| Revision as of 19:31, 17 June 2016 editElKevbo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers126,048 edits →Confused About Your Reversion at Baylor University: AGF, please← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:36, 17 June 2016 edit undoThe Banner (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers125,954 edits →Confused About Your Reversion at Baylor UniversityNext edit → | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
| ::I would very much appreciate you not ]. I placed the material into the history section because that is where it best belongs, not segregated into a ] section by itself as if these events are disconnected from everything else at the institution. It's ] for history to be the first section in a college or university article; it helps set the context for readers. | ::I would very much appreciate you not ]. I placed the material into the history section because that is where it best belongs, not segregated into a ] section by itself as if these events are disconnected from everything else at the institution. It's ] for history to be the first section in a college or university article; it helps set the context for readers. | ||
| ::Contrary to your beliefs, your revert didn't just move the material to the old section but it also reverted other edits. If you think that the material should be in a section, move it. If you disagree with my copy edits, revert them (with an explanation, please). But don't do both of them while claiming to only do one of them. ] (]) 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC) | ::Contrary to your beliefs, your revert didn't just move the material to the old section but it also reverted other edits. If you think that the material should be in a section, move it. If you disagree with my copy edits, revert them (with an explanation, please). But don't do both of them while claiming to only do one of them. ] (]) 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::I do not make any assumptions about you motivation. But I must say that you have convinced me about the fact that you read very badly and selective. Good night. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 19:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:36, 17 June 2016
| Misplaced Pages key policies and guidelines (?) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Conduct (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Deletion (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Enforcement (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Editing (?) |
| ||||||||||
| Project content (?) |
| ||||||||||
| WMF (?) |
| ||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
Removal of external links
You've recently removed the external links from dozens of Miss International articles. Although the given links were dead, they are readily restorable via the Web Archive. Your removal of these links is simply creating additional, and unnecessary, work. Please stop doing that. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a website related to the subject, it does not add anything reliable to the article. The Banner talk 03:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Related to the subject"? How so? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Goody, I would have expected that you at least were knowing what you were doing. And you could expect that pageantopolis was fed and sponsored by the pageant industry and not an independent newsagency... The Banner talk 17:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Related to the subject"? How so? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:IP block exemption
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:IP block exemption. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 May 2016
- News and notes: Upcoming Wikimedia conferences in the US and India; May Metrics and Activities Meeting
- Special report: Compensation paid to Sue Gardner increased by almost 50 percent after she stepped down as executive director
- Featured content: Eight articles, three lists and five pictures
- Op-ed: Journey of a Wikipedian
- Arbitration report: Gamaliel resigns from the arbitration committee
- Recent research: English as Misplaced Pages's Lingua Franca; deletion rationales; schizophrenia controversies
- Traffic report: Splitting (musical) airs / Slow Ride
Please comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hilton Worldwide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Reverted edit
You reverted my update on the ranking for Heston Blumenthal's Fat Duck restaurant. Please don't assume vandalism just because the user isn't signed in, especially when there is a reference you could easily have checked. I guess next time I will sign in, but it's very discouraging to see that attitude on Misplaced Pages. WP:AGF
Missimack (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do you not think that it looks rather stupid that a restaurant is nr. 73 on a top 50 list? The Banner talk 06:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good point and I missed that, so I will change it now. However, did you not have any issue with leaving wrong information in the article? You should've just fixed the issue, not put back erroneous information. What you did comes across very aggressively and I hope you don't do it often. Missimack (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have had issues with loads and loads and loads of vandalism on that article. But with the given source, the info was correct. Outdated, but correct. The Banner talk 10:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good point and I missed that, so I will change it now. However, did you not have any issue with leaving wrong information in the article? You should've just fixed the issue, not put back erroneous information. What you did comes across very aggressively and I hope you don't do it often. Missimack (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- It was incorrect, not just outdated, because it said that it 'is' (present, therefore currently) at a ranking spot that it is not. A person reading the article would not see that the information pertained to a previous year (was outdated), but would think the information is true right now (which it is not, and is therefore incorrect as well as outdated). After all, most readers don't check references unless they have to. It's up to editors to make sure the information is as correct as possible. Additionally, the reference was no longer valid since the link was broken, so a reader would have to trust that the retrieved date was true.
- It would be a different story if they article had specified the year for which that ranking was given. Only then would it be outdated but correct. I'm by not means a new editor so I don't particularly care, but your attitude could be very off putting to a newcomer. Missimack (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is your point of view that is was incorrect. I disagree as the source backed up the statement made. The Banner talk 18:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- There was no source: it no longer existed. Missimack (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is your point of view that is was incorrect. I disagree as the source backed up the statement made. The Banner talk 18:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Imelda Marcos. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
- Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Emma Watson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emma Watson. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 June 2016
- News and notes: WMF cuts budget for 2016-17 as scope tightens
- Featured content: Overwhelmed ... by pictures
- Traffic report: Pop goes the culture, again.
- Arbitration report: ArbCom case "Gamaliel and others" concludes
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Video Games
Muur van Mussert
A change of pace from your restaurant fare. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ehm, how could I help? By nominating it for deletion? I have more sympathy for the other side: Willem Pieter Landzaat. But to be true, I do not know much about Mussert. The Banner talk 16:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you have access to sources I don't have...or nothing better to do today... Drmies (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Or help me translate Ouwehands Dierenpark, so you can place the link in your Landzaat article! Drmies (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I just got blocked by Moira, a plain revenge block. So I have a bit more time available, although I continue with checking the articles written by Februari, as I do not accept removal based on the name of the original author alone. The Banner talk 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I will not promise anything due to being busy IRL and depression, but I will do my best. The Banner talk 17:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Moira? MoiraMoira? God wat tref ik het weer, dat ik tussen jullie inzit. Moira, dit is misschien wel een wat laag-waterige spijker. Er moet wel een heel serieuze voorgeschiedenis zijn om een blok hiervoor te geven (en ik heb de ArbCom zaak gelezen), ook al omdat de opmerking van Renevs eigenlijk ook blokkeerbaar is, of in ieder geval laakbaar. "Baiting", bijvoorbeeld, is van toepassing. Ik zeg dit hopende dat je weet dat je mijn favoriete Nederlandse Wikipediaer bent.
Banner, I love you like a brother, maar je laat je wel makkelijk in dit soort situaties manoevreren (kan ik al niet eens meer in het Nederlands spellen...). Kom, zeg dat je het niet meer zal doen, en probeer het niet meer te doen, en dan strijkt Moira misschien wel de hand over het hart...
Trouwens, wat bedoel je met "articles written by Februari"? Drmies (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- What happened before? I am critical about her admin-behaviour. Especially when she acts as prosecutor, judge and executioner in a case. No defence possible and no real argumentation given (transparency, anyone?). She thinks that as a hard working administrator she is automatically excused from following rules and explanations. The Banner talk 21:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Moira? MoiraMoira? God wat tref ik het weer, dat ik tussen jullie inzit. Moira, dit is misschien wel een wat laag-waterige spijker. Er moet wel een heel serieuze voorgeschiedenis zijn om een blok hiervoor te geven (en ik heb de ArbCom zaak gelezen), ook al omdat de opmerking van Renevs eigenlijk ook blokkeerbaar is, of in ieder geval laakbaar. "Baiting", bijvoorbeeld, is van toepassing. Ik zeg dit hopende dat je weet dat je mijn favoriete Nederlandse Wikipediaer bent.
Please comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Stuart Mill. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Fashion show stuff
FYI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove. I think you cleaned up some on the earlier socks. —SpacemanSpiff 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 June 2016
- News and notes: Clarifications on status and compensation of outgoing executive directors Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov
- Special report: Wikiversity Journal—A new user group
- Featured content: From the crème de la crème
- In the media: Biography disputes; Craig Newmark donation; PR editing
- Traffic report: Another one with sports; Knockout, brief candle
Books & Bytes - Issue 17
The Misplaced Pages Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria
- New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
- Misplaced Pages referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
- New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Confused About Your Reversion at Baylor University
I'm terribly confused about this edit you made at Baylor University. You used the edit summary "undue weight, certainly not history" which greatly puzzles me. First, my edit moved the material from its own dedicated section and placed into one paragraph in the article's history section. So I'm puzzled why you believe that your edit that moved the material back to its own dedicated section gives the material less weight. Second, I don't understand at all how this event isn't part of the university's history. It's certainly recent and the events are still unfolding but a series of events that lead to the firing of the university president are certainly a notable part of the institution's history, right? Finally, please explain exactly what about my copy edits you find so objectionable as to revert every single one without explanation. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- 1: The scandal is running now, so it is not history
- 2: By putting it prominently in the history section at the beginning of the article you gave the scandal extra weight by making sure more people would see it.
- 3: By moving the scandal to the end of the article it has a less prominent place (not every person will scroll that far) while at the same time retaining the info
- 4: Start reading the history of the article and you will see that I have made just two edits at this article and that I am certainly not reverting each and everyone of your edits.
- 5: When reading the history here, please note that both my edits had an explanation what I was doing.
- 6: See the talkpage of the article.
- The Banner talk 19:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- I would very much appreciate you not making assumptions about my motivations. I placed the material into the history section because that is where it best belongs, not segregated into a inherently POV section by itself as if these events are disconnected from everything else at the institution. It's typical for history to be the first section in a college or university article; it helps set the context for readers.
- Contrary to your beliefs, your revert didn't just move the material to the old section but it also reverted other edits. If you think that the material should be in a section, move it. If you disagree with my copy edits, revert them (with an explanation, please). But don't do both of them while claiming to only do one of them. ElKevbo (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- I do not make any assumptions about you motivation. But I must say that you have convinced me about the fact that you read very badly and selective. Good night. The Banner talk 19:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)