Misplaced Pages

User talk:Afterwriting: 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 18:23, 11 February 2010 editSpitfire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,508 editsm →Eva Cassidy: editing comment.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:09, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,459 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Disambiguation link notification for June 4==
== Reverend ==


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]<!-- (&nbsp;|&nbsp;)-->.
Please explain why you reverted my recent change to the ] article. The way I see it, it's a perfectly acceptable disambiguation link.
You said that there's, quote, "No obvious reason for this link to be here". Isn't the fact that the referred guitar manufacturer has the same name an obvious enough reason?
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Hatnote#Two_articles_with_similar_titles ] (]) 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


(].) --] (]) 08:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
:It is not a "perfectly acceptable disambiguation link" in any way at all. By your logic we should have a disambiguation link for every article beginning with "church" in the title. Disambiguation links should only be used when there is an obvious possible confusion with a name or term. As I have already indicated, there is no obvious confusion between the clerical style of ] and the name of a guitar manufacturer. ] (]) 13:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for June 11==
::If you look closely, ] is a disambiguation page, which is appropriate as the word has many uses. So there's no need to have a separate disambiguation link in every article with "church" in the title since they're unambiguous. Please avoid turning my argument into something which it isn't.


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]<!-- (&nbsp;|&nbsp;)-->.
::You do have a point about ], but also notice how ], which ''is'' an ambiguous word, redirects to ]. There ''is'' an obvious confusion between "Reverend" and "Reverend Guitars". We could make ] into a disambiguation page, but the guidelines say that for words with only two different meanings, a hatnote is more appropriate. Hence my edit. I feel some disambiguation is necessary, as some users might go to ] expecting to see the article about the guitar manufacturer, or at least some sort of link to it, while there is none. ] (]) 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


(].) --] (]) 08:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
:::Having read the disambiguation guidelines again I think I can better appreciate why you felt the need for the disambiguation link. However, there seems to be a question of whether the the ] articles is correctly named as the company is actually called "Reverend Musical Instruments" and not just "Reverend" (or "Reverend Guitars") as both the introduction and the article itself seems to suggest - although it may more commonly be known just as "Reverend". So this raises the question as to whether every article beginning with "Reverend" ( in many instances of which the article's subject may also often be referred to just as "Reverend" ) should also have a disambiguation link. If, for instance, there was a singer who just went by the name "Reverend" then a case for a disambiguation link would be more obvious as the word would then clearly apply to more than just the clerical style - but it doesn't seem to me to be so obviously ambiguous in the case of this guitar company. Any thoughts about this? ] (]) 10:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for June 18==
::::Re the company name, in most cases the user won't, and shouldn't need to, remember the full name of the company. Case in point, ] redirects to ], and ] redirects to ]. Now I'm not saying ] should redirect to ] (or whatever the correct name is; I'll have to research it and rectify the article's URL), as obviously ] is the most common use of the word. However, people do refer to the company as simply "Reverend", and thus will likely expect ] to at the least link to the article they were after. This I can say from my own experience - I'm a musician, and I've never seen any company's full name being used in conversation. Also, and this is more of a speculation, people from non-English speaking or non-Christian countries might not even know of the religious use of the word "reverend".


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]<!-- (&nbsp;|&nbsp;)-->.
::::Now, if there were multiple articles with "Reverend" in the title, then my suggestion would be to turn ] into a disambiguation page, linking to the individual articles which in turn are named unambiguously, like ], ], ], etc. The individual articles might, but needn't, have the "For other uses, see..." hatnote. ] (]) 16:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


::::Quick update - I've moved the article about Reverend guitars to ], seeing as that's the correct name of the company. ] (]) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC) (].) --] (]) 09:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


== Question ==
:::::Thanks. I had already composed another reply to your previous comments but it got lost as an "edit conflict". I will restore a rephrased link on ] article. There doesn't seem to be a need for a disambiguation page in this case. I also want to apologise for removing the link without discussion - at first I thought it was some sort of attempt at link spam. Now that I know more about the guitars and your reasons for adding it I can appreciate why you did so. All the best. ] (]) 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi! I know we had disagreements on the 1662 BCP page, but I would appreciate your MOS help on a question regarding another article I'm in the draft stage of. I already asked Ltwin this question, but figured you were also a good ask on the topic given your familiarity with it and MOS experience. The standard naming convention for Books of Common Prayer is "''Book of Common Prayer'' ()". Unfortunately, the article I'm helping start is the 1928 American BCP and there's already an article for the ]. Do you think moving the first article to "''Book of Common Prayer'' (England, 1928)" and titling the new article "''Book of Common Prayer'' (U.S., 1928)" is a good idea? Or maybe some other option? Your input is appreciated and I'll tag you as soon as a final draft is ready so that you can implement MOS edits before I move it in a stable form to the mainspace. ~ ] (]) 16:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::No problem. I'm happy we got this resolved in a civilised manner. Take care. ] (]) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for July 6==
== European University ==


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]<!-- (&nbsp;|&nbsp;)-->.
About ACBSP and European University.
In August of 1992, ACBSP was recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as a specialized accreditation agency for business education. That recognition continued through April, 1996, when the Department of Education changed its policies to recognize only those agencies that impacted the distribution of federal funding. To fill the resulting void for a national body to recognize accrediting agencies, the Council for Higher Education (CHEA) was created in 1996. The CHEA-recognized scope of accreditation is: Degree programs in business and business-related fields at the associate, baccalaureate, and graduate levels. At its meeting on January 22, 2001, the CHEA Board of Directors reviewed the recommendations of the CHEA Committee on Recognition regarding the recommendation and recognized the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs.


(].) --] (]) 09:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, European University is in the process of receiving two (2) more accreditations in 2010. I will not say which two before it happens. But they are very important accrediting body's, one is from Europe Union.
Remove European University from the list of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, they are accredited! <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Disambiguation link notification for August 9==


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]<!-- (&nbsp;|&nbsp;)-->.
:Having done some further research I must give you the benefit of the doubt about this. The information on the ACBSP website is far from clear regarding its accrediting status but the CHEA website does seem to support what you've written. Other editors who know more about these issues may need more convincing, however. I apologise if I edited in haste. ] (]) 11:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


(].) --] (]) 09:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
== Re: Troy McClure ==


== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
Don't worry about it. That article has proved particularly problematic with regards to writing it as a fictional character, so any work you can do in that area would be great. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
==Anglican groups==
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


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.
Hi Afterwriting, I'll take your word for it that's what the English translation says. However, it's still vague: someone reading it without prior knowledge would have no idea who was being referred to. As well as reproducing sources, we sometimes need to make their context clearer.] (]) 08:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
== Australian punctuation ==


</div>
What makes you think has anything to do with differing national punctuation styles rather than differing personal choices about style? As best I can tell, you prefer compound predicates whereas the authors of the original versions preferred multiple independent clauses. Both, as far as I konw, are correct and common in all national variants of English. -] (]) 16:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1124425177 -->


==Splitting discussion for ]==
:Perhaps it's because I'm actually an Australian ( unlike you ) with an academic background in linguistics and actually know something about standard Australian punctuation ( unlike you, obviously ). Anything else I can help you with? ] (]) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
]
::Nope. You just proved everything I needed to know. -] (]) 10:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


An article that been involved with (]) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ({{no redirect|1=name to be decided}}). If you are interested, please visit ]. Thank you. <span style="background-color:indigo; color:indigo;">_</span>]<span style="background-color:indigo; color:indigo;">_</span> (]) 14:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
== Mathew Stokes ==


== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
Please do not replace ] negative claims to ] as you did . -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 17:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
:I have responded to your interpretation of BLP policies on your talk page. ] (]) 09:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
::Thanks for the barracks-room lawyering. I would suggest that ] (a core policy of the encyclopedia) states clearly: <blockquote>This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: '''unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately'''." </blockquote> It is unacceptable to simply slap {{tl|fact}} tags on these articles; either source it or remove it. Reinstating unsourced material, even if removed by IP editors, is entirely unacceptable. If you were so confident it was accurate, you could have taken the time to source it properly before adding it back. Why should I, or any other editor, believe anything you add to an article if you are too lazy to bother adding a source. If you feel that including uncited information in Misplaced Pages is just dandy, then perhaps this is not the place for you. -- ]\<sup>]</sup> 09:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


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.
:::The information was never "challenged" it was just removed without comment - so I didn't just "add it back" as you falsely claim. Removing comments without explanation is what's unacceptable regardless of how potentially contentious they might be. What do you think the purpose of citation tags is for?! It is perfectly acceptable to add citation tags and there is no responsibility for editors who add them to either remove comments or include references themselves. It is the responsibility of the person who adds the comments. You are distorting the policies and being obnoxious and insulting in the process. As for your final comment - have a good close look in the mirror! ] (]) 09:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
:::It should also be noted that the removed comments / information about Stokes are not in factual dispute regardless of how "negative" they may be - so it is arguable whether they are actually "contentious" as such. A "contentious" comment is one that is open to factual dispute or interpretation. The removed comments about Stokes were expressed in a neutral manner and accurately stated the basic facts about his charge. While comments about such things should still have references the removed comments are not "contentious" in the ordinary meaning of the word. ] (]) 10:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Complaints about my being obnoxious and insulting are rich coming from an editor who started his reply to a polite request from me with "If you had bothered to actually take notice of my edits ..." Secondly, you added uncited information to the encyclopedia. How that can possibly be OK is a mystery to me and your attempts at self-justification are thin and an attempt to claim that black = white. '''You''' are responsible for '''all''' edits you make (even rollbacks and undo-s) and you made a conscious choice to restore uncited content to a BLP article that an IP editor (yes, IP editors are still allowed to edit here) had quite correctly removed, in line with WP:V. You made an assumption that an IP editor was vandalising the article, when in fact the IP editor was editing in full accordance with policy. The claim is quite obviously contentious, as it was removed from the article. While it is good editing practice, there is no requirement in policy to state a justification in an edit summary.


</div>
::::Your attempt to claim that it is A-OK to add uncited material if it is true to the encyclopedia flies in the face of one of the core policies of the encyclopedia despite your rather bizarre attempts to argue otherwise. '''All''' material is required to be accurately sourced, no exceptions - even for things that are "true". Unless a source is cited, why should anyone believe anything you (or I for that matter) add to the encyclopedia? don't see that we are likely to agree so further discussion is futile, but compulsory citing of sources is such a core feature of the project that your failure to understand it or agree that you are bound by it makes me wonder if this project is the right place for you. Good luck, ]\<sup>]</sup> 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 -->


== WikiProject Bendigo ==
:::::Your ingenious distortions of my comments is unbelievable. It is also patently clear from your own comments here - and from the numerous intemperate and incivil responses on your talk page that you believe that patronising abuse is preferable to intelligent discussion. I have no time for obnoxious and bullying "editors" (sic) such as you - so please go away and find yet some other victims for your abuse. It is immature and abusive editors like you who give Misplaced Pages a bad name. And "good luck" to you - you really need it. (So how do you like being patronised?!) ] (]) 05:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Afterwriting, I have recently joined ] and I am currently recruiting more editors to join also. I can see that you are a regular editor of Victorian-related articles, so I was wondering whether you might be interested in joining the project, as there are still a number of Bendigo articles that need improvement. Please let me know what you think. All the best, ] (]) 04:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
==3 reverts on Catholic Church==
Hello, and welcome to the edge of the 3 revert zone. Please stop repeated reverts (over REALLY minor edits) that may lead to an edit war. Thanks. ] (]) 09:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for February 13 ==
:Don't bully with your arrogant and hypocritical attitude - who the hell do you think you are?! As the editor making the so-called "minor" changes it is YOUR responsibility to justify the reasons for them. Firstly you didn't explain them at all and then you reverted my reverts - and had the arrogance to tell me not to revert and to "discuss" - on the flimsy excuse that your edits were only "minor". If you think that your link change is so unimportant - which it isn't as the Mariological essay is not anywhere nearly as relevant to the Catholic Church article as the original link - then why are you insisting on changing it in the first place and then ordering me to not revert it and to take it to the talk page?! It takes more than one editor to "lead to an edit war" - and so far the other editor is you. ] (]) 13:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
== Eva Cassidy ==


(].) --] (]) 06:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I've looked at the source regarding whether or not Eva had one or two bootlegs, and the other editor is 100% right, there was only one official bootleg, so that has been corrected in the article, and should remain as such. On another note, please note that your behaviour on the article was ], in that you were repeatedly introducing material without properly discussing the changes with the other editor, such behaviour is disruptive, and can lead to a block. Although your edits were clearly in good faith, you need to be carefull to check references and such like before undoing edits like that. Please let me know if you have any questions, kind regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 14:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:Please undo your latest change to the article, a boot leg is defined as "an audio and/or video recording of a performance that was not officially released by the artist". Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for March 14 ==
:Your comments about my edits are very mistaken. If you actually looked at my edits and my comments you will see that my edits were entirely proper and justified - and that I wasn't "repeatedly introducing material" at all. I can't believe that you have made such false claims - it's very poor editing on your part. You are also incorrect about "bootlegs" - they are unofficial recordings which are for public sale, they are *not* just privately owned recordings that haven't been released. The recording this person claims to own doesn't meet the standard criteria of what a bootleg is. ] (]) 15:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::Please go here: http://www.evacassidy.org/eva/q&a.shtml do a Ctrl+F for " Live at Pearl's ", read, and then tell me how is justified? ]<sup>]</sup> 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
I will appreciate it if you ceased making false comments about my edits on another user's talk page. You are not helping matters at all and your behaviour is way out of line. Also, the "bootleg" in question *wasn't* "Live At Pearl's" - it was another recording that she claims she was trying to sell. Please get your facts straight - because you are getting the facts and the editing history completely confused. Just go back and look through the recent edits and you will see what I mean. ] (]) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:The user in question changed the content to "''There is one official bootleg, "Live at Pearl's"...''", you changed it to "''Two known bootlegs exist''", (<small></small>). If you think that two bootlegs exist (as your editing suggests), then please, tell what is the second one? If instead you have changed your mind and decided that your original opinon was wrong, as your latest edits suggest, then please, just say so. Kindest regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 15:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


(].) --] (]) 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
For God's sake! Your comments are getting even more false, ridiculous and irresponsible. I *never* added any comments about there being "two bootlegs" - NEVER!!! How on earth have you managed to come up with this latest bit of nonsense?! It was the OTHER EDITOR who added the comment about TWO BOOTLEGS in her edits about the so-called bootleg recording she claims to own and has been trying to sell. I failed to notice this comment about "two" bootlegs when I removed the rest of her edits and it then got mixed up with the subsequent edits and reverts - but I definitely NEVER added the comment although it's possible it may have been inadevertently put back as part of a revert. If I touched it at all it was only part of a grammatical edit without realising it was part of the other editors changes. Just go and check the edit history properly instead of jumping to false conclusions and make erroneous claims - and then you should apologise for your serious misrepresentation of my editing. ] (]) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


== Spaghetti Westerns edits ==
::I have gone back to the version of the article BEFORE the other editor started - and the disputed section begins "TWO KNOWN BOOTLEGS EXIST" and goes on to make mention of the controversy about the ( as claimed ) other editor's recording. The other editor changed it to "THERE US ONE OFFICIAL BOOTLEG" ( whatever an "official bootleg" is meant to be ) before adding to the information about the other recording. So, there we have it, the OTHER EDITOR changed the text and I only changed it back to how it was originally. So much for your claims about me "adding" it! ] (]) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

:::I have no further comment to make, you're increasingly failing to ], and it's pointless (nice pun, I know) for me to keep reinstating it. If you need proof of when you added the piece of text about two bootlegs existing then maybe you should look over my previous comment, which provides a diff. I also advise that you seriously consider improving your attitude in any future content disputes you may come into, shouting at me (excessively using exclamation marks and caps lock), calling me irresponsible, accusing me of lying and generally behaving in a rude and incivil manner all have a negative impact on any attempts to peacefully resolve this dispute. I will not be replying to you again on this page, if you really need a response from me then please ask on my talk page. Kindest regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You have reverted hours of diligent hard work. I spent time painstakingly proofreading and copyediting the spaghetti Westerns article, just for you to come along and arbitrarily revert nearly everything willy nilly.</br></br>
I suggest letting knowledgeable editors improve Misplaced Pages. Reverting valid changes improves nothing. ] (]) 17:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
:Really? What I have actually reverted are your multiple editing mistakes. So, instead of making false and patronising comments on my talk page, I suggest that you try becoming a knowledgeable editor yourself and stop making invalid changes which not only don't improve articles but also waste the time of other editors who correct them. It is obvious from your own talk page that you have an aggressive attitude towards editors who try to advise you about your incorrect editing. You need to stop this. ] (]) 00:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
::Heh, talk about patronizing and aggressive.</br></br>My indignation this week was from the frustration of having hours of work undone by people who think they're authorities on written English. That's all. ] (]) 17:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:::What is really frustrating is the time spent undoing incorrect editing by people who falsely think they're authorities on written English and then being abused for doing so. ] (]) 01:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Abused. Gimme a break. ] (]) 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Your behaviour clearly expresses several . So I suggest you give it a break. ] (]) 04:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::What? My behavior has done no such thing. I had an objection, and I voiced it. Didn't call anyone names, didn't use foul language, didn't do anything that could be construed as "abuse". And then I let it go and moved forward. So I suggest you give it a break. ] (]) 01:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->

Latest revision as of 00:09, 19 November 2024

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anne, Princess Royal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equestrian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Wimberley Mossman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jenny Geddes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I know we had disagreements on the 1662 BCP page, but I would appreciate your MOS help on a question regarding another article I'm in the draft stage of. I already asked Ltwin this question, but figured you were also a good ask on the topic given your familiarity with it and MOS experience. The standard naming convention for Books of Common Prayer is "Book of Common Prayer ()". Unfortunately, the article I'm helping start is the 1928 American BCP and there's already an article for the English 1928 BCP. Do you think moving the first article to "Book of Common Prayer (England, 1928)" and titling the new article "Book of Common Prayer (U.S., 1928)" is a good idea? Or maybe some other option? Your input is appreciated and I'll tag you as soon as a final draft is ready so that you can implement MOS edits before I move it in a stable form to the mainspace. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Peter's, Eastern Hill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High Mass.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Church Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evangelist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for George Pell

An article that been involved with (George Pell) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Name to be decided). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Bendigo

Hi Afterwriting, I have recently joined WikiProject Bendigo and I am currently recruiting more editors to join also. I can see that you are a regular editor of Victorian-related articles, so I was wondering whether you might be interested in joining the project, as there are still a number of Bendigo articles that need improvement. Please let me know what you think. All the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hannah Grier Coome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orangemen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Cleese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Spaghetti Westerns edits

You have reverted hours of diligent hard work. I spent time painstakingly proofreading and copyediting the spaghetti Westerns article, just for you to come along and arbitrarily revert nearly everything willy nilly.

I suggest letting knowledgeable editors improve Misplaced Pages. Reverting valid changes improves nothing. milladrive (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Really? What I have actually reverted are your multiple editing mistakes. So, instead of making false and patronising comments on my talk page, I suggest that you try becoming a knowledgeable editor yourself and stop making invalid changes which not only don't improve articles but also waste the time of other editors who correct them. It is obvious from your own talk page that you have an aggressive attitude towards editors who try to advise you about your incorrect editing. You need to stop this. Afterwriting (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Heh, talk about patronizing and aggressive.

My indignation this week was from the frustration of having hours of work undone by people who think they're authorities on written English. That's all. milladrive (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
What is really frustrating is the time spent undoing incorrect editing by people who falsely think they're authorities on written English and then being abused for doing so. Afterwriting (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Abused. Gimme a break. milladrive (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Your behaviour clearly expresses several forms of abuse. So I suggest you give it a break. Afterwriting (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
What? My behavior has done no such thing. I had an objection, and I voiced it. Didn't call anyone names, didn't use foul language, didn't do anything that could be construed as "abuse". And then I let it go and moved forward. So I suggest you give it a break. milladrive (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)