Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:10, 19 August 2008

Ockbrook and Borrowash

Archived at Talk:Ockbrook_and_Borrowash. A R Driver 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lordship Lane, London

Archived in two parts:

1. User_talk:MRSC/Archive_3#Lordship_Lane
2. User_talk:MRSC/Archive_4#Lordship_Lane_disambiguation

A R Driver 10:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I apologize for reverting your edit to the Nicaragua article, i was merely trying to remove vandalism and did not notice. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. That was always the most likely explanation. The edit summary was not so much a complaint as an attempt to ensure that it didn't happen again. You appear to be doing a good job in trying circumstances on that article. Keep it up. -Arb. 09:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

Reply is on my Talk page. Xn4 15:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Moravian Church Foundation

Hi, I believe Moravian Church Foundation should be moved to Moravian Church foundation, please let me know your thoughts bby responding on my talk page.--Kiyarrllston 11:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. "Foundation" is part of their name. That makes it a proper noun (does it not?) and it is the way they always refer to themselves - see http://www.mcfworld.com/?lang=EN and compare Wikimedia Foundation. Regards, -Arb. (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC).

Yes indeed. - Does the Moravian Church Foundation have anything to do with Moravians (ethnic group) or the Moravian Church? I think the article should in the first sentence define it as and link to Foundation (nonprofit organization) if that is what it is. I found very little in google news regarding it. Regards, --Kiyarrllston 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages. No one "owns" the article. If you wish to add some words to link to Foundation (nonprofit organization) please go right ahead. Similarly, if you feel the article would be easier to read if it was restructured (eg to bring the church connection to the top) then feel free to do that too. It's always good to have more than one person edit an article - different people see things in different ways. -Arb. (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove link (C) Status unclear

To avoid fragmentation, this discussion is all at User_talk:Sfan00_IMG/Archive_1#Remove_link_.28C.29_Status_unclear -Arb. (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Userspace article Kingston to Montigo Bay

As per new policy, please change all wikimapia links to {{coord}}s in the form {{coord|123.456789|987.654321}} Thank you for your compliance. Yamakiri _C § 06-16-2008 • 21:15:24

Feel free to Ignore above request per the disscussion on User_talk:Sfan00_IMG, Your further input on the matter of geocoding welcomed, For example is the approach taken on the Jamacian churches page acceptable? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your approach (direct Wikimapia text link followed by {{coord}}) works well in that article with one minor quibble: it would look better if the coords were displayed in a slightly smaller font - as things stand they seem to overpower the accompanying text. Other than that, it appears to satisfy everyone's requirements. Whether it works for all articles we will have to see but it certainly has promise. -Arb. (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

External links in article body

Hello. As you are well aware, Misplaced Pages:External links does not condone external links in article body outside the External links section, and with links to geographical information services in particular, it instructs to give the information as coordinates only, not links to specific map services. WikiMapia is a great service, but you as an advocate of WikiMapia should try to understand that not everyone shares your enthusiasm about combining Misplaced Pages with a project that has incompatible goals, stucture, and terms of use. Please stop reverting people. --Para (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Response on hold pending the outcome of ongoing discussions elsewhere. -Arb. (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

TFD discussion

It is not a personal attack. It is a request for 217.36.107.9 (who is clearly an experienced editor) to identify him or her self.

You have no legitimate right to make any such request anywhere, let alone at TfD. Comment on content, not contributors. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it does seem strange that a clearly experienced editor chooses to edit anonymously. While you are free to do so, it should be obvious that it will raise eyebrows. And questions (eg Sock puppetry?). Particularly so as you seem (from User_talk:217.36.107.9#A_Roads) to be pursuing a somewhat Deletionist agenda within UK roads. -Arb. (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

B Roads

Hello Arbus Driver

I don’t know what you have done with the pages for the B1436 road and the B1156 road, they now revert straight to page B roads in Zone 1. Can you explain to me why?.Stavros1 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Have undun the redirections of these pages. Don’t know if you were responsible in the first place, but if you were, some contact would have shown some courtesy rather than a straight re-Direction. *

 stavros1  ♣ 

Greetings User:stavros1.

If you read the history at B1436 and B1156 you will clearly see that the redirects were put in place by User:Saga City and 217.36.107.9.

They appear to be waging a war of attrition against B Road articles in general (including the B1159 road in which I have a particular interest) and have recently succeeded in having deleted Template:GB B road zone 1.

-Arb. (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hello again Arbus Driver

I apologise for my confusion over edits concerning yourself. I have had dealings with the editors you mention before and in most communications they have been very uncompromising and suffer from some sort of Road snobbery. It will be interesting to see what happens concerning these B roads. Thanks for your information.  stavros1 ]] ♣