Misplaced Pages

User talk:PBS/Archive 18: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:PBS Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:17, 12 January 2015 editDPL bot (talk | contribs)Bots668,524 edits dablink notification message (see the FAQ)← Previous edit Revision as of 01:36, 13 January 2015 edit undoKbabej (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers28,300 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 85: Line 85:


It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

==Re: Concern==
Thanks for reaching out.

To address your points on ]:

1. The article you wrote on ] had already taken the name; I thought the adding of her married name would mark the difference.

2. English nobility: To be a lady in waiting to the queen, you must be of noble rank. The same goes for marrying a Viscount. Her family was of noble station.

3. I don't agree that Tudor Place is an unreliable source. It is used all over Misplaced Pages. If you show me parameters that list Tudor Place as unreliable, then I'll remove it. Until then, it's a common practice.

4. The names are not messed up. Lucy Hungerford married ''another'' Hungerford. They were fifth cousins, so her maiden ''and'' married name are both Hungerford. That could also be inferred considering the article states Lucy is the daughter of Lucy of Sir Walter ''Hungerford'' of Farley.

5. The source for fifth cousins is at the end of the sentence. It is relevant to explain the relationship of the family, and helps explain why Lucy's maiden and married name are one in the same.

6. I didn't know that was a no-no. I'll fix it.

7. The relationship isn't extrapolated. It's common sense. Ex: If person A and person B are brother and sister, and then person A has a daughter "C", it doesn't have to be proven that persons B and C are related. If it can be proven A-B are siblings, and then A-C are parent/child, it's common sense to make the inference that B-C are related.

--] (]) 01:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:36, 13 January 2015

Contributions
User Page

Talk Page

Notes

Library

Commons

Wikisource

Sandboxes

Userspace

Contributions



Archives
Archive 1

ANI

It seems defending myself roundly at the AN/I has done me no favours. The universal dislike is palpable! I edited peaceably from February when I started in Misplaced Pages until the beginning of December when I became more outspoken on editing points, and now this! You said you were going to give me an opinion on one of the charges. The AN/I is being dragooned to a conclusion by Legacpac, so I wondered if I could have this before it ended.

PS Why are so many uninvolved admins/editors using IP identities? P-123 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
PBS has expressed his opinion, as have many other editors. I don't know who the IPs are but they may be involved or uninvolved editors and admins (but I'm not using an IP). Please start reading what others are saying to you and drop the stick because you are beating a dead horse. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You said this at the AN/I:
"Having spent time going through ... list of accusations, there is only one that I think is substantial enough on its own to warrant concern even when assuming good faith, and I will discuss that directly with user:P-123 on the talk page of P-123. -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)"
I would be grateful if you could let me know which one this was and why. P-123 (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

I can probably find out from another source but I was wondering how it could be considered to put a level of semi-protection on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant so that unregistered users would not be able to directly contribute. I appreciate that this may raise issues with regard to users that are not autoconfirmed, but I would personally consider the benefits of protection to out weigh potential problems.

Thanks and Happy new year. I hope to personally give you more peace. GregKaye 11:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This idea may have some merit, but we are having issues across related minor articles too with IPs. Lots of terrorist wannabees on Misplaced Pages these days. Legacypac (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Opps - I read the request as being for the article - the talk page does not need protection. Sorry about that. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving time on Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War

Hi, PBS, I was hoping for your advice of what to do here, both for future reference and to reduce the size of the talkpage in question. The page Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War is 326,556 bytes long with 73 sections and an archive time of 2 weeks. I feel that this is too much content, so I posted Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Sigmabot_archive_time, but this got no reply after 2 days, which on this talkpage seems to be a sign I'm not going to get another post. Should I try to change the time having never done so before and without consensus? Should I wait for you or another admin to get involved or ask one to help? Should I drop it altogether. Thanks. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for solving the archiving problem for the Syrian detailed map talk page. I guess if editing archive times comes under general sanctions, then so too must setting it up. The corresponding Iraqi map's talk page Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map#Status of Alqosh could probably due with having archiving set up having 105 sections, about half of which are at least 4 months old, though the talk page is only 147,350 bytes long. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

An apparent violation of a PBAN on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map by another editor

Pototo1 was given a PBAN on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, but then proceeded to make two edits that violated it. Callanecc is busy in real life, so I was hoping an uninvolved administrator could help so we can avoid the whole messy and time consuming ANI process, especially as this is all I have to say. Can you help, PBS? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Move Moratorium

The ISIL Move Moratorium expires in less than 48 hours. I'd like to see it extended since the world opinion has gone even stronger against legitimizing the group by the "Islamic State" name. What is the correct procedure to move forward? Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't about legitimizing or de-legitimizing a viewpoint, idea, group, or person. We're here to encylcopedia build, not fight the battle of hearts and minds in the war on terror (and yes, I acknowledge you believe I'm "Anti-American" for making this observation (). DOCUMENTERROR 23:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

More rearranging of comments

I'm bringing this to your attention as you've been party to the issue before. Legacypac has been cautioned innumerable times about rearranging comments. He's at it again in this thread. While this doesn't, obviously, rise to the same level of severity as his blanking and moving of pages or personal attacks, it is still a real chore to constantly monitor each of his many ANIs to make sure one's own comments aren't being moved around to change their meaning. I apologize for bringing this directly to you but it seemed preferable to cluttering up his latest ANI with even more confusingly tangential issues. WP falls apart pretty quickly once the stability of one's own edits is no longer viable. A lot of us are at our wit's end. DOCUMENTERROR 22:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to note, in response to my leaving the above note on your Talk page, LP has - as per MO - gone into "attack" mode and has immediately started dropping claims around the Wiki that I'm engaging in "outrageous personal attacks" against him (but, as also per MO, not informing me of any of these accusations he's spreading). As you know, immediately spreading rumors about other editors is his pattern response when the question of his combative interaction style is broached.
I have voluntarily avoided any article in which LP is a regular for months (IOW, against my better judgment, I let him chase me off) due to this "take no prisoners" style of editing on all ISIL related topics, and his unwillingness to work in a methodical manner (you, Kkj11210 and others have previously asked him not to blank or move pages during the middle of a RfC, and he did it again just this week ). However, in reviewing his edit history it appears this has not spared Skookum1, GregKaye, Greyshark09, Corriebertus, and numerous others from this toxicity. DOCUMENTERROR 23:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I recently raised issue with regard to a recent good faith use of archive top by Legacypac on my talk page but this was reverted at early opportunity. GregKaye 23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, C&P wrong editor - my bad. DOCUMENTERROR 23:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently as "pay back" for "telling" that he had been rearranging the comments of other editors again, LP has now dragged me to ANI for the fourth time. I should have learned my lesson last time, bit my lip, and just let him rearrange and edit others comments however he sees fit. DOCUMENTERROR 09:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yellow Box edit

Just a quick question - did I insert my comment into the middle of LPs? According to this dif he had a 5 ":::::" comment ending in the phrase "thank-you very much" at 19:53 followed by his sig. My comment was specifically in response to that comment and so was indented with 6 "::::::" There was an entirely separate comment he made (separate as it had 0 colons and a unique sig at 17:43) immediately after his 5 colon comment. . Note the threading here: DOCUMENTERROR 02:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

ISIL rename request

Hello PBS, I just came across this . Does this mean it is possible to make a request for move? I would like to put such a request on the 23rd January so your advise would be appreciated. Mbcap (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, could you please advise. I have already asked legacypac's permission for me to discuss him here. I believe I think with good reason as seen here), that legacypac has a conflict of interest that seems to be impacting his work on the ISIL page. With the new move request I think this issue has become even more important.I kindly requested that he withdraw himself from the discussion because he seems to have a real demonstrable conflict of interest. In the diff he says:

"I'd like to see it extended since the world opinion has gone even stronger against legitimizing the group by the "Islamic State" name." (This seems to me like political advocacy.)

::If legacypac had policy based objections I would not do this. I would really like to follow policy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS states that we not here to right great wrongs. The comment above and also the comment on the move discussion demonstrates that he is not able to seperate his opinion from policy - this is especially seen in the first comment by him on the discussion on the move request. I do not believe he is there to build an encyclopedia but to insert bias into Misplaced Pages as is clearly demonstrated from the diff and the afremention comment. Can you advise or do I have no basis and shut up? Mbcap (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, is there anything else that I need to do in regards to the requested move. I think it is clear the name I have suggested is the common name now. The only issue is, how do we discuss which one it should be; Islamic state or The Islamic State. Is that something that is within the remit of the current move request and discussion. Also when will the discussion close as my hands are quite tied up till at least the 15th. Sorry to bombard you with questions. Mbcap (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this. It was not intentional, I did not know I had to write that. Mbcap (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

TPG MULTI

Hi, Thanks for your comment at the TPG talk page. You indicated that it "is" time to talk and started a thread for that purpose. However there is already a discussion underway. Per the TPG point "MULTI" I moved you comment intact and verbatim into that thread. Let's talk, sure, but let's keep it one place so we don't end up herding cats please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest some housekeeping to see if it's ok with you. Now that you've replied in the original thread, there's no reason, IMO, to keep the italics I added when I moved your comment. I propose to self revert my own italics to reduce thread clutter. Ordinarily I would just proceed, but if I did so that would leave your own comment about using a separate thread dangling all by itself. So.... my suggestion is we help the next person to read the thread for the first time by deleting both remarks. If you agree, you have my permission to delete my italic comment about moving yours. Alternatively, I can clean them up if you give the OK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

wrong link

The link works for me? DocumentError 11:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to locate the page patrol logs. Could you help me? Nevermind - I found it! Sorry. PBS I can only look at an editor's entire patrol log, but am unable to link to a specific patrolling action. DocumentError 11:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

PBS

PBS - every specific issue I have raised in my ANI is supported by a diff. The only exceptions are 2 instances where an issue relates to a discussion that has been archived, in which case I have linked to the archived discussion as I do not have the technical knowledge of how to link to diffs within a page that has been archived by sigmabot. I do understand that was the reason I was blocked; not that I was claiming things that didn't occur but that I incorrectly linked them. If you could maybe give me some assistance in that area I would be happy to update those two links right now. DocumentError 12:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Some help with possible copyright image on Ibn Kathir

I have spoken to this user and asked him if the picture he has added here is free to use and he said it is copy righted. I checked the image and it did say it was copyrighted. I have to study so I am unable to get the chance to learn the wikipedia image-use/copy at this moment in time and was hoping you could tell whether to delete the image or let it be. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Light Horse Regiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of El Alamein (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) 09:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Concern

Thanks for reaching out.

To address your points on Anne Hungerford Lee:

1. The article you wrote on Anne Hungerford had already taken the name; I thought the adding of her married name would mark the difference.

2. English nobility: To be a lady in waiting to the queen, you must be of noble rank. The same goes for marrying a Viscount. Her family was of noble station.

3. I don't agree that Tudor Place is an unreliable source. It is used all over Misplaced Pages. If you show me parameters that list Tudor Place as unreliable, then I'll remove it. Until then, it's a common practice.

4. The names are not messed up. Lucy Hungerford married another Hungerford. They were fifth cousins, so her maiden and married name are both Hungerford. That could also be inferred considering the article states Lucy is the daughter of Lucy of Sir Walter Hungerford of Farley.

5. The source for fifth cousins is at the end of the sentence. It is relevant to explain the relationship of the family, and helps explain why Lucy's maiden and married name are one in the same.

6. I didn't know that was a no-no. I'll fix it.

7. The relationship isn't extrapolated. It's common sense. Ex: If person A and person B are brother and sister, and then person A has a daughter "C", it doesn't have to be proven that persons B and C are related. If it can be proven A-B are siblings, and then A-C are parent/child, it's common sense to make the inference that B-C are related.

--Kbabej (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)