| Revision as of 03:53, 15 January 2006 editRogerthat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,130 edits →ArbCom Vote← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:27, 12 January 2023 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,704 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Avalon/Archive 4) (bot | ||
| (124 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Archives|collapsed=yes|search=no|auto=yes}} | |||
| ==Welcome from Acetic Acid/Ryan== | |||
| ] to Misplaced Pages, {{PAGENAME}}! My name is Ryan, aka ]. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Misplaced Pages can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use ] and ]. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started: | ] to Misplaced Pages, {{PAGENAME}}! My name is Ryan, aka ]. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Misplaced Pages can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use ] and ]. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started: | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| I hope you enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. | I hope you enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. | ||
| Sincerely, ]. 12:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC) | Sincerely, ]. 12:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{UserTalkArchive}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 18K | |||
| |counter = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(365d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Avalon/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == Franciszek Salezy Dmochowski == | |||
| ==Answer to request for help== | |||
| *I'd be more than happy to help. Don't hesitate to ask. :P ] 12:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Please read: ]. Could you change it? Thanks | |||
| == Can I change factual inaccuracies? == | |||
| ::Good evening/morning. You can change it. You might want to put in the edit summary "See talk page" and explain it a bit on the talk page. You also probably should put one of the source right next to it, like this: | |||
| == Reader's Advisory == | |||
| ::So and so was killed at this battle. | |||
| <s>] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ].</s> | |||
| ::Unfortunately, there is no spellchecker at this time. That's why copyediting is so important. ]. Take care. ] 10:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
| ==Welcome from Cyberjunkie== | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Avalon. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| Howdy Avalon. As a fellow Australian, I'd like to welcome you and let you know about the Australian community on ]. Be sure to check out Australian resources, like ], ] (AWDB), ], ] and ]. You can also list yourself at ]. If you have any questions, you can post a question on ] or ask me on ]. Again, welcome, and happy editing, --] | ] 11:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| ==RE: What to do?== | |||
| Hi Avalon. When one comes across an article that appears to be un-encyclopædic or un-intelligible, it should be proposed for deletion. This is done under a process called ] or ]. Only articles and some Misplaced Pages-space pages are deleted under Vfd. ], ] and ] are deleted via ], ] and ] respectively. Some pages qualify for ], including inappropriate or vanity articles. However, it is best to use that process only if you are familiar with what qualifies for speedy deletion. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Deletion can be quite an emotive issue on Misplaced Pages as it can only be carried out by ] and is in most cases irreversible. At present, Vfd is having quite a polarising effect, with Wikipedians forming "like-minded" groups such as the Inclusionists, the Deletionists and the Mergists. Generally, I shy away from Vfd lest I become involved in one of the more controversial deletions. I typically only voice my opinion on Australia-related Vfd's. However, don't let this perturb you. The great majority of deletions pass without even a smidgen of discontent. | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=813406620 --> | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| But I digress. To get back to your query, I have nominated ] for deletion (see ] to vote). It might have qualified for speedy deletion, but foreign language pages on this English Misplaced Pages are best put to Vfd with the hope that someone can translate them.--] | ] 09:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>'''Is this any different from a ]? If they are describing the same concept, then the articles should be merged, and this article should redirect to it.'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| :Looking at my watchlist, it seems my explanation of Misplaced Pages deletion procedures was un-necessary: I see you've voted several times already ;-). Happy editing, --] | ] 09:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| ==RE: Question== | |||
| See ]. Go to the page history, click on the date of the version you wish to revert to, once loaded "edit this page" and save. --] | ] 03:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ]] 03:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == District attorney == | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| Thanks for putting the ] link in the ] article. I don't go around thanking people for every good edit, but this one was particularly useful, cheers. While I'm here, I don't quite understand your "6 generations" comment on your userpage. I assume you have a British accent, so peole ask you how long you have been in Australia, how are you claiming this 6 generations? --] 16:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. | |||
| :Thanks for clearing that joke up for me.--] 06:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ]] 08:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Request for Help == | |||
| Hello, I'm reasonably new to Misplaced Pages and I'd like to ask you a question. | |||
| You wrote/made(?) the Category: Orders of knighthood in Jan 05. I think it ought to be divided into sub-categories by nation. Two questions: | |||
| *What do you think? | |||
| :Fully agree ] 08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *How do I do it? | |||
| Thank you | |||
| ] 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I only know the one way, and it may not be the ''approved'' way as I find the guidance pages here almost incomprehensible, however as it works I'll set it out: | |||
| ::Find an order of knighthood for country XYZ and put it into a category called Orders of knighthood of XYZ. As the category does not (yet) exist it will be red-linked. Click on the red-link and create the new category in the same way as you create new . Your new category's entry may minimally include only 2 categories itself namely Orders of knighthood by nation '''and''' XYX. At the first time Orders of knighthood by nation will itself be redlinked. All you need to do is create that as a category is put Category:Orders of knighthood into it to link it the one I created back in January. | |||
| By the way, I'd only been contributing to Misplaced Pages for about six weeks then, so don't let being new discourage you. I did some sorting out the categories for awards and decorations and this was part of it. | |||
| Let me know it works (or doesn't work) ] 08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sir, defend your honour!!== | |||
| I am appalled at your claim: "Australians are so supine you can do anything to them." I challenge you to a duel at 40 paces. You have choice of weapons. Maybe the ] would be the appropriate venue. | |||
| I also notice that you "practice" law. Is that the accepted spelling of the verb "practise" in Australian legal circles these days, or are you simply lying down like a good supine Australian and letting the Americans walk all over you, or are you too apathetically Australian to know or care about the difference, or ... (please insert alternative explanations here). Cheers ] 07:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Just go that page and add your name to the date(s) on which you're available. Hopefully a consensus will soon emerge. Or, more likely, somebody will suggest a particular date, and all the rest of us will just roll over and say "OK, fine by me, see you there". Whatever works. ] 08:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Titled people on LoPbN == | |||
| Thank you for your diligent efforts at adding titles like Lord and Sir in ]. Sometimes such a title is the quickest way for a user to be sure which among similarly named persons they are after. | |||
| On the other hand, it is in general important to realize that the list, like many of those on WP, exists for the purpose of navigation rather than information. It is a list of people with biographical articles (or for whom there is a reasonable hope of bios being added). It is absolutely ''not'' a reference for information on the correct forms of names. (That worthwhile info has its proper place in WP: primary name for a person is part or all of the title of their bio, and other correct names, and erroneous but common ones, appear in the body of a good bio, where there is plenty of room for information on how good or bad those versions are.) | |||
| In particular, in a LoPbN entry, the piped version (what is to the right of the vertical-line character inside the link markup) of a name that includes a surname must have the parts of the name in the order used for alphabetizing that entry. A dramatic case could be ], who could well have (since the use of "ap" is so little understood) three entries: | |||
| * ] among the Ap names | |||
| * ] among the Ji names | |||
| * ] among the Jo names | |||
| Which versions of the name are right or wrong is completely irrelevant to LoPbN: they are there solely to get both the expert reader and the clueless ones to the article, where everything can be made clear without its explication getting in the way of the navigational task. | |||
| Your , like many (at the least) of your LoPbN contributions miss this point.<br> | |||
| "*]" may not appear among people named "Att..." thru "Atw..." bcz that version of his name makes him a person named "Ric...". (Tho, BTS, that version of his name cannot appear on {{Lopbn-l1|Ri|c|Ri|c}}, bcz anyone misguided enough to look up a modern title-bearer that way will quickly see that we do not let such formality interfere with access, and take the obvious stop of looking under "Att...".) | |||
| A little less disruptively, "*]" should be "*]", for the same reason that no one will look for him under D or S: the surname is indipsensible in identifying him; the next step is not to separate the knighted Attenboroughs from ''hoi polloi'', but Davids from all other given names, and then finally the Sir Davids from the other Davids. "Attenborough, Sir David" is harmless as to its effect ''on that page'', but it is unacceptably harmful in undercutting the confidence that Sir David Jones will be found before, and not after, Samuel Jones. | |||
| As i say, though, there's no question in my mind that the information you're adding is good; i don't want to discourage you. Thanks. <br>--]•] 19:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)<br> | |||
| === What Will Work Well on LoPbN? === | |||
| _ _ Well. I wrote you with the hope that your edits reflected simply bold editing: shooting from the hip & getting a change out there where it can act as a concrete example to stimulate discussion of what is or isn't productive. (This process is inefficient, but crucial to the underlying concept of WP.) That working assumption underlay what i chose to say: my description of part of the consensus that i started working within two years ago, about how the list should work. (The experience of my edits on the list and its infrastructure -- edits numbering in the thousands, i'm sure -- has, BTW, only strengthened my confidence in that basic approach.)<br> | |||
| _ _ In replying, you begin | |||
| : I cannot accept your contentions. | |||
| as if you were closing, not opening a discussion. | |||
| You continue, ambiguously but troublingly, | |||
| : I note you do not support them with any Misplaced Pages guidelines. | |||
| You have thereby described a fact. It's a fact that is irrelevant to the discussion i was (& am still) trying to start (although my initial heading left my intent merely implicit).<br> | |||
| _ _ The new heading i've added above makes it explicit: it's worth asking what will work well. That's what i gave you my informed opinion about, seeing that as leading into a collegial discussion. (And one thing an ethical jurist learns is to recognize situations when conciliation serves a common interest that may be harmed by rushing into explicit clarity about who has what unilateral power of resolution. In fact, lest i stifle that process, i'll forgo speculating here about why your agenda gave explicitly documented practice such high priority.) And while your response led me twd some sense that we were in two different discussions, that could be wrong, and i think i can set all of that aside for now. <br> | |||
| _ _ It's probably worth my assuming you considered responding more directly to my logic. (E.g., i wish i had some sense of the extent that you agree or disagree with me, that this is about navigation and that ''conveying'' information (about correct names and the like) can be left to the bio articles.) You may well have found the stress of my verbal style too great an impediment. (One extremely hostile editor has described me, with some justice, as a "grammatical hurricane". I'm sympathetic, tho i'm not very good at making it easier to follow me.)<br> | |||
| _ _ You made two closely related points that seem fertile ground to me. One was | |||
| :...“Bloggs, John, Sir” simply looks clumsy. | |||
| Well, yes, of course, though i thought i had adequately disposed of any relevance of that fact in my (as yet unchallenged) focus on navigation. In any case, you were good enough to let me know that we agree about the ''order'' entries should have relative to each other, which is very helpful. (BTW, i find you astute in pointing out ''both'' the orders of name elements you do for Bloggs; i considered only one order -- e.g., in my , soon after the first reversal of yr work re "Sir" that i made a non-default summary for. FWIW, i have not yet found any reason for significantly preferring one over the other. )<br> | |||
| _ _ But i digress. You made "clumsy" sound like an esthetic concern, but the word's underlying sense is about inefficiency of action. | |||
| * I ''am'' concerned, on reflection, about what i'll call the 3rd of these 3 elements of navigation: | |||
| *# Mobility is built into the server & browser: following lks & scrolling move you around in the data. | |||
| *# Directional guides: the indexes at the tops of LoPbN pages, and the ToCs on all the medium to large pages, provide sign posts that get you closer to a small group of entries; then the entries themselves support homing in, visually, on the entry you came looking for. | |||
| *# What i would compare to the nameplate next to the doorbell, i.e., the means of ''confirming'' that you've reached your destination. | |||
| * I think (my) "many commas" format is IMO the ''least'' clumsy means of seeing which direction to move the eye next, in each of the several times (per entry sought) that the user unconsciously glances up or down. My new concern is that that format neverhtheless leaves a clumsy final mental step (one-time per entry sought) for the user to go through. That is to say, if we're talking about your General Sir John Bloggs, it is ideal, for that final step, to have the name there in (your) "no added commas" order, i.e. in exactly the order used in this sentence; in contrast, the many-commas format forces the user to permute "Bloggs, John, General Sir" back into the doorbell nameplate version, possibly via a little of trial and error. Unfortunately, having it in the no-extra-commas order (or to be precise, having the ''neighboring'' entries in that order) multiplies the (unconscious) processing that must be done as the user homes in on Bloggs, by glancing at Bloags and Blongs entries, and then at, say, Blogge and Blogguman entries. (If that really is completely uncompelling to you, we can talk more explicitly about the cognitive psychology and the implicit binary search algorithm that i see as inherant to the process.) | |||
| * For me, the current bottom line is that you've drawn my attention to the hypothetical value of having a no-extra-commas version in the entry, for that final third element, but i can't imagine how it can make up for the ''loss'' of efficiency from giving up the advantages of many-commas format on the repetitive second element. And, nevertheless, i'm tantalized by the possibility of replacing the 2nd element by something ''other'' than the many-commas formats in the entries. Take a look at ], rather than my describing it, and if you want a few more examples (some larger), follow lks from ]. I am imagining the section hdgs & lk-less text lines providing element 2, and converting the lk'ed lines (bio entries) to no-extra-commas format to optimize the 3rd element.<br> | |||
| _ _ The other "fertile" thing you said is | |||
| : See ] | |||
| which (at the risk of being a smart aleck) makes me want to say "See ]". I did look at the English list (which is not a list of people by name, but a couple dozen quite small lists by name, and one four-screenish list of Eng. authors by name). It looks quite workable to me, with the possible exception of the authors: those authors have the only list that remotely begins to hint at a question that is crucial to the ones you are raising: | |||
| : ''Is this list scalable?'' | |||
| LoPbN has gone thru 2 levels of metamorphosis whose evidence survives; perhaps it started as 26 pages of names and an index, or perhaps there have been 3 metamorphoses. Each metamorphosis reflects the previous non-scalable design reaching its limits. (Someone counted the names as being in the low 20 thousands, about 15 months ago, with probably less than 10% increase in pages (to abt 670 now), tho i guess the numbers are not very useful. In any case my expectation is that it's still scalable for a good while yet, but there could be a surprise in store for me. In contrast, IMO the List-of-English-people format is (unless its growth is stagnating) awaiting the breakdown in usefulness that will be resolved in its first metamorphosis. <br> | |||
| _ _ Your suggestion to consult that list makes me think that you haven't really grasped the difference between the 100 or 125 writers and lists two or three orders of magnitude larger. The John Brown section is AFAIK unique so far, but i don't believe we are anywhere near the goal of getting all bios lked from LoPbN, so i take no bets. In any case, "enough quantity means a change in kind", and i urge you to look at that page on one hand, and on the other hand, at LoPbN sections of 15 to 25 names where all the names have several letters in common but no more than two or three people share any one surname. I think you'll get some feel for the human-factors element of the scaling problem.<br>--]•] 04:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)<br> | |||
| == Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion == | |||
| Hi, I see that you are listed as a Roman Catholic Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. '''Category:Pro-life celebrities''' I think this is an interesting and worth while category. Afterall not all celebrities are pro-abortion. ] 23:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==CAoW== | |||
| Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. ] has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --] 01:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == userboxes == | |||
| Hi - thanks for you message. The page you refer to has userboxes laid out in three columns, and this is purely down to the templates being listed one after another in the text. Now that you mention it, that page should really follow the standard format of a wikitable... such as ]. I see you have the userbox on your user page anyway... has your question been answered? Let me know if you'd like any more info. ] ] <small>(])</small> 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom Vote == | |||
| Hi Avalon, | |||
| As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've ] at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my ] if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :) | |||
| - ''Best regards'', ] 02:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi, you say you're a fan of Australian football, well I suggest you take a look at ]. Cheers, ] 03:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:27, 12 January 2023
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Avalon! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Misplaced Pages can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)
I hope you enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ryan. 12:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Franciszek Salezy Dmochowski
Please read: Talk:Franciszek Salezy Dmochowski. Could you change it? Thanks
Reader's Advisory
Reader's advisory has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Avalon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Committal procedure
The article Committal procedure has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Is this any different from a Preliminary hearing? If they are describing the same concept, then the articles should be merged, and this article should redirect to it.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rockstone 03:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Committal procedure for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Committal procedure is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Committal procedure until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.