| Revision as of 20:33, 17 April 2015 editDoorknob747 (talk | contribs)1,222 edits →About undoing R46 edit: can you please stop doing sentence by sentence to me it is getting annoying so I am doing sentence by sentence.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:36, 17 April 2015 edit undoBeyond My Ken (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers263,423 edits When I start getting advice on how to edit from incompetent editors, it's time to clear the decksNext edit → | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
| <!--]'''</center>]]--> | <!--]'''</center>]]--> | ||
| {{clear left}} | {{clear left}} | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello Ken, I see that you have changed the number of floors to 102, this is inaccurate as there is another floor above 102 and is featured (with references) later in the article. I thought it wise to inform you, rather than just reverting. Regards, David, ] (]) 10:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :There are two references provided that the building has only 102 floors. That there is a floor numbered 103 doesn't change this, it simply means that the numbering isn't correct. ] (]) 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for March 1== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}} ] (]) 14:51, 1 March 2015 (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 ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}} ] (]) 10:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Reference Errors on 8 March == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows: | |||
| *On the ] page, caused a ] <small>(])</small>. ( | ) | |||
| Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can . | |||
| Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Already {{done}}, I believe. ] (]) 01:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Marble Hill clarification == | |||
| Beyond My Ken: The revision on Marble Hill remains confusing; specifically, how can Marble Hill - which is a "northernmost neighborhood in the New York City borough of Manhattan" - also be "the only Manhattan neighborhood on the mainland of North America"? In effect, why is a ''Manhattan neighborhood'' being conflated here, with the ''North American mainland''? Can you further clarify this?] (]) 06:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps you should read the article? It's pretty clear about the situation, and there's no "conflation" going on.<p>Marble Hill was originally part of the island of Manhattan, as well as the '''''borough''''' of Manhattan. The Harlem River separated it from The Bronx, which is the only borough of New York City which is on the American mainland. Then, in order to assist shipping traffic, the Harlem River Ship Canal was built, just below Marble Hill, disconnecting it from Manhattan island, and turning Marble Hill into an island of its own, within a semicircle the ship canal to the south, and the Harlem River surrounding it in a semicircle from the east to the west. Next, the original path of the Harlem River was filled in, making Marble Hill part of the North American mainland, but it was still politically part of the '''''borough''''' of Manhattan, although still no longer part of Manhattan '''''island'''''. And that's the condition that maintains still. Marble Hill is part of the borough of Manhattan (contiguous with New York County, and for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from it), but physically connected to the North American mainland, surrounded by The Bronx. Therefore it's the northernmost neighborhood in Manhattan, and the only one which is on the North American mainland. (Other neighborhoods of the borough of Manhattan are not on Manhattan island -- Roosevelt Island -- but they are not on the mainland.)<p>Clear? ] (]) 06:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, now I see after re-reading it, i.e., Marble Hill is the only ''Manhattan neighborhood'' on the North American mainland. (The initial sentence previous my revision, confused me because it read: "....the ''only one'' (italics mine) on the North American mainland" implying the ''only'' neighborhood on the entire North American mainland. The addition of 'Manhattan neighborhood' clears it up.] (]) 07:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] Reference == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I added a reference to the ] article and you have removed it. I'm not sure why as my understanding is that everything should be cited from somewhere else and there is now no reference again. I also don't understand your summary? - (Undid revision 650499831 by Staceydolxx (talk) If it's a "variatoopnm) | |||
| Thanks, ツ] (]) 07:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, unfortunately, I hit the "return" button in the middle of typing and the sense of my response was truncated. What I was trying to say is that if it is a "variation" on "Little Boxes" then it is not "Litt;e Boxes" ''per se'', and you need to provide a reference that says, essentially, "this is a variation on 'Little Boxes'", not simply one which says "this film exists", which is what I believe you provided. ] (]) 09:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your speedy response. My opinion is that if we can't reference something it should be removed from the encyclopaedia - so I am a little unsure of your reasons for keeping the content and then deleting the best indicator of its accuracy. I have found another source but I am not sure how reliable it is as its an Italian article. I would like to put it in alongside the previous reference (to further prove the band who performed it); unless you have any objections? http://movieplayer.it/articoli/boxtrolls-le-scatole-magiche-la-colonna-sonora_13422/ Thanks, ツ] (]) 09:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, go ahead. ] (]) 19:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Little Syria== | |||
| Beyond My Ken, you mention, pov, what pov? I made one simple little edit, which if you read the whole paragraph carefully, you'll see that it is more encyclopedic. The wiki article mentions, before the sentence in question, that around 5% of the Arabs that lived there were Muslim. The NYT mentions that the 5% were chiefly from Palestine, however the article then states that "The Syrians and Lebanese in the neighborhood were mostly Christian". By saying that "The Christians lived on Washington Street", then you are implicitly implying that all the Muslims lived on another street. Keep in mind that Little Syria was not 100% Syrian/Lebanese, the wiki article then goes on to mention that "other ethnic groups lived in this diverse neighborhood, and it mentions Turks, who are mostly Muslim. Therefore my intention by substituting "Christian" with "Syrian", was to back up the previous sentence that mentions the 5% Muslims, and to make the article as npov as possible. ] (]) 00:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :We're not going to have this discussion here. Please go to ] and make your argument there -- oh, and take a moment to read ]. Your '''B'''old edit was '''R'''everted and this is followed by '''D'''iscussion, while the article stays in the ''status quo ante''. Anything else is ]. Please stop. ] (]) 00:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::All right, I just noticed that you reverted for the third time without taking taking into consideration the logic and the intention behind my edit. Then you employ the F-word, you are a very nasty and abusive person and it appears you always assume that other editors have bad faith when making edits. I will take this to the board.] (]) 00:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just said, we're not discussing this here. Did you notice? ] (]) 00:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.] (]) 02:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Asshole. ] (]) 02:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == March 2015 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ] and violating the ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. ] ] 07:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | |||
| *Sorry BMK, you have no excuse though. You broke 3rr, you were reported, you were let off the hook without any hesitation by an admin, and you immediately reverted again. 5 reverts in about 26 1/2 hours. The first four and the last four were within 24 hours of each other. You had plenty of time to recognize this and self-revert. I can let one 3rr vio slide (something we don't normally do by the way), but I'd have a hard time justifying ignoring such a blatant disregard for the rule. Feel free to look at my comments at AN3 as well. ] ] 07:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **Ah.... can someone please explain to me how making a completely different edit to Little Syria than those which were reported earlier equals a violation of 3RR? The material was entirely different, totally unrelated to the previous edits. ] (]) 07:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***Here is the first edit of the series for which I was '''''not''''' blocked. , and here is the last edit, for which I '''''was''''' blocked. . These are not related in any way, how can they collectively be a 3RR violation? ] (]) 07:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****{{ping|Swarm}} Please explain. ] (]) 07:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*From ]: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—'''''whether involving the same or different material'''''—within a 24-hour period." (emphasis mine) ] ] 07:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*You're kidding me!! Whodathunk it?<p>Well, even though that's certainly not the way that in my almost 10 years here I've seen 3RR enforced in practice (and, interestingly, it's not even the way the AN3 reporting template is set up), then you've certainly got me fair and square by the precise and exact letter of the law. I guess I'll have to edit for the next day using one of my many sockpuppets.<p>WHAT!?!?.. ] (]) 07:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*@Swarm Re: your description of my edit as "brazen". If I was actually attempting to get away with something, I would have waited a little over an hour to do my final edit. If I had held off until 1:05 (which is is say one hour and eight minutes from when I actually made the last edit at 23:57), then my reverts witinh a 24 hour period would have been at 20:31, 21:13 and 1:05. So, if I had understood the rule as you've recited it here, and was in fact attempting to subvert it, '''''that''''' would have been a entirely "brazen" move. What you've got here isn't "brazen".<p>Oh well, I need a short respite. ] (]) 08:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::* @BMK, I have two curiosity questions. I don't see Swarm describing an edit of your as "brazen" on ''this'' page. Somewhere else? I do see "blatant". What do you mean by "the way the AN3 reporting template is set up"?--] (]) 23:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*"Brazen" was in his comment on the AN3 page. More on the second as soon as I take another look at the template. ] (]) 23:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::*OK, I just wanted to see if I was remembering something incorrectly, but I wasn't. The instructions say, at one point: | |||
| :::::::::*'''In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to.''' | |||
| :::::::::So, if the report is intended to deal with reverts which are "the same or similar", my last revert does not count, since it was about a different part of the article, and didn't involve the same material at all. It would seem to me that either the defintiion quoted to me by Swarm should be changed, or the template should be changed, as they are -- I think -- saying different things. I have an opinion on that, but it would just seem self-serving at this point, so I'll withhold it for another occasion. ] (]) 00:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Thanks. At some point when I have the energy I may see about getting that instruction changed. I've never liked having to provide that link as it's often problematic, and the instruction is arguably contrary to policy.--] (]) 00:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I remember a while back a big discussion about what constituted a "revert". Like most big discussions here I don't think it went anywhere particular, but I think I can say with some confidence that the popular understanding among working editors about what is and isn't a "revert" in the context of 3RR is different from what Swarm quoted to me, in that it is limited to "same or similar" material and doesn't include extraneous edits of other material, such as the edit that got me sent up the river to the Big House. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that's how a lot (maybe most) rank-and-file editors understand it. ] (]) 00:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{ping|Bbb23}} <s>As long as you're here, could you please inform George Al-Shami than he shouldn't restore his comment to this talk page after I've removed it? Thanks.</s> (Also that it's not exactly cricket to elswhere – in response to a question directed to me – when he knows I cannot respond.) ] (]) 00:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Never mind, looking at the page's history, it seems that I never deleted it when I thought I had the first time, so when it "reappeared" it was through my error, and not because George Al-Shami restored it. My mistake, my apologies to GAS for the error. ] (]) 00:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Pile on QG == | |||
| Hi, it isn't just e-cig people isupporting banning, it is the fringe advocate WP:SPAs generally adding their bits too. -] (]) 21:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, you're right. ] (]) 21:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == 91 or 9 at ANI == | |||
| Kingofaces data showed i have 91 edits to e-coigs; you data shows 9... not sure which is right... ] (]) 04:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :AH! That's where the errant "1" went to, I couldn't figure it out. I'll fix it. ] (]) 04:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == What if ??? == | |||
| I saw your note on L. Black's talk. Seems very hypothetical now, but no - I'm not a supporter of removing TPA outside of abuse. (over use of unblock, personal attacks, etc.) I know many others ''DO'' support that removal, just not me. I've never been one who wanted to silence anyone. As far as "watching" the page - yes, I do keep things like that on my watchlist, and check back from time to time even if they don't show up there (on the watchlist). Thanks for the note. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 17:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, thanks for the response, I appreciate it. ] (]) 21:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Possibly unfree File:DanaSnyder.jpg == | |||
| A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ] because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the ]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at ] if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw-puf --> <span style="color:#fff;background:Blue"> ★ </span> ] ] 23:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the note. Not my image, I just cleaned it up. ] (]) 23:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for reverting vandalism, and keeping Misplaced Pages a reliable source. '''] <small>]</small>''' 01:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :*My pleasure, thanks. ] (]) 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == AN/I== | |||
| ], there won't be an indef topic ban for AF no matter what the community consensus is. The norm is at least a year. That won't happen. ] (]) 05:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't believe I ever called for an '''''indef''''' topic ban. ] (]) 10:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I removed that link because it is for a travel blog. Please refer to ]. The user that originally added it to the article was adding links to the same website in numerous articles in a clear effort to promote that website. The information in the blog is unencyclopedic and contains factual errors in many cases. The user has been warned on their talk page about promoting that site. See ]. Some of other links like findagrave and IMDB should also be probably be removed also but I am not that interested in the article so I'll leave it up to someone else to argue about. From ]: | |||
| *''External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.'' | |||
| *''Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links.'' | |||
| '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color="#00CC66">]</font>''' 01:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, thanks for the explanation. ] (]) 01:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::That particular instance was added under ]. The rest were under ]. Every edit by those two users were adding external links to that web site. He/she/they got away with it for quite a while. The first edit was 17 October last year and the most recent was two days ago. I use the tool at ] to ferret out this type of spammy vandalism. '''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color="#00CC66">]</font>''' 01:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Altgeld Hall == | |||
| Were my edits on the Altgeld Hall article not constructive? I'm new to editing Misplaced Pages, so I apologize if they weren't. I felt like I cleared up some of the language a little. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :They weren't at all '''''unconstructive''''' in any way, I just thought the most of the previous wording was better (and we generally repeat information from the infobox in the lede section). You did nothing wrong, you simply have to expect that other editors will re-edit your work, it's par for the course. If you feel strongly about your changes when that happens, talking it out can (usually) be helpful. ] (]) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not at all upset that you undid my edits. As I said, I'm new to Misplaced Pages, so I just thought I'd ask why you undid them. I realize many of my edits in the future will be undone, but luckily I have a pretty thick skin so I won't take offense. By the way, when you're thinking of editing an article, do you edit its talk page and ask if your edits are appropriate before committing them? If you only do it part of the time, how do you decide? ] (]) 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think it differs from editor to editor. I may be wrong person to ask in this instance, because I have a tendency to be ] and go ahead and do the edit if I think it's the right thing to do, and deal with the consequences later, if there are any (which is not generally the case). Sometimes that gets me into hot water and a dispute with another editor, but not usually. Certainly, if you're just copyediting, go ahead and make the change, the worst that will happen is that you'll be reverted with a snippy edit summary. If you're planning on making an extensive change to the article's formatting or structure, many editors will run that by the talk page -- but be prepared for what might be a '''''long''''' discussion, and an indeterminate result (which is why I find it easier just to do it). It all depends, I guess, on how confident you are about the edit, how many others editors are invested in the page and to what extent, and, frankly, how good you are at editing.<p>You might want to ask your question at the ], where they specialize in guiding novice editors through the Misplaced Pages morass. It's quite possible that I'm a bit jaded, and my answer to you is more cynical than it should be. Good luck. ] (]) 02:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, that helps a lot! ] (]) 03:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| =="Arabist"== | |||
| I have responded on the talk page of the article.] (]) 04:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Goody. ] (]) 05:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello - | |||
| I see you removed the additional information I submitted on the 1936 RKO film "Spring Time" regarding the initial working titles for the film. I found the information in a book about Jerome Kern and his works and included it as the source citation. | |||
| I am sorry you feel my added information is not worthy of the Misplaced Pages article on "Spring Time." Since the information is valid and may prove of interest to others, I don't know why you chose to remove it. | |||
| Thank you for your time. | |||
| Juanaquena <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Hello, again - | |||
| :I see where you moved the information I provided about the initial titles of the 1936 RKO film "Swing Time" to a new Production section in the Misplaced Pages article. | |||
| :Thank you - | |||
| :Juanaquena <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::Just a note, the movie is "Swing Time" not "Spring Time". And yes, I moved your sourced addition into a production section, as I thought it wasn't best placed in the article's lede. ] (]) 00:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of comments == | |||
| You're hereby warned not to remove or modify others' comments. -] 01:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't touch your comment, it still existed exactly as it did before, only inside a collapse box, where it belonged. Don't reply. ] (]) 01:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] opened == | |||
| Pursuant to section 3a of ], you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) by ] (]) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:L235/Sandbox2&oldid=653246175 --> | |||
| :Hi Beyond My Ken, you have been removed as a party from the ] by an arbitrator. Accordingly, your evidence size limit is now 500 words and 50 diffs. For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 03:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. ] (]) 08:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] Reply == | |||
| Aight. Go ahead and falsify the events leading to his death despite there being recorded video of his son talking about what happened. ] 22:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :There's no need for that attitude, and there's also no guarantee that the son's perception of events is correct. I'm not saying that he doesn't believe it, or that he is wrong, but is there any independent evidence to back it up? I don't know, all I know is what I wrote on your talk page, that if you wish this information to be in the article, you '''''must''''' accompany it with a citation from a reliable source, not a YouTube video. ] (]) 22:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which I did, which you then decided wasn't reliable, despite this website being used before. All I know is I have a source that has his '''son''' saying what happened, and for whatever reason you rejected it. I don't believe in misrepresenting events, so I implore you to reconsider. ] 23:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please read ]. Again, YouTube is not accepted as a reliable source. Work within that please, and find a citation from a reliable source that found Noel Blanc's claim to be credible enough to report it. ] (]) 23:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::K. Fuck me for assuming a '''family member''' was a good source, right? ] 23:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Noel Blanc is a '''''primary source'''''. What we need is a '''''secondary source''''''. See ]. ] (]) 00:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == blah == | |||
| You're so worried about if I get formatting at the ANI screwed up that you won't even take the time to finish answering my questions? Will you please now go and answer my follow-up questions instead of being just one more wiki "admin." who "can't be bothered" with follow-up questions? | |||
| Thanks if so.... ] (]) 06:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :(1) I'm not an admin, (2) I have no interest in answering the questions of an editor who is evading a block. (3) Go away, you're an idiot. ] (]) 06:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you're not an admin., then why are you even there posing as one, trying to answer a few things, and then trying to tell people to not "mess around" with the ANI? And where do you get the idea that a block I was given just for creating 6 accounts in one day is even "valid" even though the system '''allows''' it? | |||
| ::Nope, '''you''' are the idiot, and '''you''' should go away. Don't go act like an admin. if you are not one, idiot. | |||
| ::] (]) 06:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tping|75.162.237.213}} Please don't bait other editors. The discussion you started did not belong at ANI in the first place. I suggest that you let the matter drop. Thanks. ]<sup>♦]</sup> 06:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] an ] ] of blocked user ], who has ''many'' blocked IPs. ] (]) 06:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No surprise there. Thanks for the info. ] (]) 07:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::He's now vandalizing ] and complaining about you. ] (]) 07:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I saw. I assume someone will delete it and issue a block. ] (]) 07:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == AN/I Notice == | |||
| Just informing you as the IP failed to do so. | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. - ] (]) 07:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, I saw. ] (]) 07:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Advice == | |||
| Hey. Recently, you filed a speedy deletion request for an attack page of {{ping|DHeyward}}. The request didn't go through because DHeyward blanked the page himself and asked for it be deleted himself, which meant the discussion got closed prematurely- however the he created of the page is still there. I politely asked DHeyward that he remove them on his talk page, but he just deleted my request- what avenue do I pursue from here? ] (]) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Let me try something. ] (]) 22:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, that didn't work. I deleted it from the archive and he reverted and accused me of lieing about the material in the edit summary. (I have no idea what he means by that, I merely described it as material that duplicated the deleted page.) I don't see any alternative except to bring it to AN/I, but I'm not going to do it. This person seems extremely stressed and possibly a bit paranoid about being "harrassed" by multiple editors, and an AN/I report is liable to get very, very messy. ] (]) 23:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I appreciate the effort and advice. When I'm home and using a more stable internet connection, I think I'll submit an AN/I report. Thank you for the effort. ] (]) 23:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've gone ahead and started a thread on AN/I. Not sure if it's formatted entirely correctly, but I think it's acceptable? ] (]) 02:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Undid my edits== | |||
| I noticed you undid some of my edits without so much as an edit summary. Could you please provide more information regarding your reason for doing so? Thanks. ] (]) 14:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :What article? ] (]) 17:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nevermind, I see it was ]. The first edit I undid because you removed the word "men's" from a sentence which said that someone wore "men's skirts". Without the "men's", the impression could be given that the person wore '''''women's''''' skirts (i.e was a crossdresser) which is not what the sentence means to convey. In the second edit, you removed added "less common" from a sentence which said that the usual circumstance inm contemporary western society was for women to wear skirts and not men. Making it say that it was "less common" for men to wear skirts is a violation of ], since the number of men who wear skirts regularly is exceedingly small. It may be that you (and I) would wish it was otherwise, but at this time it's not. ] (]) 17:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I removed "men's" from "men's skirts", as I didn't feel it was relevant. Any garment that skirts the body is a skirt, no qualifier needed. And with no qualifier on there, it does not imply "women's", it, in fact, implies nothing. But I could see how someone might infer that. As for the second one, it's definitely not a violation of NPOV, because it was technically correct. It ''is'', in fact, less common. Even way, way less common is technically still "less common." I made it "less common" because, while exceedingly small, it is greater than zero. What would you say to changing the lead to say "the wearing of a skirt is today usually seen as typical for females and atypical for males..."? ] (]) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Less common" does not mean or imply "greater than zero". Your edits were not helpful to the article, and muddied rather than clarified matters. If you have more to say, please say it at ], not here. ] (]) 21:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your comments == | |||
| Hi BMK. Please consider rewording your comments at ] to make them more civil and in compliance with ]. This is not a formal clerk warning, but please be aware that the Committee has directed the clerks to watch for decorum and other issues on the clerks-l mailing list, and if the comments are not satisfactorily reworded they may be redacted by me or another clerk. Thanks for your time and understanding, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 05:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :My comment to NE Ent was accurate and, considering his editing history and his lack of contributions to the encyclopedia, extremely mild. Hammersoft's responses to my comment were absurd - '''''describing''''' the actions of a '''''banned''''' (not blocked) user and extremely disruptive sockpuppeteer can in no way be construed as a "personal attack". I can see no reason to reword anything, but f you or any of the clerks feel the need to redact anything, so be it, there will be no pushback from me, although I feel it would be unwarranted. ] (]) 12:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alright. The entire thread was hatted by another clerk, didn't see which. --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 19:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I saw, thanks. ] (]) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == March 2015 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you recently removed some content from ] without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate ]. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks.<!-- Template:uw-delete1 --> ] (]) 05:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :And I've deleted it again. I was quite clear in my edit summary - the Mel Brooks movie is not a "classic", by any definition. ] (]) 05:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Glitch on ANI == | |||
| Evaluating these edits and , reminds me of a glitch randomly joins ANI. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> | |||
| I noticed this . Not sure what happened. Since it was unarchived I think the archived thread should be deleted from the archive. See ]. ] (]) 16:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes Q.G. it should be. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 16:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Nice work on an interesting page about an intriguing subject. I've nominated it for ] if you are interested. ] (]) 02:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. ] (]) 02:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for April 2== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}} ] (]) 09:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == April 2015 == | |||
| ] Please do not remove ] from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to ], without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the ]. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tdel2 --> ] (]) 15:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No consensus for template on talk page. ] (]) 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Oh, yes, of course. I'm sure "the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body" only refers to links that ''aren't'' related to the subject. I'm not going to fight you on this, but I'm baffled that you'd ignore this clear guideline. --] (]) 20:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, of course I know the '''''<u>guideline</u>'''''. Not policy. '''''Not''''' mandatory. We should always do what's best for the readers. ] (]) 20:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Enigdifang as sockpuppet == | |||
| Not what I was hoping for. Seemed like a good-faith editor who just needed a little schooling. I looked into it, and have to sort of agree things do look quacky. Let's wait to see what DoRD has to say. Also just a FYI I don't think your ping worked properly, if that's what you intended to do. Best <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I just addressed you with a plain old "@", not a ping, thanks. I have my own notifications turned off (too annoying), so I usually forget that pinging exists. :) I thought about dropping a TB on your talk page, but figured that you would be watching his page for a response from him. ] (]) 20:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation == | |||
| I think that your question about whether diffs that were offered in mediation (but did not originate in it) are privileged would be best addressed to ], the chair of the Mediation Committee, but I think that if the diffs did not originate in mediation, they are still yours. ] (]) 03:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. ] (]) 03:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == RfA question == | |||
| Hi BMK. Just to let you know, your question on Everymorning's RfA has already been asked above. ] (]) 00:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Geez, you're right, I didn't see that -- I've removed my duplicate. Thanks! ] (]) 00:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Some advice == | |||
| I have suffered interminable harassment from that editor, and no matter what you do or say, you will not change him. Save yourself the aggravation and don't engage him. It is useless. - ] ] 17:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, good advice. I was, in fact, already in the process of disengaging. ] (]) 17:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| You appear to be engaged in an edit war at ]. You're at three reverts now in less than an hour. I suggest you step away from this right now to avoid being blocked, and if possible, work on a solution on neutral territory. Also, using terms like "", "", and "" (sic) is unacceptable and directly and incontrovertibly fails ]. If you continue to use edit summaries to directly insult other editors, I will block you immediately. ] (]) 21:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :If you block me, now or at any time in the future, I will immediately ask for a review on AN/I and bring forward the numerous disputes we have had in the past. You are not uninvolved when it comes to me, and cannot be neutral. In fact, you are not being neutral even at this moment, as you have not left a similar warning for edit warring regarding ], the other editor involved, who is attemtoing to remove two extremely relevant sentences from the 2015 State of the Union Address from the article.{{parabr}}I will take your advice for what it's worth, but please note that unless you are required to do so by Misplaced Pages policy, you are banned from posting on this talk page, beginning immediately. ] (]) 21:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Red links == | |||
| Per ], "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Misplaced Pages ''should not'' have an article on that subject." Also, an editor who adds a red link is not obliged to create the article, merely to believe that the subject is notable. ] (]) 21:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, and when an edit is disputed, you need to be clear about why you consider the person to be notable enough to potentially have an article. "Two Oscar nominations and a pioneering role" is not sufficient. "The first female film editor in Hollywood" would have been. Please try to communicate more effectively in the future. ] (]) 22:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Read the quote again. "Do not remove red links unless '''you''' are certain ..." The onus was on you to show she isn't notable. My comment was more than enough to indicate otherwise. Are you that unwilling to admit you were in the wrong? ] (]) 21:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm always willing to admit when I'm in the wrong, when I am actually in the wrong. Here, I was not. ] (]) 21:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Incidentally, you're quoting me a guideline, which is not policy, and not mandatory. I will continue to remove redlinks when they seem to be to be gratuitous. When I am sunsequently presented evidence that my judgment was incorrect, I will revert my removal (which, in fact, I did in this case, no particular thanks to you). You want the redlink, you make the case, just as with any other edit per ], a '''''policy'''''. ] (]) 21:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Stuyvesant Apartments DYK nom== | |||
| {{DYKM|box3|text=Hello, Beyond My Ken. ], an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for {{DYK blue}} consideration to appear on Misplaced Pages's ]. You can see the hook and the discussion ''']'''. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. ] (]) 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)}}<!-- Template:DYKNom --> | |||
| == ANI == | |||
| Hello there! When doing a NAC at ANI could you use the {{t|NAC}} template? Thanks! ] (]) 10:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Why? I label the closures "NAC", what difference would the tmeplate make? ] (]) 19:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It just keeps things neater and looks better and has a link to the policy. That's all. ] (]) 19:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The images are currently underneath the heading of “Transportation”, and appear to be related to that section of the article when viewing the article on the mobile web. What is the rationale for keeping them under Transportation instead of Notable places? Thanks! ] (]) 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The images start '''''after''''' the transportation section, and are therefore immediately '''''next to''''' the section they're connected to, which is more than sufficient. ] (]) 20:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Image placement is different for viewers of the mobile version of Misplaced Pages, and appear under Transportation because the Notable places header is after them. What if we were to move the Notable places heading immediately before them? ] (]) 02:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::The point of having the images start before the section header is to avoid the white space and make the images look more balancesd in relation to the section. If the mobile version isn't redering correctly, I don't think that's our problem as editors, it shopuld be brought to the attention of the developers. Besides, I just look at the article on my i-phone, and the images are just where they should be, after the transportation section. If your phone shows it differently, then, again, it's not an editorial problem, it a problem for how the browser you're using renders the page. ] (]) 02:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I hadn't considered that. Both the app and mobile website use the top-level headings as separators, and the images don't float beyond the separator (mobile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Bleecker_Street), as they do on the regular web version of the article. The images appear at the end of the Transportation section, but not actually inside the Notable Places section because of how the mobile website and app use the headings as separators. You mentioned that it should be brought to the attention of developers. What's the proper channel for such a request? ] (]) 16:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
| A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about ]. | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 23:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :O hi there. Sorry for the Twinkle-template, I forgot you created the redirect. -- ] (]) 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem, deletion is good by me. ] (]) 23:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] 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 notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ''']''' (]) 04:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, I've commented there. ] (]) 04:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for April 9== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}} Already fixed by another editor ] (]) 18:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Architects== | |||
| Since you've declined to remove the highly promotional content from the article, I've had no option but to delete it. Please don't recreate it without addressing the issue. ] (]) 07:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Talk page stalkers interested in what this is about can go . ] (]) 08:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Block evasion == | |||
| Looks like you caught most of ]'s socks but I wonder if you had seen ] account? It's already been indefinitely blocked but it looks like you hit a nerve. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 13:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I saw that. Ah, fame! ] (]) 14:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Incidentally, not the first occasion where I've been enshrined in this way. There was ] about a year ago, and, more recently, ]. ] (]) 15:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Promotional content== | |||
| Just to set the record straight, it was you who reverted my edits, ''twice'', thus starting an edit war, rather than simply undoing the removal of the content with an explanation or, better, creating amended content. I still consider the whole CV section to be highly promotional in terms of tone and content, and probably unsalvageable. You also suggest, on ]'s talk page, that I deleted the article hastily and without explanation. Anyone who looks at your talk page above will see that I gave an explanation above and told you what you should do about it. You declined to respond to that. | |||
| I'm simply astonished how you can fail to see that a statement like "L. Stephen Hill has over 25 years of experience" (without saying what it is experience of, and with a reference to an article that does not say he has 25 years of experience) is promotional. ] (]) 08:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :And I'm astonished at your behavior as an admin, which was inexcusable. | |||
| :Your judgment, in my opinion is flawed, as is your understanding of the role of the admin in the community. You are not a "super-editor" and cannot use your admin powers to enforce your editorial opinions. Once you started editing the article, you were ], and subsequently deleting it was therefore an abuse of your power. As an editor you should have, like every other editor, followed ]: once your Bold edit had been Reverted by me, you should have opened a Discussion and left the article in the ''status quo ante'' while the discussion went on. Instead, you reverted back, the first step to edit warring - I merely returned the article to where it was supposed to be. You then deleted the article '''''two minutes later''''' -- while I was trying to start a discussion on the talk page -- with a bogus claim that because I was "intractable" you had "no option" but to delete the article. That, frankly, is complete and utter bullshit. You had many other choices of action, the same ones available to any other editor, the best of which was to engage in discussion on the article talk page. Instead you chose the '''''worst''''' possible option, which was to flex your muscles and abuse your admin authority by deleting an article about which you were in the middle of an editorial dispute. That's just flat out wrong, and nothing you can come up with will excuse it. | |||
| :You've been an admin for a long time, since 2003, I believe. I looked at your RfA, and only a handful of people participated. You were made an admin at a time when '''''6 support votes''''' was sufficient to get the bit. I have no doubt that you've been a worthwhile and valuable asset to the project since then, but times have changed, and admins can no longer shoot from the hip as they once did, and as you did inthis instance. Your attitude (including your insolent comments to Diannaa) is poor, and your judgment no longer aligns with current community consensus about how admins should behave. I suggest that perhaps you need a refresher course on how admins should act now that the days of the Misplaced Pages Wild Wild West are behind us. | |||
| :Now that we've both had our say, I consider this incident to be over, and have no interest in continuing to hash it out or in pursuing it elsewhere, so please don't bother to respond. Instead I suggest that some serious contemplation on your part would be a good thing, both for you and for the project. ] (]) 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Incidentally, if you still find some language of that section of ] is overly promotional for your taste, than I suggest you do what any other editor would do and make some effort to remove that language. You could either do so ]ly, although I suggest that your track record with the article probably speaks against doing that, or you could just '''''discuss your objections on the article talk page,''''' and see if a ] of editors agrees with you. It may not be as viscerally satisfying as pushing the "delete" button, but it is how things are generally done around here. ] (]) 18:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, right, so it's okay for you to approach an admin who you felt would be sympathetic to your view, ask for comments on the Talk page of the article, and then complain when I approach someone else for input? ] (]) 10:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And incidentally, I had never even heard of the other contributors who subsequently made changes.] (]) 10:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Instead of discussing your concerns on the article talk page, you ]ed an admin friend of yours to do your dirty work for you. That stinks. Your actions and your attitude bring shame to the admin corps. Please do not post to my talk page again unless you are required to do so by Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And now you're following me around. You really are beneath contempt. ] (]) 19:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] you == | |||
| Because of what you stated , near the end there about WP:Pinging, now I know not to WP:Ping you. For example, at the ] talk page in March of this year. <Strike>Have you considered making a note on your user page and/or talk page that WP:Pinging you will not work?</Strike> ] (]) 23:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Oops, I see you have noted at the top of your talk page that your WP:Notifications are turned off. ] (]) 23:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I added it to the top of my talk page in my last revamp of it a couple of months ago. I may reconsider and see if I can tweak my notification settings. ] (]) 23:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, I've turned "Mention" on, which I think is the right switch to make pinging work. I'll see how annoying it is. ] (]) 23:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay. Do you want me to test it out by pinging you at my talk page? ] (]) 23:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sounds like a good idea, go ahead. ] (]) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Did work? ] (]) 23:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes it did, thanks. ] (]) 01:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Queensboro Bridge infobox photo == | |||
| Hi BMK. In regards to the infobox photo on the ] article, ] is cropped from ], and the cropped image has the balcony cropped out from the original image. Let me know what you think. ] (]) 02:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I saw that, and 9 times out of 10 I would be right with you, preferring the cropped version to the uncropped one, but in this case I think the foreground gives the image a bit of visual context and, since it's a vertical picture, we don't see any less of the bridge then we do in the cropped version. It's definitely an aesthetic choice, but I prefer the fuller images to the cropped image in this instance. ] (]) 03:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your opinion. On a side note, the original photo was taken in 2010, not 2012, as seen in the photo's metadata, so I have also corrected that. ] (]) 12:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] demolition == | |||
| Would you be able to perhaps go to Ossining and get a picture of the pile of rubble that's left anytime soon? I could go down myself but you're closer. Just asking. ] (]) 00:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I will put it on my list, but I very rarely get that far north in Westchester. Did you ask ] as well? I think sometimes his biking groups go up that way. ] (]) 00:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Never to Ossining. Forty years ago, yes but nowadays it's an unlikely train trip. ] (]) 00:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::We'll see what happens. Sometimes when we visit my mother in Westchester, she likes to take us to a diner in Ossining, so who knows...? | |||
| ::::I more or less go by Ossining, and/or could. Is it easily found on Water Street? Possibly even tomorrow/Thursday] (]) 03:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)WindingRoad | |||
| :::::I see it on google earth (before demolition) I should be able to get photo tomorrow. Will let you know.] (]) 03:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for April 16== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added links pointing to ], ] and ] | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}} ] (]) 11:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==FYI== | |||
| Hello BMK. Thanks for the revert . I don't know if you encountered this problem editor (who is obsessed with adding years to articles) before but they have been around for a few months now. As you can see here ] M is aware of the problem and helps by blocking the next IP that this doofus is using. If you wish please feel free to report them the next time you see one of their edits. Cheers. ]|] 17:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No, this one is a new one on me. I'll keep a look out, thanks. ] (]) 17:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Academy of Music/Palladium== | |||
| Thanks for inquiring about the Palladium name change. To answer your question: yes, the former Academy of Music staged countless concerts as "The Palladium" in the 1970s. When it became a nightclub, the building was transformed but the name was maintained. | |||
| Here is an example of an indirect citation at Setlist.fm, which lists many concerts at the Palladium in the 1970s: | |||
| http://www.setlist.fm/venue/the-palladium-new-york-ny-usa-13d6c9cd.html | |||
| In fact, this helps to set the exact date of the name change to 1976, and I'd like to edit the Misplaced Pages page to add this detail. But will this serve as a citation? Please help me understand what the correct way to cite this is. Thank you. -- asheresque (Levi Asher) | |||
| :*Levi: Unfortunately, "setlist.fm" is a Wiki, and we don't accept self-published sources to be used. (Even Misplaced Pages is not allowed to be used as a source on Misplaced Pages!) You can read that policy ]. | |||
| ::Now that I know what you're going for, I'll do some looking around and see if I can find something more authoritative, like a mention in the ''Times'', ''Daily News'', ''Post'' or ''Voice''. You should look for something as well. ] (]) 18:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Thanks, BMK. I found an image of a Village Voice review of an Elvis Costello concert at the Palladium here. http://www.elviscostello.info/index.php/Village_Voice,_May_15,_1978. I was at this concert so I can definitely vouch for the article being accurate! The Palladium was a major concert venue during the late 70s so there must be many concert reviews and listings to be found. ] (]) 19:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Hold the phone! definitely shows that by 1976 Ron Delsner was calling it The Palladium, and implies in the headline that it was the Palladium earlier as well. The body of the article may give an exact date for the changeover, so hold on a bit... ] (]) 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Great! Thanks again for your assistance with this change. ] (]) 19:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*I've put the ''Times'' reference into the article, with the date (September 1976), and added it to the ] article as well. Thanks for bringing the name change to my attention, I obviously had forgotten it, or combined it in my mind with the change to the nightclub. ] (]) 19:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == proposed iban, please comment == | |||
| given your involvement, peas see . Thanks. ] (]) 22:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the pointer, will certainly get there quite soon. ] (]) 22:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == We notice... == | |||
| ... that you are getting urself involved in a edit war at the administrators notice board. This can be clearly be seen by the undoing and redoing of edits. Administrators notice board is no place for edit wars. Thank you for being a Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Fellow, you knowest not of what you speak. ] (]) 03:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == RfD == | |||
| ] exists for discussing the possible deletion of redirects not covered by a speedy deletion criterion (or multiple criteria). Do not re-add declined speedy deletion tags to pages. "ought" ain't pronounced the same as out, but drought rhymes with out (par exemple). ]<font color="FF8800">]</font> 11:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a bullshit redirect made by a .{{parabr}}Oh, well, it's on your head now, Mr. Admin WilyD. Maybe we should just assign you to that editor as his keeper, and the rest of us can forget about him. In fact, I already have! ] (]) 11:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would just send it to RfD. - ] (]) 13:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == About undoing R46 edit == | |||
| The armrest is a notable picture on the article, since, the R46 and the R44 are the only trains in the New York City subway system that has armrest. ( Notable images= images of things that are not found everywhere. ) I am not saying what you did was wrong, it was ok to remove Emergency Brake photo, but not the Armrest photo. Read about the subject further to understand why it is placed over there. | |||
| Another thing, all videos that I upload have a meaning, there is no video showing how the New York City Subway systems signaling works. ( Check for duplicates first ). ] (]) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Also armrest photo does have a correct caption. ] (]) 20:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:36, 17 April 2015
(Thanks to Alan Liefting)
Beyond My KenWhen determining what course of action should be taken about a disruptive, tendentious or bothersome editor, the primary concern – more important than precedents, consistency, fairness or even AGF – is which option will best serve the building of an encyclopedia.
Chris Mooney" are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others)."
"Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People"
Slate (February 14, 2014)
citing research by Erin E. Buckels, Paul D. Trapnellb and Delroy L. Paulhusc
Beyond My KenWe all tend to take Misplaced Pages much too seriously. It's certainly important to provide a free first-class online encyclopedia for the public, and no one can dispute how central Misplaced Pages has become to people searching for accurate, unbiased information, but there's little excuse for the bitterness, in-fighting and bitchiness with which many people approach editing here, which makes the experience difficult and unpleasant at times. I am generally in favor of removing the worst of those transgressors permanently, which, of course, leaves me open to the charge of not assuming good faith. Actually, I have little trouble assuming good faith, I simply refuse to keep the assumption alive in the face of evidence of misbehavior.
Old theatrical proverb"Beware of the 'innocent' man who plays his part too well."
(made up by me)
James Oberg (paraphrased)"Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to let your brains fall out."
via Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (1995)
William James (attributed)"A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing."
"The Piranha Brothers""He used . . . sarcasm.
Oh, he knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire."
Monty Python's Flying Circus
Episode 14, "Face the Press"
(15 September 1970)
Douglas Adams"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof
is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Mostly Harmless
(1992)
Beyond My KenMisplaced Pages is a project to create and improve an online encyclopedia which is as accurate and as useful to its readers as possible. It is not an MMORPG, a debating society or an experiment to create the ideal online community. Activities which do not, in some direct or closely indirect way, contribute to that goal are a waste of the project's resources and should be minimized as much as possible.
Beyond My Ken- Learn the lesson that collectively, Misplaced Pages doesn't want to be saved, it's not even very concerned about being fixed. It is quite happy being what it is, flawed or not.
- Most importantly: Stay uninvolved, learn not to care.
excerpt from "A personal prescription for surviving Misplaced Pages"
If I left you a message, please answer on your talk page, as I will be watching it.
If you leave me a message, I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
My notifications are turned off, so "pinging" me will not get my attention.