Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TParis (talk | contribs) at 01:24, 30 April 2016 (→Hijiri88: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk page archives Current talk Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 Archive 31 • Archive 32 • Archive 33 Archive 34 • Archive 35 • Archive 36 Archive 37 • Archive 38 • Archive 39 Archive 40 • Archive 41 • Archive 42 Archive 43 • Archive 44 • Archive 45 Archive 46 • Archive 47 • Archive 48 Archive 49 • Archive 50 • Archive 51 Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 Archive 55 • Archive 56 • Archive 57 (template link) (revert point)

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For all your help on getting WP:NRHP 75% Illustrated (spread it around!) Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

YGM

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lassie may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ], the first Lassie, in the '']'' television series]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Crişeni/version 2 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crişeni/version 2. Since you had some involvement with the Crişeni/version 2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Panamagate

Hi Nyttend. Replied on my talk page. Regs, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Trinity Lutheran Church Canton, Ohio

https://en.wikipedia.org/Trinity_Lutheran_Church_%28Canton,_Ohio%29 Hi, those links and details are all from various newspaper articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtsouers (talk • contribs) 14:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The link mentioning the canton club was in the article it was http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20120321/NEWS/303219878 "...Chuck Schuster, managing partner of the Canton Club Event Center, will book the weddings while offering to cater receptions at the historic Canton Club in Chase Tower in downtown Canton.It really made sense,said Coon, who owns or part-owns some other downtown properties, including Chase Tower and the former Martin Luther Lutheran Church site on Walnut Avenue NE. Now were a one-stop church. Schuster agrees. We just felt it was a natural tie-in with the historical nature of the Canton Club and the historical nature of the church..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtsouers (talk • contribs) 14:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Government of Visakhapatnam

There is no such government exists, it is part of Andhra Pradesh. Only local government or corporation is its administration.--Vin09 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thurston Howell III

Thank you for removing the comma after Howell. Sandcherry (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

YGM

TheCatalyst31 12:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFIC question

Hello. Since you helped me before, does WP:HONORIFIC apply to military posts (Capt., Gen., etc.) in the Infoboxes? I keep removing it from The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina article, but another user keeps re-adding them. I'm just not sure and if they do apply to honorific, then I'll tell to stop and why. Thanks, ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 16:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a grey situation. I question their relevance here: how does it matter to the Citadel whether its provost is a brigadier general or a colonel, how does it matter whether the president is retired from the Air Force, etc? Perhaps it doesn't hugely matter (e.g. when Rosa retires, they might look for a retired Army colonel?), and if so, it isn't big enough to matter to us. Perhaps it matters hugely (only South Carolinians retired from Navy captainships are eligible to be commandant?), but if so, that can be assumed in the infobox, and we can discuss that in the article text. Either way, merely providing the names ("John W. Rosa", "Connie L. Book", "Eugene F. Paluso") seems best to me. However, HONORIFIC is meant for things like His Honour, Dr., Mr., and other titles that aren't particularly relevant in infoboxes. These being military ranks, they're not mere academic or professional titles, so HONORIFIC doesn't apply. This isn't a situation in which either of you looks to be in the wrong: please discuss. Nyttend (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I guess the user started a discussion before I left a message here, I just didn't see it! I don't think it has a real significant meaning to the article and like you said why does it matter? We don't use Dr. in the infoboxes, we shouldn't use military ranks to be consistent among the articles. Thanks! ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 17:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Neyttend, now the user is starting to call me names. I will not put up with this. I've agreed to leave the titles, however the display of Captain (Capt.) I'm disagreeing with. I've told the user per MOS:CAPS it should be lowercased, and I see no where in MOS:MILTERMS that says it should be in caps, though he provides a source from the US Dept. of Defense website (but that isn't a Misplaced Pages guideline...). Name calling makes it 10 times harder for to work with a person... and I'll end up saying something that I shouldn't. So it's best that I stay away from talking to them directly for awhile. The name doesn't offend me, but I still will not put up with the name calling. What are your thoughts? Thanks again! ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 19:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

BACK in the saddle

Hey There, I am back after taking care of a few million real world things,. I can walk again, AND not be in pain, woo hoo....Had my knee scoped and a few other physical things, but I am able to contribute again. Many Thanks for the message on my talkCoal town guy (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Indian national cricket team

Hi Nyttend. I see you have decided to protect Indian national cricket team in response to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Marchjuly reported by User:Bozzio (Result: Page protected). That's fine and I am not challenging that decision. My question is why you've protected a version of the page that includes File:Cricket India Crest.svg in the infobox. As I stated in that discusison, this file's non-free usage was nominated by me for discussion at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg and the close by Explicit was to remove the file from the article. I have no objection to the close being discussed, reviewed or changed by Explicit or other administrators, but saving the article in this version seems contrary to his close. Just curious as to why you've done that. This was not so much a content dispute as is what on whether the file's non-free usage in the article complies with WP:NFCC, and Explicit's close was that it did not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your words make it sound as if this is an unambiguous situation, not a situation in which both sides are making good-faith and policy-based points. Per WP:PREFER, when protecting a page because of a content dispute, an admin must protect the current version, unless it has a clear problem such as vandalism or a blatant copyright infringement. I hope that you're unaware of this provision, because fulfilling your request would violate that section of the protection policy. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of WP:PREFER, but based upon your explanation of that policy then I still am not sure why the image was not removed. The file's non-free usage was discussed at the proper venue (FFD). The file's non-free usage was determined to be non-compliant by the admin who closed that discussion. WP:COPYVIO states "The situation for images and other media is slightly different, as a wider variety of licenses is accepted. But, in short, media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable" which brings us back to Explicit's close. He removed the file from the article because apparently he felt its usage did not satisfy the NFCC. Doesn't that make file's usage in the article a clear copyright violation? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Is part of the page subject to speedy-deletion criteria G12 or F9? Once again, there's a good-faith dispute over the situation, and protection must not favor one side. Now that you're aware of the policy, I suggest that you cease trying to convince me to ignore it: if you persist, I'll unprotect the page, because protection is unnecessary when one of two edit-warriors has been blocked. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

My intent was not to try and convince you to do something that you feel is against Misplaced Pages policy. So, I apologize if it came off as such. I am also not trying to get anyone (at least of all myself) blocked. I just wanted some clarification on why that particular version of the page was saved. You provided that and I am not going to press that point anymore. My question, however, is what do advise should happen when the page protection runs out. The file's non-free usage has been "discussed" at WP:FFD and was properly closed by an administrator, so opening another discussion about a previously closed matter is not something typically done on FFD. I've asked the closing admin about this and am waiting upon his response. If he reaffirms his close and says that the file should be removed, then would doing so be considered edit warring. I am asking this in good faith, so hopefully it will be seen as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments; I indeed thought you were trying to convince me thus. That particular version of the page was saved because it was the latest revision when I decided to run through the AN3 reports and resolve a bunch of them; had I visited AN3 before the last edit to the team's article, I would have protected it without the image. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Meta

At the meta central auth page, if you click on the - in the block section it takes you to the block log for that project. Apparently however this is a wasted discussion as per my talkpage. I await the ineveitable conclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Images

Could you reverse your closure of Misplaced Pages:Files_for_discussion/2016_April_21#File:Constantinople.281878.29-Turkish_Goverment_information_brocure_.281950s.29_-_Istanbul_coffee_house.png and the preceding image? I don't think these come from the 1878 book Constantinople -- they (1) are a different style than all the rest of the images (I've gone through the uploaders images and added page numbers to dozens of images from that book) (2) don't have the captions that are characteristic of the book and which the uploader left on for all other images from that book (3) and are the uploader's only images that both reference the 1878 book and a 1950s government brochure. I'm fairly sure they're actually from the latter, which likely wouldn't be public domain and can't be verified in any case. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, nothing in the image index for the book contains "caffe" "caffetteria" or "mar nero" which you would expect to see (the book is in Italian). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Liberation of Belgrade by Katarina Ivanović.jpg

I'm afraid you're wrong. This is the exact same artwork. I have no idea why you would think otherwise. Yes, the tone, orientation and scope are different, but it's the same painting. 23 editor (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You obviously haven't look closely enough. The "discrepancies" are due to the fact that I rotated the image by 180 degrees to conform to its real-life appearance (it was previously a mirror image and had everything backwards). I assure you, it's the exact same picture, only the previous version was of much poorer quality. 23 editor (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88

Hey, I think 2 weeks is a bit much. It's been 4 days, can we call it good?--v/r - TP 01:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)