Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 13 April 2006

Communications in Dutch: please see User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch

Overleg in het nederlands: op User talk:Francis Schonken/Dutch a.u.b.

Victionarium -> User talk:Francis Schonken/Latinus

Archive -> User talk:Francis Schonken/Archive 01

Updates

I've posted some important information here. --HappyCamper 01:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like we have others who would like to join in now. See here --HappyCamper 01:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Western nobility)

I don't know if you've noticed, but User:Jtdirl has nominated that page, created by you, for deletion. john k 03:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Norse mythology

Could you please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). A couple of editors are trying to force a guideline tag on it, even though it clearly did not reach consensus and violates existing guidelines. CDThieme 01:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Citation issues

You may be interested in reference/citation content/format issues in Talk:Global cooling#Citation format poll (see preceding discussion) and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SEWilco#Response. (SEWilco 05:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC))

Belgian Wikimeet

If it really is hard to contact Henna, you could try it via the student's association of her faculty. Easy to find via her home page. She is, or recently was, part of the board, so if you contact that, they should be able to find someone who knows what's going on. – gpvos (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual composers

Who does "Bredel, Marc, Erik Satie - Paris, Mazarine, 1982 - 232 p. - ISBN 2863740555" describe as gay? In other words, why did you add this uncited reference? Thanks! Hyacinth 12:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Current_surveys#Voting

Thanks for setting it up in a better visualization and more organized way! :) --Cacumer 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

standards

Ok, if you don't mind, i've moved this conversation to my talk page, since I want to keep track of it and I started, so I don't wanna take your space for it.

And thanks for your reply! Please, take a look at the conversation. :)

--Cacumer 16:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree almost completly with your last reply. I hope I got a final word about it, but you can (or should) comment. I just hope I won't feel like answering, because we would agree! :P

--Cacumer 19:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And we're done! :) (or so I've hoped)

--Cacumer 06:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't do it on purpose. This text editor I was using can't handle nonstandard characters. I forgot all about that. Thanks for informing me! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 15:51

WP:V citations

You may be interested in Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Why dont you join discussion. Are you not up to it?--Light current 22:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

refactoring

please refer to user_talk:cacumer#refactoring

You've got yet another message! :P

--Cacumer 11:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic numerals

Hi Francis. I appreciate your interest in the article. Don't you think the intro to the voting should have arguments for both "Arabic numerals" and "Hindu-Arabic numerals"? That was my intention of putting it on the top, and I certainly didn't want to spoil the space there. Dank je wel :) deeptrivia (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Schonken - I applaud your decisive intervention into this issue. After this, best wishes and merry Christmas to you.

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama's Arrow 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the info. After sending you this message, I myself realized the point by further reading about it! Makes perfect sense, and yeah, a (very belated) happy Sinterklaas and merry christmas from me too! deeptrivia (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Francis! As per your suggestion, we based the voting on the agreement that the suggested move is from Hindu-Arabic numerals to Arabic numerals, and:

• Those opposing the move have the advantage that it won't be moved unless there's a 60% majority
• Those supporting the move have the advantage that the person proposing the move can do the *short* opening statement.

I would highly appreciate it if you can make this clear to User:RN, who is closing the vote. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I expect you will play fair and clarify this point to User:RN. Thanks again! deeptrivia (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Come on Francis, I expected much better from you. The admin based the result on his assumption that the proposal was to move from "Arabic numerals" to "Hindu-Arabic numerals", and thus, more than 60% votes favoring HAN are needed. This is opposite of what we agreed upon at the beginning of the vote, whereby I agreed not to write anything in the lead text, and you agreed to move the article only if >60% voters supported AN over HAN. Why should I not be disappointed with you now? Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I've read through the medcom and medcab pages and I'm more confused than ever. It seems that the medcab has a significant delay before anything gets done and the medcom seems to assume a previous RFC — something which I'd rather avoid. If you can make more sense of this than I can then maybe you can suggest something. Alternatively we could skip the structure and just ask someone we both trust to conduct an informal mediation. Let me know your thoughts. - Haukur 08:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that was blunt but sensible. Maybe we can strike some sort of deal here. How about you read my suggested additions to the Exceptions part of the CN guideline again with a more positive mindset and I read your people naming convention with a positive mindset? If you'd be willing to accept my inserting that couple of notes on diacritics and British vs. American English then I don't see that I need to make more changes to that NC for the time being (I would like to get in a comparison of burping/eructation vs. farting/flatulence but it's not important and it can wait). And I won't insist on keeping the dog or the fixed-wing aircraft in there if you don't like them. And I won't insist on removing the link to that 2004 poll.

Maybe I'll be able to support your people naming convention (I have yet to read it thoroughly). Ideally I would like to take a break from working on guideline pages for now and concentrate my efforts on the article space. Since we don't tend to edit the same articles I think that the risk of further conflict between us would lessen.

Do you think we can reach some sort of understanding? - Haukur 10:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This was too large a bite for me to chew right now. Let me get back to you later. - Haukur 21:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

To be honest, I unlisted all surveys over a month old from the CS page, on grounds that surveys rarely get any meaningful comments after their first week. If CS gets too long, then nothing on it will get the attention it deserves. I believe your numbers poll either got lost in the shuffle, or was deemed too complex or too lengthy for the community to comment on, especially as the discussion is not immediately obvious. If you want my advice, I'd reword the poll to include more rationale and examples, reformat it to make it more legible (e.g. by using horizontal lines), cut the amount of questions in half because that way more people will take it seriously, and restart it in january because many people are on christmas break now. Radiant_>|< 22:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) looks good to me, and to the best of my knowledge matches most of what we already have. Let's see, some remarks...
• As noted on the talk page, it may help to put some thought into structuring articles like March 18, 2001. We probably don't need an article for each day in history. So which days get their own articles, and which go in March 18 in general?
• The bit about Roman numbers is weird. Some of them redirect to years, others to numbers. Arguably some should redirect to Roman numerals. Some consistency would be nice. And arguably, a lot of deletion since many of these seem to be entirely arbitrary.
• I think some standard would be nice on the repetitive events section, but good luck in getting any. I think we should stick with the "Event (year)" bit because it matches practice in other areas.
• Overall, looks good! Radiant_>|< 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:Importance

It's historical because no active discussion has been going on for a long time, and past discussion shows neither obvious acceptance nor obvious rejection of the page. If you want it reactivated, fine with me, but please get some people to join in e.g. at the village pump. Radiant_>|< 21:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor note

In order to try to lessen tensions I'm going to try not to work too much on naming conventions at once. So I don't expect to make further edits to those for today. - Haukur 11:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions

Thank you for your help. I apologize if I was doing things the wrong way. --BostonMA 14:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing Satie

Hello,

I am new to Misplaced Pages, and a fan of Eric Satie.I was trying to do some minor format editing on his article. However, when I attempt to edit, the page won't accept it. When I hit a key the page goes to the character box at the bottom. Can you help me with this? Michael David 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello again,

Thank you for your response. I'll try to edit it a bit later. My note was also an excuse to communicate with another Satie fan. As my User Page says I collect LP phonograph records. In the collection is a wonderful series of recordings of Satie by Pacal Rogé. I wish I could share them with you. Thank you, again. Be healthy. Michael David 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Polish monarchs?

So what is the deal with the Polish monarchs? Have we abandoned the idea of using "of Poland", as we do for all the other kings on wiki with reference to their kingdoms? - Calgacus 16:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sysin's objection

Short version: Sysin doesn't like the name "Republic of Macedonia" and wants to attach a footnote on the controversy over that name, apparently on every page that mentions it. He's arguing that the naming conflicts guidelines requires it. I co-wrote the guidelines with Ed Poor, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what the policy was intended to achieve - and it's not what Sysin is trying to claim! :-) -- ChrisO 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics

Looks OK to me, if somewhat overkill, but I guess all bases need to be covered in these things. What I get out of it is that (a) it only covers article names, not content; (b) diacritics are to be avoided in article names, as much as possible: I can't disagree with that; (c) people who use Microsoftware are in a horrible fix, as usual. Thank heaven I've been Macintosh since 1984.... Bill 14:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect sense. All the Unicode characters etc. appear onscreen correctly, and the instance where you apparently do something (was it ᾈ, i.e.  Greek capital alpha with smooth breathing and iota subscript? — I confess I didn't check) in 3 different ways did in fact, as you predicted it might, appear exactly the same each time — because I don't use DOS or Windows or whatever it is they use — so you did well to put the disclaimer in, that for people with good computers they'd all look the same: or else I would have been confused. Best, Bill 15:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

naming conventions

Don't just revert me. Discuss first. Thanks, --Urthogie 19:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, before we continue, could you make a list of what you don't like about the page in its current form(with my edits) on the project's talk page. I'm likely to agree with you if we can reach a compromise(I'm sure we can). Thanks, --Urthogie 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

K, I posted a question for you at the talk page of the subpage you created.--Urthogie 21:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please reply when you get a chance.--Urthogie 08:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied at talk page.--Urthogie 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions "rationale" section

_ _ I revised Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions#Rationale without grasping its intent, believing it needed cleaning up even if, after discussion, it perhaps gets deleted. As far as i can see, it is a non-sequitur, perhaps to forestall proposals to remove the "redirected from ..." text. Perhaps a dozen or so additional words could bridge better from the first sentence to your addition.
_ _ BTW, i conjecture that "works slightly comforting" was your conscientious effort at correct grammar, rather than an artifact of cutting and pasting to restructure an earlier draft of the passage. Comforting, while an inflection of the verb to comfort, can be used in three grammatically distinct ways:

1. As a verb in one of its "progressive" tenses. (Sorry, but i am unsure how official progressive is, in the sense i am using it; i'm not sure i was taught it in school even once, and certainly not repeatedly like most grammar.) E.g. present progressive, "He is subtly comforting her", where to my ear, comforting or is comforting is the core verb of the sentence, and is amounts, i think, to an auxiliary verb or auxiliary, having the same role as will or shall, or of did in "He did go."
2. As an adjective, as in "He said subtly comforting things to her."
3. As a noun, as in "His subtle comforting calmed her."

In the case of what you wrote, it is a noun, and must be modified by an adjective (slight, rather than the adverb you chose), e.g the counter-idiomatically awkward, but grammatical, "works slight comforting". (FWIW, it sounds like someone straining to recall the catch-phrase "offers scant comfort". Perhaps with good reason (as i understand German to be a bit more closely related to Dutch than to English), it also reminds me of usages in German that do sound idiomatic to me(in German), even tho i would probably never try to use them -- unless i were trying (probably, as i suspect here, unsuccessfully) to quote Mephisopheles's self-introduction, "Ich bin ein Teil der Geist der stets verneint, der stets die Böse willt, und stets die Gute wirkt." I'll presume you German is stronger than mine, until you say othewise.)
--Jerzy•t 17:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your English

_ _ Comparing the diffs shows you're neither as ignorant nor stubborn as your note on my talk suggested, but you need either better English advisors, or to use them more faithfully, or to be less confident when someone edits you.
_ _ I still don't know in what sense you think "on the other hand" connects the ideas it stands between, and i'd be surprised if anyone other than you can explain it, which is why i asked you rather than the community. But no matter, at least it doesn't look ignorant.
_ _ I changed three more things, one of them a change you had removed. Look in your English dictionary under lead; maybe the result will help you to accept the on top/at the top distinction, which is harder to document, on faith.
--Jerzy•t 07:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

I have replied to your message on my talk page, on my talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:V

Nice addition to the page, Francis. SlimVirgin 17:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Epochs of Roman Emperors

Please can you tell me why you reverted my edits on Template:Epochs of Roman Emperors. Thanks Andeggs 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Francis - I have replied to you on the template's talk page. Please give your thoughts Andeggs 11:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Emperor dab

Hi. You just reverted my page on Emperor (disambiguation) saying "no piped links on disambiguation pages". I've just had a look at Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation, where the only references I see to piped links are when specifying links to disambiguation pages and when repairing links. Could you point me to the policy which supports your position? If it's only a guideline, I strongly think ignore all rules applies here: exposing Misplaced Pages readers's to our internal # syntax is very ugly. Cheers --Pak21 16:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be tempted for something like

• • "Emperors" in the List of fictional rulers
  • "Kaisers", in the List of fictional rulers

but that's only a very small improvement on your version as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the MoS pointers as well. Cheers --Pak21 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:CLS

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Omniplex 21:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That discussion started here, so I'll copy what you've written on my page and answer it here:

I didn't count but I think you re-inserted

Categories are easy to use and essential like site maps on Web pages.

Each category can belong to one or more parent categories.

Each category can contain multiple subcategories.

more than two times in Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes over the last 24 h, after someone else had removed them, so:

• Nobody but you and me edited Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes (edit talk links history) in the last sixty hours, it's quite easy to prove that you started this. I count five reversions from you including the removal of {{controversial3}} on the talk page in the last 24 hours. One reversion after I've warned you. Not counting the reinsertion / move of my example to the talk page for discussion on both accounts I see two rvs from me, the first to your own prior version, the second reinserting four clear advantages of categories (omitting 5+6 as per discussion).
• In other words this...

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

• ...is nonsense, if you're unwiling or unable to cout to three stay away from this template.

Also, please stop posting inappropriate templates in guidelines and on their talk pages. Giving more breath to guideline disputes is possible, for example, by posting on wikipedia:current surveys and/or wikipedia:village pump (policy). Not by the disruptive antics you're using, remember: don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point --Francis Schonken 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Inserting {{POV-section}} in your intentionally misleading (dis)advantagews is most appropriate, because it's heavy POV. Omniplex 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

CA 2

Please visit California State Route 2 and vote on the page move. Since SPUI won't take the initative I will.JohnnyBGood 00:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Date linking

Thank you for taking this matter forward. I am very pleased that you have taken the time to do this (even though you voted "oppose" and I voted "support"!). Whilst not feeling very stongly on the date issue as such, I have been horrified by the retaliation being taken against Bobblewik. It seems to me these people have utterly failed to make any move at all to try and bring the guidelines towards what they feel ought to be said. Thincat 11:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot

Francis, thanks for letting me know about the discussions on SmackBot. I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression about being prepared to implement new solutions for days of the year pages - I thought I was clearly offering to do the right thing, regardless of whose idea it was and the amount of work involved! On the subject of the William's complaint, while I wouldn't want to call it frivolous, he has posted to about six admin pages, over a fairly minor matter, rather than coming back to me. Regards Rich Farmbrough 19:01 26 March 2006 (UTC).

Oh by the way can you point me to the focus of the "strong feelings by some wikipedians against including HTML commentary tags in wikipedia pages." Rich Farmbrough 00:56 27 March 2006 (UTC).

al-Khwarizmi

Hi, al-Khwarizmi is a disambiguation page. The page is now at Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi but Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Ḵwārizmī redirects there. —Ruud 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

RCC

Hi Francis, recently you voted on a move from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. That proposal was voted down, but now they're trying to accomplish the opposite: to change Catholic Church from a redirect into a disambiguation page (redundant with Catholicism, Catholicism (disambiguation), Catholic, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and other articles). There is an ongoing vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Survey 2, and your contribution to the discussion is very much needed. In fact, there's a revert war going on at Catholic Church with some people trying to preempt the vote and create a disambig page anyway. So more voices and your contribution to the discussion in particular is very much needed! --Hyphen5 13:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

PorthosBot

Hi. Thank you for leaving the note on my talk page. Well I have listed the request for bot aproval on March 3, 2006 (month before today), it is number 3.17 in TOC. I was waiting another 3 weeks (I think policy talks about "one week") before asking for the flag. Nobody cared about it until someone (you?) started the discussion on April 3.

On the other hand, I hope someone will finally care about this situation now. I would like to solve it with both-way satisfaction. --Zirland 11:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot

Thanks for the note. I will submit a request when I have time. On quick editing, your point is well taken, but people really do edit a lot faster then many think. For example you have made three edits in a minute. Also with tabbed browsing the "submit"s can come closer together. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 12:15 9 April 2006 (UTC).

I liked your example about the "anual opening of Congress". The word I was correcting manually was "millenium" -> "millennium". There are many cases where the original was left, generally because it was the name of an image or embedded in a URL. SmackBot has just gained approval for the task I originally applied for bot approval for (although I may have done it manually while waiting), a very simple replacement of "External link" with "External Links" where there is more than one. Best regards Rich Farmbrough 22:10 13 April 2006 (UTC).

Archiving

When archiving pages, please do not move the page to create the archive as you did recently at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. This loses important history records. Rather, create a blank archive page and paste the archived text into it, and manually remove the archived material from the main page. Thanks. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you check the history of Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 17 (the original page before archiving), the history goes back to 2002. Despite undergoing 16 previous archives, this is the first that used an actual page-move. Since that page is not actually a terribly active one except in the past few months, I don't think using the alternative is warranted, especially given the local precedent. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the next paragraph of How to archive a talk page is subtitled "Controversy" and recommends, "hichever way you prefer, you should generally stick to one procedure or the other on any given page, since mixing the two only causes confusion." — Saxifrage ✎ 07:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that WP talk:NPOV being a busy page is a passing thing. But, since the switch is well-documented now (and assuming future archivers use the same method), all's well that ends well. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)