Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:25, 1 July 2014

Archives

2012, Jan–Mar 2013, Apr–Sept 2013 Oct–Dec 2013, Jan–May 2014

Template:Wikibreak3

This user is busy with enjoying their permanent vacation from Misplaced Pages due to having already taken a prolonged Wikibreak/retirement twice, and now has almost no desire to edit after throwing a WP:BOOMERANG at their self, and may not respond swiftly to queries.Seriously, this user's life outside of Misplaced Pages ROCKS THEIR SOCKS.

Pending Block and leaving?

I'd just like to say that having a clean block log is not necessarily depreciating, and being blocked does not mean that the user is necessarily bad. There have been innumerable requests for adminship users who have successfully been granted the tools even though they have been blocked at one point in their Wiki career.. Misplaced Pages is at times frustrating, as there are content disputes which you may feel strongly about and that the other user is being disruptive. I acknowledge this. Though that is no reason to quit. If you do however decide to leave after subsequently receiving a block, I don't fault you for it, and thank you for your hearty contributions on Misplaced Pages. Tutelary (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. However, given my history of run-ins with the community during the past few years that have led me to attempt permanent retirements twice already (once in April 2013 that lasted until October 2013, and another attempt in December 2013 that only lasted for only about a month or two), I figure that in this case, the "third time's the charm", and I'm going to stick with it. The pending block that I'm about to receive should be the motivation that I finally need to leave Misplaced Pages for good: I mean, if I'm blocked, it's going to be considerably more difficult for me to come "out of retirement" when I desire, and asking for the unblock will honestly require more effort than I am willing to put into trying to edit again. Steel1943 (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Result of the AN3 complaint

Your AN3 report has been closed. Both editors are reminded that an WP:RFC is in progress. Anyone who reverts the text again without waiting for a verdict on the talk page is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 04:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: Good for you. Keep hold of that stick. An administrator has already made it perfectly clear that I also violated 3RR as well when I reported you, and has already provided a result. Geez, I really can understand why an editor had requested an interaction ban from you. Anyways, keep on owning Misplaced Pages:Drafts as you have; I plan on enjoying my rather great real life for a while in lieu of interacting with you anymore. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Other uses-section}}

Over at TFD, you asked about customizing the notes for why a page/template/etc. is deleted; I replied, but since you didn't reply, I just wondered if you'd seen it. My answer is "I think so", depending on what you mean; more details are provided at the TFD. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: my apologies for not responding. I had read your comment and then, in my mind, I thought I responded, but I obviously didn't. I was, more or less, asking if a reference to the {{About}} template in the edit notice that is a result of a deletion (such as the several at New article) would be a sufficient substitute to turning the template into a redirect. However, I'm about to post a comment in that discussion here in a moment; my opinion has changed a bit, given some of the votes for the template to be turned into a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hearts

I'm with you on the "football club" not needing to be in the hatnote, but here's what I was thinking. I think the biological organ (heart) needs to be given a direct link. Lots of little old grandmas are going to look for information on hearts at, well, hearts, and they're not going to intuitively realize that they actually want "heart" (people aren't born knowing about WP:PLURAL). Which, by the way, we're talking over stuff like this at WP:PLURAL's talk page, if you're interested. See you around! Red Slash 04:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Red Slash: I made some updates to the hatnote accordingly. I replaced the transclusion of {{Hatnote}} with {{About}}. I'm under belief that if a different hatnote template can be used instead of {{Hatnote}}, then it should be used; also, it allowed adding a description of the current article. That, and I don't know if you realized this, but when you basically did a pseudo-undo of my edit that you tailored to undo everything except the removal of the football club, you had returned the lowercase links, as well as the incorrect link to Heart (disambiguation) instead of Hearts (disambiguation). (Eh, it happens sometimes; I can't say I haven't had my share of oblivious edits.) And thanks for the heads-up about the discussion on WP:PLURAL; I have responded. Steel1943 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good and looks good. I periodically just use {{hatnote}} whenever I have complicated hatnotes to put in, but the way you put it is fantastic. Also, hearts (disambiguation) should absolutely be merged in with heart (disambiguation), right? But good catch by you to see that they're not currently merged. I didn't even think to look. Red Slash 20:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Red Slash: Thanks! About the merge though, I'm not sure about that, though. There are other singular vs. plural sets of disambiguation pages that exist separately, such as Wall (disambiguation)/Walls (disambiguation) and Spy (disambiguation)/Spies (disambiguation). Consensus so far seems to leave these be. (Well, at least as far as I see, no one is either contesting them yet, or have formed consensus to change it otherwise if the singular vs. plural forms of the standard English words can have two entirely distinct disambiguation pages.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, then again Airplanes (disambiguation) doesn't even exist, so... I would keep them together instead of separate unless they're absurdly long, but I know some people don't agree. =/ Thanks again. Red Slash 20:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Red Slash: In all honesty, I think you're on the verge of a guideline update proposal. Here's a question for you that may add more to this thought: If a singular form of a noun has an article (not a disambiguation page) at its ambiguous title, and the plural form of the same noun ALSO has a has an article at its ambiguous title that is NOT related to the singular noun, should there be one or two disambiguation pages, and why? Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. Looks like you are already participating in a related discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Fed Up (disambiguation)

Hello, you did a tidy-up of my edits of the subject disambiguation page. Deleting four links, and removing categories. Please note, I discussed this on the subject talk page here: Talk:Fed_Up_(disambiguation)#deletion_of_some_links. I appreciate your comments. Thanks. Enquire (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Responded. In a nutshell, I would recommend giving MOS:DAB a read. Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting your actions; but it does rather seem that you wish to indulge in an edit war. The entire reason I have been making these edits is to make space to create space for the 2002 film. I have already expended way too much time and effort and making essentially no progress. You Sir, on the other hand seem to take a special responsibility to frustrate my efforts. You acknowledge that there IS another film with the same name, but insist on removing the not insignificant detail of the year of release. The precise reason I added the year 2014 is to avoid any possible ambiguity and to leave open space for me, or anyone else, to create a page for the film that was released 12 years earlier. Quite frankly, with so much work needed on constructive edits on Misplaced Pages, I find it strange and most irritating that you have the time and insist on making such a futile reversion.

Fed Up Enquire (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Esquire: Not really; I have no desire to participate in an edit war, nor do I have any desire to purposely cause frustration, as you state. I don't believe that the extra disambiguation is necessary due to the other article not existing, so I reverted the move per WP:BRD. If you desire to move the page to the other title, I would recommend starting a discussion via the WP:RM process. However, this aside, if the article Fed Up (2002 film) gets created, I'll gladly revert my edits myself; at that point, your move makes sense. Then, Fed Up (film) would be able to redirect to Fed Up (disambiguation) where the reader could decide and locate which article they are intending to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Esquire: I just had an idea that could possibly work for both of us, and may have me agree to your move: on the list of articles that include a link to Fed Up (film), are there any examples of that list where the link actually refers to the 2002 film and not the 2014 film? if so, I have an idea to update the disambiguation page, and possibly remove my contest of the current film article's title having the "2014" year in its title. If there aren't any in that list, if you could find a different article where it mentions the 2002 film (such as the filmography of an actor or director of the film), that would qualify for it to be disambiguated on the disambiguation page per MOS:DABPRIMARY. Steel1943 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Esquire: Check out the edit I just made on Fed Up (disambiguation) regarding the 2002 film. I looked around for a way for the entry to meet MOS:DABMENTION ... and I did on the article Vandana Shiva. Steel1943 (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Because you thanked me

You thanked me for one of my recent edits, Steel1943, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this inspiring encyclopedia! – Paine

02:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R.O.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roc (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) 08:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, this bot has reported another intentional redirect to a disambiguation page that has a {{Rfd}} template on it, which causes it to be a temporary soft redirect. I think it's time to report this to the bot's creator. Steel1943 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cosmetic changes

Hi there Steel1943. I only just noticed this edit to Template:Cat main, but please don't do stuff like that in the future. Cosmetic changes like that put pages in the job queue for no reason, and that delays jobs that actually matter. If you really must make a change like that, put it in the sandbox and wait for the next time the template needs a non-cosmetic change. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 16:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Mr. Stradivarius: When I performed that edit, I was quite aware of what I was doing. I did that so the transclusion count for {{Hatnote}} would eventually become accurate. The tool that is used to count transclusions doesn't count redirects for some reason. Once the job queue refreshed, the transclusion count for {{Hatnote}} would refresh as well. I was doing quite a bit of similar edits, actually: I was updating the transclusion count on the doc page until most, if not all, of the redirects transcluded in other hatnote templates were changed. (In all honesty, I wish the transclusion count tool counted redirects, then I would have had no reason to perform those edits.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  The tool doesn't templates that go through redirects because if it did, they would be counted twice. Take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Cat main/sandbox, where you can see the tests I've set up in my userspace. And then check the tool results. My sandbox page is listed twice in WhatLinksHere, once through the redirect and once directly, but the tool correctly counts it only once. And if you go one level higher to Special:WhatLinksHere/Module:Cat main, you can see that the redirect information is lost altogether from WhatLinksHere, but the transclusion is still picked up despite having come through a redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius 23:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

— {{U|Technical 13}} 20:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Loving You

To be fair, I only realized you had made some changes when I "undid" it, so I added the real chart where Loving You landed. Surely wasn't on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop and wasn't even top ten lol if you did add the chart before and I didn't know it (judging from always reading too fast), my apologies but I clearly thought I saw you still had that number two placement. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 05:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@BrothaTimothy: Even though, yeah, I didn't do any "undos" to your edits, I noticed this song's lack of notability as well. I'm thinking this article should probably either be deleted or returned to a redirect to Xscape (album). Steel1943 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@BrothaTimothy: Also, I didn't write the article; I only copied it over when it was incorrectly placed over the disambiguation page Loving You (which now has a rather weird edit history after a history merge). If you have any questions about the content I posted, I would recommend asking the content's creator, Ahmedunbreakabletato. Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW

You ask the question in the history of the page "Undid revision 615192835 by PBS (talk) Why? You didn't create this section..."

See WP:TALKNEW

• Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user.

Please revert your revert. -- PBS (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)