Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:11, 10 June 2013

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jarble, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• 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

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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! SatuSuro 09:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Test hq3x.png

A tag has been placed on File:Test hq3x.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Mellivora capensis distribution.png

A tag has been placed on File:Mellivora capensis distribution.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Greetings! It appears as though you have been directly adding stub categories to articles such as Music of the Americas. Stub categories should only be added by templates, as explained at Misplaced Pages:Stub. These templates automatically add any relevant stub categories. Adding the category directly creates problems if there is a need at some later date to change stub category names or to split stub categories. Using stub templates is also recommended as they add prompting messages to editors reading stub articles. Your work in sorting these stub articles is very useful, but it would be even more useful and greatly appreciated if you could use stub templates to do so! (This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting, and should not be considered personal in nature.) Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 02:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging free software

Hi, I removed the merge tag you placed on free software. While I agree some consolidation of these multiple POV articles is worth considering, these changes are complex. A merge banner on its own messes up the article and doesn't get us closer to finding a way to combine the articles. I ask that you post on the talk page explaining your rationale and how you see the articles being combined before you re-add the merge banner. – Pnm (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

...I'm going to revert your last contribution to the article gray wolf, but if you'll talk to me about it on the TALK:Gray wolf, the problem is it's not clear what exactly you meant. Chrisrus (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi! I'd like to point out that many of your recent edits and not in fact minor and you shouldn't mark them as such. See WP:MINOR. Regards. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

You are still marking most of your edits as minor, as edits like this one is most definitely not considered a minor one and you shouldn't mislead other users into thinking the change was superficial. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Deforestation in Haiti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lip service (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) 10:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You can simply undo the edit; that was a mistake. Jarble (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles to merge listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Articles to merge. Since you had some involvement with the Articles to merge redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Anomie⚔ 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dama Gazelle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Horn

Gray wolf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Posture

Red panda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Territory

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited Time of Troubles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page False Dmitris (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) 10:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. When you recently edited Vizier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wazir (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) 11:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Combined Sewer

I see you added a globlize tag and reference citation requirement to subject article. I found a reference citation without any problem; but, after working in the field of sanitary engineering for 40 years, I'm a bit puzzled about why you think the article needs a globalize tag. I'll see what I can do about improving the international perspective of the article if you would explain the problem in the article's talk page.Thewellman (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited Goofing off, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American slang (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) 10:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Bohrok-Kal

Hello. I saw your edit on List of Bionicle characters. May I ask you why you put a link on that page that leads to a character of Lord of the Rings? It has nothing to do with that... --Aris621 (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You can remove it, I guess... I was just thought it was a likely inspiration for the Bohrok-Kal, given the similarity of the names. Jarble (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mount Pinatubo, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Briarfallen (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

{{where}}

Hi, please see the template documentation at {{where}}. You have been adding this to statements in articles it seems to make absolutely no sense. Also, while it is not mandatory, it is customary to start a discussion on the talk page when placing templates like this indicating more precisely what the issue is. Happy editing, Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Hidradenoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adnexa (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) 14:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited South Sandwich Trench, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcuate (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) 10:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Placing a merge tag on a template

Jarble, you placed a merge tag on the template {{technical}}. This is not a good idea. All the 1600-some articles tagged as overly technical got placed in the articles to be merge category, which totally screwed things up for us mergers. I've deleted the merge tag and taken it to Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion which I think is the proper venue for discussing template merges. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Fan magazine

Hi. I'm reverting your merge proposal of February 2012 because no rationale was given and the two subjects are differentiated as explained in the text (commercial/for profit nature). There is no support from other editors on the talk pages either. In my experience, use of the discuss parameter (as advised at WP:MERGE) may be more likely to engage other editors. Without this, discussions could potentially take place in separate places, as the default talk location seems to be that of the corresponding article. Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing that out. :) Jarble (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The use of distinguish tags on articles about software licenses

Please do not re-add a third time the distinguish tag. The distinguish tag is used when there are articles with deceptively similar titles. As I described the first time you added this to Free software licence, its the lead that should mention Open source licences and how they relate to the Free software licence article. Belorn (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• update* I will try to add this myself. I had forgotten it since last time, but should try to remember it for the weekend. Still, if you feel you have expertise about it, please add it to the article. Belorn (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Come join the Ainu Task Force!

Greetings, saw your edits at Ainu people and thought you might like to know that we just founded the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Japan/Ainu task force. Hope to see you on the Members list! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Overlinking

Hi Jarble!

Please stop linking ordinary English (or undergraduate logic) terms, such as the logical quantifiers (e.g., "there exists" or "for every"). I reverted your edits to Shapley-Folkman lemma.

Please revert similar edits on other mathematics articles.

Thanks!

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted all of your most recent edits on mathematics, because you have been linking trivialities that add nothing to the articles. You have also failed to describe your edits, and often had no edit summaries, which violates the editing policy. Your edits were not malicious or severe errors, but they do distract readers and waste the time of knowledgeable editors, who have to revert them.

Please ask an administrator at WikiProject Mathematics to remove all your recent contributions, or go through and do it manually yourself.

You need to start describing your edits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Comparison of platform virtual machines (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Software package

Demand Media (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Capitalizing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:18,

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Misplaced Pages pages

Dear Author/Jarble

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Misplaced Pages pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Misplaced Pages pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Misplaced Pages and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Nutrition. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding links

When you add links, as you did in the muscle article, please be certain that the link is correct and appropriate. In linking contractile cell in the muscle article, you linked text about early sponge-like organisms to a list of cell types in the adult human. Such a link is not correct, and would confuse users rather than help them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a disambiguation page will be required for links to "contractile cell", since this phrase appears to have multiple distinct meanings. Do you know which article the phrase "contractile cell" should link to in this case?

Nomination of Anthropophilia in animals‎ for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anthropophilia in animals‎ is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anthropophilia in animals‎ until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

I did not create this article - why am I receiving this notification? Jarble (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You had an edit on the page; I didn't mean to imply you created or should have any interest other than your edit. Feel free to delete and ignore this notice.— James Cantor (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Coyote, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wolf pack (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) 04:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Cattle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bullocks

Cross-origin resource sharing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Domain

Tuareg people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tuareg rebellion

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits

Just wondering what happened here. You accidentally reverted my talk page to a revision from 2009 somehow. Any idea what caused it? Ten Pound Hammer • 23:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why this happened, perhaps it was due to a server error. You can revert my edit; I just tried to add a link to that page, and something really strange happened. Jarble (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dramatic topography?

Hmm - is that an excuse to try to dam every river? a bit on the hyperbolic like the Hydro PR machine during the dams controversies of 50 - 30 years ago methinks.... trust you have a sense of humour or we have got off to a bad start ... SatuSuro 14:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't change any of the wording - I only added a couple of relevant links to other articles. What biased statements did you notice in the article? Jarble (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, never mind, to explain would take ages, about to get off - if its links, It is that I didnt read your edit history properly, my sincerest apologies, just somewhat apprehensive about the subject area - have fun, I'll get out of your way - cheers SatuSuro 14:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, do you know how to enable automatic notifications for replies to discussions? (I was wondering how you knew that I had replied to this discussion - is there a script that I can use to keep track of discussions like this?) Jarble (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Logical address (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mapping and Memory cell

Component-based software engineering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Software package

Family Guy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rating

Geany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Software package

Transformers: Armada (comics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fanwank

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your duplication tags

Hi, Jarble. I'm not understanding your duplication tags, such as these: There are plenty of articles that duplicate text because the text is relevant to more than just one article. And duplicating in part is standard because WP:Summary style advises that some of the text be summarized in one article while pointing to a link where a different article deals with the topic more extensively. Even the tag you're applying to articles says, "Please discuss this issue on the talk page and conform with Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style by replacing the section with a link and a summary of the repeated material..."

And even when articles share more text than just the summary, it's still fine as long as it's not too excessive. I notice that the tag links to Misplaced Pages:CFORK. But see what Misplaced Pages:CFORK#Related articles says. So pretty much, I don't even understand why the tag you're using exists. Duplication should only be an issue when there is extensive duplication or simply duplicate articles. 46.165.208.13 (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Should this tag only be used in cases of extensive duplication (i. e., copying several paragraphs of text)? I noticed that the article Animal nutrition duplicates much of the text of the article Nutrition. Jarble (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Jarble, like I stated above, "There are plenty of articles that duplicate text because the text is relevant to more than just one article." Above, I also extended that to articles that share more than just the WP:Summary style text. Your continued use of the duplication tag still doesn't seem completely correct because, from what I can see, the articles are applying WP:Summary style. However, some of their sections are pointing to sections of other articles where the section isn't even going over anything new -- that is, they aren't extensively elaborating on the topic; as such, in those cases, the tag may be okay to use. But it just seems like a useless tag to me because so many Misplaced Pages articles have a small, meduim or large overlap. The duplication tag could apply to most of the articles on Misplaced Pages. Whatever the case, it definitely shouldn't be placed at the top of articles; it's a section tag, at least the one you're using, not a "whole article" tag. I'ved asked another editor to weigh in here -- Kiefer.Wolfowitz -- the one who talked to you about WP:OVERLINKING. It seems that you run into formatting issues, as in the correct way to format things, at times, and I believe this to be one of those cases. 46.165.208.13 (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you are wondering what happened with Kiefer.Wolfowitz not weighing in, unless you don't care or saw the discussion on his talk page, see this. 46.165.208.13 (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Egyptian Jackal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mane

Never Cry Wolf (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wolf pack

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bo Yang (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bo Yang (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bo Yang (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PamD 07:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking again

Please stop doing this and read WP:OVERLINKING as you were asked earlier to do. Thanks. And explain your edits when they aren't just linking, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Which of my recent edits are considered to be unnecessary linking? I'm not sure which of my links are considered "relevant" and which ones aren't. Do you mean creating multiple links to the same page on a single article? Jarble (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jarble; not questioning that your wikifying of "war on women" on the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy was a good faith edit - you seem to have adopted the usually gnomish habit of expanding wikilinks in general. In this case, however, the phrase was a quote, and the WP:MOS guidelines, also at the overlink section, prohibit wikilinks within quotes - too much danger that the wikilink adds meaning, and quotes are always supposed to stand on their own. You also seem to have inadvertently encouraged some tendentious edit warriors.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Magic (illusion) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Magician

Tree of life (biblical) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tree of knowledge

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Inexperienced user listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Inexperienced user. Since you had some involvement with the Inexperienced user redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).

I willingly explain why I called you a waste-maker. I spotted many mistakes besides the infamous inexperienced user. Some mistakes are so severe that a user with thousands of edits is not expected to make these in quantities over one percent (except for mistakes which are immediately corrected).

• the link Arab terrorist is red, so it is not evident, what do you expect the article and redirect to be about. To me, it is ambiguous: one can mean either real-world terrorism originated in Arab countries, or some stereotypical depiction of a male Arab terrorist, like Essex girl or so. Attempt to rely on a red link was a mistake.
• a botched wikification (first link). You know yourself why it was botched, but it remained uncorrected until my intervention.
• unlike the previous case, this botched wikification unlikely may remain unnoticed after saving or on preview. The only explanation why this mistake was possible is that you do not use preview and, even after saving, do not look on sections changed by yourself.
• one edit with two changes, and both were wrong. First, a clueless pseudo-wikification of George Ritchie. If a dab page lists a person in question, then a correct (disambiguated) link must be inserted. If it does not, then you should either insert an own disambiguated link (if you feel that a person has some notability apart of his near-death experience), or do nothing. The link to a dab page has absolutely no merit in this context. Second, your spelling corruption in Betty Eadie which, though, was fixed by your subsequent edit (but producing an unneeded redirect in the process).

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Arab terrorist listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Arab terrorist. Since you had some involvement with the Arab terrorist redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incnis Mrsi (talk • contribs)

Please, do not create redirects to redirects, even to redirects under discussion (technically not redirects). Your "Arab terrorism" will:

• immediately become to subject WP:CSD#G8 is the case of deletion, and
• will behave unpredictably otherwise.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't create the redirect - it already existed, but it redirected to a different page. Jarble (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, you technically did not create it. You did not make worse a thing which already was bad. But I do not understand your intention with this page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any ulterior motives - I just hope that the debate over the "Arab terrorist" redirect will be resolved soon. It might be best to delete this redirect (or perhaps turn it into a disambiguation page) so that all current links to this redirect can be re-targeted. (This particular redirect created more controversy than I thought it would - I wasn't trying to offend anyone.) Jarble (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A disambiguation page? I did not think about it, really. Yes, in that case your action become a correct one; but you should propose it at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 21#Arab terrorist, not here. I am slightly paranoid about "waste-making" and does not always think about creative alternatives. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A summary of my intentions: I believed that "Arab terrorist" was synonymous with "Islamic terrorist", but I was incorrect this time. I won't mind at all if someone deletes the redirect (since it is somewhat ambiguous and confusing). Jarble (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Cannabis (drug) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hard drug

Coherence (UPNP) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stand-alone application

Filter Forge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Standalone application

GUIdancer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Standalone application

Golden jackal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Disgorge

Liberal Christianity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conservative Christianity

Multi-male group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lone wolf

Rawstudio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stand-alone application

Seed (programming) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Standalone application

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Equus (play) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Godhead

Proxemics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Animal behavior

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Uremia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to T3 and T4

Francis Bacon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to American colonies

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Apache Avro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Schema and Services

Protocol Buffers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Services and Stack (computing)

Apache Thrift (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Services

Babri Mosque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to IM

History of Madagascar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Betsimisaraka

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relevance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Implication (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) 09:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bulla (amulet) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lunula

International Monetary Fund (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fund

Jargon Software (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Language-neutral

Mongrel2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Language agnostic

Multilingual User Interface (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Language-neutral

Tattoo removal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bulla

Tsotsitaal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Con

Yellow-breasted Bunting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:By whom

Read over that template. Using it this way is wrong, and I reverted as such. As the template says: Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "By whom?" in that circumstance. 2001:648:2FFC:1112:A80C:EAFF:FE22:B990 (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarify it yourself

Please stop adding clarify spans to the Haxe article. If you think it needs clarification, find citations for the same and add it yourself. Also stop describing each language you link to in the See Also section. That is entirely unnecessary since I have provided headers under which they are listed. -- Tom Jenkins

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Acetate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to C2

Burmese language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bahasa

Coprocessor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Processor

Supervisory program (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Routine

Sutton Heights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heights

X Window System (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Command

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Globalize tag

Re this: You know, I thought someone was going to put it up. And I'd certainly like to have that in the article too. But there doesn't seem to be much out there from other countries ... this, from Ontario, didn't come up until I was several Google pages deep, and as you can see it draws a lot of its content from the American material. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Someone's removed it ... I think their edit summary has a point, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound so curt, but I have to ask you, did you even look for non-U.S. sources before you added this tag? Also, you could have brought this up on the talk page, or asked Daniel directly. A tag like this should have come only after you thoroughly explored other options. I'm not trying to sound like a dick here - I'm just trying to give you some pointers. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Idolatry_and_Christianity New move proposal

Hi, You commented at the start of the year on a proposal to move this article, which failed. I've now set up a different proposal at Talk:Idolatry_and_Christianity#Discussion, & your comment would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Breaking changes

Hello Jarble,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Breaking changes for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Wikipedical (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The page should redirect to a Wiktionary article - I think there's a template for such pages (but I don't remember the template's name now.) Jarble (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Decency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Propriety

Supervisory program (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to State

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Adultery

You placed merge tags on the Adultery and Extramarital sex articles but did not, as far as I can see, start a discussion on it. Please do so, or remove the tags. FWIW, I think they should be merged. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A discussion has already been started: see here. Jarble (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• That's from years ago. When you place a tag like that, and you mean it, it is best to start a new discussion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I've started a new discussion now. Jarble (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Excellent--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

CD-ROM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Channel

Cantonese profanity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cock

Force shield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Field

Parallel ATA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Channel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Brown note (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lung collapse

John Sandfield Macdonald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Collapsed lung

List of Star Wars planets (O–Q) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kr

Niger–Congo languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Typological

Oceana (non-profit group) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Royal Caribbean

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bare URLs

Hi, Jarble. Would be willing to stop adding bare URLs? Adding bare URLs is not good...per WP:Bare URLs...and others are having to clean up after you, as seen here. The Google Books tool that was pointed out to you here is easy to use. All you have to do is put in the URL link and it generates the templated-formatted citation for you. Consider using it. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your clarification requests

Things like this need no clarification. The sources are right there for you to see. They don't have to be mentioned in the text. Looking at your contributions, you've been consistently adding tags that are meant to clarify things...but you've been adding them in places where clarification is not needed. In fact, most of your clarification requests, this and this one being two more examples, make no sense. Looking at your talk page, you've been addressed about your use of such templates before. I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't know when is the correct time to use them, you shouldn't be using them. You need to read the templates so that you can get a better grasp on using them. I'm going to undo some of your clarification requests that don't make any sense. Only "some" because I'm not about to go too far back into your edit history and I can't edit semi-protected articles as an IP. But any that I come across in the future (ones you or someone else added), I will also remove if they don't make sense. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Here, the article does not explain what "free oxygen" refers to, so I added the clarification template (because it would be better if the article could explain it in more detail.) In this article, I thought that it would be better to use more precise terms than "around the same time last year". A year from now, "last year" will refer to "this year", so it would better to specify the year in absolute instead of relative terms. (Otherwise, this wording could create some confusion in the years to come.) Jarble (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The tag "clarify span" has nothing do with telling us what "free oxygen" is; that tag shouldn't be used for that. And the article doesn't have to clarify what "free oxygen" means other than linking to a Misplaced Pages article about it. But there is no Misplaced Pages article on it. There are a lot of scientific terms/a lot of scientific wording in Misplaced Pages articles that readers won't initially or ever completely understand. Just like there isn't an article for "free oxygen," there isn't a Misplaced Pages article for most of those terms. And even if there were, it wouldn't mean that we should link to all of them...considering that doing so would be WP:OVERLINKING if too many are in an article. Readers have the option of researching these terms. But I see your point about clarifying what is meant by "free oxygen"; you should make a note of it on the talk page of that article, asking someone who can explain it to explain it in the article (like in parentheses right after the wording is mentioned, and only once of course).

In the other diff, a date was mentioned. The wording "around the same time last year" told readers the exact or just about the exact time without being redundant with any part of the original date. There's no significant confusion there. That's you having wanted the month, day and year noted for the second date, like they are noted for the first. But all readers need to know is that the decline happened since the same month last year. After you added the clarification tag there, that line went through three revisions, as you might have already seen. The good thing that came out of your tagging that line is that now it's specified as having happend since the same month last year. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You're obviously right about the "around the same time last year" wording not having been the best or good wording, and that its meaning could have gotten lost in the next year if not updated, even if "November last year" had been used, so I retract that part of my comment (about that edit not having made sense). But some of your other "Who?," "Whom?," "Where?," "Clarify," etc. tags have been problematic. So just think them through better in the future. And do read the template pages for them. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bridge piercing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rejection

Growth Fetish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Growth

Huma bird (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Iranian mythology

National Forest Tapajós (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aveiro

Resource (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Benefit

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Decency & morality

Hi Jarble,

I noticed you tagged Decency for a possible merge into morality. I thought I'd check with you here before talking it to the talk page. I'm not sure what the rationale behind this merge proposal is. What did you think the two articles had in common? I can't see any relation at all between the two—decency is a topic in sociology and morality is a topic in philosophy or religion. If you want to pursue this though we should discuss it on the talk page of one of the articles; I just wanted to check it wasn't a mistake. Thanks! —Noiratsi (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Abscess (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cavity

Verizon FiOS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Coverage

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, I'm Glenn L. I removed an edit that you recently made to Saul that seemed link right back to "Saul."so was redundant. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Glenn L (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Petrarch/Plutarch

This is really very old, but I'd like to ask you. On 7 November 2011, you added to Petrarch: "Not to be confused with Plutarch" and to Plutarch: "Not to be confused with Petrarch". And the question is, why did you do that?--94.65.29.101 (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's because the names could easily be confused, and the illustrations of Petrarch and Plutarch also look similar on each page. Jarble (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, I took the liberty of removing them, and I beg you not to put them back again without a conversation, as the relevance is not immediately apparent to everyone. Thank you!--94.65.29.101 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The "distinguish" template isn't supposed to point out relevant articles - it's supposed to be used to identify similar-sounding names that could easily be confused. The names "Petrarch" and "Plutarch" could easily be confused by anyone who was unfamiliar with either of these people. Jarble (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, when I said "relevance", I didn't mean the relevance between the articles, but the relevance of the template.--94.65.29.101 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kemono, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yuri (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) 11:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Asynchronous I/O (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Transmission

Ayudhapurusha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

Carsharing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Software package

Chaturmurthi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

Dashavatara Temple, Deogarh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

Lakshmana Temple, Khajuraho India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

Mahavishnu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

Sacramento River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Watershed

Sodium fluoroacetate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aerobic

Vishnu sahasranama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Divide and conquer algorithm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Base case

Kunar Province (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to N2KL

Matryoshka doll (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Babushka

Self-management (computer science) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Component

Western canon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Canon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Alveolar osteitis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Self-limiting

Colonialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Young

Form letter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Template

Pika (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to O. princeps

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Activities of daily living (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grooming

Nuremberg Chronicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gulden

Paper clip (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cotter pin

Vowel harmony (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Segment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Key field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Field (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) 11:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Nautilus (file manager) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to UX

Zimbabwe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ICT

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Your use of {{distinguish}} to point users to anal retentiveness does not seem to follow the correct use of the template. None of the pages where you added this has a title that sounds remotely similar. Please let me know if I've misunderstood. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The titles don't sound similar, but the usage of the template does not need to be restricted to homonyms: for example, Commonwealth of Nations could be easily confused with Commonwealth of Independent States, even though these two phrases are pronounced differently. Jarble (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Internet of Things, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Object (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) 10:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Brucellosis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sexual contact

Clobbering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Register

G factor (psychometrics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Factors

IFTTT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Service

Knucklebones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hock

Widmanstätten pattern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phase

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

BIOS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Interface

Firefox OS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Integrate

List of Microsoft Windows components (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Component

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Overzealous disambiguation

Please be more careful in your disambiguation work. You are creating way too many "see also"'s and links that are either not helpful to the reader or plain misleading by linking vaguely related subjects. A See also section or hatnote should only be used when it is quite obvious that a reader might be looking for a different topic of the same name, not when two topics are kinda sorta related. I just reverted you here, and I had to revert your edits multiple times in the past due to overlinking and adding too many/unrelated see also links. Please be more conservative with your editing. --Conti|✉ 11:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I occasionally use the redirects here template to prevent similar-sounding phrases (and page titles) from being confused. I often use the "Redirects here" and "About" templates for page titles that could potentially be confusing, even when those page titles are not homophones or homonyms. I'm not sure if there's a specific Misplaced Pages policy against using the "redirects here" template for page titles that are not homophones, though. Is the use of "see also" or "redirects here" templates specifically disallowed by Misplaced Pages for any of the reasons you mentioned here? Jarble (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think it's unlikely that the use of "redirect-distinguish" templates would be considered misleading. This template is specifically intended to distinguish page titles with similar names, without implying any relevance between the two topics. I have used disambiguation hatnotes to distinguish pet and petting, which can have different meanings in different contexts. Jarble (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not about what exactly the rules say, this is about common sense: No one is going to type "Animal porn" into Misplaced Pages while looking for an article about furries. In addition, we do not have an article on "furry porn" either, so you direct readers to a subsection of an entirely unrelated article that begins with the sentence "According to four different surveys, 14–25% of the fandom members report homosexuality, 37–52% bisexuality, 28–51% heterosexuality, and 3–8% other forms of alternative sexual relationships." Now, is that the kind of information anyone who would ever enter "Animal porn" into the Misplaced Pages search would be looking for? Granted, whoever enters that term into the search box is probably not going to find whatever he's looking for anyhow, but: The answer is a very clear no, and as such, the redirect notice simply makes no sense. In general, please read Misplaced Pages:Hatnote for some examples and rough guidelines.

I have reverted edits of yours multiple times in the past for similar reasons. Please be more careful when adding links and hatnotes and the like. Stop for a second and think if those liks would actually be useful for the reader who is searching or clicking on a particular term. If the user ends up in a completely different topic, don't link it. --Conti|✉ 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

unreferenced section

Please stop adding {{unreferenced section}} tags. They are very unhelpful (at least in the sections you placed them). —Ruud 22:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have only placed these tags in lengthy sections that are actually unreferenced - why are they considered unhelpful? Jarble (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you removed the disambiguation tags from a page in . Why did you decide to remove these tags, instead of disambiguating the ambiguous links? Jarble (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I was really just trying to identify sections of articles that had no references - I don't really understand why this isn't considered helpful. Jarble (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Most articles already had an banner saying the referencing of the whole article should be improved, there's no need to duplicate that for each section 2) You added the banner to multiple sections of each page. {{unreferenced section}} should be used if there is a single section that has noticeably worse referencing than the rest of the article. If there's more than one, one banner at the top will suffice (see WP:TAGBOMB). 3) Some of the sections only contained source code. The problem here probably isn't in the fact that the code is unreferenced but in that it's there in the first place (see MOS:CODE). 4) {{unreferenced section}} is terribly unspecific and often added by people who haven't actually read the article, but merely note a lack of footnotes. It's better to attach {{citation needed}} to specific sentences you think should require additional referencing. —Ruud 14:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINKING yet again

Jarble, when I reverted you here with a very clear explanation about why, I should not have had to revert you here. But at least the links were placed within a quote of a reference that second time, whether you realize it or not. I don't understand what it is that you don't understand about the WP:OVERLINKING guideline. I and others have had to repeatedly revert your overlinking and have repeatedly advised you not to overlink (for example, in the #Overzealous disambiguation section above, one such editor, as you know, mentions repeatedly reverting your overlinking), and yet you continue to do it. You want to know what WP:OVERLINKING is. The WP:OVERLINKING section explains what it is. For example, linking to the Sexual stimulation article and then linking to penile stimulation can be overlinking/needless linking since the penile stimulation link takes people back to the Sexual stimulation article. Usually, the Sexual stimulation link will be all that is needed in such a case. WP:OVERLINKING notes that repeating links may be appropriate under certain circumstances, which makes the repeated links not necessarily overlinking. But repeating links are not appropriate in the instances that I have reverted you on. Linking to redirects side-by-side, or very close to each other in another way, when those redirects take the reader to the same article, for example? That is WP:OVERLINKING. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The circular links that I created were completely unintentional - I wouldn't have created them if I had realized that they would link back to the same page. Jarble (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

At the time when I made these edits, I actually didn't realize that I was creating links to a page that was already linked. Some redirects to the same page have different names, and that makes it difficult to tell whether the two redirects actually link to the same page. I know that the creation of multiple links to the same page on one article is discouraged, but it's not always easy to tell how many links there are on one page to another specific page - I usually don't count every single link to a specific article on before adding a new link, since this would be very tedious. Jarble (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, to prevent problems like this in the future, I think a Misplaced Pages bot should be created to automatically remove circular links (which tend to be distracting and misleading at times). Jarble (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't aware that making unintentional duplicate links was considered a form of vandalism, and I'm a bit surprised by the harsh criticism that I've received for these relatively insignificant mistakes. Can users really be banned from Misplaced Pages for making minor stylistic errors such as these? Jarble (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jarble, I don't mean to come off harsh about any of this or to make you feel unwanted on Misplaced Pages, if I have. I don't believe that's the intention of most of the other editors above who have criticized some of your editing either. My intention is to be stern on this matter, and here's why: The reason that the criticism has been or has seemed harsh at times, from most of the people who have commented on your talk page about these things, is because we have had to revert you on these matters repeatedly even though we've pointed you to the guidelines or other behavioral pages (once or more than once) that we are abiding by. You sometimes create redirects that aren't needed, and that is made worse when you add that redirect to an article where it's already linked under its primary name (more so how you add the redirect). You sometimes add disambiguation hatnotes, "clarify" or "span" tags that are not needed (I'd never even seen editors use the "span" tag until you started using it; you're still the only editor I've seen use that tag thus far), and I'm not sure how to get you to understand when these things are needed and when they are not needed (though the "span" tag, which looks messier than the other tags, is never needed, in my opinion). The matter can obviously sometimes be subjective. But we've discussed your adding unnecessary headings and/or subheadings, and I think you'll be better about that from now on. So let's talk about tags that you sometimes add. I'll use the "vague" tag as an example. Sometimes, text is vague because sources are vague or because there are too many examples to list without turning the text into a WP:LINKFARM and/or wordfarm without links. Look at Template:Which. It states: Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Misplaced Pages should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only that "In some countries..."—then Misplaced Pages must remain vague.

I'm asking you to try to be better about these things. When you are reverted because sexual stimulation is already linked in an article, then it goes to reason that it's still linked in that article when you add a different term that you've also redirected to the Sexual stimulation article. I wouldn't call the sexual stimulation matter a circular link, by the way. A circular link is when the link keeps you on the same article instead of taking you to a different one. See Help:Self link.

As for vandalism, you have not committed any vandalism that I know of. See WP:Vandalism. And as for banning, no, since you are acting in good faith and are an otherwise productive editor, you would not be banned for making these mistakes or for making edits that are contested instead of mistakes. WP:BAN is also different than WP:BLOCK. Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2012 Kamaishi earthquake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shock

Jordan Rift Valley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Depression

Plastic particle water pollution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nurdle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop overlinking

You've been asked many times, so now I'm telling you: Stop overlinking. Stop and think for a moment whether linking an article from another makes any sense or not. I just reverted this edit of yours. Have a look at it: The article talks about roleplaying anthropomorphic animals in a pen and paper roleplaying game. And you link the term "animal roleplaying" to Animal roleplay, which is an article about erotic sexual role-play. What on earth has a variation of a pen & paper RPG to do with a form of erotic, sexual roleplay?

You have to stop and think before you create a link or a hatnote. Seriously. --Conti|✉ 16:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You make a good point here. I'll see if there's anything I can do to improve the animal roleplaying article to discuss animal roleplaying in other contexts (like the one mentioned in the roleplaying game's article). Jarble (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, the same issue, this time here. A section about fur fetishism (the physical attraction to fur) is linked by you to Furry fandom#Sexual aspects, the sexual aspects of a fandom. I'm telling you this with my admin hat on: Stop it. Stop and think if a link to another article makes any sense. Just because they happen to have the same words in it does not make them related, and two concepts with similar words can be entirely unrelated. The next time this happens, I'll ask for input on what to do about your careless overlinking at the administrator's noticeboard. --Conti|✉ 21:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, feel free to ban me. The world doesn't need worthless people like me who cause so much grief to the rest of the world. I'm going to commit suicide now. :) Jarble (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've changed my mind aobut committing suicide. I still think I deserve to be banned from Misplaced Pages, though (since it's pretty obvious that a lot of Wikipedians really hate me and wish I were dead). I think you should ask an administrator to ban me so that the rest of the world won't have to put up with my last few instances of unwanted overlinking. (In my case, being banned from Misplaced Pages is the next best thing to being killed - I think my physical presence in the world is almost as undesirable as my presence on Misplaced Pages.) Jarble (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Jarble, please don't, on Misplaced Pages, state that you are going to kill yourself. Even when it's just a joke. The reason that I emphasize not doing so on Misplaced Pages is because of the Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm page. Off Misplaced Pages, while still not good to state that you are going to kill yourself, it can be good to talk about such thoughts with people; it can be a form of therapy. Misplaced Pages, however, is not therapy, per WP:NOT THERAPY. I know what it's like to have suicidal thoughts; not just the random thought to kill one's self that a lot of people have had, but the serious, persistent ones; I've had them for years. While I emphasize that you have to try your best not to let those thoughts get the better of you, I know that it's not always possible to keep that from happening. But do continue to try your best concerning that matter. If editing Misplaced Pages helps you keep those thoughts off your mind, you should not give up this site (no matter how many unpleasant encounters you have while on it). I don't think that anyone here hates you or wishes that you were dead. I don't, which is why I'm taking the time to talk with you about this. And, lower on your talk page, I've already addressed the matter of being banned.

Remember, if you are trying your best on Misplaced Pages, that is a good thing. Sure, people's best is not always best for Misplaced Pages. But trying to do your best editing is better than not trying to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I just get too many complaints from editors about seemingly unimportant issues nowadays, and I find it very frustrating. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the dramatic decline in editing activity that the wiki has seen lately. (Also, I was a bit shocked when I found out that Conti was threatening to ban me because of a few "see also" hatnotes that I added to some articles). Jarble (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the things people have complained about concerning your editing is not unimportant on Misplaced Pages; that's what you need to realize and is why most of the complaints you have received concern the same issues. And Conti did not threaten to have you banned. Above in this section and on his or her talk page, he or she suggested that it will or may take having more people assess the inappropriate editing you engage in...so that such an assessment may finally get you to stop that type of editing. And, again, WP:BLOCK is different than WP:BAN. WP:BAN happens significantly less, even in the case of topic bans. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Horse anatomy article

Jarble, just an FYI that the Horse anatomy article is intended to be an overview, the greater detail should be in the spinoff articles where they exist. Thus, don't take detail OUT of stallion and insert it into Horse anatomy; it works the other way around. Your other cleanup is generally helpful and your improvement of links has been useful. Montanabw 00:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Programming

Programming

Hello, Jarble. When you changed Programming from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Misplaced Pages articles that contain links to "Programming" and fix them to take readers to the correct article.

Also, technically, if this term does not have a primary topic, the disambiguation page should be entitled Programming rather than Programming (disambiguation). Therefore, it would be appropriate for you to propose to move the page to the shorter title.

Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixing all of the incoming links isn't always easy - it appears that there are dozens of links to programming, which all need to be disambiguated. It will require the effort of many editors to sort out this problem. Jarble (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Creating disambiguation pages

Hey again, Jarble. I'm concerned about you creating redundant/unhelpful disambiguation pages; you need to stop doing that. The Sexual activity disambiguation page you created, for example, was a mess. That's not meant to be offensive; that's simply the case. It was somewhat redundant to the Sexuality disambiguation page, except that the Sexuality disambiguation page obviously covers more aspects of sexuality, which is why I redirected it back to the Sexuality page. The Copulation redirect was similarly redundant. We don't need all these disambiguation pages pointing to the same things, with only a few differences. Furthermore, "copulation" is generally synonymous with "sexual intercourse," as explained in the Sexual intercourse article, and at Talk:Copulation where WP:Consensus is that it should redirect to the Sexual intercourse article. Redirecting it to the Mating article would have also been a better option than creating a disambiguation page for it. It is not synonymous with the wording "animal sexual behavior," for example. Still, it is more synonymous with sexual intercourse than mating. All of that is why I reverted your creation of a Copulation disambiguation page. As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, "Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)."

That's why the Sexual activity disambiguation page you created previously (which, as a link, also originally) redirected to Human sexual activity; most people will no doubt be looking for human sexual activity under that title instead of non-human sexual activity under that title. You need to realize when your disambiguation pages are depriving readers of being redirected to the article they are expecting to see when they click on a Wikilink. Generally, people (more often those unfamiliar with how Misplaced Pages generally works) are not expecting to be redirected to a disambiguation page when they click on an un-disambiguated Wikilink; they are expecting to go to an article. For this reason, disambiguation pages should only be created when necessary; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC goes over that. Most of these redirects have existed for years at the same target for valid reasons; you are now disturbing those redirects on what seems to be a whim. And most definitely, no disambiguation page should redirect to another disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of disambiguation pages is to prevent this type of confusion in the first place: editors may not always agree about which meaning of a term is its "primary meaning", since this is often subjective. Disambiguation pages can often be useful because they ensure that links to an ambiguous word or phrase will always point to the correct article about this topic. (Also, whenever a redirect page links to another redirect page, the redirect will be fixed automatically by a Misplaced Pages bot, so there's nothing wrong with creating a redirect to another redirect page.)

Also, for many disambiguation pages that you deleted, it isn't always clear what is the "primary meaning" of a particular term. The word "programming" sometimes refers to computer programming, but it can also refer to radio programming or television programming. The "primary meaning" of a term is often subjective, and can reflect an editor's bias toward a particular subject that they happen to be familiar with. When an editor creates a link to the word "programming", it may refer to either computer programming, radio programming, or television programming. A computer programmer might consider the term "computer programming" to be the primary meaning of the term, whereas a television programmer might consider "television programming" to be the most important meaning of the term. Jarble (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

While editors may not always agree what is a primary meaning, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists for a reason; it exists because what is the primary topic is usually very clear, such as by analysis done in this discussion. It exists to keep you from doing what you have been doing when creating disambiguation pages. If what is the primary topic were generally subjective, then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would not exist. If you don't understand why some of the disambiguation pages you have created are problematic, then I don't know what else to state to you about it. It's similar to the problem you have with overlinking. And with your overlinking, other problematic ways you alter links, and confusing or needless tags you add, I and others are often having to clean up after you. And I honestly don't know what to do about that. You have created Copulation (disambiguation); I fail to see how it is too helpful, since it mentions two terms that are already covered by the Copulation redirect, two terms that are not common among the general public, and links to "All pages with titles containing 'Copulation'" and "All pages with titles containing 'Copulatory'"...even though those two links show that they barely link to any articles. Disambiguation pages are not supposed to exist to point readers to every possible usage of a term. Again, read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Only when there is no primary topic, should the term be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)." The term "copulation," as seen by every definition entry about it, clearly has a primary topic. That the term "sexual intercourse" usually refers to humans makes it no less valid that the Sexual intercourse article, or, at the least, the Mating article, is the primary topic for the term "copulation." And for anyone looking for copulation among non-human animals, the Sexual intercourse article clearly points readers to the Animal sexual behaviour and Mating articles, and discusses sexual intercourse among non-human animals. It's very easy for me to state that most people will not be looking for "copulatory tie" or "copulatory plug" under the title Copulation. Programming is a completely different matter, which clearly has no primary topic. I was going to state that we'll see how the Copulation (disambiguation) page you created goes; and by that, I mean if it lasts or not. I was going to state if it is moved to Copulation, just like Programming (disambiguation) was moved to Programming today, then I will again un-disambiguate the page. But you went ahead and moved it there yourself, and I restored the page as a redirect to the Sexual intercourse article. And again, this discussion should be had at Talk:Copulation instead of here on your talk page or at Talk:Sexual intercourse. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Still, the primary topic of the copulation redirect page is unclear, since the vast majority of links to this redirect page are about non-human animals instead of humans. In that case, it doesn't make much sense to redirect it to sexual intercourse, since that article discusses humans almost exclusively. Misleading redirects like this one should be avoided whenever possible, and redirecting to a disambiguation page would certainly be better than redirecting to the wrong article. Jarble (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Given what I stated above, I fail to see how redirecting Copulation to the Sexual intercourse article is a misleading redirect. However, I would be fine with it being redirected to the Mating article, just like the spelling variations of "copulation" redirected to the Mating article:. But that should be discussed at Talk:Copulation first, especially since redirecting Copulation to the Mating article has been changed back to redirecting it to the Sexual intercourse article more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Jarble, the best way to handle controversial disambiguation and page creation is to put a move request on the page(s) in question and let the people who care all comment there. It's slower, but the result tends to stick. Montanabw 19:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

How can I add a move request for a specific page, then? Jarble (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious why you created Penis (disambiguation). The penises listed there should be covered in the Penis article. And since they are, with the exception of the human penis...which readers are pointed to at the top of that article...and with the exception of the Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy article...which readers are also pointed to at the top of that article...that disambiguation page is redundant. It did not need to be created just to point readers to the Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy article, and it's not as though most people think of that when thinking of the word penis. I'm not going to try to delete the Penis (disambiguation) page, but it is a prime example of what I mean about creating redundant/unhelpful disambiguation pages. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And one more thing about the copulation matter: The reason that your pipelinking Animal sexual behavior under the word copulation for text dealing with non-human animals (or for the word copulation in general, given that the Animal sexual behavior article is about non-human animals) is not appropriate is because copulation usually equates to penis-in-vagina sexual activity. And for animals where there is no penis-in-vagina sexual activity to copulate, it simply means "the transfer of the sperm from male to female." The Sexual intercourse article addresses this, in the first line of its lead by showing that copulation is an alternative term for the insertion of the penis into the vagina for sexual pleasure or reproduction, by mentioning in its final lead paragraph that sexual intercourse between non-human animals is usually referred to as copulation, and by going over the definition of copulation in its Etymology and definitions section...and in its Other animals section. The Animal sexual behaviour article, unlike the Mating article, does not make this clear, and instead starts off stating "Animal sexual behaviour takes many different forms," which is another reason why the Sexual intercourse article or the Mating article are significantly better targets for the term copulation. My stating this to you does not mean that I think you should transport text from any of these articles about this matter and place it in the Animal sexual behaviour article, or that I want to continue discussing this matter with you (I don't). I just felt that you should know this, especially so that you are not surprised when anyone removes your Animal sexual behavior/Copulation pipelinks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the #"In use" tag section below, the words mating and copulation, along with associated aspects, are now mentioned in the lead of the Animal sexual behaviour article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

redlinks and junk

Please stop. Don't convert arbitrary phrases to redlinks, nor links to disambig pages. Use a redlink only if an article at that title is likely. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Biblical literalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conservative Christians

Fistula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Congo

Fresco (windowing system) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Widget

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Tag properly, or don't tag at all!

Regarding stuff like this, stop it! I am obviously agitated about repeatedly having to advise you on things and cleaning up after you; so are others, obviously. That is why the tone of this post is rude. Look at the following sections on your talk page about tagging: .

How many more times must you be advised on such things? In the #WP:OVERLINKING yet again section, I very clearly explained to you about appropriate use of tags such as "Which?" and "Whom?." And yet you went ahead and added "According to whom?" inappropriately today. Just stop it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, feel free to ban me (or ask an administrator to do so). I'm sure the Misplaced Pages community won't miss me at all. (Most of my contributions to Misplaced Pages are rather worthless, so I think the community would be better off without my undesirable presence here). Jarble (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Jarble, I told you in the WP:OVERLINKING yet again section that I don't mean to make you feel unwanted on Misplaced Pages. I also stated in that section, "And as for banning, no, since you are acting in good faith and are an otherwise productive editor, you would not be banned for making these mistakes or for making edits that are contested instead of mistakes."

I just don't know how else to help your Misplaced Pages editing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Except...you could ask for a WP:MENTOR at Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. It's not just for new Misplaced Pages editors; it's also for Misplaced Pages editors who are not new...but need guidance on some ways that Misplaced Pages works. You can tell the mentor what you need guidance on, and he or she should be able to help you. But you obviously need to listen (as well as one can listen by reading words) to the mentor and try to understand the explanations he or she gives you. I and others have tried to get you to not only listen, but understand what we are stating when it concerns appropriate editing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jarble, I've noticed the traffic at your page since we discussed the horse anatomy stuff, and I think you've been around here long enough (your contribs go back to 2008) to know the WP:MOS a little better than this. Over-tagging and over-linking is just tacky. Looks like you are taking heat from different editors on different articles, so may want to look at that a bit and take the suggestions seriously. (Me, if I'm going to piss off someone, I like to be sure I'm doing it on purpose, LOL) Montanabw 19:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Recently, I've only added a few disambiguation tags to links that are ambigous (as well as adding "globalize" tags to articles that do not present a worldwide view of a subject). From now on, I'll try to make sure that the tags that I add are as unambiguous as possible (since they appear to have created much confusion in the past).

Recently, I've been much more cautious (and less over-enthusiastic) about adding clarification/disambiguation/globalize/citation needed tags to articles. Are any of my recently added tags are considered problematic? Jarble (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Usually, I only add tags where the appear to be necessary (e. g., whenever there are links that require disambiguation, or articles that appear to contain out-of-date information, or sections of articles that are missing information about particular subjects). Is this considered helpful, or is it simply adding unnecessary clutter? Jarble (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to review the stuff other people have posted and comment there; I do watch your edits to the pages on my watchlist, and whenever I've had a concern, I've usually just reverted or fixed it myself without much comment because you have been pretty good about not edit-warring on anything I keep an eye on. But in general, be careful if you are using automated tools and don't do a "mass tag and run" on articles, particularly when perhaps one good tag is all that's needed (I use refimprove a lot, flags it for help, but doesn't piss off most people). Overlinking needs to be avoided, it's nice to just fix the dabs yourself when possible, and slapping on a bunch of tags at once tends to irritate people. It is a courtesy to just fix minor stuff instead of tagging it, at least, if you know what you are doing (if you don't, then a tag at the problem sometimes is helpful, if you don't do it too much). The "globalize" tag is, IMHO, one of the most abused tags on wikipedia and should only be used for things where there is a real globalization problem (such as, for example, a topic associated with a particular nation not even talking about its history in that nation, just in other places where the thing was exported). My suggestion is to take an article where you have been the "lead" editor, perhaps one you created, and run it through the Good article gauntlet to see what sort of stuff the reviewers spot. It's a great way to separate out what matters and what doesn't. Montanabw 21:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DeriveDisambiguation

Template:DeriveDisambiguation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"In use" tag

So I take it that you didn't see that, or are you just ignoring it? Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought the tag was automatically added by a bot when I was editing the page. Was it added automatically because of one of my edits, or was it added for some other reason? Jarble (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the edits that I made since the tag was added. You can go back to editing the page now. Jarble (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't began editing the article when you were adding things after I added the "In use" tag, so there was no hassle for me on that matter. I just wanted to know if you knew that I was about to begin editing the article. To my knowledge, bots do not add that tag. It's a tag that editors place on an article because they are going to be doing substantial editing to it and want to avoid WP:Edit conflicts during that time. As seen by this removal of the tag by a different editor, it took me hours to finally get around to making my intended changes; the delay was due to distractions elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. But, as you know, I finally got around to making them, as seen with this and this edit. The words mating and copulation, along with associated aspects, are now mentioned in the lead, which they should be for the reasons I stated above in the #Creating disambiguation pages section on April 12th on your talk page, and because the mentions abide by WP:LEAD when taking into account the fact that both terms are extensively mentioned lower in the article.

By now, you've also likely seen this revert I made regarding an edit you made. We should definitely regulate the article to mainly the topic of animal sexual behavior instead of things related to it, especially when those things are not about sexual behavior. Also shown in that edit summary, you need to be more careful when moving text from one article to another. When moving references from one article to another, it's a matter of checking to see if the references you are moving are complete references and not just refnames. As you now know, this is covered at Misplaced Pages:NAMEDREFS#Multiple references to the same footnote. Bringing over the refname in absence of the source in its entirety leaves the reference invalid. Making sure that there is no redundant text or circular links are also issues when moving text from one article to another. Flyer22 (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, I hate when I get a page number wrong; that type of mistake doesn't happen open with me, however. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Human pregnancy and birth

Category:Human pregnancy and birth, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

ALGOL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Table

Amazon Mechanical Turk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Contractor

Animal sexual behaviour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Disgorge

Folk art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chillum

Paddy field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tavy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving text about non-human animals into a new article

I don't mind this move much, but I hope that you don't start doing that type of thing for any Misplaced Pages article that you come across. For Misplaced Pages articles regarding topics that pertain to humans and non-human animals, unless that article is specifically about humans or specifically about non-human animals, such a Misplaced Pages article is more well-rounded if there is information in it about both humans and non-human animals. WP:MEDMOS, which also addresses anatomy, shows that, for example. And so do the WP:GA and WP:FA processes, often. So it would be best to keep the Other animals section in the Urination article, but to have it be a decent-sized summary (not too small or too big) of the Urine marking article you created, with a Main article link in it pointing readers to that article. Further, there are topics that have been studied significantly less with regard to non-human animals and therefore there is no need for a separate article for that information when it can, and likely should, be covered in one article about the general topic. You don't like that most Misplaced Pages articles regarding topics that pertain to humans and non-human animals are mostly about humans, but we generally have the Other animals section because of what I stated in this edit summary, and because the topics generally have not been studied as significantly, or much at all, with regard to non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that WP:CFORK also applies. I'd rather see one good, solid article with a subsection on non-human animals than two articles, one of which is a crappy stub. For example, where there is a complex article like lordosis or club foot and beyond the human cases, really all there is to say is that "some non-human animals have this too and here is what it's all about" in a couple paragraphs, as an animal owner looking for information, it would be silly to just parrot all the basic information that is the same for all creatures, human and otherwise for the purpose of two articles - in fact, I think that there is a policy somewhere on wiki that discourages doing precisely that. That said, urine marking IS worth its own article because (as a general rule) humans (at least sober ones) don't do a whole lot of urine scent marking of their territory... =:-O Montanabw 19:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure whether it would be better to keep it as a sub-section of the original article, or to move it into a new article. I actually moved it into its own article, but then reverted my edits afterward. Of course, it will be necessary to prevent any content from being unnecessarily duplicated in both of those articles, if they are to be separated. Jarble (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I explained above in this section that there can be both -- an Other animals section in the Urination article that has "a decent-sized summary (not too small or too big) of the Urine marking article you created, with a Main article link in it pointing readers to that article." That type of content forking is often practiced on Misplaced Pages, and is perfectly acceptable, as stated at Misplaced Pages:Content forking#Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles. That stated, that guideline centers around when an article gets too big. The Urination article is not so big that it's a detriment to the article to leave the Other animals section there in its entirety. Misplaced Pages:Content forking also acknowledges that related articles may duplicate material, which may be acceptable and is not necessarily a content fork. You should also read Misplaced Pages:Summary style#Avoiding unnecessary splits. Again, I don't care much either way if there is a Urine marking article, and, like Montanabw stated, urine marking is worth its own article. I just wanted to explain to you why we often keep the Other animals sections in the human-dominated articles, and to think carefully before creating a spin-off article. I didn't want you to get carried away with that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, since you are often copying text from one article to another, including text that I've created, you may also be interested in the Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages guideline. I worded that as "may also be" because most Wikipedians, from what I have seen, don't know about that guideline and therefore don't abide by it. Even those who do know about it, either don't abide by it or generally don't abide by it (yes, including me). But leaving an attribution is as simple as noting in the edit summary that you are transporting text from one article to another. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Object Linking and Embedding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Linking and Object

Chatham Islands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Waka

Kantele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dulcimer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Watch your user page for vandalism

If you don't already watch your user page by use of your WP:Watchlist, you should because of cases of vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-violent crime listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Non-violent crime. Since you had some involvement with the Non-violent crime redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Accountancy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Enterprise

Social insurance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Benefits

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Penile sheath may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Up your alley

Found this article: Update on horse sheath cleaning, with how-to video link the topic in general is up your alley, so thought I'd see if you want to integrate any of it into the management sections of gelding or stallion (the gelding article has some good info already, much of which probably should also be ported to stallion, and the update added). Montanabw 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asynchronous I/O, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Processing (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) 23:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hacker (computer security), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bot (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) 11:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Free software development listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Free software development. Since you had some involvement with the Free software development redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). AVRS (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ambox-throwing

Hello. I have some doubts and questions about your recent mathematical edits. Generally, this your activity appears to be useful (at least much more useful than this and similar edits), but I do not think labelling section as unreferenced is helpful in math articles where numerous textbooks exist on these elementary topic. See Misplaced Pages talk: WikiProject Mathematics #Ambox-throwing to sections. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I created a link to particle collsion, which is obviously a typo. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Jarble (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

quotient ring

Your statement in this edit summary that the section appears to consist of original research is very strange, in view of the fact that the examples listed are standard things found in all textbooks. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Content forking

Jarble, what is the point of having a Urine marking article when you have the text duplicated in its entirety in the Other animals section of the Urination article and in the Scent marking section of the Territory (animal) article?

What is the point of having a Marsupial reproductive system article when you have the text duplicated in its entirety in the Reproductive system section of the Marsupial article, and in the Marsupials section of the Sexual reproduction article?

Do you not see the redundancy, how it makes no sense to point readers to a main article that offers nothing new, or hardly anything new, than the section in the non-main article does? Do you not see that this is inappropriate use of WP:Content forking? It doesn't appear that you properly digested what was stated to you above on your talk page about splitting content away from articles and content forking.

Since I still watch the Urination article, I'd already seen the Urine marking duplication you created, but I was hoping that someone else would address you about it, just like Montanabw fixed your incorrect use of template creation for the topic of horse sheath cleaning, because I'm tired of explaining to you the right or wrong way to do things at this site, and I'm tired of cleaning up after you. And because I know that you are tired of me complaining about your work at this site. But seeing you create this latest redundancy, the aforementioned marsupial reproductive system matter, I decided to complain about your work on your talk page yet again. You really do need a WP:MENTOR, like I stated before. But seeing as, with regard to your problematic editing, you barely listen to those who are not your mentors, or rather don't seem to understand what they are stating, it's not likely that a mentor will keep you from making the same kinds of problematic edits you've been making. You always state that you will try to be better not to make the same type of problematic edits that have been repeatedly mentioned to you, but whether you try or not, or don't make the same problematic edits for a week or so, the problematic editing continues. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally, I try to avoid the duplication of source code in articles, and transclusion usually doesn't involve any duplication of articles. Is excessive transclusion considered a type of content forking, despite the fact that it doesn't involve any source code duplication? (Generally, when a template is edited, all copies of that template will be automatically synchronized across all pages with that template, so it isn't really "forking" in the traditional sense of the term).

My understanding is that "content forking" refers to the actual duplication of source code on individual pages, which is something that I generally try to avoid. I might have been wrong about this, unfortunately - I didn't realize that transclusion was considered harmful until now, since no one has pointed this out to me before. Should I replace the templates with the links to the articles that I've created, instead of transcluding the articles into other articles? Jarble (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, does Misplaced Pages have any official guidelines that argue for or against the transclusion of templates, and does it really fall within the usual definition of "content forking"? Jarble (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Urine marking page is an article; it's not supposed to be used as a template. And I don't understand how you cannot see that you've been inappropriately content forking. Yes, as shown above, you have been duplicating articles in sections.

Anyway, as you have seen by now via the notifications system, I've gone to yet another editor to ask for help in getting you to edit better at this site. My patience is now thin when it comes to helping you. For example, if I comment any more in this section, it will not help you; this is because, to reiterate what I stated above, "with regard to your problematic editing, you barely listen to those who are not your mentors, or rather don't seem to understand what they are stating." But it was worth a shot asking someone else to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The WP:Content forking article doesn't mention transclusion at all, and I haven't seen any official guidelines that describe transclusion as a form of "copying" or "content forking", so I think it still seems like a bit of a gray area. Directly copying and pasting content creates multiple versions of an article, but transclusion of an article doesn't create multiple copies, so it isn't clear whether or not this should be considered content forking. Are there any articles on Misplaced Pages that discuss problematic forms of transclusion in any detail (as opposed to content forking, which involves direct copying and pasting of content instead of transclusion)? Jarble (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you thought that the fact that I did not respond to your latest comments here and here meant that you should press on with this addition that I reverted (with a correction in my edit summary). I don't understand what you don't grasp about what you were doing wrong; I state "were" in this case because I see that you have removed the duplications. Conti told you before to use common sense when editing Misplaced Pages, but, from what I have seen, common sense often seems to escape your editing. How at all does it matter whether or not it is direct copying or indirect copying? The fact remains that you were copying articles in their entirety in sections of other articles. Above, I pointed out the instance where Montanabw reverted your creation of a template because you had made the template into an article. Lately, you were doing the reverse; you were using articles as templates. I told you above that the Urine marking page is an article and is not supposed to be used as a template; the same applies to all articles. I asked you simple questions about the ridiculousness of the redundancy of having a section be a complete copy of an article and pointing readers to the article as though there is anything different in it than what is in the section. But you ignored that and focused on the fact that you were not directly copying. This is why my patience is thin when trying to explain things to you; most of the explanation seems to go over your head. And despite my previously stating that you are an otherwise productive editor, lately, most of your edits are cleanup for others. You really should find yourself a WP:MENTOR and truly listen to that mentor. Conti suggested that "getting wider community input," such as a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, "would be the next logical step" if your problematic editing continued; I think that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've merged all of the transcluded articles back into their original sections now. Jarble (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My recent edits may go against "common sense" (from your specific point of view), but do they conflict with any specific policies or guidelines? Jarble (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Per above, I of course already know that you did that. And, yes, what you did goes against WP:Content forking; that page shouldn't have to mention transclusion for you to know that WP:Content forking applies to duplicating an article in its entirety in a section...directly or indirectly. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering the low activity of that talk page (and its main page), we aren't likely to get any replies there, or at least no replies soon, about this. But we'll obviously see. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I spoke too soon. Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Inline citations vs footnotes

I see you have tagged some things as needing inline citations that already have them — just not as footnotes. Thanks for your efforts to improve referencing in WIkipedia, but please see Misplaced Pages:Parenthetical referencing: the Author (year) style of citing references is explicitly stated by Misplaced Pages guidelines to be acceptable as an alternative to footnotes for articles that use them. So for articles that use this style (and have an adequate number of inline citations of whatever format) the tag is inappropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)