Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:04, 5 June 2014

Czechia (one-word name of the Czech Republic)

You cannot simply erase it and redirect empty page to "Czech Republic" (it is incredibly arrogant !!!!!!), it is the article about the NAME with many references and description of objective reality. On that article cooperated many specialistsNeewi (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a nonsensical piece of POV-pushing, so I can. Mewulwe (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour is not only incorrect, but really stupid, deleting facts is unacceptable (now all particular information word by wor in Names of the Czech Republic and because you are hidden and unable to discuss about it, you do it apparently from some personal reasons. You have started this war, so you will have it. Because you are under strange protection of some other persons from Misplaced Pages, I handed this problem over to other media and my article about the "democratic" system of Misplaced Pages, where your arrogant behaviour reigns, will be published in newspapers. Neewi (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Czech Republic

For the record, I agree with you that "Czechia" should not be mentioned in the lead- I just want to discuss it on the talk page and reach a consensus because there doesn't seem to be a clear one at the moment. Please use the talk page before making edits like that please (or at least after you are reverted the first time). Once again, I agree with you completely. The Dominator_Edits 04:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the talk archives. This was settled years ago. Someone must have recently reintroduced Czechia without consensus. Mewulwe (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Cause I read the archives yesterday and this is the section where it was discussed: Talk:Czech Republic/Archive1#The name Czechia, and it certainly does not seem like an official consensus. Can you please point out an official discussion and completed !vote on the talk page that shows a consensus to exclude the name? The Dominator_Edits 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth dates etc.

Thanks for the good work you're doing picking up unreferenced birth dates! I noticed you doing it on a couple of pages I'd edited. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except you are adding them back referring to sources which themselves got them from Misplaced Pages. To reference a date that has already been on Misplaced Pages, you need to find a source that either dates from before the date was added to Misplaced Pages, or obviously maintains an impeccable standard of accuracy, so that there is no suspicion it would ever take information from Misplaced Pages. Mewulwe (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's increasingly a problem for web sources - and indeed recent sources in general. Journalists routinely copy from WP, and I've also sometimes noticed academic articles doing so. (The problem there is that they're embarrassed about doing it, and so don't knowledge their source. At least the Library of Congress Name Authority file, when it takes WP as a source, says so.) I may have made the wrong judgement about Election Politique Citoyen - it looked at first sight independent of the WP page Kurt Tibbetts (which since I touched it has also become crazily swollen by puff about his Lions Club involvement!). But KT's birthdate was added 3 September 2008 by an IP user, which is plenty of time for it to have been copied around the web indiscriminately. Bayle's initial idea for the Dictionnaire Historique et Critique was to compile a dictionary entirely composed of exposing published falsehoods. We need his reincarnation. So thanks again. Dsp13 (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

This is much better, thank you. DVdm (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Daily Times

Daily Times is a reliable source, please discuss before reverting. Thanks!--- Managerarc 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I did discuss it in the inline comment. Go and find a real source before reverting. Mewulwe (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahmed Shafik

All the previous Egytian Prime Ministers bios infoboxes use the numbering. If you don't stop now, I'll report you to the 'Edit warring noticeboard'. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists. All the other articles need to be reverted as well. Egyptian prime ministers carry no numbers. Adding numbers based on your own count is OR. You'd need a source explicitly describing him as 58th PM. Good luck with that. Incidentally, I noticed you edited Rhodri Morgan - I wonder why you didn't make him "1st First Minister of Wales"! Mewulwe (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

They add up to 58. I did make Morgan 1st, but a group editors are against me. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder why. They may add up to 58 according to some list, but if the list is erroneous then so are the numbers. Mewulwe (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then, let's remove the numbering from 'all' the Egyptian PM infoboxes. Not just Sharfik's, agreed? GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and also from all the other categories you added numbers too. U.S. presidents are almost the only ones who properly have numbers. Mewulwe (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, just the Egyptian Prime Ministers. We don't want you starting up a 'fight' across the whole project. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So much for "Consistancy is important to me." Mewulwe (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agreed to remove the numbering from the Egyptian PMs, so quit while you're ahead. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't pretend you just agreed as a compromise. You were wrong, and not just about the Egyptian PMs. Mewulwe (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Freundel Stuart

He's the 7th Prime Minister of Barbados, which is sourced in that article. Next time, check the article over before you 'automatically revert' me & claim OR. Also, knock-off the stalking. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you had a source, why did you write in the edit summary "I counted the PMs"? Obviously it was OR, you just looked for a source afterwards. Next time, do so before. Mewulwe (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The source was already there (in the article). GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Adel Safar birthdate

Rather than editwarring and undoing without explanation, please go to the talk page and discuss why the birthdate doesn't belong. GB fan (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I explained it the first time by noting it was unsourced. Kintetsu on the other hand reverts without providing a source or another explanation for his action. Mewulwe (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I know you left a edit summary one time. Edit summaries are very useful, but since your first removal you haven't used them to explain why you are undoing the edits. Edit summaries are not a substitute for using the talk page for discussing the issue. Can you please leave a message on the talk page explaining why you are removing the birthdate, it would be helpful. p.s. I also left a very similar message for Kintetsubuffalo. GB fan (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no point in repetition, and there is nothing more for me to discuss at this point, until anyone makes a case FOR the inclusion of this date. Mewulwe (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Jack William Pithey

Could you please explain this edit? What makes the source that I provided for the year of death "ridiculous" exactly? As I pointed out in my edit summary, the source is an acceptable one to use according the list of resources at WikiProject Unreferenced articles. Even without this, however, your accusation that the site merely copied from Misplaced Pages is baseless (again). If this site merely copies from Misplaced Pages, how do you rectify the fact that for Sein Win (Brigadier General), another DOD that you removed as unsourced that was around for much longer than Pithey's, the same site not only lacks the date of death that Misplaced Pages claimed, but doesn't even have the same year of birth? Canadian Paul 01:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

First, you restored not just the year. Second, if you weren't blindly following what some WikiProject says and had some expertise on the matter, you would see that your source is palpably unprofessional, it being a simple ripoff of rulers.org (which notably doesn't have the death year in question) augmented by all kinds of junk copied without the slightest discernment from Misplaced Pages or any other random website. An archive.org analysis will show that it added the date AFTER it was included in Misplaced Pages (it didn't have it as of October 2009, the last archived version; it was added in Misplaced Pages in July 2009). If you still think it's baseless, I'll take any bet with you that worldstatesmen.org will not be able to provide you with a reliable source for the date. As to Sein Win, nowhere did I say that the site copies everything from Misplaced Pages; presumably it hasn't searched for that one since with an assumed birth date of 1929, the person seemed likely alive whereas a person born in 1903 should have died by now. Mewulwe (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is "blindly following" anything; it would be wise of you assume good faith before making your commentary. I investigated the source and, wondering about its reliability myself, did a search on Misplaced Pages to see whether or not it would be acceptable and found consensus that it was usable. If you wish to challenge or redefine a former consensus, then you should do so at the reliable sources noticeboard; the reason that we have consensus as a decision making tool on Misplaced Pages is to avoid senseless edit warring based on two users' personal opinions. Rather than feed into this, however, I'll let the matter drop for now, as this discussion is little more than academic; I have seen the original source cited and it does confirm the death details that were originally in the article. It is unfortunate that said source was poorly cited, and thus you were correct to remove it, but once I have found the time to go back and access the hard copy source, I will restore the details with a proper citation. Canadian Paul 02:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you wonder about a source's reliability and let the question be settled by a Misplaced Pages noticeboard instead of your own judgment, that's exactly what I meant with "blindly following." As to the "original source cited," it is just a link to Google Books which doesn't actually produce a result, so I wonder how you found a source there. Mewulwe (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The link to Google books used to actually point to a book... perhaps it has been removed for copyright reasons... hence it would have been much better had the reference cited the book rather than the book search... but it's just a matter of dredging up my old computer and pulling out the note... Canadian Paul 04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Pilsen/Plzen/Plzeň in English

Hi Mewulwe, just wondering why you are deleting "also Plzen or Pilsen," from this page? Pilsen and Plzen are both commonly used in the English-language press (Google "Plzen" and site:.guardian.co.uk, for example) and by the City of Pilsen itself (i.e. http://www.pilsen.eu/en/).
The wiki page about Cracow/Krakow/Kraków is worded similarly and recognises the local spelling and alternate English spellings for the city. Why would it be inadmissible to do the same for Pilsen, especially when the other two spellings are so widely used?
Bezzemek (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Plzen is used because some people don't know how to type ň. This goes for any name with a diacritic. Should we therefore include a diacritic-stripped version as an "English name" in every such article? Might as well list any common misspellings if you want to stretch the common-use principle to absurdity. Krakow should be removed just the same. Cracow, however, is a distinct English name, unlike Pilsen, which was simply the German name and was used in English naturally at the time it was an Austrian city and German was the local language, plus for the usual lag time thereafter. If it is sometimes still used in English, it is mistaken or just an attempt to provide a more easily pronouncable version for touristic purposes. That doesn't make it an English name. Mewulwe (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As to historical references, John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, published well before 1620, references Pilsen, not Plzen. I quite honestly cannot find anything in the English language published before that date that mentions Plzen (with or without haček), can you? Jumping ahead to 2012, Pilsen is used very often in English. The City of Pilsen officially refers to itself in English as the City of Pilsen, not the City of Plzeň. Likewise for the ECOC committee, see http://www.plzen2015.net/?lang=en "A more pronounceable version for touristic purposes" is why we Anglophones never embraced Kyiv, though both spellings for the Ukrainian capital are correct in English. Bezzemek (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked the original? What's online seem to be only newer edited versions. In any case a single example doesn't prove anything, and there are obviously not enough pre-1620 English books mentioning the city available to determine what was used then. Furthermore, even if German wasn't yet the local language in Bohemia, it was still under Austrian rule (and even before that, part of the "German" Holy Roman Empire), so in that sense the German name qualifies as a local name, meaning that if it was used in English that doesn't make it an English name. Mewulwe (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, for the future, then, when someone reads something in English about "Pilsen", they should absolutely always understand that it solely refers to some little village or neighborhood in the United States. The name "Pilsen" is never, ever, ever used in English, ever; and if it is, it is always wrong as a typographical error would be wrong, and this is the reason why any and all reference to "Pilsen" (e.g. note that it is also referred to as Pilsen) must be completely deleted from the page about Plzeň. Am I summarizing your opinion correctly? Bezzemek (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It may be sometimes used in English, but that doesn't make it an English name. And it should be in the article, described as a German name, not twice as if it's somehow separately a German and English name which are just coincidentally the same. Mewulwe (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree Pilsen is used in English. Feel free to delete the German language reference. Bezzemek (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

But it is German. Why don't you just delete the additional mention? Mewulwe (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Muammar gaddafi Date of birth

I cited an article clearly stating his date of birth as 7 June 1942. Is there a reason that this should be considered not true? Jeancey (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This dates from August 2011 and is obviously copied from Misplaced Pages, where this date was added in 2008 by an IP that edited almost nothing else. No source whatsoever pre-2008. Many sources state explicitly that his exact birth date is not known. Mewulwe (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would doubt that you could say "obviously copied." In these cases, it might be best to leave it, at verification needed, and contact the BBC to see where they got the date from. It's possible its from some obscure interview or something. Jeancey (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

BBC like pretty much everyone else readily copies from Misplaced Pages. You wouldn't even get a reply since they will not admit it. There is absolutely no reason to believe in the correctness of the date, so leave it out unless you can find a pre-2008 source, before it gets copied even more. Mewulwe (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that 7 June 1942 has been used since the 90's see this talk page post here. The date has been restored to the article. Jeancey (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Óscar Mendoza Azurdia

Hi,

I strongly disagree with this edit, so I have raised the issue at WP:BLPN. You may follow and/or comment on the discussion there. Canadian Paul 22:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale changes of "Czechia" to "Czech Republic"

Hi Mewulwe, Please stop your mass changing of "Czechia" to "Czech Republic". Both terms are official and acceptable English and, AFAIK, "Czechia" is not deprecated on Misplaced Pages. I have held off reverting your changes until I have sounded out WikiProject Czech Republic. Feel free to argue your case there. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Czechia is not official nor in common English use. Mewulwe (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Malawi Presidents

The first two are numbered, so why not the next two. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the first two shouldn't be either. Mewulwe (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Numbering Heads of State is done across many bio articles. There's no harm in it, so why seek an edit war over it? GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No matter how much it "is done" (to a large extent by yourself), it is wrong. Those numbers are almost always not official and thus potentially wrong and, in any case, numbering can be arbitrary with regard to multiple non-consecutive terms, acting, interim, de facto, etc. leaders, periods of disputed leadership, etc. Even where such ambiguities do not yet exist, they may in the future, and then you would have to remove all numbers again, unless you want to have a situation of having some leaders numbered and others not. Mewulwe (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't mind seeing the current President not being number. But the previous President should be numbered & right now, you're merely arguing out of spite. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no difference in this respect between the current and previous president. You are not making any sense. Mewulwe (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Check other Heads of State. It's very common to number former Heads of State bio articles across Misplaced Pages. An example would be the Egptian Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. See above. Mewulwe (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you being spiteful? Are you gonna revert ever editor who adds the numberings? If you hate them that much? then remove'em from all 4 Malawi Presidents. Atleast be consistent. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I will when you stop reverting. No need to have four parallel edit wars. Mewulwe (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Other will decide if the Malawi Presidents should or shouldn't be numbered, not you or me. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda

See BLPN. Your reasoning is unsupported by facts and therefore should not be used to remove reliable sources and information. Stop edit warring. – Connormah (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

BLPN - J Banda

• - Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Joyce_Banda

hI, there is a thread opened at the BLP noticeboard to discuss J Banda;s date of birth, Please join in the discussion there, - thanks - Youreallycan 07:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You're now at the limit of WP:3RR on Joyce Banda. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

sometimes.....

Hi - sometimes here at Wiki you can be right but still have to let things go - I am in a bit of agreement with you, that there is clearly no official release of her date of birth = however consensus and the usually acceptable sourcing is against you/us = please don't remove it again as there is a call for you to be blocked if you do - regards Youreallycan 08:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Mewulwe, I have looked over your edits and suggest that unless you change how you are interacting, you probably should be blocked. drs (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one knowingly introducing false sources. You came out of nowhere to the Banda article adding a false and superfluous source - obviously you must have read the meta-discussion and therefore must have known it to be false and added it for inexplicable reasons, indicating either trolling or gross ineptitude. Mewulwe (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Are you admitting to introducing false sources? Re: Joyce Banda, I thought the one I added was impressively reliable. Actually, I have had a bit of experience with strong-minded editors who knew far more than I did about how to effectively edit on Misplaced Pages. One of the concepts I learned early on: When a section of an article is known to be controversial, stop reverting, open up a new section on the talk page and have at it in a WP civilized manner. Your sense of what is a good source needs to be discussed, I suggest. drs (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm accusing you of introducing false sources, seeing that yours doesn't even state what you're using it as a source for, never mind that it isn't reliable, and that there isn't any need for further sources anyway. The whole matter has already been discussed, and, it seemed, closed as soon as the Malawian sources were brought up. Now you and those who earlier wanted to introduce other bad sources (BBC, CBC) continue to make pointless reverts just for the sake of it. Guess I'll just have to wait until everyone has moved on before cleaning it up finally. Mewulwe (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have started a section in the Joyce Banda article's talk page to examine the reliability of the source. Remember, none of us own this article. Part of Misplaced Pages's ways include a welcome to all editors to help develop any article. It is kind of rough and tumble at times, but Misplaced Pages and other democratic processes have that in common. I suggest you view all editors as your colleagues in the developing of this article. It is much more fun that way. drs (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democratic process, and it's hard to "welcome" an editor who isn't making sense. Even so, I'm not getting personal. I can't avoid that my pointing out that some edit or argument doesn't make sense may reflect on the user who made it. Mewulwe (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Here is why I say that Misplaced Pages is a democratic process: First, everyone can edit here. When all the people can take part, that is democracy in action. Second, consensus is valued here at Misplaced Pages. This is a powerful democratic process. It is harder to achieve than voting 50% plus one. But the end results are stronger. Third, wikipedia has "democratic institutions" to resolve differences; i.e. the various notice boards, etc. All the editors are welcome to take part in helping to solve these differences. It surprises me that you don't consider Misplaced Pages to be democratic. Why do you say that? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, that's what Misplaced Pages says. Which makes sense insofar as truth is not established by voting. The idea is that rational argument counts. Of course that doesn't hold up in practice when you have people who just start bullshitting when they're losing the argument. Mewulwe (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Concern for your reverting of Reliable Sources

Hi Mewulwe, before seeking action on a dispute resolution notice board, I thought I would address my concerns to you first. I have been directed away from the Joyce Banda article to accomplish this. Since we have only recently interacted, it seems appropriate for us to come to an understanding before asking others to get involved. In my opinion, you need to quit reverting the work of other editors and start a discussion on the appropriate talk page; in this case the Joyce Banda talk page. Let's talk. It is time. drs (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As you well know, the whole issue has been discussed at length on the BLP noticeboard. Mewulwe (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that the reverts have been discussed; but your behavior in particular has not been discussed. As I look over your interactions with other editors, I notice a pattern of disrespect toward your fellow editors. One of the basic rules of Misplaced Pages is Civility. I suggest that you need to be more civil to your fellow editors. Give sound reasons for your views and let your fellow editors do the same. drs (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Very funny. As any reasonable person can see, I have been the only one in the whole dispute who did give sound reasons to his views. I respect any constructive editor, I don't respect incompetence and trolling. As far as your behaviour goes, let's see: you thought you'd have to "welcome" me even though I have been here before you, and in the very process you prove your ignorance of common behaviour standards by posting on my user page instead on talk. You came here suggesting I "should be blocked" and then proceed to lecture me about respect and civility. Physician, heal thyself. Mewulwe (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that your user page had not yet been activated. Consequently, I thought you were new to Misplaced Pages. When I first began, another editor posted the welcome on my user page, so I have assumed that such is common practice. I have quite an extensive watch list and noticed the way an editor was getting exasperated with your responses. I thought it would be a good idea if I exerted some influence to have the interaction more civil. I am still concerned for your lack of civility. Thanks for your response, and yes, I have noted that you have been on wikipedia at least a year longer than I have. Let's work together, rather than at odds. drs (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to have a userpage. You also don't need asterisks in normal talk. Now if you see an editor getting exasperated with another, maybe you should actually investigate who's right in substance. And if you want to work together constructively, why don't you start by removing the superfluous reference for the birth date? Mewulwe (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, asterisks are not needed, but I find them helpful. This is your talk page, so I will honor your wish for no asterisks. I am not convinced that the reference is totally superfluous. I consider book citations stronger than news reports. In my opinion, even without the month, the year in the citation I have added strengthens the documentation for the year. If you really feel that the added citation is making the Joyce Banda article inferior, may I ask why? drs (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not a reliable source, and utterly superfluous. Original news reports are much stronger than a book citation in a case like this. A book just giving a birth year could have gotten it wrong in many ways. It's hard to see in comparison how a news report from the country concerned about an actual birthday celebration of the person could be mistaken. Mewulwe (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that news reports that discuss a birthday celebration trump most other sources. We may want to go to the article's talk page discussion where we are also discussing these things. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	You've been around for some time, and it's high time your editing skill was recognized. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for context: I was looking a list of people who recently passed 1,000 edits in the mainspace, and it looks like that happened recently for you. Thanks for sticking around. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Add me to this - welcome - you entered a controversy and kept your cool - Remember discussion and consensus are king and queen here - Best - Youreallycan 23:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wish someone would tell this to User:GoodDay, who insists on reverting without discussion. Mewulwe (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You were the only editor in the discussion who was opposed to numbering & still you insist on deleting. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I was the only editor in the discussion, period. I justified my position and am ready to continue to entertain any opposing argument. You basically just said "I don't like it" which doesn't count. Mewulwe (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Until you get a consensus for deletion, I'm just gonna keep restoring it. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Unchallenged edits don't need consensus. If you want to challenge it, you need to discuss. You are refusing to do so. Mewulwe (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But your edits were & are being challenged. So stop being a dick, please. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The barnstar above is for edits improving the encyclopedia, not edit warring or sniping at each other. You're both smart and experienced enough to know you should stick to critical comments about content, not the contributor. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please be advised of 3RR on Joyce Banda. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning

I was coming here to start a new section about your behavior on Joyce Banda, but it actually seems more relevant to put it here. The shortest explanation is that your editing is textbook tendentious editing. You are twisting around the meaning of consensus in such a way that it seems like any action you take is automatically correct, and it's up to others to somehow prove the impossible. You've made it such that no one can ever "prove" to your satisfaction that that number goes into the infobox, and thus somehow your version is automatically better. Your position in other sections of that talk page is also concerning. Finally, you are edit warring on the article. So, stop. Or I will block you. I know that Steven Walling means well above, but having been involved with tendentious editors on other articles, I know that simply having a high edit count does not mean one is a good editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you're not even giving GoodDay the same warning (who added these numbers - in literally hundreds of articles - without any consensus) only proves that you are being tendentious. If no one can prove that these numbers make sense, it's probably because they don't. I'm open minded, but things are as they are. One can't prove that 2 and 2 is 5 either. Mewulwe (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've a growing concern about you, as you've expanded your dispute with me to 2 other articles (the current Presidents of Iran & Venezuela). These actions by you on those other articles, smack of WP:HOUND GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha. This is one and the same issue; I'm not following you into different issues I had no previous interest in - unlike those who join you in reverting on the numbers issue, like Nomoskedasticity. Perhaps you might want to tell him to stop hounding me if you're concerned about this behaviour. Mewulwe (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Mewulwe, you clearly haven't read WP:TE, because, by definition, I can't be tendentious with reference to that article since I've never edited it or its talk page. I strongly recommend you read it, because I am not just randomly commenting here--I will block you if you do not change your behavior. Your position right now, as far as I can see is this: "I am right (on the numbering of Presidents). Even though no other editor has agreed with me at all, my position is still correct and thus I can edit the article to match my opinion. Unless others can personally convince me, by definition there is no consensus, and thus my version of the article should stand." This is, well, wrong. When everyone else in a discussion disagrees with you, you are the one who has to show that there is consensus for your position. And that does not mean that when you make a point and no one "refutes" you within 24 hours, you suddenly have consensus. Feel free to follow dispute resolution procedures on this matter, but do not either edit war or attempt to "win" the argument simply by overwhelming and outlasting everyone else. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to WP:TE, I said you're being tendentious, for the reasons stated. If I lack a consensus, certainly GoodDay does, and his establishing facts by his mass edits is far worse than my timid attempts to counteract this. Since he is practically the only one who has single-handedly put these contentious numbers up, it is bizarre that you apparently accept this as the default position, to change which _I_ would need a consensus. Nor is it true at all that I am the only one opposing it; GoodDay admitted he had problems on the same issue with other users too, and that he then backed away only at the specific articles, while happily continuing to add the same kind of numbers to other articles! Quite on the contrary, he is the only one who actually is for the numbers. Anyone else who has interfered on the issue (such as Nomoskedasticity) demonstrably just "hounded" me, to use GoodDay's term, i.e. came to this after having had a dispute with me on another issue on that page or elsewhere, without ever having cared about the number issue before and still refusing to engage in any serious discussion of it beyond some drive-by "I like it" kind of comment. I'm not aware of a policy that requires one to get a consensus when opposed only by people refusing to discuss. You are also wrong that my position is that others have to convince me, it would be quite enough if they take a viable counter-position and defend that against my objections as I defend mine; what GoodDay did was that he aborted the discussion, plainly unable to even respond to my points. Nor do I attempt to "overwhelm and outlast" anyone; I attempt to win the argument by actually winning the argument. Mewulwe (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But you haven't won the argument. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I did by default, since you aren't even carrying on any argument. Mewulwe (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We both disagree on the numbering of the infobox -- thus a stalemate between us. You're no righter then me & I'm no wronger then you. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, a stalemate would be a discussion that reached a point where both sides agree to disagree because it has been reduced to an inherently subjective point. This is not the case here. I made well-reasoned points which you aren't capable of countering at all, so now you just say "we disagree." That's not good enough; see Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it. Mewulwe (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I counted up the Malawian Presidents on my hand & Banda comes out as the 4th. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the nth time you repeat this meaningless statement that no one denied. Mewulwe (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

More re: the barnstar above

Hi Mewulwe, we have interacted several days now and I have developed an appreciation for your determination as an editor. We have actually worked through an issue or two. I like the collaboration. Regarding the ordinal numbering edit war, I don't see why it is such a big concern. There is no stated WP policy on it. The soundness of your logic does not resolve the situation. We need a WP rule, or leave it alone, IMO. Let's put our efforts into developing the Joyce Banda article. With her newly acquired role as president comes reliable news reports with new information. The article provides a BLP of an important person helping to shape Africa and the world. drs (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked GoodDay why it is such a big concern to him? If there's no WP rule, perhaps he should have left it alone instead of adding all the numbers on his own. Mewulwe (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, this is not just about why are you picked on more than the other editor. Someone has to be the adult here. lol. Unless a written policy is being violated additions to the article should not be deleted. Even if policy was being violated, once an edit war begins, the talk page should address the issue. There is no violation of policy. An editor has added information. Civility seems to expect that, rather than deleting something because of personal better logic, let's go to the article's talk page and try to win a consensus. Unless a policy has been violated, it seems that additions should not be deleted without a near consensus. drs (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to "go" to the article's talk page, I have been discussing there all the time. If there's a dispute, both sides have to discuss in good faith. GoodDay isn't, nor does anyone else argue for his view, therefore the default should be to remove. As far as written policy, well how about WP:V? You might find sources describing Banda as 4th president, but certainly not for Chávez as 61st; this would remove the majority of the numbers and then the few remaining ones are obviously an inappropriate aberration from the infobox standard. Mewulwe (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but now we are discussing the matter on two talk pages. You can discuss it wherever you wish, of course. On the other issue, something may seem an inappropriate aberration to you and may seem quite sensible to another editor, but, IMO, unless it violates WP policy, it should be discussed before it is deleted. drs (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You posted here, so I replied here. It should be discussed before it is deleted: indeed, and I have discussed it. It should also be discussed if it is to be kept: and GoodDay didn't, so he forfeited. Mewulwe (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Venzuelan Presidents

As there's many Presidents of Venzeula, I've opened a discussion at the Hugo Chavez article - concerning whether or not he is the 61st President of that country. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mewulwe, you are invited!

You're invited to be a part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject University of Belgrade, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the University of Belgrade. To accept this invitation, click here! Articles related to other universities in Belgrade, Serbia and Southeast Europe may be discussed as well. This helps share information and foster knowledge about higher education in the region.

I was thinking you could add something about Czech universities, as we are seeking to share information. --Comparativist1 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

George Saitoti

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion moved to the appropriate talk page

I will revert your edit to the above mentioned article because your opinion of the Kenyan media is highly irrelevant and also because the source I had cited was verifiable. The source met the established wikipedia criteria for identifying reliable sources. Please remember wikipedia encourages constructive factual dialogue when it comes to editing conflicts.Thuralt (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My opinion, which does not refer specifically to Kenyan media but to media in general, is not just my opinion but demonstrable and highly relevant fact. "Reliable" sources have repeatedly copied material, including vandalism, from Misplaced Pages. This happens especially with obituaries. I will thus revert your edit. Mewulwe (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how your opinion is a "relevant" fact and even if in any case it is, the source provided is, as I said, verifiable and reliable and you should only remove it if it can be irrefutably proven to be biased or otherwise unreliable. It is seen in the article's history that you reverted good faith edits without clear reasons and are attempting to do so now. This is quite suspect. I will, however, assume that your actions are in good faith and look for other sources but should there be none I will ultimately be forced to revert your edits.Thuralt (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mewulwe, Thuralt asked me to comment here. You are correct that news sources can copy Misplaced Pages--it happens all of the time. However, what is your evidence that it happened here? What is your evidence that the news source did not do it's own independent fact checking? You cannot simply make an assertion that the information was copied from WP without evidence; unless you can produce that, the information can be included as reliable sourced. So if Thuralt re-adds it, and you continue to disagree, I'm afraid you'll need to take the matter to the reliable sources noticeboard and see if uninvolved editors want to weigh in on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't assert that it was copied, I assert it is likely that it was. The evidence is as usual: no pre-Misplaced Pages source for a birth date of a politician who has been prominent for decades, then suddenly when the person dies the date from Misplaced Pages appears in all the obituaries. Seems common sense then that the burden of proof lies on those who want to include the date. They just have to find a source dating from before May 2012. Mewulwe (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...interesting objection; if the coverage is universally after our date, that may be a good indication. The best place to solve this would be WP:RSN; if i have time i'll take it there, but either of you may want to do it if you want an answer faster (it could be more than a week before i get to it). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a valid concern, Mewulwe, but it doesn't irrefutably prove the information was copied from wikipedia. If that is the case, then many other sources would be excluded simply because they might be copied from wikipedia. That line of thought seems spurious, at best. Yes, the burden of evidence, which I have asked you to empirically disprove as reliable, lies with me but one editor alone cannot just decide to declare a source unreliable especially on a might be premise. That would be blatant gaming. There could be any number of reasons why the article's subject's birth date wasn't cited and sourced beforehand but that doesn't imply in the future that editors can't add sources just because it was done after the death of the subject and thus might be copied from wikipedia.Thuralt (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Might be" is quite enough. If the earliest available source for any information is Misplaced Pages itself, it shouldn't be used because any reference would be potentially circular. Mewulwe (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Blantant deletion

I noted that you removed the date and month of birth from George Saitoti article. it is uncouth and non-wikipedia behaviour. If you have a question about that, you can engage the editor or start a discussion at the appropriate discussion page for clarity or any other comments.Kindly desist from that.--Wanjau _{Talk to Me. Email Me.} 16:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you read the discussion on the talk page, or right above on this page, and stop adding an unsourced date. Mewulwe (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Huxley

Which other sources say Cambridge City? Just curious. – Connormah (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This says so, and this implicitly but strongly suggests he died at Addenbrooke's Hospital which is in Cambridge. Mewulwe (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, never noticed any of those. What do you think we should do in the article? List both with cites? Or just leave it? – Connormah (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge can be cited. Grantchester should be left out, since it is likely Misplaced Pages-originated, some idiot just making something up in the absence of explicit information ("oh, he was living in Grantchester, so let's assume he died there") and media then copying it as usual. Mewulwe (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi Mewulwe. FYI, this revert and many similar by over a dozen other editors are under discussion at WP:ANI. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pls desist from vandalising Commondreams-entry

"Me-wulwa", pls stop vandalising the entry for CommonDreams.org by deleting the referenced section on legitimate criticism of the article-site. Your deletions appear blatantly politically biased. 85.166.121.208 (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not referenced. Mewulwe (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure the section you dislike is referenced. "Me-wulwa", you're lying in your teeth - or being deliberately dense: 2 refs. in 4 places are supplied there. Pls desist yr editwarring vandalism. 85.166.121.208 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

notmytribe.com is not a reliable source. Mewulwe (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is - but your opinion is not. And Craig Brown, owner of CommonDreams - whom you for obviously selectively biased reasons fail to mention - is a reliable reference here, too. So stop vandalising. You should be ashamed of yrself.

In the interest of full disclosure, what's yr relationship to CommonDreams? Are you an employee? A paid or unpaid supporter? A friend of employees? - Or are you just an independent fan of censorship, performed by yrself as well as others, in an attitude counter to the spirit of Misplaced Pages? What furnishes your motives for censoring the info of CommonDreams' censorship, is the wonder here. Do tell, pls. 85.166.121.208 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. 85*, that is not reliably sourced information. Comments on forums are never reliable sources. And I will tell you directly that not only am I not related to the company, I've never even heard of it. If you can find reliable sources that discuss the issue, then perhaps it could be included (though you have to follow WP:UNDUE and other policies). I recommend discussing the issue on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The deleted paragraph with quote from CommonDreams owner Craig Brown is most definitely "reliably sourced information", on CD itself, no less. If that paragraph and ref.'s not included, no other reference to CommonDreams should be, either - including then, presumably, the Wiki-entry itself. And it was "Mewulwe", not you, Qwyrxian, who were asked for full disclosure on relationship to CommonDreams. That's two cases of wilful miscomprehension on your part. Plus you're protecting vandalism with clear political bias. Not convincing. You're diminishing Misplaced Pages's credibility for factual rather than politically corrected info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.121.208 (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First, the easy part: I know you didn't ask me about my connection to CommonDreams--I was simply trying to head off what I imagined would be your next question. Second, you must not use the word "vandalism" in this way--that term has a very specific meaning on Misplaced Pages (See WP:VANDAL; basically, it means willfully trying to make WP worse in a dirsuptive way; disagreements about what is or is not reliable is never vandalism); misusing it can be considered a personal attack. Third, while the response from the owner is probably a reliable source, the original report (on notmytribe) is not. Thus, you can't include the criticisms (and of course it wouldn't make sense to include the owner's response without the original criticisms). Find a source that meets the reliable sources guideline, or the information cannot be included. Please understand, no one is censoring anything, no one is trying to cover up facts. All we're doing is requiring that you follow our policies and guidelines. We do not report everything that some blogger, forum poster, or other internet denizen has said about the subjects covered in the encyclopedia. We cover only things that are reliably sourced. Apologies if you don't like that, but it's how Misplaced Pages works. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda

I've thought the advice from the other editors, as to if I should take the numbering dispute to DRN. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, taking to DRN would be a good choice, though technically it's Mewulwe's responsibility. Mewulwe, reverting on that article will clearly be edit warring. The consensus on the talk page is clearly and obviously in favor of numbering in the infobox, and you are the only one opposing. It doesn't matter that no one chose to actually enforce the talk page consensus until now; the key is that the consensus is clear and vocal. While it is possible for consensus to change, it is the responsibility of those opposed to the consensus to demonstrate it's changed (or follow dispute resolution to get it changed).

So let me be abundantly and completely clear, Mewulwe: further reverts from you will be considered edit warring, and may well result in me blocking you. I'm not WP:INVOLVED on this issue (I really don't care if there's a number there or not; I just care that there isn't edit warring and that consensus is enforced), and thus am free to take administrative actions necessary to prevent disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Even aside from the fact that consensus is not supposed to be a vote of a majority just saying "I like it this way," would you tell me how many people you see behind the supposed consensus? Given that you claim not to be involved, I see only GoodDay insisting on the number. Others have only briefly and ambiguously commented. Mewulwe (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see every single editor on that talk page supporting the inclusion of the number except for you. While consensus is not a vote, consensus also is not unanimity. When numerous editors advance policy based arguments in support of a specific position, and only one opposes, that's good enough for WP:CONSENSUS, and if that one person attempts to force his/her own way, that's either edit warring or disruptive editing or tendentious editing, depending on how exactly that person does it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you aren't answering the question. When the total of involved people is 2, "everyone but you" is not a consensus. Mewulwe (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

your recent deletions of Lehner references

Hello. Please reverse your recent deletions of references to the scholarly work "China in European Encyclopaedias." It is an excellent study of how European encyclopedias portrayed China in the 19th century. Its inclusion in relevant Misplaced Pages articles is helpful in giving readers interpretive context. M2545 (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't put it in any relevant context. A China-related study is not the proper source for the most basic info on these encyclopedias, which can be found anywhere and which that study - if indeed it provides that exact information - may well have taken from Misplaced Pages itself, the relevant articles being older than the study itself. Mewulwe (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

East Germany

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have temporarily reverted the edit you made here. This is because as far as I can see, there has been no recent discussion for such a change since Talk:East Germany/Archive 5#East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union, saying it is ''not is a revisionist interpretation of history not backed up by facts, which appeared to be left unresolved. Please note that I have absolutely no personal opinion in this content issue, but I think the best solution would be for the editors to start a new discussion aimed at finally reaching a consensus. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Czech Republic vs. Czechia

Hello Mewulwe. "it is explained elsewhere", you wrote. Where? The English term Czechia is not so rarely used. . --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In the Etymology section, and in the article Name of the Czech Republic. As far as Google, the numbers I get for "Czechia" are 0.8% those for "Czech Republic" - and only 0.2% in Google Books. Most of them can be classified as erroneous, i.e. people simply making analogies to "Slovakia" or to the equivalents of Czechia in other languages like the German "Tschechien" and therefore thinking it must be the regular English term. Mewulwe (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI

See Talk:Czech_Republic#Czechia_.28again.29. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

czechofile is worse than a pedophile

czechofile is worse than a pedophile.