Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:51, 2 April 2015

If you are here because I reverted an edit of yours it's likely by accident or because your edit damaged enough that I assumed you made a mistake. Feel free to undo my revert if you fix what was messed up. See WP:WCW for more information.

Re:Undo in the Dag Hammarskjöd Library Page

Dear User:Jerodlycett, I spent time adding new an more accurate information on the current work of the library. If you look at the library website, UN Pulse is not anymore on the homepage. UN-I-QUE has not been updated recently (last update is July 2014). If you follw the library social media, you'll see that the curent focus of the library is to promote new research tools, including research guide and Ask Dag. Instead of simply removing my work, maybe you could edit it so that the legacy information that you refer to are not gone, but the new information is not simply erased.

@Silikani:My apologies, but it didn't look like any of the information had not been linked to from that page. Part of the issue was you damaged the headings, which suggested that you weren't fully aware of how to edit Misplaced Pages. You also turned a chunk of WP:PROSE into a list. Feel free to revert. Jerodlycett (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jerodlycett:. Thanks for precisions, indeed, I am not fully aware of all functions. I thought you did not agree with the content. I will be more careful.

Honora Sneyd

Thanks for pointing out inconsistency in dates - there was a footnote about it, but FYI your bot messed up the infobox, so I reverted --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: Not a bot, just didn't pay attention to how the template worked. Odd that it can't work when you only have the birth year. Jerodlycett (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Because in calculating age it needs the exact date or instructions to use a default date such as June 30. Believe me I already tried it here and abandoned it. Fortunately we have contemporary accounts that says she was 28 when she died. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: Maybe try {{Death date and given age}}Jerodlycett (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

that worked! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Latrobe Valley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Gospel According to Matthew

I agree with you that something needs to be done, but the responding editors who say that you haven't provided diffs are right. The history of conflict here goes back at least to February 2014, but the fact that conflict has been going on for a year is not a reason to impose sanctions on specific editors. More later. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Honestly, I'm barely keeping quiet on AN/I, but it's a noticeboard for Admins, not for regular editors. I guess I should provide an oldid link or something, but honestly the majority of the NPOV/N is still them fighting each other. The archives themselves are 100% fighting. Providing a diff is so that you don't have to read large amounts of a page or go through a bunch of history to find something. In this case either the majority of the NPOV/N (and the entirety of several sections of it, which I linked to) or the entirety of several archives is the material that needs to be diffed. If I provided the diffs it would take at least an hour copying and pasting them between two windows to provide them all, and I don't feel like wasting that time when just reading the material linked would only waste seconds on non-topical (to the AN/I) material. Neither commenter is an admin, are being non-constructive, and lack the ability to read. I am just going to ignore them at this point. If they keep it up I'll just report them for being disruptive. Jerodlycett (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The one thing that Robert probably most needs doing, I regret to say, is something he apparently doesn't want to do, and verify that his scurrilous allegations are inaccurate. Unfortunately, I think there is a very serious "ego" problem involved there. There is a certain class of people who believe that they have a right and duty to tell all others to behave, and at the same time have the right to do things that they would criticize others for in the process. Robert's completely ridiculous statement alleging personal attacks is one of the, frankly, most obnoxious pieces of self-righteous stupidity I have seen in wikipedia lately, and I think demonstrates very serious questions whether he can differentiate between his own personal deeply-held opinions about how he believes other people should behave and the reality of policies and guidelines. But, as is typical in many such people who hold personal opinions as being the "truest" reality, it may be that he as an individual is completely incapable of recognizing his own flaws in this matter. And, honestly, Jerodlycett, I have to say your own ANI posting could reasonably be called "disruptive," possibly more so than any of the comments you criticize, although it would be unreasonable for you as a comparatively new editor to know that. Like I said, I intend to gather together the evidence for the ANI thread this weekend, after I finish breaking up the dictionary of the Book of Mormon into separate articles at wikisource. And, also, I guess FYI, rather than listen to the obnoxious and unsupported allegations made at NPOVN, by people who clearly have not read all our policies and guidelines and essays, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to read them through before your next such attempts. And, also, like I said before, if you want to work on one of the Methodist encyclopedias in the public domain at archive.org, and want some help, let me know. It's really little more than proofreading, and can be used to generate a rather remarkable amount of still missing content. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)