Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:08, 1 October 2008

Click here to leave a new message.

Archive 1

My edits to the Bridge to Nowhere were based on a large consensus discussion you may not be aware of that began on the "political positions" page where it was agreed that the more extensive text there should be on the main page, with a summary on the political positions page. In fact, I'm putting it back right now. As I describe on the talk page, I think it is more important in Palin's entry to give her views rather than to give other people's views. I don't believe in cutting direct quotes from the subject of the entry on the subject of the section, and I doubt you do either. Better to cut other people's views that belong in their entries. See talk page. (Working on it now.)GreekParadise (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_math.png--Nina.Charousek (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Fair point on the new reference, as you say this is MSM coverage of a trend in multiple poll results and totally worthy of inclusion. I tried to incorporate it in a way that avoided redundancy with the other poll references already in there, but if you want to change my edit to something you feel better represents the source go right ahead. I would self revert but I don't have time to look at it right now. If I have a problem with what you have written I'll PM you rather than revert rudely. I'm sorry for edit warring with you on the McCain campaign page, I won't do that again. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please STOP all your edits on the Bridge to Nowhere without discussing them first. Many of them violate a long-standing consensus that has taken place over several days and is included in the talk page. I'm trying to stop you now because I know how frustrating it is when you've made changes and someone reverts back. But I am reverting. If you want to delete content, could you please tell me which content and why?GreekParadise (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Austrian Empire or not

I need help, you reverted Jedlik, but in

Habsburg Monarchy:

Names of the territory that (with some exceptions) finally became Austria-Hungary:

• Habsburg monarchy or Austrian monarchy (1526 – 1867): This was an unofficial, but very frequent name - even at that time. The entity had no official name. Note that technically the term Habsburg monarchy can also refer to the period 1276-1918 when the Habsburgs ruled in the monarchy centered in present-day Austria, and Austrian monarchy can refer to the monarchy centered in present-day Austria 1156 – 1867, but both terms are usually not used this way.
• Austrian Empire (1804 – 1867): This was the official name. Note that the German version is "Kaisertum Österreich", i.e. the English translation empire refers to a territory ruled by an emperor, not just to a "widespreading dominion", more accurately the "Emperordom of Austria". and in History of Hungary 1700-1919 Royal Hungary 1545-1699, nothing, 1848 Revolution.

--Nina.Charousek (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Check List_of_Hungarian_rulers or the Ferdinand I of Austria article he was "Emperor of Austria; King of Hungary, Croatia, and Bohemia" both terms are correct I just prefer to use something more specific. For example someone was born in Canada in year X, then we write in the article that he was born in Canada in year X then the reader can click on the Canada link and find out that in year X Canada was part of the Commonwelth, part of the British Empire, was ruled by Queen Victoria or whatever was exactly the case with Canada in year X, or if it had a personal union with the UK or whatever, it might be complex to explain. Hobartimus (talk) 06:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by

Thanks for the warning. I'm not sure I got to the 3RR stage? Maybe I don't yet understand the definition. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing for a while, usually more like 300 edits a day, and no one ever said anything like that to me? I'm a little confused.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

300 edits per article. :)LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's an exaggeration. But Palin is certainly not one of my most heavily-visited articles.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been in the habit of editing this way for a while, thanks for your understanding. It may take me a minute to get the hang of it and keep track, as I tend to edit fast and click 'save' a lot. The first edit and second edits were today, and the other one yesterday, but you're right, it has not been 24 hours. I did not see the second edit as a content change, but rather a flow change. I will self-revert on that one. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please desist

I would appreciate you refraining from further empty threats. I violated no policy as you well know. You made several major edits without consensus to an article on probation. These edits removed major blocks of important and well-cited information on the subject. I will not revert your edit again, but will pursue this through the article's talk page. Arjuna (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the article talk page. We may not actually have major areas of disagreement here. I would like to add back some of the material on Foreign Policy/Environment, but as it's late here and I'm not fresh, rather than be half-assed about it I'd rather wait and see if it still needs to go back in tomorrow. Best, Arjuna (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin article - religion section

Hi, I noticed that you removed the religion section in the article. I appreciate your interest. It would have been nice if you had not interferred and interrupted the attempt to build a consensus on the matter. As you know, there is a survey in the talk section that was running until midnight tonight. Taking a brief look, indeed I think there would have been consensus for removing the section. But, your interruption of the conclusion of the survey will now always leave that in doubtm rather than the consensus being able to be quite clear, which was my hope. Sure, it is unlikely tha there would have been a vast change -- but someone who wants to have it differently in the future will always be able to argue that the concensus was not clear because the survey was interrupted. Frankly, in the scope of the article life, I don't see how 36 hours of waiting to build a consensus is that huge a time frame, or unreasonable. The benefits of making the consensus clear are huge. Atom (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also like you to stop

Like at least one other poster on your talk page, I object to your behavior. I ask you to stop making baseless, defamatory statements and threats, and remove them from my talk page. I added no unsourced material, never have, and never will. Dagoldman (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You added "McCain had wanted to name Joe Lieberman." to the Sarah Palin article , this statement was completely unreferenced. In Misplaced Pages terms an acceptable reference for such an execptional statement about someones thoughts or thought process would be a direct quote from McCain. I never threatened you. If you continue adding unsourced or poorly sourced material to biographies of living persons, the matter will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Certainly I can't threaten to block you since I couldn't block you even if I wanted to which is not even the case. Buster7 is right that you can remove whatever you like from your talk page. Policy only requires me to give you the warning and prove it with a diff link like this. Hobartimus (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag on Bridge to Nowhere: Please stop making unilateral, unsourced changes!

If you persist in putting up unsourced information that is POV, I will put POV tag on the site and we can all vote on your changes. GreekParadise (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I find GreekParadise to be errant on this, and consider his belief that he, and he alone, can make changes to a section, to be also errant. Collect (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

palin image update

Bob Weinstein released copyrights to me ;) Duuude007 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you revert, read here:

The sentence I put back was accidentally removed by Collect. He never went to talk page. It has never been removed before. If you remove it you would be suggesting that Palin NEVER supported the bridges, which you know is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It really would help to admit you were wrong

Just read the section with and without that sentence. GP is right: the section without that sentence just makes no sense, because it is not about Palin at all. Homunq (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I just opened a section where you can propose more mentions of Palin's support for the bridge if you feel that the ones currently listed there are insufficient. Currently there are only 7 mentions and my edit removed one I understand now that it just had to be reverted. Hobartimus (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Semipersonal information

Thanks, you're the first person to reply with a reasonable reason to keep the data out. Cheers, Jim.Jimmetzler (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

Please take a look at the Weatherman/Terrorism RfC Hi! This is a form notice sent to several editors who have contributed recently at the Bill Ayers page or talk page (sent in accordance with WP:CANVASS). A proposal has been made near the bottom of Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC concerning the Bill Ayers article in connection with use of the word "terrorism" and discussion of it in the article. Other proposals have been made concerning similar articles, and a large amount of information about sources on this topic are available on the page. Please take a look and consider supporting or opposing some of the proposals. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edit on this page here. I don't know why because you didn't leave an edit summary besides that you were reverting. I was restoring information that was relevant to the page that had been removed initially by User:EconomicsGuy II here. The information concerned information about Sarah Palin and her connection to evangelical pastor Thomas Muthee. The information had been included on Sarah Palin but removed and I assumed that the conversation was ongoing about the removal. The edit that I restored filled in information and I did not consider it to violate rules against the talk page being a forum. Perhaps you disagree. I invite you to discuss this further at my talk page as EconomicsGuy has made it clear that he does not want to discuss it on his. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. You might want to drop by Talk: Sarah Palin as it looks like a definition of conses=nsus may be required. Thanks! Dave Collect (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

56 again

! thanks István (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Muthee

I've been working on it quite a bit and would appreciate it if you would take another look. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing that section from Muthee's page. He gave sermons at Palin's church and blessed her, which I believe was a significant event in his life. I don't think it deserves a place on her pages, but I certainly think it deserves mention on his. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 02:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the information without mention of Palin, however I disagree with your interpretation of UNDUE and I would appreciate it if you would discuss it further. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kernell

Please review your facts before making claims that you know nothing about. I reverted to the version prior to User:Dof's edits, if somebody else removed previous versions of the article, I don't know what those edits were, I reverted because Dof was removing the hidden text that the article was about the father, not the son. Corvus cornix_talk 07:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please point to any diff in which I removed the reference. Put up or shut up. Corvus cornix_talk 07:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin Pic

Hi, After taking into consideration the feedback from other editors regarding the Carson City image at Sarah Palin, I have created a new version with the intent of pleasing those who have contributed to the discussions. The quality of the image has been significantly improved. I would appreciate your opinion here: ]. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

re

Being called Gypsy, Nazi, Bullshit, and other stuff in the edit summaries by your lovely compatriot are reasons enough so that he will to be accused of vandalism ? Rezistenta (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Crown of Saint Stephen

hi there,

I have reverted back the article to the original name where it was. As to your comment of a consensus I cannot find one on the talk page. The crown is known almost universally as the Crown of Saint Stephen, see also Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen for example. Gryffindor 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And I respectfully disagree. Wiki convention on articles stipulates the usage of the most commonly used names (Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names)). In this case it would be the "Crown of Saint Stephen" or a similar version. Again, I do not find any "consensus" on the talk page, the page was simply moved by User:Szilas without a proper moving procedure, therefore I restored it. The crown might be called "Holy Crown" in Hungarian, however this is not the common name in English, see also Britannica . Gryffindor 23:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest we discuss this best on the talk page of the article itself, to let others participate as well. Gryffindor 23:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Révay

Hi Hobartimus, this is to explain why the article Révay should include both the Slovak nobility and the Hungarian nobility categories. Although the counts Révay might have been Hungarian in nationality (although noone has provided any sources for that, so even this cannot be considered a proven fact), they lived, worked, died and influenced the politics and history of the Turiec/Turóc county, which lies in the present-day Slovakia, for 500 years. In my opinion this in itself warrants their inclusion in the Slovak nobility category. Noone here is trying to steal anyone's nobles or heroes as has been suggested by one of the editors.PeterRet (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP and discussion.

Hi, I've been watching the debate on Sarah Palin and I thought I might figuratively take you aside. Your effort to maintain Sarah Palin to the standards of WP:Biographies of Living Persons is laudable, and I thank you for your efforts. However, the BLP policy is not meant as a replacement for the normal wiki process. WP:BLP is the "nuclear option" of debates. Our primary use of BLP is to immediately remove egregious material. It is not meant as a guide during content disputes, disputes about how much weight is proper, what sources to use, what order do the paragraphs go in etc. Misplaced Pages thrives on the discovery of consensus through discussion of the merits of the content, editing the article, and achieving a compromise, not through citing policy. Happy editing!--Tznkai (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)