Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 14:41, 23 February 2010 (→Fifty-year rule: - reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Mail

Sent last week. I wondered if you recieved it. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but too busy to look into it, since I'm busy in other topic areas right now, sorry. --Elonka 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Ward20 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your case against PHG

Without commenting on the merits or otherwise of PHG's edits and your criticisms of them, I am disturbed by some of your actions in pursuing this case. This is bordering on canvassing whereas this is quite unacceptable -- an article talk page is for improving that article, not a place to comment or solicit or collect comments on the perceived inadequacies of another editor. Rhomb (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it appears that you are unaware of the context. If you will review the history of my talkpage, you will see that Mathsci specifically asked to be kept informed. Also, as regards the list, if you look at the top of Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review, you will see that this practice of maintaining a list of PHG articles has been ongoing for years, and has also been reviewed at ArbCom. --Elonka 21:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Many things have been going on for years, not all of them are right. The practice of using article talk pages to comment on other editors is one of those which is not right. Rhomb (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

assume good faith argh

Yet another new editor has suddenly chimed in on Talk: Mar Thoma Church with a series of vituperative personal attacks based solely upon good faith disagreements. See , , , , and my request here . Any assistance you can offer would be helpful. Tb (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Code

It was suggested that you might be interested in this. (Posted February 14, 2010, in case it rolls off into the archive.) 58.147.58.28 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It has rolled off into the archives here: Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010_February_14#Code. 58.147.58.28 (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) I haven't really spent any time on it (people send me these all the time, and I just don't have time to work on them all). But my guess is that, if there's even an answer at all (sometimes these things are just hoaxes to waste time), that Jarry1250 would be on the right track. --Elonka 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Crusades symposium

Hi Elonka, I saw you on the list of participants, but I never saw you there. Oh well. My paper went pretty well, but people came out caring as little about Misplaced Pages as they did coming in, which I guess is to be expected. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So sorry to have missed you. I had a death in the family, and had to leave town suddenly. I was only able to attend the first day of the symposium, which was an incredible disappointment for me because I'd been looking forward to your talk so much. I did ask others there to say hello to you for me, but I guess they forgot.  :/ In any case, will you be giving the talk anywhere else? Or if there's a hardcopy proceeding, please let me know! --Elonka 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my condolences. I missed the first day, I didn't arrive until Thursday afternoon. I don't think I'll be talking anywhere else, or publishing it, but I'm sure I'll be there for the next conference in 2014! Adam Bishop (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fifty-year rule

You propose here that only modern sources, say fifty years or less, can be reliable. Is this your personal view, a Misplaced Pages guideline or a policy? Or is it a specific restriction on that article which you are imposing under some specific authorisation? Rhomb (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. It's not a Misplaced Pages-wide guideline, but it is a request towards PHG, who has been sanctioned in the past for using poor sources and pushing POVs. I have replied in more detail at Talk:Timur. --Elonka 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)