| Revision as of 16:18, 9 March 2018 editJeh (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,611 edits →Example of abusing templates to harass: rp from a talk page stalker← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:55, 10 March 2018 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,962 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Codename Lisa/Archive 32) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| |archive = User talk:Codename Lisa/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Codename Lisa/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Capitalisation when referring to articles per se (e.g. in hatnotes) == | |||
| Regarding your last edit at ], whilst this is rather trivial, as well as it being standard English usage, the following guidelines/policies (i.e.: all pertaining to capitalisation or hatnotes) prescribe the use of ] (rather than ]) for the name of an article when it is being referred to as such (as is always the case in hatnotes): | |||
| ; {{Section link|MOS:CAPS|Titles of works}} (cited in your edit summary removing sentence case) | |||
| :The 2nd paragraph (in full) follows:<blockquote>Misplaced Pages normally follows these conventions when referring to such works, whether in the name of an article or within the text. For other article titles, Misplaced Pages uses ]. In sentence case, generally only the first word and all ] are capitalized (this is ] of section headings, captions, etc.). Examples: ], ].</blockquote> | |||
| ; ] | |||
| :The 2nd para (in full) is the 2nd para above verbatim. | |||
| ; ] | |||
| :The 2nd para (in full) follows: <blockquote>Current style on the English Misplaced Pages is to italicize and to indent each note, without a bullet before the item. A horizontal dividing line should not be placed either under a note or after the final item in a list. Links to articles should follow the ] – typically ], not all lower case.</blockquote> | |||
| ; ] | |||
| :In its entirety:<blockquote>In general, each word in English titles of ], ], and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, and prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Examples: ], ], ], ]. (For details, see ]. For non-English titles, see ].)</blockquote> | |||
| It is also notable that all of the above always follow sentence case in their own usage when referring to articles as do nearly all other hatnotes on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| This convention is also implied by all the examples at ] (e.g.: ''Turkey (bird)'' at ]) and the documentation of the template in use at ], copied below: | |||
| <blockquote><code><nowiki>{{About|Use1||Article2|section=yes}}</nowiki></code> → {{About|Use1||Article2|section=yes}}</blockquote> | |||
| P.S. FWIW, in hindsight, consdering meaning, I think having two hatnotes at ] is preferable&emdash;since, as you said, despite the old hatnote wording, there are two different semantic errors involved (despite the guideline at ]). So, thanks for that. (I chose to initially only alter the existing wording to correct grammar to respect editors on the article who knew more about the subject.) | |||
| ] (]) 13:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello, {{u|Llew Mawr}} | |||
| :How do you do? I'm glad you dropped by. | |||
| :After reading your message in whole it appears that you are here to tell me that when I write hatnotes, I must use sentence case. So far, so good, but the problem I see is in this line: {{tq|"cited in your edit summary removing sentence case"}}. Actually, ; in other words, I didn't remove the sentence case; I enforced sentence case by toggling the case of a random upper case letter that was disrupting sentence case. The result is this: <blockquote>It is not to be confused with library software.</blockquote> The whole text is in sentence case. | |||
| :I have a feeling I am missing something here though. You seem to have spent a lot of time and energy writing a message that talks about title of works, but neither "It is not to be confused with library software" nor "library software" are titles of a work. (I can't remember a precedent either. "Microsoft store" vs. "Microsoft Store" rings a bell though.) So, what am I missing? | |||
| :Best regards,<Br/>] (]) 17:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for such a prompt response and for encouraging me to think about this issue (having previously followed the convention of capitalisation in hatnotes without reference to policy). | |||
| ::{{tq2|neither "It is not to be confused with library software" nor "library software" are titles of a work}}To be clear, I think "library software" refers to the article itself (not the phrase nor the topic) making it the title of a work, specifically an article title. | |||
| ::Although, I admit, that is more obviously the case with ] than ]. | |||
| ::If "library software" were the title of an external work, ] dictates the use of ] ("Library Software"). ] ("Library software") is only used in article titles and when referring to articles as articles. | |||
| ::FWIW, I think it is a failure in ] that it doesn't make this more explicit. Although I think the usual convention is supported by the definiton of ]. BTW, I obviously don't care about the caps on one article, but my interest is to get some kind of consensus between us, and more widely. We both seem to be editors who use disambiguating hatnotes a lot, and this is an area where an inconsistent style could cause ] (as it did to me when I read the article). | |||
| ::] (]) 23:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::You also asked for clarification on what I mean by "use sentence case". | |||
| ::I'm actually not sure we should be using the term, "]" (e.g.: at ]) to explain this to editors. It isn't a common expression outside of linguistics academia since it is solely an orthographic concept (which depends on meaning) lacking in practical application within typography, word processing or coding (except in very high level natural language processing). | |||
| ::This is becase, unlike other capitalisation cases, it isn't binary (i.e.: either in use or not on a given fragment/excerpt). Since your edit, the sentence is now indeed, as you say, in sentence case. However, the title of the article isn't. | |||
| ::Sentence case means the phrase in question starts with a capital letter as if it is a sentence (even if it isn't). For instance, bullet-point items should (per ] in ]) always be in sentence case (start with a capiyal letter) even though thet are sentence frsgments and even if they actually are within a larger sentence. | |||
| ::] (]) 00:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Ping|Llew Mawr}} Hi again. Sorry. I thought I responded to your message. But it seems I didn't. My apologies. Anyway... I had never thought about this matter like this. I mean I had read the exact same policies that you had ... and had interpreted them differently. I myself always write "the ']' article" or "the 'See also' section" following the CS1 style. The quotation marks justify the sudden case change. | |||
| :::Best regards,<br/>] (]) 19:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| The ] is asking for participation in ]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 83442 --> ] (]) 04:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == | == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == | ||
Revision as of 04:55, 10 March 2018
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Codename_Lisa. |
| This is Codename Lisa's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Welcome, Codename Lisa!
Hello, Codename Lisa, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of the thousands of editors here at Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Fun stuff...
{{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Mr. Stradivarius 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Codename_Lisa reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: ). Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Fixing my template
Thanks. I can be a real dunce sometimes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Example of abusing templates to harass
Hello, dear Wikipedians
The following message was sent to me by 2a02:c7f:963f:ba00:3928:4259:986c:bda5 on 18:34, 8 March 2018 {UTC):
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.
- Edit warring will lead to a block at least 24 hours or the page being protected from editing. Use the article talk page, not edit war. Both AN3 and RFPP report is filled. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:3928:4259:986C:BDA5 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
So, what's the problem with it? Well, apart from having no section headers, it came after 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:3928:4259:986C:BDA5 failed in filing a dual-pronged action request in both WP:ANEW and WP:RFPP at the same time. (Forum shopping) And he did all those things when anything that could be interpretted as "edit warring" had died down 48 hours before. So, this warning is nothing but a desparate last-ditch effort to be unpleasant. Of course, if I deleted it, it would seem I am hiding it because I am ashamed of something.
I have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of during the whole event. It is the rest of Misplaced Pages that should be ashamed of itself because of either being excessively rude and combative towards a good-faith edit, or supporting excessively rude and combative behavior of the initial reverter. Even when one editor wants to be a complete hypocrite about consensus, policies, guidelines and editorial decisions, there is still no excuse to be rude. So, any admin willing to threaten to block me for doing what I did there can save his or her breath: A wiki that mocks consensus and civility is like a hospital that mocks charity, and I definitely don't want contribute to such a place.
Still, it is my belief that Misplaced Pages has not lost its way yet. There are two things that loudly say there is still hope for the salvation of mankind: Pixar and Misplaced Pages. (Well, it is more than two, but these are the only ones I am willing to say right now.)
End of monolog in my own talk page. —Codename Lisa (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have any idea who is behind this IP? --NeilN 02:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- God himself.
- I am aetheist today.
- —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- It just a example and joke. It is not real now. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:65BB:5FBE:F4D6:1732 (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Uh, no. No one was laughing except you. It's an example of using a template to harass. Please don't abuse notification templates. Jeh (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- It just a example and joke. It is not real now. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:65BB:5FBE:F4D6:1732 (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)