| Revision as of 09:05, 30 November 2012 editCurb Chain (talk | contribs)18,691 edits →Your problematic editing: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:13, 30 November 2012 edit undoCurb Chain (talk | contribs)18,691 edits archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | |||
| ==FC Seoul== | |||
| Stating that Seoul is the capital most populous city in South Korea is irrelevant to the article | |||
| Not Seoul FC / FC Seoul is correct. | |||
| This is just your opinion, Seoul is the capital and most populous city these expression is just explanaion of Seoul | |||
| If don't use This expression OR If you thhis expression, Both are right. But foreigners don't know seoul in detail | |||
| So I think these expression is needed, | |||
| <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->, | |||
| FC서울에 대해 정확한 사실을 알고 싶으면 당신이 한국어 배워서 한번 내 말이 맞나 안 맞나 조사해 보세요. 한국어는 알지도 못 하면서 가이드라인이 | |||
| 어쩌구 저쩌구 트집만 잡고 짜증나서 당신들이랑 얘기 한 할거니까 그렇게 아세요. | |||
| <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->, | |||
| : IMHO, it's better to remove this comment entirely and this message does not even deserved to be archived. ---] (]) 10:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Comment on Mitt Romney == | |||
| Hi Curb Chain. | |||
| I was looking through the volunteers at Mediation Cabal and saw in your edit history that you have touched up some political-related articles recently so thought you could give me the best measured opinion on this edit proposal here: ]. I am a casual wiki editor and do not have the energy to continually answer new (rephrased) objections thrown my way; consequently, I'm at the point where i feel this wiki editing business is beyond help or reason. To be clear, I haven't made any edits to the main article but only made a proposal to change the article on the discussion page. Seeing that you have earned some praise from the coordinators of Mediation Cabal makes me comfortable to make a decision to continue or to acquiesce based on your advice here. What's funny is that I thought this would be a routine ''encounter with new information, achieve consensus on a proposed edit and add the citation'' wiki edit. Not so. ] ] 05:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| . Any feedback would be appreciated! ] ] 05:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Thanks for your great edits on this article. Really made things better. There's an issue on this page where user Jadf88 feels that the certification section should be deleted and made into a stand alone stub, which he has done, and been subsequently undone. He hasn't cited a reason for the stub generation. Could I ask you to have a look and put your opinion in? It is now posted for 3O (Third opinion) to resolve this matter. See the talk page of the article. ] (]) 07:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Concerning formatting on the ''SYTYCD'' franchise index== | |||
| Hey Curb. I felt I was a little more strident than I needed to be on the '']'' talk page and edit summaries for the most recently debated issue. For reasons completely unrelated to you, I find myself being a bit short on that page this last week. I thought moving the discussion here (or to my talk page if you prefer) and employing some visual aids might help this get hammered out faster. So I'm going to create some screenshots, sample code and notes to illustrate what I'm getting at, but please give me a day or so to get it all together. In the meantime my arguments can be found in detail on the afore-mentioned talk page, though they basically boil down to the following: A) the majority of displays benefit from the width syntax being present, B) there are no real drawbacks including to the syntax (the very narrow displays will be messed up regardless of what we do, and the wider ones will work either way), C) the additional syntax is pretty minimal (11 characters at present) and well-justified for the benefits, and, lastly, D) syntax should be kept as clean as possible, but cleanliness of the markup has to take a back seat to cleanliness on the displayed page, rather than the other way around. I will attempt to show you why the debated piece of syntax best serves these priorities tomorrow. In the meantime I just wanted to touch bases briefly to assure you I'm not trying to arbitrary or dismissive of your approach. ] (]) 04:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey, screencaps as requested. Here's the first: ]. This is the version that should currently display, assuming a minimum font size of 13 and a screen aspect ratio of 4:5. Since few monitors will have resolutions with a smaller relative width, this means almost all PC monitors will display the table with a short profile; notice what I meant about a minimum amount of "real-estate" being used, as each row has an absolute minimum number of lines. Now here are the examples of the issues I was running into without the extra 1%: ], and ]. Now these are just some example rows from two of the columns from various attempts to balance the table - changing almost any of the other columns by more than a few points of width (or in some cases, by even one) will lead to similar artifacts in other columns from which the extra space is "taken". I believed at the time that we started debating this that there was no way to keep all of the columns formatted with a minimum profile without that extra 1% of table space, but it turns out I was wrong; as I noted on the talk page, there actually is a way to get the "ideal" version to format at ratios down to 4:5 ''with'' a font of up to 13 (people who have higher fonts forced on their browsers will just have to deal with the overflow, since this is the absolute best that can be done with the space available. In the past I was able to maintain it at up to 14-pt. font, but we're well past that now. If you have any further questions/ideas, drop me a line on my talk page. ] (]) 18:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| {{talkback|Toddst1|ts=02:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] <small>(])</small> 02:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request== | |||
| I have a specific issue with anon IP editing to the ] article. As usual it is ]. Band is sourced as a number of specific genres in ], but a number of anon IPs seem to want to draw me into a slow-motion edit war. Obviously, I am unprepared to do this, so your input would be welcomed; a general revert to sourced content and semi-protection strikes me as appropriate, but that is an admin decision to make. Cheers in advance, 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion input request == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Last month I moved the list of ] artists to its ]. Some of the entries have been challenged, and the discussion has stalled, as only me and the challenging editor have commented. I really don't care if the entries stay or are removed, I just want to get some third opinions. Check the ] for the discussion. | |||
| Thanks, --]''''']''''' <sub>]</sub> 20:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Scarlett Johansson == | |||
| Would this one do the job? http://www.askmen.com/celebs/women/actress/scarlett-johansson/ | |||
| == hello == | |||
| Thanks for reply on ] talk, could you please take an action from your side (as a third party), cause I can't do that since I am a part of that dispute.--<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#307D7E">]]</span></small> 12:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Hello again, | |||
| Thank you for caring. you can now have a ] for evidences. Thanks in advance. --<small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#307D7E">]]</span></small> 14:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Declining 3Os == | |||
| Hey, Curb Chain, I saw that you declined a 3O request earlier, and I just wanted to remind you that, if you do decline a request, you should leave a note explaining that you have done so and why on the disputed talk page, or alternately the requester's talk page. That way, they're not just sitting around for the rest of eternity waiting for a 3O that'll never come, if they forgot to put the 3O board on their watchlist. Thanks! ] ]] 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the tip, but I feel that some editors use to the forum shop for opinions in a inappropriate way. Maybe I am denying their recognition, but I will try to give them a note later.] (]) 01:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| From a discussion at ]: | |||
| If you look at my latest post to "Jerash discussion", you will see that I have discovered what appears to be a problem with one of the sources. I would like to have another set of eyes look at it. Would you be so kind as to check it out? Thanks! --] (]) 17:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == hey == | |||
| would you care to weigh in on the fight about kid icarus flash game? | |||
| here ---- http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard | |||
| or here --- http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kid_Icarus | |||
| thankies!! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == 3O declined == | |||
| Hello Curb Chain, and thanks for leaving a comment at my talk page. It is now clear that I didn't fully understand what vandalism is and what ] is about. I would not repost my issue at 3O, since I got the point that it is about content dispute only. | |||
| I've talk to ] and tried to explain my situation at his talk page ]. First of all, I was not trying to demand something unreasonable. I assumed that 3O is a informal channel, and thought that it is a good place to ask for help. | |||
| Regarding the dispute that I'm in now, I'm not confronting with another user's contribution with my own POV. I believe that I have provided a ''sensible'' way-out at ]: that is, "Please try to find a consensus at ''each battle'' page, not at the ]". | |||
| I could try my best to deliver my intention, but from my perspectives the IP refused my suggestion just because I'm from Korea and accused me of ''being nationalistic'' (however I may try it politely). Thus, I needed a third opinion in a ''informal'' manner. And I still need ''any'' help on that unresolved issue, and I would appreciate your input if you could provide a helping hand here. Best, | |||
| P.S. by the way, many thanks for your ''feedback''! I think declined request is better than no feedback. ---] (]) 10:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Many thanks for your comment! == | |||
| Hello again Curb Chain, and thanks for your comment at my talk page. I really appreciate your help, and I think what you suggested is a ''logical'' thing to do. Although I didn't get any comment at the article's talk page, people at ] have provided me enough tips and I'm grateful to all your feedback. | |||
| If I may add some minor detail, however, I don't see the issue as "content dispute" only. (the very reason why my request was declined.) The ] is not the only page that I have reverted ]'s (], ]) contribution. And I believe that some of the "ip"'s contributions are not neutral: | |||
| {{collapse top}} | |||
| * ]: , for removing ] names for ] (Korean Japanese). | |||
| * ]: , for using non-neutral word. | |||
| * ]: , for including inaccurate historical fact. | |||
| As for the ] page, the Korean navy's commander name in question was included as early as and the conclusion of ] was added in . | |||
| For the record, only ] was on my watch list at first, and I found other pages (], ] and ]) while I was checking the "ip"'s contributions. From the very beginning, I made it clear that I'm not a history buff. And it is not my ''job'' to search the history to provide a counter example to the "ip"'s claim: I just ''undid'' the contribution, and the ip should prove him right to correct an possible error. In short, I just patrolled the articles for possible vandalism. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| I hided some of my comments because I'm not asking for your involvement or help. I think you have done more than enough for me from your feedback, and once again thank you for your help. If you want, feel free to ignore my message since my goal was explaining how I see the problem. Best Regards, --] (]) 14:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, now I understand that it was my mistake to report it to 3O. Thus, I wouldn't repost my issue anymore. Best regards, --] (]) 22:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == The Zeitgeist Movement == | |||
| Your comments on the DRN would be appreciated -- I revised the DRN to request discussion of only one specific dispute on the Lead section, and one specific dispute on the Criticism section. Thanks, ] (]) 03:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Jerash, Souf and Sakib Article == | |||
| I would like to ask you intervention in the article ], so that you treat the article in the same fashion you treated the article ]. The user Historyfeelings tried to influence the discussion in the article Jerash by undermining the information in ] article (which is all about the role of Sakib in Jerash versus the role of Souf). To make your intervention balanced, I kindly request that you impose the same criteria you applied to ] article to ] article. All wrong, biased, and unverifiable information must be deleted. Thank you a lot. ] (]) 16:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi there, it's me again. There is some minor kerfuffel (is that how that's spelt? I've never written it down) over at the above linked article. Essentially it is one concerning sourcing; we have a new editor that is of the True Goff Is the Only Goff variety (you know, like the metal purists and punk purists that turn up on other lists). Unfortunately, this means that they don't really acknowledge that other viewpoints may exist (my opinion is irrelevant, obviously, but for the record I'm a tradgoth type of person, much like said editor, but realise that other viewpoints exist in ] in the press; they however have perhaps just jumped on my username and made some assumptions). Sourced material is systematically removed with no reference to policy (well, apart from the fact that they disagree with ], ] and ] in general), and whilst I have tried to remain civil in the light of a fair amount of abuse, I've left a final message at the bottom of the talk page with a solution that we've adopted at other contentious articles, e.g. the ]. I don't anticipate much positive reaction, but I did say I'd ask some other editors to look at it, particularly editors that I haven't always seen eye to eye with in the past, so as to avoid accusations of gaming the system. I thought you'd fit the bill as we've frequently disagreed about things but seem to be able to work together pretty well to improve the project :-) I'd appreciate it if you could spare some time to take a look, as I'm not going to commit a ] violation and I'm not getting anywhere through dialogue with this particular editor. (Sent to a couple of other people as well.) Cheers, ] (]) 16:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Nice work with the copyediting and ref checking. -] (]) 06:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| {{talkback|TransporterMan|Closing Comment on DRN|ts=13:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] (]) 13:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == St. Jimmy == | |||
| Please reconsider your vote in the RfC in light of the fact that the song was covered by two notable artists, clearly passing NSONGS. ~''''']'' <sup>(]/])</sup>'''</span>~ 20:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Changes to DRN == | |||
| Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread ]. Regards, <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 02:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Asperger's Syndrome Article == | |||
| I write this section to complain against SandyGeorgia, apparently a well-reputed Misplaced Pages editor who has nevertheless modified the Asperger's Syndrome article in a rather uncivilized manner, doing away with most -if not all- my contributions to said article, all of which were found within the "Mechanism" section thereof. For one I ought to express my concern insofar as I had performed such contributions from a well-informed perspective, as I'm legitimately informed on the issue of Asperger's Syndrome, having done extensive research on the topic, and yet this user, SandyGeorgia, acting in apparent disdain for knowledge, perhaps in a personal tone, had turned the article's modifications into a confounded "edition war". From this I ascribe not to generalize in believing that this sort of users are blocking the influx of knowledgeable content and substituting it with rather misinformed and inexperienced contributions. I request for an explanation, if possible, and for a reinvindication of my previous contributions. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hey, | |||
| I noticed you closed the DRN I posted as "wrong venue". I'm wondering why you say its the wrong venue since ] says "''The Dispute resolution noticeboard can help diffuse small content and conduct issues''". Also, I tried to get a third opinion, but was told thats not the proper venue for conduct issues. All that said, I'd appreciate if you (or someone) could look over our disagreements on his talk page, because I'm not sure how to resolve this problem. Thanks ] (]) 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Responded on my talk page, thanks ] (]) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == AN discussion == | |||
| There is a discussion at ] to which you might wish to contribute. Regards, ] (]) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Post on my User board== | |||
| I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about? I made a 3PO request, which was rejected because other editors has commented on the post. I then made an RFC, as suggested over the editing dispute. It has been already commented upon by another editor? If I submitted this incorrectly, I would have hoped that they, or someone like yourself would let me know so I could correct it? How could this possible be considered vandalism? I would appreciate a prompt replay, as your time allows. Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Swimming == | |||
| Thanks for your help on tidying up my edits on Human Swimming. | |||
| There will be more edits to try and wrangle the page in to something sensible over the next few days. | |||
| I would be most grateful if you could hold off on removal of items as uncited, and tag them instead, just for a few days, whilst I get the article in to shape, before I do my run through of citations, as this will help we structure the citations better. | |||
| Thanks, '''OwainDavies''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> edited at 06:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == White Tea EL / COI Discussion == | |||
| I notice you've been contributing to the page on ] recently. I wonder if you could comment on a discussion: ]. Thanks! ] (]) 19:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Information == | |||
| In this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=509705165#Easy_solution:_Try_a_short_ban | |||
| At an article's Talk page, an editor responded to a difficult editor with a *VERY* strong statement, and so that thread at AN/I began with people trying to decide how to deal with it. I made a suggestion in that section that says 'try a short ban', and several editors responded in an unfriendly way. BYK made an argument against me participating in the debate because he feels my edits have not yet earned me the right to have an opinion. You can read the thread for yourself. (By the way the curse words in 5th paragraph of that subsection that I say are quoting the editor who the entire thread is about; they are not really directed at BYK, I believe he knows that clearly, and if you read the thread as a whole it should be clear that its being said to demonstrate a point rather than to be rude.) | |||
| So that's why I later and then later still asked him to refrain from saying anything if he wouldn't be willing to back it up with some helpful information. -- ] (]) 14:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Failed verification == | |||
| If you didn't know, failed verification is not a good reason to delete claims and their cited sources, as you did at ]. When the sources are clearly relevant to the article (about Crocs, or discuss Crocs), one helpful way to handle a verification failure is the {{tl|Failed verification}} inline template. Also, the claims can be rewritten to ''be'' supported by the sources. In one case, I used a named ref from elsewhere in the article to support a deleted claim, so it pays to keep a look out. --] (]) 15:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == removing 3O requests == | |||
| Hey, Curb Chain, I noticed that you removed a request for a 3O about a dispute in which you were involved. Just a suggestion: maybe don't do that in the future, please? If a 3O request is inappropriate, it'll get removed by someone else; if you do it, it could look like you're trying to stifle discussion. I mean, given the nature of 3O, it's not like it's a bad thing to request one, or a complicated process requiring consent from everyone like medcom. ] ]] 16:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It is ] when the request is ].] (]) 18:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Where else did he place a request? DRN? I didn't see any, but I was late to the party, so maybe I missed it when I glanced through his contribs. Keep in mind, though, that 3O can't be forum-shopping if the discussion hasn't been taken anywhere but the talk page; otherwise, 3O (and the entirety of DR, really) would always be forum-shopping. ] ]] 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Use a little ]: we edited the article and then he unscrupulously filed a request at 30. That's asking for outside opinion instead of continuing to discuss the matter.] (]) 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::An outside opinion ''is'' continuing to discuss the matter. What's the harm in asking somebody else's opinion? ] ]] 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The discussion on the talk page where not content related before he filed the 30. What he should have done was continuing editing the article like we were as we were making progress but instead he went looking for other opinions before rebutting any of my arguments.] (]) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So? Sure, it's a bit out-of-process, and the request would probably be denied, but I'd hardly call it disruptive or forum-shopping. I'm not trying to bust your balls about this or anything, I just personally think that unless a request is ''clearly'' trollish or otherwise seriously disruptive (and I don't see how this could be considered such), it should at least be given a look at by an ''uninvolved'' 3Oer as a serious request before it's accepted or rejected. My point is that the request sitting there isn't doing any harm, so just let it sit there until someone else takes a look at it. Even just the appearance of neutrality in the process could be a significant benefit, without any real harm. That's all! ] ]] 20:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::In my opinion, it was seriously disruptive, but I have not reverted the adding back of the entry. My point is you need to seriously look at ].] (]) 02:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Have ''you'' looked at it? What part of that essay do you think applies here? You were having a dispute with him, he asked for an outside opinion, and that means he's a troll and/or vandal? Come on now. Maybe you need to look at some links of your own, starting with ]. ] ]] 04:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::In my opinion, he went to 30 without discussing the issue. After he continued editing to improvement, he did not pull his request out of 30. Yes, I did that FOR him.] (]) 04:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od|:::::::::}} | |||
| And that made him a seriously disruptive troll/vandal? I mean, was that just a poor choice of words or what? We get 3O requests when there's been no discussion all the time, it's not disruptive. Maybe if someone uninvolved had removed it and he kept adding it back in, but other than that...we just politely decline and send them on their way. I'm just trying to figure out your thought processes; I just don't think it's a good idea to treat such things as seriously disruptive or trolling. ] ]] 04:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I removed the entry citing "border forum shopping" per the reasons I have written above. "Serious" is subjective as such I do not use quantifiers as those. 30 is not the proper place to file request for a 3rd opinion between 2 disputing editors. If an editor used it for another purpose it is likely disruptive. I'm here to write an encyclopedia not to network with other people.] (]) 04:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == '''The Olive Branch''': A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1) == | |||
| Welcome to the first edition of ''The Olive Branch''. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in ] (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are ], but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to ]. | |||
| ] | |||
| In this issue: | |||
| * '''Background''': A brief overview of the DR ecosystem. | |||
| * '''Research''': The most recent DR data | |||
| * '''Survey results''': Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey | |||
| * '''Activity analysis''': Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums | |||
| * '''DR Noticeboard comparison''': How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August | |||
| * '''Discussion update''': Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate | |||
| * '''Proposal''': It's time to close the ]. Agree or disagree? | |||
| <big><center>]</center></big> | |||
| --''The Olive Branch'' 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0345 --> | |||
| == Behavior == | |||
| What is your worried concern of my behavior on Misplaced Pages about?--] (]) 05:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC at WT:MOS == | |||
| Hi Curb Chain. I am notifying you of an RFC at ] because you contributed to the discussion that led to it: | |||
| <blockquote>]</blockquote> | |||
| I have notified all other editors in your situation, in accord with provisions at ].<br>Best wishes,<br><font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you Noetica for the notification. Best regards] (]) 04:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just a reminder, Curb. Darkfrog is now counting up the numbers of supports and opposes in that RFC. You might want to review the situation. | |||
| ::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to comment at ] RfC == | |||
| Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC: | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --] (]) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Per ]== | |||
| We use "In other animals" for our section on vet med to emphasis that humans are animals to. Cheers ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :This is the guideline we use. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello == | |||
| Hi. I was wondering why you made . In the grand scheme of things it's certainly nothing important, but the way I was trained in design, to achieve a ] in a composition; the weight to the left makes me really uncomfortable. I wonder if it may just be my monitor, or if there is some other wiki syntax reason for your change? Again: marginal, but I am curious. Take care. <small><font face="Tahoma">] · ]</font></small> 02:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I've responded on my talk page, but rest assured this is not something I will challenge any further. Much larger things to worry about. Have a good one. <small><font face="Tahoma">] · ]</font></small> 00:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Pipes in quote template == | |||
| Please don't add useless pipes in {{template|quote}} templates to "move" the citation. The citation should directly follow the quotation, and should not be moved. The ''purpose'' of the pipe is to display the author and/or work which is being quoted. ''If'' something is displayed, ''then'' is it ok to move the citation following that display. It's not okay to put the pipe in for no reason. Here's an example of what the pipe is intended for: | |||
| {{quote|I thot I saw a puddy cat.|Tweety Bird<ref>nothing</ref>}} | |||
| Thanks. ] (]) 18:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Gangnam Style== | |||
| Don't know why you removed the ABC News quote - the only reason I feel it should definitely be restored is the power and symbolism reflected in this particular quote by a major news organization, i.e., the omnipresent impact this phenomenon has exuded. Has nothing to do with POV whatsoever. I am not the warring type, so I hope you'll restore it after seeing this rationale. | |||
| ] (]) 21:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == BRICs == | |||
| Hi Curb Chain. I noticed your on ]. While I agree the IP's addition was not necessary, it was far from vandalism. Please make sure to ]. Cheers, --] (]) 21:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for November 21== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ], ] and ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| {{talkback|OrenBochman|ts=13:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] | ] 13:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for November 28== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :] (] | ]) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| :] (] | ]) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Dispute resolution volunteer survey == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | |||
| | ] | |||
| <big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Volunteer Survey Invite'''''</big> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. To follow up on ], I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. | |||
| '''Please click to participate.'''<br> | |||
| Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work ]. ] (]) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| '''''Yes, yes, yes!''''' I am glad someone else sees what kind of trivial crap BMK obsesses over and tries to impose on every article he touches. ] (]) 05:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{tb|Yworo}} | |||
| == Style discussions == | |||
| Do let me know if you have any talk page discussions about certain idiosyncratic styles and formatting you'd like support on. I'd be happy to help clean such stuff out of articles through consensus. ] (]) 08:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : ...And don't forget to notify me at the same time if we're gonna be canvassing such things, because I'd like to defend editorial prerogative over driveby gnome MOS vandalism through consensus. ] (]) 20:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which is what <nowiki><!--spacing--></nowiki> is.] (]) 06:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Your problematic editing == | |||
| I just saw against you at the ], and I have to agree with the complaints made about you there. I don't know how you think edits like and are acceptable, but they are not. In that first link, not only did you gut the lead and make it so that it does not satisfy ], but you removed validly sourced content with silly rationales. The second link is even worse, because of how you removed medical research supported by great sourcing with a silly rationale. Both of these edits, and ones you've made similar to them, show gross ] issues. The most glaring one is the "dead links" rationale that you use to remove content. See ]. We are not supposed to remove material simply because it's currently supported by one or more dead links. These links were not always dead, of course. You are first and foremost supposed to check and see if the link(s) can be restored. Clearly, you haven't heard of ], which is where you are supposed to look in cases like those. Further, speculation is perfectly acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles...as long as it's reliably sourced and is given ], is not ] in a way that it shouldn't be given any weight at all, or is not a ] violation. Some Misplaced Pages science articles, for example (the ] article being one), are full of speculation -- reliably sourced speculation. You have also most certainly referred to ] wrongly time and time again. Many Misplaced Pages articles direct readers to other sections in the article by stating "see above" or "see below," or simply "see above" or "see below," or by just linking to those sections without any accompanying words, and these include ] and ] articles. This practice is very much allowed on Misplaced Pages, not to mention in scholarly texts all the time. Readers may skip to a section and overlook details on something that is mentioned earlier or later in an article, which is why such a "see " practice is allowed. And, lastly, just because not every line in a paragraph has the reference beside it...that does not mean that the line is not sourced; having one source that supports the entire paragraph placed at the end of the paragraph is done all the time on Misplaced Pages and is perfectly acceptable, per ]. Looking at your archives, I also see that you've been pointed to the "''If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to ] before considering whether to remove or tag it.''" line of ], but apparently have been ignoring it. I'm sure that you don't think that all the stuff you've been removing can't be reliably sourced. | |||
| You need a ] a.s.a.p., as was mentioned to you before (looking at your archives). Either that, or you do indeed need a ] filed against you. Your currently clean blocklog means nothing to me, as problematic Misplaced Pages editors have gone without being blocked for years before their problematic edits were called into question and/or stopped. ] (]) 05:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :What username are you hiding under?] (]) 06:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :<u>Spare me</u>. When links are "see ..." the material should be split into another article. That contravenes ]. If information is unsourced, it is WITHIN POLICY to remove it.] (]) 06:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Riiight, because all IPs who know their way around Misplaced Pages are registered users (sarcasm). | |||
| ::Spare me as well because you barely know what you are talking about on these matters. No...when links are "see ," it does not mean that the article should be split into another article, and it's troubling that you would think that. What should and should not be split into a separate article is based on ], and even that is not binding. There is no policy or guideline against using "see ," and it's used for the reasons I've stated; it is not in any way overlinking if done correctly. In fact, WP:OVERLINK states "''Do not link to pages that ] back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a ] that links to an appropriate ''section'' of the current article).''" See where it says "'''unless the link is to a ]'''" for the part that I bolded? It also states, "''Generally, a link should appear only '''once''' in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in ], tables, image captions, ], and at the first occurrence after the lead.''" Do you know what else it states? No, I don't think you do...because there is also the ]. So, yes, you are wrong. And as for removing anything that is unsourced, what I stated has clearly gone over your head. The wording that states that it is "better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag " is also a part of the WP:BURDEN policy. If you are so convinced that anything that is unsourced should be removed, let's see you go around and blank out entire articles, including ones mostly supported by dead links, and see how long that type of editing of yours lasts. I'm surprised that you've lasted this long with your problematic editing. Things supported by dead links usually aren't unsourced because those references usually still exist. Read WP:Dead link. You are supposed to take yourself to the Internet Archive and refresh them; any experienced, truly experienced, Misplaced Pages editor will tell you that. | |||
| ::Once again, you have shown a severe lack of understanding of the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work, and have very likely disregarded everything I've stated to you just so you can continue on with your damaging editing without having to face the fact that it is indeed damaging. So just know that if I come across you having made any highly inappropriate edits (which may be under this or another IP address), as I have seen you do in the diffs provided at the aforementioned noticeboard, I will be reverting you and/or reporting you for misconduct. You barely ever listen, just like you've had to be told more than once to follow ] (seeing your archives), and that's one of the main problems with your editing this site. Like others, I'm certain that you've been blocked or banned from this site before; but nothing can be done about that. You certainly weren't new to editing Misplaced Pages when you began under this account, but it is what it is. ] (]) 08:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::What have you to hide under a number. Come out. Don't lurk. Seeing how you have superior computing resources to me that you can find incorrect accusations about ] is ironic because I corrected ] to harmonize with ]. It was rather an editor who did not edit outside the topic that he incorrectly reverted me. You know how to "source" so don't falsify your accusations.] (]) 09:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::My removal of unsourced material is completely justified. The material either violated ], was poorly written, or pure opinion.] (]) 09:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC) | |||