Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:42, 18 April 2016

If I left you a message, please answer on your talk page and place a Talkback, etc. on my talk. If you leave me a message, I will answer on my talk page (unless you request otherwise) and place a Talkback, etc. on your talk. Thanks

Archive index

2016:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Is there a reason

...why you're not an administrator? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dweller. I'm sure there are many depending upon whom (maybe that should be "who"?) you ask. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I was very impressed with this. Assuming it's in-character and not out of character (I'll check!), would you be averse to being nominated for adminship? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, but to be honest I'm still fairly new to Misplaced Pages and I'm still learning new stuff each day, so I don't really feel I'm ready to take such a step. I tend to like to work my way up the ladder rung by rung in things I do, so maybe in a few years when I've got a little more experience under my belt it would be something I would consider. As it is now, I find myself spending more time on Misplaced Pages than I feel I should, and I have been actually thinking about cutting back a little recently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

When you do eventually go for it, please make sure someone pastes a link to that response in your RfA. That's the kind of attitude editors love to see. Nonetheless, admins, like all of us, are volunteers. There's no expectation of you giving up more time to the project if/when you get a mop. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This essay I wrote is a little old, and I never finished it, but it has some useful advice that is still relevant. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again for the kind words and the link. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) (edit conflict) Marchjuly, I may be up for nominating you as well, provided that another editor can promote what you do outside the "File:" namespace (which seems to be the case with Dweller). However, if you really consider this, you may have to wait a while. I saw a couple of minor red flags that could deter support; it's nothing that you have done, but rather what you haven't done. (If you want to know, feel free to send me an email as I don't want to advertise my finds here.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you as well Steel1943. As I posted above, I'm still learning stuff each and every day, so I'm sure there will always be things that I shouldn't have done as well as things that I should've done. Right now, I have no real need to know what the particulars are; after all, so long as I know it not, it hurteth mee not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: This talk page has seen a few conflicts in the past, but I think that's the first edit conflict that has happened. Another thing I can take off my bucket list. thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Pierrot

I see that you have deleted all of the embedded links in this page, and I would like you to reconsider. Those links were not intended "as a form of inline citation"—which, as the Wikipage you directed me to makes clear, is disallowed. In other words, they were not there to give legitimacy to the entry but rather to offer the reader immediate access to the works in question. I don't know what is gained by removing them, but much is lost. Yes, a patient reader can find the works on Google (but, in some cases, not easily), but why send that reader through the trouble? I realize that links may "rot", but then eventually everything does. A link that, if only temporarily, gives direct access to a poem or play or short story seems better to me than no link at all. (I check them regularly, by the way, and repair or remove dead ones.) Thank you for giving your attention to this. Beebuk 07:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Beebuk. External links to third websites are not really allowed to be embedded into articles like they were in Pierrot. Many of those links were for individual entries of embedded lists which is generally not allowed per WP:EL#Links in lists. In addition, the last part of WP:CS#Avoid embedded links says "Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article, like this: "Apple, Inc. announced their latest product...". In that example, the link is not so much being used to cite information as it is being used to direct the reader to Apple's website. It's almost being used in the same manner as a wikilink would be used to direct the reader to Apple, Inc.. Wikilinks are fine of course, and even a red link could be considered acceptable, but I think links directing the reader to external websites are not allowed. When Misplaced Pages was starting out, it used be acceptable to use embedded citations in articles, but this style has been deprecated and is no longer considered appropriate. If some of the links that were removed were intended to support information in the article to help the reader verify what is written, then they should converted to an inline citation. If, however, the links are simply as you state above for leading the reader to an external website (which I believe was the case for all of the ones I removed), then they should be added to the external links section instead if they satisfy WP:ELYES. Some of the links were to videos, published works or photos which might be problematic per WP:COPYLINK or WP:ELNEVER so they might not be able to even be used as external links. If you'd like another opinion on this, then we can ask at WP:ELN. If the consensus there is that the links are OK, I'll go back and re-add them to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hope this doesn't sound impertinent of me, but I would appreciate a second opinion. Most of those links have been in the article for years, and I've had some pretty tough scrutiny of the page from other editors (as the Talk page reveals) who, nevertheless, have not brought up the subject of the links. (Oh, yes, there was one editor who removed links to videos because of copyright considerations—a decision with which I was, and am, in total agreement.) Removing them seems to me to be tantamount to forbidding the use of the illustrations on the page: I don't see the difference. But if WP:ELN says they must go, they'll go. I've never dealt with the top brass, so would you mind doing the asking? Thanks. Beebuk 12:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Beebuk: I don't think there's anything impertinent about your request at all and asking for the opinions of others is a way of making sure we get things right. I do, however, think that this is slightly different than using illustrations in an article simply because such files have been uploaded to Misplaced Pages (or Wikimedia Commons) and have (or are at least supposed to have) appropriate free licensing (or they satisfy WP:NFCC if they are non-free content) allowing their usage. Those are internal links to files being hosted on the WMF's servers where they are subject to the various policies/guidelines of Misplaced Pages, etc. It would, however, inappropriate (at least per my understanding WP:EL) to directly add links to photos/illustrations hosted on external third party websites to Misplaced Pages articles, etc. just as it would be to link to official webpages, etc. subjects mentioned within the article itself. Anyway, I posted something at WP:ELN#Embedded external links in Pierrot so feel free to comment there as to why you feel the links should be allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Your recent editing history at India national cricket team shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. ¡Bozzio! 04:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)