Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:57, 4 April 2015

If you are here because I reverted an edit of yours it's likely by accident or because your edit damaged enough that I assumed you made a mistake. Feel free to undo my revert if you fix what was messed up. See WP:WCW for more information.

Re:Undo in the Dag Hammarskjöd Library Page

Dear User:Jerodlycett, I spent time adding new an more accurate information on the current work of the library. If you look at the library website, UN Pulse is not anymore on the homepage. UN-I-QUE has not been updated recently (last update is July 2014). If you follw the library social media, you'll see that the curent focus of the library is to promote new research tools, including research guide and Ask Dag. Instead of simply removing my work, maybe you could edit it so that the legacy information that you refer to are not gone, but the new information is not simply erased.

@Silikani:My apologies, but it didn't look like any of the information had not been linked to from that page. Part of the issue was you damaged the headings, which suggested that you weren't fully aware of how to edit Misplaced Pages. You also turned a chunk of WP:PROSE into a list. Feel free to revert. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett:. Thanks for precisions, indeed, I am not fully aware of all functions. I thought you did not agree with the content. I will be more careful.

Honora Sneyd

Thanks for pointing out inconsistency in dates - there was a footnote about it, but FYI your bot messed up the infobox, so I reverted --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: Not a bot, just didn't pay attention to how the template worked. Odd that it can't work when you only have the birth year. Jerodlycett (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Because in calculating age it needs the exact date or instructions to use a default date such as June 30. Believe me I already tried it here and abandoned it. Fortunately we have contemporary accounts that says she was 28 when she died. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: Maybe try {{Death date and given age}}Jerodlycett (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

that worked! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Latrobe Valley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newborough (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) 11:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Gospel According to Matthew

I agree with you that something needs to be done, but the responding editors who say that you haven't provided diffs are right. The history of conflict here goes back at least to February 2014, but the fact that conflict has been going on for a year is not a reason to impose sanctions on specific editors. More later. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Honestly, I'm barely keeping quiet on AN/I, but it's a noticeboard for Admins, not for regular editors. I guess I should provide an oldid link or something, but honestly the majority of the NPOV/N is still them fighting each other. The archives themselves are 100% fighting. Providing a diff is so that you don't have to read large amounts of a page or go through a bunch of history to find something. In this case either the majority of the NPOV/N (and the entirety of several sections of it, which I linked to) or the entirety of several archives is the material that needs to be diffed. If I provided the diffs it would take at least an hour copying and pasting them between two windows to provide them all, and I don't feel like wasting that time when just reading the material linked would only waste seconds on non-topical (to the AN/I) material. Neither commenter is an admin, are being non-constructive, and lack the ability to read. I am just going to ignore them at this point. If they keep it up I'll just report them for being disruptive. Jerodlycett (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The one thing that Robert probably most needs doing, I regret to say, is something he apparently doesn't want to do, and verify that his scurrilous allegations are inaccurate. Unfortunately, I think there is a very serious "ego" problem involved there. There is a certain class of people who believe that they have a right and duty to tell all others to behave, and at the same time have the right to do things that they would criticize others for in the process. Robert's completely ridiculous statement alleging personal attacks is one of the, frankly, most obnoxious pieces of self-righteous stupidity I have seen in wikipedia lately, and I think demonstrates very serious questions whether he can differentiate between his own personal deeply-held opinions about how he believes other people should behave and the reality of policies and guidelines. But, as is typical in many such people who hold personal opinions as being the "truest" reality, it may be that he as an individual is completely incapable of recognizing his own flaws in this matter. And, honestly, Jerodlycett, I have to say your own ANI posting could reasonably be called "disruptive," possibly more so than any of the comments you criticize, although it would be unreasonable for you as a comparatively new editor to know that. Like I said, I intend to gather together the evidence for the ANI thread this weekend, after I finish breaking up the dictionary of the Book of Mormon into separate articles at wikisource. And, also, I guess FYI, rather than listen to the obnoxious and unsupported allegations made at NPOVN, by people who clearly have not read all our policies and guidelines and essays, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to read them through before your next such attempts. And, also, like I said before, if you want to work on one of the Methodist encyclopedias in the public domain at archive.org, and want some help, let me know. It's really little more than proofreading, and can be used to generate a rather remarkable amount of still missing content. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

And I very much want to apologize for the possibly excessively negative tone of some of the above material, which might be seen by someone who is new here as being unfounded aspersions on a new editor. That was not the intention. You are new here, and, obviously, wouldn't necessarily know all our policies and guidelines, and I don't want to be seen by you or anyone else as faulting you for your posting to ANI. My comment about reading the relevant policies and guidelines was not intended as snark, although it might well have come across as such, for which I apologize. But, if you do wish to file further complaints anytime soon, it might be good to know what sort of things are "actionable" at noticeboards, so that you can report them more quickly. However, yes, I do believe that the unfounded attacks made by Robert at the NPOVN, misrepresenting comments as attacks, is not excusable from someone who has been around long enough to know better, and particularly obnoxious when the individual making such unfounded allegations decides to start a new subtopic to make them. You have my apologies if my disgust for his, to my eyes, inexcusable behavior seems to have carried over to you as well. That was not my intention. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't a negative tone, it was disruptive behavior. Our conversation had nothing to do with him, nor you. You're the one that brought that stuff up, and make the accusations. This smells a lot like WP:HOUNDING to me, since it would seem that you're following him around making negative comments. Jerodlycett (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you saw my comments as "non-constructive" as I was trying to give you advice on how to draw admin attention to your case. There are reasons you haven't had much feedback from administrators and I thought that by pointing out why that might be, would help you make a stronger case. Liz 21:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: I wasn't referring to you as one of the two, you were actually helpful. Jerodlycett (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Lady Selina Hastings FRSL

Article created simply because her name is/was linked through Wiki's list of Fellows of the Royal Society of Literature. M Mabelina (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (retired)

Hi Jerodlycett - thanks for alerting me to the proposed deletion & further to various subsequent comments, could I just clarify a couple of things?: you mention that it lacks references but when I inserted Burke's Peerage (which has a very accurate & useful bio) it got deleted; also this article interlinks with the RSL and on other pages many less significant scions of the aristocracy have articles (after all, Lady Selina is in remainder to hereditary peerage titles). Also if her style were removed, who would know that she isn't Miss/Ms Selina Hastings or known by any other handle one might care to mention! Anyway she has written some significant books so not quite sure why she is top of the list for deletion?? Many thanks & look forward to hearing. M Mabelina (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just added info about her sister (Lady Harriet) widow of a grandson of the great Antarctic explorer, Sir Ernest Shackleton. Elsewhere Wiki is craving for info - why delete this?? Cheers M Mabelina (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Mabelina: but you did not link to the bio in Burkes Peerage! That is the problem. Furthermore is that bio freely available without a subscription? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes in any public library....

@Mabelina: @RHaworth:Please discuss at the talk page of the article, not my user talk page. The issue with the references is they only establish she exists. Not that she's notable. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

French marquesses

QV Éléonor-François-Élie de MOUSTIER, 5e marquis de Moustier né à Paris le 15.03.1751, † 01.02.1817 (fils de Philippe Xavier, marquis de Moustier (1707-1776) et de Louise de Bournel (1715-1767)), lieutenant général, chevalier de l’ordre de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem dès sa naissance, nommé ministre plénipotentiaire aux États-Unis de 1787 à 1790 (Pour plus de détails biographiques et généalogiques, voir Thiébaud (Jean-Marie, "Les Marquis en Franche-Comté"). Armoiries : De gueules au chevron d’argent accompagné de trois aiglons éployés d’or. Timbre : Une aigle de même : http://www.jeanmariethiebaud.com/web/index.php?op=readart&id=686

Many thanks your attention to this, so whilst on the subject, how to make a language link between Louis de Cardevac, marquis d'Havrincourt & Louis de Cardavac, markiz Havrincourt (sic) ? M Mabelina (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (retired)

Do you see on the left it says Languages? Under that is edit links? It'll take you to meta where you can add a new language link in the top-right corner. Jerodlycett (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes but because the Polish is misspelt it won't link... (or at least I can't get it to)....

Yes, you need the correct link. Jerodlycett (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

How? I've tried - please assist (I'm okay on the factual content but as you can well see am getting more than lambasted for lack of technical know-how) - anyway so as to improve Wiki please note Louis de Cardevac, markiz Havrincourt is correct in Polish, which trust is of assistance? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC) (retired)

It seems that there was already an entry on other wikis that was causing an issue, I fixed that. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Jerodlycett

Speedy deletion declined: Dino charge

Hello Jerodlycett. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dino charge, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Thank you. kelapstick 12:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Noank Media

Hello Jerodlycett. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Noank Media, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: if you look at the page history, you will see why this is a valid redirect. Should be taken to RfD for deletion, not CSD. Thank you. kelapstick 12:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Young Money Records

Hello Jerodlycett. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Young Money Records, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this is not an implausible mistake. Since this is a record label, "Young Money Records" seems to me an easy mistake to make, not at all implausible, and the page view statistics show it gets use. I don't see any reason for deletion. Take it to WP:Redirects for discussion if you like, but read WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect? first. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Gospel According to Matthew Arbitration Request

A request has been made by Ret.Prof for arbitration. See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case. You may enter your comments as a non-party as to whether the ArbCom should accept the case. My own thought is that either community sanctions or ArbCom sanctions are in order, and it doesn't really matter which. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You referred in your statement to ArbCom to the Gospel of Mark. I think you meant the Gospel of Matthew, the subject of the recent arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Anyway, this is a Mark year. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ritual In Repeat

Hi. I declined your speedy request because A7 doesn't apply to recordings. Bands, yes, but this is a record. You can use prod or AfD if you thing the record isn't notable. (Personally, I can see the point of articles for things like Rubber Soul, but not for every damn album or even single by every singer or band...) Peridon (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Man I was tired, meant to prod. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For making a truly neutral filing at ANI about the ongoing Gospel According to Matthew mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ford Fulkerson Method - Redirect

The redirect is valid. Thus, no need for the deletion tag. Thanks @User:RHaworth. Ford-fulkerson algorithm in scholarly circles is more widely known as the Ford-fulkerson method. Hence, Misplaced Pages needs to have an article by this name/ a redirect to the Ford-fulkerson algorithm article. I explain in this diff showing citations from couple of fundamental texts in Computer Science literature (there are quite many if you do a Google search). It is almost known in the field that this is not an algorithm but a method. And the article clearly needed to have that in the lead section. I hope that clears any doubts. Regards Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

John Roseberry

I agree it should be deleted. That's why I avoid prods. All it takes it one person who doesn;t understand notability to remove it. If you do nom it for AfD, I'll support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)