Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:57, 5 October 2012

Also, please note that I delete, rather than archive, old discussion on my talk page after I have read it and after I think any other interested editors have read it. Of course, you can read any of the old discussion via my talk page history.

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.60 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.96 (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Benjamin Anastas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macmillan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Templates

Heh. What I aim for, of course, is that pictures, infoboxes and templates don't extend past the text and references. This edit, looking at it a year later, looks absolutely perfect. It just nicely lines up with the stub tag. And the Strict Baptists article would be perfect if we could fit some more things into the infobox. :) How about you make up some stuff. ;) By the way, I must confess that I was worried you wouldn't like the table of congregations in Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland... StAnselm (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Tag / note on my edits at Machine vision article

Ignoring the context of history, those are fine. But please don't go down the slippery slope into the old patterns. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please follow WP:V. And WP:COI. Novaseminary (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Please quit the implying-otherwise maneuver linking to well known policies. North8000 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You did violate V. Regardless, you are the one who reached out to me on my talk page. Speaking of implying things, please don't imply that you get to decide which of my edits (including the edit you seem to be referring to where I added a tag to an unsourced section you added) "are fine". But by all means, I don't mind you wasing your time here. Novaseminary (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't violate wp:ver. Please read it more carefully before making such accusations. Regardless, I have now also sourced and cited the additions. Thanks for tidying up / fleshing out the ref. On the other stuff, 'nuf said. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Primitive Baptist - Foot Washing

Wasn't trying to avoid being blocked. Have no intention of discussing anything with you because you are an unreasonable man with an agenda. Just do whatever you think you need to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.196.24 (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

My only agenda is WP:POV & WP:V & other policies. Novaseminary (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, only you and your tag team's edits are non POV and only your sources are verifiable. I've been through all this before. Like I said, do what you think you need to do, as I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.196.24 (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A bit melodramatic, no? Novaseminary (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at List of Strict Baptist churches shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. A discussion has been started at Talk:List of Strict Baptist churches#Merger. Ouddorp (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Clever. Novaseminary (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the job position and title, "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead" of Marshall Strabala relevant and important when the Shanghai Tower was designed

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Http://en.wikipedia.org/Marshall_Strabala". Thank you. --108.75.223.67 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

Dot edu

Hello, I don't understand why you undid my last edit. Not only was the fact true, but also sourced. Indeed, my edit was based on the most reliable sources: the very website of the registrar Educause and the official website of each institution given as example (this is for RS). Concerning UNDUE, I don't understand your point. Concerning SYNTH, my edit does not imply a conclusion about EDUCAUSE or anyone else. There are just two different facts: first, " The "domain is intended for accredited post-secondary educational U.S. institutions" and this intention is strictly enforced. " ; second, "Several institutions outside the U.S. use .edu websites.". A455bcd9 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

- There has been much discussion in the past about the inclusion in that article of lists of domains that use the .edu suffix although they are no longer legally eligible to do so. See Talk:.edu for past discussion. I'd like to have more examples of grandfathered uses in the article. Currently, the article places great emphasis on the current rules for the TLD and the efforts to enforce them, with what I see as too little acknowledgement of the fact that the TLD is still used by numerous entities that don't qualify under those rules. However, you will see from past discussions that Novaseminary has a strong belief that examples must not be given unless they were provided in a published reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I think that EDUCAUSE is a reliable source... There are also the whois records for each website, where it's clearly written that those institutions are located outside the U.S. example. (For some of them, it's all the more so strange since the registration is recent: Septembre 2006) A455bcd9 (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

EDUCAUSE, especially the database, is certianly a reliable source. That is not the whole point. I could note in the article that there are 75 .edu domains that begin with the letter Y (BTW- I just made that up). I could note there are 57 in the state of Iowa (I also made that up). And for either (if it were true), I could use the EDUCAUSE listings as sources. But that would violate WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. We don't even know that any of the links you added even violate the current criteria. According to the article, "an institution must be located in the U.S., legally organized in the U.S., or recognized by a U.S. state, territorial, or federal agency (bold and italics added by me)." There are two ways non-U.S.-located institutions can be included. Finally, WP:UNDUE states: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." We need some third-party coverage to note the importance of the links you provided (other than your synth/OR, because an editor cannot make WP the third-party source); according to the link above, there are over 3,400 "international" .edu domains. Without any of this, just adding links that by your own claim/admission are departures from the norm, not the norm, seems like linkspam even if not intended to be. Novaseminary (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So the introduction sentence of the article must be changed from "The "domain is intended for accredited post-secondary educational U.S. institutions" and this intention is strictly enforced." to "The domain is intended for post-secondary educational institutions located or legally organized in the U.S., or recognized by a U.S. state, territorial, or federal agency and this intention is strictly enforced.". Otherwise, just a single note can be added in order to explain what a "US institution" means according to EDUCAUSE link. Besides, these pages could be useful: link 1 (just three international institutions eligible?!), link 2, link 3 (in 2011, 13% of the .edu websites were international institutions). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Joel Beeke

I can understand you adding the notability tag to Joel Beeke, and I won't remove it. However, I created the article confident that it would survive an AfD on the sheer volume of results at Google Books and Google Scholar. That is, it comes under Misplaced Pages:ACADEMIC #1 rather than #6. StAnselm (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. When you recently edited Jet Ski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kawasaki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Baptists

Please in the future instead of deleting someone else's work that has been added to a site but lacks reference sources simply add a note, as many others so, that "citations are required". The citations in this case (for Baptists in Canada) were contained in the links. The citations have been added. - Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffTsquared (talk • contribs) 12:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You should pretty much always cite your sources, WP:V. The very specific ”firsts”, etc. that you added, in your first edit to the article, are susceptible to failing V (not to mention WP:NPOV). Please source any new facts you add in the future, WP:BURDEN. Novaseminary (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your questions

Are these other editors who have called you out for your behavior and tactics before? 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:61D4:6FD2:B0C6:8F2F (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Kindly do not edit war again

You initiated the RFC on Douglas Tait (stuntman). You should respect that process, as I have, and not edit on the subject until a consensus or resolution are reached. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, the months-long status quo should stay until there is consensus otherwise, not the version you baselessly edit warred to until the article was locked. Novaseminary (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPREMOVE says: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person". Logically as a policy, "remove immediately" supersedes STATUSQUO. You also probably haven't bothered to review my recent responses on the BLP's talk page, but even the thesaurus defines your edits as "contentious" material. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:E905:23F6:A3FC:D8EF (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

3RR warn

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Douglas Tait (stuntman). 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.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. 2602:304:5EA1:52A9:84DC:99FC:F52A:314 (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)