Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:37, 12 November 2006

TALK | ARCHIVE1 | ARCHIVE2 | ARCHIVE3 | ARCHIVE4

Princess Augusta and the Flea Circus

Further details from may imply that we got the wrong Princess as it mentions "Princess Augusta of Prussia" --Flea Circus Director 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Queens

Good evening,

I notice that you reverted at least two of my edits and called them 'nonsense'. Two of my edits were to conform the openings of the Queen Mary (consort of George V) and Queen Elizabeth (consort of George VI) to that of Queen Alexandra (consort of Edward VII), the latter of which seemed to exhibit an intelligent template for articles about Queens consort of the UK (though I did not create it). My other edit was to insert 'Queen' (but not 'Her Majesty') before the name of 'Elizabeth II', and amend the misrepresentation of 'Windsor' as her surname. Merely having 'Elizabeth II' for an article entry in a conventional paper encyclopaedia is sensical in order to maintain the easy flow of alphabetical order, but Misplaced Pages fortunately need not concern itself with that issue. I am keen to understand your reasoning behind these reversions. Lord Charlton 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Queens, Part II

Hello,

I am still awaiting a response from you. In the meantime I see you've reverted another of my edits with the explanation of 'rv-consensus'. How is consensus formed, and where may I see proof of it? I will give you another opportunity to respond before reverting the articles back to my previous edits.

Sincerely,

Lord Charlton 21:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Royal Standard

The above article is not just about UK flags; it is about Royal Standard's in general; thus the UK flag template should not be there. Brian | (Talk) 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Prince William of Wales standard.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Prince William of Wales standard.gif. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 20:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on September 29 2006 to ARA San Luis

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Unfair treatment of 3RR block by William C discussion=

Astrotrain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If the user who blocked me for 3RR would look at the 4th edit specified, they would see that this edit was a compromise attempt- and was not a revert back to the previous version

Please include a decline or accept reason.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The third-to-fourth edit which is the one in question is here. The comparison shows that this user has a point, and this should be dealt with as soon as possible.

The first, second and third comparisons are linked here. 1 2 3

"The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions...within a 24 hour period." -WP:3RR (emphasis mine) Daniel.Bryant 09:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

All 4 edits delte the word "Malvinas" which is the point at issue. Reverts do not have to be word for word identical William M. Connolley 10:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not a good enough reason to block me for 24 hours. I was expanding the article to address the concerns of the user as listed on the talk page (and noted in my edit summary). The 4th edit is clearly not a revert to the third version. Note that other 3RR guidlines have not been followed- for example there was no 3RR warning posted on my talk page- and the other user never raised any further concerns with my edit- leading me to assume he agreed with the change. I strongly ask for this to be reconsidered. Astrotrain 10:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the issue was what looks like a good faith attempt at a compromise, can we not just ignore all rules and let Astrotrain get on with editing? It won't set a precedent because these things never do. The Malvinas/Falknads issue is solved (0.9 pro0bability) now anyway. Fiddle Faddle 10:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't defer to your idea of what consitutes a revert. But AT can be unblocked in the standard way... if he promises to leave the article alone for the duration of his block, and to adhere to (strict) 3RR in future. William M. Connolley 10:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to edit the article as the issue has been solved- as it were (the aim in the first place of course). And I always edit in line with policies. Astrotrain 10:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, sorry, not quite good enough. In *your* view you always edit in line with policies... but you wouldn't have been blocked if that was true in my view. Please avoid the equivocation William M. Connolley 11:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I will not bother any more with the issue. I am clearly wasting my time trying to engage with you. It is a shame to be treated to so harshly for such a minor issue. Astrotrain 11:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, eating a little bit of humble pie does no harm on occasions like this. We can all make mistakes. Fiddle Faddle 11:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for your help Tim- it has been appreicated. However, I do not intend to beg William Connolley to unblock me- not in my nature. Astrotrain 11:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. I guess I am more an "apologise, note what went wrong and move forward" kind of guy. But if we were not all different the world would be a sad place :) Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Its up to you. You can, like anyone else, be unblocked if you'll make an unqualified promise as asked. I know is a bit irritating; if you don't want to, then the alternative is to sit out the block. Its also a shame to break 3RR over such a minor issue, and you aren't being treated harshly William M. Connolley 12:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've denied your unblock request, as you definitely did violate the 3RR. Keep in mind, the 3RR exists only to lay down a specific maximum beyond which anyone violating it should be blocked. But revert-warring (which is what you were doing: changing the article back to your preferred version) is very harmful to Misplaced Pages: after someone reverts your change you should discuss the issue, and you have to accept that the state of the article may be in your non-preferred version for some time. It's just a 24 hour block; once it's over feel free to resume editing, but don't get into revert wars! Mangojuice 13:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly the admins decided to continue my block- harsh and unjust in my opinion- but I suppose these poeple need something to do- probably never occured to them that actually editing articles and contributing material would be useful rather than ban long standing users acting within the constraints of Wiki rule. Astrotrain 00:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits on my user page

Why are you placing text/having discussions on my user page? Please see my user page for details.

--IRelayer 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone seems to be spamming me about Gatwick Airport or something...--IRelayer 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:British VE Day.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:British VE Day.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. YellowDot 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah I took it myself- happened to be hanging around Buck Palace in 1945 with a camera in hand. Astrotrain 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Queen_bombings_silence.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen_bombings_silence.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 09:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Queen_bombings_visit.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Queen_bombings_visit.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 09:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RBS

Read Talk:Royal Bank of Scotland; the bank does have an official Gaelic name. Is this just an anti-Gaelic thing or what? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the Gaelic name is used by the company. It is therefore official. They are a Scottish bank! And who are you to dismiss it is a marketing ploy? Seriously, why would you say that? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that in Gaelic? Cause if it's not, I don't see the relevance. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, since the reverting seems to be confined to me and you only, I will revert myself and take out the two mentions of the Gaelic name if you promise not to revert if a third party restores it; likewise I will not revert if someone other than yourself (anons not counted) reverts the restoration of the third party. That way I propose that both you and myself take ourselves out of this revert war. If no-one elses bothers, then we can leave it at that. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)