Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:25, 27 April 2010

New messages will appear at the bottom of this page.

Vandals, trolls, and other fiendly visitors, please note:

"Misplaced Pages is a community,
not a crazy den of pigs!"

Social experimenters, please note:

"We're an encyclopedia,
not a bunch of lab rats in a cage."

If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me, unless I don't respond when a response is expected (normally within 24 hours, unless the issue is urgent). This helps keep discussions in one place and makes them easier to read and follow. If you leave a message for me: I will generally respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. If you are discussing an article: I would prefer to use that article's talk page, unless you'd rather not to use that page for some reason, such as commenting on a particular user's edits in semi-privacy. I generally do not bother to leave messages on IP talk pages, since many IPs are dynamic, and there's no way to know the difference on the first edits. The user will more than likely never even know they received a message, so it's just a waste of time better spent on actual editing. (This is one example of how not having mandatory registration does a great disservice to IP editors. Because of this, IP editors really ARE second-class users, made so by Jim Wales' own non-negotiable (thus dictatorial) policies.) The main exception is vandalism warnings, which are required before most admins will block or ban for vandalism. Please limit this page to discussions not related to any particular article, those covering a wide range of articles/topics, or personal comments. Note: I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to take further action through permissable means. (See this policy.) This may include removing your messages from my talk page. If I've done so, please DO NOT re-add the same meassage, or follow-up with another - They will be removed again, mostly likely with a edit summary about your obnoxiousness in continually hounding me. If you then follow this up wth an ANI report, you're proving that you are a real jerk, and I won't respond there either, per WP:DENY. I may, however, file my own ANI report against your harassment. Further notes: Due to the misbehavior of a few IPs, IPs are sometimes prevented from editing this page. If you need to discuss an article, see the previous note. If you need to discuss something else with me, register, and come back in four days. If it's urgent, use the e-mail feature; it won't work if it's been abused lately. If you chose to whine on an admin complaint board somewhere, I'll probably hear about it. And ignore you. ;) PS. if you posted the type of comments on my page that you would post on an admin alert board, they would have been ignored and removed anyway! Also, talk to me like a normal person, and don't just quote Wiki guidelines to me - I'm NOT a newbie (Read WP:DTTR!). I consider it rude, and will likely just delete your comments, and ignore the point, as guidelines can be ignored. If you do it anyway, and turn out to be wrong, an apology would be the considerate thing to make, though you probably won't since it's not policy to apologize for your mistakes. (If Jimbo Wales wanted people to apologize for their mistakes, he'd have made it a policy, right?!) If you want me to take your opinions and edits seriously, you ought to Register!. Otherwise one never knows who really made the edits, especially in the case of dynamic IP addresses. If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks. I reserve the right to clean up this page in any manner I chose, including the use of Rollbacks for non-vandalism, and especially if you made more than one edit. Please do NOT re-post what I've removed, unless you are an admin issuing a formal warning, though I'll probably still remove it! If you wish to keep a matter confidential,such as discussing personal and/or confidential information, you may use the "E-mail" feature (usually activated!). I will respond in kind unless otherwise requested. This is not for discussing routine matters regarding editing on pages - use the article talk pages for that.

Dave1185 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

It is 18:56:20 on December 25, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

This user has read and understood the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. Have you?

This user is a WikiDragon. ...one of the last of a dying breed...

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 16 years, 9 months and 28 days.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.

This editor is a Grand Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain.

This user is part of the Welcoming Committee.

Archive 1: Dave1185 MMVIII
Archive 2: Dave1185 MMIX
Archive 3: Dave1185 MMX (NB:Donkey years ago, I fried two 166mhz Pentium MMX in my many attempts of overclocking them first to 180mhz, then to 200mhz. It works~! When I found the Celeron 300A, the rest became history. Ahhh... good times~!)

Welcome! (* Usage: {{subst:welcomeg}} )

Hello, Dave1185! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Midorihana 07:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Peer reviewing Vietnam Airlines

Hello Dave1185, could you please just pop into the artilce Vietnam Airlines for a moment or two and give it a quick look to see if there are any flaws and anything I could improve on? A major edit for the article is coming up, but, before I post it, I'd like to know any mistakes beforehands, so I could fix it right away on the copy that I have on my computer at the moment. Also, could you please tell some of your friends to give it a look, too? Cheers, hope we can collaborate in the future :) Sp33dyphil 05:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Anything else you need help with? --Dave 07:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your effort, I was about to paste a major edit from Microsoft Words onto Misplaced Pages when all of a sudden, you gave it a thorough fix, whcih is good for the article, not for me (I have to make changes to what I have written on Microsoft Words then). How come when I looked up for differences between your copy and mine, some paragraphs appeared yellow and green even though there weren't any clear changes? Thanks a lot Sp33dyphil 22:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Those seemingly invisible changes (yellow=old version, green=new version) are actually the removal of numerous odd double/extraneous spacings which I have omitted due to the fact that many people have a bad habit of creating double spacings when typing out their edits (possibly a result of their old habit of using typewriters, carbon papers and all in the 1980s & 1990s, yours sincerely was also guilty of that last time!). Although, it is not readily detectable when being rendered by Wiki server, it creates a lot of unnecessary empty spaces which are devoid of content and should be avoided in order to lessen the load of Wiki servers, thus speeding up the loading of pages. Cheers and regards. --Dave 02:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A Wiki Fanatic on a Crusade

Dear Dave, could you check out the discussion on the User talk:ROG5728 page at the bottom. A lot of people have tried the polite way, but to no avail. He may be right technically, but just the way that it is gone about. A lot of the users are just common knowledge. Also, I have added a user and reference for the AR-15/M-16 assault rifle. Where there were about three dozen users listed before he deleted the whole user section -- including the USA -- there is now just one user flag listed: Afghanistan. Just couldn't help myself. <GRIN> JACK --Jackehammond (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dave, Ignore the above. While he is right, the person is playing a very old game on WP that has caused a lot of hurt feelings and drove off some good editors. But technically he is right. Also, you will discover something: By his standards there are no armies using the AR-15. So no matter the citation you give (ie with the exception of the US Army Special Ops and USAF Air Commandos and Air Police who bought them with their private slush funds in the early 1960s, no nation's armies ever used the AR-15 - ie what they used was the M16, which was the US Army's name for the AR-15) by the letter, but not the spirit of proof he is right. But it is a bad game he is playing. He is trolling for articles just hunting for user flags that he can do a mass deletion on. Many times on just a simple technicality that should be explained. After he done a mass deletion of user flags on the AT4 article (none of the flags had been added by myself btw) I went through my references and was able to reinstate most of them with references. But I have decided to not follow him like the guys who follow the horses and elephants down Main Street with a push broom and barrel when the circus comes to town. Maybe he will get bored and have a change of heart and move on to something else, like writing articles or improving articles. A while back I posted to him that great article on WP Behavior that you made me aware of and more recently the good WP article Don't be a fanatic that Wilson told me about. But I don't think he read either one. I just hope he doesn't run off some good editor that WP needs by this hardcore behavior till he tires of it. JACK--Jackehammond (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Jack, for such cases you might want to consult with Nick-D (talk · contribs), he'll let you know if indeed it is Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles issue. Toodles~! --Dave 11:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  
  

Dave For what ever reason, Nick-D methink approves of what he is doing -- ie they gave him what is called a "roller over" flag recently. So maybe it is "I" who are over reacting. Eventually, it will sort its self out. But thanks for the reply. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Relax old man... *grin* I have that too, it's call "Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature" and you can request for it if you are a constructive editor, which I sincerely think you are. Whatever it is, just talk to Nick-D (talk · contribs), MilborneOne (talk · contribs) or TomStar81 (talk · contribs) if you have any doubts relating to WP:MILITARY, I'm very sure that they will help you in any way possible. Cheers~! (P.S.: How's the reference hunting for DARDO, Otobreda 76 mm and M93 HORNET mine coming along? *grin*) --Dave 14:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  
  

Dave Naaa, I don't let things like this get to me. I just thought I could reason with him to tone it back a little. But it is just a difference in styles. Maybe there is a need for the hard editors and the soft editors? When I spot a flag in the user areas I have doubts about, I put a citation needed and a note maybe on that persons talk page and move on. Roger goes for the Calvinist stake a fagots approach of the rules are the rules are the rules. <GRIN> From what I have seen on his contributes though, he really knows a lot about small arms. I just think -- my opinion only -- that it is more important to write and edit articles than going around looking for user flags that don't have references or citations. Also, when Roger raids the user sections or articles for lack of references I find myself re-looking at those articles and then working on an article that I thought I was done with! Also, I am now looking at the 76mm OtoBreda information I have. It is one complex story!!!! First thing was the page title. Ain't no one in the naval world who knows what a "Otobreda 76 mm" naval cannon is. So I went and done a bunch of redirect pages by the common names it is known "OTO-Melara 76/62mm Compact mount" and "OTO-Melara 76mm Compacto". Also, going to check the Italian WP page on the subject. Maybe they know something more. Getting the story about the Super Rapido straight will be harder than the original 76/62 Compact. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave You did not warn me that the Otobreda 76 mm article was just a translation of an Italian WP article. Jeez! Those articles take a day-and-forever to first get in some order before you start rebuilding. First think is to replace "gun" with "cannon". Google translation doesn't catch that little item. After I get some meat on the article, I will see if Wilson will help with the editing. Btw, what has happened to Wilson. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I wasn't aware of that detail until you just inform me~! I took a quick glance through then decided that it was no much of an introduction, description, specification, operational history and also in urgent need of more help in the references department... that's why I contacted you. *grin* As for Wilson, me thinks he is still hanging around, somewhere. *lol* Cheers~! --Dave 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  
  

Dave The following is what I am asking the powers that be at WP Commons. Wonder if it will fly. Probably not. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This probably won't fly, but here goes: To wit, Back in the 1980s I attended defence conventions where they also had a display hall of the verious weapons, equipment, etc. Sometimes they did not have the photos or brochures available for various reasons. But their would be wall display, or something like that. Well, I had a professional camera with a detachable flash (for weddings to prevent redeye) and a flat macro-lenses and I would just take a photo of the brochure, painting or drawing I wanted. Jane's Information Group (ie the largest publisher or defence magazines) did the same thing. I have a whole box full of slides I took at those defence shows. Now my question: Can I donate those images to WP Commons. Of even though they had the illustration in plain sight it is still covered by copyright??????--Jackehammond (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Jack, I'm afraid you will have to look for the "copyright mafia boss" → MilborneOne (talk · contribs) ← for help regarding such matters as he has a better grasp of it than I do, plus he can advise on the most appropriate things to do for you. And if all else fail, buzz me again and I'll see what I can do. Hope that helps, cheers~! --Dave 10:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

... if I write You here... may I ask your help? Could You pelase check out my last Macchi C.200 contributs in "native" english? I tried to translate them in the most correct way, but... (I am looking for references about the Italian training planes and Dardo, buy so far I have not find nothing... ) --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Good job adding those references, I've helped you made the necessary format change and fixes on article, thanks again! Please take your time to help find those references for Otobreda 76 mm and DARDO, they are our priorities now because of the severe lack of references that are needed for citing the specification and operational aspects. Cheers and ciao~! --Dave 04:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to You... I can understand that there are not references... there are so few books abouth that! I visited two book seller and I look for them in the biggest Italian booshop on line about military, but I did not find anything... So I cant promise you nothing... if I find something...

Have a good day! gian piero

• Same to You.... please if You have time check my last contribut about Macchi C.200, I dont feel confident in my style....

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ads for company at external links for Shaped charge page

Dave I guess this is a judgment call. But someone has added four external links at Shaped charge which looks like the pages from the company sales book. One page or a links in the article to the pages when the different civilian uses of shape charges are being discussed, but the person moved all the external links down and put the four from that firm at the top. Again, as I said it is judgment call that is beyond my pay grade. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not a bad idea to have it there but I've made some minor adjustments and moved them down the list to avoid any misunderstanding. Cheers~! (P.S.: BTW, you don't happen to have any references for the DARDO and Otobreda 76 mm articles, would you?) --Dave 09:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  
  

Dave I will look at it to night. I have some very good information and details till the 1990s then lacking. At that time Breda with other companies were developing guided rounds for their 76mm mounts. Have to dig to find the results. I will work on the article tonight (ten hours from this message posting). And thanks for looking over that one article. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave I fiddled with that Otobreda 76mm cannon article for while and then decided to just tow it in for an overhaul like the Euromissile HOT page. The way it is I would be going back and forth and would have over 500 entries on the history of that article. You can find it at this sandbox Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• You too? Hahaha... I tried editing it before and gave up after a while... the page layout and format is in one heck of a big mess... really didn't know where to begin from, but I'm glad you're taking the approach of working at it from your garage now. ;P Cheers and regards~! --Dave 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Laugh of the month

See this diff. Any clue what this is actually about? - BilCat (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh my eyes~! *grin* Seriously, just forget about it, probably some deluded youth from mainland China spreading old school communist propaganda again. Not an uncommon phenomenon in their internet forums these days, that much I can tell. --Dave 11:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not worried about it at all, I was just wondering where it might of come from. Thanks for your comments on the source. - BilCat (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Bill, wait up! On second/closer examination, it looks more like the words of a disgruntled Japanese communist or ultra-nationalist (perhaps from Okinawa) as some of the words are of the Japanese Kanji characters, not found in any Chinese text (in the traditional or simplified form). --Dave 16:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the "text" (hehe) does seem to talk about Japan quite a bit. But I "ruled that out" since there was no mention of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, or other Japanese war crimes and attrocities. ;) - BilCat (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Believe me Bill, we got it all wrong. If it was a guy from mainland China, he would definitely have made a big hoohaa about what you've just mentioned. Look at it from another point, those are taboo subjects in Japan and most of these Japanese ultra-nationalist (especially those from Okinawa or Tokyo region) will deny the fact, even in death. Anyway, it was good laugh while it lasted. *grin* --Dave 17:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronald2010

Thanks for leaving the useful information ! Ronald2010 (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Glad you find them useful, cheers and regards~! --Dave 12:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Being an idiot

Yes, I misclicked and reset another user's block from indefinite to 2 days, realised I'd done it, so went to re-block them indefinitely ... but clicked on my name rather than theirs. It's easy to do - 2nd time I've done this - well that's my excuse :) Black Kite (t) (c) 14:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I noticed that too but was wondering how did that happened? Let's be on our merry way again, shall we? Cheers~! *grin* --Dave 14:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:218.186.8.233

Hi Dave, I don't know if blocking will do any good right now, since the user will probably end up with a new IP the next time s/he logs on. I'll keep an eye on it though, in case there is a new rash of vandalism/harassment. Sometimes it's best just to let them tire themselves out. :-) ... discospinster _talk 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've purged the history to remove it of the personal information that was posted. If you notice anything else like that, let me know and I will take care of it. ... discospinster _talk 17:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again, the guy is a loose cannon... I mean, if he goes on at this rate, posting all these harassing/malicious messages about another person, I might have to report to the legal authority about it. And then he'll be in big trouble but that's what I'm pre-empting here now. --Dave 18:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

'Massimo' family article - request for advice

Dear Dave, I noticed your 'conflict of interest' warning on Fabritius's talk page. If I may, I would like to ask for your advice, as a far less experienced editor than yourself.

When this page was protected, admin Nick D asked Fabritius and myself to start a discussion regarding the disputed last paragraph of the article. As I indicated in the note I left on Nick D's talk page (see this post), and a subsequent note I left on the 'Massimo' article talk page (see this post), I am happy to lay out the arguments and discuss the differences with Fabritius in a calm, fact-based and non-personal way.

By way of background, while the page was blocked for repeated 'edit warring' over the last paragraph, I would like to point out that I have never actually added any content to the article that wasn't already there for years before I first edited. I have only reversed the new 'vanity' edits by made by 'Fabritius' in Jan 2010 (and subsequently) and added authoritative, original online sources to back up the original paragraph. The paragraph in dispute has remained essentially unchanged since 2006 (see the edit by 'CARAVAGGISTI' on 28/09/06 in this version, para at bottom), until Dec 2009 (see the edit by LeilaniLad on 2/12/09 in this version, para at bottom), apart from 'non-structural' changes (such as a person passing away and being replaced by their heir). Between Sept 2006 and Jan 2010 many editors have altered content on the page, but the paragraph in dispute remained essentially the same.

I am not trying to push my own content or views, I am simply trying to revert the article to the state it was in before my first edit, after a sustained and repeated attempt by an editor with a clear conflict of interest (Fabritius has admitted that he is a member of the family and writing about himself - see conflict of interest link below), from changing the article to focus on himself, without providing the source back-up required.

I also saw The DJ's advice to Fabritius about familiarising himself with and following the dispute resolution process, and trying to achieve consensus (see this post). I agree with this and your advice to Fabritius, and have begun to lay out my arguments in a researched, sourced and referenced way - easy even for someone unfamiliar with the topic to understand - on the 'Massimo' talk page. For example, I have answered Fabritius's key argument - that only he is entitled to the Princely title and the other members of the family are not - with a detailed response, with multiple references and links to an original and universally-recognised source. Fabritius presented his key arguments in the following posts: his request for an edit to the protected page (see this post), and his second request for an edit (see this post). In response, I have replied with a comprehensive answer (see this post for full details of my research) which I believe comprehensively supports my argument.

I am genuinely trying to have a civilised discussion, based on scholarship and facts, but I am not getting a reasonable response on the other side. Instead of Fabritius providing me with his counter arguments and trying to reach a solution, I am the subject of insults - being called a 'liar' (see this post), 'ridiculous' (see this post), and 'biased' (see this post). I am genuinely trying to work according the the Wiki guidelines on dispute resolution, yet I am finding it hard to have a reasoned exchange.

I fear Fabritius's clear conflict of interest (see this post on 'Fabritius's conflict of interest' for details) is making him unable to make clear, concise arguments based on real research and sources/references. Fabritius has been very active since the article was protected, repeatedly trying to appeal to Nick D directly on his talk page to just revert the edit (see these posts), yet since I have posted my detailed response to his questions well over 24hrs ago, he has been silent. As the 'conflict of interest' link above explains, I am a neutral editor, am categorically not a member of the Massimo family (despite Fabritius's strong insinuations) and do not have a conflict of interest. Given Fabritius has a clear conflict of interest, by his own admission, should he be allowed to edit this page at all?

Despite this obvious issue, I would welcome a debate with Fabritius in order to find a solution. I would also particularly welcome comments from other Misplaced Pages editors on the points I have made and the sources I have used to prove that my reversal of the last paragraph in the article to its original form is correct.

My concern is that 5 days is not enough time for this discussion to take place, and I am convinced that if/as soon as the protection is lifted, Fabritius will simply start reversing the current edit again, having ignored the detailed arguments put forward on the talk page.

I am minded to ask that the protection on the article to be extended back to 'indefinite' (as Nick D originally protected it - see this link), in order to allow enough time for a proper discussion, ideally with Fabritius, but perhaps more importantly with other editors, so that a reasoned consensus may be reached.

I would very much welcome your thoughts and advice on my talk page, or at least a message that you have responded on this page.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• TBH, you need to have a heart-to-heart talk with him as you two are from the same family (obviously!), thus both of you has got a potential conflict of interest issue with the Massimo article. Sincerely, you maybe right on Misplaced Pages side but his stand (when viewed from the real world point of view) is also right, the difference is in the viewpoints/opinions you two are having, it's bleeding obvious he needs your help to work this out with you for a common consensus or compromise. Note that if you fail to do so, it has real consequences in the real world for your affiliation with him and the potential repercussion might be something that can be avoided here and now if you act positively. That said, you have a choice to break or make, the ball is in your court now. Cheers and regards~! --Dave 09:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite curious

Dave, could you take a look at these contributions? I spotted the user on the US customs pages, and his edits seem a bit off to me. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Noted, I left him a note (in Chinese), let's see how things goes from here on. --Dave 09:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive top

I know you mean well, but it is not necessary (and not necessarily a good idea) to wrap threads with "archive top" just because they are resolved. This wrapping is meant to be used when people are continuing a conversation which should not be continued. It isn't just to wrap up a conversation that has reached its natural end. Thanks, –xeno 11:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• My bad... didn't noticed that until you inform me of it, will tweaked it for the next edit. Thanks and regards. --Dave 12:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Massimo above

Dear Dave,

Thanks for your post, much appreciated. I must make one point very clearly though - I am really not a member of this family. I have no idea what the issues are in this family that would make Fabritius want to accuse me of being his cousin, but it is simply not true. From a personal standpoint, coming from a close family myself, I cannot imagine resolving an 'issue' like this (despite not being able to imagine having an 'issue' like this in the first place), over the web. I have no way of reaching out to this editor other than over this forum. In any case, I would appreciate your advice on how to resolve this without the above conclusion, as it just isn't true. I genuinely believe the only reason I have been accused of being from the same family is because Fabritius realises he shouldn't be editing, and wanted to 'tar me with the same brush'. After all, I have never added any content to this page, just defended its integrity.

I have presented my research (see this post for full details of my research) which I believe comprehensively supports my argument, yet have received no response. It is a matter of scholarship, not some family dispute.

Would you mind giving me your advice on this basis - i.e. that I am not a conflicted editor in the way that you have assumed? It would be much appreciated as I really can't do anything with the advice you have given above.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• As I've mentionedt to you before, you really need to talk to him and tell him to put aside the differences in order to work together towards a common consensus/ground or compromise. Please read → Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution ← for more details. --Dave 12:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Massimo article

Dave, you never responded (I edited my talk page on 4/20). I'm not an expert wikipedia user, I posted today on the Massimo discussion page. Please have a look and notify me of a response. I'm glad to see that finally a human being is reading and processing what has been written, and not only writing about rules. Brilliant!

Yes, Historybuff's conflict of interest is obvious for many reasons, even because he's always trying to cloud the issue instead of discussing.

He's even biased. Here's the proof: he cites sources then deletes them if they go against his conjectures, like here . Yes, he deleted a source he referenced 2 months before and according to him it was genuine in the Colonna article but at the same time unreliable in the Massimo one (see same diff as before - left part). Here's how he argued after realizing the mistake he made (same diff as above): Dear Nick. Again I do not intend to respond to what is written above on this page. However, However 'Fabritius' does make a valid point. In my edit to the 'Colonna family' article this morning I overlooked the fact that the reference source in question ('Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana. Rome: Archivio di Stato and Collegio Araldico') which is not available online and is not 100% reliable, was still there, so I have now removed it from the article. Thank you to 'Fabritius' for pointing out my oversight. The 'Colonna family' article still needs some work on the links and sources which I will complete in due course. - Ridiculous!

His contributions to the articles on roman princely families is adding 'whose heir is' and some unreliable titles and sources like for Borghese, Colonna, Orsini. That's his scientific contribution to the net!

But he did worse, regarding the Colonna article he arbitrarily deleted historically correct informations here .

Cheers. - Fabritius (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I have read through but I decided against replying until you have somewhat calmed down. Also, here's a few things I want you to do: -

1. Please stop all your smart-alec remarks of other editors unless you want to get BLOCKED for being POINTY (also per no personal attack although they are quite fringy as you had made the remarks when you were feeling frustrated);
2. Talk to Historybuff1930 (talk · contribs) as if you were talking to an acquaintance and discuss it objectively to resolve your differences;
3. Find a common ground which both of you can agree on in order to work towards a common consensus (which is part of the process of dispute resolution).

Follow the steps I've mentioned and I think you should be able to calm down and work in a collaborative effort with other Wikipedians here. For your information, when I first started off on Misplaced Pages it was the same like what you had gone through but I changed my attitude and outlook after reading through the guidelines and policies. It wasn't easy but I've gotten used to it by now and I'm sure you can do it too. Cheers and ciao~! --Dave 14:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Dave1185 @ Fabritius

Dave - thank you for your remarks above. It has been difficult for me to just keep calm during these repeated personal attacks, when all I am doing is stating what my research is yielding. But let me, in the spirit of discussion, answer both Fabritius's 'charges' above, calmly:

Re: 'Libro D'Oro source': Why is what I wrote above 'ridiculous'? It was a completely honest owning up to an oversight. When the 'Massimo' article was originally edited by you (Fabritius), you added the 'Libro D'Oro' as a source and I incorporated it into the source list, even in early edits of the 'Massimo' page. When I did some research and spoke with offline colleagues about the source, I was told my a number of people that the modern 'Libro D'Oro' is a privately-funded publication, which is no longer officially recognised and is no longer 100% accurate, due to the inclusion of a number of fake titled families. I therefore removed it as a source in my next edit of the "Massimo' article when I found this out and, subsequent to your pointing out it was still in the 'Orsini' and 'Colonna' articles, duly removed it as I have forgotten to do so. Nothing ridiculous, just honest.

Re: the 'arbitrary' deletion of historically correct information in the Colonna article. That may be your opinion, but the passage clearly states that: 'In 1728, the family added the name Barberini to its name'. I deleted this because the modern main branches of the Colonna family (which this passage is about) does not include the name Barberini to my knowledge. If the family added the name back in 1728 and then removed it since then I guess the phrase is technically correct, albeit misleading, but it was not an 'arbitrary' deletion.

Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

@Dave: ok. I'll try my best though you writing Ignore all rules on your talk page. Hey, I thought humour (among other) was admitted on the internet! But I see your point. I agree not to be pointy if someone starts discussing. I'll transfer this to the Massimo discussion page just for the sake of keeping the discussion in one place. Thanks for your help and understanding. Please do keep an eye on the discussion page. Ciao, Fabrizio - Fabritius (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Using rollbacks on one's own talk page

Dave, I think we were involved in a discussion recently regarding using rollbacks on one's own talk page to perform cleanups. Do you remember where the guideline that allows this is? I've got an admin accusing me of misusing rollbacks by reverting a warning I issued to myself! I'd like to use the guideline in taking action against the admin, if it's necessary. Thanks.- BilCat (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hang on a sec and wait for my reply, I'm on it now. --Dave 18:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Bill, try looking at Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature & Misplaced Pages:User pages, it think it does allow you to do that but why is that Admin harping on you for? (Bill, I'd suggest that you just ignore him (per messed-up sense of priorities!), because AFAIK you are entitled to use the Rollback feature even if it is on your own user page.) --Dave 18:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I was involved in a edit war with on of his/her friends or something, on the James Garner page. Quite stange! Anyway, I remember an ANI or something a couple of months back in which an editor (I thought it was you) was being harassed for using rollbacks to remove comments from their own talk page. It took a while, but someone did find a guideline that allowed it. - BilCat (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Found it! See this diff] at WQA, and it was you being harassed there. The guideline is at [["When to use rollback":

"Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space ; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit." - BilCat (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for input

Dave - many thanks for your comments and advice. I was just wondering whether you had had the time to see my response to your comment (see this post in response to your comment) on the 'Massimo' talk page. If you could take a look I would be most grateful. I would very much appreciate your help in keeping this discussion constructive and 'on the talk' page as I am hoping it will remain. If you could post something to that effect I think it would be really helpful in preventing the resumption of any sort of edit warring - i.e. any editing or reversal of edits on the article itself before we reach a consensus on the talk page. Many thanks and kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk)

• Not necessary for me to add in my 2 cents now on "Massimo" as I think that Fab is currently reading through what I had provided him on his talk page. Per WP:IRS and WP:VERIFY, I am behind you in view of the sources provided by you but there is a chance that Fab might offer a better source to counter that, since he lives in Rome and he is nearer to the actual source should he be able to find it to back his claims. Which is why I kept my silence... I'd rather that you two gentlemen work things out amongst yourself. That said, I will still intervene if either of you escalates, which is highly unlikely given the current atmosphere. In short, relax... I got your back. Cheers and regards~! --Dave 16:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Understood. Many thanks for your help. Historybuff1930 (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Aw shucks! I was hoping you'd do it! I may be able to get to it later today, and that may give him enough time to use the extra rope! - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Aye~! Even as we speak, the noose is not slacking one bit. --Dave 17:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Troll

Seriously, you are a troll if you don't know how to disengage, like what you're doing right now. Take this to ANI if you don't think so, but let me just warn you this, I will cite you for harassment. Take heed. Wispanow (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedians in Singapore