Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Purplebackpack89 (talk | contribs) at 14:03, 31 July 2018 (→July 2018: a suggestion or warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Heads up...

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock Request: Paul_Bedson Ealdgyth - Talk 12:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

We're watching you IHS.ORELL (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

WTF? Agricolae (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Raymond and Henri as sons of William III, Count of Toulouse

Here is what the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy says about William's alleged first wife and her two children. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

The Liber miraculorum Sanctæ Fidæ names "Arsendis, uxor Vuillelmi Tholosani comitis, fratris…Pontii", the latter being identified as Pons de Gévaudun, son of Adelais d'Anjou by her first marriage and uterine brother of Comte Guillaume III, when recording that she sought the intervention of the saint because she was childless. This passage, as quoted in translation in the Histoire Générale de Languedoc, also records that Arsende gave birth successively to two sons Raymond and Henri after her return from visiting the saint. This version of events is, however, contradicted by the charter dated 999, quoted below, according to which all four of the sons of Comte Guillaume were born from his marriage to his wife Emma. In addition, Comte Guillaume and Emma are first named in a charter dated 992, which leaves little time for children to have been born from an earlier marriage, assuming that Guillaume´s birth date is correctly estimated as shown above. It therefore seems doubtful whether the Liber, which represents the only reference so far found to this supposed first wife, can be an accurate report.

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/TOULOUSE.htm#_Toc495243641

So, Aylric, not Hugh (as we have it) or Henry (as Cawley speculates), and they are sons of Emma and not the invented (?) Arsinde, if the charter cited by Cawley is to be accepted. Looks like some cleanup is needed. Agricolae (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Korematsu - Overruled

The line I edited was not inaccurate. Someone added to the case template showing that Trump v. Hawaii overruled Korematsu. I added a citation to a government sponsored academic society (National Constitution Center) that explains why, as a matter of law, it is erroneous to say the decision was overruled.

You should lock the article so it remains accurate.

Did you look at the Talk page? This has all been discussed there. Specifically, there is no legitimate basis for preferring one person's opinion, even one that appears on the web site of a 'government sponsored academic society' (whatever that means), over the dissenting opinion of Justice Sotomayor, who also knows a little bit about how Supreme Court decisions work and explicitly referred to it as being overturned. Time will tell whether the legal community will come to represent this as being 'overruled' or simply rendered nugatory, but as of now, to go with your source we have to ignore the overwhelming number of sources that say differently. The best we can do at this point is to duck the question - use non-legalistic language (like 'repudiate', 'reject', etc.) that gets the point across that it is a dead issue, and then revisit the question in a year or two when there has been time for the scholarly legal community to weigh in and we get a better view how this is likely to be viewed over the long run (as opposed to within a week of the decision). Agricolae (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Styles

Listen to me Mr. Agricolae, these styles of address and coat of arms are the truth, and from a long they have been in wikipedia without references, before you began to edit articles, so let them in there place, and plus you are the only one who want to remove them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.64.3.54 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not about 'truth', and who are you that you get to decide what the truth is? It is verifiability, not your version of the truth, that is important (Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth), and without a reference, this material is not verifiable. Agricolae (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Listen, before you create your user account, these things were all without references, and if you dont trust me, check out there history before you came — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.64.3.54 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Listen, WP:V existed from the start of Misplaced Pages, before any of these pages were created. There is no grandfather clause that states unverifiable content must stay on a page if it has been there for a while. Agricolae (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, you may want to read WP:PROVEIT: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." "Attribute . . . any material whose verifiability is challenged. . . ." "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Agricolae (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poliomyelitis eradication, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kunar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Philip II of Spain. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. pbp 18:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was very bad form for someone so involved to close the discussion themselves, especially when it's on a page with around 2.5 hits per day. The debate should have been widened and should have been allowed to run for two weeks and should have been closed by an independent individual. And WP:3RR was breached so the individual posting this warning should be blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's turned out the way it has. The "discussion" was a shambles, the closure was heavily involved and a direct COI, the edit warring report was very badly handled indeed, all in all a terrible series of errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Stalker indeed. Quit following me, TRM. pbp 21:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Watchlist Packer, watchlist. Your accusations are now bordering on disruptive and, if continued, will see you banned from another Misplaced Pages. That's your choice, not my "vendetta" (that still needs redacting by the way, hurry along). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No redaction, sorry. If I'm going to add a diff it'd be to your comments today anyway. pbp 22:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Also, there is an RfC now pbp 05:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Fool me once . . . . . Agricolae (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If you don't participate in the RfC, it is closed with some sort of "he had wives language", and you revert that language, you will probably be blocked. If you don't like that, at the present time, four people have advocated for some sort of "he had wives" language, you need to jump into the discussion. pbp 13:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A threat - you come at me with a threat? Grow up. Agricolae (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not a threat, it's a suggestion and/or warning. Vulcan said as much yesterday at your 3RR discussion. As for "grow up", I'm not the one who's complaining hither and yon because they didn't get 100% of what they wanted despite nobody agreeing with them. You are. pbp 14:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)