Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:59, 6 June 2006

Your idea that the commas following names are undesirable is interesting, but it may be they are there for specific reasons that you don't understand. My guess is that they were put there when enormous numbers of names were added by an automated procedure, and it is likely you obstructing future use of such methods.

I'd suggest you start a discussion at Talk:List of people by name, and i'm likely to go thru rapidly reverting what you've done, since doing so is easier if done earlier. --Jerzy(t) 20:02, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Misplaced Pages.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Misplaced Pages:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

• Valentino Rossi
• DAC 665
• Bhumij rebellion
• List of analog television stations in the Philippines

• Ramsgate
• Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
• List of fires in San Bernardino National Forest
• YouTube
• Telewizja Trwam

• Anbu Thollai
• Edhuvum Nadakkum
• Kottai Mariamman
• Ragavan
• Ninaikkatha Naalillai

• Lovelock Aerial Gunnery Range
• Wink Martindale
• Gujarat
• Renen Schorr
• USL League One

• Commons-based peer production
• Barry Loudermilk
• Coodabeen Champions
• Smile (David Gilmour song)
• Square dance

• Star polygons in art and culture
• Royal Society of Arts
• Moral theology of Rowan Williams
• Centronics
• The Naked Truth (How I Met Your Mother)

• Netball in Wales
• Najafgarh Lake
• Northern Crossing (shopping mall)
• National Zoo & Aquarium
• National Library of Guyana

• Hassan Ali Nokhodaki Isfahani
• Ferdinando Marinelli Artistic Foundry
• Manuel Antonio Matta
• Timeline of the Front de libération du Québec
• Avtokam

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, show preview, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Fennec 20:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism done by 130.113.226.6 to my user page. AscendedAnathema 19:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User page

Hi. Just a note to say thanks for the reverts to my user page. Cheers TigerShark 11:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Test Templates

Please subst test templates when you use them by typing "{{subst:<name of template>}}". This helps to reduce stress on the servers. Thanks! — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA succeeded with a final consensus of 52/17/7, and receiving comments including having 'excellent potential to become a great moderator', and I am now an administrator. It did however only just pass, and I shall do my very best to rectify any of my errors, including the general belief that I should do more article work. If you have any concerns, or if you ever feel that I may be able to help you, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you!

H. James Birx

It's not an edit war, in fact (though it looks like it). User:Kolriv was blocked by another admin for a 3RR violation on another article; he has created a string of sock-puppets to evade that block, and each one is permanently blocked and its edits reverted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, you don't have to revert over such a trivial matter just because the other user is blocked. Margana 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

First, it is in fact usual policy: blocked users' edits are reverted. Secondly, his edit in any case makes the article look cramped, with the stubs too close to the text. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Remeber the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews? It reached nothing even remotly resembling consensus, but it was deleted anyway? Please join the debate regarding undeleting it. I view this as nothing more as the majority imposing their will on the minority, in a blatant violation of the spirit of wikipedia --Striver 22:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it was deleted, which I find regrettable, but I'm not sure how to argue with Thryduulf's reasoning. Maybe you can merge some of the content into other articles. Margana 23:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hawaiian English

Please take note that Hawaiian English is a standardized dialect, the sole standard of English in the state of Hawaiʻi, and that in Hawaiian English, the ʻokina and kahakō are mandatory for words or names of Hawaiian language origin. Hawaiian English is stylistically appropriate for articles of Hawaiʻi-associated topics, just as British English is for the United Kingdom and standard American English (though not the official language on the national level as there is none) is for those individual U.S. states that adopt it (Hawaiʻi is not one of them—Hawaiian English is their own particular English language standard). Please keep the Hawaiian spellings in place, and expand them in article texts and titles if you know them. If associated articles don't have their words of Hawaiian origin in Hawaiian spelling—as per Hawaiian English—then the {{nothaweng}} template is put in place to clarify the issue for readers of Hawaiʻi-specific topics or for regional readers who speak, read and write Hawaiian English (including myself). If you need help, the kahakō vowels are available in the insert box when you edit, and the ʻokina can be indicated with the {{okina}} template (or the {{'okina}} template for ʻokina that is already inside a <span></span> tag). The opening left single quote (‘) is inappropriate and discouraged—ʻ is a letter, ‘ is punctuation. - Gilgamesh 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just commented on this on Talk:Ukulele. Let's continue there. Margana 13:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV-warning

Stop adding commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Misplaced Pages articles, as you did at Jimmy Wales. Doing so breaches Misplaced Pages's NPOV rules. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. -- Kim van der Linde 15:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not my "commentary", it's facts and sourced criticism. But you know that. So, stop removing facts from a Misplaced Pages article, as you did at Jimmy Wales. Doing so may be considered Vandalism. Furthermore, removing the same facts multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. Margana 15:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me say it this way, if you continue to be disruptibe and insisting in violating policies, you can indeed be blocked. The sources are not reliable, and the way things are written results in guild by association constructions. -- Kim van der Linde 15:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There's the bullying again. I am not disruptive nor violating policies. Take it to RFC if you are no longer willing to continue discussion on the talk page. Margana 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are disruptive. There is NO consensus about inserting that quote, and you should build consensus first at the talk page, and we are still discussing. Only when there is consensus, and if it does not violate policies, it can be reinserted. Furthermore, if you keep reinserting the same quote again before there is consensus, you can and will be blocked for disruption. -- Kim van der Linde 00:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Which policy says one has to get prior consensus to add material, but not to remove it? I think you have it completely backwards. According to you, a vandal can remove anything and then other people first have to build a consensus that the material belongs in the article before they can restore it. Absurd. Margana 01:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You might find it absurd, that is your opinion, and I am fine with that. If there is doubt about info, it should be removed and can be removed by any editor and the burden of proof is at the person who wants to reinsert that. Also, read Misplaced Pages:Consensus for how things work here. And read WP:RS#Partisan_websites for more information about partisan websites and how carefull to be whith those. -- Kim van der Linde 01:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say anything about "if there is doubt about info", it only says if something is unreferenced the burden of proof is at the person who wants it in to provide a reference. I have referenced everything, notwithstanding your persistent misunderstanding of what "reliable source" means in regard to opinions. The quote is 100% verifiable. The thing about "partisan websites" is totally irrelevant here, since we're not using such for facts but for criticism, and criticism naturally comes from partisan sources! Margana 01:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The partisan websites rules are highy relevant here. -- Kim van der Linde 01:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It says partisan websites "should never be used as sources for Misplaced Pages, except as primary sources". And the latter is exactly what we're doing here. Margana 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Psephos

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Xtra 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)