather they are linked to any external website or not. ] (]) 10:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm absolutely happy, nay, delighted, to have Meiti spelling corrected. Likewise, the English grammar in some of what you've written is close to unintelligible. I hope you understand that I'm trying to make what you've written understandable.
⚫ :Otherwise, I'm mostly trying to cut down on ] and replace duplicate references with named refs. Occasionally, I do encounter some ref bomb, and I remove it where I encounter it, and I will continue to remove external links if they're very tangential od turning into a ]. ] ] 02:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


== January 2025 ==
::Agreed. But please retain Meitei language references. They are more important as they contain more information. ] (]) 03:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] ] 05:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

== Convenient tag for a section name. ==

A simple convenient tag was added to a long section name which contained some special characters too. is not constructive in this sense. ] (]) 13:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:17, 1 January 2025


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Dutch exonyms

I think this was kept but consensus seems to have changed. Do you want to nominate this again? Bearian (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Not unnecessary

This is not unnecessary. Some external site might want to link to some particular section. Riteze (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary reversion.

If some other page want to link directly to Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, how would it do that? Riteze (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you see as the value of deep-linking into a list with limited information? PepperBeast (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Since there doesn't exist any independent page/section on Purva Ashadha Nakshatra, other pages are forced to link to the information where it is present. Thus, an anchor is necessary at this point, if another page want to link to this particular nakshatra. Riteze (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
You don't have to make precise links to everything. If the information's not there, it's not helpful to the user. PepperBeast (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
There are not only (wikipedia) users who browse these pages, but external websites might also want to make links to necessary information present there. Riteze (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
There is nothing to be gained by deep-linking to information that isn't there. PepperBeast (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
There is important information about Astrological leader, Deity, Symbol, Indian zodiac, Tropical zodiac and more about the entity. Riteze (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Where is it you want to link from? PepperBeast (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
From here. Riteze (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, no. Don't add unnecessary anchors to Misplaced Pages to suit the needs of your own web site. PepperBeast (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
There might be many others who might be trying the same. Riteze (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? PepperBeast (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
If a copy of information from[REDACTED] is placed in one's own page, it will result in duplication of information. Moreover, readers will be deprived of timely updates to the information as and when they take place. Riteze (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, but deleting anchors that nothing on WP links to is just normal housekeeping. WP editors aren't responsible for your web site. Either maintain your own information or link in a sensible way. PepperBeast (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you suggest any other way (which you think is sensible) of linking? This and its peers are significant topics, each of which deserves an anchor of their own, irrespective of weather they are linked to any external website or not. Riteze (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bluecoats Drum and Bugle Corps. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Convenient tag for a section name.

A simple convenient tag was added to a long section name which contained some special characters too. Your edit is not constructive in this sense. Riteze (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

User talk:Pepperbeast: Difference between revisions Add topic