Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sapphic (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 2 April 2009 (→Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Xhienne, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Eyrian 17:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

why is the site, Erik Berg, vandalism? Nirvana69 01:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The site Erik Berg is in no way vandilism, he is a well known underground rocker. Just because you are not interested in that kind of music does not mean you should descriminate. Nirvana69 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Serge Gainsbourg

That final solution gets thumbs up from me :) Murgh 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Murgh. As I said in the edit summary, feel free to correct (spelling, grammar, etc.) as I'm not a native english speaker. — Xavier, 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It seemed pretty much a good fix, although I had a go at some small tweaks. That article could keep an editor occupied for a while if one got manic ;) Murgh 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Airship

Ahhh thank you.... but the link in the article needs to be verifiable (the old link is not available to everyone). I've switched out for the archive link you found but someone needs to find a permanate link. Thanks for the helping me with the info ;^) - Davandron | Talk 13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, a web page needs to be accessible but the actual article content does not. Instead of the link to webarchive that many may consider as ethically incorrect (since you have to pay in order to read the original article), I've put a full ref to the article in Journal of Chemical Education. Regards. — Xavier, 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P1

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P1, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC Bates method article

I am contacting you quite randomly. For the following reason. The reason is the Bates method article, which in my opinion is edited by parties who are far from objective. Most logical associated party ophthalmology or a group focussed on just being skeptic. I am hoping for your comment on some current essential and interesting issues. Issues in which presenting objective strong arguments are completely neglected and ignored. If you have time and are willing to share you opinion and arguments, please do. My goal is to come to some kind of decision tool. By clearly stating if an argument is valid or not by the objective editor. My request is also to give a weight-factor for example between 1 and 10. For exmple1 for a valid argument but not very important and 10 for a very important argument. And zero for a fake-argument. Please feel free to comment and look at the current three RFC. Nr 1, Nr 2 and Nr 3 on the talkpage of the Bates method article. Seeyou (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mars

Je te remercie, Xavier, de ta aide d'aujour d'hui- J'avais travaille tout le soir, apres avoir trouve un jour speciellement por cet effort d'actualiser l'entrée sur la vie en ce planète ... Peût-étre, le travai a été sauve par ton intervention; merci. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.52.128 (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

¡Hola! De rien. J'étais effectivement sur le point d'annuler ce revert. Un revert est encore moins constructif qu'une modification jugée semi-constructive, et de la part d'un utilisateur possédant la capacité de rollback, ce n'est pas acceptable. Merci pour cette contribution de qualité. Au revoir et à bientôt sur Misplaced Pages. — Xavier, 00:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Mais, nous avons eu encore des nouvelles, parbleu! Est-ce que faudrait-il parler des martians verts, pour travailler cet article?  :-) A bientôt!

Bonjour. Même si je n'apprécie pas la méthode, il est difficile pour moi d'annuler ce revert car il n'est pas basé sur une supposition de vandalisme, mais sur le contenu que vous avez ajouté, et je ne suis pas qualifié pour juger. Ce que je peux dire c'est que vous citez un peu trop Mario Crocco, et que ça a pu paraître louche. Pour ma part, ce n'est pas mon domaine de compétence, donc difficile de savoir si c'est vous qui avez raison, ou celui qui a annulé vos modifications. Un seul conseil : comme il est difficile de discuter avec un anonyme (IP dynamique), ouvrez un compte sur ce wiki afin de modifier cet article. Vous mouvez aussi discuter, en anonyme, de vos modifications et de ce revert sur la page de discussion de l'article. Bonne chance et à bientôt j'espère. — Xavier, 21:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne

Nice catch on Alex Levy. You are fast! JohnInDC (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now editing as User:Blum41. Sockpuppet report updated accordingly, here. JohnInDC (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this. This guy has decided to write an article for each and every member of his family. After his father, his mother, his brother, he has started an article on his great-grandfather. Sigh... You wouldn't believe how much internal links he has patiently created to those pages on WP.fr. — Xavier, 23:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

He is both patient and persistent, that's for sure. (I would write up a sockpuppet report for WP.fr too but I'm afraid my French is a bit too rusty for that; the duty will fall to you I'm afraid!) JohnInDC (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Franckly, I resigned from WP.fr two years ago and returning to WP.fr just for the sake of hunting a sockpuppet doesn't really appeal me. If Alex Levy behaves badly there, he will quickly be blocked. And I don't doubt his dubious articles on his family will eventually be deleted if they deserve so. Cheers. — Xavier, 12:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, if you're not already there then I agree! Good luck to WP.fr then! JohnInDC (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio

I didn't delete the redlinked award as a falsity; I did so because it was unsourced. --Rodhullandemu 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why not say this in your edit summary ? There is no reason to delete this, just put a {{fact}} instead, or better, do a Google search, it's not that hard, and you would have gotten a confirmation quickly. There are plenty of unsourced statements here, you don't have to delete each of them except when it's blatantly false or jeopardizing a reputation. — Xavier, 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comment in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that there are ways of autoformatting dates without linking them. User:Werdna recently applied a software patch to the Misplaced Pages site that allows exactly that, and several other further improvements have been proposed that would allow users to specify formatting and linking preferences independently, so you could choose to see dates autoformatting but not linked, linked but not autoformatted, neither, or both. --Sapphic (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sapphic. First of all, thank you for your interest in my opinion. To make myself clear, I'm opposed to any kind of markup for the sole purpose of date auto-formatting, that's why I voted so. I believe it wouldn't be too difficult to write a Javascript program that would automatically detect and auto-format dates according to the editor's taste/culture (maybe is it what Werdna wrote? I didn't manage to find out what it was). In that case, what a user puts in their monobook.js is not subject to any kind of policy/guideline, even if date auto-formatting is disabled at the WP level, and everything is fine for everyone. Regards. — Xavier, 23:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I disagree with you, I think the reasons you just cited are much more substantial than the ones you mentioned on the poll page. Would you mind clarifying your position there, as well? It'll help prevent possible arguments over how to interpret the results. Also, you should know that — although it shouldn't affect the way you voted, given the structure of the poll — opponents of date autoformatting are also (in general) opposed to markup around dates of any kind, which would prevent a javascript solution from working, as well... unless you don't mind having dates inside quotations (for example) reformatted as well as the occasional misformatted date range written a little strangely, etc. Maybe that's not such a big deal if it's all done per-individual on the browser side anyway. I don't know. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. --Sapphic (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)