Misplaced Pages

Hey

You asked for references that refer to the event as a war. I provided four sources, and I could have provided more. Now, you're trying to create a stupid technicality? Are you serious? B-Machine (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since discussion has not ended, and noone has come up with a consensus continued reversion is edit warring. Not to mention your persistence in reverting throughout the discussion and not heeding warnings not to do so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. B-Machine (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Reply

I am sorry If I have made a mistake. I removed it when I noticed, that the article has been improved and rewritten several times since the template was added, so maybe it is no longer necessary? --85.226.42.215 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the edits done since the tag was placed December 2009, and although some literature has been added and some of the sections has been expanded, the article is still badly in need of citations. However the "Expert"-tag is probably not needed anymore, so I replaced it with a "Citations"-tag instead. I would encourage you to use edit summary in the future, especially when removing tags, it can easily be misunderstood by others when done without any explanation. Cheers.--Saddhiyama (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem

I would be very grateful if you could tell me what your problem is. Thanking you in advance.Harrypotter (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I expect you are referring to my reversal of your edit? The interwiki-links that you added to the unbelief-article was more or less the interwikis that was already tied to the en-wiki infidel-article. And I see no good reason why they suddenly had to be changed to the "unbelief" article when "infidel" is clearly the correct translation for them (at least for the interwiki-articles that I understand, which is about half of them). "Unbelief" is not the English equivalent of "vantro", "infiel", "ongelovige" or "hedning", but "infidel" are, and I suspect the same goes for the rest of the interwiki articles that you added. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:7mike5000

Any idea why he would use your username here? (Towards the bottom) --S.G. _ping! 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why. He seems to have copied an edit of mine from April 9 2009, but why he has done that I don't know. By checking the user page of User:TeamZissou to whom my edit was a reply I can see that he has a history with that editor, so perhaps there is a connection there? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the ANI which prompted your question, and as far as I can see 7mike5000 is using my statement as a quote in his argument with TeamZissou to prove that "a smart mouth isn't uncommon for ". I would have preferred not to be dragged into that conflict, for my part any disagreement I might have had with TeamZissou is a closed chapter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, Anthony seems to have sorted it now anywho. Thanks, S.G. _ping! 17:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Of possible interest

of possible interest --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo Casanova

My supposed edit of this person, I'm sorry but I've never even heard of this person never mind looked at his wikipedia page. During the supposed time of this edit 20th July, the internet wasn't working in our house, our hub was broken and we had no access, so quite how someone was able to access the internet using this IP I don't know. Very strange. I can assure you, it wasn't from someone in our house. Our connection is encrypted as well. Could the IP have been assigned to someone else during this period due to the internet not being active in my house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.159.89 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Just checking through past edits. Up until 18th of August our household IP address was 86.134.153.191, you can view my recent edits and it's only since some period beyond the 18th of August has the IP address of my house been 86.134.159.89. So on July 20th, the IP 86.134.159.89 did not belong to our house and was someone elses.

It is ok. No need to worry about it. IP-adresses are not necessarily reserved for the same computers, so it was most likely made from another user on another computer who used that IP-address at the time. At Misplaced Pages we acknowledge this, so warnings on the talk-page of IP-users that are older than a month are not cumulative and can generally be considered as void. However, if you want to avoid warnings to your IP-user address from edits that you did not do, I would encourage you to make an account. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Attack pages

Thanks for tagging Max Chopper Liebow just now; but there is a better way to do it. For an attack page, what you should do is blank the whole page (to get it off the screen quickly) and replace it with {{db-attack}} - or {{db-atk}} or {{db-g10}} which are equivalent. That puts it in a high-priority queue for admin attention, and also generates a suitably fierce warning for you to copy to the attacker's talk page. Generally, for speedy deletion nominations, you should use one of the standard templates like {{db-person}} or {{db-band}} or {{db-copyvio}} which are listed at WP:CSD. If there isn't one that fits, then the page is probably not speediable and may have to go to PROD or AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful tips. I must admit that the idea that it was an attack page had not occurred to me, I thought it was more along the lines of a hoax or something in that vein. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: What is vandalism and what isn't

Look, I know that the edit we're fighting over isn't exactly productive but Rcool35 is not an editor per say. He is a banned vandal who has done many malicious edits to hip-hop articles and articles pertaining to the Mexican War. His user page and the link in my IP linking directly to a list of IP's he uses should be useful. I'm generally warry of his edits because most of the edits to articles pertaining to the Mexican War are not helpful or useful at all, even the edits he does to hip-hop articles mainly contribute of edits that violate WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:NPOV. He's even threatened to be affiliated with the Mexican Gangs and kill me.

Looking back, I did not realize that the edit I reverted too was vandalism, so I guess it's not Rcool35. However, he is not a Misplaced Pages user per say, he is a vandal who ultimately hinders Misplaced Pages and shows no signs of ever being a community member anytime soon. Again, sorry for the inconvience. Taylor Karras (talk | contribs | Rcool35) 11:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference Desk removal

When you delete a response of mine (), could you please leave a not on my talkpage, so that I know where it went, who deleted it, and why? Thank you. Buddy431 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Library_of_Congress

Just so you know I've decided to remove my words about Shias in that discussion.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxes to the article.

Oh, I was just seeing whether people would be blinded by the references. Nefesf9 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tolerance

Tolerance of error is not nonsense. The are many scientific studies that have a margin of error. Tolerance allows for many errors. I would appreciate you reverting the change you have done to the post on Tolerance on Sunday, September 19th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.195.38 (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to revert. Stating that "In general usage, "tolerance" is the allow something to stay even if it is slightly wrong." implies a value judgement that is not part of the general concept of tolerance, and is thus a wrong interpretation of the term. I will retract my warning though, as I can see that your edit was made in good faith. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How kind and tolerant you are of my "error". You have just proven to be merciful but not tolerant because you have reverted the correct statement under the guise of kindness. I know that you have no idea what is mercy, judgement or tolerance. But who cares, right, you are TOLERANT or INTOLERANT!??? There is a right and a wrong whether you agree or not. See Absolutes if you need philosophy, Mr Grand Budda that does not exist. Have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.195.38 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take the discussion to the talk page of toleration, you will need to establish consensus before adding your changes to the lede of that article. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tiiischiii and Talk:Lovejoy

Hello. Thank you for informing me of the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have posted a response. --Tiiischiii (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Chain

Thanks for speedy-tagging this. Most detected hoaxers just fade away, but this one actually asked why it was deleted. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Catherine II of Russia

The overview section on the article Catherine II of Russia was not needed, and I will post a valid reason for deleting it. Please don't revert it again. --Calthrina450 (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a disputed move, you will need to post your reasons for deleting it on the talk page of the article before you delete it again.--Saddhiyama (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Reason for volunteering on the Reference Desk

I really liked your statement of the reason for volunteering on Reference Desk: the enjoyment of acquiring and sharing knowledge. That's exactly right! My feeling exactly. Marco polo (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I am pleased that there are others sharing those sentiments. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, thanks for adding text to Peter Collett (writer). That's a good thing. However I used a specific source and when you inserted text right before it, it now looks like all of the information comes from that source. Which it does not. But I went ahead and fixed it. And oh, thanks for making the category too. Geschichte (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I figured your citation was only meant to source the last part about the emigration. There is a more detailed source in the Danish Biographical Dictionary article to be found here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ref desk

"OP"

What does "OP" mean? Does it mean "operator"? HeyMid (contribs) 12:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for being unclear. It means "original poster". It refers to User:Voluptuous Nature. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, but I felt unsure, as you are not the only one who mentions that abbreviation. HeyMid (contribs) 13:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ref desk

It's OK that you removed my answer, although it had some proper link it to a relevant article. Quest09 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :)

That works better. Do you reckon it may even be worth listing the case in the introductory paragraph? Egg Centric (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure it belongs in the lede in such detail, but it would certainly work better to incoorporate the information in the actual article text somewhere, instead of having it in the citation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How's about that? Looks like quite a lot needs doing to that article! Egg Centric (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You are the one violating the wiki guide line

The passage in dispute is unsourced and controversial. If an unsourced passage comes into dispute you should delete it first until the original writer comes with a reputable source. -- Baiyaan (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)baiyaan

Since you did not state any reason for your deletion of the sentence until you had recieved your third warning for unexplained deletion, the reversion of your edits was completely acceptable. You have still not taken the issue you are objecting to to the article talk page, instead you have chosen a course of personal accusations against the editors that reverted you. This is the last time I ask you to take the issue to the article talk page, and explain your problem with the specific sentence there. Who knows, I may even agree with you, but until know I have not had a chance to decide on the matter, since you haven't explained what the actual problem is. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Touch Screen Page

I confess that I do not understand your reasons for undoing my edits on the history of touch screens. You state "We need reliable secondary sources for this claim, not primary sources". Perhaps we have a terminology problem here. Secondary sources are hearsay. Primary sources are the original source. So, despite my citing two articles from the peer reviewed literature that clearly extablish the history and precedence of invention, you choose to give priority to information based on a secondary (that is, hearsay) source from a journalist who got her information verbally, with no documentation, from a sales person from a company started by the person who was previously (and then restored by you) credited with invention 6 years after the actual invention appeared in the literature.

I do not understand. But, perhaps it is because my wording was not clear. Based on that assumption, repectfully, I have undone your your UNDO, and then editted my text so as to more clearly cite and explain my primary sources.

What I would ask is that if you are contemplating reverting back to the previous text, that you first contact me <email redacted> in order to explain your rationale.

Be clear, we both want the same thing: for the entry to be as accurate as possible, with what is stated backed up by credible references that support the assertions made on the page.

Thanks. Bill Buxton Wasbuxton (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages applies reliable secondary sources in order to avoid original research and synthesis. That means we mainly have to rely on secondary (or "hearsay" as you put it) sources for our information. This can pose problems with topics that, for some reason or other, have only superficially or not at all been the subject of newsreports or academic studies. This is a problem that seems especially prevalent when it comes to articles on technology. Your cited source is certainly reliable, and for certain information it can also be considered a secondary source. But concerning the question of who came first, simply because it does not itself concern itself with this question, to extrapolate that information from it would constitute synthesis.

However, since the Misplaced Pages article is poorly sourced as it is, and rules should not prevent us from improving the encyclopedia, I would not mind it being used as a source for that information, until hopefully you or someone else finds a better (reliable and secondary) source.

Btw I have redacted your email, as we do have examples of visible email adresses on Misplaced Pages have been targetted by spammers. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Points well taken. I have a magazine reference to the system that is not written by the inventor and will add. All the best. Thanks. Bill Buxton Wasbuxton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC).

@reversal of "Intellectual"

The basic definition of intellectual is incomplete and needs to be changed. If you do not like my addition than please write it in your own words but intellectual is commonly referred to an intelligent thinker without experience. A doctor would not be an intellectual since the doctor has a profession. One that is not a doctor but thinks intelligently about medicine would be an intellectual. Thanks.

Btw, Im an intellectual and not a professional in many fields so Im very knowledgeable of the definition at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but we don't use "commonly referred to" or personal experience as sources in Misplaced Pages. We need reliable secondary sources. Your edits has been challenged, so it is up to you to find sources that corroborate your claims in order to achieve a consensus for the addition of them to the article. You are welcome to use the talk page of the article to discuss this and present your sources there. Thanks. PS: I have struck my warning, since your edit seems to have been made in good faith. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Atheism

I have done what you asked. You can read my point in the discussion. Gregghouse (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Konguboy

Hello. Even after warning & blockage, this user is still editing Tamil Kshatriya page without any discussion. It is not normal... Is it possible to fully protect this page (in its initial version) ?Rajkris (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

countries not entirely in Europe

Thanks for our message and apologies for terse posting. My question is specifically related to the article content: why are France and Spain not in blue font on the map? Brownturkey (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Offtopic AFD comments

(I moved it here from the AFD since you weren't commenting on the article)

Isn't this an example of a user violating their topic ban? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no restrictions at all, and haven't had for a while, the admin got it wrong.Rememberway (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. However you did get a friendly piece of advice. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a bog-standard dicdef, and I'm under no restrictions.Rememberway (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Valeriy Borchin

Borchin cheating news was a mistake. The names given of the cheaters initially named Borchin but it was actually Viktor Burayev who was caught for cheating. Hence the news initially named Borchin as one of the race walkers banned.

Initial reports were WRONG.

http://olympics.scmp.com/Article.aspx?id=2747&section=latestnews

The 3 banned walkers were: Kanyakin, Burayev and Voyevodin. This directly relates to the 2008 doping incident hence why Borchin was allowed to compete and keep his medal.

This information on the page is highly speculative. If he was doped he would have been banned. Simple as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrosian63 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so, I don't know the particulars of the case. But instead of just deleting the entire sourced section altogether, you will need to rewrite it to reflect this turn of events. And remember to include reliable sources to back up your edits. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages talk:Twinkle

Sorry about that. Donno what happened there. I didn't mean to step on your toes there. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. From reading your post above mine I figured you had some problems with Twinkle as well and that it was just part of the test process. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this Problem?

You deleted this http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides#Worldpremiere_Johnny_Depp_12.05.2011_Westfield_London? 62.200.86.169 (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, and as has been explained to your previously, you should not use the discussion page of an article for insertion of material (relevant or irrelevant to the subject matter). The discussion page is solely for discussion of the article. If you are collecting information for adding to the article you should register an account and make a page for it in your own userspace. That way you can keep this information as long as you want and noone will bother you about it. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted revert

hi. By doing what you did, you were arguably in violation of WP:Bold and WP:OWN. And the general recommendation of simply NOT reverting simply because you personally don't like it or "don't think it's necessary." If it's a) good-faith, b) accurate, and c) sourced (I was planning on putting references to that soon), then technically just blatantly reverting just because of personal taste is arguably a violation of WP policy. The suggestion is simply NOT to revert. Especially without discussing it. You don't own this article, so it does NOT MATTER that you don't think a table or timeline is "necessary". It's already understood that the facts and and points are in the rest of the article. NO KIDDING. So what? I'm well aware that they're all in the rest of the article itself. But for a quick run-down and reference, for casual readers, or those who may not have time to mill through whole article...something like that is arguably useful. What's the big problem with it, to warrant disrespectful deleting of hard work in putting it there? The fact is deleting is actually against WP policy without talking first... Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have written to you about bold, revert, discuss on your talk page. While I understand your frustration about others not appreciating fully something that may have taken you a long time to put together, I would also like to suggest you to be less personal about these kind of disputes, it is more constructive in the long run. Thank you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit could have and should have been left alone. That's really the bottom line. It was accurate, good-faith, and (was gonna be sourced minutes later). Imposing personal tastes, and removing whole edits, willy nilly, is not cool or respectful, and arguably even violation of WP policy and recommendation. Also, I notice that there's a lot of politics within Misplaced Pages. Meaning, for example, that if you and I had a pre-RAPPORT in the past, and did edits together on this, and if you knew me, and liked me, and we were online friends, and trusted me, and we were cool with each other, and vouched for my other edits, etc etc....I can ALMOST guarantee that if I put the SAME timeline again, you probably would have left it alone. (Most likely). Because a lot of what goes on is personal politics and relations, and rapport and inter-working build-ups, etc. Which is understandable in a way. Since we're all human. I'm just saying... Side-point. Anyway, regardless, bro...I meant NO harm to the article at all, and it's already understood that the facts are already there, in the rest of the article. Timelines are NOT to add to but to give a quicker reference, for people who may not have time to mill through whole article. They're handy and useful. With no real "need" to be removed. Also, again, check out WP:0RR. Click that and see what it says. Interesting stuff. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am quite sure you meant no harm to the article, and I was also careful to state in the edit summary that yours was a good faith edit. The problem was not the lack of citations, but that I deem the chronological table superflous and frankly unencyclopedic. The removal however did not violate any policies, and was completely within the bold, revert, discuss-cycle. I am sorry this incident has caused you disappointment, but that is sometimes the result when one is being bold. I can only advice you to discuss major edits on the talk page before doing them, that way you learn the general consensus about them and avoid any surprises. Cheers. PS: 0RR is not relevant here since it only applies to articles or editors that have been placed under certain restrictions, which is not the case here. It is 3RR that applies here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave the wrong link. I was not referring to restrictions imposed on editors, and it was the wrong article I gave, of "edit warring." I meant to give you (something you MIGHT NOT know about all that well) was the "Zero-revert rule" in the article "revert only when necessary." Where it says "only revert obvious vandalism. Instead of removing or reverting changes or additions you may not like, add to and enhance them while preserving the information and viewpoints. If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page." You really didn't do that, but just simply reverted only cuz you thought the timeline wasn't necessary or "not encyclopedic". Which you're actually wrong about.

There's NO "rule" that says timelines are not to be in encyclopedias. You're just making that uptight nonsense up. To be frank. Imposing your own tastes, in contradiction to clear evidence where "timelines" are in other WP articles. If time tables are "not encyclopedic" how do you explain that? And this is NOT "WP:OTHERSTUFF", as I'm not saying that that "other stuff" was wrong. But rather referring to CONSISTENCY IN WHAT IS DONE CORRECTLY...AND IN GOOD FAITH. There happens to be a whole article called "Timeline of the French Revolution" that the other editor told me about. Which is fine. I was just making the point that a "timeline" can add benefit and use and quick reference to certain readers who may not have time all the time to mill through whole article to get key facts, dates, and points. As a timeline summation might be able to do towards end of article.

It's already understood that the points and facts are in the rest of the article. That's a "duh" point, and not even the point. Summation timelines etc are simply there to supplement FOR THE PURPOSE of a quick reference, and contrary to what was said about "casual readers", they do go on WP articles sometimes to get certain facts on a thing. Can't be too uptight, is my point.

Anyway, again, I gave you the wrong link, I meant the other one of "revert only when necessary", which arguably you actually didn't. You reverted good-faith accurate things simply because you didn't like it and didn't think it was necessary. Without discussing on article talk or my talk. Which is AGAINST WP recommendation and drift. (Especially "zero revert".) Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Zero revert is not a policy, but part of an essay. I am getting a bit fed up with your constant accusations of bad faith and your misinterpretation of policy. If you have anything to say against the revert take it to the talk page of the article, this is not the place for it. Since you are so busy accusing other editors of not using the article talk page I find it ironic that you haven't yet bothered going there once to explain yourself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It IS a general RECOMMENDATION of Misplaced Pages, and the article is "Revert only when necessary"... Whether it's an out-an-out "policy" or just a strong WP "recommendation", is not the big point. But that you did NOT HAVE TO "revert" that sample time-table, in that article. It did NOT hurt the article, or make it "too long". That timeline itself was not that long.

I personally only revert obvious vandalism, or blatantly inaccurate additions, etc. Even if something is not sourced (yet) that I see put in an article that I'm interested in, I won't mess with the edit. Because who the hell am I to undo someone else's good-faith (and accurate) addition or work, simply because I may not be totally thrilled with it? ("Zero-revert rule", in other words.) I don't care how "fed up" you are, as this is mainly your doing in the first place. The point is that you do NOT "own" the article, yet you kinda acted like you did. In violation (whether you wanna see it that way or not, or admit or not) of "WP:OWN". (And also arguably against "WP:Revert only when necessary" and "Zero-revert rule".)

I merely was trying to tell you that I gave you the wrong link, and I was simply correcting that and expounding on it, and clarifying it. Don't whine that I call you out on your rude nonsense, and your made-up "rule" that somehow timelines are "not encyclopedic". You dodged that point, I notice, and you failed to point out just HOW timelines in articles are "not encyclopedic." Can you cite me an actual "rule" (not a general opinion, but a hard WP rule etc...like "neutrality" and "reliable sources"...or maybe an actual hard "policy"?) Other WP articles sometimes have timelines in them. Your opinion that they're "not encyclopedic" is just that...YOUR OPINION. And not enough to blatantly revert. You went against that general drift ("essay" or not...it's there for a reason in "Revert only when necessary")

What you did was NOT "necessary", but just because you personally thought one way. Not cool, and NOT necessary. I'm FED UP when stuff like that happens. I don't do that crap to others. Yet you (in your infinite uptightness) felt the need to do that rude thing. In violation of "zero-revert" or "only vandalism and inaccurate" and "wp:own". MY ONLY POINT. I didn't bring this to the article talk, cuz I didn't care anymore, and it wouldn't make much of a difference anyway, seeing the group think that was going on. And I saw that probably "WP:Consensus" (which is a WP policy) would over-rule the "revert only when necessary" point. So it would not have mattered. I'm only writing now in response to your last comment. Bye. 22:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you "don't care anymore", I find it interesting that you still take your time to flood my talk page with your repeated misinterpretations of Misplaced Pages essays and your unwarranted accusations of bad faith. This is leading nowhere, so I consider this conversation over. For clarity's sake I will just say that as per the policy of WP:bold, revert, discuss (which you seem still not to have read) I reserve my right to revert major bold undiscussed edits if I deem them a net negative to the article. Have a good day. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your made-up "rule" that somehow timelines are "not encyclopedic". You dodged that point, I notice, and you failed to point out just HOW timelines in articles are "not encyclopedic." Can you cite me an actual "rule" (not a general opinion, but a hard WP rule etc...like "neutrality" and "reliable sources"...or maybe an actual hard "policy"?) Other WP articles sometimes have timelines in them. Hashem sfarim (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Help_desk#Problem_on_the_Mein_Kampf_Page_Discussion.3B_.22_Editor.22_Saddhiyami

I just thought you might want to know that your *correct* reverts have been complained about. Naraht (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Which movies was it?

The movies were Mr. Popper's Penguins and Zookeeper. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I am going to look for them, since I always find it interesting to see how popular culture portray Misplaced Pages. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

List of wars 2003-2010

I've witnessed something i can relate as WP:OR and WP:OWNER on this page, possibly by user named B-machine, who didn't answer my clarification request on his edits. What was your experience and outcome of editing the page? See here .Greyshark09 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my experience was that of an editor having ownership issues with the article to the point of openly stating that he would edit war over it. As well as him putting the burden of proof upon other editors, despite himself making claims that was inadequately sourced. I sensed an editor who was extremely combative, and at the time I did not have the time or energy to go further in the dispute, so I simply unwatched the article and let him have his way with it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Tunø and Endelave and the English Frigate

Hej Saddhiyama - We have just been "talking" on the Battle of Copenhagen (1807) page about Fredericksværn, which was very interesting as an example of information "Lost in Translation", and for which many thanks. I also see your main page is Danish, whereas my Danish is only passable.

Can I ask for your experienced eye to look at my first ever article for Misplaced Pages viz. HMS Falcon (1802) which has a link to numerous transcribed sources at Falcon's website. I feel that there is a lot of good stuff in Falcon's website that could mature into a good article in Danish, if I could interest you or anyone with whom you have contact. I live in hope of seeing this work expand into wider knowledge. Comments and questions welcome. mvH Viking1808 (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at it, but my field of knowledge is not naval history I am afraid. On Danish Misplaced Pages you may benefit from contacting User:Necessary Evil, who is very active on naval articles. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mange Tak. I will try that Viking1808 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hej! Superfast service these Danes give you! The article can now be read on Danish Misplaced Pages as HMS Falcon (1802) thanks to User:Necessary Evil. He jokes about English propaganda, but translating and balancing both sides of the story needs care. Mange tak mvH Viking1808 (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What?!

So because I've been on Misplaced Pages for over 4 years as an IP and then as Camelbinky and because I'm very active on creating/editing policies and guidelines and keeping the WP:5P in their proper place, and working at the Village pump proposals and policies pages, and at the OR/N and RS/N all of which are integral to creating and wording policy you think it is wrong of me to mention that I was instrumental in changing and aspect of policy and therefore know intimately what it is meant?! I think it was important to state since the editor I was disagreeing with kept saying I was misinterpreting policies. Policies I worked on getting the wording to where it currently is at. I dont take full credit, it was a team effort of back and forth and compromising. Policies are constantly evolving and may be used in ways the group of us that wrote (or re-wrote) them ever thought. And that's fine. But I wont stand for someone to say I'm misinterpreting or that my interpretation is illegitimate when I was there at the talk page working hard for weeks or sometimes months coming up with a compromise to get wording to reflect as accurately as possible the current prevailing method of doing something.Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. I merely wondered at your wording of the statement "I had the optional part removed long ago", which made it sound like you singlehandedly changed the policy. From your reply above I guess it was more in the form of active participation and support in the process of changing of it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper: Please help!

Hi. The reason I had the mention of circulation of newspapers in India in the Advertising section is because the article (and the American and British public, I believe) tend to see the current state of the newspaper business in the US and UK vis a vis the internet, and assume that this is the case world-wide. I edited the article after hearing Tom Standage interviewed on a local radio station, where he pointed out that readership in India is increasing, whereas in Brazil (where, apparently, a higher percentage of people have high-speed internet than in India) it's been increasing but is now on a plateau.

If you are knowledgeable about newspapers in India, or know somebody who is, I think it would be useful to add some information on that. This article is much too Anglo-centric. Bloody Viking (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know the first thing about Indian newspapers, so I don't think I can help you there. I see what you were going for and it sounds like a good idea to include the information that the delvovement of circulations is not global. But I fear that just adding the circulation figure of India will leave the reader confused (as I was). You will need to elaborate the scenario in the article, because the reader will wonder if that particular figure is high or low, and what it is compared to other countries. I would assume there was some sources out there that mentions the global newspaper circulation figures by country, or even better, a reliable source that specifically mentions that this trend is particular for the Western countries (just in order to avoid risk of WP:SYNTH). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to mark the article as having a narrow view (the {{globalize}} tag??? see Media bias for an example). I'm fairly new to this. Bloody Viking (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

By all means go ahead. But since some of the sections in the article does contain information on international matters you will probably need to specify on the talk page which sections you find particularly problematical. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of french revolution

Sorry, I have not noticed that the French revolution -chronology - has dedicated page, I'm accepting your point.--Stephfo (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)