Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:52, 4 May 2006

MY ARCHIVES First edit on Misplaced Pages: 16:51, 25 February 2002 on Dan Quayle. So I have passed my 4th Wikibirthday!!!

If you'd like to leave me a comment, a criticism, a question or whatever please Click here.

Archive: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI

IN OR OUT

Wednesday 25 December 01:23 GMT

24 December 2024 News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Prayers of Saints articles

You wrote very sharp things about the presence of prayers introduced by those guys of Wikiproject Saints. I'm glad that there's someone who thinks the matter like me. I think the matter, however, will never be solved, mainly 'cause Christian people is not absolutely capable to understand the "propaganda" and "instruction" value that prayers show when read by other people: for them they're absolutely normal, even in an encyclopedia. They will find all the captious arguments of this world to justify and defend their presence here ("If Muhammad cartoons are, why prayers cannot?" they replied me, for example). What I ask you is: is there a way to start a poll and decide about the matter outside the arena of the Project, which is clarly Christian-biased, maybe with help of equilibrate administrators? Ciao!!! Attilios

Easter Rebellion

In reverting my edit (it was me although I forgot to log in), you say: "some rebels are elected. This lot weren't." Surely a rebellion is an action against an elected government? I checked out the Rebellion article in Misplaced Pages and I can't see any mention of rebels who were elected. Can you give me some examples?

btw, can you tell me is there a way to retrospectively put my name on an edit that I made? I'm still feeling my way here.

Scolaire 08:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Devin79

Hi, can I ask you, in your capacity as administrator to do something about User:Devin79 (IP address 68.35.182.234)? This user repeatedly reverts pages, especially the Provisional IRA page, to the version he likes best, regardless of all the work that is lost in the meantime. This wouldn't be so bad if his contributions were any use, but they are just pushing what he believes to be a republican viewpoint. (In fact he knows so little about the situation that he can't even get the propaganda line right. Lapsed Pacifist would be very disaproving!) When questioned about sources, he makes them up and when they are checked and contradicted he responds with personal attacks. See the talk page at PIRA for eg's.

Most recently he wrote on the Henry McDonald (Observer journalist) article that this catholic and former republican activist was a loyalist paramilitary supporter. Maybe he dosn't like the fact that McDonald criticises the IRA. Anyway, completely aside from the innacuracy, there is a legal issue here, as that charge is libelous, should McDonald have seen it and would have been very embarrassing for wikipedia.

So long story short, I'd like to see this guy get action taken against him, whether its banning, or whatever process Lapsed Pacifist (who at least knew what he was talking about) went through or whatever you think best.

Cheers, Jdorney 20:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with a new user

Hi, I'd like your help or advice on how best to deal with user User:Fluffy999. He's contributed some great, detailed stuff on German espionage in Ireland during WWII. The problem is that he tends to overreact to any edits I make (see User talk:Fluffy999 and Talk:S-Plan).--Damac 09:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your intervention. The user (User talk:Fluffy999) turned on me after I changed a reference article on to the "King of England" (refering to George VI) to "British King" in the Seán Russell article. He reverted it back and has used this to claim I'm not qualified to contribute material to Misplaced Pages, but simply correct his grammar. You seem to be into royal titles and all that so maybe you could point out that king of England is wrong in this context. Thanks. --Damac 18:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The original term you used wasn't "British King" but "King of Britain"- the historical validity of such a term and your reasons for editing the article to such a state have yet to be revealed.

As I point out via the article footnotes the term "King of England" is the term used in original news reports of the time, and by the congressmen in question. Fluffy999 19:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I never used the term "King of Britain" in the Russell article. Please, please, please - do yourself a favour and read Talk:Seán Russell and have a look at this while you're at it.--Damac 19:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Damac caught in a lie again. Check my Talk page where he apologises for using the Phrase "King of Britain" and admits it was wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Fluffy999 21:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, the issue with Fluffy999 has got out of hand. After I proved beyond a doubt that he was the first one to use the term "King of Britain" (see my "reconstruction of events" on User talk:Fluffy999], he's now convinced that I have manipulated the edit summary pages on the Seán Russell and Seamus O'Donovan articles. Who should I approach about this? The guy has definately got a few screws loose. I've had a few run ins with people in the past (including your good self) but this just baffles me!--Damac 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, FÉ!

Hi, User:Fluffy999 is back. As his most recent "contribution" – Northern Campaign (IRA) – shows, he seems to be under the impression that it is enough for him to post up chunks of facts and extracts from secondary sources, rendered in chronological order, and to leave the copyediting, linking, etc., to others. He even says as much on the article's talk page. I'd appreciate a second opinion on whether it is permissable to post up such an amount of information from a single book on Misplaced Pages and to leave others to render it into an encyclopedia article. I'm not inclined to approach him directly about all of this after the last time. Thanks.--Damac 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Canadian Royal Family"

Any opinions on whether there exists such a thing as a Canadian Royal Family? See Talk:Court Circular Astrotrain 15:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi II

You raise an interesting issue that involves the disparity of names given to members of Iran's last Imperial Family. I was briefly on the former crown prince's website where it makes no use of an ordinal, from what I saw. However, some may argue that his name is in a format any commoner named after an ancestor may have. I personally think that the article should be at Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran. Such is a treatment used for various other heirs of deposed royal families. I can only go that far to suggest that because I have no other knowledge on Iranian naming practices. I will, however, tone down whatever POV content I can find. Charles 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC

Concepción Heredia-Rosas

Hi Jtdirl, it's me again. Would you care to check this out and tell me what you think? It appears that this article is a hoax. The woman in question does not exist outside of WP results and a few delusional forum postings by a guy claiming to be a viscount. They claim this woman is descended from Archduke Louis, a son of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor. Archduke Louis appears to have died childless and an Anna Victoria alleged to have been his daughter does not exist as a Countess of Habsburg-Lorraine, as claimed. Charles 01:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi

Hey. I think that interview page is not that useful to be honest. It has a few points but it doesn't cover the whole story. I did not put anything "opposite" of what it said, it clearly did say that those groups were against Shah at time of revolution. The same groups are currently against the regime. What is your opinion and why did you think otherwise? -- - K a s h 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not revert sourced info. That is called vandalism and your revert tools may be deleted off for such usage -- - K a s h 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right that this is not my area, but I'd be glad to take a look at the page. I'll leave some comments on the talk. Maybe just getting a(nother) neutral eye to look over the article will help matters. savidan 01:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I left some comments on the current disputes that I saw. As for criticism being added, it's hard to comment on that without seeing what is actually proposed, etc. I'm probably not the person to add that. savidan 01:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Reza Pahlavi

Please stop making test edits to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism, which, under Misplaced Pages policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. -- - K a s h 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am not a "monarchist", you might want to look at WP:CIVIL before making any more accusations. -- - K a s h 04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't just give "last warnings", I did not remove "content", I removed your POV. You are trying to say one interview has full account of Iranian people's opinions? You must be joking, right? -- - K a s h 19:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you asked for opinion polls.. Well I am sure there are many but this one: gave:

Democratic Republic of Iran 22.50 % (728) while Kingdom of Persia 7.67 % (248)

(Percentages are wrong as they messed up the statistics by the april jokes thing). -- - K a s h 19:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous royals?

Hi Jtdirl. What are your thoughts on this: Canadian Royal Family? It seems laughable to me. Has it any basis? --cj | talk 05:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Catholic_Unionist" Article

I left a couple of comments on the talk page (Talk:Catholic_Unionist) of this article and would be curious to hear your feedback since you were the last person to edit it. Thanks.

Cyde also blocked merecat

I see that you reverted Cyde's wrongful block of User:Morton devonshire. Please note that User:Merecat was also blocked by Cyde on the same basis.