| Revision as of 21:37, 27 November 2013 editMarcusBritish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,077 edits →Consensus: +cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:09, 30 November 2013 edit undoTomStar81 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators36,080 edits →Arbitration Request: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
| :::What about if that section of the note is hidden? ] (]) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | :::What about if that section of the note is hidden? ] (]) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::If you mean commented out so it's only visible during editing, like: <code><nowiki><!-- See MILHIST consensus at link --></nowiki></code> – I think that would be acceptable, but a talk page link is still more preferable because it can't be removed, only archived, for easier reference if future incidents arise. Given that you've semi-retired, if you do fully retire from wiki, someone could remove a comment and we might never realise, where a talk page section will be safer. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px DimGray">''']'''</span><sup>'''{]}'''</sup> 21:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | ::::If you mean commented out so it's only visible during editing, like: <code><nowiki><!-- See MILHIST consensus at link --></nowiki></code> – I think that would be acceptable, but a talk page link is still more preferable because it can't be removed, only archived, for easier reference if future incidents arise. Given that you've semi-retired, if you do fully retire from wiki, someone could remove a comment and we might never realise, where a talk page section will be safer. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 2px DimGray">''']'''</span><sup>'''{]}'''</sup> 21:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Arbitration Request == | |||
| In accordance with the mandatory notification protocol, this message is being left here to inform you that an Arbitration Committee case has been filed against you. The case has not been accepted, however a party to the case you are invited to add an explanation of your actions at ]. ] (]) 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:09, 30 November 2013
SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages as of March 2013.| This is Jim Sweeney's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 17 days  |
Sandbox2, Battle honours of the British and Imperial Armies
| WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Misplaced Pages. | |
|
|
| Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit | |
Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auckland Mounted Rifles Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ziza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Question
I'm attempting to find a solution to what has apparently been a long term editorial disagreement between you and rskp, and at the moment I am interested in hearing whether or not you would be willing to work with me at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Moving_forward? to attempt to find some middle ground upon which the two of you can bury the hatchet such as it were and move past the disputes. I realize that this in neither your fault entirely nor is it rskp's fault entirely, and I am asking for the sake of peace among yourselves and for the sake of the other editors and the articles in question would you be willing to work with me to find a solution that the two of you can work with? I've not seen you post in a few days, so I expect that you'll have something to say about what has happened and why you have done what you've done, and I also expect you'll have an opinion on whether you want to work with me or leave the whole bloody thing to someone else and be done with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Commented there.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Re:ANZAC Mounted Division
On the matter of editing, wait until the discussion on the milhist talk page is closed first, in this manner we can edit with the support of the greater whole of the project behind you since the closed discussion will mean consensus on the wording, which will find its way to the article in an edit notice and probably in a talk page FAQ section. With those in place, you and rskp can edit the page without risk of an edit war breaking out since project 'peacekeepers' such as they were will be watching the article to ensure that the consensus on the wording is properly implemented.
As to the issue of the brigades in the division, why don't you bring that up on the milhist talk page as well? We can discuss and sort the matter out there among the project members, and we can agree on the wording in a group setting. Since the issue of consensus in the article has long been a fundamental point of conflict working in a group setting to find a solution should help the article in the long term by removing the risk of this becoming the next edit war/pov issue we have to deal with. My opinion on the matter, for what its forth, is to list the official name of the brigade in the first appearance of the brigade in the article, then list all subsequent names in parenthesis behind the official name, then pick the most frequently used name for the brigade in question and use that one for all subsequent uses in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment
Gday Jim - did I get something wrong here ? As far as I'm aware cites that use multiple pages are meant to use "pp" not "p" per the MOS (indeed you use it elsewhere in the article) also I think an endash is req'd in those places (at least that's what my script was telling me). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- No you right I just missed it. Thanks.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I was being unclear - what I meant was did you mean to undo my edit? Think this might have been an accident. Anotherclown (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Got it, pls disregard. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ah see what you mean, that what happens when editing with small hand held devices, hit the wrong button. Self reverted now. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Got it, pls disregard. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I was being unclear - what I meant was did you mean to undo my edit? Think this might have been an accident. Anotherclown (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Albany, Kantara and Rafa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
3RR on Charge at Huj
Jim; Just a note that you've made 3 reverts at Charge at Huj in the past 24-hours and to be careful not to breach WP:3RR. Please keep your discussions to the talk page for the time being, thanks. Ma®©usBritish 02:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks did not notice that. Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- No worries.. keep an eye on your reverts at Desert Mounted Corps too, as it's getting a bit hairy there also. I've raised my concerns at the MilHist coords' discussion regarding all these reverts as I'm aware of where the conflict stems from, and have offered a couple of suggestions, as clearly these long-term disputes between you both can't be expected to drag on like this. Ma®©usBritish 04:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Consensus
Hello,
I noticed that you added link to the discussion about use of Turkish term in numerous articles. Discussions at WikiProject Talkpages do not belong to the articles but to the talkpages. The best place for them is FAQ. I think you should revert your edits which added a link to the above mentioned discussion into articles. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- The consensus discussion suggests adding the note, and was suggested by an Admin TomStar81.Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I just noticed one of the notes also, and would have to agree that they are WP:SELF-references which should be avoided and probably best left on each article's talk page, as I doubt such references would ever remain following an GAR or FAR, whilst talk page material is retained indefinitely for reference, which is probably better given the current working environment. Ma®©usBritish 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- What about if that section of the note is hidden? Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you mean commented out so it's only visible during editing, like:
<!-- See MILHIST consensus at link -->– I think that would be acceptable, but a talk page link is still more preferable because it can't be removed, only archived, for easier reference if future incidents arise. Given that you've semi-retired, if you do fully retire from wiki, someone could remove a comment and we might never realise, where a talk page section will be safer. Ma®©usBritish 21:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you mean commented out so it's only visible during editing, like:
- What about if that section of the note is hidden? Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I just noticed one of the notes also, and would have to agree that they are WP:SELF-references which should be avoided and probably best left on each article's talk page, as I doubt such references would ever remain following an GAR or FAR, whilst talk page material is retained indefinitely for reference, which is probably better given the current working environment. Ma®©usBritish 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration Request
In accordance with the mandatory notification protocol, this message is being left here to inform you that an Arbitration Committee case has been filed against you. The case has not been accepted, however a party to the case you are invited to add an explanation of your actions at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ottoman_Empire.2FTurkey_naming_dispute. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)