Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:00, 28 August 2014

Civility?

Can you explain your edit summary in your revert of Special:Diff/621774029 please? If you want, I can get other diffs as well. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 14:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lixx235 (talk · contribs) - please learn to civilly engage your brain as a safety mechanism to prevent you doing silly things. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That is not an answer to my question. Could you please explain your edit summary in that revert? Thank you. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 14:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lixxx235 (talk · contribs) - sorry for not asnwering your question. An "edit summary" is a summary of the edit. That is a summary is a short bit of text describing the changes made. It is entered in the box marked "Summary". I believe there is a summary of this atWP:EDITSUMMARY. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thank you for your understanding, it is greatly appreciated. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of Sir prefix in article title

Hi Barney, jsut a polite request, in future could you refrain from using the title Sir (or Dame for that matter) in the title of new article creations. I have moved some of the articles you created previously such as Sir Robert McLean to Robert McLean (engineer). The only exception to the rule is Baronets, where it is generally correct to include their knighthood in the article title, as you correcly did with Sir Robert Pigot, 6th Baronet. Thanks Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Flaming Ferrari (talk · contribs) - thanks for your message. I commit to using the correct name, (i.e. only the full name) in future. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In case it becomes relevant in future, I feel I should note that Flaming Ferrari (talk · contribs)'s advice is not consistent with the guidelines described at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Articles about knights and baronets should in most cases be titled simply with the subject's name, without "Sir" (or "Dame") at the beginning or "Nth Baronet" at the end. The exception is when that would be ambiguous with somebody else who has the same name but is not a knight/baronet, in which case the prefix (and suffix, for a baronet) may be added for disambiguation. (I have paraphrased and abridged the guidelines somewhat, so I recommend you to read them yourself and don't just take my word for it.) — Paul A (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Winston S. Churchill

This is NOT repeat NOT just a variant of Churchill's name.

It is very specifically his pen name - he adopted it to distinguish his books from those of the then much more famous (!) American novelist of the same name!!!!!

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not dispute that. Unfortunately for you however, it is entirely irrelevant. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

See Winston Churchill (novelist). The "S." occurs ONLY as a pen name - and is therefore only relevant at all in the context of the specific article dealing with Sir Winston as a writer. It is not entirely irrelevant to the "main" article, but it is clear where the primary relevance lies. Sorry about the tiny mind remark - uncalled for, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting angry above about it doesn't change the undeniable fact that it needs to go to the main subject. You've also broken WP:3RR. And I hate musicals, especially the one with the singing nuns. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your love (or otherwise) of musicals has, of course, precisely the same relevance to this argument as your (or even my) anger, or even which one of us broke WP:3RR first. Winston Churchill as writer is in this instance the "main article" - since the redirect can only refer to that subject and has nothing whatever to do with the "main subject" of the other article, which is (very properly) primarily about his political career. Is this worth asking for arbitration? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably be better for you just to drop it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Reluctant to leave an error that reflects so badly on its perpetrator in place - so out of the purest kindness I am constrained to insist that the correct redirection remain when all the dust has settled. Unless an independent arbitrator deems otherwise, of course ... Actually, it would be better to have no redirect from Sir Winston's pen name at all (just delete the redirect altogether) than have it direct to an article (mostly) about his political career (a rather comprehensively unrelated subject). --Soundofmusicals (talk)

I have formally asked for arbitration on this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops - I don't dispute much, and I put my request for arbitration on the wrong page! On advice - I have redone this one to WP:3O. I don't think this one had anything to do with your blocking - hope not, anyway. In this instance I am being at least as sarcastic as you - this (for me at least) is good-natured banter - my only dispute with you is the question of where this redirect page should point! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have followed the 30 arbitrator's ruling and relocated this redirect to the original place. Sorry - I'm quite often wrong, but not in this case. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Chesney Gold Medal

added a link pointing to Sir John Hackett

Parapsychological Association Outstanding Career Award

added a link pointing to Richard Broughton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_on_Winston_S._Churchill_.28redirect_page.29. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User lies to AN/I, gets me blocked

Thanks DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) - that's extremely useful. Can you please identify what exactly were the "personal attacks"? And which AFD was "disrupted"? In general I follow a policy of apologising for things that I've done wrong so I'd like to know. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh hang on, I've found it. To clarify, Bearcat (talk · contribs) has now added to his lies by making false allegations at WP:ANI. To clarify what happened, he wrote an AFD nomination that misrepresented the subject as only being a minor , and specifically mentioned the role of mayor. He made innuendo that the role of mayor was unimportant (which is technically true), but failed to mention that the gentleman was a long-time leader of the majority party on the council, and used inneundo to conflate the two unrelated. He also apparently omitted to conduct a WP:BEFORE search for sources because when such a search is performed a plethora of sources are to be found. When I politely pointed out this to him and gave him the opportunity to correct himself, he refused to do this, asserting things that are clearly not true to anyone with at least half a brain (that a leader of a party group is equally as important as a non-leader) and started to make personal allegations against me. He has now compounded his lies by writing further lies at WP:AN/I which have led a productive and editor of good character being blocked. WP:BOOMERANG should have applied to the petty vindictive request of a liar and a troll.

I stated it was my policy to apologise for things that I have done wrong. However, as I have done nothing wrong in this case, no apology will be forthcoming. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If any editor believes that the subject of an article does not indeed warrant an article, they are very welcome to raise an AFD. If their investigation shows the subject to be "minor", then that's their educated opinion. That does NOT make them a liar, and troublemaker, or anything else...it's their reading of the citations. Referring to "anyone with half a brain", and referring further to lies (wholly unfounded), and changing this section header to what you have is an obvious continuation of your personal attacks, and I'll be extending your current block accordingly. the panda ₯’ 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I'm sorry, you're the one who's misrepresenting the matter. As I pointed out, repeatedly, in response to your comments, WP:NPOL does not give greater weight to the "leader of a political party" at the city council level than it does to other city councillors — "garden-variety councillor" or "party leader", the person still has to pass WP:GNG by virtue of the quality of sourcing that has actually been provided. Whatever you think about whether the position is more notable in principle or not than a "garden-variety city councillor", Misplaced Pages's inclusion criteria for politicians do not grant the party leader a greater presumption of notability than the garden-variety councillor, if the quality of sourcing is not there to get him past GNG. I did not assert anything about the level of power that the leader does or doesn't have within the council's internal structure — I provided a completely accurate assessment of Misplaced Pages's inclusion standards for local politicians (no matter what role they held, they still have to pass GNG for it) which wasn't even remotely the same thing as what you're claiming that I said.

Secondly, I said nothing in the entire discussion that was in any way an allegation or personal attack against you. The worst thing I said about you at any point was that you were arguing with a strawman instead of with what I was actually saying, which is not an actionable comment (and you threw the word "strawman" at me too, so if it were an actionable comment you'd still be blocked right alongside me anyway.) You, on the other hand, called me an outright liar, which you're simply not allowed to do. And if you're allowed to characterize yourself as a productive editor of good character, then I'm allowed to point out that I most certainly have a reputation as a productive editor of good character as well — I've been around here since 2003, and do not have any sort of reputation as being a liar or a troll or a dishonest editor. (I've never once, for example, accumulated a single behavioral block in that entire time, not even a ten-minute timeout. If I were half as bad an editor as you seem to think, I'd have been banned years ago — but in reality, I'm actually a pretty well-respected contributor who's never once in an entire decade had to be formally sanctioned or disciplined with anything more than a minor "hey, you screwed up here, so be more careful about this next time, okay?")

Thirdly, I most certainly did do enough WP:BEFORE to be aware that the volume of available sourcing out there is not as strong as you're claiming; there are a fair number of reliable sources which mention his name in passing, but I did not a find a lot of sources which were about him in a substantive way. And at least one other commenter in the AFD discussion has also pointed out that they didn't find much substantive sourcing on a Google search either. And as I also pointed out, I am Canadian, and do not have access to the resources necessary to do a really comprehensive database search of past British media coverage — I can only go by what comes up on Google, and what I saw on Google was a lot of sources that just namechecked him in passing as a former councillor, and not a lot that actually constituted substantive coverage of his career while he was in office. If you think there are enough sources out there to get him over GNG, you're certainly more than welcome to find them and add them to the article — I said, right from the start, that the article could be kept if the sourcing were improved — but you're not entitled to just namecall and insult anybody who happens to disagree with you about the current state of the article.

And finally, just for the record, I asked for nothing in the ANI post except for somebody to review the situation and make their own decision about who was or wasn't at fault. I'm sure I would have been blocked or at least warned if Panda had read the discussion and decided that I was the one at fault, but that's not what happened. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bearcat (talk · contribs) - thanks to your efforst I've been lbocked from editnig for the past 4 days. Bet you feel proud of yourself.

However, no, piling lies on top of further lies won't help your cause. You are clearly quite delusional, a calculating liar and should not be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages.

A leader of a council is more important than a non-leader. This is an indisuptable fact that you choose to ignore mostly because you're a complete idiot. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) - before I ask for unblocked, I ask politely that you undo your unjusitifed actions. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

By your own admission, you have been consistently violating two key principles of Misplaced Pages: WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. A block is intended to be a last resort when someone refuses to follow the rules as they are laid out. The first block is supposed to be final part of the learning curve. Unfortunately, while blocks, and now AFTER your previous block, you continued down the same path of insults and ABF. As such, it's apparent you either a) cannot learn to act within the behavioural norms you agreed to on this private website, or b) you refuse to abide by those same norms. This block is for your continued behaviour outside the expected norms, and is unfortunately quite justified. We cannot allow any editor to continually refer to another as a "liar", "delusional", or any such actions the panda ₯’ 11:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)