Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:37, 10 March 2008

• /archive 1 1 May - 31 October 2006
• /archive 2 1 November 2006 - 30 April 2007

If you talk to me on this page, I will reply here. Abtract 09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!

Hello Abtract! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Misplaced Pages Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Misplaced Pages rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kukini 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite archiving my first year, I have retained this warm and useful welcome because it really did work. Abtract 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Spades/SS

Hi there, I've noticed the rv of the SS -> spades that Dtrebbien had done. While it would have been better had he put it on our project talk page what he is doing rather than on his user page I think his idea is a very good one (Spelling selector)and even affects us bridge people. (honour/honor). Rather than messing up our stuff he is changing it to a (very reasonable) alternative first. I say we let him. Oh and while I disagree with your views on suitplay I have noticed it is forcing him to write a superior article... People having differing opinions is valuable - it keeps the world diverse. Just as long as people are nice to each other :-)Cambion 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I too think it is a good idea but it doesn't have to use a template already in good use. I have persuaded him to use a different template and revert his edits so everyone should be happy. I think you will find I was very polite throughout the suitplay debate ... I still have severe reservations but let's see how it develops, I am having a break from it. Abtract 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems a good solution to me. As for the suit combinations debate I suppose we need more people's input. Being restrained is good. There's no use in "my point is valid 'cos you've got a big nose..." :-). We'll see how it develops. .. Cambion 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, I have reversed everything back. For future reference, where do I discuss changes like the one I proposed? Dtrebbien 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you might have started on the bridge project page or found a couple of users of the template or the talk page of a busy article that used the template ... anyway thanks for your very sensible decision. :) Abtract 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary

In your edit summary here, you stated you were reinstating {{wikt}} because it "cannot possibly be a bad idea". It might not have been your intention, but when you make an edit summary like that, it comes across that you are not open for discussion. The implication is that you are right and that no one could "possibly" disagree with you, or that there is no other "possible" way of viewing the issue. In my view, this is not in the Misplaced Pages spirit of discussion and consensus-building. As I said, that may not at all have been your intention, but I thought I should mention that that is how it comes across, at least to me (who sometimes might read too much into things!). Looking forward to collaborating, --Paul Erik 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment ... I take your point. Abtract 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Abtract!

Wow...you have been doing a lot of great work since that welcome! A few quick comments...(a) I really appreciate you taking time to welcome newcomers as you just have. I do believe it can make a difference in our wikicommunity. (b) You have no need to credit me for the welcome template. It has developed over time under many people's edits and various versions of it are in use all over WP. Keep up the great work! --Kukini 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Quotation mark, non-English usage

Thank you for your greeting, but it took a day for me to understad, how could I answer to you the same way in this Misplaced Pages... In fact, I am not that fan of creating wiki-pages, but I use Quotation mark, non-English usage page very often for my work, so I finally decided to set it up in order, because there was some rubbish (at least in the Russian section) and confusion there, and the data structure was snot that good at all.

I would appreciate if you could check out my writing in the Russian section, for I forgot my English since school, which was 16 years back :)

> I wonder if you might like to reconsider your recent edits on Quotation mark, > non-English usage which seem to belong more reasonably in Quotation mark glyphs.

There was most of that "glyphs" info on this page before me, I just decided to colect all the glyphs info from "non-English usage" into one place, in order to make other text more compact and easy-to use, and, after that, some text (about French and German features) was double-written in different places.

I removed the table and make a link to Quotation mark, glyphs instead (can't understand how to create a Contents section there) - in fact, Quotation mark, glyphs is TOO havy, I think most of the "specific" info is absolutely useless, and can be found in the Overview table - I just can not bring myself to remove all this, for I have made a lot of changes already, and I see some people is not that glad...

Sorry for this chaos, I am always in a hurry...

Best regards, D.Ignashoff 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)D.Ignashoff

Conversation to be continued here ... Abtract 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Abtract! Enjoy Misplaced Pages , your 83.191.160.95 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and you too; have you considered getting an account? Abtract 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Hi. Just wondering why you have been removing wikilinked dates? Dates with month and day (and year if it's there) are wikilinked for date preferences, not because they are meaningful - as per WP:MOSDATE. Years linked by themselves, I agree, are completely meaningless. Regards, Severo 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am removing them because IMHO they add nothing to the article and make it looked cluttered with links; WP:MOSDATE only tells us how to do it, there is no insistence that we do. Abtract 23:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rouge Admin

I would just like to apologise for having wasted your time on the Rouge Admin page through responding to my alcohol induced paranoid rant. I didnt realise

• A) That what I was writing was such unutterable nonsense, apart from one or two innovative new additions or archaisms of the English language
• B)I was awake when I wrote it, believing myself to be dreaming at the time.

Thank you for being so understanding, and I am very sorry for any trouble caused. All the best, Whiskey in the Jar 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about but ... no problem. :) Abtract 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'd just like to thank you for this whole exchange. I'm still chuckling about that! --SGT Tex 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Talk:British Isles. using TW

June 2007

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed maintenance notices from Talk:British Isles, even though required changes haven't been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. Waggers 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already made my comments on the talk page. Abtract 10:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

English usage

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

WP:ENGVAR is not vandalism. I have alerted an administrator about your use of false edit summaries and improper vandalism claims. Please read and understand Misplaced Pages policies before editng any further or you may be blocked from editing. Thanks. 142.167.77.38 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice the to and fro on Genisis. English in England demands that bands are treated as singular. Pink Floyd are. Please do not warn the ip that they are vandalizing when they are in fact only reverting to a consensus version. Thanks.--Alf 13:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What a weird comment ... I agree bands are to be treated as singular which means they take "is" not "are" so my edit is correct (you are saying). Abtract 13:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, in the hurry to stop you continuing to revert, I meant plural obvisouly, please read WP:ENGVAR.--Alf 13:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read it, and did so when I saw it on the edit summary, but Genesis is an entity and therefore takes the plural not the singular ... see British Isles as an example. But either way, did you consider that the IP reverted the whole of my edit without attemting to change simply the singular/plural bits and without being specific about previous "consensus" (assuming from your comments that such exists). From your talk page, you are clearly a friend of "Libs" and you might consider whether this has clouded your judgement (made very hastily). Abtract 13:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Genesis are an entity. Yes consensus does exist on articles written in UK English (and to older Brits like myself it sounds utterly wrong to use any other such as "Pink Floyd is" Black Sabbath was" etc. I can only say that you're both as bad as each other to keep reverting without talking to each other, no matter my alliance. I did not do any reverting myself, I did say I would, and would have done a different edit than libs, but no matter we can spend the rest of the day shooting off at each other or just get on with it.--Alf 13:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

where is this consensus to be found? Have you looked at British Isles? Abtract 13:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The British Isles are special case as they are more often used in the political grouping and then we say The British Isles is, the consensus to use "foo are a English band" etc is in Category:English musical groups, from which you may take your pick but the featured article Pink Floyd, and the former featured articles The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin are probably better examples of the usage.--Alf 13:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally a reasoned response. Thank you. Abtract 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Genesis

What is with the Genesis page; it usually very quite, but all of a sudden all these ips turn up. Is somebody dead? Ceoil 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I stirred the pot a little. :) Abtract 17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you have a very old-school approach to commas. In general, our camp likes to use extra commas for reasons User:Tony1 can explain better than myself. — Deckiller 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find it "old-school" but I just try to use punctuation to simplify, clarify and where possible to make the prose more elegant. I probably do use fairly "standard" punctuation but, since it is standard because it works, I guess that isn't a bad thing. I look forward to reading suggestions from Tony. Abtract 19:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And who exactly is "our camp"? Abtract 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi dude. I like most of your edits, but confused by changing Genesis's to Genesis'. You mentioned the latter form was used on their website...could you let me know where? Also, Atlantic Records refer to Genesis's music, as do many other Wiki pages. The Wiki definition of Apostrophes also describes that non-plural names ending with S should take the "'s". This was an edit made some time ago, I don't see the need to revert back to the Genesis' form. Discuss here, let's not get into a revert battle :) MrMarmite 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure Abtract 20:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

that's that's just a link to the site. Can you show an example of where they use the possessive of Genesis without the 's. The onus is on you to show this, as you changed the article. Many sources, such as Atlantic Records, Wiki's Apostrophe definition and many other Wiki sites show that Genesis (and Collins and Banks) should take the 's in the possessive. I await your link...otherwise I will be re-correcting it. If you wish object further, do not revert..start a discussion on the Genesis page about it. Thanks..MrMarmite 19:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The usage is on that page. Abtract 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Please give other editors time to type into the Talk page before seemingly getting stroppy about them not doing so. Ta! Fingerpuppet 21:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to you not "other editors" ... you reverted an anon's obviously constructive edit without any discussion. I consider this impolite and so does . This approach is not conducive to welcoming new editors and making them feel at home. I have no particular interest in the edit but I do defend his right to make it. Abtract 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware that you were referring to myself. The edit was not constructive, as it added POV content, and was inaccurate and removed verifiability. I was in the process of adding to the talk page when your impolite comments regarding use of a talk page were added. Please in future allow other editors including myself chance to comply with your requests before placing such comments. Not everyone is as quick with use of a keyboard as you obviously are yourself, especially those of us with manual disabilities. Fingerpuppet 22:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your disabilty is not an excuse for being impolite ... makes it quite clear that you should not revert a reasonable edit. You may not think it was constructive but it has all the hallmarks of an inexperienced editor trying to improve the article by putting in some of his local knowledge; yes I know that isn't quite how wp works but perhaps he doesn't - assume good faith unless you have proof to the contrary. Reverting should be used mainly to combat vandals, not to change what you don't like. Try explaining to the guy next time, or even try building on his edit. Anyway life's too short to worry ... go ahead and do whatever your conscience allows, I have made my point. Abtract 22:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Godalming

I noticed that you were last at this page Godalming. Could you possibly look at it and determine why the text starts below the info bar. This is not normally the case as you can see from Lightwater. I can't seem to see what the problem is. Thanks SuzanneKn 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look but I am no expert. Abtract 14:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - English Bridge Union

Thank you for your edits on the EBU page. Much appreciated and I completely agree. It is now much improved on the original 2 lines of text and I am grateful for your assistance. Matt - London 09:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem ... but please be aware, I wasn't helping you I was helping to make wp better. I hope you now appreciate the way an edit should be made and, in particular, that edits should not consist of wholesale copies of other websites. :) Abtract 14:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind welcome

It was very nice of you to send me greetings, especially as that having looked at some of your comments and edits on the Celt page, I was very happy to see that sort of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tle585 (talk • contribs) 16:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

No problem, just being friendly. Abtract 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

UK

Please see WP:Point. Your continued addition of de jure is disruptive. Jooler 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment but disruptive of what ... or to whom?Abtract 22:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive of the community's attempt to maintain the article. When consensus is against you, don't repeatedly revert the article to your way of thinking, or try to make a WP:POINT. Instead, please attempt to sway opinion on the talk page, and if you don't manage to, accept defeat graciously. Besides, you've now reverted three times in 24 hours. Do it again, and you'll end up getting blocked. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance is not what wp is about ... I have no desire to be disruptive; I want better articles. So far no-one has even attempted to explain why de facto is good but de jure is bad.Abtract 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I had, if you care to look. I have now repeated my statement. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw that the first time but it doesn't answer the point ... see my comments on the talk page. Abtract 00:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not answer the point for you, but it was an attempt to explain, wasn't it? (" So far no-one has even attempted to explain ", you wrote) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I will take your word for it ... at the time I saw it as an attempt to avoid addresing the point. Abtract 00:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:Lead section

Please look at the top of the page where it says "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." Jooler 01:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what gives you the authority to revert, as though it were vandalism, a good-faith edit made 8 days previously and objected to by none of the many editors who must be watching this page? Abtract 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to policy/guideline, you cannot just say no objection = consensus. Otherwise I could make up a policy, not advertise it anywhere, wait a few weeks, slap a {{policy}} on it and call it policy. From WP:POLICY: "Disputes over the wording of a guideline are resolved by considering and discussing objections and counter-proposals and coming to agreement, often using compromise language" Mr.Z-man 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, please reconsider. Your current actions are only self-defeating; shooting yourself in the foot, won't help you get to where you're trying to get. GoodDay 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on United States. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Three reverts in 33 minutes. That's a very vigorous edit war.—DCGeist 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are in gross violation of the Three revert rule at United States. You have been reported . --G2bambino 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Abby, why? I was hoping you would respect the consensus. GoodDay 22:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I got carried away with an attack of common sense; I still find it interesting that others don't agree but hey thats life. Abtract 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC). Abtract 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you're going to get blocked; I hope you won't 'continue' these actions, when that block expires. Remember Abby, Misplaced Pages is a community; one must work within it. GoodDay 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Howdy. I have blocked you from editing for a day for disruption on United States. Please limit your reverts and when the block expires, you are welcome to contribute constructively. I recommend using the articles talk page. To contest this block, you may use the {{unblock|your reason here}} template on this talk page. Regards, Navou 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... I expected it and I certainly won't contest it. I got a little carried away with my desire to see better articles and forgot that consensus is an important part of the wp way. Apologies. Abtract 06:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a short memory, considering that you were engaging in the same behaviour at the UK article a day before, and others were asking you to desist for the same reasons. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's a bit mean ... kick a guy when he's down why don't you? So far as I'm concerned it is all one episode where I got more and more irritated that others could not see the "obvious" correctness of my approach - latin words, then opening phrases. Abtract 11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For myself, apology accepted; it takes a mighty big Wikipedian to stand forward and ask for forgiveness. GoodDay 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sui generis

You're going to lose that battle. I'd suggest avoiding another 3RR. (I'm no fan of the term, either, but this has been discussed in great length on the talk page, and I respect the consensus.) Ben Hocking 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.Abtract 21:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, having said that, it appears I might be wrong. Still, I think taking it to the talk pages (as you did) was a good move. Ben Hocking 17:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed ... another thanks. Abtract 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

European Megalithic Culture

Thanks Abstract; good balanced edit leaving several usages of British Isles in the text without hammering the point. (Sarah777 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

NP ... just trying to improve the article. Abtract 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading

You reverted my valid edit to UK cities, Reading is not a city. What article are you referring to and where? If Reading is to remain than the section needs re-wording, it's mis-leading. RaseaC 12:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population which was previously List of United Kingdom cities by population ... I have changed the link and the heading of the section as you suggested. Thanks Abtract 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Forage/Foraging

I reverted the article again. The point is that the article on Foraging theory does not even expain the behavior-- It is virtually incomprehensible. Neither article is terrific, but Forage at least explains what forage is. I will not violate 3RR by reverting it again, but I deliberately wanted to link to the forage defination article because it is at least written in plain English. I'd appreciate it if the link could stay, or if you must revert it again, would you also be so kind as to add an intro to Foraging that explains what it IS?? Montanabw 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's no fall out over it ... maybe we could both work to improve the 2 forage articles? I will give it some thought. :) Abtract 21:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me! Sounds like a good idea. Montanabw 22:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Ireland

Not sure if I am communicating but here goes - I do not do a lot of editing on wiki so I am at all sure of this format. I reversed your edit and added citation. The entire page needs some work - I understand that fitting so much in with little space is hard but sometimes the proper sequence of events has to be included to get the proper historical perspective. e.g. it was the Lambert Simnel event which more or less led to the Poynings Law action. This is lost if the date of Simnel is incorrect so it is not just a slight error. ] 16:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

Sorry mate but I have removed your latest attempt which remains uncited, but mainly because it is completely out of place where you put it. It doesn't belong in the lead and you included it a few centuries out. Abtract 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean uncited? The opening opinion all uncited if it comes to that. The opinion expressed needs some kind of modification. What do you mean I included it a few centuries out? ] 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

"Christianity has played a major role in Ireland's history, culture and internal conflict." This is opinion only - and it is misleading opinion at that. Christianity was USED as a tool of conflict but did not actually cause conflict. The plantations were the issue - not the religion of the planters. This is bad history to leave this hanging like this. ] 23:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

Do what you will; I have given my opinion I won't fight you on it ... but others will also rv you. Abtract 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I took out that piece of opinion but well if someone does rv that is fine. I won't pursue it either. I have given my opinion and for historical accuracy and clarity that is all I can do. The page could do with some attention as there are many outdated statements like the Silken Thomas bit - there is a lot more scholarship on him and his status has gone up in recent years owing to some very interesting research - but if it is all about arguments and challenges that I will not go down that path. ] 23:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]

Megaliths, archive European Megalithic Culture talk

I assume you were trying to archive a talk page here, but you created a new article instead.P4k 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I was indeed ... three of them. Abtract 08:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine

Discussion transferred to GIF talk page where it has more relevance. Abtract 11:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome...

.. to the WPSI project. Hopefully it is all self-explanatory, but if you'd like any assistance please let me know. Good wishes, and hope to meet you on a wiki-island soon. Ben MacDui/Walk 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Prophets of Islam

I removed Adam from the category Category:Prophets in Islam because there is already an article called Islamic view of Adam, that is part of the category Category:Prophets in Islam--Java7837 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for telling me but I don't understand your rationale since adam was a prophet of islam. Abtract 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to a suggestion from way back

Hi damian111 here sorry about the late reply, my userbox was inacurate and should have been west wales. For reference on this please read the dangerous book for boys. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damian111 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My comment at WikiProject Cornwall

Hi, usually I would agree with you about removing other editors' comments - but in this case I had asked Woody to remove it if he felt appropriate. I am in a difficult situation with another editor, and Woody is familiar with the dispute, and trying to help me and the other person resolve our problems. My post was related to the difficulty, so I am happy for Woody to have removed it. Good to know the page is noticed though! Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK no problem although I would never give another editor permission to do that ... I would prefer to remove it myself but, hey, we are all different. Enjoy. Abtract (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally, but am feeling rather stressed and didn't want to revert myself and then spoil it by leaving an intemperate edit summary! DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK mate ... I have a suggestion for you as one who has had problems on here before ... my suggestion is "Apologise and move on". I know you don't understand any of why you should apologise and frankly neither do I having only skimmed through your 'problem' but believe me it is best. I sense that you enjoy wikipedia and do not want to leave but you are talking yourself into a corner. Assume 'they' are trying to be helpful and genuinely do not understand your problem ... a quick "I am sorry, not quite sure what for but I want us all to work together to make this a great encyclopedia so I am going to move on and not pester you again on this misunderstanding" and then move on to another area of wp. It worked for me and it will work for you ... in time you will look back on this as the time when you matured as an editor. Whatever you decide, good luck. :) Abtract (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, probably quite good advice too, but when I read this just after reading it I thought - "Why bother?". Hopefully he will ignore me from now on, I shall do my best to ignore him. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

mmmm doesn't make good reading but my advice still stands ... swallow your pride, apologise and look good ... or fight on, look bad and lose. Your choice. Abtract (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

snarky edit sumary

It's much more constructive and polite to actually take a look at talk page before making unfounded, already-discussed, and frankly rude comments in edit summaries, as you did on Ybor City. You're welcome to join the discussion... if you leave that attitude behind. Zeng8r (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies I didn't realise you owned the article or that you were writing a book on the same subject after extensive research ... however you might bear in mind the rules about OR and NPOV before reacting to a simple edit so aggresively. Abtract (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You wiped out most of the lead of an article for no reason and added an inflamatory edit summary for good measure. After you were informed that the article is already being discussed on its talk page and invited to join the conversation, you ignored the discussion and hacked away at the entire article, removing much important information in the process since you obviously know nothing about the topic.

Talk pages are there for a reason. Use them. Should I wikilink the relevant policies for you? Zeng8r (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikilink what you like mate, it won't change my view (and that of several other editors) that this is a badly written article containing many unsupported statements like "he thought ... " and "he said ... ", travelogue details about who went where and by which means of transport, many POV comments and, judging by the complete absence of citations, a great deal of OR (presumably by someone about to write a book on the subject). I have read all the talk page (as I do as a matter of routine before editing any article) and it is full of critisism, similar to mine, by several editors which you have reacted to with very lengthy and erudite responses but so far you have not taken heed of any view but your own. You are completely missing the point ... this is not your article and any "knowledge" you may have gleaned in preparation for your book is only relevant if you can give citations to other publications. It, like all articles, should be written in encyclopedic/measured tone ... keep your skill as an author for your book where you can get away with flowery phrases and colourful asides. Abtract (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ieuan

Hi Abtract, I notice you've tagged Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr as a possible hoax. If you're interested, I've left my views on the Discussion page. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your comments especially since you seem to have investigated the topic. Abtract (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being so considerate. I should make it clear that I myself want to see more positive clarification and shall try to find out more on this (I have contacts in Welsh acdemia). I spend a considerable amount of time checking Wales-related articles for hoaxes and have been instrumental in deleting a few things in my time here, but I am convinced that James Frankcom is genuine and not a hoaxer. I have seen the copies of Bartrum's notes and am sure they are genuine as well; it still needs a more specific reference though. Thanks again for agreeing to give it some time. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ybor City

Thanks for your help / backup on he Ybor City article! I'm a n00b but appreciate the help nonetheless. BrickMcLargeHuge 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I simply played it how I saw it. Abtract 00:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mwahahahaha!!!!

WP:ROUGE WP:CABAL WP:SPIDER!!!!! >Radiant< 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that and of course you are right ... I can get up myself occasionally when I have nothing better to do. Thanks for taking the time to point it out and tidy up after me; feel free to do it again as you see the need. Having said that I am hopeful that the frequency of need will decline to a muted "No but ... " occasionally. :) Abtract 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Penwith Wikiproject & Cornwall Wikiproject

Hi, I see you are a member of the Cornwall Wikiproject. A proposal has been made to merge the Penwith Wikiproject into it. You can join in the debate here. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Rather obviously, you know about this already - I've just messaged everyone who is in either of the two projects so that hopefully we can generate som econsensus and movement. DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem ... nice to see I was ahead of you. :) Abtract (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

re: disclosure

Sorry for not replying earlier, I simply hadn't noticed your post in the talk subpage (now redirected to my main talk). You (and anyone else who will ever read that page) are most welcome. I dorftrottel I talk I 15:55, December 8, 2007

Unilever

If Unilever competes against Kraft Foods & Mars Inc., Why does Oreo, M&Ms and Snickers all use Breyers for their Ice Cream?

Minor co-operations between competitors is not uncommon. I am going to move this section to the unilever article where it has more relevance. Abtract (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ybor City, Tampa, Florida

Hi, I tried to cleanup Ybor City, Tampa, Florida and removed the tag. I see that you hae been involved in the merge and rewrites; I would value your feedback on my progress. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be moving in the right direction and looking more like an encyclopedia. :) Abtract (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Yes, I know for sure the 3RR rule, which is how I can tell that you have violated it -- you have reapplied your edits more than 3 times, in violation of 3RR and WP:BRD. You make a bold edit, it gets reverted, and then you're supposed to discuss to get consensus, not start an edit war. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

mmm it seems to me that you have clearly not read my points on the talk page which were in place before your latest (third) revert and which you have not addressed ... I want to improve that page, what are your objectives? Abtract (talk) 23

59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

MS disambiguation page

Abtract, I'd like to offer some feedback about the process here. You have not asked me for any, so if I am being unhelpful, or if you find that I am crossing the line of violating "Comment on content, not on the contributor", I have no problem with you removing this comment from your talk page.

In all honesty, I do believe you when you say that your intention is to improve the MS page. You are not intending to be disruptive but I think the impact you are having is disruptive. I think this is happening because of your persistence combined with you not being quite careful enough. You have not been quite careful enough in reviewing MOS:DAB—other editors have had to refer you back to specifics in those guidelines a number of times. You were not sufficiently careful in reviewing JHunterJ's actions—you accused him of reverting without discussion or rationale when he had in fact discussed the reasons in edit summaries. On occasion you have not been quite careful enough even in reviewing some of your own edits. As I said, this combination of your persistence and of not being careful enough is not evidence that you are meaning to be disruptive, but I think it is having the effect of disrupting the process at that page.

JHunterJ is as close to an expert disambiguator as they come on Misplaced Pages. His contributions in cleaning up disambig pages are astounding, I find. One of the reasons he was nominated for adminship was his work with disambig pages. I point this out only to emphasize that he knows these guidelines very well, and, I suppose, with the hope that you might assume some good faith a little more with him.

Thanks for your attention; thanks for your passion for Misplaced Pages --Paul Erik 16:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

... perhaps all a moot point now, what with SlackerMom's helpful comment. :) --Paul Erik 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment, I genuinely appreciate it. Of course it must be clear from my general record that I do love wikipedia but also that I can be a little aggressive in making my point. This is normally the fruits of frustration (no excuse I know) rather than a desire to be disruptive; I am afraid I have a tendency to think the rest of the world is out of step some times.

On this particular occasion it was the fact that JHunterJ is an admin that really got my goat. I thought that admins had a duty to help editors with full explanations rather than simple reverts and that they were discouraged from using their powers on articles that they were personally involved with. However good he is as an editor, he surely slipped up on those two points. I promise to be more consensus driven in future (until the next time anyway) and I have taken the advice and started work on other dab pages ... maybe in the future I will rival JHunterJ in this slightly more constructive way.Abtract (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand the role of admins. Admins are janitors, not educators (although I'm sure some admins are good at both) -- they get a mop to help further improve Misplaced Pages (for instance, by protecting articles from edit wars). The WP:HELPDESK is separate from the adminship. You also missed my explanations in my edit summaries and in the guidelines I provided links to. It is not the job of admins to regurgitate the Misplaced Pages policies in full when any editor demands. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case. Abtract (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have been working on MA. If either of you would care to look at it and improve it ... or even remove the cleanup tag, I would appreciate it. Look on it as a couple of hours community service. :) Abtract (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, I actually agree with JHunterJ's comment here. As per my comment above, all that reverting is having a disruptive effect. --Paul Erik 20:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good for you but, had you taken the trouble to look closely, you would have seen that I have not made any reverts in the dab arena since the problems above unlike hunter who reverted me with an unhelpful edit summary ... I then tried to improve that same line again but in a quite different way. I did this because an edit summary "mistaken" helped me not; I dare say the link was intended to be helpful but my experience of admins (and editors) I admire is that they normally explain briefly why an edit was mistaken. JHunterJ has already explained to me that "Admins are janitors, not educators" so, though each time I hope for more, I expect little from him. I have worked quite diligently on dabcleanup since the troubles above and this is the first less than helpful response I have had.Abtract (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time, so your most recent edits were reverts. My "mistaken" edit summary was an answer to your "I might be mistaken" edit summary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy now I have heard it all ... I quote from Help:Reverting "A revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time." I did not do that ... and, "However, in the context of the English Misplaced Pages three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article." I did not do that ... but you did when I accused you of breaking the 3rv rule; oh how I wish I had that quote available when the ruling was made letting you off on the technicality that one of your reverts was not entirely to the identical previous version. Listen mate ... you are an admin ... grow up and act like one. Abtract (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your response to me above: I had not looked carefully enough and I had assumed that this was a complete revert. I guess it goes to show that I can be somewhat careless myself, especially when there is frustration in the air. :) Anyway, on another note—and I had meant to say this sooner—good work on the MA dab page. --Paul Erik 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I know you won't believe this but I also have been known to make mistakes and get frustrated :) I am trying hard to achieve something on dab pages and have done half a dozen or so ... you will have to tag some more pretty soon or I will run out of work. Abtract (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Clear disambiguation page cleanup

Per many examples in MOS:DP (also called MOS:DAB), in an entry for something that doesn't have a dedicated article and thus doesn't begin with a bluelink, it's actually proper to begin the entry with "A" or "the". Propaniac (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though a simple edit summary would have done the trick ... just out of interest could you lead me to the specific guidepoint you are making. I am taking quite an interest in dab cleanup and want to get it right after my adventures above. Abtract (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any place where it states this explicitly, but you can see it in the example used for linking to an anchor on another article (although that example isn't the clearest, either, since two of the entries begin with "Part"). It's also used in the first example on the page, disambiguating "school" ("A swarm of fish").

I know the MOS is really long and tricky and often not as clear as it should be; I've been working on dab page cleanup for several months, and over that time I've often realized that I did the wrong thing when cleaning up a page earlier, because I had missed some rule in the MOS (and, on at least one occasion, got quite irate towards someone else about their revision even though I later realized they were right and I was wrong). It's a pretty thankless task. But in most cases, the page will still look a hundred times better than it did before you cleaned it up even if you do make a few trivial errors, and 99.9% of Wikipedians would never notice any problem with the cleaned-up page. Propaniac (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to tell me all that. Abtract (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dab cleanups

Before I go around reverting you all over the place... :) ...may I ask, why are you doing things like removing valid interwiki links as you did here? --Paul Erik 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My rationale was that, since these were dab pages and by definition had several meanings within one page, there could be no such links. If this is incorrect, pls point me to the relevant style page and I will corect them all myself. Abtract (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you are correct, I have reinstated them all I believe ... and reinstated a couple of wiktionary lionks I wiped. As I said above I was thinking that dab pages could not be linked in either of these ways by the nature of disambiguation; thanks for the tip. Abtract (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There are disambiguation pages on other wikis, and those should be interwiki-linked. If you want to click through each one and see that it's a dab page and not an article, you could, but I usually just take them at their word. Yes, the leading {{wiktionary}} templates should definitely remain, although if there are multiple ones (such as on there used to be Rus), they could be combined into a single {{wiktionarypar}} template -- although I agree with the removal of the Cyrillic-alphabet one there instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy Christmas to all my readers. Abtract (talk)

All the best for Boxing Day too!  :) --Paul Erik 04:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abtract and all the best for the new year. There are a few unresolved things about the Rus dab page for your attention when you return. It has to do with items you have removed. Rus, Jaén should not have been removed because it is linked at List of municipalities in Jaén. Rus, Sălaj should not have been removed because it is linked at Sălaj County. Let me know if you need further explanation. Cheers, --Paul Erik 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Back (obviously) ... correct any that you are confident of by all means but I thought dab pages were only for articles that existed rahter than ones that might (tho I have a nasty feeling I may have read to the contrary sonmewhere). Abtract (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you probably read it at the style guidelines for dab pages. :) Welcome back! --Paul Erik 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maria

Hey there, Abtract. I was wondering when you'd be back. Hope you had a nice break. Thanks for your note on Talk:Maria. There's a discussion here regarding the use of TOC right, which you might find interesting. It's just a matter of preference. I tend to prefer it on longer pages, just because it shortens the list. I've noticed that you have been working hard to learn the ways of the dab page - I'm so glad! Style issues will get easier with time. I agree with the comment above about MA - it looks really good. The most disagreement tends to be over which entries should be included on each page, and sometimes those get crazily heated. Any voice of common sense is always welcome! SlackerMom (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr

Hello there, I responded to your request for intervention at the above article, and I think that this should help settle the matter. I wanted to pass you a friendly reminder, too; I realize that it may get stressful sometimes when other editors don't see your way. However, please avoid from saying that another editor "blathers" on or making other uncivil remarks, as this isn't helpful in terms of solving a dispute. Remember, keep a cool head when the editing gets hot! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... point taken and I have removed the blather. I thought I was being restrained but on re-reading I see it was a tad provocative. Abtract (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pa

I noticed your work on Pa. Commendable effort. FYI, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation and abbreviations. ENeville (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have read them both and I have done quite a few recently, although I am still learning the art of cleaning dab pages. I sense from your advice (and from your edit to Pa) that you feel I was wrong to pick "father" as the primary definition. I believe this is a very contentious issue which I have raised before on other pages ... who decides which entry(ies) is the primary one? To me "father" is clearly the most common usage but presumably to you it is not. So who decides? The pages you suggest I read do not help. For my money I would rather have no primary uses except perhaps a definition of the word but in this case I used father for consistency with MA mother (and another primary usage). Look at MS to see what I mean ... I have had several conversations about which should be the primary usages aqnd frankly the current list looks odd to say the least but I have exhausted politeness in trying to reduce thee list so I have moved on to other dab pages (it was MS that got me started). Anyway life's too short to worry but I do think the principle (or who decides etc) needs attention. Abtract (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

European Pollen Database

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of European Pollen Database, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.europeanpollendatabase.net/about. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

only one link per line?

Are you sure? There's lots and lots of names of unknown stuff from Ancient Greece and it benefits the reader to have links to them all. William Ortiz (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am sure ... look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries. It takes a while to learn all these "rules" I know from personal experience, indeed I am only half way there. It may help to remember that the purpose of dab pages is to assist with navigation rather than to impart information. :) Abtract (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Burj (word)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Burj (word), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Burj (word). WebHamster 11:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Burj (word)

I have nominated Burj (word), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Burj (word). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:50, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Abtract (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

HAH???

You reverten a link made by me on the clear dezambiguation page, stating that there is a maximum of one link per dezambig page. Since when? Is there a wikipedia policy on this? I`m a bit confused.... AdrianCo (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries. It takes a while to learn all these "rules" I know from personal experience, indeed I am only half way there. It may help to remember that the purpose of dab pages is to assist with navigation rather than to impart information. Abtract (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, kinda strange...but ok! Thanks anyway! AdrianCo (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, wait a sec`, do you suppose that every person that searches for "Clear" in the Scientology sense knows what an "engram", as defined by the Scientology/ER Hubbard/Whatever-created-it , knows what it is?! Well... look on the bottom of the page! Please do take a look! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianCo (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course they won't but they will discover it when they go to the target article, which is where the info should be ... remember a dab page is only for navigation. This is not an occasion to break the rules or every dab entry would have several links. Abtract (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

But the counter-exameple on the link that you gave me implied a song , the definition of the song and the genre of the band as, in this case , an "engram" is in itself a vague notion, so that`s why I wanted the link, not for personal credit or anything... AdrianCo (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I realise you are operating entirely in good faith but you need to learn the "rules" on dab pages. Put simply, they are designed to help readers find the article they want (navigation) when they don't know the precise title of the article but they know a key word that might be the title (for example "clear"). The idea is that they type in "clear" and arrive at the dab page which they scan to find the article they wanted and then go straight there without hanging around to read up on extra explanations or visiting linked articles. When they get to the target article they spend as long as they want looking at the info and visiting links. Hopefully you see the point now; the dab page gets them where they want to be but gives them no information other than is necessary to get them there. Abtract (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok then.... AdrianCo (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL don't feel too bad about it, there is much to learn as I know to my cost (look at some of my history!). Abtract (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Willie Nelson

Hi,
Thanks for sorting my screw up on the talk page for Willie.
I'd like to do a bit of re-writing on that article. But I'm not very sure about the editing rules. I've been a Willie fan since 1978, met him personally, and have a collection of about 120 cd's, over 30 videos/dvd's, and also met my present partner through his fan website,(Willie actually sent us a signed copy of his "Valentine" CD because of that). So perhaps I am more qualified than most to add information to this page. So can you advise me what is, or is not allowed. ???
Robbiework (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

NP - you will see that I have put a welcome on your page; this contains lots of useful places to look for "rules". I am no expert and get it wrong often. In particular you might look at wp:or because it sounds to me as though you have access to unpublished primary sources that would count as original research. It is important that info on living persons is supported by a citation. Anyway, have fun and enjoy editing. Abtract (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cornwall, England, UK

See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline and the discussion linked therefrom. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

MMM you have better eyes than I do (I see lots of debate but no consensus) ... could you lead me to the specific place where a consesus was reached pls. Abtract (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - it's been archived, have tracked it down now - ]. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't see a consensus there (mention of one in the past maybe) indeed I entered that debate but thought it just fizzled out. Abtract (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

MS dab page – part 2

Hi Abtract. Sorry to keep bugging you about dab style guidelines, especially when you've been doing some great cleanups. But I think this edit mis-characterizes what the guidelines actually say. They do not say that all the items in the list need to be divided among the sections. There are strong advantages to having the most likely dab targets listed early, even if it means not appropriately categorizing them. You can see the example of Aurora. My view was that MS provided easier navigation before your latest edit. ...My two cents, anyway. Cheers, --Paul Erik 00:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't apologise I am trying to learn as I go and I appreciate constructive comments - and this means that some of my edits are based on "common sense" (as I see it of course). This page has bothered me for some time, mainly because it has (had) 6 items in the supposedly "most common usage" slot at the beginning. In looking at the mos I spotted the section I referred to - Misplaced Pages:MOSDAB#Longer lists which is clearly written with all entries sectionalised. As to Aurora, it is quoted for another reason entirely (two levels of sectioning) and you will note it starts with "Aurora most commonly refers to:" which could certainly not be applied to ".ms, the Internet country code top-level domain for Montserrat", as an example. Common sense tells me that with long lists everything should be in a section unless it sticks out like a sore thumb as being the most common usage, otherwise we come back to the perennial "who decides?". My sections may not be the best but I have tried to make them meaningful and containing a reasonable number of terms. Let's see what others think. :) Abtract (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good thing when new people start working on dab pages and question some of the guidelines, because it typically leads us to make sure that the guidelines are indeed useful and based on the best "common sense". I'm basing my comments largely on what I have seen other more experienced dab-project members do: I do not think that the example at Misplaced Pages:MOSDAB#Longer lists was truly intended to be prescribing that all the entries should be sectionalised. Still, I think you make a good point about the Montserrat country code, and I am happy to see what others think. :) --Paul Erik 02:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Surname pages

Hi again. :) Surname pages are not dab pages, so they do not need to follow dab style guidelines; see MOS:DAB#Given names or surnames. --Paul Erik 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. You are right and thanks for pointing it out but (you knew that was coming didn't you?) I just don't see it. I can see no other purpose in this list except disambiguation. Why is the list there? Answer (surely) to assist readers find the right article ... this sounds a bit like dab to me. Anyway I have completed my "clean" so once again I am in the "Let's see what happens" phase. I really am trying to improve wp but it is hard work. :) Abtract (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, often these surname or given-name articles begin by essentially just being a list that helps to disambiguate. But eventually other things get added and they become an article about the name—see Smith (surname) or (one that I worked on) Monica (given name). WikiProject Disambiguation tries to keep these things distinct—dab pages are not articles—and there is another project altogether, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anthroponymy, that looks after articles (and, I suppose, lists) about names. --Paul Erik 02:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think you did some great cleanup work at Berg (surname), and here is just one minor nitpicky thing: when you are writing a year range, the MoS says to write it as year, then endash, then year. For example: 1885–1935. You were using spaced hyphens. Very minor point, I know. Cheers, --Paul Erik 02:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of jail and prison museums

Consolidation complete on the List of jail and prison museums & the situation is resolved. Thanks for adding to the discussion. FieldMarine (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

no problem, I enjoy such debates. Abtract (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dab pages

Why don't you use redirects in disambiguation pages per MOS:DAB? The user JHunterJ does, look at what he did to Goki for example. Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He did so here as well. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by "redirects" in this context. Abtract (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesse

Sorry, I missed that the Jesse (disambiguation) page had been seperated into two pages and assumed that most of it had been deleted due to vandalism. Jesse K. (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

no problem, I thought it might have been something like that. I find the subject of lists v dab pages a difficult one as you will see if you have looked at any of the debates, so I am feeling my way a little. Abtract (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

M&S

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Norns move

Hey, good call on moving the article to Norns -- that's exactly where it should be. An update of a link to the new Norn redirect, though, isn't necessary -- if it's going to appear on the screen just the same and lead you to the same eventual page, links to redirects needn't be replaced with direct links. (WP:R2D). Now that it's done, however, there's also no need to undo it either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

We aim to please. Abtract (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Earth

Hello... I had reverted your change to Earth (adding "we") because Misplaced Pages generally avoids the use of that phrasing. However, RJHall was kind enough to point out that there are some limited occasions when it is felt to be acceptable. With that in mind, any thoughts about how we might rework the line to include "we" and yet make it a bit more formal? (Another reason why I removed it was because I felt "we know life exists" was too casual.) Cheers. --Ckatz_spy 05:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure I do. As I said in my edit summary, it was a bit nitpicking of me and I fully expectd it to be reverted. If I come up with anything, I will take it to the earth talk page. Thanks for taking the time to tell me. Abtract (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

long comment

Several of us patrol the short pages, looking for vandalism or test pages, when something has been reviewed, we add a long comment to the article so that it won't show up in the shortest pages any more and won't keep being checked, re-checked, etc. So when I added that to the article you noticed, it was that I reviewed it and didn't need others to review it again in its current state. Cheers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... I guessed it would make sense. At what point is it removed? Abtract (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Buddha quasi-dab page

Hi Abtract - just wanted to thank you for your recent comment to Talk:Buddha. I've added a follow-up, suggesting that the opening prose paragraphs be reverted to the bulleted style of this page's pre-01/25/08 style. If you have additional thoughts or feel my follow-up still misses the point, etc., I'd welcome your further suggestions. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem ... it is a mess at the moment, neither fish nor fowl. Your follow up is useful but the page you directed to is still in need of a clean and the cleanup tag will attract several other editors. I have no doubt we will get to somewhere close to my version of Buddha (disambiguation). Thanks for your input. Abtract (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi from me, too, and thanks for your interest, work, and goodwill. LR drew my attention to the progress that IMO you-all have made in recent hours, and it seemed like a good idea to acknowledge you both for that and endorse this direction. I looked only in a very impressionistic way at either what you started from or your approach, so i'll only note that you do seem to be paying attention to the applicable guidelines, and may well have all the nuances of this particular case nailed down.
As i said to him, i think i'll lurk only on the outskirts for now. Keep up the good work.
--Jerzy•t 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks. Abtract (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some reorg and reformatting on Buddha (disambiguation), then got my attention briefly drawn (perhaps by something that included a sig by or lk to you) to the current discussion re WP:MOSDAB#Piping, in which you are participating. I may, after all, have something to learn from you abt the (for me) confusing piping/rdr discussion. I'll compare (but not tonite) the diffs from my edit against that MOSDAB section, and may then do some self-undoing, dive into studying the MOSDAB talk page sections, and/or have some questions for you.
One quick question, tho: did you notice if the change in the "rdr to avoid piping" example was noted in that MOSDAB discussion? Apparently the Delta Quadrant Rdr was upgraded from Galactic quadrant to Galactic quadrant#Delta Quadrant (for all i can recall, perhaps when sector addressing in Rdrs became effective) and the bare fact reflected on MOSDAB, but perhaps w/o consideration of whether it was still a good example of the applicability of the piping/rdr language.
My head is spinning, and i fear it may still be, in this regard, after sleeping.
--Jerzy•t 07:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kaito changes

Can you explain your recent edits to the page? Reason why I used Kaitou Kid instead of Kaito Kid is because the article says "Kaitou Kid". And why did you remove the different variations of "Kaito"? Please respond below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DAB discourages multiple variants in the lead, and the dab page is about Kaito not Kaitou ... I created a redirect to solve problem, a method you are aware of because you have used it yourself. Abtract (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. You may want to look at Goki and Son Goku if what you say is true. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I have corrected them. Abtract (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

strange?

Letting you know now since you're known to do "strange edits", please do not revert the edit I just did to Ichigo. Let us discuss that as well on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I did revert because it was adding surplus words not needed for dab purposes. I know you like to "shorten" dab lines because you have done it several times to pages that I have just cleaned ... incidentally you give every impression of following behind me to tweak pages I have cleaned rather than getting on cleaning pages that need it more; That would be even "stranger" than some of my edits so I presume it is just an impression rather than reality. Abtract (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inappropiate. You were told to discuss the edit and not revert. And no, I'm not "stalking" you, it just so happens that most of these dab pages are on my watchlist. I am still contesting your edit to Ichigo and would like to reach an agreement here. Please stop reverting. Reply? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very simple: I made an edit to "shorten" (a word you have used several times and which I applaud presuming you mean taking out words not necessary for the dab process) the dab page and you reverted it with no proper explanation; I took the unecessary words out again; you reverted me; you TOLD me not to take them out again but that is not the wp way ... if you disagree with my edit, discuss it, tell me why and maybe I will agree ... do not TELL me what to do or not do. I await your reasons for not liking my shortening. Abtract (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, are you trying to test the patience of others? For example, I obviously wanted to make it 100% clear to the viewer that the character is fictional, as there is a difference between fictional character and just character. I took off little words like "a", "the" and "is" between JHunterJ mentioned (to me) that these were unnecessary. And I apologize if you thought I was stalking. Convinced about my actions now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK to be nice I won't fight you over character tho imho " a character in film/book/series etc" can only be fictional - how could it be non-fiction? As to your point about "a" "the" etc and JHunterJ's advice to you, if you read it carefully it says (and I quote) "It's only on dab entries that are people, and normally just on {{hndis}} dab pages, that you should remove the articles "a", "an", or "the" at the start of a dab entry description." Do you see that he is actually saying "do not remove those small words on normal dab pages"? He goes on to say "These were probably okay." meaning they were OK before you removed the small words. The nuances of the English language are difficult so I hope this helps. I am truly glad you are not stalking me and of course I take you at your word. I have a suggestion for you ... if I clean a page, you leave it; if you clean one, I will do likewise. (I'm talking about cleans not little edits). This will free our energies for the main task of cleaning (and there are plenty to go round) and should prevent unecessary conflict. Let's try this for a few months untill we both cool down. Abtract (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought you were the one stalking me. And I believe you're misinterpreting JHunterJ's words, badly. If you read between the lines, he says that the little words are usually removed in {{hndis}} pages. It's ok if they're taken off dabs because the guideline doesn't specify this. Not sure if the strategy you're proposing will work. I'm trying to follow MOS:DAB seriously and it'd be appreciated if you would do the same. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I make clear of fiction now? Appears this is the only compromise we've reached. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah now I see it all ... you don't actually clean DABs yourself do you? I have looked through your recent contributions and your entire oputput for the last three days is on talk pages with a couple of minor excursions ... and some questions for JHunterJ ... say no more, I understand now. I eagerly await your first (?) real clean. Abtract (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WHAT are you doing here, here and here? The Goki and Son Goku changes, fine, but you're going once again against MOS:DP guidelines and doing drastic changes without consensus. You were warned about disambig formats before. Explain? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you have learned quite a lot in the time I have been away, congratulations. You have also appreciated the correct interpretation of JHunterJ's words ... well done. I look forward to seeing some genuine first cleans (rather than tweaking) from you. Enjoy. Abtract (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was that sarcasm? Well, FYI, I do perform major cleaning on disambiguations every now and then but generally prefer tweaking. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, tweaking is an honorable wp function one I am not averse to myself. Now you haved learned how to do it, I look forward eagerly to your constructive tweaks. Abtract (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So, friends? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. :) Abtract (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Baba Disambiguration Naming

Why are all the non-European people named Baba listed under folklore? David Plum (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand your question. Abtract (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WPSI Collaboration

Template:IslandCOTM Ben MacDui/Walk 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Surname dab articles

Did you see this edit? Same goes for Starks. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw it but you don't explain why it is right ... does it better conform to MOS, if so which bit? Thanks. Abtract (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno where in the vast MoS. Just look at the number of "people with ..." articles compared to the hundreds of "... (surname)" articles. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Au

Please respond on the article's discussion page, so that User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and other rc patrollers can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecurran (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

London Borough of Redbridge

Why did you get rid of my edit? I added more information, and I know more because I go to a school in london borough of redbridge and i also live in redbridge. I reverted it back to my correct edit Agent007ravi (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned and indeed blocked before for disruptive edits and for introducing original research; please don't go down that route again. I think you know very well that unsupported statements like "The Most Popular and active school in the borough" are unencyclopedic. I see you have been reverted by two more editors since you wrote these comments so I hope you will now appreciate what I say. I lived in Redbridge myself many years ago so I am sympathetic but please, if you want to play in this park, learn the etiquette. Have fun but follow the rules ... and there are many as I have discovered that hard way. :) Abtract (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Destination (series)#Recurring elements

I really don't like this section. I've removed three lines from here this path month. Two were POVish and one I'm pretty darn sure wasn't accurate. I've been thinking of tagging this section with something, but I'm not sure what. {{npov}}? {{weasel}}? -WarthogDemon 00:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about. Abtract (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yum cha. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)