| Revision as of 22:41, 17 July 2006 editMDP23 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,211 edits →Redirect to Greek Statue: is this it?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:01, 15 March 2023 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,673 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (11x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ==Redirect to Greek Statue== | ==Redirect to Greek Statue== | ||
| * Since statues represent one aspect of Sculpture of Ancient Greece (as noted above) I think it's clear that Greek statue should be merged into Scuplture, and not vice versa. Plus "Sculpture of Ancient Greece" sounds a lot more encyclopedic than "Greek statue". --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | * Since statues represent one aspect of Sculpture of Ancient Greece (as noted above) I think it's clear that Greek statue should be merged into Scuplture, and not vice versa. Plus "Sculpture of Ancient Greece" sounds a lot more encyclopedic than "Greek statue". --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * I agree with the above - statues fall under the umbrella of sculpture, so statues should be merged '''into''' sculptures. Also "Greek stature" sounds like one item, similar to "Cleopatra's Needle" or something, so may couse confusion if the whole of Greek Sculpture falls under this title. ] 09:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | * I agree with the above - statues fall under the umbrella of sculpture, so statues should be merged '''into''' sculptures. Also "Greek stature" sounds like one item, similar to "Cleopatra's Needle" or something, so may couse confusion if the whole of Greek Sculpture falls under this title. ] 09:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * Evidently there has been some confusion. The redirect was created as part of the of merging. This article has been . The merge was proposed more than a year ago and there was no dispute. The above user Nscheffey has incorrectly reverted a redirect to its former file. In itself, this is a POV fork for whatever reason that user has. Looking at the history of the file you will notice of the proposal was July of 2005. You can also see that of the corresponding file is 7 July 2005. The user Nscheffey had made on of these files up until after the files were already merged. The user Nscheffey, though, has been as a and has again acted in bad faith to disrupt the normal flow of work on Misplaced Pages. He has made a false claim on the page claiming that there was a dispute here about a merge that "should" occur rather than a merge that has already occurred. I performed this merge as a part of , and handled perhaps merge proposals on the 14 of July. Looking at you will note that this file was the sixth oldest merge proposal on all of WP. Because of his recent harassment and stalking, I was informed three different admins to ignore him and not to "feed the trolls". His first revert on the redirect that was put on this file as a standard procedure in merging was done without any discussion on his part. He had also failed to handle any of the which his revert had caused. Being told to ignore him, and without any discussion on his part, I reverted the problem that he had caused by reverting the redirect. Hope this helps. ] 12:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | * Evidently there has been some confusion. The redirect was created as part of the of merging. This article has been . The merge was proposed more than a year ago and there was no dispute. The above user Nscheffey has incorrectly reverted a redirect to its former file. In itself, this is a POV fork for whatever reason that user has. Looking at the history of the file you will notice of the proposal was July of 2005. You can also see that of the corresponding file is 7 July 2005. The user Nscheffey had made on of these files up until after the files were already merged. The user Nscheffey, though, has been as a and has again acted in bad faith to disrupt the normal flow of work on Misplaced Pages. He has made a false claim on the page claiming that there was a dispute here about a merge that "should" occur rather than a merge that has already occurred. I performed this merge as a part of , and handled perhaps merge proposals on the 14 of July. Looking at you will note that this file was the sixth oldest merge proposal on all of WP. Because of his recent harassment and stalking, I was informed three different admins to ignore him and not to "feed the trolls". His first revert on the redirect that was put on this file as a standard procedure in merging was done without any discussion on his part. He had also failed to handle any of the which his revert had caused. Being told to ignore him, and without any discussion on his part, I reverted the problem that he had caused by reverting the redirect. Hope this helps. ] 12:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ::I'd say we should fix the double redirects and keep the content merged at this title, which is more generic and also more encyclopaedic. Good work on the merge backlog. If you need help with the redirects it's possible a request on ] will attract one of the Botmeisters. Don't take it personally. ] 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ::I'd say we should fix the double redirects and keep the content merged at this title, which is more generic and also more encyclopaedic. Good work on the merge backlog. If you need help with the redirects it's possible a request on ] will attract one of the Botmeisters. Don't take it personally. ] 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::I still feel that the merge should be Greek statues into Sculpture of Ancient Greece. The merge tags which had been on the articles for more than a year did not state which way the merge was proposed, so it is understandable that users such as Nscheffey didn't comment at the time. There is another reason that the merge should be in this direction - Greek statue doesn't have the word "Ancient" in it. As JzG said, good work on doing the merges that you did, and lets try to get this sorted out. ] 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ::I still feel that the merge should be Greek statues into Sculpture of Ancient Greece. The merge tags which had been on the articles for more than a year did not state which way the merge was proposed, so it is understandable that users such as Nscheffey didn't comment at the time. There is another reason that the merge should be in this direction - Greek statue doesn't have the word "Ancient" in it. As JzG said, good work on doing the merges that you did, and lets try to get this sorted out. ] 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Ste4k asked me to come here. I also agree with Guy's opinion on keeping the article at this title, the good work Ste4k is doing on the merges and (especially) not taking things too personally. ] (] • ]) 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ::Ste4k asked me to come here. I also agree with Guy's opinion on keeping the article at this title, the good work Ste4k is doing on the merges and (especially) not taking things too personally. ] (] • ]) 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| ::I haven't an opinion either way on which article title has favor. But I do not intend to redouble efforts that were justified by more "What links here" silent majority votes toward the other article. As stated in my original reply to NScheffey: <nowiki>{{fixit}}</nowiki>. His reversion has functionally orphaned this article. ] 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ::I haven't an opinion either way on which article title has favor. But I do not intend to redouble efforts that were justified by more "What links here" silent majority votes toward the other article. As stated in my original reply to NScheffey: <nowiki>{{fixit}}</nowiki>. His reversion has functionally orphaned this article. ] 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Hi, I've done a merge now - hope it's OK and solves the problem :D ] 20:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ::Hi, I've done a merge now - hope it's OK and solves the problem :D ] 20:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::If we all agree then why have the changes been undoone and "disputed merge" been added to both articles? What's the dispute? -] 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | :::If we all agree then why have the changes been undoone and "disputed merge" been added to both articles? What's the dispute? -] 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Exactly what I'm wondering - I've followed consensus, merging the pages as requested. Ste4k congratualted my for doing this, before accusing me of omitting crucial parts of the articles. I've asked what, but had no reply and since then, my question (on her talk page) has been slightly edited and the redirect undone. Assuming good faith, perhaps I did miss something, but surely that could have been mentioned on my talk page with a refernece to what is may have omitted. In effect this revert has left ] orphaned, ironically something which Ste4k complained about with regards to the handling of the dispute in the past. ] 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ::::Exactly what I'm wondering - I've followed consensus, merging the pages as requested. Ste4k congratualted my for doing this, before accusing me of omitting crucial parts of the articles. I've asked what, but had no reply and since then, my question (on her talk page) has been slightly edited and the redirect undone. Assuming good faith, perhaps I did miss something, but surely that could have been mentioned on my talk page with a refernece to what is may have omitted. In effect this revert has left ] orphaned, ironically something which Ste4k complained about with regards to the handling of the dispute in the past. ] 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Oh - I missed a picture when doing the redirect - maybe this is the problem which caused Ste4k to carry out a revert(?). Well, I've put that picture in nowso hopefully it'll solve the problem ] 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ::::Oh - I missed a picture when doing the redirect - maybe this is the problem which caused Ste4k to carry out a revert(?). Well, I've put that picture in nowso hopefully it'll solve the problem ] 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I think "accused" is a little strong and "pointed out" might be more accurate. I still don't think that you understand that the other article "Greek statue" contains the entire article "Sculpture" because they were merged. I really think you should do a compare because these were originally two different articles with different content in each. I can still see that the very first line of the other article hasn't been included in the top section of this article. Where's the 3-d, etc.? I performed this merge as a one of a whole listed series of maintenance requests. I believe I did a fair job. If you think it should have been marked up for clean up, I doubt that I would disagree. But I really haven't any intention of undoing what I consider to be good work. Nscheffey was told in the first place that if he didn't like the merge that he could fix it and what you misconstrued to be an edit war is marked in the edit summary as "reverting incomplete reversion of merge." which basically means that all he did was revert a redirect to an orphan. I don't think he really cares enough about the article to do the work, myself, to tell you the truth. But, let's assume good faith the way we do in Missouri, the "show me" state. If you came in response to the WP:3O then all that is required is your opinion. ] 07:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Let's get to the bottom of this. Ste4k, do you agree that the final merged article should be ]? Once we get past that we can deal with things you feel are left out of the current merge. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've added the information from the first paragraph - I honestly thought that it had been included elsewhere in the article, so had skimmed over it when checking for what I had missed. Most of the first paragraph from Greek Statues is at the end of the first in this article, and the rest is incorporated into the middle of the first article. Ste4k - the reason I said "accused" was because, at the time, I didn't realise I had omitted information, therefore I understood your messages as an accusation. Of course, I now see it as a "pointing out", armed with my knowledge that I did omit some information. Hopefully the merge can go ahead now :S ] 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Seeing as how I've now fixed the problem (which I did cause (sorry)), I've re-done the merges and removed the disputed templates. ] 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:01, 15 March 2023
If there are so few greek sculptures today might it be possible to list them all here with images...
however...
there is far more to greek sculpture than just the statues, so it would be misleading. sculptures such as the stele or the friezes shouldn't really be put under statues, although they frequently are.
Redirect to Greek Statue
- Since statues represent one aspect of Sculpture of Ancient Greece (as noted above) I think it's clear that Greek statue should be merged into Scuplture, and not vice versa. Plus "Sculpture of Ancient Greece" sounds a lot more encyclopedic than "Greek statue". --Nscheffey 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the above - statues fall under the umbrella of sculpture, so statues should be merged into sculptures. Also "Greek stature" sounds like one item, similar to "Cleopatra's Needle" or something, so may couse confusion if the whole of Greek Sculpture falls under this title. Martinp23 09:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Evidently there has been some confusion. The redirect was created as part of the standard process of merging. This article has already been merged. The merge was proposed more than a year ago and there was no dispute. The above user Nscheffey has incorrectly reverted a redirect to its former file. In itself, this is a POV fork for whatever reason that user has. Looking at the history of the file you will notice that the date of the proposal was July of 2005. You can also see that the date of the corresponding file is 7 July 2005. The user Nscheffey had made no comment on either of these files up until after the files were already merged. The user Nscheffey, though, has been stalking me as a personal vendetta and has again acted in bad faith to disrupt the normal flow of work on Misplaced Pages. He has made a false claim on the WP:3O page claiming that there was a dispute here about a merge that "should" occur rather than a merge that has already occurred. I performed this merge as a part of cleanup on old merge requests, and handled perhaps 40 to 50 different merge proposals on the 14 of July. Looking at that list you will note that this file was the sixth oldest merge proposal on all of WP. Because of his recent harassment and stalking, I was informed three different admins to ignore him and not to "feed the trolls". His first revert on the redirect that was put on this file as a standard procedure in merging was done without any discussion on his part. He had also failed to handle any of the double redirects which his revert had caused. Being told to ignore him, and without any discussion on his part, I reverted the problem that he had caused by reverting the redirect. Hope this helps. Ste4k 12:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say we should fix the double redirects and keep the content merged at this title, which is more generic and also more encyclopaedic. Good work on the merge backlog. If you need help with the redirects it's possible a request on WP:AN will attract one of the Botmeisters. Don't take it personally. Just zis Guy you know? 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I still feel that the merge should be Greek statues into Sculpture of Ancient Greece. The merge tags which had been on the articles for more than a year did not state which way the merge was proposed, so it is understandable that users such as Nscheffey didn't comment at the time. There is another reason that the merge should be in this direction - Greek statue doesn't have the word "Ancient" in it. As JzG said, good work on doing the merges that you did, and lets try to get this sorted out. Martinp23 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ste4k asked me to come here. I also agree with Guy's opinion on keeping the article at this title, the good work Ste4k is doing on the merges and (especially) not taking things too personally. JChap (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't an opinion either way on which article title has favor. But I do not intend to redouble efforts that were justified by more "What links here" silent majority votes toward the other article. As stated in my original reply to NScheffey: {{fixit}}. His reversion has functionally orphaned this article. Ste4k 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I've done a merge now - hope it's OK and solves the problem :D Martinp23 20:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- If we all agree then why have the changes been undoone and "disputed merge" been added to both articles? What's the dispute? -Will Beback 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly what I'm wondering - I've followed consensus, merging the pages as requested. Ste4k congratualted my for doing this, before accusing me of omitting crucial parts of the articles. I've asked what, but had no reply and since then, my question (on her talk page) has been slightly edited and the redirect undone. Assuming good faith, perhaps I did miss something, but surely that could have been mentioned on my talk page with a refernece to what is may have omitted. In effect this revert has left Greek Statue orphaned, ironically something which Ste4k complained about with regards to the handling of the dispute in the past. Martinp23 22:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh - I missed a picture when doing the redirect - maybe this is the problem which caused Ste4k to carry out a revert(?). Well, I've put that picture in nowso hopefully it'll solve the problem Martinp23 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think "accused" is a little strong and "pointed out" might be more accurate. I still don't think that you understand that the other article "Greek statue" contains the entire article "Sculpture" because they were merged. I really think you should do a compare because these were originally two different articles with different content in each. I can still see that the very first line of the other article hasn't been included in the top section of this article. Where's the 3-d, etc.? I performed this merge as a one of a whole listed series of maintenance requests. I believe I did a fair job. If you think it should have been marked up for clean up, I doubt that I would disagree. But I really haven't any intention of undoing what I consider to be good work. Nscheffey was told in the first place that if he didn't like the merge that he could fix it and what you misconstrued to be an edit war is marked in the edit summary as "reverting incomplete reversion of merge." which basically means that all he did was revert a redirect to an orphan. I don't think he really cares enough about the article to do the work, myself, to tell you the truth. But, let's assume good faith the way we do in Missouri, the "show me" state. If you came in response to the WP:3O then all that is required is your opinion. Ste4k 07:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let's get to the bottom of this. Ste4k, do you agree that the final merged article should be Sculpture of Ancient Greece? Once we get past that we can deal with things you feel are left out of the current merge. --Nscheffey 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think "accused" is a little strong and "pointed out" might be more accurate. I still don't think that you understand that the other article "Greek statue" contains the entire article "Sculpture" because they were merged. I really think you should do a compare because these were originally two different articles with different content in each. I can still see that the very first line of the other article hasn't been included in the top section of this article. Where's the 3-d, etc.? I performed this merge as a one of a whole listed series of maintenance requests. I believe I did a fair job. If you think it should have been marked up for clean up, I doubt that I would disagree. But I really haven't any intention of undoing what I consider to be good work. Nscheffey was told in the first place that if he didn't like the merge that he could fix it and what you misconstrued to be an edit war is marked in the edit summary as "reverting incomplete reversion of merge." which basically means that all he did was revert a redirect to an orphan. I don't think he really cares enough about the article to do the work, myself, to tell you the truth. But, let's assume good faith the way we do in Missouri, the "show me" state. If you came in response to the WP:3O then all that is required is your opinion. Ste4k 07:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've added the information from the first paragraph - I honestly thought that it had been included elsewhere in the article, so had skimmed over it when checking for what I had missed. Most of the first paragraph from Greek Statues is at the end of the first in this article, and the rest is incorporated into the middle of the first article. Ste4k - the reason I said "accused" was because, at the time, I didn't realise I had omitted information, therefore I understood your messages as an accusation. Of course, I now see it as a "pointing out", armed with my knowledge that I did omit some information. Hopefully the merge can go ahead now :S Martinp23 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Seeing as how I've now fixed the problem (which I did cause (sorry)), I've re-done the merges and removed the disputed templates. Martinp23 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)