Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 14 May 2015 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Cate Blanchett. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lapadite77 (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Lapadite}}), so that I will be notified. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Please remember to assume good faith and be civil when interacting with other editors. Thank you. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes, ~~~~

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Please comment on User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taylor Swift

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taylor Swift. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett

Hey – can you please give me a reason why you're reverting my edits to the Cate Blanchett filmography without leaving a reason in your edit summaries? I'm just changing the format to reflect other actor articles that I work on. 4TheWynne 14:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You mean one edit. I'd reverted a similar edit you'd made before with an edit summary (which I believe included removing the theatre credits heading). Honestly, I forgot to leave one now, sorry. Why are you removing the headings? There's no need for structure uniformity across all articles. It's perfectly fine (Film, TV). Lapadite (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I just believe that it would be easier if an edit to a filmography would appear under the one heading (Filmography) rather than one of several headings (Film/Television/Video games, etc.). And I implied more than one edit because I was confused with part of the edit summary that you gave in my first edit. But anyway, thanks for letting me know. 4TheWynne 14:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I get that, but I actually find it more convenient to also have an edit link beside the table headings. Ultimately - probably when the article size is greater (which should be sometime this year, if I find time to continue expanding it) - the section will only comprise the link to a main filmography or "screen and stage" article, so the headings thing is rather futile. Lapadite (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Thanks Wilhelmina Will! Happy Easter to you too. That chocolate bunny is tempting. Lapadite (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Petty attempt

I don't find it relevant to bring up my other contributions in another discussion acting as if my "misguided edits" speak for all my editing. The three edits you speak of are very petty on your part and don't serve as anything except you reaching for something to grab on to. I already admitted at the review that it was my mistake to not bring it to the talk page. At the talk page, I wasn't aware that the track listing didn't need to be referenced but that's what civilized editors do, they discuss things and then the come to a compromise which is exactly what Laser and I did. And yes, those links are not appropriate for her external links.

• Cate Blanchett photographs and bibliography at virtual-history.com. - Not necessary nor do I find it reliable.
• Blanchett, Catherine (Cate) Elise in The Encyclopedia of Women and Leadership in Twentieth-Century Australia. - Also not necessary
• Cate Blanchett: A Life in Pictures, BAFTA webcast - webcasts, videos and interviews are usually removed from external links
• The People one can stay, but there is a template for it
• Sydney Theatre Company - That is the official website for the Sydney Theatre, needs to be on their article not hers.

I find that any editor who goes through my edits to find "dirt" on my editing, is only doing so to make me look as if I don't know what I'm talking about when I do. Misplaced Pages is an ongoing learning experience, one that I have no problem with. You could learn to do the same. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The 3 recent ones liked (which by the way weren't fished; it's on watch list, and I saw the first two yesterday) are relevant there, in that particular discussion, given the context; you'd made multiple edits already based on faulty interpretation of guidelines or not having read over them at all. You are making disruptive edits at those articles now, and are refusing to consider guidelines contradicting your claims; I correctly reverted them on that basis and the content in the discussion at the project. The pettiness is on your part. I already pointed out at that album page what needs and does not need sourcing. The problem is not yet knowing particular guidelines, it's being stubborn about it and your pov despite they being pointed out to you. Precisely, "civilized editors" read over the discussions and consider the content posted, especially when they concern guidelines contradicting your claims. Please keep article-related or guideline-related discussion on their respective pages. I already commented on that on the wikiproject, respond there or bring it up at the article's page. Lapadite (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You really need to ease off the guideline talk when you don't abide by the guideline of consensus. When the consensus isn't what you like, trust me I've been there, you just have to bite the bullet and go with it. This is one those situations for you. If all other editors are telling you they disagree with you and going for something different, then that is what is going to happen. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not all editors, the editor that reverted with you. You need to understand, as has been said by myself and other editors at the Wikiproject, Wikiprojects don't make their own guidelines or reinterpret them per the local editors' pov. Local consensus don't dictate anything when the view being pushed is not supported by community-wide consensus, i.e. guidelines. Need I link for a third time to you: WP:PROJPAGE, WP:CONLIMITED. Again, please take it to the article or Wikiproject discussion, not my talk. Lapadite (talk)

You keep talking as though I went there to challenge or change guidelines. I did not. I went there because it was an appropriate place to have that discussion to get others opinions that have experience in the film and awards articles. I came to your talk to reply to you bringing up my past edits which still have had no effect. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Black Cat (comics)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black Cat (comics). Legobot (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

IMDb

Just wondering if you knew that IMDb is not considered a reliable source? I've just seen edit summaries when you credit IMDb as a reason you either added or removed information. See WP:Citing IMDb and WP:RS/IMDB. Thanks. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I'm well aware, Lady Lotus, thanks for your concern. My edit summary says that the actor added by the IP is not present in the IMDb cast, and they need to cite a reliable source; not that IMDb is a reliable source. Lapadite (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here! May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi, I saw you name in the participants of copyediting WikiProject. Would you please help me by doing a copyediting of Qila-i-Kuhna Mosque? I am not sure about my grammar. Thanks ! RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Royroydeb. Copyedit requests to the Wikiproject are formally made here; anyone from project may answer the request. I went ahead and did a quick copy edit of the article. I added relevant tags (such as ) with a reason parameter, which you can read by hovering over the tags, or in edit view). A few other notes:

• I added citation needed tags to sentences that end in quotes; place relevant citations next to the sentences with quotations.
• Since the "Sher Mandal" does not have its own WP article, you may want to give a short explanation of what it is or what significance it has.
• "the geometric works" - what are they, shapes, figures? Try specifying or using another word, as “works” is used three times, in consecutive sentences.
• Link kalash (check disambiguation page). Lapadite (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your edit! I have one more (the last thing) to ask to you. In this article, shahada, in the terminology section, there are many words in arabic alphabets which are explained. Is it necessary or is it correct to have these alphabets in the article? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Royroydeb, no worries. I'm not familiar with that. You may want to read over this guideline: WP:NAD. Lapadite (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Broke with Expensive Taste

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Broke with Expensive Taste. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Here

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Winkelvi.C2.A0.28edit_.7C_talk_.7C_history_.7C_links_.7C_watch_.7C_logs.29 / You may be interested in this... All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 16:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations Pages

Hi Lapadite77, I received your message regarding this discussion. So, am I right for DEFENDING award entries which are, according to lady Lotus, "non notable" awards, so long as the references are verifiable and authentic? Mat 1997 (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Mat 1997, generally, yes per the multiple guidelines linked there (e.g., no inclusion because of no article isn't itself an argument per several components of WP:N, one of which is "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article"; however I would strongly encourage you to read over the discussion (if you haven't) and voice your thoughts on this and the relevant guidelines there. Lapadite (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 Thank you so much Mat 1997 (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sailor Moon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sailor Moon. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Should I start an RFC?

Hi. I’m wanting to start an RFC at WT:FILM to ask the question of whether regional film awards should be allowed in lists of awards, and why or why not. Do you think that would step on the toes of your RFC currently in progress there, even though it’s not ostensibly about that thing people keep debating in it? Should I wait until your RFC closes before I start? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to make another RfC, although, with a closely related question, I'd suggest you wait until the present one is closed. Lapadite (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Federalist (website)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Federalist (website). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Your recent editing history at Cate Blanchett shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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.  Sandstein  18:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)