Misplaced Pages

Autopatroller

Hi Hmains, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Misplaced Pages:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — ξ 21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

hold for cat discussion until find example

There are some categories that are used only for categories, and never for articles. Some of these categories have been made into 'hidden' categories, and yet they are never in fact 'hidden' since the hidden feature only applies to articles and not categories. So the hidden category always displays on the category screen as 'hidden'--which is obviously a contradiction. I suggest, that category categories not be classified as hidden. When I have tried to remove the hidden classification in such cases, someone always just adds it back in. Without something said in this categorization guideline I have nothing much justify my removal.

etc

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Categories

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring 2011! Mifter (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

• Oh! Well, thank you very much. Appreciated. Hmains (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

List of federal political sex scandals in the United States

Hi Hmains. I was finishing up correcting the reverse chronology on List of federal political sex scandals in the United States when I saw your edit. My understanding of MOS:LIST is that chronological order is generally preferable. I suppose I didn't think it was a radical change at all. I can bring it to the talk page if you'd like, but thought I'd check with you here first. Cheers, Gobonobo 23:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice note. I am not sure whether chronological necessarily implies the order (most recent first or last) or just implies the use of dates in some fashion. In the case of this list and the related lists found in the See Also section, I believe they are all most recent first. This would be in keeping with interest of the readers of such articles, I suppose. They are looking for current scandals, not 200+ year ago ones. I would not think, however, this order would be found or appropriate in actual history articles. In most lists such such content is placed in sortable tables where the reader can sort the entries to whatever order they want. I am not, however, suggesting a table would be good for the mostly narrative content of these particular articles; I am neutral on that, but some editors might argue for it as a good thing. Hmains (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you pointed me to the related lists in the See Also section. I can see the rationale for a reverse chronological order in these types of lists. I agree that there is not a clear need for a sortable table here. The quick follow up is appreciated. Thanks, Gobonobo 23:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel fine to restore any simple NPOV material that is found in the sources withou editorial interpretation--but most of Rickrah's edits are simple POV syhnthesis attacing people's votes he disagrees with--the burden is on him who restores the edits to avoid synth and BLP violations. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, wide changes are not agreeable. Deal with several at a time that have the same problem and your edits will be understood. Blanket statements of problems just is confusing and seems like the synthesis in another form that you object to. Improvement comes gradually, not wholesale. Hmains (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Misplaced Pages. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste {{User:Invest in knowledge/mdx}} to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing quotations

With respect to your recent edit of Prideaux Castle, perhaps I am mistaken, but it was my understanding that one does not edit a direct quotation for style, but only for accuracy. If there is something really odd, then one uses a sic. Some editors might actually find the original style more nearly correct, I ween.

Perhaps it would be clearer that the paragraph in question is a quotation if the entire article consistently used the {{cquote}} template instead of mixing it with <blockquote>. It appears a bit tricky to construct a clear reference for this quotation, since it is in a frame on a page.

• Sometimes I cannot see the quote marks, try as I do. I reverted my edit. Hmains (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

following is vandalism

That's how it is. You condescending hispanophobic leftist bigots just want us to "know our place" and blindly obey your self-righteous ignorance. No. You can go to Hell. I'm going to make certain that all your kind loses every shred of authority and that you are never allowed to dictate the identity and lives of others ever again. That goes for your precious illegal alien slave labor as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.254.164.64 (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Wafah Dufour for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wafah Dufour until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Talkback

GedUK  20:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Great work in Arkansas

Thanks Hmains (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Populated places in Russia

I support your move on 3 July 2011. I see no substance in the reversal of 5 July 2011. The category has been renamed last week. So I really think the article should fit into the general WP terminology. Details at Talk:Types of inhabited localities in Russia#Move to Types of populated places in Russia. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)