Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:: was helpful to me wrt ] and ]. And , because it numbers each comment and reply, and it does not confuse the subject with ]. --] (]) 17:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
:: was helpful to me wrt ] and ]. And , because it numbers each comment and reply, and it does not confuse the subject with ]. --] (]) 17:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
== There are guidelines for ]. ==
Your comment move from to was done in a confusing way. There are guidelines for ]. In particular, note that "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Reversion would just add more confusion, so I suggest that you put the moved comments in <u>their own section</u> with <u>the original section name</u>: "Why does positive integers redirect here? Whole numbers not related to integers??". --] (]) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:58, 8 October 2014
April 2014
Extended content
Note: My (MjolnirPants) responses were originally places on LM2000's talk page. I have transcribed them here for clarity.
I understand where you're coming from, but the subject of the discussion was whether the urban legend the film bears so many similarities to should be mentioned on the page. That is an appropriate subject for discussion on the talk page per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. I've left the wipe and will re-phrase the issue more succinctly, because the discussion better resembled an argument. I would ask however, in the future that you try to be more clear on the issue being discussed before making such a wipe. Thank you. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.04:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for rephrasing. I wasn't the only person who took issue with your initial remarks, which at least on first glance looked to be anything but productive. In addition, there seemed to have been Civility issues on all sides.
The issue of whether or not the film is connected to the urban legend is a relevant one though, so I encourage a productive debate on that. I've seen some critics mention that debate... If I can find them again I'll link them in the talk page.LM2000 (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree that my initial remark was not productive, however I didn't remove it myself both because it began a discussion, and because I am leery of removing my own words from a discussion, as the act reeks of deception. I believe than any civility issues I may have had began and ended with that remark, however it is difficult to engage someone as confrontational as that IP editor without the appearance of loosing one's cool. I have already re-phrased my opinion on the talk page, if you wish to involve yourself in the discussion. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.04:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd be glad to, not sure how to go about it, though. The difference between "mage" and "wizard" might be slight, but there's definitely a difference between a "magician" and a "wizard". Ngebendi (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I kind of hoped the page was moved from "wizard", but has *always* been "magician". There might be more to it than I previously thought... Ngebendi (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Covering works of fiction
As an encyclopedia, an article for a book would include a short plot summary, but call out section listing "plot points" as identified by Misplaced Pages editors would be entirely redundant to the plot summary and smacking of WP:OR.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom14:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:PRIMARY: "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Listing key plot points is analysis. --NeilN03:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dutrou-Bornier flag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
... was simply out of place among the category I was perusing to keep track of the Dresden files. So, do not worry. Ngebendi (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't envy you, getting entangled with the OR police. For what it's worth, I support your interpretation even though I may not necessarily like the way you've written the synopsis (I haven't looked at the article). I've always felt there is no reason to nit-pick unless the article's description of a book's content is likely to be challenged. Deb (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I just read your side of the argument and the extract from the article and it seemed pretty reasonable. Deb (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately -
(A) There is no section for uninvolved users to comment, and
(B) I have a history with both TRPOD and TransporterMan and could be accused of bias
So probably better for you if I butt out. My comments above are just moral support.
Orphaned non-free image File:Ryanair logo 2013(1).svg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Ryanair logo 2013(1).svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Have no idea what that Mikeblas was doing in tagging Cold Days for deletion on this notability issue, without touching the other pages. It seemed that an all-or-none situation. Thank you for addressing it for me. Ngebendi (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Me neither. Like I said in the RFD, it reeks of nerd rage, like he personally dislikes the Dresden Files. The fact is, the series is unarguably notable, and considering that there are only 15 books in it, all by the same author, all part of the same continuity, that means the books themselves cannot be anything but notable. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.12:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Frenzie23 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Just one request...
Hi, thanks again for your explanation. I just need some help in giving this colorized pic a more natural look. I did some times ago but I think it looks like a b/w pic painted by a child. Could you please help me? Thanks in advance.
Alright, before I start showing you any work, I want to post a few thoughts in the section below. I'm hoping you can take some of this away, and it will help you in the future. - MjolnirPants
Oh, I'm a bit scared by your explanation since it is very in-depth, however I will try to study it carefully. Best regards and thanks again.--Carnby (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I know. It's quite a bit longer than I originally thought it would be, however colorizing images is (as you can see) a lot more complicated than it seems at first glance. I broke it off into a new section for clarity, and I'm planning on giving it it's own page as soon as I'm done. Hopefully, it will be helpful to you and others. :) MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.13:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't thank you enough for your help with the Armenian mother and child photograph and bringing it up the the FP status it deserves. Great work! You deserve this one! Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
whole numbers redirect and natural number
Hello MjolnirPants, I saw that you reverted my redirect for whole numbers to integers. That is a curious thing. I'm pretty sure the explanation was given on the edit. The natural numbers page is under flux. Initially the page provided no definition for whole numbers, and even worse used them in other definitions. In contrast the integers page provides a good discussion on the subject. I would invite you to look at the integers page.
I attempted to add a conventional whole number definition to the natural numbers page several times, but each edit I have added on that subject has been deleted without comment. Yes, the last note on this subject on the page after days of back and forth was out of frustration (my bad), but it was a reasonable wakeup remark for the other editors.
Now a reasonable definition for whole numbers once again appears on the natural numbers page. We will see if it lasts the day. I'm not sure the state of the redirect right now. Still wisdom would suggest that the Integer page is a more stable source of good information and it would be good to take advantage of that at least until the natural number storm passes. Please take a look at the integer page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Walker Lynch (talk • contribs) 09:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Your comment move from Talk:Natural number to Talk:Whole number was done in a confusing way. There are guidelines for refactoring talk pages. In particular, note that "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Reversion would just add more confusion, so I suggest that you put the moved comments in their own section with the original section name: "Why does positive integers redirect here? Whole numbers not related to integers??". --50.53.47.9 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Done 
. Nathan121212 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Original version
Colorized version
.jpg)
_colorized.jpg)
Best regards and thanks again.--Carnby (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
My re-colored version
.png)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
