Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irpen (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 27 October 2006 (→Possibly unfree Image:Bean 07-04-06.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
• Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts

References vs. Further reading

A "References" section refers to works actually consulted in the writing of the article. A "further reading" section is simply recommended further reading, often works that probably someone should be taking on in order to improve the article, also sometimes fictional works that might shed light on the subject. So in effect by this edit you are asserting that other editors were lying about what works they consulted in working on the article. I doubt that was your intent. You might want to go back to the article and sort this back out. - Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Isn't "lying" is a bit too strong of a word? I'm not asserting anything, and, actually, I prefer a neutral "bibliography" (under which you can probably list both used and recommended works). But, if something has been cited or referenced, there should be footnote to a specific page, don't you think? Anyhow, I don't really care how you call it. Wanna change it, you're welcome to do it. —Barbatus 00:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Might be too strong a word. I didn't dwell on choosing it. The thing is, the article in question didn't cite inline (which only became common in Misplaced Pages quite recently), so the references section stands as the only clue to what works were actually used. - Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And how you know that? Have you consulted every editor, or what? By all means, change it ... to "References and further reading", for example. Yet again, a "Bibliography" (which I'd prefer) has been changed so many times to "Further reading" in articles I started or heavily edited myself, that eventually I gave up. ... Oh, and next time do dwell before accusing somebody of something like that. Take care.—Barbatus 01:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On vaguely this topic... it's good to see so many works being added - it would be even better if we could add some appropriate inline citations (see WP:FOOTNOTE if you don't know what I'm talking about). That way, people reading the article can find sources for individual facts in it. Thanks! The Land 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Land, I leave referencing to those who actually used certain materials while writing or editing articles (you're not politely suggesting I must do the fact-checking here, I hope).—Barbatus 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, i was hoping you'd added some more of the content ... and you know you always coudl do if you wanted ;-) The Land 19:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I had and I did. Unfortunately, most of the articles on my 'watchlist' are related to history and various historical/political personages, often highly controversial, so I try not to get involved in any 'revert' wars. Bibliography seems to be a relatively quiet field.—Barbatus 20:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The recent issue

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Brabatus, I understand your feelings, but this is no good. WP:3RR is a very useful policy that prevents infinite edit warrings. Please follow it and require the following from your opponents. If you feel that you are right in an edit dispute but you already reverted too much just ask for a third opinion from somebody. If your opponent is violating the rules just report WP:AN/3RR or any admin (e.g. me).If you feel your opponent is using sockpuppets to circumvent the policy just report him to the same board or any admin. Try to reach a consensus with your opponent if it is possible, it is better than edit warring abakharev 23:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Alex, I can't but agree. If you have a chance, check this version of the talk page. Thank you.—Barbatus 23:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon I protection request

I have semi-protected the page, and blocked one of the article's more persistent IP vandals for a month. Reagrds, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan!—Barbatus 17:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexander

Did you have some particular objection to my work on the article? Haiduc 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. The change you made looked just like one of the half of a dozen of vandalism attacks I reverted last night. I had to be more careful, sorry. Did you restore it, or do you want me to do it?—Barbatus 10:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

All is well, thanks. Haiduc 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

regarding your post on WP:AIV

Hi, I noticed that you posted a number of IPs to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism for vandalism. While in my best judgement you were entirely correct and these IP addresses had been vandalizing wikipedia, I did not block most of them and that is because the users were not adequately warned of their actions on their talk pages. I did block two of the IPs which were warned and then continued to vandalize. Typically for such vandalism, users should be warned within the last 24 hours. You can find such warning templates at Template:TestTemplates. I thought you would like to know why I blocked some of what you reported and not others. Thanks for your efforts against vandalism. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Malo. I've placed these IPs there either for warning or blocking.—Barbatus 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, vandals usually have to vandalise after they've been given level 3, 4 or bv (blatantvandal) warnings for an admin to block.

There are exceptions, such as violation of WP:USERNAME or if a username has made quite a few edits of only vandalism. Gotyear 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"how many finals are there?" There only has to be one. Any warning of level 3 or 4 type, or blatantvandal, counts as a final warning. PS: What's the bean pic on your user page? It's cool. Adding what it is to the description page would help me and others to know. There might be a relevant article it'll fit into, too. Gotyear 02:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You like the Bean? It's in Chicago, in the Millennium Park and its real name is the Cloud Gate. I took the pic myself, last 4th of July. ... As for that hooligan, what I wanted to ask, how many warnings one needs to banish the offender?

That's a cool Bean. I was born in Chicago, but haven't been back in yonks, due to money and situation. Heh, I'm reminded of "What is it with people from Chicago that they're so happy to have been born there? I meet so many people who can't wait to tell me they're from Chicago, and when I meet them, they're living anywhere but Chicago." Anyhow, thanks for adding it to the article and pointing me there.

Btw, is the AT&T Plaza mentioned at the end of the end of the article in front of the AT&T Corporate Center?

The hooligan got 2 warnings, a 1st and 4th level, after the previous block. As far as I know, IP addresses don't get blocked indef, due to the possibility it might get assigned to another person later. However, the block log shows that this month it's been blocked 2 days, a week and now a month. Unless an editor from that IP persuasively argues to have it unblocked, it will remain blocked for a month now due to persistent vandalism after blocks. Gotyear 06:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... Strange. I've thought that this kind of thing applies mostly to Ohioans, though they are not so eager to advertise their birthplace. On the other hand, most of the people I know here, including myself (er ... provided, I do know myself) were born everywhere but Chicago.

I can see the AT&T building from where I'm sitting right now, and I'm in the 311 South Wacker Drive, just two blocks away. AT&T (or SBC) plaza is where the Bean is, as you can see here.--Barbatus 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyphens etc

Hi Barbatus, You are quite right in your use of en-dashes. My only point was that en-dashes are not much different from hyphens, & I still maintain that a space each side of the en-dash (or hyphen) looks better, is clearer, & easier to read. If you look at numerous other biographies etc the space/en-dash or hyphen/space is frequently used in separating the birth & death dates, for example. But lets call it a draw.  :-) GrahamBould 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Graham, I've been out of touch for a couple of days ... There's no standard (as it used to be in the former USSR, for example), and every publisher can (and does) have its "house style." The Wiki's own Manual of Style, in the dashes section, merely states: "An en dash placed between numbers or in compounds does not have spaces around it: for example Paris–Brussels timetable, Ages 7–77. Some writers, however, prefer to place a space on either side in complex ranges: January 1, 2003 – December 31, 2004." After over 15 years in publishing (last 11 of those years—in the U.S.), I can tell that I've seen all kinds of variations in the usage of dashes, but it would probably be safe to say that the majority of Anglo-American publishers prefer both em- and en-dashes closed (or tight, as they are called in the Wiki MoS). Thank you, Barbatus 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Bean 07-04-06.jpg

. I tried to do what I can. --Irpen 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)