Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mabelina

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Afterwriting (talk | contribs) at 00:20, 23 January 2016 (→Disruptive editing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:20, 23 January 2016 by Afterwriting (talk | contribs) (→Disruptive editing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Lord Athlone

@Miesianiacal: could you be upfront about your raison-d'être with regard to Lord Athlone & other MOS issues which you seem intent on escalating, whilst deleting my comments on your Talk page? M Mabelina (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your question is incomprehensible.
If you want something changed in the article, stop trying to push it in by revert; start a discussion at the talk page and outline each change you wish to make. If consensus supports the change, then it can be made. This is basic editing process you're already well aware of. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Clearly you do understand my point, & since you were so quick to mention EDIT WAR is that the route you want to go down? I don't. I should rather get on with improving Wiki. I know there is a big issue with regard to MOS but those edits I made have been very very well covered at: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Till soon mon ami. M Mabelina (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You edit war. There is nothing unclear about that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It is very convenient no doubt for you to denigrate my sub-par grammar! What I spot (which I am now going to rectify) are typos - but if you truly think my command of the English language is not up to scratch then please try to launch an enquiry. I am not sure how far it will get you or even what you hope to achieve by it, other than cause yet another massive argument, like you did at MOS. M Mabelina (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
View it as you wish, but it is not unreasonable; in fact, it's allowable per guidelines: WP:NOBAN: "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Very technical - you obviously know much about Wiki procedures, but what is most disturbing is that that user seems to have issued a second warning (to me? presumably..) without any visible alert to me nor as far I can see any evidence of what that warning entails (apart from the subsequent message above). All I can glean from this is that Miesianiacal would rather have me banned than being able to contribute to Wiki constructively & without due recourse - not pleasant I must say, but then he did launch that MOS enquiry about PC & Rt Hon by stating "before Mabelina does any more damage". Please Miesianiacal STOP behaving like this, if poss. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "An admin needs to look". I am amazed to see that you have just passed the eighth anniversary of your first edit. And in all you time you have still not learned that decisions here are taken by consensus of all editors. Admins are merely janitors who clear up messes. This editor agrees with Miesianiacal: you are edit warring, bullying and generally carrying on in your usual fashion which will eventually get you banned. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't write "before Mabelina does any more damage", as though I'd determined you were causing damage. I wrote "I think the veracity of the claim should be settled before Mabelina does too much possible damage", indicating it hadn't yet been settled whether you were doing damage or not; that was part of what the discussion was meant to settle. Please read more carefully. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Miesianiacal: I saw your latest edits to the Lord Athlone article. Whilst there remain a few points worthy of clarification, your edits are very good so I thought best to let you know this in the spirit of co-operation. Please acknowledge and I trust that we may be able work together to improve Misplaced Pages going forward. Best M Mabelina (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

How many more times....

....do you need to be told about wikipedia policy on capitalisation and over-linking?

This was not simply you creating a new chunk of text and leaving others to tidy up, it was you actively correcting things I had done to bring the Sir George Young, 6th Baronet article into line with the MOS. For example, we have been through at great length the capitalisation of "ward". I have explained to you that the MOS requires consistent capitalisation in RS in order for wikipedia to treat a word as one that should be capitalised. We have seen through our previous discussion that there is not consistent capitalisation of ward, and that even relevant UK legislation does not capitalise it. Therefore it should not be capitalised.

You are also linking things that don't need to be linked, and some of your links are wrong anyway - for example, "he lost his seat in 1971. Have you checked which article that links to? It's irrelevant to the article. There is no need to have a link for "seat" at that point in the article.

And re. his religion, the article about him being a churchwarden and synod member says that he was these things - it does not make any reference to him being a self-identifying Anglican now. He may have held those posts several decades ago. Frinton100 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Frinton100: I know this ain't going to go away because too many regulars seem to have taken a route opposite to my opinion (namely to simply state the facts & not redefine things), but let me simply point out : http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ClaphamTownWardMap.pdf Clapham Town Ward - clearly stated; secondly you deleted Anglican, when Lord Young of Cookham is most definitely an Anglican & proud to be one too. I do not wish to be at daggers drawn for ever and ever. M Mabelina (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That map does not prove anything. We have been through this at length. Both UC and LC are used in RS, so on wikipedia we go with LC. Young may well be an Anglican, but it needs proof, that's how wikipedia works, especially on BLPs. If you can't find proof, then it needs to be left out until someone does. Frinton100 (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
And if you really want "proof" - look at page viii. Frinton100 (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Frinton100: Apart from giving in I can't think what else to do - however why is that the way you put things as above makes out as if I have committed a cardinal sin. Do you think I have ever made any useful contributions to Wiki? M Mabelina (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. it seems a constant battle at the moment & for no other reason than I am making the amendments - others seem to be carrying on quite nicely... I've just spotted something else in Lord Young's succession box, so let me correct it & see what you think... also, I have respected your edits but simply enquire as to why stating "whip" is deemed better than "Whip" (when he was the latter)?
I don't think one way is "better" or "worse". The difference is that I recognise both variations are in use by RS - and , so that means wikipedia should, for the sake of consistency use the same form. The form that the wikipedia community has chosen to use when there is inconsistent capitalisation in RS is l.c.
Could you please answer a simple question - do you understand what is meant by "consistent capitalisation in RS"? Frinton100 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I do but I note that Misplaced Pages's MOS is held in such high esteem that it would appear to be paramount to anything else. No point in my arguing about this because it just lands me in trouble - but it seems to transpire much as a steamroller effect. M Mabelina (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. I recall you mentioning "better" or "worse" before, so why is the original title worse than Wiki's RS?
Good, then I hope you will endeavour to only capitalise words in future that are consistently capitalised in RS. Re. your PS, I don't know what you mean - what original title? Frinton100 (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Frinton100: a whip (as a common noun) or a Whip (as a proper noun)...
Yes, in some sources, not in others. As you will see from those sources. I still don't understand what you mean by "I recall you mentioning "better" or "worse" before, so why is the original title worse than Wiki's RS?" - which original title? Frinton100 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
qv. https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/parliamentary-secretary-to-the-treasury-and-chief-whip
Yes, I know. Some sources use capitals, others don't. There are plenty that don't, I have shown you some above, there are others. You said above that you understood "consistent capitalisation in RS". You must therefore realise that we do not have consistent capitalisation in RS.
Now, you asked me a question earlier. I still don't understand it, so please could you clarify what you meant. Frinton100 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you think I have ever made any useful contributions to Wiki? M Mabelina (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but what has that got to do with the current discussion? I notice that far from "respecting my edits" you have just gone and reverted some of them - opposition typically is not always spelt with an u.c. O either. I'm guessing incidentally that you no longer require an answer to the question above. Frinton100 (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course.... hardly a ringing endorsement; logically one might assume that this doesn't matter and that I am some dreary old pedant, enforcing a code that died out some time in the Middle Ages.
It doesn't really matter in relation to this discussion does it, nor does anyone's view of my edits. What matters is what RS show us and how we interpret that against the MOS. The MOS is clear; consistent capitalisation in RS = capitalisation in wikipedia, no consistent capitalisation in RS = no capitalisation in wikipedia. Neither "whip" nor "opposition" are consistently capitalised in RS, even in the contexts in which they are found in the George Young article. Frinton100 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Wiki MOS is wrong on occasions (& surely it is to Wiki's benefit for any flaws in its rules to be attended to?) & others note elsewhere that common sense should prevail. M Mabelina (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well if you're going to fall back on your old argument "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" there's not really much more to be said is there, because despite all the pages of discussion, you are not actually willing to engage. All you are willing to do is continue to push your own POV. Frinton100 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That is simply not the case so please don't try peddling it. Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

RfCs

There is no point editing the RfC page - if you look at the top of the edit page it says "This list is updated by Legobot; your edits will be overwritten if you edit this page.". Each time you change something it will just get reverted back the next time the bot refreshes the page. Frinton100 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

OK so as to provide a balanced argument is this better?
@Legobot: Honorific prefixes are not that important from a Misplaced Pages standpoint, since its role as an encyclopaedia is to impart accurate knowledge; this is amply achieved by the use of PC as a post-nom alone, whereas it is becoming abundantly clear that "customary usage" (ie. courtesy styles) vary not only from to time, but also from country to country. The following proposed amendment to Wiki's MOS guidelines takes this into account, thereby being correct in all countries worldwide.
====Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom====
Privy Council members should not have the prefix “The Right Honourable” added before their name in the infobox but for “PC” to be used as a post-nominal.
Note that a Privy Counsellor is only entitled to the titles and styles of that office after they have been sworn in, an announcement of a pending appointment is not sufficient.


Legobot is a bot not a human editor. The text for the RfC was set by me when I opened it. It gives a neutral introduction to the argument. Your text pushes your own POV and offers only two options - "Rt Hon" or "PC", whereas of course there are 3 others - "Neither", "Both" or "It depends". Frinton100 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah okay, well perhaps you could add that? Best M Mabelina (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
PS. others have added similar clarifications - let's make it easy: either or
No, nothing should be added now. The bot picks up the first section of text up to the first date stamp on the talk page, in order to change it I'd have to change that, and of course, that means editing an old post to which others have responded. I wouldn't add that text anyway as it pushed one POV as I mentioned. RfC texts should be neutral (see WP:RFCQ, specifically - A good rule of thumb: another editor who doesn't know your opinion shouldn't be able to guess it from reading the question.)
And I should add I'm not entirely sure that if I change the text on the talk page that it would actually be changed on the RfC page. Frinton100 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I should imagine everyone (who cares to investigate can tell that I & others) can't compete on knowledge of Wiki rules etc or technical know-how but perhaps a common sense solution might be allowed so as to reach the best result for Wiki.. M Mabelina (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Regarding your edits to Baronet, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Baron Audley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 7th Earl of Gloucester|Gilbert, Earl of Hertford and Gloucester]] (of 1218 creation, extinct 1314)). Audley was created ] in 1337, but upon his death in 1347, the earldom became

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your constant disruptive editing. Any quoted text in articles MUST be referenced. This is a policy not just a personal preference. This has already been made clear to you. Afterwriting (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: let me venture to suggest that you are the one who has a tendency to being disruptive. My edits are factual & good. If you need reassurance see above!!!! M Mabelina (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a complete joke. Afterwriting (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
A lot of what one reads on Wiki is nowadays - presume you are an anti-Mabelina? I prefer setting down facts not chewing the cud about MOS. M Mabelina (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
You need to learn to edit properly instead of constantly complaining about others correcting your frequently poor editing. You are the cause of your own problems. Afterwriting (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)