Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 13 March 2010

Your recent edits

April 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Carefree (chant), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages isn't censored, but we kind of draw the line at anything uncited, non-notable and defamatory. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no standard about where to reply to talk page messages. Some people like to keep everything together; some people like always to post on the addressee's talk page so they get a 'You have new messages' warning. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your "addition" amounted to putting up different lyrics, ostensibly sung in derision by that team's opponents. Besides what Philip Trueman already pointed out, Misplaced Pages is not a blog and it's not a soapbox either. The songs and responses sung back and forth, between opposite fans, can be practically infinite. -The Gnome (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Carefree. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. Thank you.-The Gnome (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Red shirt security

A tag has been placed on Red shirt security requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Blowdart | 07:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

my grandad george hayward referee of british wrestling

hi there im writing to u to get some back ground on my grandad i was just wondering if there is anyone how remembers him his name is george hayward married to margret hayward and also my uncle was dedicated one of dig daddies god children but that is what my grandad said and now he has pasted i just want to find out about his days as a referee.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanhayward (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Greensleeves

I would be grateful if you could stop exchanging the word Myth for Legend. This entire text (using Myth) was agreed a while back when discussing and rewriting the whole aspect of Henry VIII and Greensleeves. As I said in my note, a Myth is a popular belief. A legend is an unverified story (handed down from earlier times). In this instance the use of the word legend is inappropriate because a) there is no story to be verified (Henry clearly did not write Greensleeves) and b) there is no evidence that gives longevity to story of Henry VII and Greensleeves. In other words, it's not a legend - it's a myth. And a complete one, at that. David T Tokyo (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(your quote) I'm sorry but Experts have said can't prove Henry VIII didn't write it and since Henry VIII is the only name they have as the composers name and its been known by most people for 500 years that Henry VIII wrote it which is longdetivity.

Please provide me with the necessary references / evidence that show that

a) Experts have said "can't prove Henry VIII didn't write it"

b) Any Experts who have said that Henry VIII is the only name they have as a composers name

c) The story that Henry VIII wrote Greensleeves is at least 500 years old.

There are existing references on the Greensleeves page that give a completely opposite story. Obviously if you are able to provide new information it will be an important development for the page. I look forward to receiving them. David T Tokyo (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Greensleaves edit war

A look at the edit history of Greensleaves shows that you both have made three reverts to the article. Either stop or you you may be blocked for violation of Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As per this request I looked to see which word would be a better fit. After reading through both legend and mythology, I think, that of the two, "myth" appears to be the better fit. However, I don't have any reference works, nor does there appear to be anything that would be classified as reliable on Google, about Greensleaves to indicate or source either one. There is a reference at the end of that section and it may be able to clear it up. Having said that, I really don't think that either word fits properly. I think that the word "belief" would be more correct in the sentence. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As both of you agreed I made the change. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Treason Felony Act 1848

Thank you for pointing out that the infobox did not say what the status of the above Act was. I have put it right.James500 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Total War

Hello, your recent edits to Medieval: Total War seemed to revert the article to its inferior quality of several months ago. As with all potentially controversial edits such as these, an explanation as to why it was reverted should be made on the talk page and at least be mentioned in your edit summary. You may also want to look at WP:VGSCOPE, which points out inappropriate material in articles - such as the faction list that you re-added. In the meantime I have restored the article. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)#

Well, video game articles should not contain long lists of concepts, such as factions, the other Total War game articles that contain faction list have not been cleaned up yet. I also would not recommend creating an article devoted to factions and game play tips, wikipedia is not a guide, such an article would likely be quickly deleted. I would say to review Empire: Total War's talk page for the same discussion on why factions should not be included. Cheers QueenCake (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just remembered, an article about Medieval Total War's factions was in fact created - and quickly deleted - before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_factions_in_Medieval:_Total_War QueenCake (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt it will be possible to assert the notability of such an article and provide it with any sources. Faction lists don't really belong on wikipedia, a summary of factions in prose on the article page is easily sufficient. QueenCake (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Just add User:UBX/Christian to your page; do it like this, though, ---> {{User:UBX/Christian}} Also, you're welcome. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on FA Cup 2008–09. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Peanut4 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Forget what Peanut4 says he is an idiot any way (and there are lots of idiots on wikipedia like him anyway). The FA site list the game to be played 17 March 2009. Arsenal-Hull. I also do not get way offical club site cant be usued as wald prove. DoctorHver (talk) 12:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Smith (footballer born 1979)

I have removed the League Cup goal from the infobox as it was not scored in a LEAGUE game. There is no dispute as to the validity of the goal, which is fully described in the text. For reasons I won't go into here, mainly because they would take too long, it has long been established that only League appearances and goals should be noted in player infoboxes. Happy editing. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 British and Irish Lions tour of South Africa

You are correct, Ireland do use a version of the four provinces flag. However, they do not use the four provinces flag. So you did not add the correct flag. – PeeJay 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent RfA

I am sorry, but I have closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you only have 800 edits on Misplaced Pages; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Misplaced Pages editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! –Juliancolton |  16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Tough luck. Keep up your work around here :) - Kingpin (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

List of sporting venues with a highest attendance of 100,000 or more

Hi! I noticed you added a few sporting venues to List of sporting venues with a highest attendance of 100,000 or more. All three have been removed because I can't find references that they ever had an attendance of 100,000 or more people for a one day event. Stamford Bridge and Old Trafford's highest attendance are 82,905 and 76,962 respectively, so they both fall short. The only reference for Ascot Racecourse having over 100,000 spectators is for the entire event held there, not just a one day record. Do you have any information about the highest attendance for a one day event is at Ascot Racecourse? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the highest attendance for an event, not a sporting venue. For instance in 2008, Manchester United attracted an average of 75,691 for their 19 home PL matches. The highest attendance isn't 1,438,129. It's whatever the highest attendance for one match is. If the Royal Ascot is a five day event and over 300,000 attend it during the week, than an average of 60,000 are at the Ascot Racecourse at any given time. I have found some sources that back a 70,000 capacity up; this and this. The highest one day figure I can find is 73,175. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A few things

Hi! I see you added a table for stadiums under construction to the List of stadiums by capacity. I simply added a link to the already existing article at List of stadiums under construction.

In addition, I'm thinking of making a List of closed stadiums by capacity article and have it linked from the list of stadiums by capacity]]. That way, the list of stadiums by capacity can be for current stadiums. The new article would for any closed, former, unused, or demolished stadiums that had a capacity of 30,000 or more spectators at the time of it's closing. I think we have all stadiums that held 40,000 or more, and all the stadiums in Europe 30,000 or over. What do you think? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My reason for simply linking to the existing article was because of the length of the list. There are upwards of 450 current stadiums with 40,000 or more people. There are still quite a few racing venues that can be added to the list. Name the major race series and pretty much all it's tracks will be over 40,000 (especially if infield areas or hills are included). If future and past stadiums are also included, it will cimply be a huge article.

Great, I'll get started on the new article now. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A friendly pointer

Hi! When adding stadiums to lists such as List of stadiums by capacity, make sure that the stadium doesn't already exist under a different capacity in the list. A lot of times, stadium capacities change and a stadium may be listed under a different capacity. Thanks for all the work you've done on the lists! Patken4 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lords and stuff

Hi!

I saw a few changes you'd made to the Alan Sugar article and I thought it might be useful to point you towards this article: Territorial designation. It gives a good explanation of how to use a person's title as a lord - which I didn't understand at all until I read it! The way it works is that you get both a title and a territorial designation, but the two are separate things. Alan Sugar has been given a title, Baron Sugar, with a territorial designation, of Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney. You can use either just his title, or his title and territorial designation, but you have to use the territorial designation in full; so he can be called either Lord Sugar, or Lord Sugar, of Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney - but not Lord Sugar of Clapton. Another example would be Lord Mandelson, of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham, who can be just Lord Mandelson, or Lord Mandelson, of . Hope this makes sense - as I say, I had no idea how it worked until I read the explanation on there.

Have a good day!

Johnhousefriday (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And further guidelines on referring to peers generally are here. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Apprentice (UK series six) has been nominated for deletion

As you have made significant edits to this article, you may want to participate in the discussion. Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Apprentice (UK series six). DJ 22:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

List of covered stadiums by capacity

Hi! From what I can tell, the Crucible Theatre isn't a stadium, but rather an indoor arena. The difference between the two is that a stadium host sporting events that need a larger playing surface; such as all the forms of football, rugby, cricket, baseball, etc. Indoor arenas host sporting events that require a smaller playing surface; like ice hockey, basketball, volleyball, team handball, etc. Snooker uses an even smaller playing surface than the indoor arena sports. This is why I've deleted it from List of covered stadiums by capacity.

In addition, I took out the information about Wembley. Other stadiums also have every seat under cover while the playing surface isn't, so it isn't all that unique. A lot of the information is already included in the Wembley article. Thanks for all your hard work! Patken4 (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

BigDunc 12:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

List of stadium stands by capacity

I'll try to find the largest EPL stands and them to the list of those I can find. The problem I see is with adding stadiums from a worldwide perspective. I know in the US and Canada, stands aren't used. For instance, Lane Stadium and Kinnick Stadium would likely fit the criteria of the list as their stands are not connected. But I haven't found a source saying what each stand holds. Both stadiums hold over 60,000 people, with a comparatively smaller capacity in the end zone stands. I would estimate that the sideline stands hold over 20,000 each while the end zones are about 10,000 each. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Neilim

I'm sorry, but I looked through the last 1500 edits and can't find anything to User:Neilim or User talk:Neilim. Skier Dude (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You are mentioned here BigDunc 16:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:The C of E

User:The C of E, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:The C of E and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:The C of E during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider removing the content in question from your user page? Per WP:UP#NOT, it shouldn't be there (personal views are okay, but ones that are likely to be inflammatory should be avoided), and it's likely to cause less drama in the end if you simply pull it yourself. Best, --Bfigura 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one would like to say I misread this situation and made an unfounded assumption about you. I hadn't spoken to you yet and had already lumped you into a certain category of users (the kind who create drama). I can't agree with all your views, but you still probably should have been asked nicely first. We all just assumed that would be futile. Too much past experience, you know? Sorry. Equazcion (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Your chances of being an admin some day

On your User page, you say that you would like to be an admin some day. Your joy at attacking people due to their language, their location, or their sexual preference, would really make it difficult for that to happen. Why don't you concentrate on editing, and less on polemics? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"This user speaks The Queen's English". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor review archived

Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 04:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

List of heads of state and government by net worth

Please stop making arbitrary changes to this page, this is what the discussion pages are for. I have reverted the changes you made and created a new section on the discussion page in regards to this issue. I look forward to debating this with you there. Dphilp75 (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I worded my comments here to sound like you had re-edited the page numerous times. You had in fact only changed the edits I had made once. I was more referring to using the discussion page before making edits. Again, apologies. Dphilp75 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Referendum on Saint Vincent

Thank you for information! But I tracked it O-Line at the day of referendum, and I received full information immediately after the ending of referendum/ I believe, that reform of current monarchical Constitution of Solomon Islands in future year will be more successfull without referendum, and Solomon Islands will become the newest Republic of the World.CrazyRepublican (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Master Editor II

Kind of a minor detail, but since some people take these seriously... It requires 70,000 edits, he's got about 5k. Nathan 20:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few people have over 70k edits; I'm not sure how many of them have 7 years, but I'm sure there is at least one. Whether they've picked up the award or not, I don't know. Could check the box and see where its been transcluded if you're really curious. Nathan 21:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

List of heads of state and government by net worth

I added the full titles because not every title can be simplified so easily. There is no 'Prime Minister of Italy', the actual title is President of the Council of Ministers, not to be confused with the President of the Italian Republic. There is no 'King of Saudi Arabia", but The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques which is a title held as equivalent to a king. Sheikh Khalifa is the President of the whole U.A.E., but also hold the princely title of emir of one of the emirates, something that needs to be distinguished. It really does no harm to add the full titles, and adding them only gives better clarity to avoid colloquialisms and misunderstandings. I hope you would agree that adding the full titles does no harm, and is a more accurate description than the simplified equivalents given and would allow me to edit as such. XANDERLIPTAK 11:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Antilles and Aruba are autonomous regions but still part of the Kingdom of The Netherlands, much like Scotland and Wales within the United Kingdom. I like to keep the list of countries short because it draws undo attention to European monarchs who tended to make each new territory a kingdom and thus another title for themselves. XANDERLIPTAK 07:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re this article, I have just declined your protection request, I'm reposting my comments there here just in case the bot clears them away before you get to see them.

At this point, semi-protection wouldn't address the issue. If one editor embarks on an edit war, then they can be dealt with individually. If there is a pick-up in similar content from IPs, then relist as necessary. Additionally, have you used the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to address the issue of whether the Ethiopian Review is reliable? GedUK  22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I added my perspective, though it may be too late. Therequiembellishere also seems to not care about the time spent coming to a conclusion about what to do with HM Elizabeth's II sixteen nations. XANDERLIPTAK 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

GedUK  08:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hi, I think comments on the top of the talk page on Creation according to Genesis may get less noticed. End of the talk page is where they may get read now. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gallery of flags with people

A tag has been placed on Gallery of flags with people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipolice

Just covering for Addshore. Credit: Irismeister and Mr-Natural-Health.

Hope that helps (but I suspect it won't), - Jarry1250  23:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of pheonix clubs

I have nominated List of pheonix clubs, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of pheonix clubs. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- BigDom 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really the name of the list that is the problem, it's the fact that it is complete original research and can never be completed, especially going off your definition that a club that has been formed as a protest is included. Can you please explain to me how F.C. United are a "phoenix club" when they clearly have not "risen from the ashes" from any previous team. As far as I'm aware, Manchester United are still doing pretty well for themselves. -- BigDom 19:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a list of protest and reborn clubs would be helpful, seeing as they are two entirely different concepts. Anyway, we'll just have to see what other editors think over the next seven days now. Cheers -- BigDom 19:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of revival clubs

A tag has been placed on List of revival clubs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Mootros (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of revival clubs

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of revival clubs. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of revival clubs. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sealand

Thanks for that. As I have said, I will revert anyone who reverts that without consensus.Mk5384 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
One thing; we have Prince Roy I listed as both head of state, and head of government for Sealand. However, the other entries seperate the title and the person. For example: The United States of America, President Barack Obama. For "President" it has the list of presidents of the United States. Then for "Barack Obama" it has President Obama's article. Should we split the two, having an entry for the history of Sealand's government to go with "Prince", and then have the article for Mr. Bates to go with Roy I? Even though Prince Roy I has been the only leader of Sealand, it has been contested, and there is currently a "government in exile", as absurd as that sounds. I feel that this would add to the legitimacy of our including Sealand in the list. What are your thoughts? All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I was trying to say. Take, for example, Transnistria. It's leader is President Igor Smirnov. The way the list has it, "President" goes to the article "President of Transnistria", whilst "Igor Smirnov" goes to the article about President Smirnov. Under Sealand, should "Prince" go to an article about "Prince of Sealand", whilst "Roy I" goes to an article about Mr. Bates? All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

mk5384

Thank you for your responses. Unfortunately, I am in the middle of several important matters at the time, and may need to take a couple of weeks off from Misplaced Pages. Sealand is indeed soverign,. As I have pointed out, an English court has ruled that it has no jurisdiction over it. Once I have worked out a couple of personal issues, I will return to Misplaced Pages. Hopefully, you and I can work together to improve the article some more. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Even though I am taking a break, I am still peeking in from time to time. They reverted Sealand twice, and I have undone it both times. I went on the talk page, and clarified exactly why it does belong, and insisted that if anyone else reverts it, that they post a valid reason for doing so on the talk page. So far, so good, as it has now remained for almost 3 days. We'll see. And by the way, if someone does revert it, and you feel so inclined, go right ahead and undo it. It will not be in violation of any policy unless you were to do it ad infinitum. We have both discussed it at length, and given solid reasons on the talk page. They have reverted without even commenting on the talk page. I am certainly loathe to have an edit war with anyone, as that does nothing to help this encyclopedia. However, we have stated our case claerly, and have supported it with reliable sources. The burden of proof is now on them.Mk5384 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

List of phoenix clubs

I've restored the article and, after looking it over, moved it to User:The C of E/List of phoenix clubs so you can continue to improve it. Please make sure it's properly referenced before considering moving it back to main article space. - Dravecky (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Stamford Bridge capacity

Chelsea official website--87.16.234.32 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Boring

I am not interested. If you want to sort the flag out, you need to do it at template level, so posting on my talk page will not achieve that. Until you sort the template out, stop vandalising the infobox. That is not acceptable at all. O Fenian (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)