Misplaced Pages

User talk:Abtract: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:49, 2 June 2008 editArcayne (talk | contribs)Rollbackers26,574 editsm →Assistance sought from those who have taken an interest in my edits recently: crap, forgot to sign← 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 
(584 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{not around|3=October 23, 2016}}
{{User talk}}
==]==
*] 1 May - 31 October 2006
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)
*] 1 November 2006 - 30 April 2007
: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)
*] 1 May - 31 October 2007 (includes the time I was blocked for overenthusiasm)
*] 1 November 2007 - 30 April 2008 (includes my paranoia phase)


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.
==Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!==
:Thanks. ] (]) 12:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
{| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%"
|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>{&#123;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 (~&#126;~~); 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)


== (Not a) Warning ==
I have retained this warm and useful welcome because it really did work. ] (]) 07:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
:OK, enough already. ] (]) 12:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


== Your most recent edit on ] ==
== May 2008 ==
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Hp|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''You seem to have a very bad tendency to edit war rather than actually discuss your disagreements with other editors. From what I've seen, so far you have violated 3RR on no less than four articles in 24 hours. You have managed to avoid a block so far, though how I do not know. You need to realize, however, that 3RR does not give you fair game to do 4 reverts and stop. If you continue reverting and warring in this manner, it is very likely you will be reported to AN/I or RFCU for administrative attention. Additionally, again I remind you to watch your choice of words in your edit summaries. Insults against other editors there are considered violations ].'' ] (]) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:Hi thanks for stopping by. I have "avoided a block" because I have not reverted a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. My "tendency to edit war" is of course (at least) matched by ] (an admin no less) and ] who persists in following me around so that he can revert me whenever possible. I assume you have warned them also? I admit that some of my edit summaries leave a little to be desired and I am working on that. Unless you can be more specific about my "violations", that's all I have to say. ] (]) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (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)
::Actually, you've avoided a block because kind editors keep giving you a ] warning instead of just reporting you for ]. If you'll read up on edit wars, you'll see that ] states ''Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. ''
: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)


==Genesis creation==
::To sum up, an edit war doesn't need to violate ] to result in a block. Your actions, reverts, and edit summaries have been disruptive, and your page has seen plenty of warnings from editors trying to get you to behave civilly. Please do so. ] (]) 17:40, 1 May 2008 (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 ==
:::I ask you again have you warned JHJ and Sess? ] (]) 17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


RE: "Clearly you did not read my edit or the edit summary where REMOVED THE 'A'."
::::Irrelevant. I'll look into it, but I '''know''' you've been warned before. As you are well aware, the conduct of other users does not give you the right to edit war and be uncivil. ] (]) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (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. &ndash; ] (]) 20:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::I think you will find that JHJ was the first to revert me and has matched me since then ... and he is an admin!. You will also find that Sess had admitted to following me around (I call it stalking) and changing my edits when he can. You will also find that I have made peaceful overtures to Sess on three occasions and been rebuffed on each occasion. The particulart events you are (I assume since you have not been specific) referring to concern ] and related pages where JHJ was the first to revert without justification (still none forthcoming). You have not warned JHJ, I wonder why not? Now unless you have some specific charge to bring, thanks for stopping by and goodbye. ] (]) 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
:No problem ... I was hoping it was that. ] (]) 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm not bringing a charge, I'm summing up the 5+ warnings that you've received in the last day and telling you that your conduct is not civil, not productive, and is being disruptive. I understand we've had this conversation before , and you chose to ignore it. I'm just trying to get you to understand that regardless of the conduct of any other editor, you are responsible for your own content. ] (]) 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


== re ] and past discussion ==


==Merge discussion for ]==
There is as yet no agreement to proceed toward arbitration, mediation, or other remedy, but it is too early to say that the process is dead. It seems that there are other parties involved in editing disputes that include Sesshomaru, and that they seem to be of the same opinion. Notwithstanding that they include an admin I am still prepared to act on all parties behalf to try and resolve this matter without anyone being restricted in their editing unless on a voluntary basis. I have dealt with Sesshomaru previously, and like to think I may have some influence in having a viewpoint heard if I am the messenger. This is the facility I am offering for you to use. ] (]) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (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 -->
:I would be quite happy for you to do this. Thanks for the offer. ] (]) 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, I have responded there.] (]) 19:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


==] "too far"...==
== Alouette(s) ==
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)
If you have a chance, combine ] and ] into one page. Thanks. ] (]) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
:Good idea I have done it. For another time it's easy enough (imho) provided there is no talk on the talkpage of the one being redirected. ] (]) 11:56, 3 May 2008 (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!). ] (]) 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 ].
== hp Horsepower ==


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.
Would you add the {{tl|editprotected}} to ] asking that the "HP or ''']''' is horsepower" edit be unreverted? The protecting admin suggested I not make the change, and if you add the editprotected request it may help prove that there's consensus for it. Thanks. -- ] (]) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (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 template from the top of the article. ] (]) 01:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
==A ] of a warning==


== Input to discussion ==
] {{#if:User talk:Abtract|With regard to your comments on ]:&#32;}}Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> ] (]) 17:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
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==
:Sorry what's your point? ] (]) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi,
::You need to stop making uncivil comments against other editors, even if you disagree with them. I have held off on further action in the hopes that you would take the advice of the several people trying to help you and change your behavior regarding edit warring and violating ] (which is a policy) and ] (a guideline based on that policy). You seem to genuinely want to be a good contributer to Misplaced Pages, however continuing to insult others and edit warring will result in sanctions being taken against you, such as blocks. I urge you to please read those pages carefully, as well as ], and take them, and the good advice I and others have given you to avoid further issues.] (]) 21:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


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.
:::yes, yes, so you said but what spurred you on to make this point now? ] (]) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


I hope you will come and help make Misplaced Pages: Wikiproject Surrey an active Wikiproject again.
::::Your recent edit summary when you moved a comment. While technically accurate, it read badly. ] (]) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


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


P.S. Either reply or Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Surrey on my ].
:::::Sorry you will have to be more specific, I make lots of edits. :) ] (]) 21:44, 3 May 2008 (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)
:::::: this one. ] (]) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


== With relief ... ==
:::::::Seems quite innocuous to me; what's your point? ] (]) 21:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


::::::::It can be misinterpreted, particular with the recent incivility issues, so just saying to consider the way you word things in the future, especially when dealing with an article like that. ] (]) 21:58, 3 May 2008 (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)


== Right- and left-hand traffic ==
:::::::::What can be misinterpreted and by whom? ] (]) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


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>&middot;<sub>]</sub><small>01:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::By anyone who doesn't check your contributes to see you meant literally that you were moving it to ] rather than implying the person was just "bitching" and you were removing it. ] (]) 22:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks, I have entered my twopenn'orth. ] (]) 10:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32; because of the following concern:
:::::::::::I have more faith in "anyone checking my contributions" than you do. Just out of interest why are you checking my contributions? And why do you feel it necessary to warn me in such stentorian tones for using the name of an article in an edit summary ... a summary which I am sure the editor actually concerned with the exchange understood and found helpful. Thanks for stopping by, but I really do think you could be more usefully employed than threatening me. ] (]) 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
:'''Small non notable bus company, Fails GNG'''


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
::::::::::::You came to my attention through your regular edit warring. As others already told you, when you act disruptively, people will start watching you. I am not threatening you, I'm attempting to help you, but you continue to respond to all attempts to help you avoid being blocked with sarcasm and a brush off. ] (]) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
Your "help" was offered in a very peculiar way ... and completely off-beam. Being critical of me using the word "bitch" in an edit summary concerning the page ] (actually I meant ] but that's neither here nor there) is so ludicrous that I can't think why you haven't apologise a long way up this thread. I can only presume that you didn't look into what was going on thoroughly, and you just leapt straight in to threaten me ( because you were indeed threatening me) and now you don't know how to get out of the situation with honour intact. Well, just put it down to experience, we all make mistakes. Thanks again for trying to help. :) ] (]) 22:28, 3 May 2008 (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)
I must say that your approach to ] has been uncollaborative and less than circumspect, but I have to agree you were framed here :) ] <small>]</small> 13:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
== Examples aplenty ==
See, the above conversation is a good example of what I tried to warn you was going to happen. When you get a couple of warnings and a block under your belt, you attract editors who assume you're going to continue your pattern of behavior and find it hard to assume good faith from you any longer.


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)
I've looked at your contributions, you can be quite an asset to wikipedia. You've worked on some articles and disambig pages that not a lot of other people thought to touch, and that's great. It's the things in between that are causing problems and those problems have led to your actions being under the microscope.
== 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.
As I have done before, I'd like to ask you to just be more thoughtful in your comments to other editors and edit summaries. It's the little things that sometimes get blown up, so please be mindful of that. As of this moment, I have no beef with you and I wish you well here on wikipedia. I'd like to see you stay and continue to be productive and civil. If I can be of help to you in the future, just drop me a line. ] (]) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (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)
:Thanks I might do that. As to the above conversation, it has a very understandable beginning ... an editor wanting to make a point with me thinks I have transgressed because she didn't look beyond the word "bitch". However, imho, once she discovered her error she should have at the very least gone away (I didn't really expect an apology) but she didn't, she kept on and on despite the fact that by now she knows that I had made a very normal ordinary edit summary. I admit I teased her a little because obviously I knew from the start what she had in mind but I simply couldn't believe how long she continued without admitting that my edit summary was useful and nothing more. I have only been uncivil to one editor, under provocation, and not for some time. We all "edit war" occasionally when we are convinced we are right (no excuse I know) and I am addressing that (albeit slowly). Thanks for stopping by and for the offer. :) ] (]) 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


== ] ==
::Tell you what, anything that's happened up to right now, just forget about. Start clean, and leave all the old conflicts behind you. Make an effort to not get involved in any of this, and you'll have a lot more time to edit the wiki (or better yet, do something productive in real life). It's just easier that way. Good luck! ] (]) 23:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
:::I am very happy to do that, indeed I do it everyday until silly threats come my way. ... I especially like the real life bit. I made much that appeal to Sess but sadly my offer was spurned. I am learning though. Thanks again. ] (]) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (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.


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)
== RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Abtract) ==
== Educational institution listed at ] ==
Hello, ]. Please be aware that a ] has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by your name in ], and the actual discussion can be found at ], where you may want to participate. -- ] (]) 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC) <!-- Template:ConductDiscussion -->
]
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! ==
:Thanks for the information; I shall watch with interest. ] (]) 00:04, 4 May 2008 (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.
::It seems to have disappeared, what happened? ] (]) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (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.
:::It didn't make the 2 user contact threshold, and became defunct. See ]. I didn't see the RFC before it went to redspace, but I am guessing due process wasn't followed with you before it was posted. aliasd'''·''']'''·'''] 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
::::]. It was certified by a someone not even involved, but that doesn't count for the process. Of those who were involved, two decided not to certify to give Abtract yet another chance to prove he really is going to change like he keeps promising, and the third was off-line and didn't come back online until it was too late. ] (]) 23:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- 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)
:::::Sorry if you interpreted my guess based on the edit summaries/delete summaries as to what happened as an assumption of bad faith, it wasn't that way really. aliasd'''·''']'''·'''] 08:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


== I am a member of the Al-Sadr Family ==
Thanks for your helpful info ] and thanks for your interesting comments ]. ] (]) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (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.
== Cleanup of ] ==
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.
Just a couple of questions... Firstly, this is a longish list that was broken up into subject areas, why did you decide to place it all together into one mass? Secondly, why did you remove the reference to ]? Your edit seemed in my opinion to take the page further away from ]. Sorry if I seem to have a blunt tone here, just think you could have fixed this one up with far less work really. aliasd'''·''']'''·'''] 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
:Hi, thanks for your two questions. I removed Tari because it is not Kari. I also removed the people and put them on a seperate page ] so the list at ] became much shorter and imho no sections are needed. As you can see no other editor has seen it necessary to insert headers which ] only recomends for longer lists. If you are not happy with this, by all means take it to the talk page and get other views than mine. ] (]) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (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)
::Heh, I doubt the talk page there will get much attention. Disambig talk pages hardly do :) I would like to see the list separated at least to put the related stuff together (such as the geo articles). I feel information is now more difficult to access the way it currently is. I believe in general a disambig page should take no more than 3 seconds for an average reader to navigate through. Also, Tari is Kari, the names are synonymous, the town is referred to by both names. Would you have a problem with this? I can make the edits myself. aliasd'''·''']'''·'''] 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I don't agree with headings on short lists, they just get in the way imho. As to Kari/Tari I see there is no citation for the name variants nor indeed for the article as a whole ... I won't fight you over putting it back in but you should mention that is is also known as Kari to justify its insersion. hope that helps. ] (]) 21:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

==] has a new format==
Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at ] and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy <nowiki>]</nowiki> to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. ] (]) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

== Primary topic at ] ==

Since there seems to be some disagreement as to whether there is a primary topic at the disambiguation page ], I've started up the discussion ] so that we can resolve it without edit warring; your input would be much appreciated there. -- ] 16:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

==Au==
<nowiki>{{help}}</nowiki>. I have a problem on ] where ] is persisting in an edit which runs completely counter to ] (imho). I have given rationale for my suggested "gold" line (on the talk page) but they have not engaged in discussion, simply making rather inappropriate edit summaries. I would appreciate assistance in support of my reasoning or to tell me I am wrong ... I will accept either. It might be useful if helping editors have some knowledge of disambiguation pages. Thanks :) ] (]) 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:I left a note advising talk page discussion. I suggest not reverting for a while to see whether he's willing to discuss it.--] - ] 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks, will do ... or rather will not do. ] (]) 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

==Unhelpful comment disguised as a "welcome"==
] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Misplaced Pages has a ] that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia{{#if:YuYu Hakusho|, as you did in ],}} makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-mos1 --> -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

==More warnings==
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:YuYu Hakusho|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''Please stop being so disruptive on this article. It already has a general tag and your addition of a bunch of fact tags is unnecessary and appears to only be retalitory in nature.'' -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:(edit conflict) Additionally, your falsely labeling your undoing as "rv vandalism" is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, including ]. I'm not going to bother giving you a second templated warning for using a false edit summary, but please be aware that deliberately making a false accusation of vandalism is not appropriate at all. You know very well that it was not vandalism. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::In addition, please do not call contributions by good faith users "vandalism", as you did . Read ], ] and ]. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Thank you for your interest but actually it was vandalism by an editor who should (and does) know better. I am quite entitled to place fact tags wherever there is unreferenced content ... indeed I would be quite entitled to remove such content as your buddy admitted only moments before wiping my entire edit. If you or they disagreed with my placement of these tags then the mannerly thing to do would have been to mention this on the article talk page not to revert blindly and attack me (even though it was thinly disguised as a "welcome") on my talk page. ] (]) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

::::You're clearly in the wrong here. Take a deep breath, and drop it. ] (]) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::Explain how and I probably will. ] (]) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="Only Warning" style="background-color: #FFDEB5; border: 1px solid #FF6600; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 1.28em; ">
] This is your '''only warning'''. {{#if:YuYu Hakusho|Your ] of ] will not be tolerated, |Your ] will not be tolerated,}} and you ''will'' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages if you continue. </div><!-- Template:Only_Warning (Fourth level warning) --> ] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

*I will assume good faith and warn you concerning your violation of the three revert rule reported at the noticeboard. Please note that other users are objecting to your ''disruptive use of citation tags, not every single little sentence needs to be cited''. In my view they are correct in that view and your re-adding of the tags was inappropriate. The article is clearly tagged at the top and until that has been dealt with individual requests for citations were not appropriate.--] <sup>]</sup> 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ] (]) 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with ] for violating the ]. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] <sup>]</sup> 01:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> I assumed good faith but your behaviour hasn't rewarded me. While technically not a 3RR I believe you are gaming the system --] <sup>]</sup> 01:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:Interesting ... What justification is there for blocking me for 3 reverts? And did you block ] who actually made 4 reverts in a few hours? ] (]) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

#I should have blocked you yesterday when I consider your past practice but gave you the benefit of the doubt - my assumption of good faith was not rewarded by your subsequent behaviour.
#If you read the rule at ] you will see ''Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.'' I believe my actions for both you and the other user are in accordance with this rule. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't agree with you but thanks for the thoughtful reply. You clearly haven't taken into account the fact that ] has spurned my apology twice (maybe even three times) and admitted to stalking me; and the fact that ] first got involved with a rather sad and erroneous attack concerning the use of the word "bitch" in an edit summary of ] ... I can only assume that they are both acting vindictively out of a sad desire not to admit to being wrong. No doubt that will earn me a longer block but it needs saying ... I just wish I had kept a better log of events. Thanks again. ] (])

== RfC/User Two ==

Hello, ]. Please be aware that a ] has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by your name in ], and the actual discussion can be found at ], where you may want to participate. -- -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 20:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''Stop this, and stop it now. Not only are you acting childishly, but your deliberate attempt to goad me into an edit war only reflects badly on you. '' -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:That's a bit rich coming from someone who has just reverted 4 times and is about to be reported for it. ] (]) 00:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

::Report if you like. Administrators are not stupid and will recognize your retaliation for what it is. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

== Note ==

Please be mindful of the ] and refrain from behavior such as . ]<small>&nbsp;(]·])</small> 00:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks ... a nice way of putting it. :) ] (]) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

== Edit warring ==

] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Bitch (disambiguation)|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:You never cease to amaze me ... it takes two to tango boy. ] (]) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::With respect, perhaps you can avoid the tango, and stop dancing together. - ] ] 04:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I would love to ... but as you know Sess rejected my apology, spurned my suggestion to split dab pages 2:1 in his favour, did not agree to arbitration, and (so far) has not agreed to JHJHunter's very helpful proposed way forward. What more can I do? ] (]) 07:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

== Enough with the stalking ==

Since you've gone ahead and to stalking, as well as it being blatantly obvious from your contributions, stop. You obviously have better things to do than annoy other editors. And to your comment of your "stalking" not being in line with policy, go read ], ], and ], all of which you're clearly violating as of now. If this continues, I will block you for violations of the aforementioned policies. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 20:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:I have read those but can find no reason for your comments; could you enlarge please? ] (]) 20:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

::To put it simply, you're stalking ], ], among others. Stop. Simple as that. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

:::If you mean looking at their contributions in an attempt to correct the most obvious of their errors (a practice I learned from Sess and was assured was quite OK - when he did it!), I found it inherently unsatisfying so I don't do that anymore. Thanks for your interest. ] (]) 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

==MOS:DAB==
you keep following me around with allegations of "against ]", but you completely fail to point out just ''what part'' of that guideline my edits are supposed to violate. I fully endorse everything on that page, and I must really ask you to be more specific instead of summarily reverting my edits, which are mostly in the spirit of ], placing ''the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below'' and ], ''broken up by subject area''. Now please, either be specific and state your issue clearly on the relevant talkpages, or stop reverting my edits. ] <small>]</small> 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for stopping by. You are well aware that wp is not a dictionary (let alone a Greek one) - to name but one of the problems with your recent edit - more on the talk page. ] (]) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

{{talkback|Nancy|You might care to look at}}

== Re RFC ==

Re "I have no problem with you JHJ, even though we often disagree and you probably think I am a pedantic p..k (and I've had similar thoughts), so there is no need for any restrictions between us. Abtract (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)"
:Glad to hear it. I find you agreeable to disagree with too. :-) Next time you're in the American Midwest, I'll buy you a beer, and I'll be happy to let you buy me one next time I'm in your neck of the UK. Cheers! -- ] (]) 13:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
::Seriously, that's a promise. ] (]) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

== Final warning ==

You've said that you've stopped stalking, but apparently you haven't. Consider this your final warning. I'd highly recommend you recuse yourself from editing pages that they edit simply to avoid any problems. And if you do interact with them, your behavior needs changing. for one is not ]. Just distance yourself from them and you can avoid any problems. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 00:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:I fail to see any problem with the edit summary you quote. It was from my talk page and it was indeed an idiotic warning. Trigger happy Sess had warned me for removing a stupid warning from ]'s page - it was stupid because Dab clearly knew just what he was doing but in the heat of the moment saw no other way, wrong of course but enthusiastic editors tend to do it occasionally. To then warn me for removing it was sheer stupidity, but Sess simply cannot help giving an official warning whenever he can (check his 'warning log')... sorry but I stand by those words, which in any event are hardly the height of incivility. I am grateful that you are taking an interest but I would find it difficult to avoid them if they don't avoid me, and so far there is no sign that they feel inclined to agree with ]'s eminently sensible solution to our problem - indeed Sess has not even had the curtesy to comment on his proposal (and Coll's comment was dismissive to say the least), now there's incivility for you! Perhaps you would care to try to persuade them to consider and respond to it constructively rather than wasting time warning me about minor words used on my own talk page? ... if Sess invades my space he deserves all he gets. ] (]) 08:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::It's uncivil. I don't care what your personal feelings are on the manner; you're expected to act in a civil manner regardless of them. You seem to simply want to be involved in edit conflicts merely to annoy them, and that is not acceptable. Also, you don't ] anything here in terms of pages, even your user pages, and edit warring, personal attacks, and harassment are treated the same as in the mainspace. As you've continued past this final warning, I've issued a 31 hour block. I hope your behavior can improve in the future. There's no reason you can't simply distance yourself from them and simply not become involved with them, which would avoid any of these problems altogether. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::And their part in this goes unpunished, unremarked upon, and with no attempt to get them to cooperate when I have apologised, suggested a solution and agreed with JHJ's proposal? You my fine friend should get out more if you think "idiotic warning" is uncivil. ] (]) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::::You've given them no reason to believe you will follow that proposal or act in any manner of good faith. You're stalking them through their contribution lists and edit warring with them for no other reason than to annoy them, which constitutes ]. You've been told multiple times to avoid stalking them and edit warring, which you've clearly not learned from. That specific talk page comment was just an example of incivility; I'm blocking you because of your consistent harassment that continued after I issued the above warnings, not because of one edit summary. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 21:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::On the contrary, I have agreed to the proposal, they have not. When an agreement is in place I will follow it; what makes you think they will do the same when they can't even bring themselves to say so? 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)] (])
::::::You speak as though I was the only one at fault here. Have you read the latest exchange on ] and the talk page? Do you seriously think Coll is acting in a rationale manner or is she simply trying to defeat me? Have you read the "bitch" saga? If you have, who do you think was in the wrong there? ] (]) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

<div class="messagebox cleanup" style="width:100%; text-align:left;"><p>This ] (<span style="font-size:0.9em;" class="plainlinks"> | | | | ] | ]</span>) has asked to be unblocked, but an ] has reviewed and '''declined''' this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the ]). '''Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.'''</p><!--
--><p style="margin-left:2em;">Request reason: "this is sheer stupidity ... I am criticised for an edit summary, on my talk page, that called a warning "idiotic" (pretty mild in my book); note I did not call the editor in question an idiot but just the edit itself. ] (]) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)"</p><!--
-->{{#if:The brief block, which was appropriate, will expire a mere 31 hours after having been placed. — ] ] 08:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)|<hr/><p style="margin-left:2em;">Decline reason: "The brief block, which was appropriate, will expire a mere 31 hours after having been placed. — ] ] 08:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"</p>|}}<!--

-->
<span style="margin-left:2em; font-size:0.9em;">'''Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{tl|unblock}} template'''. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being ].
</span></div>

::Abstract, i have been fairly quiet in this, as I thought that others were going to eventually get through to you. I've decided to comment because I am noticing a pattern with your reasoning that I sometimes have myself. In a great many instances, you are adopting a 'well-they-do-it-so-why-can't-I' attitude in relation to your edits and demeanor, and I think that this adoption is not doing you any favors. You are probably thinking that because they are seemingly "getting away" with "stalking" your edits and not giving you all the Good Faith, that turnabout is fair play.
::You need to understand that this is precisely the ''wrong'' attitude to internalize, and understand that it is by adopting this that you are straying away from your own comfort zone of editing style and ending up in trouble. By suggesting that you are justified in stalking another's edits because another editor watches yours (the claim about Sess doing that immediately comes to mind), it seems as if you are saying 'this isn't ''my'' behavior; I am simply emulating another's behavior.' While imitation might indeed be the height of flattery, I do not get the impression you particularly like or respect the editors whose behavior/misbehavior you are emulating. Why on earth would you want to emulate - and in essence ''become'' - that which you clam to dislike? Stop assuming that fighting fire with dfire is going to do anything other than burn you. Stop justifying your behavior in relation to anyone but your own.
::The assumption of good faith doesn't excuse bad behavior. Your behavior in negatively characterizing the edits of others is indeed bad behavior. If they do it to you, the objective is not to respond in kind, but to ''be'' kind, and further delineate through your own behavior how their behavior is inappropriate. If someone treats you badly, get a second opinion from an admin you have had positive interactions with in the past. If it escalates, or the admin cannot cool things down, ask for mediation, or simply report the behavior in wikiquette alerts. This might all seem like a tremendous waste of time (in in some cases, you are absolutely right; it doesn't alter the behavior of someone who is determined to be an utter ]). However, you are going to find that if you follow - correctly - the steps of ] the right way, you are going to have a stronger case when and if it gets to arbitration. In short, keep your cool, play nice, as those who do not get tired of being blocked all the time.
::That's just my opinion, though. - ] ] 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::God I hate it when you're right. The still small voice of calm thrusts a well-reasoned spear into the heart of my discontent. You've tried before and one day you will win me over ... maybe this is the day. Either way, thanks mate. ] (]) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::I have also been lurking in these interchanges and was considering a note very similar to Arcayne's (although I'm sure not as eloquent). I hope the spear hits the discontent, leaves your obvious enthusiasm for Misplaced Pages intact and enhances your interactions with your fellow editors. I think you'll find that slack given will often be returned - maybe not immediately or always - but often. (John ] ]) 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks John, I appreciate your thoughtful words. :) ] (]) 06:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Athaenara for considering my request. ] (]) 11:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
: You are welcome, Abtract. — ] ] 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

==]==
{{ANI-notice}} <b>]</b> 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (Note:link is ]).
:Thanks. Wouldn't it have been nice if the wikibonked complainant had notified me herself? ] (]) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:: To be fair, it was me that moved the report from ] to ] (as I didn't think it was straightforward vandalism), not her. <b>]</b> 01:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:::OK Thanks ... even so ... ] (]) 01:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

== Your Recent Edits ==

Abtract, I just wanted to drop you a friendly reminder to remember the ]. It seems that you and another editor are in violation of this rule. If you would like to have a specific edit made, please take it to ] or try contacting another editor or Admin to voice his/her opinion. Failure to follow the 3RR could get you blocked. If you have any questions, please drop me ]. Thanks and Happy Editing! <font face="Ravie">]]</font> 01:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the helpful reminder. ] (]) 01:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

::Your welcome, is there anything that I can help you with? <font face="Ravie">]]</font> 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

:::It's a very long story and I don't want to sound like a whinger but I do feel rather abused by ] ... see as an example (pretty well the first time we met). ] (]) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

::::I just told him the same thing as I'm getting ready to tell you > I understand your point of view, but if you disagree with someones edits and violate ] in trying to keep the article in the way you want it, your just as guilty. Its better to allow the other user to put it in his/her way and contact another editor or Admin for their point of view on the situation, rather then trying to handle it yourself and get yourself blocked in the process. Remember ], as its not an huge deal if something goes wrong- it took myself to learn that. <font face="Ravie">]]</font> 01:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

==]==
(from WP:AN3 - you wrote "Just so I have this straight ... she reverts my very reasonable edits 4 times without a decent edit summary (indeed calling mine vandalism) and she doesn't get blocked; that's what you are saying?")
* No - your edits aren't particularly reasonable, because they add fact tags to information that is sourced in the article. I wouldn't exactly call it vandalism, but since this comes straight after the release of a block for harrassment of that editor, it doesn't exactly look good, does it?. You have two choices here, really - stop following Collectonian around and placing spurious tags on articles they have edited, or get blocked again. <b>]</b> 01:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::I am supporting Black Kite on this Abtract, you have been out of line. I suggest that you cease editing to the article all togehter and stay away from Collectonian. Agree? <font face="Ravie">]]</font> 01:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:::This is being discussed and so far I have made all the concessions and she, presumably plagued by the wikibonking, had been obdurate. ] (]) 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::::I understand the point about the lead now ... but how much nicer it would have been if Coll had mentioned that. And how much more acceptable it would have been if she had been agreeable on the "s" grammar point as she was advised by an independent editor on the talk page. ] (]) 01:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::::: Yes, it'd have been useful, but I can understand why she thought you were just being disruptive as well. <b>]</b> 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

==Assistance sought from those who have taken an interest in my edits recently==
Since you have taken an interest in my edits perhaps you could help resolve the difficulty I have. I have problems with two people. The first is ] which goes back a long way and which mainly revolves around him not accepting my apology for some fairly minor insulting words I used to him in a weak moment. All I ask is that he accept my apology and we '''both''' agree to keep away from each other in a way that is clear - ] had a good suggestion but Sess has not responded to it. My second, much bigger, problem is with ]. This arose because of . My request to you is: will you please look in some detail at this exchange (virtually the first time we had "met") and, if you think my complaint has some justification, please ask Coll to explain why she persists in stating that she was absolutely in the right. It seems to me that she is waging a vendetta (if they are wageable) against me in order not to admit to an error of judgement (at the least) - this is, in turn, has brought out the worst in my somewhat intemperate nature. That's all I want ... Sess to accept my apology gracefully, Coll to apologise for getting it wrong over "bitch", and both to agree to keep away from me as I will from them. The problem with Coll is the one I have to get out of my system or I will have to leave wp, I see no other way ... If you do, thanks for helping. ] (]) 07:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:Stop editing articles that they edit. It's not that difficult. Going onto ] to edit was clearly attempting to continue your harassment, as you had never edited that article before, and it is one that Collectonian has worked extensively on, as she pushed it to FA status. These conflicts don't exist until you instigate them. Staying away from both editors stops any such conflict. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 07:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::I am looking for help in solving a problem, not for terse instructions. If you looked at the "bitch" exhange, I assume you will say "yes" since any other answer would seem quite rude, what is your opinion? ] (]) 07:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:::You ask for assistance in resolving a dispute (indeed, you specifically request his help on his talk page, among those of other people), he offers assistance in resolving a dispute, and you complain that he offered assistance of a form you didn't like? ] <sup> ] ]</sup> 08:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:::What are you expecting? Me to block them? Harangue them? The solution to this problem is simple: stay away from them. Harassing them more will result it in longer blocks. You aren't going to get anything out of trying to vilify them. I'd recommend you drop the issue and go back to editing articles. If you can't do that, then Misplaced Pages probably isn't the best place for you to be at. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 08:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Has no-one got a comment on the "bitch" episode? ] (]) 08:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::But that's not the core issue here. You're not following these users around simply because Collectonian may or may not have been mistaken on the use of the word "bitch". If you're holding out for someone to reprehend Coll for a minor issue from the past before you will drop your disagreements with her, whilst ignoring any other advice given to you until someone comments ''specifically'' on that one interaction, then it's a little bit silly on your part.] <sup> ] ]</sup> 09:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

:Hi there, my view on this (and indeed on Misplaced Pages) can be summed up quite simply:
# This is a website. It is not life and death. If something is upsetting you the world will not end if you just move on to something else and leave it behind - if people are upsetting you you should try to avoid them and the articles where you are likely to run in to them. This is not a pronouncement on the rights and wrongs of this particular dispute but is a pragmatic strategy for staying sane and happy. (caveat - some fights are worth fighting but these are few and far between and this is not one of them)
# I often find people being what I would consider slightly over-sensitive with regard to interpretation of talk comments and edit summaries; at times this seems to be an institutional malaise. A storm in a teacup about what I consider to be an utterly innocuous, descriptive and literal edit summary of yours - characterised as the "bitch episode" - epitomises this. However, see point 1 for whether this is really worth losing sleep over.
:As you may have worked out already, I don't do drama! :) ] <sup>]</sup> 09:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I well understand both your points (nancy and walrus) but give me some understanding too ... if the bitch episode had not happened, there would be no problem between Coll and me. The bitch episode is important to me ... I need some concession that Coll, not me, was in the wrong there. I have a feeling you all agree with me on that point but don't want to say so because you feel I have been the main guilty party subsequently - all I can say is, if you (and Coll) genuinely want to fix things, the way to do it is to get Coll to explain this episode or to comment on it yourself (thanks for your comment nancy, I appreciate that). ] (]) 10:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

:To quote the eminently wise ], "]". Some people will ''never'' apologize for many of the following reasons:
<blockquote>
:*they are impaired by some mental imperfection (ie, they need to spank their ] or whatever),
:*this is the internet; they think that apologies are for feltch monkeys,
:*their mommy didn't hug them enough,
:*they are getting punked by their boss, their wife, their mistress, their kids, etc. and don't feel like apologizing to ''anyone'' today,
:*they don't think they are wrong.
</blockquote>
:No matter what the reason, you could turn blue holding your breath while awaiting an apology. Chalk it all up to the occasional bad chemistry of interpersonal communications and move on. I don't necessarily subscribe to the advice of finding another article to edit in. Why should you have to move on? Instead, be polite - even if you are being constantly assailed by impoliteness. Lord knows I've been on both sides of that particular argument, so I know from whence I speak.
:If you don't want to leave the shared articles, you are going to need to learn to develop a tougher skin and a far more polite attitude. You have wit and a biting sarcasm - that is something no one is going to disagree with. You need to use this power for good, Abstract. Wit and quippiness is ''not'' a substitute for politeness and civility. I know this because I can be quippy. I can also be mean enough to send most editors running off to weep in their closets like despondent children. I used to be rather proud of this ability until it was pointed out to me that the wit doesn't do anything but foster resentment. If you are wrong, no amount of wit is going to save your ass. If you are correct, you are going to get people who oppose you for no other reason than because your sharp wit cut them at some point.
:You need to find a way to ease up on All the Witty, since you are finding it to be a less than effective tool in dealing with others. I can only tell you how ''I'' learned this. There are a number of admins who are a model of civility - editors whose civility and politeness are far beyond what I can often muster. When someone pisses me off and makes me desirous of making a soup bowl out of their skull, I ''stop editing'' and check out the aforementioned calm admin pages, talk pages and contributions. I also take a break, and get the hell away from the computer for a while. It may not make you like the person any more, but it will keep you from throwing gas onto the fire by responding poorly.
:Another tactic I have found useful is to stay polite - very polite - with someone who is acting inappropriately. I follow DR to the letter. If they cannot take the hint and calm down, they have no one else but themselves to blame when they are blocked after you report them. Remember, it isn't about maneuvering them into a corner where they turn into jackasses, but to give them plenty of opportunities to avoid jackass-hood.
:Lastly, remember that this is supposed to be fun. In the wise words of a friend of mine, if it isn't fun, and you aren't getting paid, why the hell are you doing it? If you aren't having fun, get the hell away from that topic which is causing you to feel icky.
:That's my two pence on the subject. Take it how you will. - ] ] 17:49, 2 June 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.

  1. Proposed deletion (or renaming) of the following categories: Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_21#Politics_of_the_British_Isles
    1. Category:Politics of the British Isles
    2. Category:Political parties in the British Isles
    3. Category:Political movements of the British Isles
  2. 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: