Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Barsoomian (talk | contribs) at 04:26, 18 April 2012 (→Prequel dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Are you interested?

Curb, you've shown alot of interest in the science bibliographies. I was hoping you'd join the bibliography project we are trying to establish. User talk:Mike Cline/Drafts/WikiProject Bibliographies--Mike Cline (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please Curb your enthusiasm

Re: Bibliographies - Slow down. We need to seek consensus on every move from a wider community.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fleshing out

I was amused at your edit summary on bibliography of sociology: "fleshing out page". But that is precisely what you did not do. I have moved it to User:Curb Chain/sandbox until you do actually flesh it out. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Similarly I have moved Bibliography of law to User:Curb Chain/law. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Curb - there is no need to revert name changes that no one has objected to. It just causes confusion. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

But I object. Specifically, the test case failed as no consensus was gained for these pages. Opposition has been expressed against naming some of the pages from bibliographies, so keeping some bibliographies and others important lists is inconsistent.Curb Chain (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So all the pages don't have the same name. So what? If you really want to help these pages, you need to focus on content, not all this administrative nonsense. Try editing one of the pages to convert the old format to the new style (as I did with Bibliography of biology). RockMagnetist (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That page was unilaterally moved, which I object to. Making a separate page for Bibliography of biology may be acceptable, but you have no consensus to move that page to a new title, as stated by another editor(s).Curb Chain (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Curb, if you want the article moved to a new title, please from this point on, do it through the requested moves procedure WP:RM. To do otherwise, given your recent behavior would be IMO, disruptive. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What you need to understand

Curb, I know that this must be frustrating for you that I can move Bibliography of biology and no one objects, but when you move similar titles you get everyone coming down on you. I would like to try explaining it to you in the hope that it will reduce the frustration for everyone.

When I moved the title, it had just come out of deletion. No one had been contributing to it significantly for years, so it didn't really have a constituency. It was restored mainly because of the edits I made (with a little help from you) that ensured it satisfied the notability criteria. After it was restored, the main comments were from people who wanted it deleted again. What would they care about the name of the article? So I had no reason to think that anyone would object to a name change. Indeed, the only person who objects is you, and you're only objecting because you don't think we have been fair to you.

Now let's come to your name changes. Your approach differs from mine in a number of ways. First, you didn't notice that some lists, particularly List of important publications in physics, do have editors who care about them. Second, you have not contributed significantly to any of these pages, so you're just some outsider imposing a change. Third, this is just the latest in a series of unconstructive page moves and edits. To name just a couple:

1. Bibliography of biology – deleting Darwin's book because it didn't have a citation, instead of finding the citation. Moving it into main space without making any significant changes to address the reasons it was deleted.
2. List of important publications in sociology – deleting all the entries (?!) and putting it into main space, from which it was promptly removed by an adminstrator. I had to ask another editor to restore the content.

Surely you must be tired of having your edits undone and people objecting to your actions. If you want to have a more positive experience in Misplaced Pages, here's what you need to understand: The main way to improve articles is to add content. In this context "content" includes new entries in the lists and citations. That should be your main activity - not renaming things, deleting entries, or starting AfDs. The best thing you could do right now is step away from these lists for a while, read Misplaced Pages:Article development, and create a new article. If you do a good job, you could submit it to Misplaced Pages:Did you know. It's fun – you should give it a try. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We both worked on the article while it was in article incubation. I was the one who "moved" the article back into main space by making the request to the involved administrator.

The original article List of important publications in biology was restored upon the conition it was first put into article incubation, and that the deletion concerns were addressed. This was done, and then and so the admin agreed and moved the article back into mainspace.

The problem here is when Mike Cline (an administrator) moved it to the new title without discussion or unilaterally. You mentioned this was a test case. I don't know how much more clear this should be, but the test failed, and I object to the move.

The issue is if an independent article title Bibliography of biology should be created which is one I do not want to be involved. The issue here is that the article should not be redirected without discussion. The original article before the move should be restored into the original title. The move history is another matter, but the fate of Bibliography of biology is not an issue I want to involve myself.Curb Chain (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Curb, technically I only moved the article to correct Rock's cut and paste move. He had already made the move, just improperly. You have made your position clear in the RM discussion. Your position however is not a veto, its just one editor among the many in the community. Let the RM runs its course and accept the result, whatever the community decides. As Rock has said, it about the content. Regardless of the article's title, users will find it and hopefully find the content useful. --Mike Cline (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the move was undiscussed anand unilateral. As I have mentioned, a bibliography may indeeed be created, but the state of the article before it was "changed" into a bibliography should not have been deleted so soon w/o another afd.Curb Chain (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I made a mess of the move by ignoring an administrative block on moving. That caused Mike some inconvenience, and I'm sorry for that. I learn from my mistakes - I hope that you will too, Curb Chain. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess we should just wait for the adminstrative 7 days of the WP:RM and split the article back into List of important publications in biology and Bibliography of biology.Curb Chain (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Photography

How is your schedule this long weekend? The four articles that I can find on Edmonton which need easy photographs are Arlington Apartments, Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, Royal Alexandra Hospital, and NorQuest College. All of these are downtown, and I think we could do them all in an afternoon. Let me know you have this Sunday free.Ferox Seneca (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As much as I hate the idea of putting any personal information about myself up on this site, please email me at <>, and we can start a conversation off of Misplaced Pages. I don't have your email address. I'm going to delete this post after I hear from you.Ferox Seneca (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I just found out that I've made a mistake in my scheduling. There's something big that I thought was happening this Saturday, but which is actually happening on Sunday. So, we need to reschedule, either to tomorrow, or next Sunday. If you can email me, please let me know which of these dates would be better.Ferox Seneca (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Intentional disruption re Bibliography of biology

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding reverting redirect for List of important publications in biology over RM decision. The thread is Requesting_a_block_on_User:Curb_Chain_for_intentional_disruption..The discussion is about the topic Bibliography of biology. Thank you. —Mike Cline (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternative railways

Hi Curb Chain. I added a hyphen. I hope that's what you meant. Otherwise please revert and forgive me. --Northernhenge (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Your latest RfC

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding to request an early termination of your RfC. The thread is Request early termination of RfC.The discussion is about the topic Bibliography of biology. Thank you. —RockMagnetist (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

MedCab

Hi there. A newer user has taken on a MedCab case and we feel that they may benefit from having a more experienced mediator helping them out. TransporterMan, Mr Stradivarius and myself are a bit tied up with other mediation cases at present. Do you think you could help out here? Steven Zhang 04:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:kara (sikhism)

Dear User:Curb Chain, I have restored the deleted content and references per your request. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 01:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

CfD Discussion

A CfD which you have been previously involved in has been proposed again at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_12#Category:National_Public_Radio. You are invited to participate in the current discussion.  Frank  |  talk  01:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload vs. Napster

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Talkback

— Mr. Stradivarius 13:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup and reason

The template has changed as a result of deletion discussions. Rich Farmbrough, 14:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Grey's Anatomy AfDs

Hi Curb,

I'm sure there are some editors who are ready to come after you with a pitchfork—but I'm not one of them. I think your nominations were in good faith. There's a precedent for dealing with articles on individual television shows; generally the name of an individual episode is a redirect to the article on the whole season. Generally speaking, if you find cases where there are articles for an entire season's worth of episodes, you can just change each article to a redirect yourself without going through AfD. I've done this myself, and it's fully supported by the WP:TELEVISION project. Do leave any articles for particularly notable episodes alone. And I usually advertise on the talk page of each article I plan to redirect, as well as the season page, for about a week before I actually do the redirects. This way if anyone is going to complain, they can complain before you make changes.

Finally, a procedural note: you really can bundle nominations like this together - putting all forty-whatever nominations on a single AfD page would have actually made it much easier for voters. Voters can still pick and choose, for example Delete all except X, Y, and Z and it makes for a lot less clicking and copy/pasting vote statements.

Thanks for your dedication to Misplaced Pages, and keep on editing! Livit⇑/_What? 01:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping

I request that you retract your repeated, false accusations of forum shopping at Template talk:Cleanup. Regards, —WFC— 13:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Emergency medicine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AOA

List of heavy metal bands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Slipknot

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Iron Guard

Hi. Regarding the issue: this is simply a whitewashing attempt, which attempts to make the article contradict itself. In general, refs are not even required in the lead, which is there to summarize the article - it could do a better job at both sourcing and summarizing, but to extend a hand to the ridiculous "it's not fascists, you people are anti-Orthodox etc." lobby is the poorest way of moving this further. I want to stress that I have only been marginally involved with editing the article, so I am more of a third-party than anything at this stage. I have however edited related articles, for instance Sfarmă-Piatră - they clearly spell out, the same as the sources in the article, both the fascist ideology of the Guard and its interpretation of Orthodox principles. These are so universally abundant in scholarly literature, that it would frankly be poor practice to even consider sourcing them in the lead - they should be expanded upon in the article.

I also want to point out this edit summary, which rather spells out the POV we're dealing with. (Also note the summary quotes my own edit history, which I think qualifies as stalking and hounding. Within two edits, the other one was able to "find" WP:DR and post a literate, if vacuous, new case. It is, what a surprise, an open proxy...) Dahn (talk) 14:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In other animals

We use "in other animals" to emphasis the point that yes people are animals. See WP:MEDMOS. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

3O reply!

Ibid! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaSH PR0MPT (talk • contribs) 23:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Long overdue, having encountered your past works this is definitely something that should have been here aeons ago! You're fantastic! BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

More about {{respell}}

I saw you edit in POSH-ee-moh-tan-AHS-anna, and it seems my reply was not clear enough. BTW, I am not following you, but the Respell template listed a signal on the capitalisation, that's how I found it ;-). I'll give it another try.

Please read {{respell}} documentation. That does the general case, and anyway I rewrote that recently so if that is not clear, I probably cannot explain here too. In steps:

1. The template itself forces uppercases and lowercases, input is not relevant for that. I'll example here with lowercases (although your uppercases in the code showed me where the stresses should be, and gave the notification about "unexpected uppercases" -- a good habit).
2. Get the pronounciation spelling in syllables: pos-hee-moh-tan-ahs-anna.
3. Put them in the Respell, one syllable per cell (parameter):

{{respell|pos|hee|moh|tan|ahs|anna}} → pos-hee-moh-tan-ahs-anna

4. Check what we get: by default, the unstressed lowercase sylables are the last one, and then alternating to the left. In this case, with 6 syllables, that stresses 5, 3 and 1.

(If you want the final syllable to be stressed, see the example with perfume in the documentation, using the apostrophe: pər-FEWM: {{respell|pər|FEWM|'}} → pər-FEWM)

5. From your input, I understand the stressing should be: POSH-ee-moh-tan-AHS-anna. Because the template forces alternating stress-unstress pattern, "moh" is stressed when we did the standard input in step 3. To get multiple unstressed syllables next to each other, we group them into one input cell, adding dashes:

{{respell|pos|hee-moh-tan|ahs|anna}} → pos-hee-moh-tan-ahs-anna

6. I think this is what you intended.

7. Final note: if this is still troublesome, keep entering the way you did including uppercases. Some editor might find the warning in the category, and change it like I did.

-DePiep (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you were pretty far already with that page, I was underestimating you by redoing this whole stuff here. Actually, the one thing I changed was: split the last two syllables, because the template always treats an input cell as a whole (into unstressed in this case). When I put |anna in its own cell, it was fixed. -DePiep (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a response for you on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

あなたのためのスター！

		The Shinto Barnstar
		For your recent work tidying up the main article on Shinto.

Thank you

For helping spiff up my input on Tadasana (and future yoga articles! :) Supaiku (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited Ouroboros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bower (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

QuasyBoy 18:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Hi there, Curb Chain. Please don't close DRN discussions prematurely or inappropriately with an unfair rationale such as "filed improperly" and "some problems per complaint are now not in the article" as you did here. I've since reopened the discussion to allow further discussion. Thanks for your interest in dispute resolution! Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 23:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What other forums has that user been to? If that user had been to other forums why didn't you just be clear in your closing statement, "Closing as forum shopping (example here)"? Even though, it's improperly formatted, it's still fine. However, if that user has forum shopped, I'm mistaken and it should be closed. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) 00:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it was. For that reason, I've reclosed the thread for forum shopping. Again, thanks for your interest in dispute resolution :) Whenaxis (contribs) 00:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

ABDR

From that map; I think you mean Abodrites: a slavic group which was roughly situated somewhere near the Danuve-Drava interfluvial region. Only vaguely known, mentioned in Frankish texts in discussion of wars between the Bulgars and Franks. Also another Slavic tribes called Abodrites/ Obodrites existed neaer the lower Elbe, near the Danes and Saxons. Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Metal band list

That band was an orphan file from 2006. I was just helping clear the backlog of 170,000+ files. I put it in that list and 1-2 other pages. Someone reverted my addition, when they should have put it in a correct genre, if mine was wrong. They left no edit summary as to why. I just reverted back to my edit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Gerber format

Hi! A while back you rightly tagged Gerber format as being too technical. I tried to add an introduction section, but other editors deleted part of it as being off-topic. I was wondering if you could weigh in on the Talk page? I'd like the deleted sentence restored. Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Curb Chain. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 02:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

WIKIPEDIA IS KITTENS!

Pppowercurve (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Problematic edits

Hi, your recent edits are becoming problematic again. Do you currently have a mentor? It does not appear that you are paying very close attention to the edits you are making. For example, this edit added "Seeds of several species are the source of coffee," however, that is not what it said. It said that seeds are the source of the beverage coffee. Your change now makes it say that the seeds of the coffee plant are the source for the coffee plant. If you continue like this, I will be forced to take this to the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding seashell, when you want to neutralize a statement like "The pleasant designs of seashells have caused them to be featured in art in various ways, in paintings, in sculpture, and so on," you don't necessarily delete it. This sentence was introducing the use of seashells in art and culture. All you have to do is write, "Seashells have been featured in paintings, sculpture, and other popular works of art." Please put a bit of thought into what you are doing. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Firefox-fonts-advanced.png

Curb, would you please consider issuing a 3O in File_talk:Firefox-fonts-advanced.png? I've withdrawn the one I issued there and I'd just as soon not leave them hanging. The point that I missed is that the issue is over the file description, not over the file name, and I do think that those issues are different. At this point, I don't think my opinion would count for much with either of the disputants, so I'm recusing myself. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. When you recently edited Backbend, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Obliques (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

FC Seoul

Are you korean? or Can you read korean newspaper? Are you familiar with K-League and FC Seoul? Do you think that this sentence needs articel? ; London is the capital and most populous city in UK

FC Seoul article includting only truth and source is correct. I think you don't have global commonsense and don't read korean

Don't get into things you don't understand.

Prequel dispute

I don't know how official your participation is, but can you look at WP:DRN#Prequel again? There is a lively discussion, but it seems to me that no attention is being paid by the "opposition" to basic WP principles that I cite. They seem determined to forge their own rules and dismiss any citations as "personal opinion pieces" in favour of their own interpretations. Of course, I'm not impartial, so please read both sides. Or let me know another third party I could ask to mediate. Barsoomian (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I just saw you had commented, while I was composing my last response there so I didn't notice. Please see my last response and see if it changes your mind. Barsoomian (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)