| Revision as of 23:26, 11 August 2012 editChurn and change (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,520 edits Notification: listing at redirects for discussion of Chunks. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:02, 12 August 2012 edit undoMrX (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers97,648 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Paul Ryan. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Chunks'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC) | An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Chunks'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == August 2012 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] 04:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:02, 12 August 2012
Welcome
|
July 2012
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Richard Klein (paleoanthropologist) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Richard Klein (paleoanthropologist) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUp_6n8x3D0) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Misplaced Pages's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Whoa!
Your contribs show that you are misspelling (or mis-capitalizing) lots of category names! Please slow down, go back and fix, and get it right. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am fixing "Stanford University psychology faculty" category. Was there any other category you noticed? Churn and change (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- The school of engineering one. Click "my contributions" and look for the redlinks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, I think I fixed them all. Looking through the psych. ones. Thx. Churn and change (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- The school of engineering one. Click "my contributions" and look for the redlinks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Have you explained some place what you're up to? Changing case of categories on purpose? Per what discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, I didn't change the category name. The engineering people were in the category "Stanford University faculty" but they should really be in "Stanford University School of Engineering faculty" since they are in the School of Engineering (CS & EE departments) and we use the lowest subcategory. Churn and change (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good. But you made a new category for the Psych department; or two, really, with different cases. Has there been a discussion of making new department categories, and how they should be capitalized? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- The two psych. categories are a mistake, there should be just one. As to discussing it, where does one do that? The talk pages of the categories have nothing. The idea behind the split was to have the "scientists" separated at least in part. There is a category "Scientists of California" which not many people add to, but seems destined to be a mess if people did use it. I was looking at making the "psych. faculty at Stanford" a subcategory directly of that to avoid at least a part of the issue. Churn and change (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- You could start at the talk page of the category that you're subclassing, even if it appears inactive. We might need to notify a wikiproject or something to get some attention. Or start by looking at how other schools are divided. Seems to me like one would want to use the names of schools or departments, which are proper names, as opposed to generic "topic" names. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- All the category talk pages are empty. As to other universities, there is no consistency (I checked Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Princeton). I don't have a problem with the name being "Stanford University Psychology faculty" instead of "Stanford University psychology faculty" or having a "Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences faculty" since that is how they administratively divide the school. Churn and change (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I added the above argument to Category talk:Stanford University faculty#Creating a subcategory "Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences faculty". We can continue the discussion there. Churn and change (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- You could start at the talk page of the category that you're subclassing, even if it appears inactive. We might need to notify a wikiproject or something to get some attention. Or start by looking at how other schools are divided. Seems to me like one would want to use the names of schools or departments, which are proper names, as opposed to generic "topic" names. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- The two psych. categories are a mistake, there should be just one. As to discussing it, where does one do that? The talk pages of the categories have nothing. The idea behind the split was to have the "scientists" separated at least in part. There is a category "Scientists of California" which not many people add to, but seems destined to be a mess if people did use it. I was looking at making the "psych. faculty at Stanford" a subcategory directly of that to avoid at least a part of the issue. Churn and change (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, good. But you made a new category for the Psych department; or two, really, with different cases. Has there been a discussion of making new department categories, and how they should be capitalized? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, I didn't change the category name. The engineering people were in the category "Stanford University faculty" but they should really be in "Stanford University School of Engineering faculty" since they are in the School of Engineering (CS & EE departments) and we use the lowest subcategory. Churn and change (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Ira Nadel
 | On 11 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ira Nadel, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Canadian literary critic Ira Nadel considers the legend of the Olympic torch relay a total fabrication? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ira Nadel. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Chunks listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chunks. Since you had some involvement with the Chunks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Churn and change (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
Your recent editing history at Paul Ryan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MrX 04:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)