Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:40, 22 October 2005

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

] 15:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Irak

Politically I agree with you, but the statement is speculative and not really encyclopaedic. Adam 12:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikpedia has an inherent left-wing bias. It's a function of the kind of people likely to be editing an online encyclopaedia - members of the petty inetelligentsia and underemployed graduate class (like me). There's not much you can do about it except have endless revert wars, some of which you can win if you know your facts well enough. Good luck. Adam 12:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi - Please vote to support the move from Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency at Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves. Thanks! ObsidianOrder 12:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just war

I am no just war expert. I'm sorry I cannot be of more help. NuclearWinner 22:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sopot, Zagreb

It's nice to see somebody (a) making new articles and (b) filling in some very local information about a non-English-speaking country :-) It would be really good if you could provide a photograph, even if Sopot does sound a little dull!

I jumped in mainly to correct a few spellings, but it looks like you picked up on them yourself so actually I had an edit clash. I classified this under "Towns in Croatia" but if you are going to be making more articles like this (Dugave, Travno perhaps?), do you think it would be better to set up Category:Neighbourhoods of Zagreb, Category:Districts of Zagreb (I don't know which would be a better translation of the Croatian) or just plain Category:Zagreb and put it in there instead?

Have fun with Misplaced Pages... I wonder if you'd like to consider making a few contributions to Wikitravel as well? You sound like you could provide quite a bit of useful information on places to visit in the region! --VivaEmilyDavies 22:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the best thing to do is follow the example of Category:Athens rather than make a category for neighbourhoods. Thanks for your reply! Hopefully Novi Zagreb will be getting an article soon --VivaEmilyDavies 23:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi :)

I recall you said hi to me on some talk page, but at the time I didn't have enough time to actually respond... so here it is :) --Joy 09:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here . Thanks. ObsidianOrder 17:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained Reverts

Looking through your contributions, it seems you have made a very large number of unexplained reverts. Please see the Misplaced Pages policy at Misplaced Pages:Revert that states, "Always explain your reverts." Obviously anyone else who makes an edit has a good reason in mind for thinking that edit should be there, so if you revert with no explanation, you have simply increased conflict without bringing people any closer to agreeing on a solution. — Cortonin | Talk 15:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Greater Serbia

Dejvid, regarding your complaint of a 3RR violation, a glance at the history suggests you may also have violated it. If you continue to revert, you may be blocked from editing for 24 hours. In the meantime, I've protected the page so you can discuss the issues on talk. SlimVirgin 01:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dejvid, regarding your query about the ground rules, the rule regarding reverts is that we're not allowed to revert the same article more than three times in any given 24 hours. See Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule. However, the three-revert rule (called 3RR) is an upper limit; ideally, we shouldn't get to that stage. I'm going to look around for someone knowledgeable in this area; there must be someone out there who can offer an educated opinion to help resolve the dispute. In the meantime, try to cite authoritative sources for any edits you make to the article, and ask Mir Harven to do the same. SlimVirgin 16:26, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thru a misspelling

Hi Dejvid,

In my dictionary, 'thru' is defined as an informal spelling of 'through'.

You might see 'thru' in things like song titles, and even company names (for example http://www.walkthru.org/ ), but it's not really appropriate in an encyclopedia or any formal writing.

It's similar to the use of the words 'lite' and 'light'.

The official OED website (which I have access to through my university), says thru: now used informally as a reformed spelling and abbreviation (chiefly) in N. Amer.

The New Oxford American English Dictionary 2nd edition (which ships with MacOS X 10.4) also says thru: informal spelling of through.

Cmdrjameson 00:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sociological considerations about greenhouse gases

Thank you very much for your feed back, I rewrote the article entirely! I must admit it was also not neutral enough, don't hesitate to formulate some other crtics.

A little question : do you think the following sentence would be NPOV enough ?

"Misplaced Pages is an excellent answer angainst global warming, because of its information content and because nobody can edit Misplaced Pages and drive at the same time!"

The last part sounds a bit like a joke, but it reallity it's perfectly correct, suppose a car lover get some sort of addiction to Misplaced Pages, he is very much likely to drive less!

Sociological_considerations_about_greenhouse_gases http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Laserresal

Sortan

Many of the cases Sortan has edited have been overwhelmingly CE/BCE before his changes. Some have not eg Library of Alexandria. I have to say that it is probably best to leave the decision BC v BCE to people who actually edit the individual pages but in some cases the result of this edit war has changed an overwhelmingly BCE page to BC. If we can't agree on criteria as to how to make pages consistent can we agree to a revert to the situation "ante bellum" so to speak. Dejvid 17:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Then, it appears that Soltan's single topic crusade on Misplaced Pages has been counterproductive. By "ante bellum" do you want me to revert my own edits?--Wiglaf 18:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Nah, if you look at the history it was User:Jguk who had previously changed BCE/CE to BC/AD. While it might be best to leave the decision to the people who regularly edit the pages, you're just inviting a visit from User:Jguk to force an article to use BC/AD that way. Sortan 18:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Most likely Soltan is a troll in which case he may even intend to be "counterproductive". Jguk has reacted to Soltan by going a beyond a revert to make pages consistetly AD-BC where they were overwhelming (if not consistently so) CE-BCE. So maybe when you revert then revert back to a pre Soltan state rather than to Jguk. On some pages active editors have taken action and there I think outsiders should leave things be. I might add that while I count myself as an outsider on most pages I am the most active editor for History of West Eurasia. BTW I fully understand Jguk's reaction but it isn't the best way to end an edit war.Dejvid 18:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

First, I resent repeatedly being called a troll... second if you're going to revert my edits, then please also go through this list to revert all of Jguk's edits. Sortan 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Way forward

Dejvid, thanks for your comments on my talk page. The strange thing is, we already have an effective compromise - don't change articles that are consistent in their style. It's just a shame not everyone can respect it. As for Sortan, as a troll, his edits should be reverted on sight - unfortunately it creates a lot of hassle when we do have a troll (as poor RickK found on many an occasion). It creates a lot of work for good editors, but if we don't stand up to them, WP would be overrun by them. I'd welcome your support in getting rid of Sortan asap, jguk 18:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It does, and thanks to the efforts of a number of editors, Sortan has been reverted in almost all instances - so I think this task is already done. If we see him edit again, we should just revert whatever he's done, jguk 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

suzerainty

The change "it was often suzerain to neighboring powers" -> "it was often under the suzerainity of neighboring powers" is exactly right, thanks :) --Joy 17:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hadrian

Hi Dejvid - thanks for the note; on 'thru', yes it is a (primarily US) variant spelling, but not a common one - even in the US, it is used mainly colloquially, not in formal text. Elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, I've seen 'thru' used on talk pages, but I can't recollect seeing it in any other article. I would regard it in the same way as the wiki style guide recommends against other colloquialisms like "it's" for "it is". Of references, they generally follow what they refer to, not precede it - starting a sentence with a reference looks very odd, which is why I moved the fullstops the other side - MPF 11:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians naming conventions

Hi Dejvid,

Misplaced Pages has already

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ancient Romans)

which I rather like, what would you think of something similar like

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (ancient Egyptians)

Anyhow, I suppose the thing would need some consideration, if you see

List of Pharaohs

and

Egyptian chronology (which contains a "cleanup" message)

and

Conventional Egyptian chronology

...each of these using more or less its own naming system (and these lists don't even contain non-regnal Egyptians, neither non-pharaoh deities, neither Egyptians in the Roman age...).

So probably not the easiest topic you chose with many opinions going around... But don't let that stop you! There are surely wikipedians wanting to assist, see for instance Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ancient Egypt...

Don't know whether this helps, maybe just taking your courage together and start the Ancient Egyptians NC would be a step that hurts nobody. --Francis Schonken 07:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Amphictyonic Council

In Amphictyonic Council, you put the title of the page itself into the merge message. With what page should it have been mergend?--J heisenberg 14:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki process

Thank you; I may yet ask to support such a PoV. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject inconsistency? Septentrionalis 23:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine

Ultramarine, in his arbitration proceedings, is claiming that you consider me to be a rigid Marxist. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence#18_September_2005. (Two of the footnotes link to your last edits in Talk:Slavery in antiquity.)The relevance of all this to the questions actually at issue is somewhat distant; but would you mind commenting on the evidence page?

Giving evidence will not involve you in the arbitration. If I read the instructions correctly, you should not comment directly on Ultramarine's remarks, but make a separate main section for your own testimony.

Thanks. Septentrionalis 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Poliorcetes

You're right, but I put "seiger of cities" for the alliteration, and because I think Rhodes was his major failure - and therefore notable. Septentrionalis 23:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek

Greetings Mr. Barnsdale: Noticed that you have reverted this article before. Have a look at "just the facts" heading on Dominion of Melchizedek talk page and please let me know if this is the right approach and your thoughts, if you want to help to find a consensus for this subject. KAJ 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)