Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coelacan (talk | contribs) at 10:24, 1 May 2007 (civility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1

24h

You have been temporarily prevented from editing Misplaced Pages following this report. Thanks for your comprehension, and I look forward to seeing you editing again in the near future. yandman 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blackpowder

Hi Eiorgiomugini, I have responded to your comments in the talkpage of Blackpowder. You may have good reasons for doing what you are doing, but to other people they appear to be disruptive. That article was not written by me; but from a European perspective I consider it to be technically correct. In due course I, (or if not me, other people) will reference the paragraphs that you consider to be in need of references. However, I am not prepared for you to dictate how I spend my time editing articles; or what articles I choose to edit. I am not trying to defend the article, it needs improvement; and, I'm sorry, but I just don't think that your way is the best way of achieving that aim. Pyrotec 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eiorgiomugini, Thanks for your reply. I am not sure if you know this, but if you put the flag {unreferenced} (Note: it needs two brackets at each end to make it work) at the beginning of a article, or a section, you can invite authors to add references. It avoids the need to flag several paragraphs that are missing references; and it avoids other people (possibly mistakenly) thinking that it is disruptive editing. Regards Pyrotec 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my discussion of the definition of gunpowder in the talk pages of talk:Gunpowder. You may wish to amend your last edit to Gunpowder; or, alternatively you may wish to add to my discussion on the talk page of gunpowder. Best regards Pyrotec 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Xueyantuo

Just take a look to the page dedicated to the Shatuo Turks - they were the same people, known as Seyanto or Xueyantuo. This must be fixed one way or another, I'd say by merging pages (do not know how to proceed: you're the expert here, in comparison). User: Basil II 22:15, 19 April 2007 (CET)

Ok - let's keep 'em divided, if unsure. I'd point however to the plausibility of a link between them - at worst - the likely transmission of an ethnonym - like, say, the Burgundians --> Bourguignons despite having changed very much from roaming barbarians to a powerful feudal state.

civility

This edit summary is incivil, and this one is abusive. Maintain a civil dialogue, and refrain from personal attacks. ··coelacan 10:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)