Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:38, 2 September 2013

Archives

Index 2009 2010.1 2010.2 2010.3 2011.1 2011.2 2011.3 2012.1 2012.2 2012.3 2013.1 2013.2 2013.3 2014.1 2014.2 2014.3 2015 2016 2017 2018

Shay Carl

I know about WP:BLPREMOVE, but the YouTube statistics are not about the actual person and the numbers are not potentially defamatory material. Please just tag the entries as requiring sources, and we'll work on this. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Shay Carl article isn't as bad as some others I've had to remove VidStatsX references from. Some use the website for channel rankings, which is potentially defamatory material because it is potentially wrong, stating a person is more or less popular than they actually are. 117Avenue (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Vidstatsx

I have reverted your edits on Natalie Tran. I see that you're on a quest to remove Vidstatsx as a source on wiki, and you removed a lot of data from the Natalie Tran article based on that data. I have read the discussion at WP:RS. While I think you may be factually right, I don't think you have consensus for these mass removals and I'd like to open a discussion to figure out what we can do to resolve the issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the article's talk would be a good place for such a discussion. 117Avenue (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

But no one has joined me there yet. 117Avenue (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I would take this issue to the noticeboard but there was a small response last time. I think I'm going to post an RfC to get community input. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:ETS LRT future

Please review. Thanks. Useddenim (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

What purpose would it serve? All of the station articles are linked to from Template:ETS LRT route. 117Avenue (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolute overkill! Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Purpose? As mentioned elsewhere, you kept removing references to future expansion ( ) from the existing template, so rather than get into an edit war I created a second template. The advantages of an RDT over a .png (or even .svg) map are the ease of updating and to ability to wikilink. Just because you don't like someone else's contribution is no reason to have it deleted. Useddenim (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That was the issue? The solution to an edit war is discussion, not forking. I replaced the stations with links to the article sections where the future expansion is explained. I see no need to expand the route diagram beyond what exists, it is like a navbox filled with entries that don't have articles. You should have just brought this up when you thought you disagreed with me instead of going to the trouble of writing a new template. I had no idea we had a disagreement. I just wanted to know what you had in mind for the template when you asked for my thoughts on it. 117Avenue (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that was it. Close both deletion proposals with Keep? Useddenim (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been convinced to change my vote on Template:ETS LRT future. 117Avenue (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing old talk discussions

Regarding this, shouldn't these old threads be archived rather than removed outright. Perhaps you did archive and I'm just not seeing it in a quick view of contribution history. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Back in 2009, when I was still a young Wikipedian, I redirected Template talk:ETS LRT route to Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit. This was wrong, so I "unmerged" the talks by moving my section to the correct talk page. The other sections didn't seem to be that important, without signatures or replies. 117Avenue (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Column formatting

See this edit summary. Do you know a way to tighten up the two columns yet maintain a little bit of whitespace between them? Hwy43 (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Make a table (still with {{col-begin}}) that isn't 100% of the page width. 117Avenue (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Hwy43 (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert on VGHS episodes

You reverted my edit on the episode list of VGHS because it missed a source. However, I linked a tweet of one of the show's authors as a source, which was already used on that page as a source. Please undo your revert. (@wiki community: reverting a new users' last 3 edits without a correct reason is rather dismotivating. No wonder you have problems finding new editors). Denvercoder9 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw the tweet, and it did not say the title of the episode. Please don't add poorly sourced content. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, copied wrong tweet nr. Sorry. Denvercoder9 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

also, if you revert with "source doesn't support claim" or something next time, that's a lot more helpful than a generic message. Denvercoder9 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It looked like the common vandalism that page has seen. 117Avenue (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Come on...

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You know that this report is completely out of line. As far as I can see the user just seems misguided at most, not deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. – Connormah (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The user is distruptive, breaking live templates, replacing and substituting templates under discussion, without entering in the discussion, and adding massive amounts of unreferenced and speculative information. 117Avenue (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The user at best, as I said seems like a misguided one with good faith intentions. The WP:BITEing and lack of good faith doesn't seem to be helping. – Connormah (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hi. Thank you. I will check it. PO. P.P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PO. P.P. (talk • contribs) 19:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Stephen McNeil

Hi 117Avenue, I'm glad someone else has noticed what's going on in this article. I've been trying to keep it neutral, but there appears to be a number of newly registered accounts, only editing this article and only editing to paint the subject in a positive or negative pov. There was even another new account editing today, and another one who would like to turn the article into an NDP campaign ad. As for the business ownership, I actually found a CBC news profile from the 2009 election that clearly stated over 18 years, but was shot down on the talk page in favour of search engine home page. That number corresponded would what was found in the subjects official bio, so I would think that the CBC article would be more sourcible than a search engine home page and what an editor heard on television. I know I don't have to ask, but if you could keep an eye on this and some other articles related to the not-yet called election, it would be a great help. I expect with the election on the horizon, the "campaigning" will pick up speed. Cmr08 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

As soon as I saved, I noticed the talk page edit you made. It never crossed my mind to do that, thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that template really does anything, but it's there. 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Geoff Regan article

Hi,

I changed the Geoff Regan article because it had incorrect information relating to the use of "the Honourable". The article states "the Honourable is a "pre-nominal". "Pre-nominal" if it is a word, something I strongly doubt, would be an adjective used to describe something not a title or style. "The Honourable" is a style in the same manner as "Her Majesty" or "His Grace".

I would be happy to make the necessary alterations.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.113.129 (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you added a reference to a the Career section title with your rationale. References are reserved for citations, and comments on your edit should only go in the edit summary, after making the edit. 117Avenue (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Valley line

Why do you have to mess with any new pages that I create? Does it really bother you that much to have one extra line? And if so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useddenim (talk • contribs) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Like any editor I come across that hasn't edited according to Misplaced Pages policy and MOS, I look into their other edits for articles that may require cleanup. I know that sounds bad, but I am trying to improve Misplaced Pages, like everyone else. MOS:DAB states "do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name". Are all the entries at Valley line referred to as valley line? If not, that page has more than one extra line. If so, a reader will look for what else he or she knows about the valley line they are looking for, like: "Is it a commuter?", "Does it serve south London?", "Is it in Mole Valley?" I don't think that these search terms need to be in alphabetical order to fulfil the requirements of a disambiguation page. Readers can scan the page and see a "Mole Valley Line", and be directed to the article they are looking for. 117Avenue (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)