Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:16, 17 December 2016

This is Srich32977's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 2 months

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Fractional Reserve Banking

Hi,

I saw that you made edits to Fractional Reserve Banking recently. I wonder if you would like to vote or pass comment on this rather important proposed change to the page => Time to change which theory gets prominence? - BTW, yes I know that this has been discussed before, but I think that there are good reasons why this issue should periodically be reviewed. Cheers Reissgo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake news site

Thank you for your help on the article on Fake news site !!!

I added a little bit to it from a few sources.

Do you think it now looks good enough to not be deleted from Misplaced Pages?

69.50.70.9 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request for {{Libertarianism sidebar/sandbox}}

Hi,

You recently requested speedy deletion of {{Libertarianism sidebar/sandbox}} under the T3 criteria (that it substantially duplicates another template). However, in the case of templates under the /sandbox naming convention, that is precisely the point: to serve as a staging area for template development. Misplaced Pages:Template sandbox and test cases has some further information on this if you're interested. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Thumperward: then shouldn't the categories have initial ] in them so the template does not show up in the indexes? – S. Rich (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If that's still the convention, then yes - however this only requires a trivial page edit, not its deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Antonio de Viti de Marco

Which naming conventions are you referring to? Nemo 15:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, not conventions per se. James M. Buchanan uses de Viti de Marco in his writings about Antonio. And see http://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9781137534927 . "Grazie" – S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You must have had a long night in the ER – I am not some newbie, so a canned welcome message is hardly necessary or helpful. But to the point, the new content is not about health or PD itself, but about a technology which will help patients mitigate the effects. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't change era BC/AD to BCE/CE

As per WP:ERA, please don't change era BC/AD to BCE/CE as you did here. I notice that you've already been told about this above. Paul August ☎ 18:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, the guidance says either method is acceptable! What is objectionable is your reverting the entire effort. I made changes to the presentation of the pages cited, but you ignored those changes. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes either choice of era is acceptable when creating an article, what is not acceptable is changing the established era style without talk page consensus. Quoting from MOS:ERA:

"Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question"

I reverted your change as the easiest way for me to undo your policy violation. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the targeted change. But "policy violation"? Hardly. (WP:LOP vs. WP:LGL.) Considering that the topic is one that goes well beyond religion or Western history, there should not be much objection to a switch. Per Common_Era#Contemporary_usage it looks like AD/BC is very passe. – S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MOS then. Paul August ☎ 20:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, MOS:CENTURY allows for either method BC/AD or BCE/CE. Enough of this quibbling. You and I have better things to do. I will try to be sensitive to your preference for BC/AD, even in the articles which encompass non-Western cultures or time-frames. – S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

ISBN hyphens

Please stop removing hyphens from ISBN numbers. Correct ISBNs have hyphens and the placement of the hyphens reflects the registration group and registrant id. You are removing meaningful information for no apparent reason and damaging reference information as you do so. --RL0919 (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)