Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:04, 8 June 2007

Random Smiley Award

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorting table at Asia

Sortability is very useful here, you can have the largest country first, etc. So I suppose your objection is the division by region which after sorting is only restored by refreshing the page. To remedy that we could make a column for the region.--Patrick 13:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of Mexico

No, I didn't revert your enhancements. I only moved the second paragraph to the beginning. But do as you wish, I won't do anything to the article at all. I am just tying to avoid a useless and frustrating confrontation again. --the Dúnadan 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see: . The link to the constitution is still there. Like I said, I only moved the second paragraph to the beginning. Since I was expanding the article, I put the "new" name in bold characters (i.e. "the name of Mexico"), which would have complied with the Manual of Style. That would be the only "enhancement" that might have been reverted. The rest, I kept. I still think the article could be improved and expanded by including the diverse names by which Mexico is known as well as some history of other names in disuse (à la Names for Germany, Canada's Name, etc.). But the article is good as it is, and I rather avoid the headache of an unnecessary confrontation by simply being bold in an article of which I have been the major editor. Cheers! --the Dúnadan 18:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I will be able to do it today, but let me expand the article but leave the lead section and title as they are right now (your version). Then we can decide which title suits the content best. I think Toponymy, being the study of the place names of a region, might encompass etymology (that is, etymology could be, arguably, a subfield used in toponymy), in which case, simply "Toponymy of Mexico", while esoteric, might be our best choice. We can also create "Mexico's Name", "Names for Mexico", "Names of Mexico" and "Name of Mexico" as redirects. --the Dúnadan 18:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you did a good job in handling the MUS - UMS situation. And I think the article has been greatly improved. I don't think I'll add anything else, I will probably just proof-read it. Thanks for your help. --the Dúnadan 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, my comment was addressed to the other user. I agree with your perception and opinion on this matter. =) --the Dúnadan 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Random request

Hi! A very minor question for you: Is there any chance you could perhaps vary your edit summaries a bit? It's fantastic that you're leaving them, however when they are all "comment", it is nearly impossible to tell one apart from another, especially when everyone's posting in such close succession. I'd hate to miss out on a relevant comment for such a silly reason as not realizing I didn't backtrack far enough! -Bbik 03:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I totally forgot to mention that, didn't I? It was prompted by this. -- Those two strings of comment's are scary! :p And it figures that just as soon as I hit save here, you hit save over there with a different summary, too... -Bbik 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. Such a ridiculous thing to have such an argument over! (And while it seems kind of silly to me to have an entire subsection for Antiquity, rather than just bolding it so it stands out, I really don't care that much one way or the other to fight over that too, especially since it accomplishes the same thing either way.)

As for perfectionism... I tend to overuse the preview button. I also (usually) tend to avoid high-traffic articles, because I've already encountered quite enough edit conflicts when I take too long on the low-traffic ones. Those aren't fun. -Bbik 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird sortation on North America

It took me a little while to figure out which one was weird but it looks like the pop density went crazy because of the #expr. I'll double check that column before hitting save the next time. Thanks, MJCdetroit 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus dispute

Hiya - Your edit summary didn't say why you disagree with me about explicitly pointing people toward the Cyprus dispute article in the 2nd para of the intro. Rather than reverting you, I was wondering if you could tell me your reason for this repeated change? Vizjim 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian French/French in Canada

I have closed the discussion, and moved the article to French language in Canada. I also moved the history of French in Canada to the same article, see here for my close. I hope y'all build this into a great article, I think it has potential. Teke 03:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, I deleted the redirect on the talk page of Candadian French so that you can start a new discussion there. Teke 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

¡Hola Corticopia!

AlexCovarrubias has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AlexCovarrubias 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

Moved from your userpage by Kafziel 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

dear Corticopia i am realy dont wanna be in edit war,Turkey is always member of european block(for every unity) and Turkey will join to eu in 2015 and Cuprus is member and if Turkey and cyprus arnt european why EU accept to Enters?? i am sure u can remember morroco was apply and european parlement blocked,They said"morroco isnt in europe" So please vivist to european concil web and see Who are european and please dot remove my demand, thanks for raed and ure understending. aegeanfighter 16:47, May 2, 2007

Corticopia - I also note that your repeated reverts on the Europe entry removed mention of Armenia while retaining Azerbaijan, and wonder if that is the reason behind your vandalism. Meowy 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Research?

If you plan to edit Georgia (country) article, please show a substantial amount of research. So far, you have only damaged the article and I would very much appreciate if you just leave it alone.SosoMK 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, when it says southeast to Continental Europe, it does not necessarily mean that it is located in Europe. Please look at the wording again. SosoMK 01:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I noticed you have an interest of reverting the Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia articles and I don't think that there is much to discuss. SosoMK 01:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess your plans are to do some kind of academics raid over the region, but as far as Georgia is concerned, you chose the wrong country, buddy ;):) (check out history of Georgia)SosoMK 02:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you damaging the Georgia article? why don't you go ahead and edit your country's article. Obviously you are not an expert about Georgia and trying to disrespect the country. Georgia is southwest to Europe in the Caucasus, which is most commonly referred as Europe, but we will keep the current wording due to the fact that not all sources say that Georgia is located in Europe. So, just chill you, aren't you getting tired of this crap. I've gotta bunch of papers due this week and I don't have time to work on the article now, but I plan to expand the culture section next week. SosoMK 03:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Georgia article

Hi Corticopia. If you plan to edit Georgia (country) you are very wellcomed. Would you also be interested in the economy section? Cheers Tamokk 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you convinced my in your knowledgeabilitySosoMK 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well politically Georiga is a member of several European organizations, this can be easily referenced. As for cultural Europe, in fact this a rather abstract notion. Say Georgians consider themselves European, but how can I cite that? Tamokk 09:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was I am Georgian and therefore I am European word of Zurab Zhvania at the Council of Europe . Maybe I'll be able to find something in that spirit if that'll do. Tamokk 09:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed naming conventions for Republic of Macedonia

Hi Corticopia,

I'd be grateful if you could have a look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Republic of Macedonia-related articles), which is intended to establish a consistent basis for naming RoM-related articles across Misplaced Pages. I'd appreciate your views on it. -- ChrisO 19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ireland (disambiguation)

Certainly "Ireland" does not only refer to Ireland, but that's not what that formatting is meant to imply, in fact the guideline that says to format it the way I did (WP:MOSDAB#Linking_to_a_primary_topic) says to do it because "it is very unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links". Vicarious 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I think I see your point, however, if you think it's about as likely that when someone types in Ireland they're looking for Republic of Ireland as the island; that's fine, I don't necissarily disagree with you, but if that is the case than Ireland should redirect to Ireland (disambiguation). Vicarious 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I glanced at the talk page and my eyes glazed over before I get very far into the pages of discussion. I'm actually quite apathetic to any disputes about Ireland. Since I care too little to read through it and make an informed decision, let me instead present a scenario to you for you to decide. If on the page for a band there is a lot of argument about the genre the band is in, and finally the consensus (or near consensus) wins out that the band is jazz and not funk, then any place that refers to it should list what the article says. So, if the band is called apple, then the apple disambig page should say a jazz, even if the dissenting vote of the original discussion is the one making the edit. My overly drawn out point being, if you think you're making the right decision I'm not going to argue anymore, but be careful not to violate any consensus at the primary topic. Vicarious 21:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK

I blocked him. I blocked his sockpuppet. I warned him. Can you please stop editing your message on my talk page? I'm trying to work, and every two minutes I get a "you have new messages banner" because you keep copyediting what you already wrote. It's fine, you can leave it as it is. Thanks. Kafziel 15:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Locator maps

Just curious - why did you make this edit? Blast 14.05.07 0256 (UTC)

I have no objection - other than people looking at a country from a hemisphere away might not be able to figure out a country's location immediately - but I'd suggest starting a discussion someplace, since this promises to be a very large undertaking. Blast 14.05.07 0342 (UTC)

That might be best, but I'd say it's at your discretion. I don't any editors chomping at the bit to get the maps back yet, at any rate (but maybe it's just because the East Coast editors haven't woken up yet :p). Blast 14.05.07 0357 (UTC)

Georgia

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --Selket 16:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AlexCovarrubias

I've openned a Request for comment on user AlexCovarrubias as he continues to violate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I would like your support to stop his disruptive edits and uncivil behavior, if you agree please sign the request. Thank you. Limongi 02:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Would you be interested in being a third party to mediate in the debate concerning the use of the Census Bureau (INEGI) statistics vs. the LDS church own statistics of number of believers in Mexico? Talk:Mexico#Number of Mormons. --the Dúnadan 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I requested formal mediation, but the procedure in Misplaced Pages, besides being extremely bureaucratic in my opinion, it also requires all parties to sign the request seven days after it is filed. If one party (of many) does not sign it, the request for mediation is denied. As you might expect, parties with no intention of having their opinions formally reviewed by external editors, or who afraid their arguments won't stand the review, simply ignore the request and do not sign it. I am afraid this might be the case, since the other party involved has not signed it, even though I have asked him to do so twice, yet, he has continued to edit other articles.

So, to make the long story short, I would appreciate if you could simply read the debate and give your opinion, so that you could help us sort things out, even if the request for mediation is never signed by the other party.

--the Dúnadan 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

South America

Blocked

You have been blocked for the persistent edit warring at Georgia (country). It has been going on for weeks, and you seem to consistently make 3 reverts in a day to an article. WP:3RR is not an entitlement to reverts: you need to engage in good faith dispute resolution as well. You made not a single edit to the article's talk page today until after reaching three reverts, and that it unacceptable. This is your fifth block for edit warring, which demonstrates a serious problem with your behavior. You need to seriously reconsider your approach to editing, if you would like to continue doing so. Dmcdevit·t 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous: I have merely restored content -- and only thrice today -- that has been discussed and consensually agreed upon and stable since the instigating editor was blocked. And upon his revert, he restores this content without merely a peep? Why should I reiterate comments on the talk page when they were already made scant days ago? And how can editors -- me -- possibly have time to make other edits to the article when we're having to fend off restorations of subjective content? Do I stutter? Anyhow, your commentary is noted, but I suggest you refrain my condescendingly commenting on my behaviour, as I volunteer as you do; if anything, Misplaced Pages seriously needs to reconsider its approach to content addition. Corticopia 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see above

Decline reason:

I feel bad that this happened immediately after I gave you a barnstar for improvement, but I do have to stand by Dmcdevit on this one. I didn't realize the extent of the edit warring. I'm sorry, and I hope after your block expires that barnstar will be a reminder of the right way to get things done. Discuss instead of reverting, not in addition to it. — Kafziel 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, frankly, given all of this, I will find better things to do with my time hereafter. Au revoir. Corticopia 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh

I guess ya know how I feel right now. :D

I was going to update all the others to the 2007 estimate, but ya didn't let me. ;0)

However I cannot do that for the colonies! Do you have a solution? --PaxEquilibrium 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Defender of Encyclopedism

Armenia

Check the archives, I have a long history of trying to remove all the factual distortions in that article. As do many others before me. That article and related articles have been hijacked by a well organized ring of POV pushers. They do nothing but hover over that article 24/7 and make sure any hint of objectivity is removed. The Armenian government officially places Armenia in Asia Minor, as does every reference book on Earth. So take some consolation in that. Good Luck --Caligvla 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not understand what did you wanted to say. If you worry about my revert on Armenia, I did it solely because it reverted other thing too, about Armenian civilization, about which I had to war on the talk page almost one week. Tamokk 03:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact more than two weeks. Tamokk 03:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I said what was the only reseaon for my rv. You could have readded you things without rving mine too. Tamokk 03:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And I do not know were does this tone come from. As you can see from the Armenia talk page I am not happy with that intro too. Tamokk 03:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did you go now? Be contructive. Tamokk 04:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was insisting on excluding Armenian civilization from the lead section. Please write at the bottom of my talk page. Cheers Tamokk 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok. I agree wikipedia can be nerve-racking sometimes. Tamokk 03:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I see.

I have to go now. Tamokk 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Case for 3 Region Asia

You keep on reverting the Asia article claiming that I am acting due to POV or outside of consensus. I have some news for you.----Tea 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your failed argument based on misunderstanding of policy: WP:CON. You think that WP:CON overridesWP:NPOV. You try to make the issue boil down to a simple vote, but Misplaced Pages: Consensus#Exceptions says that "Foundation Issues" are an exception. Foundation Issues include WP:NPOV, so WP:CON does not override WP:NPOV or any other foundation policies.----Tea 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your failed argument based on misunderstanding of policy: WP:NPOV. You like to deride others by claiming they are "POV pushing". The WP:NPOV actually encourages the push for multiple notable POVs. The "N" in "NPOV" stands for neutral POV. It does stand for "no" POV.----Tea 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to state the argument for my version of the article which you have given no policy-based objections.----Tea 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOPIC says that articles should be constrained to their topic and not include information that is vaguely related to their topic. The culture, religion, notable individuals, economy section is off topic, because they all deal with the Asian people not the continent of Asia. Unlike a nation, Asia does not have an economy; it has many nations within it that have economies. The same argument goes for culture and religion. Surely, the notable individuals section is clearly within the subject matter of Asian people and not hte continent.------Tea 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT says that articles should maintain WP:NPOV, but give greater weight to the common POVs. For example, it says that at one time the greater POV would have gone to the flat Earth theory, but now it goes to the round Earth theory. Similarly, the definition of Asia which includes the Arabian peninsula is no longer the majority opinion world-wide. It used to be the majority opinion in medieval times when Europe labeled everything east and south of it as Asia. The US government considers them to be separate regions for foreign policy mattersBureau of Near Eastern Affairs. For policy matters, the US sees an Islamic terrorist Middle East and a peaceful Asia. The other current source is sociologist US-citizen Paul Thomas Welty (1984) who claims that the Middle East is not part of Asia. The current Duke University sociologist US-citizen Sri Devi Menon source here on page 70 says that currently the US considers the Middle East to not be part of Asia. WP:WEIGHT demands that if your POV is a notable minority, then it can be attributed to a notable critic. The US and two sociologists are notable, so the three region POV meets the requirement of "significant minority". It may also meet the reguirement of being majority viewpont. To be a majority viewpoint the POV must be present in commonly-accepted reference materials. Now, I have looked and I have not found the 3-region POV in most encyclopedias-- except one.

This source says there are three POVs on Asia. It says that geographers consider Eurasia to be the true continent. It says by region Asia divides into 6 regions: Soviet Asia, East Asia, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. It says that there are two "realms" that which is "Asian in culture" and that which is "not". It lists East, Southeast, and South Asia as the cultural Asia. Another acceptable reference material are scholarly books. I have found one.

In this book the authors show a map which they label "Asia". This "Asia" only includes East, Southeast and South Asia. It appears that the 3 region POV clearly meets the requirements of a significant minority and I also feel that it meets the tougher requirements of a majority. Consequently, there should be a change in this article. There should be no maps in the title unless they express both views and the maps in the body should express both views.------Tea 02:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have found the exact quote where sociologist Paul Thomas Welty says the definition of Asia.----Tea 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Profanity

Your edits on this edit and this edit involve profanity which is against Misplaced Pages:Profanity----Tea 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"unencyclopedc syntax"

Can you explain what you mean? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Economy Georgia

You are wellcomed to take part in the voting on Talk:Georgia (country) Tamokk 01:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)