| Revision as of 11:27, 15 February 2024 editGiantflightlessbirds (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users14,242 edits →Christchurch Misplaced Pages Meetups: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:17, 1 January 2025 edit undoRiteze (talk | contribs)356 edits →Convenient tag for a section name.: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App talk topic | ||
| (83 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
== ] == | ||
| I think this was kept but ]. Do you want to nominate this again? ] (]) 19:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px"> | |||
| ] | |||
| :::::'''Hello {{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}, we need experienced volunteers.''' | |||
| ::::* ] is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help. | |||
| ::::* Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but <u>it requires a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines</u>; Misplaced Pages needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference. | |||
| ::::* Kindly read <u>]</u> before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. | |||
| ::::* If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the ]. You can apply for the user-right ''']'''. | |||
| ::::* If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's ]. | |||
| ::::* Cheers, and hope to see you around. </div> | |||
| Sent by ] using ] (]) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Coordination/Invite_list_3&oldid=1190429361 --> | |||
| == Not unnecessary == | |||
| ==Divorce in Islam== | |||
| Greetings. I see from your user page that you are interested in the anthropology of religion. I am too, and also in cognitive science of religion (CSR). | |||
| not unnecessary. Some external site might want to link to some particular section. ] (]) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Unnecessary reversion. == | |||
| IMHO, without that info, readers unfamiliar with Islamic law will likely think that this is a one man one woman situation, as it normally is in English speaking countries, and indeed, most countries. So it is unclear, or even misleading to have "the husband" and "the wife" as if there is always only one wife per husband, as in most countries. | |||
| If some other page want to link directly to , how would it do that? ] (]) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I see that after reverting my edit, you made another edit, changing it to "a wife" and "a husband". The intention is good, and it goes some way to achieve what my edit did, but it is IMHO not a satisfactory substitute, because the reader who is unfamiliar with Islamic law will still likely assume that there only one wife allowed in Islam. These readers need to have that misconception dispelled IMHO. | |||
| ⚫ | :What do you see as the value of deep-linking into a list with limited information? ] ] 17:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| Readers, such as myself, who *do* know (or have heard) that a Muslim man may have more than wife at one will be distracted by the absence of any reference to this, and likely will pause, wondering whether the law has been changed, or he or she was mistaken about this. Or, as I did, he or she may wonder whether the article is about a particular subset of Muslims, perhaps in a particular sect, or those in the US (who are presumably bound by US bigamy laws), who are *not* allowed to have more than wife (if that is the case - good question, that). ] (]) 20:48, 20 December 2023 (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) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ⚫ | :::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) | ||
| ::::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) | ||
| ::::::There is important information about Astrological leader, Deity, Symbol, Indian zodiac, Tropical zodiac and more about the entity. ] (]) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::::::Where is it you want to link ''from''? ] ] 03:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::. ] (]) 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. ] ] 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::There might be many others who might be trying the same. ] (]) 03:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? ] ] 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::If a copy of information from wikipedia 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) | |||
| :::::::::::::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) | |||
| ::::::::::::::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) | |||
| == January 2025 == | |||
| :I read it long ago. It says: | |||
| :"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." | |||
| ::A "concise overview of the article's topic" would, IMHO include clarification that Islamic marriage often is a case of polygyny. The latter "establishes context", and is one of the "basic facts" of the topic (and therefore, although new information, is permissible). ] (]) 01:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I seem to have replied to myself by mistake. It was intended to be a reply to you. ] (]) 09:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It keeps not being indented. ] (]) 09:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] My replies to you have not gotten indented like I expected, hence the ping. Please reply to my 21 December 2023 reply to your comment. ] (]) 09:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC( | |||
| ⚫ | ::: |
||
| :::My apologies for the irregular indentation. I don't know why that happened. Nevertheless, I think my points can be seen fairly clearly, and I would appreciate it if you responded to them in detail. "I still don't agree" is not much of an argument. | |||
| :::I already explained why the fact that there is nothing in the article about polygamy is not a problem in this case, so you are just repeating yourself. | |||
| :::Of course polygamy has an effect on Islamic divorce. This is no place for joking. ] (]) 07:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Quoting you, "readers unfamiliar with Islamic law will likely think that this is a one man one woman situation". In terms of divorce law, it ''is''. A wife can divorce a husband. A husband can divorce a wife. There's no group version. | |||
| ⚫ | :::: |
||
| ] 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. | |||
| == December 2023 == | |||
| Points to note: | |||
| {{Season's Greetings}} ]<sup><small>TM</small></sup> <small>(])</small> 19:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;''' | |||
| == Discussion of Conversion Therapy == | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| Good evening, it I, ] (]) | |||
| 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) | |||
| I've come because of your message threatening me potentially being '''] "without further warning" in the near future. And perhaps my claims were OR: Original Research based but that was because I didn't understand the formatting of Misplaced Pages like I now do and to this day I still don't understand how this website works. I now know discussions must be held in the talk page and I was indeed not vandalizing any articles whatsoever, I was simply adding onto the scientific data. Shan't be mistaken no longer. | |||
| Sincerely, ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 23:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == CS1 error on ] == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that ] performed by you, on the page ], may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: | |||
| * A "] and ]" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | ) | |||
| Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can . | |||
| Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->] (]) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Convenient tag for a section name. == | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for January 28 == | |||
| 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) | |||
| An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. | |||
| (].) --] (]) 17:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Did you know you removed material while adding at Ram Mandir? == | |||
| ] ] 14:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| == Christchurch Misplaced Pages Meetups == | |||
| {{letterhead start}} | |||
| ] | |||
| Kia ora! For the first half of 2024 I'm the ], based in Christchurch and funded by a grant from Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand. As part of the project I'm running regular meetups in ] where local Wikipedians can meet, chat, help each other out and collaborate on projects. I'll also be organising edit-a-thons, wikiblitzes, and training for new editors. The goal is to grow the editor community in Christchurch and convince local institutions that Misplaced Pages is worth taking seriously. | |||
| We're having an initlal coffee in Foundation Cafe on Sunday 18 February to talk about what Christchurch Wikipedians might like to do; come along if you're free, or drop me a line at {{NoSpam|mike|rove.wiki}} if you have ideas or suggestions. | |||
| * Initial meetup: '''Sunday 18 February''', 10:00–12:00, Foundation Cafe, Tūranga | |||
| We'll be holding a Christchurch meetup every 4 weeks, modelled on the ] that have been a big part of growing the Wikimedia community in Wellington and New Zealand. These will be both a coffee chat and a chance for collaborative work in the library's 4th floor workspace. The first two will be: | |||
| * '''Sunday 17 March''', 10:00–12:00, Foundation Cafe, Tūranga (]) | |||
| * '''Sunday 14 April''', 10:00–12:00, Foundation Cafe, Tūranga (]) | |||
| You can keep track of upcoming events at the ], see monthly reports at This Month In GLAM (e.g. ), and join the monthly ]. —] (]) | |||
| {{letterhead end}} ] (]) 11:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest 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 wikipedia 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)
- 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)
- If a copy of information from wikipedia 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)
- And? Why don't you just put the information on your own page? PepperBeast (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- There might be many others who might be trying the same. Riteze (talk) 03:58, 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)
- From here. Riteze (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where is it you want to link from? PepperBeast (talk) 03:06, 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)
- There is nothing to be gained by deep-linking to information that isn't there. PepperBeast (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (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)
- 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)
- 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)
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:
- 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 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)