Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 1 November 2006

Toy trains, Brazil

I saw the toy trains page but would like to know if there are users who have specific information about Brazilian made toy trains? - Pernambuco 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

USS Edison

Do you have a source for the June 1969 friendly fire incident you added to the USS Edison article? I'd like to be able to cite it.--agr 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I already sent it (two days ago) directly to you. Hope you liked it. Always glad to help. - Pernambuco 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Could you please revert yourself here. I want it, Marius wants it, and neither of us can do it because of the 3RR. Check the article's talkpage. --Tzekai 16:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

DON'T DO IT YET. SEE THE TALK PAGE. MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHERS HAVE AN OPINION. WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT BELONG ONLY TO TWO PAGE. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE DISCUSSED FIRST OR ELSE THERE ARE 3RR PROBLEMS. - 88.191.12.12 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. A third party opinion is always a good idea. I can not give an opinion because I really don't know enough about the subject. I just didn't want to see edit warring. I will try and research it so in the future I will know more. - Pernambuco 17:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to keep an eye on this page again. The same person who edit-warred yesterday has already done two reversions and has failed to answer my arguments in Talk. I am not asking you to take sides but merely mention this because you intervened in the dispute yesterday and now it looks like a repeat of the whole thing is brewing... - Mauco 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves. - Pernambuco 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I accept your position but now for the third day in a row the same person is at it again. He has already been reverted by 3 other editors, but he keeps pushing his paragraph. Someone like you, who is an outsider with a cool head, could do a lot to sort things out. Just consider it. - Mauco 15:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello! This message is in regard to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006. I'll be happy to help all of you out here, but first I've left an important message on that mediation page which requires your response. I would also appreciate it if you could watchlist that page so that we may facilitate discussion and communication. I look forward to working with you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria

I didn't understand your intervention in Transnistria's talk page. You reverted relevant info. See talk page of Transnistria, info is confirmed even by official Transnistrian sources. Reverting relevant information you did also in Transnistrian referendum, 2006, where neither me or Tekleni asked your intervention. Now we are blocked in a mediation where the same POV pusher like in Transnistria article refuse to accept. Please discuss in talk page before reverting. I would apreciate if you will revert yourself in Transnistria.--MariusM 01:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise. - Pernambuco 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In the other page your edit was bad also (and at the same side, you removed a paragraph that Mauco want to be removed). The problem is: did Mauco have "veto" rights in Transnistria related articles? If he simply is not agreeing with the obvious, should we accept to hide relevant info? As you know, I asked a formal mediation with him, in 2 cases but he did not agree with it also. I don't know what to do.--MariusM 11:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past, in this and other pages. I am not asking for my version to be reinserted, but merely to keep the disputed sentence out of the page until consensus is reached. This is something which MariusM also considers to be a valid principle, in fact as recently as yesterday. I have a serious concern on the accuracy of the source which I have documented in Talk:Transnistria. - Mauco 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me think about it. - Pernambuco 19:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mauco is agreeing with the principle "keep disputed paragraph out" only when it fits his interest. In the same article where I asked to keep the disputed paragraph out he reverted me --MariusM 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names. - Pernambuco 06:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Mediation

Hi there, I have just taken on the Northern Ireland case as a Mediator. If you approve of me to be the mediator, reply here, and state whether you like public or private mediation. Thanks, ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Looking forward to working with you. - Pernambuco 00:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Europe

You made a "support" comment that sounded like you were agreeing that we should rename the template, but it was in the section asking if there was consensus for various code-formatting changes unrelated to the template's name. I moved your comment up a section so that it appears in what I think is the intended place. Please revert me if I'm wrong! Thanks. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Mediation 2

Seeing as the Northern Ireland page is pretty stable (see some of the involved user's explanation on the mediation page, most notably the last comment), I would like to ask whether you think the problem has been already solved, and should the mediation case be closed. Thanks. ¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! 04:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the minority should have a chance to get their voice heard. If they insist on mediation then I support that mediation should continue. To "give them their day in court" if you know what I mean. If not, then they will have a bitter memory of Misplaced Pages after they leave in disgust. - Pernambuco 22:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the case is like this: Now, most of the parties agree to stop mediation, because they say they are pretty happy with the current situation. They think the problem has been solved. I would like to ask whether you are also happy without mediation. If you are not, Mediation continues. --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?! 00:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am easy to please: I am happy without mediation. Just one thing: You say "most of the parties agree to stop mediation". They sticking point is the word "most". If one single person still wants mediation, it means that I will side with him or her and will prefer mediation to continue. This is only fair. However, if no one else wants it then I do not want it either. If my meaning is not clear; I can explain it better. - Pernambuco

Mors

Hi, no problem about the "one of the world's best". I've probably made several similar mistakes before I read the Misplaced Pages guidelines on the matter. Regards, --Pappa 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you take my edit correction in the spirit that I intended it. Still friends!!! We all make mistakes from time to time. I will keep correcting yours when I spot them. It is great to know that you don't mind that. - Pernambuco 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WC

I was thinking the exact same thing. Note that there's currently a thread about him at WP:AN/I. Khoikhoi 21:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Template:Countries of Europe

Hi Pernambuco,

David, there is a debate on which entities to include in the template. See talk page Template:Countries of Europe. The dispute is contentious which is why this page is currently protected. We are currently in the middle of seeking to work out consensus...

Apologies; my impression was that a consensus to remove any and all territories that were not standalone countries recogniz/sed by the UN was established some days ago. I'm about to create {{Dependent and other territories of Europe}} as a consequence (thence {{Dependent and other territories of X}}).

However, your edits today can appear a little "dictatorial" (if you don't mind the word) because they come in the middle of a controversial discussion and you did not participate in the discussion...

I believe I did...?

...so it does not appear that you are the only one who have a say in this particular template. You should also participate in the current, ongoing discussion in Talk.

I'm surprised that it appears to you as if I am the only one to have a say in this (or indeed the other related) template/s... Do you start reading from #This and similar templates' names...?  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you left the discussion right when it was heating up. After the page got full protection, we did not see you again. It is still ongoing. Many important points have been raised since then. It has several editors involved and one of the participants (Wissahickon Creek) crossposted to another page to get third party comments, which we also got. - Pernambuco 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh... Well, I was under the impression that (for once!) there was some consensus over this issue. I'll post an explanation/apology to the talk page. Meanwhile, I've now created {{Dependent and other territories of Europe}}, consisting of those sections of the (former) {{Countries of Europe}}/{{Europe}} that aren't fully-fledged, UN-recognized countries. Together, therefore, {{Countries of Europe}} and {{Dependent and other territories of Europe}} reconstitute the former template. Are you / do you think other folk will be content...?  Thanks for your thoughts, David (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will! Just, I can not speak for the others. It is best to discuss this. - Pernambuco 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David. David made good edits since I requested that the page should be protected. We have to reach consensus and I've explained maybe too much what and is not an unrecognized country. --Wissahickon Creek 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your approval. I've revisited Template talk:Countries of Europe and wonder if a specific one-issue poll – viz. whether {{Countries of X}} and {{Dependent and other territories of X}} templates are kept separate or are combined to make (say) {{Countries and territories of X}} templates – might reveal a consensus if more folk are invited to comment via WP:RfC...?  Regards, David (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like polls David WP:Poll. But we can make one if you want. However, I tried to explain why can't be place for unrecognized regions in that template, and why via RfC, what exactly do you suggest? :) Wissahickon Creek 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that if there's a wider consensus out there, let's try to identify it, for the sake of Pernambuco and anyone else uneasy about the status quo. If nothing conclusive were found (which is my suspicion) then that's not a cause to change to status quo (cf. category renaming/deletion/etc). With perhaps the exception of the "For dependent and other territories, see Dependent territory and List of unrecognized countries" pointer, I'm happy with the status quo, so am not gagging to set up a RfC; I'm just sympathiz/sing with the idea. Yours, David (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)