Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rockstone35 (talk | contribs) at 10:36, 31 August 2009 (→Request for Arbitration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2006-08-14 2006-10-18 2007-01-28 2007-03-14 2007-05-05 2007-06-11 2007-07-18 2007-08-20 2007-11-27 2007-12-31 2008-02-01 2008-03-01 2008-05-01 2008-06-15 2008-08-31 2008-10-22 2008-12-01 2008-12-31 2009-02-28 2009-05-31

RE:

No problem. I was expecting it to happen sooner or later anyway. Last I heard, that Jim Trenton guy has gone missing so I've been trying to keep an eye on that page for a few days. 71.200.165.110 (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Appendix template

Gimme, can you tell what {{Appendix}} is doing? It seems to mirror and print OK, so I'm unsure if it contravenes anything in MoS, but it also seems like an unnecessary pain in the neck, creating some sort of special markup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it was imported from nl:Sjabloon:Appendix. It's used on almost a thousand pages at nl-wiki. I'm not sure why it's popular there. The uses I checked don't seem to be any improvement. Is

{{appendix|Notes|2=
<references/>
}}

from W. F. Gisolf better than

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

? {{Appendix}} includes a font reduction to 85%, rather than the reflist 90%, so pages like Carboniferous which use reflist seem to have a double reduction for the notes, and the section headings are smaller. Gimmetrow 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's reducing fonts by too much in those cases. Should I TfD it? I've never done a TfD before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to take it to tfd, I or someone else can probably figure out the paperwork. Might want to ask its creator, User:Woodwalker, about it first. Gimmetrow 02:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I left him a message, but I lean towards nipping this in the bud before it proliferates. Will wait a day or so, then consider TfD (which is a maze to me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear all, I found your message on my talkpage so I guess I owe you an explanation. Actually I never expected this to become a concern for anyone. I imported this template, because I find it makes the articles better structured and clearer to overview for the reader. After careful reading, I did not see why it would be against the guidelines in WP:MoS.

At the Dutch Misplaced Pages, a {template:bron} exists. This had the function of separating references from the body text of an article, by putting them in a box. I don't know when I started using it, but it was mainly because this seemed logical to me from my editorial background (I have been editor of magazines irl and had some courses about lay-out and publishing). The general idea is that texts become clearer and easier to read when the body text (the main text) is separated from texts below pictures/figures, references/notes and other things like quotes, boxed texts etc. In the wikicode exists for distinguishing image texts, for doing the same with references I found the {bron}-template useful. Because the template has some flaws (it only has one title possible for example) nl:user:Jeroen then created the {appendix}-template. The idea at wiki-nl is to now gradually replace the old {bron}-templates by {appendix}. We are not in a hurry with that, as the difference is only marginal. This may explain why only about 1000 articles use {appendix} yet.

I imported the template here because I could not find any template that does the same thing at wiki-en. Since lay-out always is a matter of taste too, one may argue I had my POV, also because I was used to the template from wiki-nl. On the other hand, there are some generally used rules how to get a clear, easy-to-read lay-out which are applied almost universally. It then seemed to me a small improvement to the current situation at wiki-en, in which the references, notes and external links appear like one big, unstructured porridge after the last lines of the body text. At least I thought it wouldn't do any harm to have, at least in the articles I write/edit myself, this porridge cleared up by importing the template.

The double font reduction when used together with {reflist} is indeed a problem, but I think that can be easily solved in better ways than deleting the template. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unclear what benefit the template provides, and the reduced font is a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the font reduction from the template. The benefit I see is, in short, to have a clear separation between the body text and references/weblinks. Woodwalker (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing the font-reduction helps.

I'm intrigued by this template. I'd be curious as to how the wider community sees it. I'd suggest a neutrally phrased request for comment at WP:VPR might be a good initial step. Include 2 good examples, in any discussion; perhaps History of the Earth and Carboniferous.

I'd be worried about potential misuses, but its intended use seems beneficial in regards to page-clarity - it visually separates the article-body from the Misplaced Pages:Layout#Standard appendices, and makes the ToC clearer (and more semantically accurate?) by separating article-headings from these meta(appendix)-headings.

The major problem I can see with it currently, is it removes the links from the sections within. Can that be fixed?

It should also be clarified in any discussion, that the general idea, and this implementation, should be considered individually - there might be a technically better/easier way of achieving the same result (with better templates, or mediawiki changes, etc), if the results themselves are liked by a majority.

More thoughts later. (Perhaps this thread should be moved/copied to Template talk:Appendix?)-- Quiddity (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The link is indeed another unsolved problem. As some other templates do have -links on them, it should be possible to fix this too. I have to admit I do not know how since I am not an expert in wikicode. Because most longer articles end with a short =See also=-section, I usually edit the references by clicking on the -link there. Woodwalker (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

@Quiddity: I have no experience with this type of procedure at wiki-en. If you want a general discussion about this or a similar template, please start it where ever you think is the right place (the village pump?) and I will explain my reasons there again if necessary. Woodwalker (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have time to write out a proper introductory guide to this template's potential, to start a proper discussion. If you'd like to though, WP:Village pump (proposals) would be one of the appropriate places to do it.

However, I have left a note at Misplaced Pages talk:Layout#Appendix template asking for feedback here. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect for the good faith intentions of this template, I really believe it should be submitted to TfD rather than discussed at the Village Pump. It's adding unnecessary markup to Wiki pages, creating non-standard formatting (out of conformance with WP:LAYOUT), and invalidating edit links, but I haven't yet deciphered any advantage to the template. It will confuse editors, it creates extra code and extra work, and offers no value added (the non-standard separation at the bottom of the page is a distraction IMO). I hope my comments don't offend, but I suggest submitting it for deletion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear SandyGeorgia, I did not know of the existence of WP:LAYOUT. Reading it, I think it should be nominated at AfD, especially since it is not written as a guideline but as a law. Worse, in some places it meddles with the way people write without (like I did for the template) giving arguments from graphical/editorial viewpoints. In fact, some of the points at WP:LAYOUT seem to have no reason at all but an almost dictatorial wish to have things in one general way. I understand the merit of standardisation, but lay-out is a skill that can be learned. And it should be learned before writing a "guideline" like this, or forcing it upon other editors. Even then, it should not be forced upon others without listening to reasons or arguments. In fact I think WP:LAYOUT is against the idea on which Misplaced Pages is based: namely that the project grows by everyone's contributions based on discussion. Once rules are simply dictated without being subject to critique or discussion, growth becomes impossible.

I haven't got the time or energy to argue with or try to change dictations such as this "guideline", but I would like to stress they are against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I don't find the additional value of the template so important that I would be personally insulted or something like that when it is deleted. Since this discussion is not leading us anywhere I think we should agree to differ. Please feel free to continue at the village pump or at TfD. If necessary I will make my case again there. Best regards (and assuming good faith), Woodwalker (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be futile to nominate at AfD one of the oldest and most often cited pages of MoS; that would be a non-starter. EVERY featured article complies with LAYOUT, as do GAs. It is a widely accepted guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your answer seems to confirm my point. Woodwalker (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, unless you confuse "hundreds of editors have spent seven years collecting the best advice and usual practices to help editors" with "I don't happen to like this advice, and I must be allowed to do whatever I want regardless of what anyone else thinks."

I dislike this template because it confuses proper reliable sources with mere external links in ways that I believe are a significant disservice to the reader.

Sandy, WP:TFD isn't that hard; I managed it once, so I'm sure you can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to be sarcastic or condescending. I repeat that I don't oppose to discuss the template elsewhere, weather that be TfD or WP:VP. Your argument is only partly true when this particular discussion was held before. It is very well possible these "hundreds of editors" have not considered this specific point, but perhaps you can provide a link to such a discussion. Following your argument (that seems to be more or less: because hundreds of editors have already contributed no new constructive additions are possible), could we not just as well permanently block most Misplaced Pages articles from all editing? They must be perfect since thousands of editors wrote them. Btw, there are guidelines for lay-out at the nl-wiki project too. I don't think there were as many editors involved there in the past 7 years, but they are quite a bunch of people too.

External links are used in two ways on Misplaced Pages: either as "normal" external links or as direct sources. The second type is often in the form of inline references (footnotes), but can also be in the form of a "loose" reference (a source used for the information in the article, but not in a footnote). The guideline (MOS:APPENDIX) groups all these things under "standard appendices". It says they should be at the bottom of an article. If you think having all these different types of references/appendices following each other is confusing, your problem is with the guideline. The appendix template doesn't change their order. It just draws a box around all segments that don't belong to the body text. Woodwalker (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No: at least as generally implemented, it draws a box around some of the sections (e.g., not ==See also== in History of the Earth), and it makes them use level 3 headers instead of level 2 headers, which is contrary to the fourth sentence in MOS:APPENDIX, removes them from the table of contents, which again is contrary to the fourth sentence in MOS:APPENDIX, and it includes external links as "sources and references", which is contrary to both WP:ELPOINTS and the first sentence in MOS:APPENDIX#External_links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Appendix has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

GA and GAR articlehistory errors cropping up everywhere <sigh> .... and there's nothing I can say anywhere, because whenever I do, they come unglued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bring Me to Life

Thanks for fixing my error on that article. I was reading them as both being ARIA. Had a problem on another article where someone was trying to list each award given by ARIA (I believe) as being independent, even though higher certifications supersede the lower ones. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Figured it was an oversight. Interesting that almost a year passed before anyone though to add it. Gimmetrow 09:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Careful

If I am mistaken, I apologize. However, the episode summary posted is word for word from youtube. Please explain. JLKTENNIS43 (Talk) 03:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fallen

When I first saw that rename, I got a tad annoyed, but then realised it was the most unbiased way for handling the situation. At this time, I don't view it as inappropriate. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

ArticleHistory

Hi. If you get a chance, could you try to implement ArticleHistory at Talk:Tropical Storm Nana (2008)? I took a stab at it, but can't seem to get it right due to a series of undocumented GA reviews. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  23:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page of the template, and I was wondering if Template:OnThisDay could be worked into the template. Was there discussion against this in the past or would it be beneficial to merge the two? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A few more comments were left at the discussion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

fixRef.js

Hello! Can you please point me to where in your talk archives I can find information about your fixRef.js script, or alternatively to a URL that will allow me to search all of your talk archive pages at once? Thank you! Laura1822 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some info is at the talk page of the script. What do you want to know? 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church mediation outcome

Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here . Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A comment here would be helpful. Soidi (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation and references

Just noticed your revert on the Halle Berry page of editor All Hallow's Wraith's moving of the paren from outside to inside the bracketed reference number. Is there a guideline you can steer me to? I've seen nothing about this so far in WP:Style or anywhere else, but maybe I've missed it. I make the same type of change whenever I see punctuation of any kind, periods, commas, parens, colons, etc., that are outside and to the right of the bracketed reference numbers. If this is incorrect as a matter of policy or guideline, I'd like to know.  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

When refs coincide with periods and commas, most editors put the refs after the period or comma, but even that is not a general rule (see WP:REFPUNC). I could point to style guides (outside wiki) that say footnotes go after periods and commas when they coincide, and that also say footnotes for parenthetic material go inside parentheses. Parentheses are a distinct case, and having footnotes inside parentheses is at least a justifiable style choice. Since site-wide agreement doesn't seem likely, the style in any particular article is open to choice. On style issues I tend to defer to the preferences of the primary editors of a page as an interpretation/application of the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. Gimmetrow 17:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, page standardization going by the original editor's style usually rules. And it that case, I count at least two other instances in the Halle Berry article that involve parens, and the refs are outside the parens. So I shall be glad to handle the standardizing.  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The ref wouldn't go inside parens if the citation covers more than the content inside parens, though. Where are these other instances in the article? Gimmetrow 21:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to thank you for your previous clarifications. The links were informative! The two instances I saw of the paren inside the ref. were both in the International success section. I stopped looking at that point, so there may be more. Thank you very much!  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the instances I saw were comparable. Please don't change this again. Gimmetrow 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I won't change it back again. I abhor edit wars. However, I do expect you to self-revert or else you will cease to stand by your own ideas of standardization as you stated above. Your most recent change is non-standard even by your own standards. Why is this such a big deal to you? You can take that last question as rhetorical. I have no more wish to converse with you. Thank you again for your previous considerate clarifications.  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, this form is standard. Gimmetrow 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Weekly promotions

Gimme, I've had a killer week, and may not be able to promote until Wednesday ... will that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I'll be able to finish today after all ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

re Curious

Me too. Alas loading any of the bot's diffs breaks the PC. Maybe there was another edit to WP:GA +- 10 minutes? - Jarry1250 11:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to look into it. Unfortunately the relatively low frequency doesn't give me much to work with, but I'll have a go. - Jarry1250 13:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Apologies in the mean time. (And yeah, it does just count). - Jarry1250 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Shell

Please note that you are editing the mediation summary. Remember, this note was written by Xandar on a secret page, and when it was finally posted to the mediation page, Xandar refused to discuss this issue. It ended unresolved, as you can see from the mediation page and from the version you originally posted . During the "consultation", Xandar again explicitly refused to discuss this issue. As such, the issue remains unresolved. Whether or not there is a tag, it remains unresolved, and your edits to change the mediation summary do not change that. Gimmetrow 05:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of consensus on an issue isn't a license for edit warring. I also note that you chose not to participate or address this issue until the last moment. If no consensus was formed on the issue despite months of mediation, its unlikely to happen at this time. Shell 06:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have been trying to get this issue addressed for ages. Xandar has persistently refused to discuss, despite my allowing his preferred version to stand now for well over a year. He refused to discuss this during mediation, and refused to discuss during "consultation". You even asked for my comments. Are you acting as a mediator or as a disputant? Gimmetrow 06:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking you not to continue edit warring over the summary at this time, not endorsing any particular version or proposal for the article. Since articles on Misplaced Pages are never finished, if you have additional concerns over the note or any other text, proposed or otherwise, you'll be able to address that through the usual means. In the meantime, I'm sure everyone is well and truly worn-out after months of mediation and would appreciate some closure on this particular phase. Shell 06:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, Shell. I've been trying for ages to discuss issues. It's always "wait, don't make a fuss now". This has gone on for over a year, while (at least) one participant's preferred version remained in the article. This particular issue could have been resolved by a simple rephrasing of a sentence to a form that Xandar claimed is what the sentence said. Xandar simply refused to make that change. Just how much can one expect when the other side has consistently refused to either discuss or make simple changes to the article to address issues? Gimmetrow 06:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume by your statement that you weren't aware I wasn't the only person who reverted your change? I'm sorry that things haven't gone the way you'd have hoped in regards to the note, but since Xandar and yourself weren't the only editors involved in the discussion, I don't believe its quite as one-sided as you make out. If you're not able to get other editors to agree with you, that's a pretty good indication that the general consensus isn't in your favor. Working on Misplaced Pages means that sometimes you simply have to drop an issue, despite your personal feelings that a consensus is incorrect or even distasteful. Were I in "charge" of Misplaced Pages, I'd probably have written the note very differently, however there does seem to be agreement by most participants that the note is at least acceptable in its current form. Shell 06:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Swedish heraldry

I was wondering if the layout of Swedish heraldry looks better in Safari now. I noticed it does look better now in IE, and shows two columns (IE lumped them into one column before). Thank you for helping us improve the browser compatability of the article. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:CiterSquad

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

GimmeBot edit summary

I just noticed this summary which says "Bot removing star after ", now everyone know what this means and I'm not complaining (in fact I love this bot), I was just wondering if it would be easy to fix. Not knowing anything about coding it might not be, and in that case don't bother as it does no harm. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez discography

Would you mind explaining what you mean by sales figures ARE verified - there is a source and accessdate ? Now, I am a wikipedia user and I'd like to verify the sales figures through the provided source, how do you propose I do that when I click on Jennifer Lopez's name and all I get is iTunes . Please tell me more than just pointing out the accessdate. --Harout72 (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

On that date that source had those figures. I object to completely removing the info and reference. Replacing with more up-to-date ref is fine. Gimmetrow 11:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What date is that? Are you again referring to the accessdate, because I've seen many pages before having been supported by fresh sources with accessdates which re-direct to sites entirely unrelated to articles. Regardless of whether the source once served its purpose or not, the fact is that it currently doesn't serve its purpose and users/editors have no way of verifying the figures. The fact that the figures could have been inflated by vandals after the source went Kaputt should be reason enough to remove both the statement as well as the source. As an administrator, you should not be opening doors for vandals to fill pages with either poor sources or inflating sales figures as it is in the case of most Discography pages, sources of this kind should be removed immediately.--Harout72 (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are concerned about number vandals, removing the info entirely is a cure worse than the problem. Not only is the info not there, it creates a void which invites filling with misinformation. The fact is that that site, on that date, had the cited figures. If the link went dead, we would replace it with an archive.org link, not remove it. Same idea here. 09:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged

for your recent rescue of my user page! 98.151.205.52 really seems to have it in for me. Favonian (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

FA promotions

It has been about 24 hours since the last set of FA promotions and Gimmebot has not done its thing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Weekend schedule

Gimme, I'm going to be out this afternoon and evening ... will promote tomorrow. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Real life events, I'm not going to be able to promote today (and Ealdgyth needs more time to get through sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ArticleHistory

How does one use it when there are multiple DYK dates? See Talk:Cloudland Canyon State Park. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ArticleHistory and "Featured articles that have not been on the main page"

Please see the WT:TFA/R discussion here if you have a moment; I suggested a small addition to {{ArticleHistory}}. Thanks, rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Disney Channel Circle of Stars

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Disney Channel Circle of Stars. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Disney Channel Circle of Stars. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

When you have a moment...

...could you look and possibly comment here please? On a separate note, cool talk page archive "box". :) Rockfang (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Weekend

Archived, have errands to do, will be back to promote later; unsure if I'll make it before 0 UTC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor on my talk page

Thanks for the talk page protection. FYI, he was caught warring on the Singapore Changi Airport article through IPs and has been sending fake messages to my and User:Charmedaddict's users pages. All procedures were taken to discuss the issues with him (through other IPs) but hasnt listened, thus requesting protection at the article concerned. --] (talk · contribs) 04:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the IP address involved has disrupted enough, can you please block it? Momo san 04:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking him. Personally, I think that you should block him for 1 day at the latest until he can calmly help us resolve this dispute rather than putting false warnings on people's talk/user pages. Charmedaddict (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the page watchlisted now. I'll try to keep an eye on what's going on. If it happens again and communicating without templates doesn't work, feel free to ask again at RFPP noting the other IPs involved, such as 211.24.138.34, 60.52.12.197, 203.106.65.126, to show the pattern and length of conflict. Gimmetrow 04:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks! Charmedaddict (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As of right now, i will no longer be dicussing the Subang dispute at Singapore Changi Airport. I will let the experienced editors deal with this since my comments are useless/utter nonsense. Cheers! 05:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's happy to see you given out your opinion but sadly to say why can't you try to accept others opinion? The formation of Misplaced Pages is not based on personal likes, it should follow back to the official website. To: Gimmetrow: Thank you for your advice yesterday, I'm happy with a open-mind admin here. I wish you can be presided over a final decision when majority have a consistent Consensus. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.86.240 (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin, the user Dave1185 (talk) is not taking part in the discussion but making own decison by adding up Resolved – Firefly's turboprop flight from KL will be listed as Kuala Lumpur - Subang to differentiate it from KLIA and Anon IP required to stop picking over this minor but important detail!. Can you please take some action to him before any consensus been make? Thanks

Template talk:ArticleHistory

There are several threads on the talk page that need addressing. Can you please take a look? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to say...

...thanks. I know I am thin-skinned sometimes, but geez, I get tired of those sort of personal attack based posts. Appreciate your comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

pr/ar

Will do a partial promote now (about 15 mins to complete), and get the rest tomorrow or Tuesday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

. Gimmetrow 01:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; you're a dear for noticing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Gimme, look at the strangeness at Talk:Colosseum; there's an error there now, but the earlier mess wasn't recording an error. The previous FAC is missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Restored after reverting vandalism. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Gimme, I'm done for the night (there's only one ready to promote, so no sense in firig up six tabs to promote one article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Troy Tulowitzki

did not register an unassisted triple play on August 10, that feat occurred a couple of years ago. On August 10, he hit for the cycle (single, double, triple, homer). Baseball Bugs carrots 04:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

AH errors

Someone messed up Category:ArticleHistory error again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That Jolie image question

I wasn't really saying that, though I do think image was invalid as it was posted on flickr - a large quantity of images uploaded by the same account including promotional images from Tomb Raider? Not likely. But not 2-3 weeks ago, I found a fairly decent image of Joseph Gordon-Levitt that had the same CC-BY-SA/2.0 (some rights reserved) and it was deleted because of the licensing. That's basically where my comments were coming from. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this convinces me that the uploader doesn't have the authority to license the images that way. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination)

As one of the largest contributor to this article, I wanted to let you know that the article is currently up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

On this day

I see that you added the modification to Article History to allow for "On this day". Can you also update the documentation with instructions? I tried to include multiple dates for Oklahoma City bombing and was unable to get it to work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The modification only supports a couple dates, as I recall. 01:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Gray wolf

--Cybercobra (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Evanescence

You're being mighty unconstructive here. Not that I see any evidence of disputes on ordering, but if there are the style guidelines should win out. Facts should not be cited in infoboxes or leads if they are elsewhere. That is how it's done. U-Mos (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

First thing, style guidelines are *guidelines*, which means they have exceptions. When regular editors on a page object to *style* changes, you should leave them alone. Especially here, where you are basing your changes on a template page, which is not even a guideline. Second thing, if you don't understand why the citation is there in the infobox, and a regular editor of the page says there's a reason, you should also leave it alone. Removing citations is not constructive. Gimmetrow 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I know they're guidelines, but that doesn't mean they have no meaning. Apparently no one can agree on the order. Apparently. So in such a case, this is precisely why the guidelines exist: to advise on the order that should be used. So they should be followed. As for the citations, that is policy. Consensus (not that I've seen one) does not take precedence over policy. Ever. I put in some notes; they suffice if there's some ongoing dispute. Because the citations are elsewhere in the article. These are not contentious or controversial changes I have made; they are quite simply correct in line with guidelines/policy. To actually look at a page from a relatively outside perspective and make some good changes is very useful, and when they are blanket reverted for seemingly vague, nit-picking reasons it is very frustrating. Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. U-Mos (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think consensus should override policy, I have another dispute for you to drop into where exactly that is being claimed. But that's not what I'm claiming. Policy is that controversial statements need citations, and the particular element where you removed a citation is controversial. As far as I know, there is no policy that citations cannot be added. Gimmetrow 15:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the controversy must be the year the band became active. This is cited in the lead paragrpah, using the same source. Therefore the note I added covers this controversy, without the unnecessary source appearing in the article as it viewed by the reader. U-Mos (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that was the dispute, and we got stability by adding citations everywhere it appeared. In addition to that, which I view as unsettling that stability, you also rearranged the names in a way that appeared to me to be taking them from aphabetical by last name to alphabetical by first name, which was apparently just an unfortunate coincidence. There are problems with using time of joining as the ordering reason, since some members worked with the band prior to becoming part of it, and a couple members arguably "joined" at the same time. Alphabetical ordering has no ambiguity. Gimmetrow 15:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll take that on board. I've put Gray and LeCompt in alphabetical order as they did join at the same time, and explained as such in the note. As for the year of forming, as the source is explained in a note anyone wishing to change it will see the source in the same way as they would previously. If editors did start persistently changing it again, then the citation could be re-added, but I would suggest seeing how it goes with the note in place. Also, as I understand it there is no consensus for anything in terms of the ordering of members, and for alphabeticalisation to be used in place of the infobox guidelines there would need to be a clear consensus. U-Mos (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've copied this section over to the talk page to allow others to discuss. U-Mos (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Aug 29 pr/ar

I'm done archiving, but several of the promotables have niggling little issues; I'll promote tomorrow. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E --Rockstone (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I chose those who I could see who should have been involved. If there are other editors who you think should have been involved and who aren't, please send them a message and let them add themselves to the RFAR --Rockstone (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)