Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Djathinkimacowboy (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 4 January 2012 (→Two are now playing, eh?: reply that I hope will neutralize that annoying "sigh"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• If you are a registered user and I left a message on your talk page, please respond there.
• If you edited under an anonymous IP address and want to respond to a message I left you, please respond there.
• Registered users may leave a new message here. Unless you request otherwise, I will respond on this page.

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Spacecraft in Star Trek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Time Squared, The Survivors, Cause and Effect and Borg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Two are now playing, eh?

I thought I smelled a rat here, and should have known it would be you. As I asked the other rat, which episodes would meet your standard as references for my edit? DVdm preaches AGF then hauls you in to assist him in this. I have not forgotten Erikeltic and what he and you tried to do to me.Djathinkimacowboy 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? *sigh*

First, there are no "rat"s. Reducing yourself to name-calling is a violation of WP:CIVIL, for which you have been previously warned.

Second, there is no "hauling." You should not be surprised to know that I have a bunch of Star Trek-related articles on my watchlist. As the other editor pointed out, your first edit was original research. Your rephrasing is still an unsubstantiated generalization. I removed the whole thing because it is in-universe, it is trivial, and it just isn't encyclopedic content.

Erikeltic and I didn't try to "to do" anything to you. Erikeltic's sockpuppet suspicion may have been incorrect, but the underlying issues about your lack of civility and battleground mentality persist as concerns about your contributions to the project. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh yourself. You say: "the underlying issues about your lack of civility and battleground mentality persist as concerns about your contributions to the project." If I may apologise- which is more than you ever did- I retract what I have said that is negative. I was tired and angry. If you consider our past, you would have thought better about sticking in your oar at the page in question. Therefore, may I ask you not to lecture me and claim what a horrendous danger I am to Misplaced Pages. Self-righteousness sounds no better than lack of civility, and I wish Wikipedians like you would learn that. If it pleases you or if it does not, I won't waste another second on this... or on you. Djathinkimacowboy 10:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)