Misplaced Pages

User talk:Darkfrog24: 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 04:30, 11 May 2014 editDonQuixote (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,502 edits →DR/N: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:13, 1 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,459 edits →Welcome to the 2025 WikiCup!: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
(923 intermediate revisions by 98 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
==Welcome==
| algo=old(300d)
Hello, '''{{PAGENAME}}''', and ] to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the ''']''', where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code>{&#123;helpme}}</code>''' and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
| archive=User talk:Darkfrog24/Archive %(counter)d
*]
| counter=1
*]
| maxarchivesize=1000K
*]
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
*]
| minthreadsleft=4
*]
| minthreadstoarchive=1
*]
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the ], add a question to the ] or ask me on <!-- ] (broken) --> my talk page. Again, welcome! &mdash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

==Signatures==
Hi! Please use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to sign your comments. Thanks! &mdash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks==

Thanks for answering my question about human cloning! ] ] 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
: You are most welcome. ] 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

==AfD nomination of ]==
An editor has nominated ], an article on which you have worked or that you created, for ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "]"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at {{#if:Prom baby | ] | ] }} and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. '''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. ] 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
: Yes, I noticed that the article has been nominated for deletion. Although one contributor mentioned that the term is widespread "throughout the South," I have only found the one source. As such, I feel no need to contest the deletion notice. Any arguments of mine will take the form of improvements to the article or suggestions on the talk page.
: What generated this bot notice? While someone did remove the deletion notice, you may wish to note that it was not me. ] 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

== Brethren Court ==
The page has been nominated for deletion, please join the discussion ]. ] (]) 10:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
==Image copyright problem with File:Yarnbus.jpg==
Thanks for uploading ]. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate ], it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
* ]
* ]

This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 07:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:I realize this is a bot, but this is annoying. I've already given a description of the image's copyright issues and asked about it on the image use page. ] (]) 14:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

== FYI ==

<s>, if interested. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 20:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)</s>

Update: the MOS page is unprotected, but I strongly advise you to not further any edit warring there. Please . Thanks. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:What edit warring? ] (]) 23:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

== AN/I ==

I filed an AN/I against you . ] (]) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:Now ''that'' is an appropriate way to respond when you think someone's doing something wrong. This is much more civilized. Thank you, Ilkali. I feel much better about this whole mess now. ] (]) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
*Can you please use preview instead of continually editing and saving the ANI board? It's distracting --<font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">>David</font> ''']''' 18:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:Sure. It's more a matter of changing my mind, but I'll take extra care in this case. ] (]) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks, it's just that it's a heavily trafficked board, and continually editing and saving enhances the possibility of edit conflicts. --<font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">>David</font> ''']''' 18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
For reference:

== Olive branch ==

Dear Darkfrog24: It's too bad that we got off to the start that we did with one another. I suspect that we probably agree about many things. For one thing, we are in a small minority that actually cares about punctuation, style, and the like. ] ] 02:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, in another universe ...we might have been friends. We also seemed to be the only two people who demonstrated an ability to cross what I'll call party lines on the MoS. Don't think I didn't notice when you told Troviatore to express himself differently. ] (]) 03:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::And I noticed, early on, that when Mchavez said that I was being inconsistent, you responded to him that I was being flexible. I've done some academic editing, worked with pre-digital hot-type professional printers, am acquainted with several style manuals, and really appreciate good typography. I was a very early adopter of using proportionally spaced typefaces and professional typographic conventions (typographic quotation marks and apostrophes, em- and en-dashes, italic instead of underline, non-breaking spaces to avoid awkward line breaks, etc.), when most everyone else was using the latest computers and laser printers to emulate Selectric typewriters. To my eye, especially in a serifed typeface, {{xt|this”,}} looks butt ugly, and so does {{xt|this”.}} (I might have a different opinion if I originally learned and was surrounded by the other style.) On Misplaced Pages, though, other considerations come into play. Misplaced Pages pages are never going to approach typeset appearance in a browser. The typeface is sans-serif. MOS prescribes straight quotation marks and apostrophes for valid technical reasons. And, when all is said and done, so-called logical quotation really is less ambiguous: if a period comes before a close quotation mark, you ''know'' that the period was in the original quotation, and not something added at the end of a sentence fragment. American style is also a bit harder for editors to master, because extraneous commas and periods get tucked inside the close quotation mark, but not semicolons (an apparent inconsistency). Even more fundamentally, I think that a "house style" should remain relatively stable, and this guideline has been around for a very long time, possibly from the start. If the MOS had historically prescribed what you call American quotation mark style, I would not be clamoring for change to so-called logical quotation style. ] ] 05:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Finell, American punctuation does not create the problems you're describing. It's been a non-issue for centuries. If people want to know how the original material was punctuated, they have to look at the source, regardless of what style was used to quote it. In addition, American style is ''less'' hard to master because it is simpler: put periods and commas inside and semicolons and colons outside. (The British are as welcome to their complexities as they are to a U in "color.")
:::I suspect that the reason this guideline has been around from the start is because a disproportionate number of Misplaced Pages's founders were either professional or amateur programmers. They picked the style that they were used to. However, as more and more non-programmers are taking part in Misplaced Pages, this is becoming less appropriate. As Tony1 put it, "Look around and see how the culture is changing."
:::The advantage in permitting American and British styles when appropriate and preferring them where preferable is this: It makes Misplaced Pages look professional and legitimate. Even people who don't know all the ins and outs of good punctuation still get a good impression when they see it. If Misplaced Pages were to adopt British and American standards, as it has with spelling, then most readers would think, "Ah, this looks like the real thing. This looks like it didn't get here by accident," because they'd be seeing the same, quality work that they see in the ''New York Times'', ''Nature'', professionally edited magazines and professional academic and literary works. If you ask me, this would be a big step toward getting the public to shake the idea of Misplaced Pages as "that Internet encyclopedia" and start them toward "the encyclopedia." ] (]) 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

==Italic dates==

Thanks for the good guidance. How do I participate in a useful conversation? I can't find it if its going on. ] (]) 18:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
:When in doubt, check the page history. The last couple of major contribs were this morning.
:You don't ''have'' to say anything. If you feel that all useful arguments have already been made, then it might be better if you added only a brief "I agree with so-and-so" or even nothing at all. But I figured that since you specifically were one subject of the discussion, someone should let you know that it was going on. ] (]) 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

::Got the MOS, where's the discussion this morning? ] (]) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

::Found it and responded. Many, many thanks ] (]) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

== ], sex and gender ==

I know that this article is most likely on your watchlist, but I wanted to address you here as well: As I stated on the talk page there, I really did not mean to insult anyone. As someone who understands this topic quite well, I was simply trying to help. It seems that my initial wording somewhat irritated you, but it was a simple explanation in my view. Maybe I should have gone into the thoughts about the brain being one sex while the person's body displays the opposite sex of that, but I was not trying to give a long, detailed lesson and it is not something that is believed to be the case for all transgender individuals.

In any case, I apologize for any offense you feel that I caused. I also appreciate your helping others to understand this topic. ] (]) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

:Accepted, but I wasn't offended enough to remember. ] (]) 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

== MoS unprotect? ==

Hi Darkfrog. Please see the section at bottom of MoS talk. We need to establish stability and reasonable harmony on the talk page, given that there will be the odd dispute. ArbCom is auditing MoS for stability in just over two months, and if we have no history of stability in the absence of the protection measure, they'll probably walk away and say protect it forever.

If you're prepared to be part of an effort to avoid instability on the MoS page, will you add you voice? ] ] 13:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

:I saw your section there and am preparing a response at the moment.
:I don't quite understand what you're getting at with regard to instability. ] (]) 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

== Talkback ==

{{talkback|WP:MOS}}
I doubt you you would be surprised, but I have replies to you on WP:MOS. All good and sensible and so are you. I disagree with you but I know you are an intelligent person who wants to make it better. I hope you know I do too. ] (]) 11:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
:Trew, were you under the impression that you had offended me? Heavens no! I've found you to be nothing but cordial these past few days. ] (]) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== images ==

You summed it up well in your most recent comment. For some reason the microscopic images issue has passed me by. Perhaps this is another issue where WPians can set preferences that blind them to how our readers see the pages. In any case, I've written a proposal ], which I'd appreciate your feedback on. Please note that I'm no expert on images, even though it's plain to me that we have a serious problem in the current MoS text. ] ] 16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:Good one. However, you may have worked on my previous update (I kept tinkering). You might consider changing "that" to "which" in the first para (there are a lot of "thats"), and using the wording for the bullets (does it work better?). ] ] 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

== Move to close at MOS ==

Hi Darkfrog, I think it would be best if you close the discussion yourself. The mechanism at {{tl|Archive top}} would solve the issue at hand and then you can continue to seek answers about flagging the passage in the way you describe. I am afraid otherwise it appears to be devolving into a debate over whether to close. If there is no consensus about the tag in the MOS page, if you close debate and contact an administrator or add to my post at ] that issue can be dealt with separately. I think the real point is to have the MOS page unlocked, and I think no admin has acted on my request because this is not a formal debate like deletion or requested move discussions. ] (]) 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you for presenting me with an opportunity to ask something: What precisely is a formal closing? Is there something to it other than "okay, this discussion has run its course"? Would it in any way impede other editors from raising the same issues for discussion at a later date?
:As for consensus, it seems to me that everyone who has commented so far (LaserBrain/AndyW, yourself, Finell, myself) agrees that the discussion as run its course. The only significant difference of opinion seems to be whether the text should remain in its current form or be reverted to some previous one. ] (]) 05:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
::As I am using the term, "formal closing" involves an end to debate and an administrative decision such as what happens with ], ] and ]. Those all involve a voting process. I have used the {{tl|Archive top}} and {{tl|Archive bottom}} method in the past on MOS pages where things have run their course. Basically it tells latecomers not to bother adding comments or rebutting others, we have moved on. I am suggesting that a third party be contacted regarding the unresolved question about the content of MOS before unlock, so asking that question at ] can't hurt. I may be unavailable after posting this message but will check back here in a few hours. ] (]) 06:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:::So, yes, it does do something other than archive the thread. I certainly do not support any measure that tells newcomers that their contributions are not wanted. Is there a note we could post telling them to put their concerns in a new section so that the old one may time out into the archive? ] (]) 06:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, place the {{tl|Archive top}} tag beneath the headline "Punctuation: Quotation marks: Inside or outside" and place {{tl|Archive bottom}} tag after the last comment of the entire section, currently your response to Finell. Then, below the {{tl|Archive bottom}}, put the message you want to convey in a way similar to: '''Further comments: The section above has been archived, please create a new topic for any concerns about this subject or the discussion itself.''' (your signature) . This will end the discussion originated by Mchavez but make very clear that anyone who wants to comment about the guideline, the archived discussion or the disposition of the disputed tag on the MOS page can simply create a new thread. You can do this now and post a request for help about the version and tagging of the main project page LQ section, I suggest asking an admin or using the ] process. I hope that helps. ] (]) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Thanks. This addresses my concerns about archiving the page. Still not sure what you want from a third opinion. ] (]) 14:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::Actually it isn't anything I want, rather a way for you and Finell to discuss disagreement over your idea of a tag like "Caution: Dangerous waters! Consider discussing even small changes to this section before editing." It might be best to simply run that question by an administrator that you have dealt with before, or ask Finell if he wants to take it to ]. I only suggested that because it seemed that was where you were stuck regarding what happens once the page is unlocked. {{User3|Rootology}} locked the page but has announced his retirement, maybe you can approach one of the admins from page history that has edited MOS since the lock with questions you have. ] (]) 15:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::But we're not talking about unlocking the page; we're talking about closing the discussion. The page was not locked because of this discussion; it was locked because of an edit war. The two things are not directly connected.
:::::::As for stuck, I don't know that we're stuck. Finell has shown himself more than capable of behaving reasonably when dealt with reasonably. He probably just needs to take a closer look at the proposal. ] (]) 16:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(SIIIIIIIIIGH) See, Sswonk? is why I didn't want to be the one to do this! I would have much preferred to just put the discussion in the archives like Jimp did. ] (]) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:Sure! Totally not a big deal, either way would have worked. Doing it as you did gives people a day or two to see that the discussion was closed. I've seen it done both ways, and sometimes the process of removing it as was done by Jimp in that diff is controversial. Looked at another way, closing a discussion but keeping it visible gives new folks a heads up that the issue was addressed previously. If you look at ], I surrounded the discussion with archive tags on August 30 2008 and it stayed that way until someone moved it to Archive_3 nearly 11 months later (see the Archive_3 history). By the way, I ended up wishing I had never started that thread. No harm was done here, so now you know that you could have done what Jimp did. It is up to you to decide if that method will be controversial, I just suggested the less controversial of the two. I think in this case the huge size of the section was a motivating factor, removing it helped clear space for other discussions on that very active page. Absolutely nothing to worry about, Jimp finished a job you started and you can relax. ] (]) 17:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
::For future reference, would you be so kind as to tell me how Jimp did it? I checked the page history and couldn't see any indicators. ] (]) 17:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Jimp checked the number of the last archive, Archive_110 and then started a new page, "Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive_111" possibly simply by adding "/Archive_111" to the end of the URL and then clicking the link that appears on the subsequent message page. Click this: to see what I mean. Then, Jimp simply opened the old section you tagged and cut- pasted it to the new page he started and saved both pages. The title needs to be exactly as shown i.e. uppercase "A" Archive followed by underscore and the new archive number to maintain consistency and also because archiving bots look for/create pages with that specific title style, see ] for further details. Jimp knew the way to do it properly so it wouldn't upset the sequence, another reason you can relax. ] (]) 17:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog. Can we remove the dispute tag? Or are you still toying with the notion of inventing a new tag? --] ] 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:The dispute has run its course, so it is appropriate to remove the tag. I was not talking about inventing a new tag. I was asking if one already existed. ] (]) 17:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:: There is {{tl|Calm talk}}, but I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for. --] ] 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:::I am looking for something that would reduce the chances of another big fight. The best way to do that is to prevent users from going, "Hey, this comma policy is wrong! I'd better fix it" without giving other people a chance to let them know what's going on. It seems that the best way to do that would be to ask users to consider going to the talk page before making even small edits. {{tl|Calm talk}} certainly applies to this case as well. Thank you for showing it to me. ] (]) 19:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Waaiiiit a second, is this thing designed for talk pages? ] (]) 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Hm, yeah, but maybe it can be adapted. All of these templates only exist because someone needed one that didn't exist. --] ] 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

{{tmbox
|small = {{{small|}}}
|image = ]
|text = Discussions on this subject may escalate into heated debate. Please edit with caution and try to ] on the talk page. See also: ].
}} }}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}


What do you think of this, then? ] (]) 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
: Looks good to me. --] ] 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for the instructions, Andy. I do like learning new things. ] (]) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

==Film series numbering controversy==

You may like to comment here: ] - ] (]) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

== Possessives frazzle ==

Hi Darkfrog. Noetica is being a cranky old man. You can safely ignore his grumpiness, which is less than skin-deep, I think. I've started a new section where people can try to sort out the text amicably. Can we try to harmonise/compromise/whatever on this matter? It's ]. ] ] 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, not taking Noetica personally. I don't think he noticed that I was agreeing with his general point, though. ] (]) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


== Invitation == == Invitation ==
Line 147: Line 15:
{{WPZ-Invitation}} {{WPZ-Invitation}}


==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
== Your note ==
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. 22:55, 26 March 2013‎ ]


== Mail call ==
Okay, fair enough, will do. :) <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 22:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:THANK YOU. ] (]) 22:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


{{you've got mail}}
== Amongst ==
== DR/N ==


==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
I interpret as your desire to take out that "controversial vocabulary" section in its entirety. That would be my second choice. If this is what you really want please spell out the proposal in a separate subsection, so we have some clear options to !vote on (first/second/... choice ArbComy style). The current mode of threaded discussion does not look like will lead to any obvious consensus. Thanks, ] ] 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
]
:Nope. Actually voting on your proposal there. I agree that our disorganized discussions are not as effective as they could be, but that, too, is a separate issue. ] (]) 14:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.


== Adding IUCN status to taxoboxes ==
== Change in lead of the ] article, and a note about the ] article ==


Thanks for adding status to the taxoboxes. However, when you do so, please ensure you also add the <code>|status_system</code> parameter, typically <code>|status_system=IUCN3.1</code>. I've fixed a couple of these entries as I've found them. - ] ] 11:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
With my change in the lead, I hope that you are pleased with it. When noting "biological and behavioral differences," though, I was unsure of whether to link to Biology of gender or ]. I mean, the Biology of gender article focuses on humans...and the Sexual dimorphism article focuses more on the form/shape of different species than psychological/social behavior of different sexes. I, as the article currently shows, though, went with linking to Biology of gender. ] (]) 21:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:...can't we link to both? ] (]) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::I also thought about doing both, but that would separate "biological and behavioral differences" from being one link. The problem I have with that? Well, besides no longer having just one (and simple) link, with the Biology of gender article being pipe-linked as "biological" and the Sexual dimorphism article pipe-linked as "behavior," not only does it look like we are simply linking to the Biology and Behavior articles...but the Sexual dimprphism article does not significantly focus on behavior (as I stated before, it is more about the form/shape). If you mean some other way of doing it, then I am open to that. ] (]) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Heh heh. I think I've fixed it just now. Take a look. ] (]) 22:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Weirdest thing. The italics won't take. ] (]) 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::::LOL. Your new lead is fine. Though I might tweak it further. I still feel that we should start off naming that it has a range of definitions first, though. If we do, we could also mention the word ] in addition to biology. Also, the reason I started off using the ] (WHO) reference after specifying that the term has a range of definitions is due to WHO being seen as an authorative source, and I have seen many editors here at Misplaced Pages state that authorative sources should go first. But I am fine with leaving the WHO mention where you put it. ] (]) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::All other things being equal, yes, but we should probably introduce the idea that the word has many definitions and then mention sociology. Otherwise it looks like the WHO's definition is unique rather than shared among the social sciences. ] (]) 23:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::By noting that the term has a range of definitions first, I was thinking more of specifying the different ranges right off the bat and then transitioning from that into naming what these ranges are more than I was thinking about being fair (which is what I did). But your changing it to "commonly refers" covers the equal bit, I feel. I mean, the use of "gender" as "the set of characteristics that humans perceive as distinguishing between male and female entities, extending from one's biological sex to, in humans, one's social role or gender identity" is the common usage. I used the common (and traditional) usage of "sexual intercourse" first with the ] article. But do you feel that the paragraph about scientific research should stay last? It might be better placed in the middle. ] (]) 23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Also, it has been great working with you on this. I like this new lead better than the one that was there before I started working on it today, that's for sure. Good job. ] (]) 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I separated out the biological paragraph because it deals with the ''concept'' of gender rather than the definitions of the term. A fine distinction, I'll grant. I think it does well last, but it could go elsewhere if we reorganize. ] (]) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


If you are not already aware of the new changes in the lead, you may want to participate in this discussion on my talk page: ]. ] (]) 03:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC) :I've fixed a few more you've done recently, both for this issue and for others. Please see the edits I did and incorporate them into your future edits. Please acknowledge that you've read this. - ] ] 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for March 22 ==
Darkfrog, I am going to need your help in ] regarding the lead. This recent editor to drastically change the lead (]), though I reverted, can be difficult to work with, and is especially hostile towards what he considers "Western definitions" of things. I would greatly appreciate you weighing in on this discussion when you can. ] (]) 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
I'm not sure if you watch the the Gender article anymore, and I can understand if you're tired of me bothering you about it, but you're the only other main contributor of that article right now (especially its lead). The lead was drastically changed again (before my revert), by someone else, and I am pretty sure that I am going to need your help keeping it tidy for as long as we are both here at Misplaced Pages. But if you would rather not deal with it any longer, I understand. Just saying that I still need your help in watching it. ] (]) 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:By the way, do you think the Biology of gender and ] articles should be merged? ] (]) 19:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::1. You are not bothering me. However, I am worried about you getting in trouble for canvassing. I'm not really sure whether you're supposed to be going to userpages and asking for this kind of help. 2. I check in on gender from time to time but not every day or anything. 3. I do not at present have an opinion on whether those two articles should be merged. ] (]) 03:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
:::LOL, I've read the ] page plenty of times; this is not the type of thing that would get me in trouble. You already watch the article, and contributed heavily to the design of its lead; it is only natural that I ask you for your thoughts on changes to it and help with it. And, as you know, I only asked one editor (]) to help me watch it. With you, it is just a matter of still needing your help watching it. Either way, the matter about the lead currently seems under control. The most recent editor to drastically change the lead (]) has addressed my concerns (on my talk page), and is conversing with me about what changes he or she wants made to it and the article as a whole. ] (]) 21:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


One of your edits to the Gender article's lead is currently being contested on the talk page. Just giving you a heads up. ] (]) 11:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) (].) --] (]) 06:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for April 11 ==
== ] ==


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
Hey, Darkfrog. Would you not mind weighing in on the above linked discussion? ] (]) 22:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
:Not in the slightest. You might want to heads-up Finell or Pi Zero to make sure that the other side is represented. ] (]) 00:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
::Do you still feel that I should? Or just leave the discussion where it is? ] (]) 21:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Okay, I went ahead and alerted Finell. ] (]) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Better Finell than one of the crazy ones, right? Finell at least knows how to be civil. ] (]) 13:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


(].) --] (]) 05:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
== Punctuation ==


== WikiCup 2024 April newsletter ==
Hi, Darkfrog. Regarding what you said : if I were the slightest bit optimistic, I'd say the discussion ''really'' should be at ]. I've finally come to terms—for the most part—with punctuating the WP way, but I'm bothered by the inconsistency of it: if periods or commas are to be placed after the quotation marks (aka inverted commas), then shouldn't those quotation marks be single ones, not double? <small>(Sorry for butting into a discussion about an article I've never even read, btw.)</small> ] (]) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:You're not butting in; you're asking a question. The issue of single vs. double quotation marks on Misplaced Pages is separate from the American vs. British/"logical" punctuation matter. Unlike with banning American punctuation, there was a logical reason for adopting double quotation marks. I'm told that single quotation marks mess with search features. That being the case, the moment the technology advances to the point at which it is no longer an issue&mdash;as is the case with some newer web browsers&mdash;then the ban should be lifted and articles written in British English should be permitted to use single or double quotation marks, so long as they are consistent. (Because American English does not consider single marks to be correct, they should not be permitted in articles written in American English.)
:As to whether the discussion should take place on a user page, article discussion page or WT: MoS, the answer is that if it is about what to write in one specific article, then it should be on that article's talk page. If it is about the rule itself, then it should be on WT: MoS. In my opinion, there should be discussions on ''both'' WT: MoS (and there is) and on the tea ceremony article discussion page&mdash;the people who are working on that article may have opinions on the matter. If the discussion takes place on a user's page, then that user could be accused, inaccurately, of making controversial edits without discussing them first. ] (]) 22:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
::Hmm. Interesting about the technical reason for the double quotation marks. I hadn't heard that before, so thanks.
::Concerning the larger topic of WP punctuation, there's yet another potentially relevant issue, this one having to do with on-screen typography: in some instances, at least, some think that readability is enhanced when the period or comma (especially the latter) comes after the quotation marks when rendered in a sans-serif font:<blockquote>"holistic", "simulated", and "endearing".</blockquote>
::looks neater than
::<blockquote>"holistic," "simulated," and "endearing."</blockquote>
::perhaps because of the way the characters are kerned. If you try that off-wiki in a serif font, the opposite is true, especially when it's printed out.
::You're quite right about the proper venues for discussions. I have no stake or particular interest in the article in question but am always intrigued when matters of punctuation arise around here. ] (]) 06:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
:::No, it doesn't look neater. The British punctuation actually looks quite sloppy. The aesthetic aspect is probably an eye-of-the-beholder matter. Misplaced Pages should do what ''is'' correct rather than what some people think looks better. Some people might think that spelling "harbor" as "harbour" looks funny, but if it's a British English article, then that's the way to do it. ] (]) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.
(outdent)'''None of this matters'''. The ] does not call for logical quotation because it "looks better" (a subjective artsy-fartsy notion of no relevance here); nor because it is "more intuitive" (which it almost certainly is for a majority of people, but this too is subjective, and people with a really, really deep-seated preference for the largely American typesetter's quotation style find ''that'' more intuitive, as someone keeps browbeating into us as if we didn't already understand this, several years ago; nor because it is "simpler" or "easier" (typing <code>".</code> when warranted is no in any way less or more complicated that <code>."</code>; actually the ''decision'' is less simple, because in logical quotation the punctuation is placed inside or outside for a reason that requires thinking &ndash; because it actually belongs there &ndash; not always inside regardless of what the results of doing that might be). We use logical quotation here for a simple, singular, factual, objective reason: It preserves quotations intact, without falsely inserting punctuation into them that wasn't there in the original (or leaving the reader to wonder whether this has been done). Please, all of you, stop mischaracterizing the nature of the debate. The reason for the choice is grounded in ] and ]. Going with typesetters' quotation (there is no "American" or "British" quotation as has already been proven in these recurring debates - there are US publications that use logical quotation and UK ones that use typesetter's) has no basis but subjective ] notions as bases. Being used to something does not make it "better" or "right", nor "appropriate for this encyclopedia". — <font face="Trebuchet MS">'''<big>]</big>''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 17:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


Our current top scorers are as follows:
:I agree that what looks better should not be high on our list of considerations. It's an eye of the beholder thing.
:While there are U.S. publications that use British or LQ and there are British publications that use American punctuation or LQ, this doesn't mean that the American style isn't American and the British style isn't British. If a town in New Jersey has the word "TOWN CENTRE" spelled out on its sign, that doesn't make the town British. It just means that the signmakers decided to use a British form.
:If the piece of writing is in American English, then no, the comma does not belong inside the quotation marks. I realize that a lot of people on Misplaced Pages just don't like that, but that isn't a good enough reason to ban a long-standing punctuation practice.
:I realize that you prefer LQ and that there is a Misplaced Pages consensus to prefer LQ, but the FAQ should not make false claims about what the different styles actually do. ] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} with 642 points, mostly from 11 ]s about radio and television;
== 3RR ==
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|voorts}} with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (] and ]) and three GAs;
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|SounderBruce}} with 497 points, mostly from a ] about the ] and two GAs;
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Tamzin}} with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink ] and three GAs;
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Kusma}} with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist ] and a GA.


Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on ]. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from ] to receive more points.
Hi, you seem to have violated 3RR on that page. Would you mind reverting yourself, please? <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
:For now, if you like. I found a new source. The 15th edition of the Chicago MoS, as you stipulated. ] (]) 06:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read ]. Further questions are welcome on ] and the judges ({{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from ].</small> ] (]) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for reverting yourself. <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1217925134 -->


== WikiCup 2024 May newsletter ==
:::You are welcome. However, when the issue is the source and not the wording, I do not believe that finding a new source constitutes 3RR. ] (]) 06:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.
::::You've been continually undoing my edits. Any revert, in whole or in part, for whatever reason (apart from vandalism and BLP) counts toward 3RR. <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
:::::And you've been undoing mine. We've also been talking it out on the WT like reasonable people.
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} with 707 points, mostly from 45 ] reviews and 12 ]s about radio and television;
:::::Do you honestly believe that it isn't American or is this just a super-tough way of seeing that the fact of its being so is less assailable? On the flip side, the British system has its origins in Britain and is used by the overwhelming number of British writers. Calling it "British" seems like a given. ] (]) 06:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 ] nominations about coinage and history;
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|SounderBruce}} with 552 points, mostly from a ] about the ], three ], and two good articles;
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|BennyOnTheLoose}} with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player ], two featured lists, and one good article;
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|voorts}} with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (] and ]) and three good articles.


The full scores for Round 2 can be seen ]. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 ] credits and at least 200 ] credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to ] and ].
::::::I've been trying to restore the edits I made this evening, and have been expanding and adding sources, or trying to -- and you've been reverting me. I don't believe it is American, no. It is used by British journalists and British novelists and fiction writers which, let's face it, is jointly most of what most people read. I'm British and British-educated, school and university, and I've always used it. I don't even know how to use logical punctuation. You seem to be the only one who wants to create a rigid nationalist distinction, and I can't see what purpose it serves.


Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on ].
::::::Also, I have to say it's not good form to be making so many edits to the MoS talk page (you're the 4th biggest contributor with 845 edits since just May last year) and yet not to have read the key style books. That's bound to cause confusion. This is why I'd like us all (me too) to start making source-based edits only, and only to use the terms that the sources themselves mostly use. That way, the MoS talk page will be less confusing for its readers, now and in the future. <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see ]. Further questions are welcome on ] and the judges ({{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from ].</small> ] (]) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I am not ''creating'' the distinction between British and American practices. It was there before I was even born. The Chicago MoS and dozens of lesser guides call them "American" and "British." I realize that WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, but the spirit's the same. The article should at least include the names that people actually use for this stuff.
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1220380486 -->
:::::::I said that I didn't have the book in front of me, Slim. Don't assume more than that.
:::::::I do think that making source-based edits to the MoS would improve things. However, abbreviations are appropriate for the talk page. ] (]) 07:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for June 3 ==
::::::::No, they mostly don't call them British and American. They note that sometimes others do. Anyway, look, the point is you're causing tremendous confusion, making up terms, making up differences between styles that don't exist. Please go to a library and borrow the books. Or go to Amazon where it's sometimes possible to search them. They all say more or less the same thing. Any differences are the normal differences you find between style guides; they don't signal that different systems are being used. <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 07:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Slim, if one system is American, even in general, and the other is British, even in general, then how am I "making things up" by saying so? You ought to be saying that Chicago was making things up. ] (]) 07:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
::::::::::You are saying there are three styles: LQ, BQ, and traditional. '''There are not'''. There is logical punctuation, used in the UK (at least); and there is traditional punctuation, used in the UK, the U.S., and Canada (at least). <font color="purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font> <font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 07:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


(].) --] (]) 17:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::No that is not what I am saying.
:::::::::::There is an American punctuation style (puts periods and commas inside the quotation marks most of the time). There is a British punctuation style (puts them inside or outside depending on where they apply). There ''may also be'' a third style, called "logical quotation," which treats text like collections of literal strings. I originally thought that British and "logical" were two different names for the same system. But then I hit the MoS talk page and got "No no no. It's not the same. It's ''not the same!'' Also, American punctuation is stupid and bad." So I looked around at this source and that source and I dug and dug and dug and found British English guides tended to tell people to put colons and semicolons outside quotation marks, which Misplaced Pages's WP:LQ did not. They acknowledged words-as-words and short-form work titles as places where the punctuation belonged outside, which WP:LQ did not. I found a page or two in which computer programmers talked about literal strings and their frustration with American standard punctuation. All this together led me to believe that yes, however vehemently anti-American-punctuation the people who'd first told me about it had been, their assertion that LQ and British standard forms were two different systems did seem to be correct.
:::::::::::However, your recent comments on the MoS talk page got me thinking that I should reevaluate that conclusion, that perhaps the differences between WP:LQ and British style guides were the result of oversimplification rather than actual differences in practice.
:::::::::::What seems to be the case to me now is that "logical punctuation" and "typographic punctuation" are "the act of placing periods and commas according to their original position in the source" and "the act of placing periods and commas inside" and that British style and American style are two sets of instructions that tend to include these actions. Because American English standards make exceptions for web entries, etc., they are not exactly the same as TP. ] (]) 07:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for June 26 ==
== Manual of Style discussion ==


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
I've moved the MOS structure discussion to ].<br/>—&nbsp;] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">(]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;])</span> 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


(].) --] (]) 06:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
== ] article ==


== WikiCup 2024 July newsletter ==
I understand your addition. I believe the original addition was trying to say it is all still sex. For example, the terms "anal sex" and "oral sex" still have the word "sex" in them (whether some people consider them to be sexual intercourse or not). I know people (heterosexual and homosexual) who don't consider those two acts to be sexual intercourse but they still consider them "sex." The original entry was trying to say that the term "sex," in the context of sexual intimacy, does not always mean the same thing as the term sexual intercourse in its usual sense. Either way, I get your addition, since plenty of people would say neither is "real sex". I tweaked it, though. ] (]) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
:What that section ought to say is that that specific expert considers "sex" to mean any kind of sexual contact, in her case both intercourse and outercourse, because that is all that the source says. I find that it looks neater and clearer now. ] (]) 02:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
::Mind weighing in on ] ] (]) 18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I looked it over when you first showed it to me. ] (]) 21:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I figured. But what about the recent discussion regarding the Gender article (that I brought up above)? I am sure that Masculinity will have something to say about my reverting him. ] (]) 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::...are you sure you lined to the right conversation? Your most recent link points to the "Mating" discussion on the "Sexual intercourse" discussion page. ] (]) 00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Look above, in the '''Change in lead of the Gender article, and a note about the Biology of gender article''' section. I addressed a new topic about the lead of the Gender article there. ] (]) 00:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::There does not appear to be any such discussion on ]. ] (]) 01:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I mean above on your talk page (that section is above on your talk page). Why would it be on the Sexual intercourse talk page, LOL? ] (]) 04:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Because that is the link you gave me: "Mind weighing in on ]" ] (]) 13:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I also looked over the gender article a while ago, thinking that you'd meant to send me there. I didn't find anything wrong. I see now that that was because you'd already reverted Masculinity's edits. I agree that these changes were some serious OR, but it's been two weeks and not a peep from him. It looks okay.
:::::::::If he does it again, you might want to say "removing unsourced material" rather than "returning to consensus version." Editors are allowed to do things that violate consensus so long as they don't edit war. That's how we get a new consensus. ] (]) 13:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::No, Darkfrog. I was talking about , above on your talk page (in the section I was talking about). I sent you that message only a week ago. As for the consensus version issue, I stated what most Misplaced Pages editors state in their edit summaries when a consensus version is drastically changed. I was basically saying that there is a consensus version, and drastic changes going against it should be discussed first. Either way, I appreciate your help. ] (]) 13:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, I understood what you meant, but someone else who had it in for you could have used it against you. ] (]) 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm not sure what you mean. Does that message give off any kind of hate vibe? ] (]) 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::No, nothing like that. No hate vibe, but then there doesn't need to be one, does there? Look, Masculinity doesn't seem to have come back to gender (an interesting sentence if taken out of context), so I'll take a peek at his (I assume) user history, but right now, things seem stable. ] (]) 21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.
== ] article ==


The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:
Just letting you know that the pronoun game regarding this article is still being played. It may need to be semi-protected for some time. ] (]) 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:(siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh) ] (]) 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
::My most recent comment on your talk page, up until now, was above (in the section about the lead of the Gender article), but I'm sorry to have bothered you. I only felt that you should be alerted...since it is about one of your additions. I will not bother you again about that article. ] (]) 09:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 ] on ], 11 ], 18 ] nominations, and dozens of reviews;
== Your OR claim at gender ==
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Skyshifter}} with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on ] and ], 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on ], 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|AryKun}} with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on ], with a high number of bonus points from that article.


The full scores for round 3 can be seen ]. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 ] credits, and at least 285 ] credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to ] and ].
Acquaint yourself with the linguistic meaning of the word before claiming WP:OR: ]. ] (]) 10:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on ].
I suspect you meant to write that "bastardization" is from the prescriptivist POV. I've to ] instead, although in this case bastardization seemed a better choice because the departure is eminently from a prescribed meaning. ] (]) 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
:'''bastardize''': To lower in condition or worth, debase.
:I am actually a fan of prescriptivism, but the term "bastardization" strongly implies that the change is bad, and such an assertion does not belong in that article unless it is given as the opinion of an expert, obtained from a reliable source. "University of Someplace linguist Dr. Experty Credible considers this to be a bastardization of the word's meaning," etc. ] (]) 12:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see ]. Further questions are welcome on ] and the judges ({{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from ].</small> ] (]) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
== Manual of style register listed at ] ==
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1230783115 -->
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Manual of style register'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] 05:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks. ] (]) 15:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for August 12 ==
=="Mugging" other languages==
Your comment "English is the one that drags other languages into the alley, beats them up and then goes through their pockets for spare vocabulary" brought a chorus of laughter into our household and I have been directed to send it to literate members everywhere. Too bad there's not a "comment of the Month/Year" or whatever in Misplaced Pages. This would make the top of the charts! :) Thanks. ] (]) 23:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks! I didn't come up with it myself, though. It was on a t-shirt or something. ] (]) 16:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
== "Let us eat cheeses" and all that jazz ==


I had a feeling there was a Shakespeare influence to that. Indeed, I'd expect nothing less from thou. ] (]) 21:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC) (].) --] (]) 20:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)


== Think about this == == WikiCup 2024 August newsletter ==


The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:
Just step back and think about this comment of yours, in its context, after what I had said and others before me had said:
<blockquote>So you made a post saying, "I'm not making a post." It seems there might have been an easier way to do that.</blockquote>
Now think. Think for sixty seconds. Put yourself in my situation, right there. Imagine what preceded that situation for me, at ] and elsewhere. Now ask yourself: was that comment likely to contribute to a solution, or to a problem?


* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 ]s, 2 ], 7 ], and 13 ] nominations;
I don't want to see your answer. Frankly, I don't care what your answer might be. Even more frankly, I have no interest in talking to you at all. I just want that sixty seconds of your time. Then nothing more.
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Arconning}} with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|AirshipJungleman29}} with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on ] and 2 good articles; and
* {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|BennyOnTheLoose}} with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on ], 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.


Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen ]. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 ] credits, and at least 333 ] credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to ] and ].
<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
:If you had no interest in talking to me, you wouldn't have made this post. Just like if you had no interest in continuing the conversation on WT:MoS, you wouldn't have contributed to it. Noetica, you are in no position to criticize people for making posts that "don't help." As for what preceded that comment, it was me pointing out that you were the one who'd brought a source into the discussion and saying that you and PMA could keep talking all you wanted even if the rest of us were done. Your ''position'' was being defended by me.
:If you don't want to continue a conversation, then just stop and don't make a show of it. You are a drama queen. ] (]) 04:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on ]. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.
== Consensus on dashes ==


If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see ]. Further questions are welcome on ] and the judges ({{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from ].</small> ] (]) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at ], with discussion taking place at ]. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1241501495 -->


==Disambiguation link notification for September 3 ==
== RFC on a subpage structure for the Manual of Style ==


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


(].) --] (]) 19:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
As someone who contributed to discussion when the issue was raised a little while ago, you may like to have your say in ] on subpages, at ].


==Disambiguation link notification for September 10 ==
<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
:Been keeping loose tabs on it, actually. It seems six to one half a dozen to the other. ] (]) 18:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
==Voice of moderation==
Then feel free to be the voice of moderation. What I should like to do is to leave the page in the hands of the neutrals in the late poll - and remove the bloviators. I don't expect to get what I claim; but it should offer room for others to speak up. ] <small>]</small> 14:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


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


(].) --] (]) 19:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi. As someone who commented in the RfC, will you help out a little bit more with this article? There is still a lot of POV-pushing going on, as seen at ]. ] (]) 13:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for September 28 ==
== Answer ==


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
In answer to your prematurely archived question (I hate that overaggressive ] archivebot), the misquotation consisted of the truncation of my comments, terminated in a typesetters'-quoted period that implied that my statement had been a complete sentence. I almost lost my job over the issue, actually. This is relevant here, because it is extremely common for quotations in Misplaced Pages articles to be truncated in just such a manner. PS: While I can surely agree that "typesetters' quotation" and "logical quotation" are not the only possible names for these types of punctuation, I can't "extend the courtesy" that "American" and "British" are valid names, since they are inaccurate and misleading. That some people use them is of no consequence. A lot of people around here use the term "horny toad" to refer to the ]s common in the region. They're not toads, and herpetologists use the accurate name, as encyclopedists should use accurate terms for style matters, not emotive ones that unnecessarily charge the issue as a trans-Atlantic fight of some kind, which it is not. (If we were going to go there, the British would have a bigger bone to pick, e.g. with our use of double quotation marks, the US definition of "billion", etc., etc., etc.) It's about encyclopedic vs. journalistic style, and some level of consistency. (See my most recent comments at WT:MOS for another enc. vs. journo. issue). It's not something personal against you. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 16:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


(].) --] (]) 20:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:So you said something like, "It's Adam's fault in one respect." The newspaper wrote the equivalent of "It's Adam's fault " and you believe that the newspaper would not have been misquoting you if it had written "It's Adam's fault". I believe that both are misrepresentations of what you said and that both would have made your bosses mad at you. Think of it this way, if a wikieditor posted something like "It's Adam's fault" in an article, wouldn't you amend or revert it as inaccurate?
:You think that the terms "British" and "American" are inaccurate. '''Show me sources, as I have shown you sources.''' British punctuation is used by the majority of British writers and endorsed by the majority of British style guides, so calling it "British" isn't inaccurate. The same goes for American style. I was able to find sources supporting this in a ten-minute Google search. If you cannot find any sources saying that you are right, then please accept the possibility that you aren't.
:From what I've been able to tell, you and many others just like British style and just don't like American style, so you've convinced yourselves that British provides advantages that it does not really provide and that American creates problems that it does not really create. If you really liked logic as much as you claim to, you would accept that the most logical way to write is the way that will be understood and appreciated by one's readers. In that respect, there's not much difference between American and British punctuation.
:It's my understanding that non-Oxford British style prefers double quotation marks. By the way, I would support making double vs. single dependent on ENGVAR if someone can show me that the CTRL-F problem has been resolved.
:As long as Misplaced Pages permits multiple varieties of English, then the differences between those varieties are relevant to the MoS. I call them American and British because that's what they are. ] (]) 17:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
::I forgot about this thread, but am too stressed out to give you the owed reply right now. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]〈°⌊°〉</span> <small>].</small></font> 19:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


== WikiCup 2024 November newsletter ==
== Talkback ==


The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|AirshipJungleman29}}, who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|BeanieFan11}}, who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} with 879 points, {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Hey man im josh}} with 533 points, {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|BennyOnTheLoose}} with 432 points, {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Arconning}} with 244 points, and {{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|AryKun}} with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!
{{wb|User:SMcCandlish|RfC}} — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' &nbsp; <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]〈°⌊°〉</span> <small>].</small></font> 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Misplaced Pages has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
== Online resources about writing and speaking ==


All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
Editors can use this link to find online resources about writing and speaking.
*.
—] (]) 18:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:Why did you post this here, Wavelength? ] (]) 22:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
::I assumed that you, as an editor interested in writing style, would find it to be an interesting and useful reference.
::—] (]) 22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I am and it is, but it was odd to see it here out of the blue. ] (]) 00:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
::::I apologize for any confusion or misunderstanding. There was nothing in particular that motivated me to post it, except that I decided to let other editors know about that link.
::::—] (]) 00:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Generalissima}} wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
== Lead of ] article yet again ==
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Hey man im josh}} wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|MaranoFan}} wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Hey man im josh}} wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|BeanieFan11}} wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Fritzmann}} wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Sammi Brie}} wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|BeanieFan11}} wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
*{{Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Participant15|Muboshgu}} wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.


Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to ''']'''; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!
I don't remember if I stated that I would not bother you again about the Gender article or the ] article (I can't remember which one it is). But I decided to go ahead and give you a heads up about the recent discussion I started on the Gender talk page about the lead of that article. See for my reasons. I know that you object to downplaying biological/genetic influences that may play a part in forming one's gender identity, so yeah. ] (]) 22:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
==Talkback==
{{talkback|Talk:World_of_A_Song_of_Ice_and_Fire|The_Others|ts=08:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)}}
'''Yoenit''' (]) 08:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


<small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from ].</small> {{User|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User|Epicgenius}}, and {{User|Frostly}}. ] (]) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
== RFC on Article titles/Category naming ==
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1251151619 -->


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
I noticed your comments in ], and you seem to be saying that edits should be regarded on their own merit, even if they don't have an edit summary — that knee-jerk reversion of edits solely because they don't have an edit summary is not a good idea. Thanks.


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
I'm trying to help new editors choose appropriate article titles, ensure that article titles and category titles are reasonably consistent, and suggest that they do adequate research before large-scale renaming of articles. With that in mind, I made edits to ] and ] to make this clearer. However ] immediately reverted my edits, essentially because there was no edit summary and no extensive prior discussion on the talk page. After I rephrased the change to ], to make it clear that it was logically connecting the first section to the second section, he again reverted it. I explained the two separate points that I was trying to get across in two sections on the talk page and he combined them into ]. He does not see to understand the point about researching categories, as he himself admits, and is continuing to obstruct any editing for clarity. I'd appreciate your comments on the ]. ] (]) 02:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
<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.
:I'm not sure what article naming has to do with the issue of revert-for-sole-reason-of-summary but I'll have a look.
:After a very cursory look at the discussions you started on those two talk pages, I'm having trouble telling exactly what your position is. It is entirely possible that Dicklyon is not willfully misunderstanding you. I recommend restarting your discussion with an "I believe that this article should read X. This would improve it in way Y" rather than "I made a change that I think was good but it was reverted." The fewer clicks people have to make to find your point, the better. ] (]) 03:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


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>] (]) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
::TIA. One of my edits was about logically linking the contents of one section with the next. Quoting my addition to ], to explain the criteria for '''Recognizability''':
::Where there are several possible alternatives, ] can be used to research which is most frequently used, as discussed in the ].


::The other edit was to expand on the ''']''' criteria in the same section: It seems that most editors do not search existing Category names before naming or renaming Articles — most probably because it's not clear how to do this. I was attempting to emphasize that consistency between Article and Category names is generally a good thing, and link to a description of ]. ] (]) 04:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

::I'd appreciate if you have time to also look at the comments ]. ] (]) 09:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

::PS: I've spent quite a bit of time improving articles. The ] article was deleted soon after somebody created it, and I had it undeleted and have improved it such that it has gone from under 100 daily pageviews in January, when it was created and promptly deleted, to peaks of nearly 1800 daily pageviews now. For an article of 5,758 bytes, 66,327 pageviews in the past 60 days puts it on a par with the most popular articles on ]. ] (]) 11:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello, Darkfrog24, your vote would be appreciated. ] (]) 14:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)---Thanks! ] (]) 14:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

== MoS RfC ==

Hi Darkfrog, Noetica is saying that you also opposed Nathan's closure. Did you? He is using your support to justify his actions, and seems to be saying that we have to start from scratch with an entirely new RfC. Can you clarify whether you still oppose Nathan's closure, and if so why? It is being discussed . Many thanks, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, but it wasn't an objection to Nathan so much as to the RfC being closed by anyone. It's my understanding that closing an RfC removes the tag that invites new participants, and the discussion was not over. Frankly, although more than half of the people indicate that we should reinsert the contested wording, I'm not sure if that's what's meant by "consensus." Now if we could make it a little clearer that most of the ''evidence'' shows that reinserting the wording would be a good thing...
:I also told Noetica that he seems to be overestimating the amount of order required in an RfC. I've known some people in my time who thought that nothing was done right unless it was done exactly to their personal preferences. I don't know how people get that way. ] (]) 00:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

::The bot removes the tag automatically after 30 days; if you want the RfC to continue beyond that (which is unusual), you can change the date that the RfC was launched. Closing the RfC is a separate issue: that is where an uninvolved editor sums up consensus, or (where consensus is very clear and there are no objections) the person who initiates the RfC can do it.

::The last comment from a new person was on September 17, so there was no reason to keep it open beyond the 33 days on October 4. People can continue to discuss, but the point of the closure was to address the question: "is there consensus to restore those words?"

::As for Noetica's claims, I don't even understand what he's saying. Everything is wikilawyered to death, a pointless waste of time. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:::I was referring to the whole discussion rather than just the section covered by the tag. As for that discussion, I'd started a new section summing up the evidence on either side, and I'd gotten a response from Mikorado (one of only four editors who even tried to offer evidence; sad). I still have some hope that we might resolve something, but yes, this is WT:MoS and I'm taking said hope with salt.
:::Noetica loves the sound of his own voice and has been doing the twist with other people's words so hard that he should win a dance competition. Listen to people like Mikorado and Neotarf if you want to see lucid opposition.
:::Slim, we're in agreement about what the wording of the MoS ought to be, but I've said it to people on the other side of the aisle and it's still true: If you're tired, you can take a break or stop, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to.
:::Full disclosure? I thought that closing the RfC meant ceasing to request new comments, not that consensus would be declared by an outside party (in our favor). I might have still supported opposing said closure if I had known, but then again I might not have. After all, I'm not 100% that a majority vote is enough to declare consensus. ] (]) 00:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

== Yup ==

I've been having a rough night computer wise, and I believe there was an edit conflict where I probably did accidentally delete that comment, especially because when I added something it said that the page lost five hundred five characters. Before I could address that, I had to go cleanup another mess that my lousy internet connection started tonight and then I forgot about the ANI page until I saw your edit summary. Long story short, tonight has not been my best night for quality contribution and thanks for assuming good faith and restoring the comment. ] (]) 02:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
:It's cool. It happens. ] (]) 02:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

== What do you mean, I made a mistake? ==

I never reverted a thing there; all I did was hat stuff; first the main discussion, and in the latest edit, the recriminations at the top. All the back and forth changes reflecting the status of who closed the RFC and why were done by others. ] (]) 03:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
:I'll tell you exactly what I meant by "just made a mistake." I meant "didn't mean to claim that RegentsPark endorsed Kwami rather than Nathan." I was trying to keep anyone from accusing anyone else of bad faith. I thought that the ACTION: NO CONSENSUS tag at the top was an oversight rather than a claim. So you're saying that the hatting process attached itself to Kwami's statements rather than Nathan's automatically? ] (]) 03:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
::Noetica had already reverted, and Kwami's statement was at the top then. I didn't endorse anything, I hatted some stuff which had nothing to do with either Kwami or Nathan. You seem to have missed this revert by Noetica: 01:40, October 14, 2012‎ Noetica (talk | contribs)‎ . . (395,845 bytes) (-953)‎ . . (Again revert "re-closure" of a RFC (corrupt from the start) that was ended (delisted by the bot), then "closed", then "re-opened"(?), then further discussed, then "closed' after substantial new input that was ignored in the last unadvertised "closure")
::The only edit after that I did had this edit summary: "‎RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles: Hatting the recriminations at the top; start with RFC statement; This is not an endorsement of any version of this thread, including the latest; it is just a technical edit." It didn't change anything, just hatted some stuff which remains hatted to this minute. ] (]) 03:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
:::So no, you weren't trying to make it look like RegentsPark had endorsed Kwami instead of Nathan. You were not trying to trick, deceive or act sneaky in any way. It was just a mistake.
:::I raised the issue of what the hatting text should say on the talk page. I feel that because RegentsPark restored Nathan's closure, it is Nathan's words, not Kwami's, that should appear at the top of the hatted section. ] (]) 03:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

::::Ok, we are both using "hatting" to mean different things. By "hatting" I mean the hidden text in green with extended content with them. You can see two such, both are my edits, and they are still there. By "Rfc hatting" you mean the summary text at the top right, and I never changed that part; others did all the back-and-forth reverts. ] (]) 04:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Ah yes, I see. The greenification did show up before the edit that you made. For some reason, it looked like it was your doing. ] (]) 04:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Darkfrog, in connection with the discussion here please see ] at ].<br>Best wishes,<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
::I have been keeping an eye on that page on my own, Noetica, and I have been posting there about events on WT:MoS. ] (]) 14:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion==
]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "]". Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] <sup>''] / ]''</sup> 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

== RfA: thank you for your support ==

Darkfrog, thank you for your support and !vote at my RfA. Regards, ] (]) 06:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
:You're welcome, but not everyone who opposes your adminiship is what I would call non-collegial. ] (]) 14:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
::Yes, I agree with that, and I did not mean to suggest otherwise, Darkfrog. It's been a while, but I hope to work with you again in the near future. ] (]) 14:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Fingers crossed that all goes well. ] (]) 20:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Well, the RfA did not conclude with the hoped-for result, but I am very grateful for your late-breaking support, Darkfrog. I look forward to working with you again on topics of mutual interest. Warm regards, ] (]) 15:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::You're welcome. And don't worry. This isn't the end. ] (]) 18:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

==Spelling: ]==
The move discussion at ] was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at ] and ] to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the ]s are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- ] (]) 04:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:The unit of consistency on Misplaced Pages is not the Wikiproject; it is the article.
:The article "New York Theater District" isn't written for theater/-re professionals. It's written for general audiences. General English rules should apply.
:What you're really saying is that most Wikieditors just happen to like "theatre" more than "theater." But Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to be about what editors happen to prefer; it's about the sources, and the ''sources'' prefer "New York Theater District" more than 2:1. ] (]) 15:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
While it appears we are not going to agree on a number of issues and I still think you are edit warring (this is not something I like to report, and have no intention of doing) I would like to thank you for the civil back and forth and the RFC. This cannot be between just the two of us...however if no one does make comment or input (something I have seen before) I believe our next step would be a DR/N. However as I am a regular vlunteer there that would not be something I would eb comfortable oing and would have to recuse my self. I thought about participating the other day if it showed up, but I am not willing to create the perception of any conflict of interest. <s>I am stepping away from the discussion for a period to allow other input. I will return to the debate in the near future</s>.--] (]) 03:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
:]
:Whatever else can be said, the article is better sourced and more informative now than before you and I started changing it. That's not edit warring. That's Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
::I would hope someone who has been with Misplaced Pages as long as you have would be aware that edit warring could be a single edit. I am not sure that the section is exactly better but it has been worked on.--] (]) 05:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I would hope that someone who's been with Misplaced Pages as long as you can read policies before citing them. WP:V for one. ] (]) 05:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

== Moving other editor's comments ==

Per ]: ''Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.''.--] (]) 05:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

::1. Moving your comments did not change their meaning. They don't belong in the RfC section, so I moved them. Also, while you were reverting my entirely justified move, you ''deleted'' my comments. You have no business on that horse. ] (]) 06:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I apologise, but then you should not be attempting to control the discussion and you do not get to alter the meaning of my posts by moving them from the area the reply to. If i did accidently delete your comment with that revert it was not my intention, but you could well be accused of setting that up by moving and commenting at the same time. Please be more careful with such editing in the future.--] (]) 06:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Then it is fortunate that moving your posts to an appropriate place does not alter their meaning. They were moved intact and unaltered from an RfC section to a non-RfC section. Read WP:TPO again. It is even permitted to move irrelevant posts from one talk page to another. ] (]) 06:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
==ANI==
Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.

Resolution copied from page in question: ''Duke it out on your talk pages. ANI is not a first resort for every tiny bit of wikidrama someone invents on a given day. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)''

== Edit war warning ==

You are engaged in an edit war and have passed the 3 Revert Rule. Edit warring is a serious issue and may end in a block. Please do not edit war.--] (]) 05:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
:I went to the RfC talk page and asked what previous version of the page should count as the original. The idea that a no-consensus RfC means that the page goes back to your preferred version is no less preposterous than the idea that it should go back to mine. ] (]) 05:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. 22:55, 26 March 2013‎ ]

==Disambiguation link notification for April 9==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (]&nbsp;|&nbsp;]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 18:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

:I checked the link before adding it. I knew it was a disambiguation page. It was entirely intentional. Misplaced Pages does not have a page on "dork" as in socially inept person, but the disambiguation page does briefly mention its meaning before proceeding to the disambiguation. ] (]) 20:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

== Your helpful "WP:LQ" warning ==

How right you are and thanks so much for the note. I've gotten complete wind of this actually. Complete wind of it. It's clear you are well-informed as of relates to the contributors pushing WP:LQ. Honestly though, I kind of sensed everything you were saying even before your note. The difficult behavior, the incivility, the unreason, I totally sensed that the moment the Doniago user and Fantr started squawking about the policy needing to be followed. It seems to spark a domino effect of incivility and obnoxiousness to the point I just feel better off staying off the website altogether. Anyways, I'll only challenge it if I have the help of you though. You just know how certain users like WP:LQ pushers will take every opportunity from which to recruit their numbers and gang attack. If you go through with challenging it, I'll be there to back up. Just send me a note. ] (]) 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we're making at least some progress. ] (]) 01:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

:Really? What looks like that? Heh. Hope springs eternal. ] (]) 02:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Darkfrog, can this source be used or no on the talk page or no? :

::''Rule 1''

::''Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.''

::''Examples:''
::''The sign changed from "Walk," to "Don't Walk," to "Walk" again within 30 seconds.''

::''She said, "Hurry up."''

::''She said, "He said, 'Hurry up.'"'' ] (]) 21:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

:::This source is ''The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation''. It was written by an American English teacher rather than a grammar/language expert or team of experts. I'd put this as less important than a big-time style guide but more important than a blog, so put it at the bottom of the list for now. Remember: It's fair game for someone to challenge it. ] (]) 22:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened to this discussion on the MOS talk page? I was hoping for change on this policy. ] (]) 07:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
:It timed out. They do that. Someone else came in and challenged the rule again today, though. ] (]) 03:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

== Mail call ==

{{you've got mail}}
== June 2013 ==

] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
{{{!}} class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;" {{!}}-
! style="background-color: #FAA;" {{!}} <div style="font-size:112%;">List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page<span style="font-size:88%;margin-left:3em;">(Click show <span style="font-size:130%;">⇨</span>)</span></div>
{{!}}-
{{!}} style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; " {{!}} <div style="font-size:112%;">
*<nowiki>com/word/search.html?q=sex]''The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'' </nowiki>{{red|'''&#40;'''}}<nowiki>Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 5th ed. 2011, ''sex'', senses 2a and 4, accessed Jun 10, 2013</ref></nowiki>
*<nowiki>com/word/search.html?q=gender]''The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'' </nowiki>{{red|'''&#40;'''}}<nowiki>Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 5th ed. 2011, ''gender'', sense 2 and ''Usage Note'', accessed Jun</nowiki>
*<nowiki>gender/whatisgender/en/ ''What do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?'' (World Health Organization (WHO </nowiki>{{red|'''&#62;'''}}<nowiki> Programmes and Projects </nowiki>{{red|'''&#62;'''}}<nowiki> Gender, Women and Health))], as accessed Aug. 24, 2010 (no author or date & boldfacing omitted).</</nowiki>
</div> </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/02&oldid=1258243447 -->
Thanks, <!-- (1, 0, 0, -1) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 21:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for December 7 ==
== RfC re MOS quotation punctuation practices ==


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ].
Greetings, Darkfrog. As you already know, in order to clarify the meaning of RfC Option C per the request of several editors, the Option C description has been revised at the request of several editors. Because you have already !voted before this clarification, I ask that you confirm your previous !vote to address the concerns raised by Sroc on the MOS talk page. If you confirm your !vote (as I assume you will), please leave a comment here or on the MOS talk page to that effect.


(].) --] (]) 19:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
On a happier note, I am pleased with the coalescing of support around the Option B "flexibility" approach. Like you, it was not my first choice, but it is certainly an improvement and will lead to the majority of articles written in American and Canadian English using American style quotation punctuation. At the end of the day, it is a compromise with which I can live. ] (]) 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
:Already done, DL, already done.
:Yes, I agree. This isn't the best solution, but it's one that most parties should be able to live with. ] (]) 15:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for December 27 ==
I stand by my words "just plain wrong" -- and I mean intrinsically ''wrong''. If you refer to an album like ''"The Beatles"'', a comma has no place being put before those close-quotes. You wouldn't put close-brackets there, so don't put a spurious comma there. Oh, I'm fully aware that American practice is still a slave to the past, and the dead hand of dead style guides that nobody dares change. But it's still ''wrong'' -- the message just hasn't reached the dinosaur's brain yet. Well I am glad WP is standing up for common sense and putting a crack in this dam, a progressive step forward to challenging and ending this abomination. Kill it with fire. ] (]) 11:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
:Well then I'm afraid ''you're'' just plain wrong. You might decide that it made more sense to spell "freight" without the g, but you'd be wrong. The real common sense way to write is the way that will communicate effectively with one's readers, and no one's been able to show that American punctuation has any impairments in that respect. ] (]) 14:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


(].) --] (]) 19:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
==Refactored==


== Welcome to the 2025 WikiCup! ==
I Finell's entry and moved your response with the extended part, to a new discussion subsection, so that the basic schema of numbered entries will be preserved. I hope that's OK. ] (]) 05:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found ''']'''. If you have not yet signed up, you can ''']''' and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the ].
:It's fine. I figured Finell would do the moving, actually. ] (]) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented ] to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive ] at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.
== Your response at LQ ==

I believe that your comment should have gone in the discussions section. If nothing else than being against the rules that everyone is happily following, it risks buggering up the numbering and formatting, so I it. It's in its own little section so that nobody can miss it but it's "out of harms way", as they say. ;-) --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 09:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

:You sound well-meaning but I don't agree with this, OhC. SmC told a lie about me while referring to me by name. That gives me the right to respond where I see fit. ] (]) 11:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
::NO, there is no such thing as an inherent right. This may be a wiki, where some people can't stop talking, and the only way of making them stop is to have them blocked, but there are still 'local rules', such as where to put responses. So please stop fucking with them and with the collateral damage you re doing to formatting. Also, I notice that this is the ''n''th time you're reverted this change, so please consider this a warning in accordance with ]. Regards, --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 12:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
:::Where did this F-bomb-dropping anger come from? You say I don't have the right to respond to someone who tells lies about me, that there's a rule about this somewhere? Post a link to it please.
:::By "nth" do you mean "second"? Because it was the second. ] (]) 18:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

==Discussion at Talk:Alexis_Reich#Requested_move_16_September_2013==
] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} ] (]) 20:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC){{z48}}

==Lyme disease==

Hi Darkfrog24, thank you for adding the sentence about the ] to our ] article, and I'd encourage you to go even further. What I understand, even though the ticks are called "deer ticks," is that the mice are the actually most important in the life cycle of the tick. And that for the microbe, that we humans are a reproductive dead end for the ''Borrelia burgdorferi'' microbe! ] (]) 17:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
:I am limited by what is actually stated in the sources that I find. ] (]) 04:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::I wouldn't dream of asking you to do anything else. I was just hoping you may have read this more recently than I have, and may have a bead on a source. ] (]) 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
:::The source is a Connecticut State web site. It's a few years old. ] (]) 19:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
== Manual of style register listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Manual of style register'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Copyeditor's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I sincerely regret my clumsiness, which triggered needless acrimony. I value your contributions to the encyclopedia and admire your tenacity in the face of opposition. Please accept this barnstar as a gesture of apology and token of my appreciation. —] 21:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
|}

Apology accepted. These things can get heated. ] (]) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

== DR/N ==


The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: {{User4|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User4|Epicgenius}}, {{User4|Frostly}}, {{User4|Guerillero}} and {{User4|Lee Vilenski}}. Good luck! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from ].</small> ] (]) 00:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1266471891 -->
]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] (]) 04:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:13, 1 January 2025

Archiving icon
Archives

1


This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Invitation

WikiProject Zoroastrianism

We invite you to join WikiProject Zoroastrianism. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Zoroastrianism related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the other participants or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 22:55, 26 March 2013‎ User:Amadscientist

Mail call

Hello, Darkfrog24. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DR/N

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Adding IUCN status to taxoboxes

Thanks for adding status to the taxoboxes. However, when you do so, please ensure you also add the |status_system parameter, typically |status_system=IUCN3.1. I've fixed a couple of these entries as I've found them. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed a few more you've done recently, both for this issue and for others. Please see the edits I did and incorporate them into your future edits. Please acknowledge that you've read this. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raorchestes johnceei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reed.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raorchestes primarrumpfi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wattle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Misplaced Pages policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Splendid poison frog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ranitomeya amazonica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hyloxalus vergeli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Tribuna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hyloxalus edwardsi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cordillera Oriental.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hyloxalus shuar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Rosa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hyloxalus pulcherrimus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cordillera Occidental.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Misplaced Pages has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 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) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ameerega pepperi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Huallaga and Eddy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Allobates humilis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barinas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2025 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2025 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2025 WikiCup, we've implemented several changes to the scoring system. The highest-ranking contestants will now receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are now open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants will no longer be eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)