Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:04, 1 January 2014

Archives

1

Archiving

I see you archived your whole talk page. Does this mean you fixed everything the bots say you broke? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sanitary sewer

Much of the material in your recent edit of subject article appears to be more appropriate for the combined sewer article. Please take a look at the combined sewer article to verify the difference; and move the material as you see fit. In the absence of objections, I intend to purge confusing combined sewer descriptions from the sanitary sewer article.Thewellman (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The two systems share a common history - it's only recently that combined sewers have been split. That doesn't mean that the general history isn't equally applicable to both, though. I have transferred to combined sewer.Noodleki (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixing things you broke

Could you confirm that you have fixed all the broken things that have been swept into your archive. I hope it is not out of sight, out of mind! Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you haven't been able to sleep, terrorized by frightening images of ghostly disambiguation links (!). All those broken things have indeed been nursed back to health, and they promise to be good.Noodleki (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to know that you are being thoughtful in all your actions here and tidying up after yourself. You are not operating in isolation. Good luck. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Welfare capitalism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• had over their housing and commercial opportunities. A noted example was ]] — a site of a strike that destroyed the town in 1894. During these years, disputes between

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Toy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Hoop, John Spilsbury, America and Peter Hodgson

History of statistics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Regression, Charles Booth and T distribution

History of surgery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Joseph Lister, Ligation and Ligature

Orthopedic surgery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to John Hunter, Battlefield and Territorial Army

Welfare capitalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Redundancy, Lowell and Wirral

Airborne leaflet propaganda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Axis and Hindenburg

History of psychiatric institutions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Enlightenment and Toledo

LGBT social movements (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to ITV and GLF

Surgery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Joseph Lister and Ligation

Art criticism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Neo-classical

Art museum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Church

Dieting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Cheyne

Harpoon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Humpback

Hotel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tremont House

Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rail

Power projection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fleet

Statistics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Regression

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Archaeology page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

British bias much?

It's one thing to add content to push a POV, but it's another thing entirely to remove sourced content along the way to help push it. Let's not play this game again, okay? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you been blocked enough times? Read WP:DUE. Your expansions are extraordinarily unbalanced and fantastically out of the approriate context. and you keep distorting content (deemphasizing Japanese and European contributions). And seriously—The Dandy, The Beano, and Comic Cuts are all so important that they must be in the lead, but the Lascaux caves and 13th-century Japanese origins are not? You can actually defend this? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I am getting tired with your extreme levels of aggression. Try to have a civil discussion. You've also quietly dropped your earlier (false) charges. Now, about that civil discussion. dandy and beano can be removed if you object, although I don't think Lascaux caves or medieval Japanese work should be there either, as they are not comics at all (they go in a section called 'precursors'). Do you find it extraordinarily unbalanced that I'm adding content on English comics, where before there was literally nothing? Despite the sources I have given demonstrating that the medium in fact developed there? You accuse me of deemphasizing European contributions. Now for some of those beastly facts. I actually added two paras on Topffer and Busch. This isn't 'pushing a POV' - its adding sourced facts.Noodleki (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And what POV, pray, am I pushing? In case you hadn't noticed, the entire first paragraph of the "English-language comics" was about British comics. "Despite the sources I have given demonstrating that the medium in fact developed " only proves you're POV pushing.

"During the 1950s and 1960s the most popular comic magazine for older age-group boys was the Eagle published by Hulton Press. The Eagle was published in a more expensive format, and was a gravure-printed weekly. This format was one used originally by Mickey Mouse Weekly during the 1930s.": what business does this have in an article that is an overview of the medium? This kind of thing belongs in a history of British comics, not in the Comics article—and is pretty much the only kind of thing you've added to the article, paragraph after diluted paragraph. Sentences such as "The first modern weekly comic was Ally Sloper's Half Holiday, which debuted in the British humour magazine Judy in 1867 and was created by Charles H. Ross and illustrated by his French wife Emilie de Tessier." are filled with trivial details that are amazingly beyond irrelevant to the scope of the article.

The "sources" you added are ridiculously poor quality—an article from a Scottish newspaper proudly proclaiming the importance of the Glasgow Looking Glass? What on earth was wrong with the book source I had added, one that talks about the Looking Glass in the context of the development of comics (and which you removed?!? Seriously?!?)?

"as they are not comics at all": The fact that you don't think the Lascaux caves are important is less than irrelevant—reliable sources, and plenty of them, talk about the Lascaux caves, either to support the claim or to refute it, and what you or I think is beside the point.

Bottom line: a five-paragraph section proclaiming the undeniable importance of British comics is mindbogglingly over the top—and the five paragraphs you added did a remarkably poor, tangent-laden job of doing it. The images you added also violate MOS:IMAGELOCATION and are unjustified "Fair Use" images (no rationale would be sufficient to keep them), and the Old Bumblehead is dumped into the article entirely without any supporting context.

Oh, and even after being told to take it to the talk page, you've opted instead to continue edit warring. Over poorly-sourced, poorly-written, poorly-organized, meandering garbage content. I'm flabbergasted. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

On top of that, we get this garbage: "The first British comic strip was The Glasgow Looking Glass, published in 1826". The Looking Glass was not a comic strip, it was an illustrated humour magazine (like Punch). So now you're not only bollocksing up the article with UNDUE and POV pushing, you're actually spreading misinformation in a particularly prominent place. Of course, if I raised a finger to fix up your mess I'd be accused of editwarring, so I'll have to stay my hand. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You are an unbelievably rude individual.Noodleki (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Meaning you refuse to address the mountain if issues your edits have wrought, and you intend to hold tenaciously to your POV and have no intention of discussing it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If you take a few deep breaths and calm down, then I would be happy to. It is the Season of good cheer, so try to be cheerful.Noodleki (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Then prove your good faith by undoing your changes and bringing your concerns to the talk page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How about you cool off in the shower for a bit. An apology would be nice as well. The Looking Glass is actually called a comic in the sources provided, by the way. I would respectfully suggest examining your own bollocks. You can do that in the shower, if you want, and kill two birds with one stone. Or you can "Stay your hand", instead. Excelllent biblical ring to that. Nice.  :) Noodleki (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out to you, the Looking Glass was already in the article, and with a high-quality source that puts it in its proper context—not some fluff newspaper article making boisterous claims to garner clicks—and you've inexplicably removed the source! Anyways, you've made it crystal clear that you have no intention of discussing this on the talk page, only pushing your POV and making lame wisecracks. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you've now made a series of false accusations, which I have rebutted. This, though, does not deter you in your onslaught. So, again, deep breath, count to ten. Now go to the comics page, and notice that an august selection of sources has in fact been provided. I have also rearranged the piccies and added a Fair use rationale - I've even removed the info that had you tearing your hair out all over the keyboard. I would have to tentatively disagree on one issue; the identity of the author and illustrator of the first modern comic is not "amazingly beyond irrelevant" - I think it is quite germane. Although it may be difficult for you, try to be constructive, balanced and objective. Peace.Noodleki (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"The identity of the author and illustrator of the first modern comic" is a source of heated debate impossible to determine, as the definition of "comics" has never been determined—as the article itself goes into. You think it's "germane" for an article to contradict itself? It would be extraordinarily easy to find another candidate for "first comics"—there are plenty of claims, including the Lascaux caves, Bayeux tapestry, Hogarth's works, etc etc etc, and plenty of far stricter counterclaims that would deny that Cruikshank's works were comics at all. Everyone's got an opinion, and everyone is sure that their own opinion is the only valid one, which is why at Misplaced Pages we only report the conflicting claims, we don't take sides with any of them, as you are doing.

Ever read WP:BRD? You made a BOLD edit, I reverted it—the next step is to discuss, not to editwar. You still refuse to take it to the talk page, and instead choose to push your POV and refuse to explain why you've removed reliable sources and content. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Paleolithic cavemen wrote the first modern comic, did they. Look 'modern' up in a dictionary. The sources are explicit. Looking Glass predates topffer et al. There 'are' no other alternatives. I have removed no content. It's interesting how you lurch from one accusation to another like an out-of-control locomotive barreling down the hill. I try to patiently correct you, but this just enrages you further. I really don't know if I'm getting through to you at all. Cheerio.Noodleki (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What part of "stricter counterclaims that would deny that Cruikshank's works were comics at all" is giving you comprehension difficulties? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's take this to the talk page.Noodleki (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There's an idea that never would have crossed my mind! Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Have reverted your changes. Bring it to the talk page and get consensus. You may be blocked if you continue edit warring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy and paste without attribution

In this edit

You added "British efforts at reform may have been influenced by the imperial examinations system of China. Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain's consul in Guangzhou, China argued in his Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China, published in 1847, that "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only," and that the British must reform their civil service by making the institution meritocratic."

Which is very much similar to "Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain's consul in Guangzhou, China. Meadows successfully argued in his Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China, published in 1847, that "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only," and that the British must reform their civil service by making the institution meritocratic."

You did this without attribution which is copyright infringement and was against your unblock agreement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You are a twit. That text is from the original Civil service article which I removed by mistake. This is now your third malicious attempt at getting me banned, yet you persist in making a fool of yourself. But, you won't apologize, will you.Noodleki (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes it was here before, you are correct. In your massive, continuous and disruptive moving of content it is very hard to follow what you are doing. Additionally your not using an edit summary makes it hard to follow aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, no apology and it was my fault. A) Get your facts right before hurling accusations. B) Do it again, and I will make a formal complaint, as this borders on harassment.Noodleki (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes taking this to ANI may be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Sewage treatment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Romans, Environment and Salford

Steamroller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rochester, Hyde Park and Chatham

Civil service (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Stafford Northcote and Charles Trevelyan

Government budget (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Peer and William Pulteney

Activated sludge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Environment

Armored car (military) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Quadricycle

Armoured fighting vehicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Quadricycle

Beauty pageant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Creole

History of comics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Judy

Movie camera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Science Museum

Unemployment benefits (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Labour Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

History of submarines

Although I appreciate your effort of History of submarines, I must admit that I am less happy with the 13 links to disambiguation pages that you have created. Could you fix those links as soon as possible? The Banner talk 21:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Done.Noodleki (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! The Banner talk 00:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Famine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your contribution to the Famine article and many other contributions to Misplaced Pages. gidonb (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)