Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:03, 16 February 2010

Reverend

Please explain why you reverted my recent change to the Reverend article. The way I see it, it's a perfectly acceptable disambiguation link. You said that there's, quote, "No obvious reason for this link to be here". Isn't the fact that the referred guitar manufacturer has the same name an obvious enough reason? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Hatnote#Two_articles_with_similar_titles Indrek (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

You do have a point about The Reverend, but also notice how Reverend, which is an ambiguous word, redirects to The Reverend. There is an obvious confusion between "Reverend" and "Reverend Guitars". We could make Reverend into a disambiguation page, but the guidelines say that for words with only two different meanings, a hatnote is more appropriate. Hence my edit. I feel some disambiguation is necessary, as some users might go to Reverend expecting to see the article about the guitar manufacturer, or at least some sort of link to it, while there is none. Indrek (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Now, if there were multiple articles with "Reverend" in the title, then my suggestion would be to turn Reverend into a disambiguation page, linking to the individual articles which in turn are named unambiguously, like The Reverend, Reverend Musical Instruments, Reverend (singer), etc. The individual articles might, but needn't, have the "For other uses, see..." hatnote. Indrek (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick update - I've moved the article about Reverend guitars to Reverend Musical Instruments, seeing as that's the correct name of the company. Indrek (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

No problem. I'm happy we got this resolved in a civilised manner. Take care. Indrek (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

European University

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

Furthermore, European University is in the process of receiving two (2) more accreditations in 2010. I will not say which two before it happens. But they are very important accrediting body's, one is from Europe Union. Remove European University from the list of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, they are accredited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbal007 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Having done some further research I must give you the benefit of the doubt about this. The information on the ACBSP website is far from clear regarding its accrediting status but the CHEA website does seem to support what you've written. Other editors who know more about these issues may need more convincing, however. I apologise if I edited in haste. Afterwriting (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Troy McClure

Don't worry about it. That article has proved particularly problematic with regards to writing it as a fictional character, so any work you can do in that area would be great. Gran 14:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Anglican groups

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

Australian punctuation

What makes you think this edit has anything to do with differing national punctuation styles rather than differing personal choices about style? As best I can tell, you prefer compound predicates whereas the authors of the original versions preferred multiple independent clauses. Both, as far as I konw, are correct and common in all national variants of English. -Rrius (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because I'm actually an Australian ( unlike you ) with an academic background in linguistics and actually know something about standard Australian punctuation ( unlike you, obviously ). Anything else I can help you with? Afterwriting (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You just proved everything I needed to know. -Rrius (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mathew Stokes

Please do not replace uncited negative claims to biographies of living people as you did here. -- Mattinbgn\ 17:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your interpretation of BLP policies on your talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barracks-room lawyering. I would suggest that WP:V (a core policy of the encyclopedia) states clearly:

This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately."

It is unacceptable to simply slap {{fact}} tags on these articles; either source it or remove it. Reinstating unsourced material, even if removed by IP editors, is entirely unacceptable. If you were so confident it was accurate, you could have taken the time to source it properly before adding it back. Why should I, or any other editor, believe anything you add to an article if you are too lazy to bother adding a source. If you feel that including uncited information in Misplaced Pages is just dandy, then perhaps this is not the place for you. -- Mattinbgn\ 09:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

It should also be noted that the removed comments / information about Stokes are not in factual dispute regardless of how "negative" they may be - so it is arguable whether they are actually "contentious" as such. A "contentious" comment is one that is open to factual dispute or interpretation. The removed comments about Stokes were expressed in a neutral manner and accurately stated the basic facts about his charge. While comments about such things should still have references the removed comments are not "contentious" in the ordinary meaning of the word. Afterwriting (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Complaints about my being obnoxious and insulting are rich coming from an editor who started his reply to a polite request from me with "If you had bothered to actually take notice of my edits ..." Secondly, you added uncited information to the encyclopedia. How that can possibly be OK is a mystery to me and your attempts at self-justification are thin and an attempt to claim that black = white. You are responsible for all edits you make (even rollbacks and undo-s) and you made a conscious choice to restore uncited content to a BLP article that an IP editor (yes, IP editors are still allowed to edit here) had quite correctly removed, in line with WP:V. You made an assumption that an IP editor was vandalising the article, when in fact the IP editor was editing in full accordance with policy. The claim is quite obviously contentious, as it was removed from the article. While it is good editing practice, there is no requirement in policy to state a justification in an edit summary.

Your attempt to claim that it is A-OK to add uncited material if it is true to the encyclopedia flies in the face of one of the core policies of the encyclopedia despite your rather bizarre attempts to argue otherwise. All material is required to be accurately sourced, no exceptions - even for things that are "true". Unless a source is cited, why should anyone believe anything you (or I for that matter) add to the encyclopedia? don't see that we are likely to agree so further discussion is futile, but compulsory citing of sources is such a core feature of the project that your failure to understand it or agree that you are bound by it makes me wonder if this project is the right place for you. Good luck, Mattinbgn\ 20:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

3 reverts on Catholic Church

Hello, and welcome to the edge of the 3 revert zone. Please stop repeated reverts (over REALLY minor edits) that may lead to an edit war. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Eva Cassidy

Okay, I've looked at the source regarding whether or not Eva had one or two bootlegs, and the other editor is 100% right, there was only one official bootleg, so that has been corrected in the article, and should remain as such. On another note, please note that your behaviour on the article was edit warring, in that you were repeatedly introducing material without properly discussing the changes with the other editor, such behaviour is disruptive, and can lead to a block. Although your edits were clearly in good faith, you need to be carefull to check references and such like before undoing edits like that. Please let me know if you have any questions, kind regards, Spitfire 14:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please undo your latest change to the article, a boot leg is defined as "an audio and/or video recording of a performance that was not officially released by the artist". Thanks, Spitfire 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments about my edits are very mistaken. If you actually looked at my edits and my comments you will see that my edits were entirely proper and justified - and that I wasn't "repeatedly introducing material" at all. I can't believe that you have made such false claims - it's very poor editing on your part. You are also incorrect about "bootlegs" - they are unofficial recordings which are for public sale, they are *not* just privately owned recordings that haven't been released. The recording this person claims to own doesn't meet the standard criteria of what a bootleg is. Afterwriting (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please go here: http://www.evacassidy.org/eva/q&a.shtml do a Ctrl+F for " Live at Pearl's ", read, and then tell me how this is justified? Spitfire 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I will appreciate it if you ceased making false comments about my edits on another user's talk page. You are not helping matters at all and your behaviour is way out of line. Also, the "bootleg" in question *wasn't* "Live At Pearl's" - it was another recording that she claims she was trying to sell. Please get your facts straight - because you are getting the facts and the editing history completely confused. Just go back and look through the recent edits and you will see what I mean. Afterwriting (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The user in question changed the content to "There is one official bootleg, "Live at Pearl's"...", you changed it to "Two known bootlegs exist", (). If you think that two bootlegs exist (as your editing suggests), then please, tell what is the second one? If instead you have changed your mind and decided that your original opinon was wrong, as your latest edits suggest, then please, just say so. Kindest regards, Spitfire 15:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I have no further comment to make, you're increasingly failing to get the point, and it's pointless (nice pun, I know) for me to keep reinstating it. If you need proof of when you added the piece of text about two bootlegs existing then maybe you should look over my previous comment, which provides a diff. I also advise that you seriously consider improving your attitude in any future content disputes you may come into, shouting at me (excessively using exclamation marks and caps lock), calling me irresponsible, accusing me of lying and generally behaving in a rude and incivil manner all have a negative impact on any attempts to peacefully resolve this dispute. I will not be replying to you again on this page, if you really need a response from me then please ask on my talk page. Kindest regards, Spitfire 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking the time to revert the vandalism on Catholicism. If it starts up again while I'm online I'll protect the page. Tom Harrison 14:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)