User talk:Abtract: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:19, 8 March 2008 editAbtract (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,199 edits →London Borough of Redbridge: response← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 08:36, 8 March 2024 edit undoDoug Weller (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,102 edits Restored revision 1212037065 by Tacyarg (talk): Editor last edited years agoTags: Twinkle Undo
(992 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{not around\|3=October 23, 2016}}
	*] 1 May - 31 October 2006
			==]==
	*] 1 November 2006 - 30 April 2007
			Abtract: I noticed your comment on my talk page about my entry on the CIMA page. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and CIMA announced last week that the credential to be issued by their joint venture will be the Chartered Global Management Accountant (CGMA) credential. The joint venture will begin issuing the CGMA credential early in 2012. This is what I wanted to reflect in my edit of the CIMA article. If I was not clear enough please change in accordingly. I am a member of a national AICPA committee and received the AICPA press release on the subject last week. Regards. ] (]) 14:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
			:Thanks for the explanation. I reverted your edit for three reasons. First, it seemd odd as I couldn't quite see how a global qualification could be chartered (who would issue the charter?). Second, there was no citation which is a sign that it may not be correct. And last, when I went to your talk page I saw that your only contact with the WP world seemed to have also been rejected by another editor. Having said all that, you make a good sounding rebutal and I an now inclined to think you probably know what you are talking about. To put my mind at ease and avoid someone else reverting you, can I suggest that you include a citation? Apologies for reverting and thanks for stopping by. ] (]) 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

			Hello, at your suggestion I have added to the CIMA article a reference to the AICPA press release on the new Chartered Glogal Management Accountant credential. Regards.] (]) 02:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC) By the way, I am the primary author of two articles and have contributed to perhaps two dozen.
	'''If you talk to me on this page, I will reply here.''' ] 09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
			:Thanks. ] (]) 12:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

			== (Not a) Warning ==
	==Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!==
			If you continue interacting with other editors like you did in the section above, I shall have to seriously consider nominating you for adminship... ] (]) 20:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
	{\| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
			:OK, enough already. ] (]) 12:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
	\|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top;color:#000000;font-size: 85%"\|
	{\| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
	! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#CEF2E0; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #084080; text-align:left; color:#082840; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;"> Hello <font color=#0000FF>{{PAGENAME}}</font>! ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. If you decide that you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place '''<code>{{helpme}}</code>''' on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to ] on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! ]]</div>
	\|}
	{\| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
	\|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"\|
	{\| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
	! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Started</div>
	\|-
	\|style="color:#000"\|
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting your info out there</div>
	\|-
	\| style="color:#000"\|
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting more Misplaced Pages rules</div>
	\|-
	\| style="color:#000"\|
	* ]
	\|-
	\|}
	\|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"\|
	{\| width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
	! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Help</div>
	\|-
	\|style="color:#000"\|
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting along</div>
	\|-
	\|style="color:#000"\|
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	\|-
	! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #cef2e0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting technical</div>
	\|-
	\|style="color:#000"\|
	]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	\|-
	\|}
	\|}
	\|} ]] 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

			== Your most recent edit on ] ==
	Despite archiving my first year, I have retained this warm and useful welcome because it really did work. ] 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

			Hi. I just noticed your most recent edit on ]: you reworded a sourced statement, changing the word "men" to "humans"; your edit summary says, "There are quite a few women in myths". I'm a bit puzzled by this edit summary. It seems to suggest that you reworded the sentence because you thought that it was factually incorrect (e.g. that it limited human involvement in myths to ''male'' human involvement). Of course, as you probably know, you can't just ''change'' a sourced statement (even a factually incorrect one) while leaving the citations in place, because that might cause the statement to say something other than what the sources say. Now, I haven't reverted your edit, both because it was obviously a good-faith edit and because it seems rather innocuous. I mean, the word "men" in that sentence was clearly being used to denote humans in general, so your edit didn't actually change the meaning of the sentence. Please don't get the wrong idea: I'm not here to pick a fight with you. I'm just mildly confused about the rationale behind your edit. Were you simply trying to update the sentence to reflect modern English usage (in which "man" is no longer the usual term for referring to humans in general)? If so, then I have no objection. --] (]) 17:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
	==Spades/SS==
			:Absolutely what I was trying to do. I certainly won't go to the stake on it, and I did consider that I may be changing the cited work's wording. However, there are three cited works and it wasn't shown in quotes so I guessed it was probably a paraphrasing in which case my new paraphrasing, I hoped, would reflect both the intention of the authors and modern mores. If you, knowing the cited works as I guess you do, think the previous wording is a better reflection of their meaning, please revert my edit. And thanks for stopping by with such an elegantly worded query. ] (]) 22:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
	Hi there, I've noticed the rv of the SS -> spades that Dtrebbien had done. While it would have been better had he put it on our project talk page what he is doing rather than on his user page I think his idea is a very good one (Spelling selector)and even affects us bridge people. (honour/honor). Rather than messing up our stuff he is changing it to a (very reasonable) alternative first. I say we let him. Oh and while I disagree with your views on suitplay I have noticed it is forcing him to write a superior article... People having differing opinions is valuable - it keeps the world diverse. Just as long as people are nice to each other :-)] 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

			==Genesis creation==
	:I too think it is a good idea but it doesn't have to use a template already in good use. I have persuaded him to use a different template and revert his edits so everyone should be happy. I think you will find I was very polite throughout the suitplay debate ... I still have severe reservations but let's see how it develops, I am having a break from it. ] 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
			If you want the current scholarly understanding of how the Pentateuch came to be written, see ] and ] - the PS is responsible for chapter 1 and J for chapter 2. ] (]) 23:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
			:Thanks, that seems very useful I will look at it in more detail after my hols. ] (]) 10:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

			== Speed of light ==
	::Seems a good solution to me. As for the suit combinations debate I suppose we need more people's input. Being restrained is good. There's no use in "my point is valid 'cos you've got a big nose..." :-). We'll see how it develops. .. ] 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

			RE: "Clearly you did not read my edit or the edit summary where REMOVED THE 'A'."
	:::Abtract, I have reversed everything back. For future reference, where do I discuss changes like the one I proposed? ] 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

			Er... yep. Excuse me, pardner, but it's Monday and I'm a bit trigger-happy today; I thought that an edit war was in progress. – ] (]) 20:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
	::::Well you might have started on the bridge project page or found a couple of users of the template or the talk page of a busy article that used the template ... anyway thanks for your very sensible decision. :) ] 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
			:No problem ... I was hoping it was that. ] (]) 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

	== Your edit summary ==

			==Merge discussion for ]==
	In your edit summary , you stated you were reinstating <nowiki>{{wikt}}</nowiki> because it "cannot possibly be a bad idea". It might not have been your intention, but when you make an edit summary like that, it comes across that you are not open for discussion. The implication is that you are right and that no one could "''possibly''" disagree with you, or that there is no other "''possible''" way of viewing the issue. In my view, this is not in the Misplaced Pages spirit of discussion and consensus-building. As I said, that may not at all have been your intention, but I thought I should mention that that is how it comes across, at least to me (who sometimes might read too much into things!). Looking forward to collaborating, --] 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
			] An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been proposed for a ] with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going {{ #if: talk:hand evaluation#Merger proposal \|]\|to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article}}, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ] (]) 14:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC) <!-- Template:mergenote -->
			:Thanks, I have responded there.] (]) 19:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

			==] "too far"...==
	:Thanks for you comment ... I take your point. ] 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
			Just to let you know - I have replied at the ].--<span style="font-family:'Gill Sans MT'"> ](])</span> 10:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
			:Thanks; I had seen your reply but sadly don't really have the time to respond adequately (studying). My main point is that, although your edit included much good material, I feel it overwhelms what should be the main thrust of the article i.e. the SUVAT equations of motion. It's not so much that these are more important or more correct, it's that I believe these are what is being sought by almost all readers of this article ... of course, I may be wrong. If you could find some way of making these the core of the article and relegating the more esoteric equations to later additional information, I would be happier. However, you obviously know a lot about this subject and I certainly don't intend to fight you on it. Thanks for your courtesy in stopping by to alert me to your response. ] (]) 13:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
			::I'm sorry to interrupt you like that with such a long (and probably patronizing) response... =( I'll see what I can do to make it better, perhaps the easiest thing is to reverse the order of the material currently in the article, SUVAT before the new content. Its just that these are very limited in scope and application, the true eqns of motion are Newton's law etc. (On top of this one, right now i'm trying to make the Dirac equation article better, in addition to some others, which are slightly more important)...
			::PS Good luck with your studies (I am too) Happy New Year also! =) --<span style="font-family:'Gill Sans MT'"> ](])</span> 14:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
			:::Apologies if you found it patronising; that wasn't my intention. Happy New Year to you too. ] (]) 15:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
			::::Btw, I meant ''I'' (F = q(E+v^B)) was patronizing when I replied on the talk page - ''not you (Abtract)''! =) --<span style="font-family:'Gill Sans MT'"> ](])</span> 09:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
			:::::Ah I see, thanks. ] (]) 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

			I promise I’ll stop bugging you at some point, I know you're busy so ''please only answer when you have time'': but what do you think of the article now? The scene is set for making it a ''real'' article worthy of its title, at least compared to what it was before. I compromised the inclusion of the SUVAT equations into a kinematics section and Newton's laws into a Dynamics section. The E-L eqns, Hamilton’s eqns and electrodynamics eqn etc are left to the end.--<span style="font-family:'Gill Sans MT'"> ](])</span> 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
	== Hey Abtract! ==
			:I haven't had a chance to view it all in detail but it looks better. I have slightly altered the lead where it refers to SUVAT to make it clearer (?). Keep up the good work (no patronising intended!). ] (]) 11:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
			::Thanks for your improvements - you did an excellent job! (especially if you are not specilized in physics/maths), right now i'm in the middle of ], otherwise I would have carried on, I will come back to it soon. And ''please'' - ''you'' do not patronize ''anyone''!!! =) I did at the talk page, but whats done is done. --<span style="font-family:'Gill Sans MT'"> ](])</span> 19:26, 3 January 2012 (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 ].
	'''Wow'''...you have been doing a lot of great work since that welcome! A few quick comments...'''(a)''' I really appreciate you taking time to welcome newcomers as you just have. I do believe it can make a difference in our wikicommunity. '''(b)''' You have no need to credit me for the welcome template. It has developed over time under many people's edits and various versions of it are in use all over WP. Keep up the great work! --] <sup> ]</sup> 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

			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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
	==Re: Quotation mark, non-English usage==

			Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ] (]) 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
	Thank you for your greeting, but it took a day for me to understad, how could I answer to you the same way in this Misplaced Pages...
	In fact, I am not that fan of creating wiki-pages, but I use ] page very often for my work, so I finally decided to set it up in order, because there was some rubbish (at least in the Russian section) and confusion there, and the data structure was snot that good at all.

			== Input to discussion ==
	I would appreciate if you could check out my writing in the Russian section, for I forgot my English since school, which was 16 years back :)
			Your input is welcome on two discussions which may be of interest.
			# Proposed deletion (or renaming) of the following categories: ]
			## {{cl\|Politics of the British Isles}}
			## {{cl\|Political parties in the British Isles}}
			## {{cl\|Political movements of the British Isles}}
			# Proposed deletion of the following article
			## ]
			Thanks, --] (]) 05:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

			==Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey==
	> I wonder if you might like to reconsider your recent edits on Quotation mark,
	> non-English usage which seem to belong more reasonably in Quotation mark glyphs.

			Hi,
	There was most of that "glyphs" info on this page before me, I just decided to colect all the glyphs info from "non-English usage" into one place, in order to make other text more compact and easy-to use, and, after that, some text (about French and German features) was double-written in different places.

			I've refounded Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey and I saw you were a member of Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey. I was wondering, as you are a on the Participants List weather on not you would like to help improve more Surrey articles and make Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey and active Wikiproject again.
	I removed the table and make a link to ] instead (can't understand how to create a Contents section there) - in fact, ] is TOO havy, I think most of the "specific" info is absolutely useless, and can be found in the Overview table - I just can not bring myself to remove all this, for I have made a lot of changes already, and I see some people is not that glad...

			I hope you will come and help make Misplaced Pages: Wikiproject Surrey an active Wikiproject again.
	Sorry for this chaos, I am always in a hurry...

			Thanks,
	Best regards,
	] 06:03, 15 ~~May~~ ~~2007~~ (UTC)~~D.Ignashoff~~		pbl1998--] (]) 14:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

			P.S. Either reply or Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey on my ].
	:Conversation to be continued ] ... ] 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	== Hello ==
	Hello Abtract! Enjoy Misplaced Pages , your ] 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks and you too; have you considered getting an account? ] 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

			::You asked me once whether I had ever lived in Godalming. Yes I have. What made you think that and are you a Godhelmian? Aetheling1125 17:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	== Dates ==

			== With relief ... ==
	Hi. Just wondering why you have been removing wikilinked dates? Dates with month and day (and year if it's there) are wikilinked for date preferences, not because they are meaningful - as per ]. Years linked by themselves, I agree, are completely meaningless. Regards, ]<sup>'']]''</sup> 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

			... I can announce to my many (any?) watchers that I have just received my results and got a 2.2 ] (]) 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
	:I am removing them because IMHO they add nothing to the article and make it looked cluttered with links; ] only tells us how to do it, there is no insistence that we do. ] 23:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

	== ~~Rouge~~ ~~Admin~~ ==		== Right- and left-hand traffic ==

			Hi, Abtract. The title of the subject article is ]. I am alerting you because you participated in a previous discussion on the matter. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>01:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)</small>
	I would just like to apologise for having wasted your time on the Rouge Admin page through responding to my alcohol induced paranoid rant. I didnt realise
			:Thanks, I have entered my twopenn'orth. ] (]) 10:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
	*A) That what I was writing was such unutterable nonsense, apart from one or two innovative new additions or archaisms of the English language
			== ] of ] ==
	*B)I was awake when I wrote it, believing myself to be dreaming at the time.
			]

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	Thank you for being so understanding, and I am very sorry for any trouble caused. All the best, ] 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
			:'''Small non notable bus company, Fails GNG'''

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
	I'm not quite sure what you are talking about but ... no problem. :) ] 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	:And I'd just like to thank you for . I'm still chuckling about that! --] ] 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

			Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ]] 18:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
	== General note: Removal of maintenance templates on ]. using ] ==
			== 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 --> ] (]) 19:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
	=== June 2007 ===
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	{{{icon\|] }}}Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed ] notices from ], even though required changes haven't been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. {{{2\|Thank you.}}}<!-- Template:uw-maintenance1 --> ] 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
			<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.
	:I have already made my comments on the talk page. ] 10:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

			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 --> ] (]) 14:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
	== English usage ==

			== ] ==
	] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits{{#if:{{{1\|}}}\|, such as those you made to ],}} are considered ] and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be '''] from editing without further warning'''. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. <!-- Template:Blatantvandal (serious warning) -->
	:] is not vandalism. I have alerted an administrator about your use of false edit summaries and improper vandalism claims. Please read and understand ] before editng any further or you may be blocked from editing. Thanks. ] 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

			{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692013717 -->
			== 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.
	I notice the to and fro on Genisis. English in England demands that bands are treated as singular. Pink Floyd ''are''. Please do not warn the ip that they are vandalizing when they are in fact only reverting to a consensus version. Thanks.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 13:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

			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 --> <span style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-weight:bold; #171717; font-size: 11px;"> - ]<span style="color:#171716">]</span></span> 14:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
	:What a weird comment ... I agree bands are to be treated as singular which means they take "is" not "are" so my edit is correct (you are saying). ] 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
			== Educational institution listed at ] ==
	::Sorry, in the hurry to stop you continuing to revert, I ''meant'' plural obvisouly, please read ].--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 13:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
			]
			An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Educational institution'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> - ] ('']'') ('']'') <small>(Formerly '''TheChampionMan1234''')</small> 02:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

			== ]: Voting now open! ==
	:::I have read it, and did so when I saw it on the edit summary, but Genesis is an entity and therefore takes the plural not the singular ... see ] as an example. But either way, did you consider that the IP reverted the whole of my edit without attemting to change simply the singular/plural bits and without being specific about previous "consensus" (assuming from your comments that such exists). From your talk page, you are clearly a friend of "Libs" and you might consider whether this has clouded your judgement (made very hastily). ] 13:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::Genesis ''are'' an entity. Yes consensus does exist on articles written in UK English (and to older Brits like myself it sounds utterly wrong to use any other such as "Pink Floyd is" Black Sabbath was" etc. I can only say that you're both as bad as each other to keep reverting without talking to each other, no matter my alliance. I did not do any reverting myself, I did say I would, and would have done a different edit than libs, but no matter we can spend the rest of the day shooting off at each other or just get on with it.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 13:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

			{{Ivmbox\|Hello, Abtract. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
	:::::where is this consensus to be found? Have you looked at ]? ] 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
	::::::The British Isles are special case as they are more often used in the political grouping and then we say The British Isles is, the consensus to use "foo are a English band" etc is in ], from which you may take your pick but the featured article ], and the former featured articles ] and ] are probably better examples of the usage.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 13:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	::::::Finally a reasoned response. Thank you. ] 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
	==Genesis==
			\|Scale of justice 2.svg\|imagesize=40px}}
	What is with the Genesis page; it usually very quite, but all of a sudden all these ips turn up. Is somebody dead? ] 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/16&oldid=750692326 -->
			==] 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 a band or musician, but it does not ] 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 "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 {{Querylink\|Special:Log\|qs=type=delete&page=The+Wrigley+Sisters\|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] 14:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
	:Maybe I stirred the pot a little. :) ] 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

			== I am a member of the Al-Sadr Family ==
	::I noticed you have a very old-school approach to commas. In general, our camp likes to use extra commas for reasons ] can explain better than myself. — ''']]''' 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

			Hello, I am not sure if this is the correct place to write this as I am new to Misplaced Pages. I am a part of the Al Sadr lineage, and I was wondering if I could add to add to the family tree. My grandfather is Muqtada's cousin. Please inquire if you would like any kind of proof or please direct me to the correct people.
	:::I'm sorry you find it "old-school" but I just try to use punctuation to simplify, clarify and where possible to make the prose more elegant. I probably do use fairly "standard" punctuation but, since it is standard because it works, I guess that isn't a bad thing. I look forward to reading suggestions from Tony. ] 19:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
			Thanks Again,
			Jafar Baker Alsadir ] (]) 18:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<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, including you, 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.
	::::And who exactly is "our camp"? ] 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

			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 until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 21:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
	: Hi dude. I like most of your edits, but confused by changing Genesis's to Genesis'. You mentioned the latter form was used on their website...could you let me know where? Also, Atlantic Records refer to Genesis's music, as do many other Wiki pages. The Wiki definition of Apostrophes also describes that non-plural names ending with S should take the "'s". This was an edit made some time ago, I don't see the need to revert back to the Genesis' form. Discuss here, let's not get into a revert battle :) ] 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)



	:: Sure ] 20:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

	::: that's that's just a link to the site. Can you show an example of where they use the possessive of Genesis without the 's. The onus is on you to show this, as you changed the article. Many sources, such as Atlantic Records, Wiki's Apostrophe definition and many other Wiki sites show that Genesis (and Collins and Banks) should take the 's in the possessive. I await your link...otherwise I will be re-correcting it. If you wish object further, do not revert..start a discussion on the Genesis page about it. Thanks..] 19:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

	::::The usage is on that page. ] 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

	==United Kingdom==
	Please give other editors time to type into the Talk page before seemingly getting stroppy about them not doing so. Ta! ] 21:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

	:I was referring to you not "other editors" ... you reverted an anon's obviously constructive edit without any discussion. I consider this impolite and so does ]. This approach is not conducive to welcoming new editors and making them feel at home. I have no particular interest in the edit but I do defend his right to make it. ] 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

	::I'm well aware that you were referring to myself. The edit was not constructive, as it added POV content, and was inaccurate and removed verifiability. I was in the process of adding to the talk page when your impolite comments regarding use of a talk page were added. Please in future allow other editors including myself chance to comply with your requests before placing such comments. Not everyone is as quick with use of a keyboard as you obviously are yourself, especially those of us with manual disabilities. ] 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

	:::Your disabilty is not an excuse for being impolite ... ] makes it quite clear that you should not revert a reasonable edit. You may not think it was constructive but it has all the hallmarks of an inexperienced editor trying to improve the article by putting in some of his local knowledge; yes I know that isn't quite how wp works but perhaps he doesn't - ] unless you have proof to the contrary. Reverting should be used mainly to combat vandals, not to change what you don't like. Try explaining to the guy next time, or even try building on his edit. Anyway ] to worry ... go ahead and do whatever your conscience allows, I have made my point. ] 22:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	I noticed that you were last at this page ]. Could you possibly look at it and determine why the text starts below the info bar. This is not normally the case as you can see from ]. I can't seem to see what the problem is. Thanks ] 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
	:I'll have a look but I am no expert. ] 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

	==Thank you - ]==
	Thank you for your edits on the EBU page. Much appreciated and I completely agree. It is now much improved on the original 2 lines of text and I am grateful for your assistance. ] 09:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
	:No problem ... but please be aware, I wasn't helping you I was helping to make wp better. I hope you now appreciate the way an edit should be made and, in particular, that edits should not consist of wholesale copies of other websites. :) ] 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)



	== Thank you for the kind welcome ==
	It was very nice of you to send me greetings, especially as that having looked at some of your comments and edits on the Celt page, I was very happy to see that sort of work. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	:No problem, just being friendly. ] 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


	==UK==
	Please see ]. Your continued addition of ] is disruptive. ] 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Thanks for the comment but disruptive of what ... or to whom?] 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

	::Disruptive of the community's attempt to maintain the article. When consensus is against you, don't repeatedly revert the article to your way of thinking, or try to make a ]. Instead, please attempt to sway opinion on the talk page, and if you don't manage to, accept defeat graciously. Besides, you've now reverted three times in 24 hours. Do it again, and you'll end up getting blocked. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::Maintenance is not what wp is about ... I have no desire to be disruptive; I want better articles. So far no-one has even attempted to explain why de facto is good but de jure is bad.] 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	::::I had, if you care to look. I have now repeated my statement. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Yes I saw that the first time but it doesn't answer the point ... see my comments on the talk page. ] 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	::::::It may not answer the point for you, but it was an attempt to explain, wasn't it? (" So far no-one has even attempted to explain ", you wrote) <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 00:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::::::I will take your word for it ... at the time I saw it as an attempt to avoid addresing the point. ] 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


	== ] ==
	Please look at the top of the page where it says "When editing this page, '''please ensure that your revision reflects consensus.'''" ] 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	:I wonder what gives you the authority to revert, as though it were vandalism, a good-faith edit made 8 days previously and objected to by none of the many editors who must be watching this page? ] 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
	::When it comes to policy/guideline, you cannot just say no objection = consensus. Otherwise I could make up a policy, not advertise it anywhere, wait a few weeks, slap a {{tl\|policy}} on it and call it policy. From ]: "''Disputes over the wording of a guideline are resolved by considering and discussing objections and counter-proposals and coming to agreement, often using compromise language''" <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::Abtract, please reconsider. Your current actions are only self-defeating; shooting yourself in the foot, won't help you get to where you're trying to get. ] 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
	] You are in danger of violating the ]{{{{{subst\|}}}#if:United States\| on ]}}. Please cease further reverts or you may be ] from editing.<!-- {{uw-3rr3}} --> Three reverts in 33 minutes. That's a very vigorous edit war.—] 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	] You are in gross violation of the ] at ]. You ]. --] 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Why Abby, why? I was hoping you would respect the consensus. ] 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	::I got carried away with an attack of common sense; I still find it interesting that others don't agree but hey thats life. ] 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC). ] 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::Assuming you're going to get blocked; I hope you won't 'continue' these actions, when that block expires. Remember Abby, Misplaced Pages is a community; one must work within it. ] 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Blocked ==

	Howdy. I have ] you from editing for a day for disruption on ]. Please limit ] and when the block expires, you are welcome to contribute constructively. I recommend using the articles talk page. To contest this block, you may use the {{tlx\|unblock\|your reason here}} template on this talk page. Regards, ] <sup> ] </sup> 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

	:Thanks ... I expected it and I certainly won't contest it. I got a little carried away with my desire to see better articles and forgot that consensus is an important part of the wp way. Apologies. ] 06:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

	::You have a short memory, considering that you were engaging in the same behaviour at the ] article a day before, and others were asking you to desist for the same reasons. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

	:::Oh, that's a bit mean ... kick a guy when he's down why don't you? So far as I'm concerned it is all one episode where I got more and more irritated that others could not see the "obvious" correctness of my approach - latin words, then opening phrases. ] 11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
	::::For myself, apology accepted; it takes a mighty big Wikipedian to stand forward and ask for forgiveness. ] 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

	== Sui generis ==

	You're going to lose that battle. I'd suggest avoiding another 3RR. (I'm no fan of the term, either, but this has been discussed in great length on the talk page, and I respect the consensus.) ] <sup><small>(]\|])</small></sup> 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks for the advice.] 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
	::Of course, having said that, it appears I might be wrong. Still, I think taking it to the talk pages (as you did) was a good move. ] <sup><small>(]\|])</small></sup> 17:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
	:::Indeed ... another thanks. ] 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

	==]==
	Thanks Abstract; good balanced edit leaving several usages of ''British Isles'' in the text without hammering the point. (] 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
	:NP ... just trying to improve the article. ] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Reading ==

	You reverted my valid edit to UK cities, Reading is not a city. What article are you referring to and where? If Reading is to remain than the section needs re-wording, it's mis-leading. ] 12:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

	:The article is ] which was previously ] ... I have changed the link and the heading of the section as you suggested. Thanks ] 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

	== Forage/Foraging ==

	I reverted the article again. The point is that the article on Foraging theory does not even expain the behavior-- It is virtually incomprehensible. Neither article is terrific, but ] at least explains what forage is. I will not violate 3RR by reverting it again, but I deliberately wanted to link to the forage defination article because it is at least written in plain English. I'd appreciate it if the link could stay, or if you must revert it again, would you also be so kind as to add an intro to Foraging that explains what it IS?? ]<sup>]</sup> 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

	:Let's no fall out over it ... maybe we could both work to improve the 2 forage articles? I will give it some thought. :) ] 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

	:::Works for me! Sounds like a good idea. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

	== History of Ireland ==

	Not sure if I am communicating but here goes - I do not do a lot of editing on wiki so I am at all sure of this format. I reversed your edit and added citation. The entire page needs some work - I understand that fitting so much in with little space is hard but sometimes the proper sequence of events has to be included to get the proper historical perspective. e.g. it was the Lambert Simnel event which more or less led to the Poynings Law action. This is lost if the date of Simnel is incorrect so it is not just a slight error. ] 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]
	:Sorry mate but I have removed your latest attempt which remains uncited, but mainly because it is completely out of place where you put it. It doesn't belong in the lead and you included it a few centuries out. ] 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

	What do you mean uncited? The opening opinion all uncited if it comes to that. The opinion expressed needs some kind of modification.
	What do you mean I included it a few centuries out? ] 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

	"Christianity has played a major role in Ireland's history, culture and internal conflict." This is opinion only - and it is misleading opinion at that. Christianity was USED as a tool of conflict but did not actually cause conflict. The plantations were the issue - not the religion of the planters. This is bad history to leave this hanging like this. ] 23:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

	:Do what you will; I have given my opinion I won't fight you on it ... but others will also rv you. ] 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

	I took out that piece of opinion but well if someone does rv that is fine. I won't pursue it either. I have given my opinion and for historical accuracy and clarity that is all I can do. The page could do with some attention as there are many outdated statements like the Silken Thomas bit - there is a lot more scholarship on him and his status has gone up in recent years owing to some very interesting research - but if it is all about arguments and challenges that I will not go down that path. ] 23:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

	== ] ==

	I assume you were trying to archive a talk page here, but you created a new article instead.] 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
	:I was indeed ... three of them. ] 08:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Discussion transferred to ] where it has more relevance. ] 11:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Welcome...==
	.. to the WPSI project. Hopefully it is all self-explanatory, but if you'd like any assistance please let me know. Good wishes, and hope to meet you on a wiki-island soon. ]<sup><font color="#228B22">]</font></sup><font color="#228B22">/</font><small><font color="#228B22">]</font></small> 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Prophets of Islam==
	I removed Adam from the category ] because there is already an article called Islamic view of Adam, that is part of the category ]--] 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

	:thanks for telling me but I don't understand your rationale since adam was a prophet of islam. ] 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Response to a suggestion from way back==
	Hi damian111 here sorry about the late reply, my userbox was inacurate and should have been west wales. For reference on this please read the dangerous book for boys. Thanks <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== My comment at WikiProject Cornwall ==

	Hi, usually I would agree with you about removing other editors' comments - but in this case I had asked Woody to remove it if he felt appropriate. I am in a difficult situation with another editor, and Woody is familiar with the dispute, and trying to help me and the other person resolve our problems. My post was related to the difficulty, so I am happy for Woody to have removed it. Good to know the page is noticed though! Best wishes, ] (]) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

	:OK no problem although I would never give another editor permission to do that ... I would prefer to remove it myself but, hey, we are all different. Enjoy. ] (]) 23:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

	::I wouldn't normally, but am feeling rather stressed and didn't want to revert myself and then spoil it by leaving an intemperate edit summary! ] (]) 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

	:::OK mate ... I have a suggestion for you as one who has had problems on here before ... my suggestion is "Apologise and move on". I know you don't understand any of why you should apologise and frankly neither do I having only skimmed through your 'problem' but believe me it is best. I sense that you enjoy wikipedia and do not want to leave but you are talking yourself into a corner. Assume 'they' are trying to be helpful and genuinely do not understand your problem ... a quick "I am sorry, not quite sure what for but I want us all to work together to make this a great encyclopedia so I am going to move on and not pester you again on this misunderstanding" and then move on to another area of wp. It worked for me and it will work for you ... in time you will look back on this as the time when you matured as an editor. Whatever you decide, good luck. :) ] (]) 00:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

	::::Thanks for the advice, probably quite good advice too, but when I read this just after reading it I thought - "Why bother?". Hopefully he will ignore me from now on, I shall do my best to ignore him. ] (]) 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

	:::::mmmm doesn't make good reading but my advice still stands ... swallow your pride, apologise and look good ... or fight on, look bad and lose. Your choice. ] (]) 00:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

	== snarky edit sumary ==

	It's much more constructive and polite to actually take a look at talk page before making unfounded, already-discussed, and frankly rude comments in edit summaries, as you did on ]. You're welcome to join the discussion... if you leave that attitude behind. ] (]) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Apologies I didn't realise you ] the article or that you were ] ... however you might bear in mind the rules about ] and ] before reacting to a simple edit so aggresively. ] (]) 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


	You wiped out most of the lead of an article for no reason and added an inflamatory edit summary for good measure. After you were informed that the article is already being discussed on its ] and invited to join the conversation, you ignored the discussion and hacked away at the entire article, removing much important information in the process since you obviously know nothing about the topic.

	Talk pages are there for a reason. Use them. Should I wikilink the relevant policies for you? ] (]) 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	:Wikilink what you like mate, it won't change my view (and that of several other editors) that this is a badly written article containing many unsupported statements like "he thought ... " and "he said ... ", travelogue details about who went where and by which means of transport, many POV comments and, judging by the complete absence of citations, a great deal of OR (presumably by someone about to write a book on the subject). I have read all the talk page (as I do as a matter of routine before editing any article) and it is full of critisism, similar to mine, by several editors which you have reacted to with very lengthy and erudite responses but so far you have not taken heed of any view but your own. You are completely missing the point ... this is not your article and any "knowledge" you may have gleaned in preparation for your book is only relevant if you can give citations to other publications. It, like all articles, should be written in encyclopedic/measured tone ... keep your skill as an author for your book where you can get away with flowery phrases and colourful asides. ] (]) 00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Ieuan ==

	Hi Abtract, I notice you've tagged ] as a possible hoax. If you're interested, I've left my views on the Discussion page. ] (]) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks. I appreciate your comments especially since you seem to have investigated the topic. ] (]) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
	::Thank you for being so considerate. I should make it clear that I myself want to see more positive clarification and shall try to find out more on this (I have contacts in Welsh acdemia). I spend a considerable amount of time checking Wales-related articles for hoaxes and have been instrumental in deleting a few things in my time here, but I am convinced that James Frankcom is genuine and not a hoaxer. I have seen the copies of Bartrum's notes and am sure they are genuine as well; it still needs a more specific reference though. Thanks again for agreeing to give it some time. ] (]) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Ybor City ==

	Thanks for your help / backup on he Ybor City article! I'm a n00b but appreciate the help nonetheless. ] 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
	:No problem, I simply played it how I saw it. ] 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Mwahahahaha!!!! ==

	] ] ]!!!!! ] 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

	:Thanks for that and of course you are right ... I can get up myself occasionally when I have nothing better to do. Thanks for taking the time to point it out and tidy up after me; feel free to do it again as you see the need. Having said that I am hopeful that the frequency of need will decline to a muted "No but ... " occasionally. :) ] 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Penwith Wikiproject & Cornwall Wikiproject ==

	Hi, I see you are a member of the ]. A proposal has been made to merge the ] into it. You can join in the debate ]. Best wishes, ] (]) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Rather obviously, you know about this already - I've just messaged everyone who is in either of the two projects so that hopefully we can generate som econsensus and movement. ] (]) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
	:No problem ... nice to see I was ahead of you. :) ] (]) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

	== re: disclosure ==

	Sorry for not replying earlier, I simply hadn't noticed your post in the talk subpage (now redirected to my main talk). You (and anyone else who will ever read that page) are most welcome. I ] I ] I 15:55, ], 2007

	==Unilever==
	If Unilever competes against ] & ], Why does ], ] and ] all use Breyers for their Ice Cream?

	:Minor co-operations between competitors is not uncommon. ''I am going to move this section to the unilever article where it has more relevance.'' ] (]) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Ybor City, Tampa, Florida ==

	Hi, I tried to cleanup ] and removed the tag. I see that you hae been involved in the merge and rewrites; I would value your feedback on my progress. Thanks! --] (]) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

	:Seems to be moving in the right direction and looking more like an encyclopedia. :) ] (]) 01:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

	== 3RR ==

	Yes, I know for sure the 3RR rule, which is how I can tell that you have violated it -- you have reapplied your edits more than 3 times, in violation of 3RR and ]. You make a bold edit, it gets reverted, and then you're supposed to discuss to get consensus, not start an edit war. -- ] (]) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
	;mmm it seems to me that you have clearly not read my points on the talk page which were in place before your latest (third) revert and which you have not addressed ... I want to improve that page, what are your objectives? ] (]) 23:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

	== MS disambiguation page ==

	Abtract, I'd like to offer some feedback about the process here. You have not asked me for any, so if I am being unhelpful, or if you find that I am crossing the line of violating "Comment on content, not on the contributor", I have no problem with you removing this comment from your talk page.

	In all honesty, I ''do'' believe you when you say that your intention is to improve the ] page. You are not ''intending'' to be disruptive but I think the impact you are having is disruptive. I think this is happening because of your persistence combined with you not being quite careful enough. You have not been quite careful enough in reviewing ]—other editors have had to refer you back to specifics in those guidelines a number of times. You were not sufficiently careful in reviewing JHunterJ's actions—you accused him of reverting without discussion or rationale when he had in fact discussed the reasons in edit summaries. On occasion you have not been quite careful enough even in reviewing some of your own edits. As I said, this combination of your persistence and of not being careful enough is ''not'' evidence that you are meaning to be disruptive, but I think it is having the ''effect'' of disrupting the process at that page.

	JHunterJ is as close to an expert disambiguator as they come on Misplaced Pages. His contributions in cleaning up disambig pages are astounding, I find. One of the reasons he was nominated for adminship was his work with disambig pages. I point this out only to emphasize that he knows these guidelines very well, and, I suppose, with the hope that you might assume some good faith a little more with him.

	Thanks for your attention; thanks for your passion for Misplaced Pages --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

	: ... perhaps all a moot point now, what with SlackerMom's helpful comment. :) --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

	::Thanks for taking the time to comment, I genuinely appreciate it. Of course it must be clear from my general record that I do love wikipedia but also that I can be a little aggressive in making my point. This is normally the fruits of frustration (no excuse I know) rather than a desire to be disruptive; I am afraid I have a tendency to think the rest of the world is out of step some times.
	On this particular occasion it was the fact that JHunterJ is an admin that really got my goat. I thought that admins had a duty to help editors with full explanations rather than simple reverts and that they were discouraged from using their powers on articles that they were personally involved with. However good he is as an editor, he surely slipped up on those two points. I promise to be more consensus driven in future (until the next time anyway) and I have taken the advice and started work on other dab pages ... maybe in the future I will rival JHunterJ in this slightly more constructive way.] (]) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
	:You misunderstand the role of admins. Admins are janitors, not educators (although I'm sure some admins are good at both) -- they get a mop to help further improve Misplaced Pages (for instance, by protecting articles from edit wars). The ] is separate from the adminship. You also missed my explanations in my edit summaries and in the guidelines I provided links to. It is ''not'' the job of admins to regurgitate the Misplaced Pages policies in full when any editor demands. -- ] (]) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
	::I rest my case. ] (]) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

	*I have been working on ]. If either of you would care to look at it and improve it ... or even remove the cleanup tag, I would appreciate it. Look on it as a couple of hours community service. :) ] (]) 18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

	Abtract, I actually agree with JHunterJ's comment . As per my comment above, all that reverting is having a disruptive effect. --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

	:Good for you but, had you taken the trouble to look closely, you would have seen that I have not made any reverts in the dab arena since the problems above unlike hunter who reverted me with an unhelpful edit summary ... I then tried to improve that same line again but in a quite different way. I did this because an edit summary "mistaken" helped me not; I dare say the link was intended to be helpful but my experience of admins (and editors) I admire is that they normally explain briefly why an edit was mistaken. JHunterJ has already explained to me that "Admins are janitors, not educators" so, though each time I hope for more, I expect little from him. I have worked quite diligently on dabcleanup since the troubles above and this is the first less than helpful response I have had.] (]) 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time, so your most recent edits were reverts. My "mistaken" edit summary was an answer to your "I might be mistaken" edit summary. -- ] (]) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Oh boy now I have heard it all ... I quote from ] "A revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time." '''I did not do that''' ... and, "However, in the context of the English Misplaced Pages three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." '''I did not do that''' ... but you did when I accused you of breaking the 3rv rule; oh how I wish I had that quote available when the ruling was made letting you off on the technicality that one of your reverts was not entirely to the identical previous version. Listen mate ... you are an admin ... grow up and act like one. ] (]) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

	In reply to your response to me above: I had not looked carefully enough and I had assumed that was a complete revert. I guess it goes to show that I can be somewhat careless myself, especially when there is frustration in the air. :) Anyway, on another note—and I had meant to say this sooner—good work on the ] dab page. --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

	:Thanks; I know you won't believe this but I also have been known to make mistakes and get frustrated :) I am trying hard to achieve something on dab pages and have done half a dozen or so ... you will have to tag some more pretty soon or I will run out of work. ] (]) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

	==] disambiguation page cleanup==
	Per many examples in ] (also called ]), in an entry for something that doesn't have a dedicated article and thus doesn't begin with a bluelink, it's actually proper to begin the entry with "A" or "the". ] (]) 13:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks, though a simple edit summary would have done the trick ... just out of interest could you lead me to the specific guidepoint you are making. I am taking quite an interest in dab cleanup and want to get it right after my adventures above. ] (]) 14:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	::I don't think there's any place where it states this explicitly, but you can see it in the example used for ] (although that example isn't the clearest, either, since two of the entries begin with "Part"). It's also used in the first example on the page, disambiguating "school" ("A ] of fish").
	::I know the MOS is really long and tricky and often not as clear as it should be; I've been working on dab page cleanup for several months, and over that time I've often realized that I did the wrong thing when cleaning up a page earlier, because I had missed some rule in the MOS (and, on at least one occasion, got quite irate towards someone else about their revision even though I later realized they were right and I was wrong). It's a pretty thankless task. But in most cases, the page will still look a hundred times better than it did before you cleaned it up even if you do make a few trivial errors, and 99.9% of Wikipedians would never notice any problem with the cleaned-up page. ] (]) 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for taking the time to tell me all that. ] (]) 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Dab cleanups ==

	Before I go around reverting you all over the place... :) ...may I ask, why are you doing things like removing valid interwiki links as you did ? --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

	:My rationale was that, since these were dab pages and by definition had several meanings within one page, there could be no such links. If this is incorrect, pls point me to the relevant style page and I will corect them all myself. ] (]) 09:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

	::Assuming you are correct, I have reinstated them all I believe ... and reinstated a couple of wiktionary lionks I wiped. As I said above I was thinking that dab pages could not be linked in either of these ways by the nature of disambiguation; thanks for the tip. ] (]) 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::There are disambiguation pages on other wikis, and those should be interwiki-linked. If you want to click through each one and see that it's a dab page and not an article, you could, but I usually just take them at their word. Yes, the leading {{tl\|wiktionary}} templates should definitely remain, although if there are multiple ones (such as on there used to be Rus), they could be combined into a single {{tl\|wiktionarypar}} template -- although I agree with the removal of the Cyrillic-alphabet one there instead. -- ] (]) 12:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Thanks. Happy Christmas to all my readers. ] (])
	:::::All the best for Boxing Day too! :) --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 04:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
	Hi Abtract and all the best for the new year. There are a few unresolved things about the ] dab page for your attention when you return. It has to do with items you have removed. ] should not have been removed because it is linked at ]. ] should not have been removed because it is linked at ]. Let me know if you need further explanation. Cheers, --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Back (obviously) ... correct any that you are confident of by all means but I thought dab pages were only for articles that existed rahter than ones that might (tho I have a nasty feeling I may have read to the contrary sonmewhere). ] (]) 23:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, you probably read it at the ]. :) Welcome back! --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

	==]==
	Hey there, Abtract. I was wondering when you'd be back. Hope you had a nice break. Thanks for your note on ]. There's a discussion regarding the use of TOC right, which you might find interesting. It's just a matter of preference. I tend to prefer it on longer pages, just because it shortens the list. I've noticed that you have been working hard to learn the ways of the dab page - I'm so glad! Style issues will get easier with time. I agree with the comment above about ] - it looks really good. The most disagreement tends to be over which entries should be included on each page, and sometimes those get crazily heated. Any voice of common sense is always welcome! ] (]) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hello there, I responded to your request for intervention at the above article, and I think that this should help settle the matter. I wanted to pass you a friendly reminder, too; I realize that it may get stressful sometimes when other editors don't see your way. However, please avoid from saying that another editor "blathers" on or making other uncivil remarks, as this isn't helpful in terms of solving a dispute. Remember, keep a ] when the editing gets hot! Cheers, ] ] 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Thanks ... point taken and I have removed the blather. I thought I was being restrained but on re-reading I see it was a tad provocative. ] (]) 23:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

	== Pa ==

	I noticed your work on ]. Commendable effort. FYI, you may be interested in ] and ]. ] (]) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

	:Thanks. I have read them both and I have done quite a few recently, although I am still learning the art of cleaning dab pages. I sense from your advice (and from your edit to ]) that you feel I was wrong to pick "father" as the primary definition. I believe this is a very contentious issue which I have raised before on other pages ... who decides which entry(ies) is the primary one? To me "father" is clearly the most common usage but presumably to you it is not. So who decides? The pages you suggest I read do not help. For my money I would rather have no primary uses except perhaps a definition of the word but in this case I used father for consistency with MA mother (and another primary usage). Look at ] to see what I mean ... I have had several conversations about which should be the primary usages aqnd frankly the current list looks odd to say the least but I have exhausted politeness in trying to reduce thee list so I have moved on to other dab pages (it was MS that got me started). Anyway ] to worry but I do think the principle (or who decides etc) needs attention. ] (]) 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

	==]==
	{{{icon\|]}}}
	This is an automated message from ]. I have performed a web search with the contents of ], and it appears to include a substantial copy of {{{2\|http://www.europeanpollendatabase.net/about}}}. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

	This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on ]. ] (]) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

	== only one link per line? ==

	Are you sure? There's lots and lots of names of unknown stuff from Ancient Greece and it benefits the reader to have links to them all. ] (]) 02:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

	:Yes I am sure ... look at ]. It takes a while to learn all these "rules" I know from personal experience, indeed I am only half way there. It may help to remember that the purpose of dab pages is to assist with navigation rather than to impart information. :) ] (]) 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

	==Burj (word)==
	]
	A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl\|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add <code>{{tl\|db-author}}</code> to the top of ]. <!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ]''' 11:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

	==AfD nomination of Burj (word)==
	I have nominated ], an article you created, for ]. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.<!-- Template:AFDWarning --> <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''00:50, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small> 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Thanks :) ] (]) 09:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

	== HAH??? ==

	You reverten a link made by me on the ] dezambiguation page, stating that there is a maximum of '''one''' link per dezambig page. Since when? Is there a wikipedia policy on this? I`m a bit confused.... ] (]) 18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Look at ]. It takes a while to learn all these "rules" I know from personal experience, indeed I am only half way there. It may help to remember that the purpose of dab pages is to assist with navigation rather than to impart information. ] (]) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::Hm, kinda strange...but ok! Thanks anyway! ] (]) 22:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Hey, wait a sec`, do you suppose that every person that searches for "Clear" in the Scientology sense knows what an "engram", as defined by the Scientology/ER Hubbard/Whatever-created-it , knows what it '''is'''?! Well... look on the bottom of the page! ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::Of course they won't but they will discover it when they go to the target article, which is where the info should be ... remember a dab page is only for navigation. This is not an occasion to break the rules or every dab entry would have several links. ] (]) 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::But the counter-exameple on the link that you gave me implied a song , the definition of the song and the genre of the band as, in this case , an "engram" is in itself a vague notion, so that`s why I wanted the link, not for personal credit or anything... ] (]) 23:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I realise you are operating entirely in good faith but you need to learn the "rules" on dab pages. Put simply, they are designed to help readers find the article they want (navigation) when they don't know the precise title of the article but they know a key word that might be the title (for example "clear"). The idea is that they type in "clear" and arrive at the dab page which they scan to find the article they wanted and then go straight there without hanging around to read up on extra explanations or visiting linked articles. When they get to the target article they spend as long as they want looking at the info and visiting links. Hopefully you see the point now; the dab page gets them where they want to be but gives them no information other than is necessary to get them there. ] (]) 00:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Ok, ok then.... ] (]) 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::LOL don't feel too bad about it, there is much to learn as I know to my cost (look at some of my history!). ] (]) 00:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hi,<br>Thanks for sorting my screw up on the talk page for Willie.<br>I'd like to do a bit of re-writing on that article. But I'm not very sure about the editing rules. I've been a Willie fan since 1978, met him personally, and have a collection of about 120 cd's, over 30 videos/dvd's, and also met my present partner through his fan website,(Willie actually sent us a signed copy of his "Valentine" CD because of that). So perhaps I am more qualified than most to add information to this page. So can you advise me what is, or is not allowed. ???<br>] (]) 02:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
	:NP - you will see that I have put a welcome on your page; this contains lots of useful places to look for "rules". I am no expert and get it wrong often. In particular you might look at ] because it sounds to me as though you have access to unpublished primary sources that would count as original research. It is important that info on living persons is supported by a citation. Anyway, have fun and enjoy editing. ] (]) 10:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Cornwall, England, UK ==

	See ] and the discussion linked therefrom. ] (]) 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

	:MMM you have better eyes than I do (I see lots of debate but no consensus) ... could you lead me to the specific place where a consesus was reached pls. ] (]) 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

	::Sorry about that - it's been archived, have tracked it down now - ]. ] (]) 14:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

	:::Well I don't see a consensus there (mention of one in the past maybe) indeed I entered that debate but thought it just fizzled out. ] (]) 15:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

	== MS dab page – part 2 ==

	Hi Abtract. Sorry to keep bugging you about dab style guidelines, especially when you've been doing some great cleanups. But I think mis-characterizes what the guidelines actually say. They do not say that ''all'' the items in the list need to be divided among the sections. There are strong advantages to having the most likely dab targets listed early, even if it means not appropriately categorizing them. You can see the example of ]. My view was that ] provided easier navigation before your latest edit. ...My two cents, anyway. Cheers, --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

	::Please don't apologise I am trying to learn as I go and I appreciate constructive comments - and this means that some of my edits are based on "common sense" (as I see it of course). This page has bothered me for some time, mainly because it has (had) 6 items in the supposedly "most common usage" slot at the beginning. In looking at the mos I spotted the section I referred to - ] which is clearly written with all entries sectionalised. As to Aurora, it is quoted for another reason entirely (two levels of sectioning) and you will note it starts with "Aurora most commonly refers to:" which could certainly not be applied to "], the Internet country code top-level domain for Montserrat", as an example. Common sense tells me that with long lists everything should be in a section unless it sticks out like a sore thumb as being the most common usage, otherwise we come back to the perennial "who decides?". My sections may not be the best but I have tried to make them meaningful and containing a reasonable number of terms. Let's see what others think. :) ] (]) 01:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

	::: I think it is a good thing when new people start working on dab pages and question some of the guidelines, because it typically leads us to make sure that the guidelines are indeed useful and based on the best "common sense". I'm basing my comments largely on what I have seen other more experienced dab-project members do: I do not think that the example at ] was truly intended to be prescribing that ''all'' the entries should be sectionalised. Still, I think you make a good point about the Montserrat country code, and I am happy to see what others think. :) --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Surname pages ==

	Hi again. :) Surname pages are not dab pages, so they do not need to follow dab style guidelines; see ]. --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Thanks again. You are right and thanks for pointing it out but (you knew that was coming didn't you?) I just don't see it. I can see no other purpose in this list except disambiguation. Why is the list there? Answer (surely) to assist readers find the right article ... this sounds a bit like dab to me. Anyway I have completed my "clean" so once again I am in the "Let's see what happens" phase. I really am trying to improve wp but it is hard work. :) ] (]) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

	:: Sure, often these surname or given-name articles begin by essentially just being a list that helps to disambiguate. But eventually other things get added and they become an article ''about'' the name—see ] or (one that I worked on) ]. WikiProject Disambiguation tries to keep these things distinct—dab pages are ''not'' articles—and there is another project altogether, ], that looks after articles (and, I suppose, lists) about names. --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

	::: By the way, I think you did some great cleanup work at ], and here is just one minor nitpicky thing: when you are writing a year range, the MoS says to write it as year, then endash, then year. For example: 1885–1935. You were using spaced hyphens. Very minor point, I know. Cheers, --<font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

	==List of jail and prison museums==
	Consolidation complete on the ] & the situation is resolved. Thanks for adding to the discussion. ] (]) 06:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
	:no problem, I enjoy such debates. ] (]) 09:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Dab pages ==

	Why don't you use redirects in disambiguation pages per ]? The user ] does, look at what he did to for example. Please reply on your talk page. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
	:He did so as well. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

	::I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by "redirects" in this context. ] (]) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Jesse ==

	Sorry, I missed that the ] page had been seperated into two pages and assumed that most of it had been deleted due to vandalism.
	] (]) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

	:no problem, I thought it might have been something like that. I find the subject of lists v dab pages a difficult one as you will see if you have looked at any of the debates, so I am feeling my way a little. ] (]) 02:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

	== M&S ==

	Thanks, ] (]) 03:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Good Norns move ==

	Hey, good call on moving the article to ] -- that's exactly where it should be. An update of a link to the new ] redirect, though, isn't necessary -- if it's going to appear on the screen just the same and lead you to the same eventual page, links to redirects needn't be replaced with direct links. (]). Now that it's done, however, there's also no need to undo it either. -- ] (]) 15:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

	:We aim to please. ] (]) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Earth ==

	Hello... I had reverted your change to ] (adding "we") because Misplaced Pages generally avoids the use of that phrasing. However, RJHall was kind enough to point out that there are some limited occasions when it is felt to be acceptable. With that in mind, any thoughts about how we might rework the line to include "we" and yet make it a bit more formal? (Another reason why I removed it was because I felt "we know ] exists" was too casual.) Cheers. --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 05:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Hi. I'm not sure I do. As I said in my edit summary, it was a bit nitpicking of me and I fully expectd it to be reverted. If I come up with anything, I will take it to the earth talk page. Thanks for taking the time to tell me. ] (]) 08:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

	== long comment ==

	Several of us patrol the short pages, looking for vandalism or test pages, when something has been reviewed, we add a long comment to the article so that it won't show up in the shortest pages any more and won't keep being checked, re-checked, etc. So when I added that to the article you noticed, it was that I reviewed it and didn't need others to review it again in its current state. Cheers. ] (]) 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Thanks ... I guessed it would make sense. At what point is it removed? ] (]) 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Buddha quasi-dab page ==

	Hi Abtract - just wanted to thank you for your recent comment to ]. I've added a follow-up, suggesting that the opening prose paragraphs be reverted to the bulleted style of this page's pre-01/25/08 style. If you have additional thoughts or feel my follow-up still misses the point, etc., I'd welcome your further suggestions. I wish you well, ] (]) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

	:No problem ... it is a mess at the moment, neither fish nor fowl. Your follow up is useful but the page you directed to is still in need of a clean and the cleanup tag will attract several other editors. I have no doubt we will get to somewhere close to my version of ]. Thanks for your input. ] (]) 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	Hi from me, too, and thanks for your interest, work, and goodwill. LR drew my attention to the progress that IMO you-all have made in recent hours, and it seemed like a good idea to acknowledge you both for that and endorse this direction. I looked only in a very impressionistic way at either what you started from or your approach, so i'll only note that you do seem to be paying attention to the applicable guidelines, and may well have all the nuances of this particular case nailed down.<br>
	As i said to him, i think i'll lurk only on the outskirts for now. Keep up the good work. <br>--]•] 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)<br>
	:thanks. ] (]) 10:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
	I did some reorg and reformatting on ], then got my attention briefly drawn (perhaps by something that included a sig by or lk to you) to the current discussion re ], in which you are participating. I may, after all, have something to learn from you abt the (for me) confusing piping/rdr discussion. I'll compare (but not tonite) the diffs from my edit against that MOSDAB section, and may then do some self-undoing, dive into studying the MOSDAB talk page sections, and/or have some questions for you. <br>
	One quick question, tho: did you notice if the change in the "rdr to avoid piping" example was noted in that MOSDAB discussion? Apparently the ] Rdr was upgraded from ] to ] (for all i can recall, perhaps when sector addressing in Rdrs became effective) and the bare fact reflected on MOSDAB, but perhaps w/o consideration of whether it was still a good example of the applicability of the piping/rdr language. <br>
	My head is spinning, and i fear it may still be, in this regard, after sleeping. <br>--]•] 07:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)<br>

	== ] changes ==

	Can you explain your recent edits to the page? Reason why I used ] instead of ] is because the article says "Kaitou Kid". And why did you remove the different variations of "Kaito"? Please respond below, ] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	:] discourages multiple variants in the lead, and the dab page is about Kaito not Kaitou ... I created a redirect to solve problem, a method you are aware of because you have used it yourself. ] (]) 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	::Interesting. You may want to look at ] and ] if what you say is true. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

	:::Thanks I have corrected them. ] (]) 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	==strange?==
	Letting you know now since you're known to do "strange edits", please do not revert the edit I just did to ]. Let us discuss that as well '''on your talk page'''. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:I did revert because it was adding surplus words not needed for dab purposes. I know you like to "shorten" dab lines because you have done it several times to pages that I have just cleaned ... incidentally you give every impression of following behind me to tweak pages I have cleaned rather than getting on cleaning pages that need it more; That would be even "stranger" than some of my edits so I presume it is just an impression rather than reality. ] (]) 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	::. You were told to discuss the edit and not revert. And no, I'm not "stalking" you, it just so happens that most of these dab pages are on my watchlist. I am still contesting your edit to Ichigo and would like to reach an agreement here. Please stop reverting. Reply? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::It is very simple: I made an edit to "shorten" (a word you have used several times and which I applaud presuming you mean taking out words not necessary for the dab process) the dab page and you reverted it with no proper explanation; I took the unecessary words out again; you reverted me; you TOLD me not to take them out again but that is not the wp way ... if you disagree with my edit, discuss it, tell me why and maybe I will agree ... do not TELL me what to do or not do. I await your reasons for not liking my shortening. ] (]) 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::Seriously, are you trying to test the patience of others? For example, I obviously wanted to make it 100% clear to the viewer that the character is fictional, as there is a difference between ] and just ]. I took off little words like "a", "the" and "is" between JHunterJ mentioned (to me) that these were unnecessary. And I apologize if you thought I was stalking. Convinced about my actions now? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::OK to be nice I won't fight you over character tho imho " a character in film/book/series etc" can only be fictional - how could it be non-fiction? As to your point about "a" "the" etc and JHunterJ's advice to you, if you read it carefully it says (and I quote) "It's only on dab entries that are people, and normally just on {{tl\|hndis}} dab pages, that you should remove the articles "a", "an", or "the" at the start of a dab entry description." Do you see that he is actually saying "do not remove those small words on normal dab pages"? He goes on to say " were probably okay." meaning they were OK before you removed the small words. The nuances of the English language are difficult so I hope this helps. I am truly glad you are not stalking me and of course I take you at your word. I have a suggestion for you ... if I clean a page, you leave it; if you clean one, I will do likewise. (I'm talking about cleans not little edits). This will free our energies for the main task of cleaning (and there are plenty to go round) and should prevent unecessary conflict. Let's try this for a few months untill we both cool down. ] (]) 23:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::To be honest, I thought you were the one stalking me. And I believe you're misinterpreting JHunterJ's words, badly. If you read between the lines, he says that the little words are ''usually'' removed in {{tl\|hndis}} pages. It's ok if they're taken off dabs because the guideline doesn't specify this. Not sure if the strategy you're proposing will work. I'm trying to follow MOS:DAB seriously and it'd be appreciated if you would do the same. Thoughts? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::::::Can I make clear of fiction now? Appears this is the only compromise we've reached. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	Ah now I see it all ... you don't actually clean DABs yourself do you? I have looked through your recent contributions and your entire oputput for the last three days is on talk pages with a couple of minor excursions ... and some questions for JHunterJ ... say no more, I understand now. I eagerly await your first (?) real clean. ] (]) 02:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	:WHAT are you doing , and ? The Goki and Son Goku changes, fine, but you're going once again against MOS:DP guidelines and doing drastic changes without consensus. You were warned about disambig formats . Explain? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	::I see you have learned quite a lot in the time I have been away, congratulations. You have also appreciated the correct interpretation of JHunterJ's words ... well done. I look forward to seeing some genuine first cleans (rather than tweaking) from you. Enjoy. ] (]) 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

	:::I'm sorry, was that sarcasm? Well, FYI, I do perform major cleaning on disambiguations every now and then but generally prefer tweaking. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	::::Excellent, tweaking is an honorable wp function one I am not averse to myself. Now you haved learned how to do it, I look forward eagerly to your constructive tweaks. ] (]) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	:::::So, friends? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	::::::Of course. :) ] (]) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Baba Disambiguration Naming ==

	Why are all the non-European people named ] listed under folklore? ] (]) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Sorry but I don't understand your question. ] (]) 23:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

	== WPSI Collaboration ==

	{{IslandCOTM}} ]<sup><font color="#228B22">]</font></sup><font color="#228B22">/</font><small><font color="#228B22">]</font></small> 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Surname dab articles ==

	Did you see ? Same goes for Starks. -- ] (] \| ]) 10:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	:Yes I saw it but you don't explain why it is right ... does it better conform to MOS, if so which bit? Thanks. ] (]) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
	Dunno where in the vast MoS. Just look at the number of compared to the hundreds of articles. -- ] (] \| ]) 13:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Please respond on the article's discussion page, so that ] and other rc patrollers can see. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


	== ] ==
	Why did you get rid of my edit? I added more information, and I know more because I go to a school in london borough of redbridge and i also live in redbridge. I reverted it back to my correct edit ] (]) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
	:You have been warned and indeed blocked before for disruptive edits and for introducing original research; please don't go down that route again. I think you know very well that unsupported statements like "The Most Popular and active school in the borough" are unencyclopedic. I see you have been reverted by two more editors since you wrote these comments so I hope you will now appreciate what I say. I lived in Redbridge myself many years ago so I am sympathetic but please, if you want to play in this park, learn the etiquette. Have fun but follow the rules ... and there are many as I have discovered that hard way. :) ] (]) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:36, 8 March 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Abtract has not edited Misplaced Pages since October 23, 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

CIMA

Abtract: I noticed your comment on my talk page about my entry on the CIMA page. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and CIMA announced last week that the credential to be issued by their joint venture will be the Chartered Global Management Accountant (CGMA) credential. The joint venture will begin issuing the CGMA credential early in 2012. This is what I wanted to reflect in my edit of the CIMA article. If I was not clear enough please change in accordingly. I am a member of a national AICPA committee and received the AICPA press release on the subject last week. Regards. FLAHAM (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I reverted your edit for three reasons. First, it seemd odd as I couldn't quite see how a global qualification could be chartered (who would issue the charter?). Second, there was no citation which is a sign that it may not be correct. And last, when I went to your talk page I saw that your only contact with the WP world seemed to have also been rejected by another editor. Having said all that, you make a good sounding rebutal and I an now inclined to think you probably know what you are talking about. To put my mind at ease and avoid someone else reverting you, can I suggest that you include a citation? Apologies for reverting and thanks for stopping by. Abtract (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, at your suggestion I have added to the CIMA article a reference to the AICPA press release on the new Chartered Glogal Management Accountant credential. Regards.FLAHAM (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC) By the way, I am the primary author of two articles and have contributed to perhaps two dozen.

Thanks. Abtract (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(Not a) Warning

If you continue interacting with other editors like you did in the section above, I shall have to seriously consider nominating you for adminship... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, enough already. Abtract (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your most recent edit on Mythology

Hi. I just noticed your most recent edit on Mythology: you reworded a sourced statement, changing the word "men" to "humans"; your edit summary says, "There are quite a few women in myths". I'm a bit puzzled by this edit summary. It seems to suggest that you reworded the sentence because you thought that it was factually incorrect (e.g. that it limited human involvement in myths to male human involvement). Of course, as you probably know, you can't just change a sourced statement (even a factually incorrect one) while leaving the citations in place, because that might cause the statement to say something other than what the sources say. Now, I haven't reverted your edit, both because it was obviously a good-faith edit and because it seems rather innocuous. I mean, the word "men" in that sentence was clearly being used to denote humans in general, so your edit didn't actually change the meaning of the sentence. Please don't get the wrong idea: I'm not here to pick a fight with you. I'm just mildly confused about the rationale behind your edit. Were you simply trying to update the sentence to reflect modern English usage (in which "man" is no longer the usual term for referring to humans in general)? If so, then I have no objection. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely what I was trying to do. I certainly won't go to the stake on it, and I did consider that I may be changing the cited work's wording. However, there are three cited works and it wasn't shown in quotes so I guessed it was probably a paraphrasing in which case my new paraphrasing, I hoped, would reflect both the intention of the authors and modern mores. If you, knowing the cited works as I guess you do, think the previous wording is a better reflection of their meaning, please revert my edit. And thanks for stopping by with such an elegantly worded query. Abtract (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Genesis creation

If you want the current scholarly understanding of how the Pentateuch came to be written, see Priestly source and Jahwist - the PS is responsible for chapter 1 and J for chapter 2. PiCo (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems very useful I will look at it in more detail after my hols. Abtract (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Speed of light

RE: "Clearly you did not read my edit or the edit summary where REMOVED THE 'A'."

Er... yep. Excuse me, pardner, but it's Monday and I'm a bit trigger-happy today; I thought that an edit war was in progress. – IVAN3MAN (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem ... I was hoping it was that. Abtract (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Hand evaluation

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hand evaluation , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Newwhist (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded there.Abtract (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Equations of motion "too far"...

Just to let you know - I have replied at the talk page.-- F = q(E + v × B) 10:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I had seen your reply but sadly don't really have the time to respond adequately (studying). My main point is that, although your edit included much good material, I feel it overwhelms what should be the main thrust of the article i.e. the SUVAT equations of motion. It's not so much that these are more important or more correct, it's that I believe these are what is being sought by almost all readers of this article ... of course, I may be wrong. If you could find some way of making these the core of the article and relegating the more esoteric equations to later additional information, I would be happier. However, you obviously know a lot about this subject and I certainly don't intend to fight you on it. Thanks for your courtesy in stopping by to alert me to your response. Abtract (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to interrupt you like that with such a long (and probably patronizing) response... =( I'll see what I can do to make it better, perhaps the easiest thing is to reverse the order of the material currently in the article, SUVAT before the new content. Its just that these are very limited in scope and application, the true eqns of motion are Newton's law etc. (On top of this one, right now i'm trying to make the Dirac equation article better, in addition to some others, which are slightly more important)...

PS Good luck with your studies (I am too) Happy New Year also! =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 14:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if you found it patronising; that wasn't my intention. Happy New Year to you too. Abtract (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I meant I (F = q(E+v^B)) was patronizing when I replied on the talk page - not you (Abtract)! =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 09:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks. Abtract (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I promise I’ll stop bugging you at some point, I know you're busy so please only answer when you have time: but what do you think of the article now? The scene is set for making it a real article worthy of its title, at least compared to what it was before. I compromised the inclusion of the SUVAT equations into a kinematics section and Newton's laws into a Dynamics section. The E-L eqns, Hamilton’s eqns and electrodynamics eqn etc are left to the end.-- F = q(E + v × B) 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to view it all in detail but it looks better. I have slightly altered the lead where it refers to SUVAT to make it clearer (?). Keep up the good work (no patronising intended!). Abtract (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements - you did an excellent job! (especially if you are not specilized in physics/maths), right now i'm in the middle of schrodinger's equation, otherwise I would have carried on, I will come back to it soon. And please - you do not patronize anyone!!! =) I did at the talk page, but whats done is done. -- F = q(E + v × B) 19:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cribbage (strategy) for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cribbage (strategy) 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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Input to discussion

Your input is welcome on two discussions which may be of interest.

Proposed deletion (or renaming) of the following categories: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Politics_of_the_British_Isles
Proposed deletion of the following article
1. Politics in the British Isles

Thanks, --KarlB (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey

Hi,

I've refounded Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey and I saw you were a member of Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey. I was wondering, as you are a on the Participants List weather on not you would like to help improve more Surrey articles and make Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey and active Wikiproject again.

I hope you will come and help make Misplaced Pages: Wikiproject Surrey an active Wikiproject again.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Either reply or Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey on my talk page.

You asked me once whether I had ever lived in Godalming. Yes I have. What made you think that and are you a Godhelmian? Aetheling1125 17:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

With relief ...

... I can announce to my many (any?) watchers that I have just received my results and got a 2.2 Abtract (talk) 22:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Right- and left-hand traffic

Hi, Abtract. The title of the subject article is under discussion again. I am alerting you because you participated in a previous discussion on the matter. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C01:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have entered my twopenn'orth. Abtract (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Waverley Hoppa

The article Waverley Hoppa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Small non notable bus company, Fails GNG

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Averis for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Averis 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. Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Averis for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Averis (2nd nomination) 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. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Canned tea for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Canned tea 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. - blake - 14:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Educational institution listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Educational institution. Since you had some involvement with the Educational institution redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Abtract. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Wrigley Sisters

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Wrigley Sisters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not credibly 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 criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. BangJan1999 14:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I am a member of the Al-Sadr Family

Hello, I am not sure if this is the correct place to write this as I am new to Misplaced Pages. I am a part of the Al Sadr lineage, and I was wondering if I could add to add to the family tree. My grandfather is Muqtada's cousin. Please inquire if you would like any kind of proof or please direct me to the correct people. Thanks Again, Jafar Baker Alsadir JayAlsadir (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Lanesborough School for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lanesborough School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Tacyarg (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Categories: