Misplaced Pages

Grid Refs

Rather than adding extra grid refs links to articles that already have them - eg. Kendal and Silverdale, Lancashire - would it not be better to add them to the hundreds of articles that do not have any grid references? -- RHaworth 10:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell neither of them had references. If it's of any interest I'm actually trying to write a bot that will do this in an automated manner. Using MultiMap and the article name to get the data. I was simple doing a couple by hand to make sure I knew what was going on.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed the maps, contain the info--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC).

Laconia

First of all, assume good faith when editing, rather than accusing me of something. I have added US war crimes to the list, and reverted people who have deleted them -- I removed the Laconia incident because it does not qualify as a massacre, and because it was added as one. I thought my edit summary was clear, and I apologize if it was not, but your attacks were unjustified. As for the incident itself, in it, as is the case of many ship sinkings, there is no reason to expect that this was a knowing massacre of civilians or POWs, which is what the massacres page requires as a condition. The Laconia article itself makes it clear that there was no reason to suspect the Americans did not know anything about the POWs, and good reason to believe the order did not violate the rules of war in any case. Take a look at the rest of the massacres on the page -- do you really think it fits? Anyhow, I was not the only one to revert, and feel free to bring this up in the appropriate Talk page. Also, Matthew White is a well-regarded clearinghouse for information on massacres, your deletion was not justified. Goodoldpolonius2 21:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Saying that I am "unfit to edit Misplaced Pages" and calling me a liar is not the best way to progress the discussion. Please refrain from personal attacks, and bring discussion to the Talk page. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that you false acusations of 3RR breaking are far more personal. Minimal ability with numbers, should be a requirement to edit an encyclopedia.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I was off by a couple of hours, you just avoided violating 3RR. Regardless, I certainly don't think I deserve the invective you are sending my way, calling me a liar, calling my edits rubbish, and so on. Can we end this now? --Goodoldpolonius2 22:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

A miss is as good as a mile. I don't think I deserve to be accused of breaking 3RR, when I had not. I also don't think my edits, even amount to being bold. Yes we can end it now. I was more anoyed by you comments on the edits rather than the edit themselves.--Son of Paddy's Ego 23:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, then we don't have to fight about this anymore. Since obviously we still obviously disagree, can we let other editors weigh in on our substantive issues (Laconia Incident and the Historical Atlas), since we probably won't be convinced by each other's arguments? --Goodoldpolonius2 23:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism disguised as reverts

Please stop making test edits to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism, which, under Misplaced Pages policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Sherurcij 21:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is you that is the vandal. I am allowed to revert just as much as you. While you knowledge of the mechanics of the category system is more then adequate you seem to have some use with it application.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You are not allowed to revert articles to POV status, if you have an issue then I suggest you deal with it on the article's talkpage. Sherurcij 13:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find it is you that is POV. As indicated by you desire to label the unconvicted criminals and the uncharged as terrorist. I feel that pushing a rightwing statist agenda and claiming to be left is rather dishonest. Is English your first language?--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say they were terrorists, I said they were imprisoned for terrorism. David Milgaard was imprisoned for murder, even though he was actually innocent. Sherurcij 14:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes you did it's you lack of understanding of english. Hew as convicted though. You don't understand this very well do you.--Son of Paddy's Ego 14:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That is certainly the most amusing sentence-structure anybody has ever used to claim that I don't understand English very well. FYI, I hold a degree in English from the University of Waterloo. Sherurcij 15:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really a qulification to do anything other than check the grammar and spelling in the articles then really. Not even as much use as a Librarian. Is English your first language?--Son of Paddy's Ego 15:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, English is my first language; though I've also studied French, Latin, Greek and Gaeilge. Sherurcij 15:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

Please don't remove listings from the three-revert rule subpage of the administrator's noticeboard (WP:AN/3RR). If the report is inaccurate or inappropriate, an admin will review the situation and not impose a block. You are welcome to add comments to the report, but I would ask that you not remove any remarks. The report itself will be archived at some time in the future.

I would also add a bit of advice—if you find that you're coming close to the 3RR on a regular basis, it would behoove you to review your editing practices. Take it down a notch; seek outside comment on articles using a request for comment, and try to be unfailingly polite on Talk pages.

Remember, the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to revert: regularly making 'only' three reverts per twenty-four hour period can also be seen as disruptive, and may result in blocks for actions that violate the spirit rather than the letter of the rule. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)