Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:29, 22 July 2007

Archives

/2005 - 2006 /Jan - Jun 2007

As a conscientious editor ...

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Misplaced Pages, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here - especially as you're one of the Saints rather than sinners and without some knowledgeable, level headed editors like yourself it may be doomed to failure...Gaimhreadhan • 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

Hi Bastun. I am trying to keep out of a certain editor's way as much as possible to protect what remains of my sanity, but as you were involved in the discussion above I'd be interested in your take on the usage "X was a Member/Volunteer..." which seems to have crept into a few articles. I would propose that the form volunteer would be more in keeping with the MedCab resolution (as I read it) and also with our MoS. Finally, I'd be interested in your take on this edit; my understanding obviously differs from that of this user's. It may seem like a fairly trivial stylistic matter, but I think it's a shame to go through all the good work that seems to have been done in MedCab only to have the result (apparently) misrepresented like this. Any light you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, --John 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The cabal consensus decision was pretty unambiguous - lower case 'v' (with a piped link as you suggest being absolutely fine. Bastun 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what is refered to as incorrect. p.s. why would you ask Bastun?--Vintagekits 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I took part in the debate, why wouldn't he ask me? Can I remind you of the decision?

Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article. Please do not modify it. Shyam (T/C) 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty clear. Bastun 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Lower case "v" should be used for the time being" - clear as day!--Vintagekits 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The time being hasn't been finished, or finalised, or overturned by consensus. So lower case 'v' it is. Bastun 23:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually thats incorrect - you cab go to the talk page it you want to change that.--Vintagekits 23:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Show me where a timelimit was agreed, or where a decision was reached to change the cabal outcome? All I'm seeing on the talk page is 'closed - do not alter...' and the box on the project page says:

State: Closed

Comments: Concensus has been listed above.

That's pretty unequivocal... Bastun 00:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why I am even discussing this with you - you've nothing to do with it - I'll let Tyrenius confirm the state of play as your opinion is insignificant in relation to this.--Vintagekits 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're discussing it with him because he is an interested editor, whose opinion is as valid as anyone else's. Rudeness is not required, so please cut it out as a habitual mode of communication with other editors. Tyrenius 12:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See the end of Talk:Volunteer_(Irish_republican)#The_capital_.22V.22_or_little_.22v.22_debate. This puts Vk in the clear for his usage of V since on that article - no one responded to his final statement in that talk page section. However, it hasn't achieved a consensus as such which can be enforced, so it is open to further debate still. Tyrenius 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) See Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Volunteer (IRA). --John 14:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For repairing vandalism to my user page. --John 18:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for that.--Domer48 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was Gold's edit reverted. I'm I gold too? Now there were five editors material removed and golds makes six, are they all me? Why is that not reverted? Why request a bolck with thoses editors material removed? --Domer48 18:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert anyone, so no point asking me :P As regards the "5 editors", that's stretching things a bit - I think some of them were minor enough edits, e.g., correcting typos? Its common practice to request a block when an edit war is underway (and indeed, more grounds for it with the ArbCom case). Which version is the one that gets locked is irrelevant (as is made clear by the template that gets put on the page). As far as I understand it, it'll be whatever one is there when/if an admin locks it, but that has no bearing on which is the "proper" one - that gets debated on the Talk page and consensus rules. Regards, Bastun 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

RE. Blatantly Incorrect edit summary

Having received an explanation on the background to my first edit from User:sony-youth I have recognised where all the suspicion and accusations have come from but I just thought I should point out to you that in my eagerness to edit a page successfully, I took my time and copied and pasted the introduction from the page and essentially tinkered with the formatting, my contribution and previewed endlessly, several days in fact, before I posted my edit and was totally unaware that the page had moved on from what it had been when I started. As User:sony-youth pointed out to me in the above explanation I had reverted to a version of the page editted by User:Domer48 and so I have concluded through searching the history of the article that the version of the page I was working from was possibly this one and considering that from my view it is evident that I merely added some 400 bytes nowhere near the 70kb you suggested. However I can totally see how from your view the changes were substantial. Therefore I accept your view that my summary appeared incorrect, however I would also like you to accept that from my perspective it was a small contribution and my edit summary was in no way intended to deceive or misinform anyone on WP and please take WP:NEWBIES into consideration. Kind regards --Pappin76 04:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC) PS besides the confusion was there anything else wrong with my edit any advice on my contribution would be welcome

Unlock on Article

Hello Bastun, I have agreed with Sony to remove a quote on the Famine article, could you request to have the article unlocked. Thanks--Domer48 13:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)