Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 11 January 2019

Re: "level-headed and balanced assessment of the situation"

No problem. This is a very delicate situation where groups have dug in trenches long before this specific issue came up. Emotions can run high, and with all the mounting ridiculousness on Twitter and FB, it's a relief to check the Talk page and find someone like you there. Please, keep it up. clicketyclick 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The above

I have left the above on my talk page not as indicative of my level-headedness, of which I possess almost none, but because in the over five years I have been editing, no-one has ever suggested before that I might be the calm voice of reason. I look forward to it happening again in 2020 or so.

A cynic would observe that, on this occasion, some of the other editors involved may have been associated with the "ethics in internet misogyny" crowd, and that even I look good next to them. Particularly if that cynic was me getting back to my usual unreasonable self. :-) Pinkbeast (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2015

Injector Page Edit

Hi, I'm the person who made the change to the https://en.wikipedia.org/Injector page that you recently undid. Can you tell me what your issue is with my edit? Also, I have no idea how to communicate on wikipedia here so please feel free to tell me I'm doing something wrong - literally just made an account to respond to your undo. Honestly, there are a lot of problems with the Venturi/Bernoulli pages as well as the related pages that I'd like to help fix SteveSmith98 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's uncited, and there are cites to say it works as the page currently describes it. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Uncited? It was a quote from an existing citation (#10), and I clearly cited the quote. So...how is that uncited?

The citations that, as you put it, "say it works as the page currently describes" don't actually do that. If you read citation #3, which I have, it matches my edit and not the existing text.

I can't say how accurate it aligns with #4 since that's not accessible online, but my guess is not very well since the existing explanation is factually incorrect. Nevertheless, using the existing citations on the page, I have 2 of them that agree with my change, zero that agree with the existing text, and 1 that we can't evaluate because it is inaccessible.

So...do you still believe the revert is an improvement? If it makes you happier I can replace the Operation section with an exact copy/paste from existing citation #3 (instead of the copy paste from citation #10 with you rejected). Does that work?SteveSmith98 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I added cite #4, which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure the water would never get into the combining cone at all. Much of the page is confused because it can't quite decide if it's about boiler injectors or other devices. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you directly quote cite #4 to me then?

The article says "reducing its pressure to below atmospheric which enables it to entrain a fluid" implying (perhaps unintentionally?) that low-pressure is necessary to entrain the fluid. Low pressure might be required to get the fluid up into the combining cone, but per cite 3 and cite 10 it has nothing to do with the entrainment - they clearly state that's momentum exchange via friction/viscosity.

Also, in your statement, "which does mention the Venturi effect, which is important; if the input steam remained above atmospheric pressure" - low pressure is only required in a lifting injector. It's not required in a non-lifting injector. Furthermore, what support do you have for your assertion that the low-pressure (in lifting injects) is a result of the Venturi effect rather than simple viscosity?SteveSmith98 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Talas

Hello. See the page https://en.wikipedia.org/Byzantine%E2%80%93Sasanian_War_of_602%E2%80%93628 There that parameter is using not just standart terms Victory or Inconclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to suggest fixing that on the talk page of that article, but don't commit the error elsewhere just because you found it committed somewhere. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't Revert

You made mention of some discussion, but a discussion involves two or more people. A discussion never happened. Just because you feel something isn't notable doesn't make it so. There are lots of notable people, events, etc. without an article. I don't want to get into a revert war. So don't revert. Mr. C.C._{I didn't do it!} 05:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

It is you who failed to discuss it, so unless you do, I see no reason your inclusion of apparently non-notable entries should stand. If need be I'll launch an RFC which will, of course, agree with me that the article should be organised in common with the overwhelming majority of list articles. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

False flag

I don't understand why you think the Rhine confederation flag Is a "fictional flag" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900B:112:9C00:DCF1:FC33:79EE:4029 (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• There is discussion on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually pinkbeast and Drmies there is a reason I did all those edits. its because of the flags like the second Saudi state, Hungary, and confederation of the Rhine I didn't want the flags to be removed just like how Yemen's 1923 flag was removed. I hope you two understand.

I have no idea what you're alluding to with "how Yemen's 1923 flag was removed", but as Drmies says, Talk:Confederation of the Rhine explains very clearly how that flag is fictional. It might be better to discuss it there if you have any reason to suppose it's not. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't it says that" the discussion is closed please do not modify it" plus I am new in the editing stuff, that is probably why you think I am socking. even though I understand why you think that it is a fictional flag. but according to me that's not the case. Me saying that the Yemen flag from 1923-1927 was removed just search flags of Yemen and you will see

Talk:Confederation of the Rhine does not say anything of the kind, so please explain yourself there (I think you may be seeing that text on an entirely different discussion on User_talk:Drmies). It seems unlikely to me now you are a sock since the other person restoring the fictitious flag has never used a talk page at all, although it does also seem unlikely you are an expert on Napoleonic-era flags. If you want to refer me to something pertaining to the flag of Yemen, please provide a link. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Having looked, if you mean this removal, then the image was removed from Commons because there was no information about its source. Obviously when the image didn't exist anymore, there was no point in the page referring to it, but also this is an entirely different case to this one where I have removed the flag from Misplaced Pages pages because there is no reason to suppose it is authentic. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You might be right pinkbeast but besides the confederation of the Rhine. I have been concerned over the flag change on the second Saudi state and the early flags of Hungary and many more.

Then use the talk pages of those articles, not my talk page, to discuss why the changes are not appropriate. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

St Marys Page

Hi, I noticed you keep disputing the headteacher section that I'm trying to upload to the St Mary's School, Gerrards Cross. All headteachers up to 1960 are in the book I originally referenced, the rest are archived in writing in the school itself. I don't see the problem. Elderpoptarts (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The book you referenced for headteachers up to the 1970s, you mean? I can only go by the cites actually provided, and the cites actually provided were a book published in 1960 for events in the 1970s (so I know you're willing to list a cite that doesn't actually support the material in the article) and some cites that didn't actually list the dates in question.

To boot, the list of headteachers doesn't really seem to merit inclusion. None of them are notable in the Misplaced Pages sense. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

CV

Hi, I only changed the wording in the St Mary's School, Gerrards Cross article because according to Earwig's copyright detector, that whole section about Gwyneth Bebb is copied from Attain News. I've rewritten it, if you don't like it fix it but don't revert it back. Thank you. JC7V (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Right. Had I known it was a copyvio I would not have reverted it the first time. I presume you have checked the rest of the page. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

However, it would help if you had read my edit summary. Bebb v Law Society _did not_ open the legal profession to women. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Bani j

Please stop put a useless picture of her the 2010 picture is better then the 2017 one. You need to stop doing vandalism and we are not all going to go by ur wish all the time. If you do this again I will report you to a admin to block you. Gurbani Judge thanks I hope you understand.

A 2017 picture is obviously better since, unless it is somehow unrepresentative, it is more like her appearance in 2018. As regards your silly threat, go ahead. You may be surprised by the outcome, especially after making a spurious accusation of vandalism. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The 2017 image has been deleted as copyvio. It seems astonishingly that if you had a perfectly good reason for not using it you'd start by coming here and issuing bogus threats! Pinkbeast (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

They deleted it because of you and I’m happy they did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.219.227 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it was deleted because it was a copyright violation. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey

Hi Pinkbeast

We're working to measure the value of Misplaced Pages in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Misplaced Pages.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Misplaced Pages store (e.g. Misplaced Pages themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

This message has been spammed across several hundred talk pages. I would be grateful if the spammer could be dissuaded forthwith. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted all talk page edits that were the latest revisions of the pages, and asked the editor to stop. Whether that will have any effect remains to be seen. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Thank you. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Still at it, with a suggestion (extraordinary to me) that this is normal practice and perfectly acceptable. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Pinkbeast,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Misplaced Pages since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Misplaced Pages's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Misplaced Pages in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Help with my sandbox draft

Hello Pinkbeast, This is regarding the draft in my sandbox: User:Sakura6977/sandbox I do not have rights to post this template on Nizam of Hyderabad page, being an experienced wikieditor, can you please review it and post it for me? Sakura6977 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an extremely prominent button there to submit the draft for review. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

True, but I don't fit in the criteria and believe you do qualify for the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants Sakura6977 (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You can submit it for review yourself by pressing that button. Once it is submitted, you should not try to jump the queue by pestering reviewers. Much less should you pester people who aren't reviewers, like me.

I fear you have somehow got the impression that I am available to assist you. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thought it's best to take your help as I don't know any wikieditor who could assist me. I was stuck at some place, unsure "how" to proceed. Will somehow try figuring out. wiki must do. Apologies for "pestering" you. Thank you. Sakura6977 (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

All you have to do is press the very prominent button to submit the draft for review. There is nothing to figure out. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings !

Hello Pinkbeast: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Misplaced Pages. Cheers, ---Wikaviani 19:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Restoring taiping flag

Pinkbeast is it okay if I restore the taiping heavenly kingdom flag since the creator of the article knows that it had a flag. besides that how was your Christmas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900B:112:9C00:754E:B677:2C80:3EB6 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The creator of the article is not a reliable source and the flag you have added is marked "This flag is fictitious or proposed", so obviously it should not be added. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)I guess I was wrong the flag is fictitious I fully understand

Please stop the edit war.....

Could both you and @Sakura6977: Please stop this edit war?

Please stop disruptive edits- see WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, and allow me to put this WP:NPOV. Please WP:AGF.

TBH, Sakura6977 too has got a point, but doesn't respond on talkpage when you've given her ample time to respond. (probably didn't keep tabs on the talkpage). So as wiki editors lets respect each other and work towards a WP:NPOV. On the other hand, you see to do disruptive editing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. (looks like both of you might be taking it way too personally)

Sakura6977, you need to keep tabs on the talkpage whichever pages you leave a comment on. Not necessary that experienced editors have all the time in the world to wait until you respond!

Please allow me to rephrase those changes on the topic thereby arriving to a WP:NPOV. I conclude giving an honest, big thanks to both of you for your efforts.

Warm Regards, Anil Pandya

Peter Davies (politician)

I see the Scots nationalists are listed as Scottish ie Alex Salmond so listing English Democrats as English doesn't seem to be too unreasonable. Unibond (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Put that one back if you like - I was trying to deal with a fairly indiscriminate bulk block of changes. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted but am not convinced it is justifiable, could really do with a secondary source Unibond (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

An alternative (which I would be completely fine with) would be to leave it out of the lead altogether. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)