Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:43, 17 October 2012

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Mauro Lanari, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SabreBD (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Banana republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (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) 14:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cupio dissolvi

The article Cupio dissolvi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition as per WP:NOTDICDEF

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 2012 phenomenon. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Intervengo

Senti, ma con un'altro account puoi sempre entrarci e scrivere oppure sei bloccato pure in questo modo? Nel frattempo nella pagina di it.wikipedia Discussioni template:Cita libro ho aggiunto anche un esempio del template che ho creato appositamente così tutti possono vedere quello che dico subito. Raoli (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 phenomenon excessive reversions

Please stop your edit warring. Multiple editors have declined the material WP:BRD - take it to the talk page and discuss, dont edit war and get yourself blocked. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Cupio dissolvi

Please see the talk page. This original research, anachronisms and all, is not the way to move forward. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

On encyclopedias and reliable sources

Hey, Mauro! I just wanted to let you know/remind you about encyclopedias and reliable sources. As it says here, tertiary sources like encyclopedias are good for sourcing broad summaries, but aren't really appropriate for citing details. I think you're good so far, and I think that the reworked section will be a good addition, but as I said on RSN, you'll have to be very careful about things like reliable sources and synthesis, as it's going to be easy to slip into bad habits regarding either of those when writing about such a subject. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Don't know if you need one, but just in case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your additions to the List of Psychologists

You might want to take a look at a list generated by Legobot on my request: User:Legobot/Psychologists That is a list derived from the categories. Clearly, manually adding each entry is a hopeless task. I am checking if there is a way to merge it in, weeding out some entries there by mistake. Churn and change (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No way out.

How accurate is the information on this article?

How accurate is the information on this article? I'm not talking about this talk page. I'm talking about the article called "2012 phenomenon". --Fladoodle (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Like any Misplaced Pages article, it's as accurate as its sources. The reliability of its sources can be determined by their publishers. Serendious 05:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Like any Misplaced Pages article, it's as accurate as its sources. The reliability of its sources can be determined by their publishers editors. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. How well those sources are interpreted can be determined by the editors. Editors had nothing to do with the creation of the sources. Serendious 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Er, no. How well those sources are interpreted can be determined by the editors". That's enough: sources have not a reliability in themselves, their truthfulness is not self-evident. The paradoxes of the Catch-22, the bootstrapping, the circular reasoning aka petitio principii, the criticism of the impact factor, the Matthew effect: all epistemological problems still unsolved by anyone. Or do you believe to be an exception? Is perhaps Jimbo's motto: "not hesitating, editing without meditating?" Ps: "er", "er", "er": do you need a mouthwash? Sorry for the overlinking. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You are familiar with the Misplaced Pages rules on personal attacks, right? Also, the one about Misplaced Pages not being a discussion forum? Unless you have something constructive to say about how we might go about editing this article, keep your opinions to yourself. Serendious 12:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking to you, I'm just trying to give an answer epistemologically less indecent to the first user. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice work in elaborating AiC's musical style

Appreciate the contributions in musical styles section. Keep up the good work. Bloomgloom talk 16:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange but true: a discussion in talkpage with an appreciable result in the article. Also thanks to you. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Bro, place your thoughts in the subsection. Bloomgloom talk 07:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Adios

What happened to me was not justice by any means. Many of the so called good editors are bias in a very cunning way. Anyway, I might get blocked any moment now. Kudos to your meaningful & valuable contributions. Keep doing those good works mate. If it's possible I hope we'll work again sometime in future. Goodbye as of now. Bloomgloom talk 13:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Metalwayne. A tsunami of crap, this is the whole project of Jimbo. No other words. You are just the latest victim. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I dunno.. someone who consciously socked to avoid a topic ban is far from a "victim" in my eyes. Яehevkor ✉ 23:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah,it's hard to have too much sympathy for someone who knowingly broke rules time and time again. No victimizing here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That featured article had became bullshit with about 30% of no more updated sources. For the editcounters is fine just the add "dead link": a few seconds and go. Your so-called sockppupet instead has taken the trouble of the dirty job trying to replace the outdated sources. But in your inverted, perverse and evil meritocracy, he would be not good but bad for your stupid little rules from small children: you stop to look at only your formalisms, not the substance. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

He didn't get blocked for any of those things, he got blocked for sockpuppetry both times, and the reason he resorted to that is because he was unanimously decided by 8+ people (Technically even he didn't oppose.) that he was constantly edit warring, POV pushing, and even adding homophobic vandalism to articles. Go look up his WP:ANI report if you want to know more about his "noble" efforts. His background isn't as innocent as the few times you've interacted with him... Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

He can continue to edit the article (just not genres) when his well deserved block expires. Яehevkor ✉ 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In my idea of justice is infamous condemn someone and simultaneously take and keep his editorial contributions. If he is detrimental to the project, then you be consistent and revert all his edits. Do ut des, tertium non datur. Otherwise you are exploiters who use people as long as you need them. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. No one is exploiting him. He is neither paid nor required to be here. We are all volunteers here. Despite some good edits, he repeatedly ignored warnings and broke the rules. And he's not even banned forever anything, he just has to take a week off. Seems pretty straightforward and fair to me. Sergecross73 msg me 21:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that after the topic ban he was not blocked and was free (encouraged?) to pursue productive editing beyond genres. He did not do this. Яehevkor ✉ 21:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"No one is exploiting him. He is neither paid nor required to be here. We are all volunteers here." Here is explained quite well. PS: maybe are you two a pair of Siamese twins forced to intervene always together? Mauro Lanari. --134.255.169.95 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, they represent Fez & Michael Kelso respectively here on Misplaced Pages. :D MetalVayne talk 06:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)