Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user d4f86fd465dfg1 (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 16 May 2013 (→Hey: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your edit to "Ford Fiesta" boggled non-latin text

Please check this difference page of your edit, you'll notice that you changed not only "liter" to "litre", but also quite a few non-latin text to question marks ("?").

You probably didn't even know you were doing that. A probable reason is that you were using an extremely out-dated browser or a browser that doesn't properly support unicode. (All major current browsers support unicode properly. Chrome, Firefox, IE, Safari, Opera)

I could have reverted only those unintended part of your edit. However, since changing "liter" to "litre" is meaningless and not worth preserving (According to WP:RETAIN, you shouldn't have done that in the first place), I reverted your whole edit.

I suggest you check all your recent edit, and revert any similar unintended change of non-latin text. You may also report this problem to the authors of the browser you were using if you can.

Gene91 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

I checked this, and it happened because I imported the entire page into a text editor to run a search&replace on liter -> litre. It never occured to me that it might munge non-latin text, although I was careful not to affect any links - although I don't think there were any. Good point though, and one to watch out for in the future.

However, the change from liter ->litre is valid, so I've done it again, as per wp:engvar - wp:retain doesn't apply in this case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Sinclair

I have started a proposal to group together related articles about the works of Sir Clive Sinclair. Please take a look at the proposal at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Sinclair and see if you support it. --Ritchie333 11:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Sometimes it's best to just walk away! Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You were broadly right, however, and I've re-added a tweaked version which fulfils all the criteria of being supported and removes any question of it being opinion, by accurately pointing to those who hold the opinion. This is bang on the money as far as WP:NPOV goes, and any removal by the IP in question is open for reversion and a vandalism tag. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks comrades, but I think that a voluntary interaction ban between myself and 190 is in order as we are obviously never going to agree - and I won't lower myself to his level (apart from my tension-breaker final edit summary). As far as I'm concerned Cleo Rocos, and similar pages, have been struck from my watchlist to remove any temptation to re-engage. I wish you all the best on those articles, and I'm off now to delete all the images from Depictions of Muhammad for some comparitive light relief. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah well, he reverted, insulted and found himself on the end of a two week block this time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Chaheel. User:Ash Loomis has been making further personal attack comments on his talk page and Talk:Punisher - wouldn't this fall in AN/I instead? Thanks, hmssolent\Let's convene 07:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Never mind - it seems to have already been solved there. hmssolent\Let's convene 09:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: Wakefield RiscOS show?

Dude What???

Im not edit warring. I just readded the template that "you" kept removing, your the one at fault. If you noticed I reverted you, I only reverted your removing of the template. Even though Im right about the Art of Motion and provided over "10" sources proving it. Guess facts dont matter here, because if it doesnt say it here then it must not be true huh? BlackDragon 19:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly; if you wish to post on my talk page, please learn how to use the apostrophe, and use legible, clear and consise English. Thanks.

Secondly, your sources are unreliable and in the wrong place. There is no point in searching out a bunch of sources if you don't even attempt to put them on the page your are editing - however in this case it's just as well you didn't add them in, because they're not reliable and would only be removed anyway.

You are right in some respects - facts or more accurately the truth doesn't matter here, only verifiability. Read This essay to understand what I'm referring to. Also this policy to understand what a reliable source is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok first I dont like the apostrophe, and its not necessary, So dont bother with it. It doesnt change my message. Second it is stated in the article and various places. It doesnt need a source in the infobox as it is simply a overview of the page itself. And besides I was simply showing him and was discussing it, that is until you inserted yourself in it and blatantly vandalized the page. I added the nickname because its true and you kept removing the template. Which NEEDS TO STAY. Clearly you are at fault and reverted me as many times as I reverted you. And clearly you should read Wiki:3RR because you obviously dont know what it is and I never violated it. BlackDragon 01:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. The apostrophe is a necessary part of the English language to show a contraction. Your refusal to use it merely shows that you do not really care about your presentation. If this is the image you wish to present as an Editor, so be it, but it's not a good one I can assure you. Again, if you wish to post on my talk page, please be coherent and grammatically correct.

I'm pleased to see that you've stopped adding in the false claim that Parkour is also known as "The art of Motion", when it would be more accurate - but irrelevent to the article - to say that "Red Bull host an event called 'Parkour - the art of motion'". The two are not the same thing. When you understand that (and the use of the apostophe) we can talk some more - if needs be. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You refuse to type back because I dont use an apostrophe. I use it in papers and in articles. I think we have grown to know that 'dont = don't = do not'. It doesnt change that and when we speak we dont go "hey don(apostrophe)t". You "can" read it cant you. Besides wouldn't you agree.

And I just said they host the art of motion. I never said that it is Parkour's nickname because red bull says so. Red Bull uses that name so It can contest both Parkour and Freerunning. Saying Red Bull Parkour wouldn't hold Freerunning. By saying Art of Motion it can be more open to both as Freerunning is/was a branch off of Parkour. And if we are being like this, shouldn't you use SPELL CHECK. just saying And its not false, its true. The red bull wasn't the only link I provided though. I learned of the Art of Motion contest "after" I learned that Parkour is the Art of Motion so that does not mean anything about the nickname. By saying you do the Art of Motion, then you do Parkour and not a competition. Its the nickname not a contest. The Red Bull is a Parkour contest named after the nickname to feature both and not just a competition where people do Parkour BlackDragon 21:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh very well, I'll indulge you - but only because I pity your combined ignorance and determination. Firstly, if you're going to argue the point about using the apostrophe and general spelling on my page - you might want to get it right yourself - your edit summary should say "especially if you're mocking my writing." I don't need to mock you when you do such a good job yourself. Taking pride in your defeciencies is not a good way to endear yourself to people - especially those you are trying to convince to see your point of view! Again - if you want to post on my page; do so using school-grade English.

Secondly, what is it about sources and references that you don't understand? Stop posting (and threatening to post) sources on peoples talk pages, and post them on the article page itself. That's where they should be. What kind of person thinks "Hey - this article needs sourcing to back up my claim. I know - I'll post them all on an editors talk page! That should prevent reversion!"

Thirdly - and in complete contradiction of the above paragraph - don't bother using your "sources" on the Parkour page, because they're not reliable and don't warrant inclusion. They are all either promotional, or don't even support your claim. For example - this link you provided makes no mention of "Art of Motion". Both this and this article only claim that the competition is called "Red Bull Art of Motion" and specifically refer to the sport as Parkour and Free Running throughout. There is nothing reliable to support your claim. Re-inserting it will result in removal.

This is my final comment on this page regarding the matter. If you wish to continue - please do so on the Parkour article talk page before adding your so far unsourced information - where I have invited you to do so twice, yet you have not engaged. Using the talk page will allow other interested editors to also contribute. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Dude that last message does not even mention Parkour, it was ONLY for you. Why are you so mad. I will take the discussion about it there but this is not about it. Do you even read these.

" First of all, the source says the following: "Parkour is an international discipline, sport and hobby that is best described as the art of forward motion in spite of obstacles, or to put it simply: the art of movement. Parkour's chief aim is never to move backward but instead to overcome obstacles fluidly, with strength, originality and speed." And the part you referenced wasnt in your talk page it was in the summary. But the article itself says that and the info box is an overview and needs no source. That is why it is good to add and I was simply showing him and now you it is true. You have way too many inconsistencies. First you forgot spell check. Then you whine about the summary (which is not the talk page) and now you just plain missed the entire source, which does state what I previously said. Now if you want to say I cannot write proper grammar or whatever, then you should probably check yourself first. " Just answer it bro, It is not about Parkour. So this has absolutely no point in going there. BlackDragon 21:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)