Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TMS63112 (talk | contribs) at 18:31, 30 May 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:User Antipope

Hi.

You might be aware that there has been some contention around the use of userboxes. There has also been a new speedy deletion criterion added with regard to templates.

A box you are using, Template:User Antipope was recently tagged as such. I've removed the tag, but would ask that you {{subst:}} the template. You may also wish to contribute to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Userboxes if you are not already.

brenneman 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

While I'm here

Welcome!

Hello, Mira, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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:Where to ask a question, 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! 
brenneman 00:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User wishful

Also Template:User wishful has been nominated for speedy deletion under the new criterion. Iif you could remove it from your user page as a show of good faith that would be great. - brenneman 02:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I rather like it, thank you. Sheesh, I pick these up last night and people are already trying to delete them. MiraLuka 03:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we've had quite a bit of disruption over the last few months around user boxes. Some from admins going a bit delete happy and pushing their agenda, some from new editors not understanding that the purpose of every action here is not to create an encyclopedia pushing their agenda. Even if you simply use {{subst:}} to make it plain text instead of a template, that would be really helpful. - brenneman 05:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but as I said, I rather like it and I see nothing wrong with expressing my personal opinions on my personal page. MiraLuka 08:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin

You have a userbox Template:User UN which links your userpage to United Nations Wikipedians. There is currently a movement to ban userboxes from Misplaced Pages which are shared and which create Lists of Wikipedians. Certain admins have taken it upon themselves to preemptively sabotage and/or delete such categories and template. Here is the incident report which reported damage to yours, in which hundreds of userpages were delinked from categories without the users' knowledge. They have been stopped, barely, and the damage reverted— for now.

There is a Misplaced Pages:Userbox policy poll, which if passed, will make required by policy the damage done to categories and templates such as User UN/United Nations Wikipedians. If you do not want this to happen, I urge you to vote Oppose. in the poll. Support is currently running at about 66%, and your vote could make the difference. It is said to require 75%-80% to be deemed reflective of consensus.

Thank you,

StrangerInParadise 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this user.....

.....might like carrots, after reading for deletion comments....... ; ) DonaNobisPacem 21:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes I do. :) MiraLuka 00:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiri "weird" box...

I agree... Glad you removed it. Vivaverdi 18:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:WPWI

Good job on the Barbara Lawton article. You might want to join the WikiProject Wisconsin. Cheers --BaronLarf 20:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the invitation. MiraLuka 23:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Beverley McLachlin

You're right that it is silly. But while the article may appear to you to be written in "American" English it is in fact written in Canadian English and in that variety of international English, as I say, "practice" is a noun and "practise" is a verb. Please check the Oxford Dictionary of Canadian English if you wish authoritative confirmation. Masalai 08:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, on closely reading the article, I am perplexed at what makes you think it is written in "American" English. The only word in the article that departs from international usage is "hospitalized" with a Z rather than an S and that is the protocol in Canadian spelling. "Practice" for the verb, however, is incorrect north of the 49th parallel and Madam Justice McLachlin is indeed the Chief Justice of Canada. Masalai 08:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, on further close reading I note that "Governor General" was spelled with a hyphen. That is British, not Canadian, spelling. I have corrected this as well. Masalai 08:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You may, however, if you are unfamiliar with international spelling, have been misled by "honorary." This is, though, correct: "honour"/"honourable"/"honorary." Cf "humour"/"humorous," which is what this discussion is becoming. Masalai 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, nice essay there. Sorry that I don't know every variation in the spelling of the English language. As for the "humorous" discussion, the only one I see here is the one you're having with yourself. —MiraLuka 08:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, young man, you shouldn't officiously barge in on articles concerning outside the USA and peremptorily Americanize the spelling, under the erroneous impression that you are correcting it. Masalai 09:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, "Young man?" Don't presume that you are somehow superior to me because of your age. Besides, for all I know, you're 12. (Plus, using "young man" makes you sound like my mother.) Secondly, no one "officiously" (or "peremptorily") did anything. I corrected what I believed to be a mistake. The major clue, at least for me, that something is not in American English is the use of "-ise" rather than "-ize." Since the article included several words using "-ize," and me being unaware that there was such a thing as "Canadian" English, I assumed that you were attempting to change the usage to British English, and I reverted accordingly. After you reverted me, I left you a note on your talk page explaining why I did what I did, and assuming that I was the one in the wrong, with the intention to leave the issue be. You are the one who decided to post a lecture on my talk page and then attack me for my age and nationality. —MiraLuka 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "-ise" versus "-ize" is a very rough indication of international versus American spelling. Please consult Fowler's English Usage. It's actually, strictly speaking, an indication of Latin verus Greek etymology; the rather lazy tendency to regularize towards Z in North America and S elsewhere has many exceptions.Masalai 05:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not really interested in looking all this up. —MiraLuka 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Minyan Edit

In your recent edit of this article, you deleted the text "A few authorities also hold that 10 women can, at least under some circumstances, constitute a minyan for purposes of zimmun b'shem leading Birkat HaMazon." What was your basis for this deletion? The sentence was sourced, the reference is the article (Frimmer, Women and Minyan, Tradition 1988) which indeed lists a few authorities who hold this position. Given that your user page indicates you consider yourself a secular humanist, lapsed Catholic, etc. and you don't present yourself as an expert on the Jewish religion, what is your basis for your interest and in these rather obscure and controversial matters of traditional Jewish religious law? And what are the sources for your position supporting this deletion? --Shirahadasha 16:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That took me a little bit just to figure out what you're talking about, as I didn't even remember editing that article. Heh. I'm sorry about that, it appears that I accidentally edited an older version of the article while trying to fix something else. I've put it back to how it was before I edited it. Hope it's back to how it's supposed to be now, and happy editing. —MiraLuka 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRVU

I have made a proposal on WP:DRVU that you may find to be of interest. In any case, your comments are welcome. Mackensen (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ETC.?

The etc. was because Piper Halliwell has grandchildren now. And her sisters has 3 children each...Big Family. Same goes for the rest of the pages where I added "etc.". --DarkFireTaker

The "etc." just seems a little odd to have when talking about people. I think that we don't need to mention or refer to every single member of her family. —MiraLuka 00:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Mira, thank you for your interest in VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're all set!

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (this also places the user box attached) or, ] to your user page.

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen _C (Stollery) 10:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Leo Burke

Hi! Iv've noticed that you've reverted a couple of anonymous editors who've made changes to the Burke article. You describe their edits as "biased." The same changes were made again and I was about to revert but looking at the Leo Burke&diff=next&oldid=55156509 diff I'm not sure the anon edit was biased. I'll leave it alone, but if you think it needs to be reverted, maybe drop a note on the talk page first. Thanks!! TMS63112 16:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried leaving a note on the talk page of one of the IPs, but I'm not sure if that person got it. —MiraLuka 01:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This line is the one I find to be the most biased: "insisting that Catholic politicians may not ignore fundamental Catholic values in the exercise of their office" —MiraLuka 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. They got my message, I'll try to work it out. —MiraLuka 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you and the anon user are trying to come to an agreement on language you both find acceptable. I have been continuing to follow the edits myself. Personally, I do not see a lot of difference between most of the language each of you seems to propose. For whatever it is worth, I tend to agree with you that the phrase "may not ignore fundamental Catholic values in the exercise of their office" is a bit too POV. However, I also have a problem with the language about Burke's actions worsening relations with the laity that were already strained by the sex abuse scandal. I don't really see how the sex abuse scandal is directly relevant to the discussion. Including it feels like a POV attempt to tie Burke to the scandal. Perhaps it would be useful for any further discussion to occur at the article's talk page so other users can join in more easily and there can be a record of any consensus that is reached. Thanks! TMS63112 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Native speakers of Klingon

Actually, there was one guy who really tried to raise his son as a native speaker of Klingon: Wired article. But there weren't any words for the things a baby/small child needs to talk about ("diaper", "table") so they gave up. Just thought you might like to know this random bit of trivia! :-) FreplySpang 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. Thanks for that. :) —MiraLuka 07:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday to you! --Durin 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) —MiraLuka 20:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)