Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 23 April 2013

User Page	Talk Page	Notes	Library	Commons	Wikisource	Sandboxes	Userspace	Contributions

Archives

Archive 1

You have a message

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Maxwell Wallace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince Leopold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

My intend was simply to use the correct dash. I have no strong opinion regarding the name of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, understood MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom request

Hello PBS, Happy New Year. I've mentioned you in an ArbCom case request submission. While you are not a party, your comments would be appreciated. LittleBen (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm thinking that the community has not been able to settle the two issues here, so it surely would be appropriate to take them to Arbcom. May I coordinate a submission with you off Wiki (my email is open)? The submission could be in my name (though I'd certainly appreciate if you would kindly look my ideas over), or it could be a joint submission (two or more people). Also please see this.  LittleBen (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comment

See my reply Phillip. I am suspicious of your sudden interest in this dispute. You must realise it will have no bearing on the outcome of the consus of the title change. I am entitled to state my opinion on your attiutde on this article if I choose to do so. I have not received an adequate response to your resistance to the the operational commanders being added, other than, I presume, it was me that added it. I have only edited this article several times over the past few years, but you - and you alone - have contested every single change to the content. Why? It is quite acceptable to complain that these unreasonable complaints slow down its progression. Editors like me like to get on with things. Under the circumstances I'm justified in saying what I said - which is an observation, not an attack. Dapi89 (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saint Kenelm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alderley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Clan Gregor mercat cross image

I see you restored the original pic of the mercat cross on this page after I'd replaced it with a pic of the post-1617 location. Thanks for spotting that error. Kim Traynor (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

response to warning

PBS, I've responded to your "tagging redirects as orphans" message on my own talk page, FYI. Cheers. --Lockley (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

PBS, you probably should take a look at this . I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like someone's up to no good. EEng (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi PBS. You'll find I've responded to you on my own talk page. Please have a look when you can. Now that I'm here, I find that EEng has accused Binko71100 of being a sockpuppet, and cites Binko's conversations with me. I have a desire to stay out of that dispute & I expect Binko can speak for himself. Thanks for your attention. --Lockley (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Reichstag (building) RM

You previously participated in a RM discussion regarding the Reichstag (building) article. I have proposed another move of the article at Talk:Reichstag (building) if you care to participate in the new discussion. —  AjaxSmack  19:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Stop gaming the system

Please revert yourself on the naming conventions.

You're an admin, really? And you don't know any better than to game the system during a discussion? — kwami (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Hi, I'm on my phone and for some reason it won't let me edit AN3. I was actually saying the request should've been at RFPP - not 3RR or EW - because it was a page protection request. And I know that you know there's no right version, but your request did happen to coincide with the aeticle being in your preferred state ;-) As I say, I didn't even see the AN3 request before I protected so that's moot. FWIW, having now read the "discussion" you were in the right, so for once an admin might've actually protected a page in The Right Version! Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Frungi (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean François Aimé Dejean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mézières (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

DNB page numbers with wstitle?

Hi. The page number is absolutely necessary when linking to a source that contains the entire document in a single file. However, It is not generally needed when linking to a transcribed article at Wikisource, since the articles are generally quite short. I think that it's a judgement call. The WS article has the page number for the original article together with a link to the correct page of the scanned source, so there is no loss of provenance. I'm interested in your thought on this, and I will preserve the page numbers if you still think they add value in this context. -Arch dude (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As a separate issue, the DNBIE template is broken. It appends "(DNB00)" to the wstitle, but the DNBIE articles at WS (if any) use a different suffix. Therefore, you should not use the "wstitle=" to reference articles in the Epitiome. continue to use the "title=" instead. In the mean time I will go do some research on the status of the Epitome at WS. -Arch dude (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to add the DNBIE to WS, then great, but the template is still broken. The pattern is:

• {{DNB}} appends (DNB00)
• {{DNBSupp}} appends (DNB01)
• {{DNB12}} appends (DNB12)

so {{DNBIE}} should append (DNBIE). This assumes you intend to implement a seperate article for each epitome entry. I haven't thought about that project so I have no opinion. The problem in in {{Cite DNBIE}}.-Arch dude (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

More unrelated-item mass-move RMs

Misplaced Pages:RM#February 05.2C 2013  LittleBen (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed appeal of topic ban

Mentioned here and here. LittleBen (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Where's SAWme?

It has gotten busy in computerland. I'll help when I can. Charge ahead!SAWme (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Please go aheadSAWme (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

John Le Marchant

I have modified "general" to "commander" and supplied a reference. I have added a reference for "chopping wood". Many of Le Marchant's military writings were published anonymously, as is mentioned in the text, purely because they became official army regulations, but it is known that he wrote them. All new arms, of necessity, are first produced as prototypes. Le Marchant's sabre was merely lengthened by an inch at the behest of the generals overseeing the re-arming the cavalry, but it remained his design - it was adopted as the 1796 pattern light cavalry sword, of which I own two examples. Urselius (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Märt Põder

I think the user might have a point -- editing as an IP and then creating an account and using that to continue an edit war isn't sockpuppetry. We encourage people to create accounts; we do not say "create accounts unless you're in the middle of an argument". Perhaps an edit warring 24-hr block would be more appropriate? --jpgordon 19:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

In what Misplaced Pages talk page can I report your maddening witch-hunt against me? I have been contributing dozens of times almost daily since 2005 and am a registered user since 2007, never did I vandalize a page nor tried to negatively affect Misplaced Pages, so I demand respect from you. I hope you'll be as fast replying to my question as you were fast blocking me for some obscure reason. Answer in my talk page. Good day. Tibullus 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You can take it to WP:ANI if you wish, but consider, if having read the guidance about cut and past moves if your complaint is warranted. -- PBS (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop behaving like a cyberbully, and go block anonymous and registered users who keep vandalizing pages. You don't seem to be doing a very good job at that, since I keep reverting their editings. You don't respect who believes in this project and is trying to do their best to keep Misplaced Pages update, clean, unbiased and safe. Tibullus 15:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederick Louis, Prince of Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page General of the Infantry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling: Theatre District, New York

The move discussion at Talk:Theater District, New York was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Bangladeshi war/genocide/atrocities/war crimes/deaths?

Pbs, A user just mentioned in a talk page discussion that the original title of a current article was 1971 Bangladesh genocide, which he had recently reverted back to the 2005 name. As I was looking through history, you seemed to pop up at the point the name changed and I further noticed you went through several versions. I don't know about how you feel about this now or even if you remember that article, but we're having a convo there about this name. Since you're behind this diff and several others afterwards where the name came up as an issue, I was wondering if you could give us some insight. I don't mean to canvas here -- even if you just want to comment is fine. My intention is merely to get the thinking from an earlier point of time. Crtew (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to bully out Fyunck

here.  LittleBen (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

I'm not going to engage in an edit war over this, but I had already replied directly to DS's response to my original post. Your insertion of your subsequent response between those two comments, as noted, interrupts the flow and sense. Elbowing aside someone else's comment in that fashion, so that your later comment in effect gains priority over the first chronological response to anyone reading down the page comes across as somewhat arrogant and rude. You may not have been responding directly to me, but we are all discussing common ground there, and I happened to be the first to respond. Can anyone else – myself included even – now insert their own comment in between yours & DS's, and hence above yours in turn, if they happen to think their response to DS is more important that both mine and yours and if they simply say, "But I'm responding to DS, not to PBS"? That's a recipe for totally chaotic and unreadable discussion, and talk page guidelines and custom are pretty clear on it. I'm also assuming you'd rather someone didn't bump down your response in a similar fashion. N-HH talk/edits 14:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CITE

Please stop reverting. There are lots of objections on talk, and your proposed changes would introduce mistakes. SlimVirgin 18:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not making changes. I am reverting to the last stable version 06:06, 10 February 2013‎ by Themeparkgc. But reverting my revert you are reintroducing changes made by WhatamIdoing at 05:24, 15 February 2013‎ diff, while change is being discussed on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No one on the talk page supports your edit, whether you call it an old one or a new one. The problem at that page is that you seem unfamiliar with standard ways of referencing. I'm sorry to say this to you. It is causing you to mix up several different concepts, but rather than listen to what others have to say, you revert (sometimes for weeks or months) and keep on arguing. For example, you don't add page numbers to a bibliography or references section, for obvious reasons, namely that one book might have been cited many times, with different page numbers each time; page numbers therefore belong in the text, in the form of a footnote or Harvard ref. And short cites are not used together with general references; that's not what is meant by a "general reference" on Misplaced Pages. A general reference is one that is, by definition, not connected to a citation in the text.

I wish you would take a step back. SlimVirgin 18:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion here. Are you seriously saying that the References section should contain a list of full citations that read like the following? Smith, John. Name of Book. CUP, 2013, pp. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 22, 25, 40, 43, 56, 64, 78, 79, 89, 91, 110, 150, 170, 180–182, etc?

If you look at the discussion about the general references, that started on 30 December 2012 because you objected to a basic copy edit to remove a contradiction. It is now March 9, 2013, and there's no let up, when the only issue is that you haven't understood one point, namely that a section containing "general references" is not the same as one containing full citations linked to (or in some other associated with) short cites in the text. That is, a "general reference" is not the same thing as a "full citation." They might be listed under the same title ("References"), but they are different concepts, with different uses. A general reference is what you use when you copy the old Encyclopaedia Britannica articles, and at the end there is a general reference that says something like "this article incorporates text from X." We call it a general reference, because it is not linked to or associated with any specific point in the article, and doesn't accompany a separate Notes or Footnotes section. Really, no article on WP should be using general references, unless it's a stub. Ideally (in my view), WP:CITE wouldn't even mention them, because all they do is cause confusion.

At least three editors have objected to your version, but still you revert, and expect people to continue discussing. That's the kind of thing the RfC addressed. SlimVirgin 20:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

London Millennium Funicular

I got intrigued by this while stub-sorting yesterday - not least by the lack of any really reliable-looking sources! Wondered at first if it was a hoax. Found a couple of refs, and today the City Surveyor's report where it's called "Millennium Inclinator". What would you think about moving it to that title? Could have just done so, but it seemed better to check first as you created it so recently (and there's obviously been some sort of a tiff about it already, from deleted edits). Still seems strange not to have found much in the way of reliable sources - I'd have thought there'd be something in wheelchair guides to London, etc, but not yet found. Nor anything about the grand reopening - perhaps it was done rather quietly out of embarrassment at the waste of money? PamD 11:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Refactoring

Would you be interested in a clean start at improving the refactoring page? Things got regretfully sidetracked and I'd be willing to work with you to find a comprobable solution. Mkdw 01:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Principality of Samos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mithradates, Cyrene, Aegean, Theodorus, Aristonicus and Peloponnesians

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

More bullying by the ultra-nationalists

here.  LittleBen (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Arbcom has concluded that the claim of outing was bogus. *Obviously it was just to keep me blocked and prevent me from defending myself at ANI. Konjakupoet has outed himself with links to his own previous user identity in the ANI discussion].
• As you can see from the cautions on his talk page: since returning to Misplaced Pages, Konjakupoet has continued the same pattern of repeated vicious attacks on other users that he showed under his previous user ID.
• It's pretty obvious that the attacks on my repeated advocating of following Misplaced Pages rules on properly researching and neutrally sourcing BLP names and place names here and Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_21#Template:Google_RS here were the result of off-wiki canvassing and mob organizing that is acknowledged .
• I have lots of other facts organized into a case, and would be glad to get your off-wiki input on how to proceed (but my sending of email from WP seems to be disabled at this end). LittleBen (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)