Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:56, 27 February 2018

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Edits removed

You removed my edit from a page I created. Please don’t.-Frji Tyyrghfdewgh (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Frji Tyyrghfdewgh I reverted two edits, one was unsourced and other was violating NPOV. Misplaced Pages is a community resource and we edit it together under the guidelines laid out. If some other editor feels that your edits are violating these guidelines or does not think they are appropriate than they can undo/revert your edits. You can discuss your edits with them on the talk pages of respective pages to put forth your views and why they should be included per Misplaced Pages guidelines. Making a random statement not to undo your edits (without providing due reason) which are in my view in violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines is not correct. Please edit responsibly. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Mirpur

I'm not sure you did what you thought you did there . I know it can be annoying when several editors have edited in succession, but in such situations it's usually a good idea to check the diffs before reverting (if you enable the navigation popups previewing the diffs is much quicker). – Uanfala (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala Sorry about that. I was reverting edits by a LTA and undid your edit as well. I tried to reinstate your edit but I guess did not link UK. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

39.57

This IP is a sock of Mfarazbaig. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. Don't expect him to discuss. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

D4iNa4 I suspected so. It is easier to protect the page and avoid further disruption in the short term then to wait for the SPI to bear fruition. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Investigations involving IPs are always too slow. If we go by the fundamental that we should not revert until the sock is blocked then I can imagine how bad these articles will become. Since no one can really claim that these IPs are not Mfarazbaig who is on verge of getting sitebanned, requesting page protection and referring to this SPI will definitely work. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point. The IP was being disruptive since they have been reverting edits on that page for quite some time without initiating a discussion on the talk page. That was enough grounds for page protection. The SPI will help as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Undoing changes in Bangladesh Army , Bangladesh Air Force and Bangladesh Navy

I noticed you reverted my changes (, ) by citing "sourced version".

You can see the source clearly states total size of forces (civilian + military) which I put there. Unless of course civilians who work in the armed forces aren't count as such even though the law minister clearly says they are included. Do you mind clarifying it a bit for me?

Karib6262 (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Karib6262 The armed forces sizes are typically officers plus enlisted personnel only. We usually don't count civilians in that number. The source you have provided is the reply by the law minister is a reply to a question in the Bangladesh parliament and this requires him by procedure to state all the employees of the armed forces. The emphasis is on the word employees and not armed forces strength. It is WP:SYNTHESIS on your part to assume that the law minister "clearly" says that they are included as the strength of the armed forces. If this was the case he would have provided a combined number not a clear distinction between civilians and military personnel. In my view, you can include the number of civilians in the infobox but clearly state them as civilians and not combine them as military personnel. Hope this helps. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 Thanks for the clarification. Can you check now & confirm if it's correct this time or not. () Karib6262 (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Karib6262 That looks fine and is also similar to other articles like United States Army. Thanks. Happy editing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - WOLFchild 07:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC) (FYI)