Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:23, 5 October 2014

Thanks for adding to Sandburg template

Thanks for adding Remembrance Rock to Template:Carl Sandburg - I was surprised that there weren't more Sandburg works with their own WP articles. KConWiki (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just created the RR article itself! I haven't read it yet, and I'm reluctant to repeat the summaries from the two NYT reviews. Also, it would be nice if someone in the Chicago area could photograph the rock and so on. There are several websites with a picture of the rock, but I found none that offered a WP-compatible license. Choor monster (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the recentness of the RR article, what a nice coincidence! The template itself is only a couple hours older than the article. Any other work you do or ideas you have on Sandburg's works in WP, please of course feel free to contribute to the template. KConWiki (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a coincidence. I created the RR article because I've made improving List of longest novels one of my little projects, and today was the day I found a first edition RR and decided the list should have a link. When I looked at the CS page, there was no template for his works whatsoever, but then I noticed there was one on the CS works page, edited it there, thought about adding the template to the CS page, and there it was. I thought I was having a senior moment before my time or something. Way cool.

As for CS works in general, I probably don't have much to contribute, but I'll keep it mind. I've been going after seriously ignored significant modern literature. Choor monster (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Detour (novel) help request

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I recently moved Detour (novel) to Detour (1939 novel) and redid the former as a disambiguation page. But the Talk:Detour (novel) is still the Talk:Detour (1939 novel) page. Trying to edit the former talk page (through the Talk button or the link takes one to the latter talk page. Presumably fixing this will create an uncreated talk page, but if not, a blank page is appropriate. Choor monster (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the talk page. I will give you some information for future reference, in case you come across a similar situation again. If you tried to go to Talk:Detour (novel) you would be taken to Talk:Detour (1939 novel) as you know. However, just below the page title "Talk:Detour (1939 novel)", it said "", and just underneath that it said "(Redirected from Talk:Detour (novel))", where Talk:Detour (novel) was a blue link. If you had clicked on the link, you would have been taken to the page Talk:Detour (novel), where the only content was a redirect link, and you could have edited that page and removed the redirect. If that's not clear, click on this link: User:JamesBWatson/Example. You will be redirected to User:JamesBWatson/Example2, but you can click on the link from there back to User:JamesBWatson/Example and edit that page. Try it, if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually, I've edited redirects before, for example, Detour (novel), after I made the move was turned into a redirect. It simply never occurred to me I was looking at a redirect on the talk pages. I assumed I made the move itself in a slightly incompetent manner, as opposed to following up in a slightly incompetent manner. Choor monster (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Another help request

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello--I'd like feedback on both of these issues. The first one below has a very short discussion preceeding on Talk:***, while the other one is a new question and can proceed here.

I'm answering the second, and will leave the help request open, but you should probably move your help request to the relevant talkpage, rather than keeping it here, as it's a bit confusing for helpers to work out exactly what you're asking. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the *** question is on its Talk page. As for Michael Brodsky the digital media artist, where would I put the discussion if he didn't have the same name as somebody else? That is, I browsed around for general help on a notability question, drew a blank, and went for the generic. Choor monster (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible requesting more attention by either requesting help at WP:HD or requesting a "Move" at WP:RM. Regards, mabdul 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this Michael Brodsky notable?

In researching information about Michael Brodsky, the writer, I've come across two other people with the same name. One is a Ukranian politician with his own page, Mykhailo Brodskyy, so for him I added hatnotes. But another Michael Brodsky is this fellow, a digital media artist/photographer. I have absolutely no idea if he qualifies as notable.

The question, to me, is whether the existing Michael Brodsky page should be moved to Michael Brodsky (writer) and then the page replaced with disambiguation. Choor monster (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, but basically, whether the digital media person is notable or not, we don't need to do anything until such a time as someone decides to write an article about him. At that time (which could be tomorrow or in five years or never), then yes, we would probably move the existing page to (writer), have the new page as (artist) or somesuch, and have a disambig page. But there's no point in doing it right now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I'm certainly happy with leaving things as is, and I'm not expecting Michael Brodsky links to grow very large. It's just every so often I come across a link to an existing page, when actually the person is somebody not on WP, and the like, and I believe a teensy-weensy bit of defensive planning helps. For example, in wikifying the numerous book reviewers I've been quoting, I discovered that Jim Dwyer, who seems to have been a prolific book reviewer, is probably not notable but his name is: there are several James Dwyers, but as none were him, I added a non-linked line with a comment explaining why. But I can't do really do that with a hatnote. Choor monster (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Toomer

Hi Choor, I suspect your Toomer image File:Jean Toomer, Margery Latimer.jpg isn't going to stick and will shortly deleted as the license isn't right. As it was published by Time after 1923, I assume it's still under copyright. It's a shame though as it is a good addition to the article.Span (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You could be right. I was careful to give the rationale that the photo illustrates the miscegenation scandal, and not "we need a photo of the happy couple here", since that's never acceptable. Note that TIME is not the copyright holder, the photo credit is given to "Wide World". Humorously, Wide World is not a source of information about what might be going on here.

I took the liberty of replacing your nowiki here with an extra colon in front of "File". Choor monster (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Children's Books by Carl Sandburg, Choor monster!

Misplaced Pages editor Gareth E Kegg just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This was better served as a redirect.

To reply, leave a comment on Gareth E Kegg's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Category:Dr. Seuss parodies

Category:Dr. Seuss parodies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Joseph McElroy, NYUFASP, 2012.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Joseph McElroy, NYUFASP, 2012.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

ww2censor (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Dr. Seuss parodies

Category:Dr. Seuss parodies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • 01:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The World of Carl Sandburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Sullivan (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) 11:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Tunnel (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Tunnel (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) 11:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Brownout

Choor monster, you are right that the MOS permits red links but only if a non Disambig page contains a link. This is an orphan redlink. If orphan red links were allowed on Disambig pages those pages could clutter up with all kinds of non notable whims and fancies of anybody. The purpose of the Disambig is to disambiguate between wiki pages that exist or are already referred to and should contain no information other than just enough to assist in selecting the right page. Adding red links adds information, in fact it forces a definition in the disambig page itself ext because it is not covered anywhere else. If the topic is real and noteworthy I encourage you to create the article first; it is hard work getting a new page up but worth it if you can do it. Good luck. Ex nihil 20:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Choor monster (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dissident Gardens 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:

• for the forthcoming New York City ] team, to be known as the Sunnyside Pros (short for "Proletariats". His mission ends in abject failure when Shea breaks the news to Lenny

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 15

Hi, the procedure for nominating redirects is at WP:RFD#HOWTO which includes the format for the nomination, tagging the page and notifying the author. I have now carried out the necessar actions. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Choor monster (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Curt Leviant

Hi, I was trying to correct some mistakes that were on the page. What should I do to make the appropriate corrections? Thanks Francescabigapple —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The only mistake I am aware of is the correct publication year for The Yemenite Girl. After I reverted your edit, I put that one in. I have no idea of why you were changing the lede. Since you supplied absolutely no references, let alone reliable references, and offered absolutely no explanations, I reverted it automatically.

Edit correctly. Include the "Edit summary". Use the "Preview" button before saving every single time. For example, had you done so on my talk page here, you would have discovered that you did not add a new section header correctly. Do not delete references without explanation. Use the Curt Leviant talk page. If you need practice, use your private Sandbox. In addition, someone gave you a list of links for beginners on your talk page. Use them, you'll find lots of people willing to explain fine details.

And always sign your talk page edits. Choor monster (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the changes I was trying to make (such as date and place of birth) are based on a recent interview that the writer gave to the Italian weekly magazine 'Sette'. I have also instered references to this interview to justify the editing but these have been reverted as well. Therefore, what type of references should I provide to edit the page? Thank you Francescabigapple —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss things on Talk:Curt Leviant, after reading what you've missed out on over the past 12 days. Choor monster (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

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.

Pennsylvania Attorney General (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Frederick Smith, James Campbell, James Cooper, John C. Bell and James Todd

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Bert Bell

Can you please put in a better citation for Bert Bell's father being selected as the PA AG. Your edit implies that a citation is required. The source I use for my citation is one that I view as generally kind of sloppy. I do not think I miscomprehended what my source wrote, but rather I think my source is sloppy and you correction is more factual. However, you have hijacked my citation - my source is no longer valid if your statement is correct. Can you please correct that in the article. Please do not use my citations to edit the article. Please challenge my statement and my source in the article so I can fix it, or better yet provide a better source to substantiate your edit. I believe your edit is a correction so I hope you will follow through with a proper citation. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You are less active than me, so I will move it to the talk page as a TODO. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franklin Square (Manhattan), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Franklin (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) 08:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pennsylvania Attorney General, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Lowther (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) 11:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Reed (lawyer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sergeant (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) 09:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Sir Orfeo, first page, Auchinleck.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sir Orfeo, first page, Auchinleck.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:DAB

The guideline allows for common sense exceptions. I'm aware of MOS:DAB, but since that item on the dab is equally covered in two distinct articles there is a reason for giving both. re (Reverted, please follow MOS:DAB, 601268340 by In ictu oculi (talk)) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively one could follow the letter of MOS:DAB and simply delink the second article while retaining the information. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• I noticed the dab page was violating all sorts of MOS:DAB advice.

• Remember: dab pages are not articles, and the information should be kept as brief as possible to enable searchers to figure out which page is the one they want. Songs tend to accumulate covers, so usually mentioning them is just trivia, which is extraneous cruft on a dab page.

• Note that I left multiple artists alone: they are almost never cruft. I left two blue links on the line with two artists.

• While you're here, is there any good reason why Give Me Your Love is a redirect to the Swedish duo's version? I removed it from first place by itself on the dab page. Choor monster (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits.

Re Mason, there's an exception for the Curtis Mayfield song in that the Barbara Mason 1972 recording is more notable than the original. Anyone coming to the dab looking for it may not realise it is the same as the Curtis Mayfield song, that is why "covered by Barbara Mason 1972" should be left.

Re Give Me Your Love, it's simply that the Swedish duo Fame's 2003 song is linked in a lot of Eurovision articles. It evidently is nowhere near WP:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to Curtis Mayfield etc, but all the same it will take time to fix the incoming links. Hence leaving it till I have fixed those links. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• OK, that's all good. I put Mason 1972 back in and unwatched the page. Two suggestions: (1) Song information for non-article songs is often crappy around here, and there ought to be more in-article links, at least with footnotes, and (2) although there might not be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, perhaps Mayfield's stands above the rest and deserves to be by itself up top? I wouldn't know. Well, OK, I know Waterloo should not be a redirect to a different Swedish Eurovision song's article. Choor monster (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Friendly side note

I just thought this was relevant and might amuse you: . I won't say who's playing which role, of course!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Personally, I consider the linguistics of reference and meaning a fascinating subject. Go ahead, wrap your head around Cappelen and Lepore Language Turned on Itself. Required reading for all (wiki-)lawyers.

(And I can't actually care if you snark me or not.) Choor monster (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

-gate

I wasn't clear enough. My point was that it was slightly confusing to have two words next to each other at a place of possible line break when the hyphens were consecutive. The part I found distracting was the fact that we had a hyphen at the end of one line and also at the beginning of another; I momentarily thought it was the same word, truncated due to word length, and that someone had accidentally placed two hyphens instead of one. With the words switched, this problem is alleviated, since it's hyphen/word/word/hyphen, regardless of where the line is actually broken. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry

Your recent editing history at Yank Barry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. R3ap3R (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Comeback (disambiguation) 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:

• *"]", by The J. Geils Band from ''Love Stinks]''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry and significance

Hey,

I think things went off the rails at the YB discussion when you cited WP:BLP1E for its use of "significance" as a term of art, and you were promptly and widely misunderstood as citing that for something else. I understand how frustrating it can be when you make your point carefully and with cites, only to have multiple people (myself included) persistently misunderstand. If you're still interested, could you explain here (small words, please) what you'd like to have changed in the article and why? I think I see your point (but perhaps don't agree with it), but I'd rather hear it from you.

If you'd rather not bother, no worries, I understand.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't believe the lawsuit deserves any mention whatsoever. However, so long as it meets various WP criteria for conclusion, including all possible BLP issues, I accept the consensus to include. I also accept the inclusion of the fate of the lawsuit, and prefer the minimal wording "dismissed", as it is last time I checked. Although PR is acceptable as a source, with restrictions, it seems in this case to likely involving spin and puffery. I'm perfectly happy to read WP:BLPPRIMARY with its harsh restriction on court documents to "augment" other RS as allowing for the statement of the conclusion of a RS-documented filing of a lawsuit, just like I'm perfectly happy that we read "John Does 1-50" correctly and not as screwed up by some RS. I didn't comment on these last details since it seemed normal WP discussion.

But the other discussion! Egads.

It's my firm belief that this lawsuit has attracted attention on WP all out of proportion to any objective evaluation of what its actual significance is in the life of YB, and pretty much none of the editors are even trying to consider that possibility. Just read WP:BLP, top to bottom, not trying to actually apply any particular sentence. There's an overall tone, a we-sincerely-request-that-you-don't-write-about-everything-just-because-you-can imperative, only some aspects of which are then spelled out, simply because they come up repeatedly. In particular, "significant" is only defined in BLP1E because it nailed down that particular The first time I mentioned this Rich responded, oh no, all lawsuits are inherently significant, they involve time and money and all that, and besides, it's a lawsuit against WP editors, and boy, that's like finding a four-leaf clover, ergo, its inherently significant twice over. I can't see how we are allowed on WP to go around making our own judgment calls regarding what is or is not significant. In particular, since absolutely nothing happened except a bunch of WP editors ran around having an editing party and then a talkfest, well, that to me caps it.

I think it was John who explained that it was significant because it was part of YB's behavior regarding using the courts. Again, my reaction is, what on earth does that have to do with WP policy? Nothing. He also mentioned that YB is promising to refile. Again, I don't see how that can possibly matter. This is 100% obvious, yet when I mentioned it, the various editors go nuts. I don't get it. They're experienced editors. This is newbie justification, borderline WP:TRUTH-level of cluelessness.

Well, thanks for coming over here. Choor monster (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I certainly see your point. I do think this comes down to a judgment call on significance, and while I think the slashdot coverage (and subsequent traffic) makes the lawsuit worth mentioning, I also understand that reasonable people could come to a different conclusion. (I also agree with you that the other arguments you were given were not particularly on point.) You raise a larger point, though, that I think is worth addressing: I can't see how we are allowed on WP to go around making our own judgment calls regarding what is or is not significant. I'd argue that this is all we can do, and those choices, combined with the conversations about them, are what maps out consensus (with the written policies being a static, fuzzy sketch of a consensus that continues to evolve). That's certainly not the accepted view (and might be a little too close to the philosophy of legal realism for your taste), but I find it leads to a less stressful way of working here. Anyway, thanks for your past (and hopefully, future) contributions to Mr. Barry's article. I appreciate the care you take in your editing, even (and especially) when I don't agree with you. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that at some point judgment calls are made, and that's where consensus comes in. I'm perfectly willing to accept intelligent consensus, even if it's not my preference. However, in this case, I don't see people making judgment calls in the right place. Not even close, not even trying, and not able to even think of such an idea. Choor monster (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for creating the John Milton Oskison page! Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your insistence on "five"

Please see my entry on the talk page. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for identifying and reverting punctuation vandalism DocumentError (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Z147

October 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Helen Hooven Santmyer. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)