Revision as of 12:10, 21 January 2016 editNewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,732 edits →Thanks and green light I think: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:57, 21 January 2025 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers383,077 edits →Precious anniversary: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
(617 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{archives}} | |||
{{archivebox|]}} | |||
Please replace the paragraph you deleted on Jen Dawson. It is true. I am her. I made the change because it is true | |||
Thank you <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== |
== Prog rock == | ||
{{tb|Talk:Christian Union (students)#Who can join}} | |||
In the now-archived previous talk page, somebody wrote: | |||
Also, may I recommend that you archive old content from this rather long user talk page, onto separate sub-pages? See ]. I would be willing to do it for you if you like. – ] ] 07:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
"journey to the center was the first from the classic lineup...." | |||
== AV deal with Labour without referendum == | |||
But wasn't "Journey to the Center of the Mind" actually done by the Amboy Dukes? | |||
I accept that William Hague believed that Labour had offered AV without a referendum on 10 Maay 2010 when he conceded the referendum on live TV. | |||
I guess it is possible that Yes did that song also, but there does not seem to be anything here on Misplaced Pages about it. ] (]) 17:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Stepan Charnetsky == | |||
There is however no evidence that Labour made such an offer. This Michael Crick blog makes this fairly clear: | |||
Congratulations! Thank you for creating a page about my compatriot, a native of the village of Shmankivtsi Stepan Charnetsky. I will be grateful if you help with filling the page about my family village. Thank you!--] (]) 05:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/michaelcrick/2010/07/was_the_coalition_built_on_a_l.html | |||
:I just added more information about Stepan Charnetsky. Take a look, please. ] (]) 11:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
Ahead of tonight's Newsnight special on the coalition (at 2230 on BBC Two) it is worth asking a big question: | |||
== dFM position for Alliance == | |||
Were Conservative MPs railroaded into accepting the coalition on the basis of a lie, or at best an unfortunate misunderstanding? | |||
The Belfast Telegraph source you have put quite clearly supports the idea that a non-Unionist or Nationalist party could hold the dFM position and clearly contradicts the statement that this role "can only go to a party designating as Unionist or Nationalist."; indeed it supports the truth that this is open to the largest party of the largest designation. See also: | |||
That's the allegation which has been swirling round among Tories at Westminster for several weeks now. | |||
"But if it finishes second, it can’t nominate a deputy First Minister if it sticks to its designation, as it is highly likely that either unionism or nationalism would be the largest designation, and the largest party from that section will therefore get the post." | |||
One Conservative MP - far from a right-winger - reckons David Cameron lied to the shadow Cabinet and his backbench MPs at least four times in the hours leading up to the coalition agreement with the Lib Dems on 11 May. | |||
This doesn't require "interpreting" primary legislation much less reading it. Suggest you change accordingly. ] (]) 05:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
The big issue is whether the Conservatives needed to offer Nick Clegg a referendum on the AV voting system. | |||
:I have re-worded the text to better fit the Belfast Telegraph's explanation. | |||
:I suggest this isn't the sort of thing you should be coming here, to my Talk page, about. If there is an issue about an article, discuss it on the article's Talk page. That way, other editors can see the discussion and input. If you have further comments, go there. ] (]) 10:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Ref. Tiverton and Honiton edit == | |||
Mystery especially surrounds what happened on the afternoon of Monday 10 May. | |||
The source was published prior to the announcement from the Returning Officer whose decision it is to determine the day of the poll, so was wondering how that would be a reliable source? My understand is primary sources are allowed and this would be a valid time for a primary source, what do you think? ] (]) 18:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:The decision may be known about before the paperwork is published. But if you think there’s a problem with the secondary source given, then, sure, change it. | |||
:It would make more sense to have this discussion on the article Talk page so other editors can contribute. ] (]) 05:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Prog rock == | |||
I recall William Hague emerging from St. Stephen's entrance of the Commons with the surprising news that the Tories would now offer the Lib Dems a referendum on AV. | |||
Alan White, a drummer for Yes, passed away on May 26. ] (]) 03:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
I suggested to Hague that the Conservatives were now merely matching Labour, who had been promising a referendum on AV since Gordon Brown's speech at the 2009 Labour conference, and included it in their 2010 manifesto. | |||
== ANI notice == | |||
Oh no, Hague told me, he understood that Labour was now offering the Lib Dems AV WITHOUT a referendum. | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> I mentioned your name not intended as any form of criticism but as you were one of the only other editor who substantially contributed to the discussion which came up there. ] (]) 04:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
I must admit Hague's comment disconcerted me. I failed to follow it up, simply because I feared I was uninformed and that Labour had made this promise during the course of the day and I hadn't noticed. | |||
== Monkeypox outbreak article == | |||
And it's now clear from several government Tory sources that David Cameron told both his Shadow Cabinet that afternoon, and the meeting of all Conservative MPs that evening, the same thing. His argument was that they had to do something to catch up with Labour's offer to the Lib Dems of AV without a referendum. | |||
Hey, I've not gotten to looking over them (your changes) in detail (yet), but tl;dr version : Effort to tidy up is great, feels to me like its a bit of a shame to be throwing out content though. | |||
But it wasn't true. There's no evidence that Labour ever offered the Lib Dems AV without a referendum. Indeed it's hard to see how the Labour leadership ever could have got Labour MPs to go along with such an idea. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Thanks for that detailed explanation. I've put a summary of that into the article. ] (]) 12:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
So I've been (perhaps a little obsessively :P) involved with that article lately, and I definitely welcome your go at an overhaul (if anything, because it makes it easier to tackle the next overhaul :P ). | |||
== Psychology of pain == | |||
I guess I just wanted to point out quick that I think - to pick an example - some of the content from multi-country outbreak might be worth throwing into an "timeline of the Monkeypox" article, rather than just cutting out. Nothing I can't do myself of course, and if you feel differently that's fine as well of course! | |||
Anyway, I guess instead of inspecting your changes with a magnifying glass, I should maybe rather be taking the opportunity to tackle the article more boldly myself :) (I think I've been burned so often in the past I kind of shy away from that - I guess that comes with gravitating towards editing controversial topics :P ). | |||
Continuing the email exchange: | |||
Regards, and perhaps we'll see each other round, ] (]) 15:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your kind response. I'm hoping to find editors with a broad-ish view of one or more of the sub-fields of the psychology of pain. I believe the article, ], may benefit from a section on health psychology as it relates to pain, and was wondering if you, or someone you know, might be interested in having a crack at it - or any other section/s. I've just asked if he'd be interested in the psychophysics section and he has declined to do any writing but is looking for a good overview of the topic I can use as a basis for the section. | |||
:I felt some ] changes were needed, but happy to do things differently. I've suggested at ] that we could have a timeline article. ] (]) 17:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
== 2022 monkeypox outbreak task force invitation == | |||
Please don't feel under any pressure at all over this, I just thought I'd run it by you in case it tickled your fancy. | |||
Hello! I know you have an interest in the ongoing ], so I wanted to invite you to the new ], which I started from the ]. The task force’s goal is to improve any and all articles relating to the new outbreak. I hope you consider joining! ] (]) 19:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
Presently I would like to see the article summarise the way the following deal with pain: behavioural psychology, cognitive psychology and the psychotherapies that emerge from them, health psychology, social psychology, neuropsychology, and psychophysics; and possibly also psychophysiology, social neuroscience and psychiatry. But I'm wide open to suggestions. --] (]) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Open up an RFC on the matter == | |||
== Citation (help) needed == | |||
As you're the main editor who's arguing that the Conservative Party leadership is 'now' vacant. I believe it would be best if 'you' would open an RFC on the matter, with a list of pages that RFC would effect. Should the 1922 committee choose an interim leader & thus a new prime minister to serve, until the party eventually elects a 'new' leader, during the RFC? Then the RFC can be closed, as the disputed topic would become moot. ] (]) 16:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for the help Bondegezou! I'm not usually flustered by easy functions but multiple citations from the same source always confuse me; I never do it right! ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you for your advice. I will see what other editors think. I hope you will be able to participate in any subsequent discussion, perhaps by bringing relevant sources to support your position. ] (]) 17:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
::I believe the Conservative Party's official website, is a good source. ] (]) 17:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::I had a quick look and the website doesn't appear to have been updated since Johnson's resignation, but if there are specific pages you see, do please share them in the appropriate discussions. That would be helpful. Of course, ] applies. ] (]) 17:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Roe vs. Wade == | ||
Are there any comments that you would care to make about the horrible overturning of the Roe vs. Wade decision here in the U.S. by the Supreme Court? ] (]) 20:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
Hey Bondegezou. Good work on Mid Ulster. I emailed the Treasury along the same lines and got nowhere! Maybe he's "done a Gerry Adams" and assumed he's resigned just by sending in a letter and not thought any more about it? In any case, we can say without doubt that there's no chance of a 2012 election date. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
:My guess is he's just not done it. I'll guess we'll see if there are any further developments. And thanks for all your work on the various by-election articles! ] (]) 21:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
::It's back! ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes. I took and others to be sufficient indication that this is now happening. ] (]) 22:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== Boris Johnson == | |||
== Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election == | |||
Hello. Just wanted to let you know, ''if'' BoJo resigned as party leader on July 26? Then perhaps his bio (including infobox) page & the Conservative party page, should also be updated :) ] (]) 19:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
Hi, just thought I'd let you know there's a little discussion going on ] regarding Sheffno1gunner reverting your edits. I've warned him about mislabelling your edits as vandalism, but I suspect this issue isn't resolved yet. Thanks! – '''''] ]''''' 11:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
:The citation has No. 10 saying on 26 July that he has resigned, but it is not clear to me on what precise date he resigned. Leaving the precise date aside, yes, of course the other articles should be updated. ] (]) 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
::I've updated them using "July 26, 2022", though that can be corrected by anyone. Now, to find out who's the "interim party leader". Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see what the UK Supreme Court's ruling will be on Scotland holding another independence referendum. Odds are, they'll rule in favour of the UK government. ] (]) 21:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
''Please'', may we keep the three-related pages consistent, until a consensus is reached at Johnson's bio page. Maybe a RFC there, would be the way to go. ] (]) 23:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
:Apologies for the delayed reply, {{u|GoodDay}}. I suggest a poor decision at one article shouldn’t be spread to other articles in the interests of consistency. If I can gather the energy, I will try to help the editing community reach a consensus on the Boris Johnson article. ] (]) 12:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
::That's great. But as I recommend, concentrate on the BLP & the other two related pages, will follow that result. ] (]) 12:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
Even if this is not relevant to the current UK political situation, I was surprised to find out today that Johnson was born an American citizen. Yes, I know that the family returned to Britain during his childhood. Well, Napoleon was ethnically Italian, Stalin was ethnically Georgian and Hitler was born an Austrian. | |||
(This does not imply a comparison of Johnson to any of the above.) ] (]) 15:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
==DYK for Jewish Indian theory== | |||
== Sock puppets on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election == | |||
{{ivmbox | |||
|image = Updated DYK query.svg | |||
|imagesize=40px | |||
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that ''']''', the erroneous idea that some ] became ancestors to ], influenced the ]?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to ]. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ]. | |||
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] 00:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
{{DYK views|13,978|582.4|September 2022|Jewish Indian theory}} ] (] • ]) (she/her) 08:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
*Nice work! ] (]) 13:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks {{u|Johnbod}} and others. I was surprised there wasn’t an article on the topic and had a boring train journey to fill, so… ] (]) 13:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::It is not clear what is meant by "hook". Clicking on the above link does not help. Can anybody please explain? ] (]) 01:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
::::The line in a DYK beginning "Did you know..." is called the hook. ] (]) 16:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thank you for explaining it. ] (]) 15:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Hello == | |||
Hi there, I thought that ] might interest you. Apparently much of the consensus that was achieved on the article was done through two (or more) sock puppets. I notice that these sock puppets have often argued you down when they didn't like your opinion; now that they've been exposed, I'd say now's the time for you to speak openly and freely. – '''''] ]''''' 18:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Ok its pointless. ] (]) 07:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Eastleigh == | |||
:WHAT is pointless? ] (]) 04:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
Hi, can I suggest a compromise? When UKIP pick a candidate we add the disputed material to that section such as 'UKIP have picked Joe Bloggs as their candidate for the by election. Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, previously...' ] (]) 11:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I don't see the point. If the material warrants inclusion after UKIP pick a candidate, it warrants inclusion now. The question is whether it warrants inclusion. On that question, I turn to policy and the amount of RS coverage. | |||
:Perhaps we should stick to the Eastleigh Talk page to continue the discussion. ] (]) 13:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
==Plagiarism at the John Wetton article== | |||
<div class="afd-notice"> | |||
You seem to be arguing that a little bit of plagiarism is OK, if it serves a useful purpose. I don't agree. Misplaced Pages has been stung badly by those who researched and discovered an awful lot of plagiarism in Wiki articles. The powers that be at Misplaced Pages are determined to stamp it out, and helping them to carry out that stated policy. I suggest you read the article ], and then get back to me as to why this Wetton article should be allowed to continue to use plagiarized statements. If you cannot give me solid evidence that doing so is OK, under Misplaced Pages rules, then I will revert your last edit there. Please respond in the Plagiarism section of the Wetton Talk page. ] (]) 15:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
:Answered at ]. In short, see ]. ] (]) 16:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
== Ekklesia (think tank) == | |||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. | |||
Re ] and negative quotes. I thought the Guardian quote from the Bishop of Willesden was a significant indicator of notabilitity and a reasonable indication of their position wrt the established church. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 10:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
:It's not The Guardian saying something about Ekklesia. It's The Guardian commenting on private comments the Bishop said on a social networking site. The thrust of the article, such as it is, is to comment on the Bishop's indiscretion. It's hard to see that as "a reasonable indication of their position wrt the established church." It would be better to have cites that are directly about Ekklesia, as with the other citation you gave. ] (]) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message == | |||
== Northern Ireland "rule" == | |||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
From what I remember, an editor who doesn't contribute any further ("O Fenian", I think his name was), hauled me up at the Arbitration Committee for breaking a rule agreed by the Northern Ireland project. That rule turned out to be "You can only revert once anything related to "The Troubles"". I pointed out that explaining to readers why Gerry Adams did not consider his resignation to be a resignation (or whatever!) was not directly related to "The Troubles", even if Gerry Adams himself is, and this soon closed the issue down. In short, I suspect an editor with a grudge fancied playing silly devils. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 16:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div> | |||
:Ah. I see the problem... and also how it really isn't a problem at all! ] (]) 17:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
== Only 3 seats. == | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small> | |||
What's the definition of 'only' in this case? Eg (or ie?) do the Lib-Dems have "only 57 Members in the House of Commons"? I note they have "only 5 seats" in the Scottish Parliament. ] (]) 00:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
:This is a serious question. Only is a potentially weasely word, I'm definitely not trying to suggest any intention of bias, or that 3 out of...800ish isn't an entirely sensible usage, I'm just curious as I didn't actually see it on a list of words to avoid (ie, 'claims')... ] (]) 10:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I think you've answered your own question. One can't give a precise definition, but it seems a reasonable word to use in this context. If you think otherwise, change it. ] (]) 13:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
== Edit warring == | |||
</div> | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1124425177 --> | |||
== Wendy Savage == | |||
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I just read your page on here about Wendy Savage. The pro-choice movement needs more doctors such as her. ] (]) 20:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
For some reason this warning didn't display the additional text, so here it is: you not being able to understand an edit is no license to edit war . Given your past statements to me about 3RR and OWN, your actions here are hypocritical, at best. The change is being made because information like that should not be presented as a list of single sentences - it should either be prose in proper paragraphs, or sectionalised. If you still can;t understand this, then use the talk page. ] (]) 17:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:As I said at ]... | |||
There's been an IP based used trying to change info and I am not clear why. It does seem something already discussed.] (]) 11:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Gruesome Foursome, you have complained in the edit history and on my user page that I am edit warring here. I reverted three separate formatting changes you made. I only reverted each change once. This is not edit warring. Let me quote from ]: | |||
:"Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." | |||
==Next Indian general election== | |||
:You have twice previously been blocked yourself for edit-warring over ]. It appears you are reacting against that previous history. Might I suggest you take another look at ]? Might I also suggest that you explain your suggested changes here with respect to Misplaced Pages policy: see ]? ] (]) 09:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hi Bondegezou, I have a question regarding ]. Does it have a maximum limit? I tried to add Independents as ''party38='' but it didn't show up in the Infobox of ]. ] (]) 10:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Hi {{u|SharadSHRD7}}. I'm not at all certain, but I think it tops out at 35 rows...? You could try asking at ]. You might even be able to get it changed. ] (]) 10:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for quick response. ] (]) 10:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Sorry I couldn't be of more help! ] (]) 11:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Edit on "Arains" page == | |||
::EDIT WAR says "an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". Describing the candidates as a list of single sentences was clearly your preferred version here, and you restored it three times. I see no exemption for when my attempts to fix the article (WP:EP) were all slightly different (using sections or prose both fix the problem, I'm not tied to either), nor for cases where you can't understand my clearly stated reason for making the change, so you were undoubtedly edit warring. ] (]) 19:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::That is not what happened. ] (]) 08:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Gruesome Foursome has since been indefinitely blocked for incivility elsewhere. ] (]) 12:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
hi, i've just requested an edit in the talk page of "Arains". | |||
== Sheffno1gunner socks == | |||
Please edit it as required. | |||
Thanks ] (]) 12:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Yestoric infobox == | |||
Hi Bondegezou. About , which I only just noticed, you're adding it to the wrong page. You need to start a new SPI report using the form at ]. If you just add a new section to the archive, no-one will see it, and you won't have the benefit of the SPI templates automatically doing the formatting for you. It's a shame I didn't see you edit earlier, because I could have done something about it, but now it's stale so there's not much point blocking. Best — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 10:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Ah, I see! Thanks. Your comment is timely as s/he's started up again. Report listed at ]. ] (]) 14:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Hi | |||
== UKIP article == | |||
I just didn't have enough time this morning to add the album cover, which I always intended to do. I have now added the image. So I did revert your edit. However, if you still want to delete my edits, go ahead. No problem. <span style="font-family: bookman old style">]]</span> 15:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
== July 2023 == | |||
Hi there, I've now referenced the link 'Civic nationalism' in the 'Ideology' section of the infobox. ](]) , 14:09, 8th May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I believe that it is a core part of their ideology, especially bearing in mind that so many opponents brand them 'racists'. I believe that this referenced link demonstrates that UKIP stand for a type of nationalism which incorporates many races and religions and which is not ethno-centric. It is an integral part of their ideology, hence the fact why they state that they're 'non-racist' on their website description. ](]) , 18:54, 8th May 2013 (UTC) | |||
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
:Due to the fact that you're uncomfortable with 'Civic nationalism' being placed in the 'Ideology' section of the infobox, I have instead made reference to it under the 'Policies' section. I understand what you mean about the infobox being only a brief summary, thus I have mentioned the topic elsewhere on the article :-) ](]) , 19:15, 8th May 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for your comments. Perhaps this discussion would be more useful at the article's Talk page than here? ] (]) 08:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 19:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
== A variety of books == | |||
== A kitten for you! == | |||
Just checking - is this (your edit summary - "Given opposition to this edit, let's take it to a deletion discussion. That's the appropriate process at this point") from ] the appropriate response when there is disagreement about a redirect? i.e is that an appropriate response here: ? ] (]) 15:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Stuart. I would think so. If someone wants to get rid of a whole article, then that's effectively a deletion. If someone objects and the first person persists, then an ] would be the best way to settle the matter. ] (]) 20:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
=== re "consensus" === | |||
I noticed some of your comments on the dubious ] page, I am glad to see someone coming with interesting sources and clear information! :> | |||
] (]) 05:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
regarding . Consensus has already been reached: ]. There is nothing even close to a ] in that content.-- ] 21:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
<br style="clear: both;"/> | |||
:Consensus has not been reached on this article. Take it to AfD, which is the appropriate process when wiping a whole article and the edit has been disputed. If you are unfamiliar with the process, I would be happy to walk you through it. ] (]) 21:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
::there is no local consensus that ''could'' be reached on the talk page that would ] without the presentation of reliably published sources. Please revert yourself or provide some reliable sources. -- ] 22:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::I have nominated it for AFD if you care to come and weigh in. It's likely to merge but being a deletionist I think problem solved either way. ] (]) 00:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks, Hell in a Bucket, but I can't see the AFD nomination...? Do you want to try again? ] (]) 06:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
I actually mistook this one for another of Obverse books ] however it looks like they both fall under the same thing. Here is the link ] ] (]) 07:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks. ] (]) 09:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
::On which subject, what's the process here, where several different editors have removed a tag, but one editor with some sort of bizarre agenda and who has issues with the Guardian and Smooth Radio as reliable sources merely keeps changing things back (here as elsewhere)? . ] (]) 12:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::] lays out the right approach to dispute resolution. ] (]) 12:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Thanks ] (]) 12:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::I'd recommend leaving the sources as they when they are added, this is will be redirected whether they are added or not. No sense in upsetting yourself for something that will not be here anyways, and if it is then we can clean the dross then. ] (]) 12:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
== Doctor Who Spin-offs == | |||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
I've noticed that a lot of Doctor Who spin-offs aren't well referenced, and from some edits on some of these articles it appears you are also concerned about the quality of the coverage. I put a proposal at ] that maybe some lightly covered series of CDs should have a single article, either per "season" or for the whole series. | |||
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
You might not have a view as to what route to take, just preferring someone to do *something* to improve these articles, but if you wish the topic is there. ] (]) 10:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Agreed. Have commented there. ] (]) 14:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Please can we not throw the baby out with the bathwater, though. I appreciate that some of the extended spin-offs such as Jago & Litefoot, Companion Chronicles or Bernice Summerfield are perhaps stretching notability, but Bondegezou you appear to have pasted a deletion proposal notice on a large number of Doctor Who audios starring the original Doctor actors themselves, i.e. the Big Finish "Main Range". I think the Main Range and Eighth Doctor Adventures are sufficiently notable to be left in place, firstly because they star the original Doctor actors in their original roles, and also since the BBC have been broadcasting a selection of them on the radio and are likely to broadcast more. I mean, pretty much any branch of any major bookseller in the UK will have Main Range CDs on the shelves. They are not really a niche mail-order-only item like the extended spin-offs. | |||
::Please can we have a gentlemen's agreement that the Big Finish Doctor Who "Main Range" and EDAs are sufficiently notable, but that the spin-offs-of-spin-offs such as Gallifrey, Dalek War, Jago & Litefoot etc. require a higher degree of notability in order to avoid the cut? ] (]) 23:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Everything demands the same degree of notability (]): we can't make local policies (see ]). I prod'ed those articles because I really don't see how they are compatible with Misplaced Pages policy and practice today. Great stuff for a Dr Who-specific wiki, but ] and ] are cornerstones of how Misplaced Pages works and we can't keep ducking them. But that's my interpretation and I could be wrong: if you disagree, ] lays out what to do. ] (]) 08:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::I interpret the flags as a kick up the backside to the Big Finish fans among[REDACTED] editors to <i>improve</i> the articles. Many Big Finish releases are given a quickly knocked together stub, but few people want to do the boring, and necessary work of searching out and providing secondary references. Many of these pages lack even the easy primary references to the Big Finish website ] (]) 09:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I have merged ] but note two of the episodes lack continuity sections due to your current quality drive. Basically it was a single release, like Dark Eyes, so should only have one page. ] (]) 09:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for doing the merge. Merges and re-directs seem a good way to go for many of these articles (I'd suggest maybe just a single article for the whole ''Gallifrey'' series?). The numerous continuity sections across many articles look like ]: they are not supported by citations and they take an in-universe perspective. Again, I don't see how they are compatible with Misplaced Pages policy and practice today. There is a place for them on the Internet, I'm sure, but not on Misplaced Pages. But my quality drive, as you call it, has been rather haphazard! ] (]) 09:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Maybe when I have time to do this. I think I need to spend a week off here] (]) 13:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
== Articles for Deletion == | |||
</div> | |||
I noticed the following. Please note I did not propose it! ] (]) 20:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
:Well, let's find some reliable source coverage, improve those articles and put forward arguments against deletion! I've begun with some work on ''Cold Fusion''. ] (]) 10:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 --> | |||
::Great a positive attitude] (]) 09:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Introduction to contentious topics == | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''the ]''', a topic designated as ''']'''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Misplaced Pages administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. | |||
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully</strong> and <strong>constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and: | |||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 20:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
*adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages; | |||
*comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; | |||
*follow editorial and behavioural best practice; | |||
*comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and | |||
*refrain from gaming the system. | |||
<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'' you may ask them at the ] or you may learn more about this contentious topic ]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> — ] <sub>]</sub> 06:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{-}} | |||
:In passing, worth noting that the editor blocked for 72 hours may be circumventing that block (on the Zagreus talk page anyway) but using a very geogrpahically similar IP address (http://iplocation.truevue.org/41.133.1.164.html and http://iplocation.truevue.org/41.132.117.15.html) ] (]) 08:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== why do you keep undoing my edits? == | |||
a delivery driver is not the same thing as a night delivery driver. from source: | |||
::Yes, I noticed that at the time and put a note on the incident log. The IP addresses seem to be from the same ISP. However he didn't seem to continue to edit and either sat the weekend out (wish I did) or kept a low profile so I didn't pursue it. ] (]) 09:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
"who is currently a night delivery-man for a bakery" -1 accuracy points there | |||
you wrote: 'He said he would seek powers to reduce rents' yet I cannot find this quote anywhere? it's almost as if he never said it. | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
He did say: " we need is two things. the political will - it needs to be a really strong mandate ... | |||
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
“The other side of it though is, ultimately, you need to get the banks on side" | |||
none of that has to do with seeking powers, or lobbying | |||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Appreciation == | |||
"provide solar panels and heat pumps to every home" this is misleading: | |||
Thanks for working to improve the Doctor Who novel articles. When I first joined Misplaced Pages back in 2006, one of my first manias was to stub all the Virgin and BBC novels. You know, on the premise that if you plant a seed, eventually it will blossom forth into a full article. So it's nice to see someone watering the shrubs. :) Cheers, and hope you enjoy the weekend. --<font color="#111111">‖ ] <sup>]</sup> - <small>]</font> ‖ 12:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
"he would look to provide every home with a solar power connection and a small heat pump. | |||
“That’s something that I would want entirely paid for by the private sector,”" | |||
is what was said. you're version implies use of city hall funds | |||
my edit was better, and more accurate - if you have in issue with tone or neutrality that's one thing, but ditching accuracy for the ego win of 'being right' doesn't seem very wiki-cool to me ] (]) 08:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ABWH == | |||
:Don't ] or you will be banned. Read ] for more information. Also, read ] and follow its advice. Discuss proposed edits to the article on its Talk page, not here. ] (]) 09:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I see that you have now been blocked from editing ]. ] (]) 09:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Congratulations - looks like your fiction is now set in stone. shame that you seem to have little respect for truth ] (]) 10:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::This isn't about the content of the article. You were banned for your behaviour. If you want to be unbanned, you need to recognise that. If you want to improve the content of the article, discuss suggested changes on the Talk page. You still haven't done this. ] (]) 11:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::but you did the same thing as me. | |||
::::it's egos and admins - what a joke | |||
::::You gamed the system to push fiction on Misplaced Pages - super cool | |||
::::On a long enough time scale - Every population gets the government it deserves ] (]) 11:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{tps}} {{re|Asingleshardofconsciousnes }} Bondegezou didn't do the same thing as you. They reverted you twice (two other people also reverted you) and encouraged you to take the discussion to the talk page. I urge you to read the ] link Bondegezou sent above which explains why this is important. Instead you edit warred against several other editors without discussing the issue on the talk page. Bondegezou hasn't gamed the system, they followed our process – one which you ignored – and has shown you patience. If you feel your edits are valid, explain why on the talk page. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 12:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I clicked the wrong talk page - | |||
::::::I made my reasons on the edit bit - | |||
::::::again - and maybe I'm an idiot here. | |||
::::::So I make edit - explain reasons behind it | |||
::::::he revert - no reason given | |||
::::::I re-edit - make reasons more indepth | |||
::::::he revert say take to talk page | |||
::::::I re-edit and explain in talk page (his not the article one - new user my bad) | |||
::::::I don't think the two are the same. | |||
::::::yet to hear any reason for the edit ] (]) 12:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::As multiple people have said, you need to go to ] and make a case there. You still have not done that. Please listen to the advice you are being given. | |||
:::::::Also, you will need to make a ] declaration if you have a conflict of interest, as your prior editing suggested. ] (]) 12:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== me too === | |||
Hi, i want to report that yesworld.com is going to include ABWH in Yes Discography. --] (]) 10:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
I took care to justify my edits to the three body problem page - so why do you think you did not need to justify your reversal? | |||
:Thanks. I will review how the relevant articles are handled. I'm actually working with YesWorld these days, so I'm not certain what the implications of that are! ] (]) 11:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Three-Body_Problem_%28novel%29&oldid=prev&diff=1104876065 | |||
::CttE Lyrics (IGUIGD) in YesWorld are wrong. Here the right ones: | |||
] 01:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Hello {{u|MarmotteNZ}}, I did justify my reversal. My apologies if I did so too succinctly, but I was pointing you towards ], which explains Misplaced Pages's position on spoilers in articles. ] (]) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Consensus == | |||
In her white lace/She could clearly see the lady sadly looking/saying that she’d take the blame/For the crucifixion of her own domain. | |||
I think we are experiencing a situation where an editor can't accept that their opinion is not an objective assessment of the situation, but an opinion with which no one else agrees. ] (]) 10:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
I get up. I get down/I get up. I get down | |||
== Your revert at "]" == | |||
Two million people barely satisfy/Two hundred women watch one woman cry/Too late. | |||
The eyes of honesty can achieve/(She would gladly say it amazement of her story)/How many millions do we deceive/(Asking only interest could be laid)/Each day?/(Upon the children of her domain) | |||
I get up. I get down/I get up. I get down | |||
In charge of who is there in charge of me/(She could clearly see the lady sadly looking)/Do I look on blindly and say I see/(Saying that she'd take the blame)/The way?/(For the crucifixion of her own domain) | |||
The truth is written all along the page/(She would gladly say it amazement of her story)/How old will I be before I come of age /(Asking only interest could be laid)/For you?/(Upon the children of her domain) | |||
I get up. I get down./I get up. I get down./I get up. I get down. | |||
I get up. I get down./I get up. I get down. --] (]) 10:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Articles for creation == | |||
Over the fall-out over article quality between various people I strayed into ]. You can lose your life there. | |||
Have a look at this ] I am thinking that this article is ready for the wider[REDACTED] community to have a go at. Part of me thinks she may be another McKeith or Holford, but she seems high profile enough to warrant an article. Any ideas as to what cats to put on it or tags? | |||
There was also a UKIP candidate with an article in the creation process that I may send your way. ] (]) 08:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I've never delved into AfC before. Wow. I'll take a closer look at Annie Bond. ] (]) 09:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for the rewrites. ] (]) 19:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
I'm currently looking at ]. The section on history needs editing down and de-]ing a bit. I've already had this article csd'd once so it needs to be right before it goes again. Thanks for any help you can give. ] (]) 07:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Big Generator cover == | |||
] cover is wrong. The correct one is yellow! The green one is alternate. --] (]) 17:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Doctor Who and BRD == | |||
You need to review the terms of ]. Your revert was made during an ongoing discussion, when the article should remain at the stable (with the reference to Hamlet) state. The burden is on the editor(s) wishing to make the change to gain consensus, not on those wishing to remove it. I'm not going to revert again because this will resolve itself soon, but you are warned that you are on the verge of edit warring, and should make yourself aware of how BRD and CONSENSUS actually do work. --] (]) 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
:I believe you are mistaken about BRD. The Hamlet reference was the B, it was R(everted), there is now a D(iscussion) on the Talk page. The burden is on those seeking to add the statement. | |||
:Given no citation was given for the claim and citations have now been provided specifically contradicting the claim, it clearly should not be included anyway. Misplaced Pages policy is pretty clear on that, if I might say so! ] (]) 21:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Me again. My apologies. I see now that the Hamlet reference was in an earlier version, so it's initial removal would be the B. However, given the citation against the claim and none for, the removal is clearly appropriate. ] (]) 21:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
== olinguito == | |||
Since you refuse to allow simple copy editing, I've deleted the nonsensical transcription. — ] (]) 14:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Answered at ]. ] (]) 14:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Okay, tagged it instead. Maybe someone else will correct it, since it violates ] and is generating an error-tracking category. — ] (]) 14:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::It would help if you would explain the reasons for your edits sooner. Indeed, I would recommend to you, again, that you consider and follow ]. ] (]) 14:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
''oe'' and ''ih'' don't exist in our RESPELL; the equivalents are ''oh'' and ''i''. The first syllable takes 2ndary stress and should be capitalised. — ] (]) 15:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks. It would be useful if you could bring that expertise to ]. I don't generally do edits on pronunciations and it took me a while to even work out why you were telling me this! ] (]) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Links to Scientology groups violate rules from[REDACTED] == | |||
This constitute propaganda, so I must to remove it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Please explain your edits in the comment field, otherwise other editors do not know why you are doing something. ] (]) 17:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== European Parliament - MEPs standing down == | |||
You appear to be right about Nattrass. He has not stated an intention to stand down. However, I have provided other sources to confirm that Godfrey Bloom will not be standing again. The Mirror source clearly states that he will sit out his term, suport Jane Collins, his replacement and maintain his UKIP membership. Maintaing membership of one party makes it impossible for him to contest an election under another party banner. Hope this helps. Thanks again for your correction on Mike Nattrass.] (]) 15:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
I spotted this in the system. He appears notable as a member of the Norwegian gov't but could do with some copyediting before going live. ] (]) 06:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
==DYK for London Britannia Airport== | |||
{{tmbox | |||
|style = notice | |||
|small = | |||
|image = ] | |||
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ''... that the proposed ''']''' has been dubbed "Boris island" by the media?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and it will be added to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> ] (]) 08:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
== November 2013 == | |||
Please do not remove notability tags without reason. It is considered vandalism and disruptive editing. ] (]) 16:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Your response here appears to be a retaliation for past disagreements and warnings on your talk page rather than an honest warning. I would suggest you step back from your current actions. ] (]) 16:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
:41.132.229.100 has since been blocked for one day. ] (]) 19:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Wythenshawe Byelection == | |||
Hi :-) | |||
Thanks, for taking an interest in my edits of the upcoming ]. I've been having problems sorting the table out, you mentioned I was using the incorrect format, could you point me in the direction of the correct format please? In line with previous byelections, it is standard to add the candidate box as soon as we have candidates to put in them and then add other candidates as they are announced. I have also started this discussion on the ]. Cheers ] (]) 14:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Someone else nominated this, but didn't alert you. == | |||
. ] (]) 05:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Can you do something about this? == | |||
Hey Bondegezou! I hope you're well. Sorry to post here, but I thought you could do something. It seems HurluGumene is and moving the ledes into the main body as "Overview". Why, and why Yes-related articles, is beyond me. I have reverted them once and they have been changed back. Their reasons: "Better that way!". Can something be done? ] (]) 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I'm on something of a wiki-break for a week or two, so unlikely to have much input. Have you discussed what the Manual of Style recommends with HurluGumene? ] (]) 01:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
== UK Independence Party == | |||
Please see the discussion at ] about whether academic sources describing the UK Independence Party as far-right are reliable. ] (]) 07:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
== The Dolphin of Constructive Comment == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Dolphin of Constructive Comment''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your level-heded contribution at ]! | |||
{{P}} | |||
] (]) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== ] == | |||
Bit of a problem with dates in this and related articles. You wrote that the party was launched in 2013, infobox says founded in 2013, Nattrass was deselected by UKIP in 2013, he launched AIFE in November 2013 etc. Similar dates appear in related articles. But, the Electoral Commission database shows An Independence from Europe was registered by Nattras on 26 June '''2012'''. Now, I understand that a party can be formed and ''launched'' on different dates, but the discrepancies here are startling. Any ideas how to proceed on this? ] (]) 11:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
The Electoral Commission also records annual statement filed on 18 March 2013 (total income a £25 donation and total expenditure £25 on miscellaneous). ] (]) 11:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I guess we just report everything. I'll have a go at an edit. ] (]) 11:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
::That looks good. It's an interesting concept though - registering a party while still a member of another over a year beofre the apparent split. Clearly more than meets the eye here. ] (]) 11:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, indeed. Very interesting find. I think Nattrass was unhappy with the UKIP leadership for a while. I'll see if there's any more RS citations covering the period that might be relevant. ] (]) 13:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for April 26== | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ], ] and ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Newark by-election Infobox== | |||
Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election ]. Thanks. ] (]) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
You're literally <s>edit warring with me</s> making edits to force negative information into a biography of a living person- some of it is sourced to the ''Daily Mail'', some of it isn't sourced at all. It's entirely possible that the content does belong in the article, but until we have better sources, it's going to have to stay out- that's the very essence of our ] policy. ] (]) 11:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Just to be clear- I misread the PhD thing, and assumed she had a legitimate PhD in some non-nutrition subject which she was using to add weight to her claims about nutrition. However, "by implication referring to the controversial manner in which she attained her Doctor of Philosophy degree" seems to be unsourced editorialising. We get that Goldacre has issues with her, we don't need to list and explain every reference he makes to her qualifications. The ''Mail'' thing stands, though- we can't include negative information about a living person sourced to a newspaper of the ''Mail''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s quality. ''Guardian'', ''Telegraph'', ''Times'' and the like, yes. ''Mail''? Certainly not. ] (]) 11:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::A single revert of an edit does not constitute edit warring: it is a natural part of the ] cycle. Your edit has been reverted, so I suggest you now take the matter to the Talk page for discussion. (My apologies if you've already done that as well. I haven't checked yet.) The details of your concerns are better discussed there than here. ] (]) 14:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::I've replied there, as well as asked for a third opinion at the BLP noticeboard. I apologise for suggesting (and retract my suggestion that) you were edit warring, which you clearly were not. ] (]) 16:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
== projekcts == | |||
Hi, why did you undo my edit? I'm not complaining. I need to know for future reference. If you simply undo an edit without an explanation, new editors or relatively new editors won't understand your rationale. Regards] (]) 19:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:There is no need for such notes as to what other articles link to an article. ] (]) 19:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::OK, however your undo removed the link that I created from Anglagard to that section of Projekts. Also, the note that I created was exactly, to the letter, what the guidelines were telling me to do. ] I would greatly appreciate it if you could change it back to the way it was,please. Respectfully] (]) 19:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::You are mistaken, I believe. My undo removed only the note, and the note is not what the guidelines tell you to do. The link you created on the Anglagard article was not affected by anything I did. ] (]) 21:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Hi ], so, can you explain to me, please, what I've done wrong, and how I can get it right? Regards] (]) 23:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Hi Bondegezou and ]. Such a note is recommended by ] when piping a link: | |||
:::::''"When doing this, add a hidden comment to the target section such as <nowiki><!-- the article WP:LINK links here --></nowiki> so that someone changing the title of that section can fix the incoming links."'' | |||
:::::I've re-added it just below the section heading. Best, ] (]) 06:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thank you for the explanation ]. My apologies, ], for my error and the confusion it must have caused you. I hope the other problem you were having with the link has also been resolved. ] (]) 10:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Don't worry, Bondegezou. I had no idea about that guidance either until CaesarsPalaceDude asked me about it and I looked it up. Best, ] (]) 11:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
I see you deleted the external links to the party's leaflets. I'd wondered about that. Clearly, linking to a party's website for direct propaganda is not acceptable, but that's not the case here. However, neither does it appear to be an archive or repository for election leaflets (that would be useful). Not that I intend to, but would it be acceptable do you think to link there if the text says that party is in favour of X and the leaflet supports that as a reference? ] (]) 09:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:], surely, means we can't link to someone who has put leaflets up without evidence of permission to do so. I have no problem with linking to the party's website or using a leaflet as a reference on matters of what the party's policy is. ] (]) 15:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I wouldn't have though so. Copyvio surely only applies to copying a work and passing it off as your own. Just linking to a leaflet is the same as linking to an online book or magazine article. Used properly (i.e. in a reasonable quote with attribution) should not be a problem, and I have never to my knowledge seen a political leaflet with a copyright assertion, icluding those that rattled through my doors yesterday on their way to the bin. Grey area though. ] (]) 09:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::] is what I should have cited. Everything is copyrighted: it doesn't need a copyright assertion to be so. Whatever those links were, they didn't appear to be to an official or approved archive, so we must assume that they were violating copyright. At least, that's how it seems to me. If I scanned a magazine article and stuck it on Dropbox, the same would apply. ] (]) 09:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Good point. ] (]) 11:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Things we have in common == | |||
Hi ], my area of interest is bands like Yes, King Crimson, U.K., Änglagård, and many other prog bands, some of them obscure. When I looked at your user page, I quickly realised that you were one of the good guys (because you care, among many reasons). So, we could look at the discussion above as a way to introduce ourselves, and that would be a positive outcome, regards] (]) 00:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
:It's very nice to meet you. I could tell by your username that you liked similar bands. :-) Plenty of Wiki-work to be done on prog rock bands. ] (]) 09:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Hi ], you could take a look, if you like, at my post at ]. This particular band has nothing to do with doom metal, and everything to do with symphonic prog; even though it is called "Cathedral". I would value your opinion, if you have the time, regards] (]) 21:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
==WikiProject Elections and Referendum article tagging== | |||
Hi Bondegezou. Sorry to have to post directly on your talk page, but you may have noticed (on the WP:Elections and referendums talk page) that I am trying to get all the election and referendum articles tagged for the project. Unfortunately this is not making any progress, as people are claiming there is no consensus to do this, as no-one has responded on the Project talk page. Could you possibly comment on the proposal at ], as I'm getting rather frustrated by the attitude of the people at ]. Cheers, ] ]] 12:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
: Very well reworded ] - thanks ]. M ] (]) 11:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Clacton by-election, 2014 == | |||
There is no comma in the BBC's text and the BBC's text is wrong and clearly makes no grammatical sense. What do we do. Shall I find a news organisation to cite that has some people who are capable of transcribing without being illiterate? --] (]) 20:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:] lays out the approach Misplaced Pages takes. If the lack of comma disturbs you, you can use " for added or replacement text", ''i.e.'' add "" where you think the comma is needed. ] (]) 06:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Yes/ABWH == | |||
Please see my comments at ]. The biggest problem, IMO, is that ABWH were occasionally called "Yes", but Yes were never, to my knowledge, called "ABWH". Perhaps this discussion should extend to the ] article and ]. Best, ] (]) 22:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Article on Ruchir Sharma== | |||
Thank you for your feedback on the--] (]) 21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC) article. I notice you wrote KEEP, so does that mean the consensus has been reached? Would you be kind enough to tell me how to close it so it does not get deleted? Also, any feedback with regards to how to improve would be greatly appreciated. | |||
:Answered at ]. ] (]) 09:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Camp Sovereignty == | |||
I added some references to ]. You may want to revisit ]. <font face="Times">'''] (] • ])'''</font> 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Lanark and Hamilton East (UK Parliament constituency) == | |||
Morning. | |||
A user moved the above to just ] some time ago, and as I'm not an admin, I can't do a thing about it. As you know, the project was able to make (UK Parliament constituency) a disambiguation permitted to be included on the relevant articles, so could you or someone you know please move the latter to the former? I've done a *very* naughty thing by doing a copy/paste edit, but you know me and this topic, I'm passionately against exceptions being created. Any help would be appreciated ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 08:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Hi ]. You don't need to be an admin to move a page: anyone can do it. But now you've recreated ], ] can't be moved back because there's something in the way! So now we do need an admin. I suggest you go to ]. ] (]) 09:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Haha, oh will this bumbling ninny ever learn! I will see what I can do, ta Bonde! ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 09:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Invitation to RfC == | |||
The mediation ] have convened an RfC in order to stimulate discussion on the key issue in the mediation. Unfortunately, only a few Wikipedians have expressed an opinion which is causing a dilemma. All parties have agreed on a shortlist of editors whose thoughts, and experience we believe will be valuable to this RfC. You are, therefore, personally invited to assist us, by giving your opinion, whatever that may be at ] ] (]) 10:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Just to let you know that a couple of editors on our short list have responded to our call for help with the RfC. If you intend to contribute to the RfC, we will certainly wait. If you have already decided to pass, could you drop us a line on this talk page or somewhere we are going to see it, please? The thing is that we have been on this mediation so long that I have no desire to count the months; some closure would be nice. Thankyou for your time. ] (]) 09:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Hi. I've had a look and didn't feel I had anything to offer the discussion. ] (]) 15:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks. Have a great day. ] (]) 17:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Henry Cow == | |||
Hello. There was a discussion about was Roelofs a member of Henry Cow on Henry Cow talk-page as it is not so clear. I recommend you to read the referrences and say your own opinion. ] (]) 16:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Experiment on how to get people to edit Misplaced Pages == | |||
Hello. Nice ] in The Signpost! You might find of interest. ] (]) 09:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks. Will take a look. ] (]) 13:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Labour candidates for deletion == | |||
Dear Bondegezou, | |||
I saw your comments about RathFelder puting non notable labour candidates on wikipedia. | |||
I agree with you totally. Please can you start removing them | |||
e.g. this one as well http://en.wikipedia.org/Uma_Kumaran | |||
== Misplaced Pages Science Conference == | |||
Hello Bondegezou, | |||
You're receiving this update because you asked to be informed about the taking place in London on 2nd and 3rd of September. Thanks for your interest. | |||
The call for proposals is now public and session proposals are coming in. The two keynotes, and some other invited speakers, have graciously accepted. In mid-May we will bring together a programme, a publicity poster, and an online booking form. Then we'll begin the main publicity and will need your help getting the word out. | |||
Please put in a session proposal if you've been thinking of doing so: the deadline is the 8th May. This is far from the only way to be involved. The conference will need session moderators, a programme review group, and other volunteers: if there is a specific role you are interested in, or if you have any other questions, please email me at m.l.poulter{{@}}bristol.ac.uk. | |||
There will be a large "unconference" session in the programme and - fingers crossed - a "hackathon" event two days later on the Saturday, so even if you do not have a proposal accepted, you will have a chance to shape the conference activities. | |||
Please pass on the word to any colleagues who might want to put in a proposal or help the conference in any way. Cheers, ] (]) 12:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
P.S. Thanks for creating an article about ]: my favourite guitarist and my second favourite record producer (after Trevor Horn of course). I'm also a Fripp-a-holic, so thanks for all the Crimson-related articles too. Cheers, ] (]) 12:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Addition of First Past the Post to UK election article == | |||
Is that site a reliable source? I noticed you pointing out at the start of the discussion that we should only add sites according to ]. This site, however, is doing something really strange: it calculates some win probabilities based on betting sites (fair enough) but then it runs Monte Carlo, and their description of this does not make any sense at all. "When the random value is less than or equal to a candidate's win-probability, that candidate wins." So if the random value happens to be 0, ALL candidates for a given seat win... | |||
Is there any media organization that refers to this website, or uses it for their predictions? ] (]) 10:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Good points. | |||
:On their methodology, it seems sensible to me. While they've not worded that bit very well, they're doing a standard Monte Carlo. If you have a bunch of seats where, say, Labour have a 60% win-probability and the Conservatives have a 40% win-probability, you can't just assign those all to Labour. A Monte Carlo simulation handles that. In that context, you would split the seat into 0-0.6 for Labour and 0.60001-1.0 for Conservative, then generate a random value and see where it falls. | |||
:Is it RS? I hope it counts. I first saw Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting.com referencing it. I'll look further into that question and report back. ] (]) 12:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, as I half-remembered, the New Statesman's May2015.com are referencing them sometimes: ''e.g.'' . ] (]) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Jessica Asato== | |||
Why do you want to remove all that material?] (]) 14:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
:A Misplaced Pages article is not there to record everything a person says or everything said about them. I felt the material I removed was trivial. Feel free to revert as you see fit. ] (]) 14:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
== 2nd nomination for AfD of Uma Kumaran article == | |||
I just wanted to let you know that I've renominated the article on ] to AfD. | |||
Since you were a contributor to the original nomination, your input would be appreciated in ]. | |||
Many thanks | |||
--] (]) 17:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
== 538 == | |||
Hi Bondegezou, just a bit of a query really. 538 has gone from the main GE article prediction section. Is it suposed to be gone or has it been chopped in error? Asking yourself really as you keep a closer eye on these things than me, regards - ] 17:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Hi. I removed it. Turned out they were just using Election Forecast; it wasn't a separate prediction. ] (]) 21:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Suspected it might have been duplication, cheers - ] 22:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Unintended thanks== | |||
I didn't mean to thank you for that edit - finger slipped. Dreadful mobile interface makes it far too easy to thank by mistake. It also won't let me add this to end of page -sorry! ]] 05:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks! == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Thanks!''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I thank You! ] (]) 14:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== ORCID == | |||
Hi, | Hi, | ||
Regarding your revert of my edit at "]", please note than in no instance did I change the displayed text of any quoted material, or indeed of any other material in the article. My edit involved replacing piped links with redirects where the existing text was a pre-existing redirect to the same target as the pipe, as described at ], and reducing the degree of overlinking of named characters such as Carrie Johnson/Symonds (linked 13 separate times). | |||
Please see ] for details of how to add your ] iD to your user page, and to use ORCID iDs in any relevant biographies you edit. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 18:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
I have nominated the article for deletion. Please discuss there. --] (]) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
Could you have a look at this article please? It's been speedily deleted twice as being promotional. A fresh eye would be very helpful. It seems to be a significant, and successful, company with software which attracts a lot of favourable publicity, only some of which is self generated. Do you think as it stands it's defensible? If there was any negative coverage, where would it be? I haven't found any. ] (]) 09:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, I think it is defensible. | |||
:In terms of revising the text, I'd probably drop the "Patient tracking systems" section; and make the sections "Canada" through to "Australia" into lower-level subsections and trim some of the detail. I think that would make it look less promotional. A Google Scholar search threw up a few citations that may be useful. | |||
:It's hard to find negative coverage in situations like this. I don't see that as a problem personally. We follow what RS there is. | |||
:Let me know what happens. ] (]) 10:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
== A cup of coffee for you! == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Are you going to the Wiki Science Conference? If you do, would you please chat with {{noping|Daniel Mietchen}} about Wikidata and health data? He has the best ideas of anyone on this subject, I think. ]] 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
Yes, I am. I'll look out for him. Looking forward to much talk on Wikidata at the event. ] (]) 14:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for August 28== | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Manika Article == | |||
Hi! I've noticed that you're cleaning up the ] article. I'm glad, but please take a look at my old edit and make sure to remove all the false information from it like the fake chart positions. Take a look at this: | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Oshwah#Manika_page | |||
Good luck! ] (]) 17:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)AyanP | |||
:Thanks for your work identifying problems with the article. Have you asked for page protection to stop problematic editing? ] (]) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Unfortunately I don't even know how to do that! And the bigger problem is that lot of reputable Wiki users often think I'm the vandal whenever I make edits; they thought the original Manika article was fine because everything was cited and I was destroying it maliciously, but web citations don't mean the "facts" in the article are true. All the sources are her own official website, her social media and her own interviews. I've actually visited Billboard, Kworb.net, AllAcess, Mediabase, etc. to verify the information and most of it's NOT true or twisted around like a press release. Take a look at Oshwah's talk page for details. I'm assuming another user picked up on this because of the edit war and nominated it for deletion. If that's necessary, so be it. ] (]) 17:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)AyanP | |||
:::] explains how to ask for page protection. ] (]) 21:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Ludwik Fleck== | |||
Check out ], particularly | |||
:*''The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact'', (edited by T.J. Trenn and R.K. Merton, foreword by ]) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. This is the first English translation of his 1935 book titled ''Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv'' Schwabe und Co., Verlagsbuchhandlung, Basel. | |||
== Merger of Oleogustus == | |||
Bondegezou, thanks for doing the merger. Something to keep in mind for next time, though - there are a few extra cleanup steps, including removing the merger tag from the target page and adding tags on the talk pages of the two articles (see ]). I did them for you. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">](])</span> 18:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for September 22== | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for October 9== | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Inducing fetal demise and unintended live birth == | |||
Hi, I just found a clinical guideline, by the Society of Family Planning (Publisher of Contraception) regarding induced fetal demise that could help to shed some light on under what conditions an abortion procedure results in unintended live birth, and how common it may be. http://www.societyfp.org/_documents/resources/InductionofFetalDemise.pdf Does this sound relevant to today's article about the Supreme Court and the Texas law? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/abortion-at-the-supreme-courts-door.html?_r=0; Also, here's another source, specifically addressing what happens if the procedure depends on inducing fetal death but it doesn't work: http://jme.bmj.com/content/16/2/61.short Another thought... do you think that it would be appropriate to add a link to the abortion section of the feticide article somewhere in the Abortion#Methods section? -] (]) 16:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:In the first numbered question of the SFP guideline they reference the incidence of unintended live birth. -] (]) 16:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for October 22== | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
== John Bickley - UKIP PPC for Oldham West & Royton == | |||
Hi ] - I can see you are much on the case stamping out any erroneous edits to ] which I applaud wholeheartedly. Perhaps I should point out that I have recently corresponded at length with Frinton about how contributors can most efficiently improve Wiki, and his guidance was most gratefully received and very helpful indeed.<br>Since you appear to be quite high up in the Wiki strata I thought it as well to say hello because I noticed you deleted a couple of sentences in the Bickley article which I introduced - you are quite right, they were unsourced so I have corrected that omission. I have to say I am a bit dismayed that the level of trust among Wikipedians has sunk so low, which makes it inevitable that one has to spend more time justifying oneself than actually improving the articles - couldn't this be improved somehow? Anyway keep up the good work & looking forward to hearing - many thanks. M ] (]) 21:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I'm just a regular editor: I have no particular position in the Misplaced Pages strata. I think good ways to improve the situation on Misplaced Pages are (a) to always assume good faith oneself about the activities of others; and (b) respect the basic principles of Misplaced Pages (] ''&c.''). Another good thing to remember is ] cycle. ] (]) 00:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I have never experienced anything like this - I know it is not your "problem" but the amount of vitriol that stems from Frinton & AusLondonder is beyond belief - even if I didn't have any preconceptions (I had suspicions) why are they so obsessive about rounding on this topic - it is not even me - because I edit on a host of other topics - whenever the Labour Party becomes involved they are on my case like flies. I don't get a word in edgeways. This is no way to provide considered edits & improvements to Wiki. In fact, howsoever you personally may deem their behaviour to be, I find it to be thoroughly objectionable and enthused by ulterior motives (whatever they may be!). The fact is it is not helping Wiki - but being a stubborn old one I foolishly have allowed myself to get sucked into all this tomfoolery. How to restore order? Best M ] (]) 00:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::PS. I just reverted your last two reversions ] because they have been discussed ad infinitum & sourced properly. M ] (]) 00:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::] ] (]) 00:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::], your description does not accord with what I've seen. If you find it difficult to assume good faith in other editors, if relations are getting tense, one thing you can do is take a break from areas of discord and focus your Misplaced Pages efforts elsewhere for a while. Then, after a break, come back and see if things still seem as bad as you thought. What does not help is getting into edit wars: let go of your stubbornness if you want to help Misplaced Pages be better! ] (]) 00:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Why don't you do the same?! M ] (]) 00:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::If I feel I'm getting overly frustrated with the situation, I will certainly follow my own advice. I hope you, me, ] and ] can all resist any temptation to put our own frustrations ahead of the goals of Misplaced Pages: ] is a relevant essay here. An easy way to do that is to stick to basic Misplaced Pages principles, like ] and ]. ] (]) 00:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for November 18== | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ], ] and ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 --> | |||
== ] == | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691995604 --> | |||
== The inclusion of political parties who have no MPs or seats == | |||
I'm happy to discuss further, but please read ], ], ], and ]. | |||
Can you please explain why parties such as BNP and the Respect party, who have no MPs and no seats be represented here? | |||
Best wishes, ] (]) 07:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum | |||
:Apologies, I thought you had changed "BYOB" inappropriately and you had not. However, some of your Carrie Johnson->Carrie Symonds changes are unhelpful, I think, and obscure the narrative. IF you make a very large number of changes in one edit, it is difficult for other editors to respond. ] (]) 08:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I take your point about making a large number of changes in a single edit, but the alternative is to make a large number of (very similar) changes in a large number of edits, which (I'm told) has the potential to annoy page-watchers. Another alternative would be to make no changes at all, of course. | |||
::Regarding Carrie Johnson → Carrie Symonds, again, these changes affect only the format of the link, not the displayed text. "]" (<code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code>) and "]" (<code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code>) both display the same text to the reader, and both link to the same target. The advice of ] is to prefer the former to the latter. ] (]) 08:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Post Office == | |||
Moreover this approach is inconsistent with the approach taken by John Maynard Friedman https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum&diff=691594332&oldid=691594047 -- I mean, without sounding funny, why not include everyone and anyone with a view. | |||
<ref> https://www.computerforum.com/threads/amd-dual-core-problems.58784/ </ref> | |||
"TUSC nor English Democrats have parliamentary representation and thus are not notable" - the same principle applies to both above mentioned. How do we determine "notable"? In context to the section I refer to, it is: if they have MPs, first and foremost. | |||
<ref> https://superuser.com/questions/972259/can-cpu-overheating-cause-data-corruption </ref> | |||
<ref> https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/12z7zbq/cpu_damage_from_overheating/ </ref> ] (]) 08:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:There’s no point posting these to my Talk page. Post them to the article Talk page. ] (]) 08:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{Reflist-talk}} | |||
== June 2024 == | |||
Also, the inclusion of these "dysfunctional" 'parties' could tarnish both the Greens or UKIP. Why not add my granny, or next door neighbor!? | |||
] Hello. I have noticed that you {{usertalk other||often}} edit without using an ]. Please do your best to '''always fill in the summary field'''. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in ]. Thanks! <!-- Template:Summary2 --> ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
Aside from the fact we may agree with your implied sentiment, perhaps -- all contributors must uphold standards of description, account and editorial, above personal principle, since this is the right & democratic thing to do. | |||
:Hi {{u|Adam Black}}! No, I don't. I nearly always use edit summaries. Why the message? ] (]) 11:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The link provided (at "often") shows that: | |||
::* 31.6% of your total contributions have no edit summary | |||
::* 21% of your major edits have no edit summary | |||
::* 11% of your edits in June 2024 have no edit summary. | |||
::I wouldn't describe that as "nearly always". I noticed many contributors are failing to provide an edit summary at ] which is what led to me posting these messages to all of the editors I noticed doing this. I included you so it didn't come across as though I was singling anyone else out. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 11:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ping|Adam Black}} Those appear to be historical numbers, so going back to 2005. What's the point of looking at those? Do you want me to go back in time and tell my 2005 self to use more edit summaries? | |||
:::It says for ''this'' month, 2024-06, that I have 184 total edits and 164 edit summaries, so an 89.1% rate of using edit summaries. Looking at my contributions page, all major, mainspace edits have edit summaries. I often don't bother with edit summaries for minor edits, and I occasionally don't bother with edit summaries on Talk. I do not see this as a problem. I did not find your message helpful. ] (]) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Including them is unreasonable since you could argue that the list should contain all political parties who do not have MPs or seats. Otherwise, it is an unbalanced account of what minor parties believe. ] (]) 19:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
:It's not inconsistent because these are two different sections of the article that are being edited. The "history" section is referring to the period (mainly 2010-15) when it was being publicly discussed whether the UK should have a referendum. During this period the BNP had MEPs and Respect had an MP (George Galloway), so their views were reported at that time. The section JM Friedman was editing relates to the views of the parties now, or looking forward to when the referendum will actually be held (between now and the end of 2017). These parties matter less now (if at all) because they no longer have any elected representatives. ] (]) 20:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, what ] said. ] (]) 21:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
I just restored the word "erroneous" removed by an IP. I see your sources almost all criticise the theory, but it isn't really that clear in the article. Shouldn't there be a section devoted to the debunking? ] ] 10:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
== A barnstar for you! == | |||
:Thanks, {{u|Doug Weller}}, for restoring "erroneous". There's an IP editor who keeps trying to remove it. | |||
:The article is about a bunch of ideas that were promulgated mainly in the 16th, 17th, 18th century. I kinda presumed the reader will know that ideas from the 16th century are often wrong! The notion fell out of favour over time. When dealing with ideas popular in earlier times, I don't know that a framework of "debunking" particularly fits. But I'll look again at the article. ] (]) 10:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. ] ] 12:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Restoring templates that no longer exist == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Just wanted you to know I appreciated all your effort on Mary Kardash! <font color="#B00000">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 04:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
In ], you added a template to an article that no longer exists (ie, it has been deleted). You can tell that the template has been deleted because it appears in red at the bottom of the article with the text "{{red|template:gwenpool}}". Deleted templates do not add anything useful to an article. Restoring them is kind of pointless, and I don't understand why anyone would do that. The template itself ''does not exist''. I'm struggling to find other ways to explain this, so please forgive me if I repeat myself. ] (]) 15:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:Thank you for your explanation, {{u|NinjaRobotPirate}}. Perhaps you could have given a slightly longer edit summary in your initial edit? ] (]) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
] | |||
The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
<blockquote>'''No references. Cannot find sufficient sources to meet ].'''</blockquote> | |||
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
I have undone | |||
edit, can you please site your source before you remove the fact tags, Thanks ] (]) 19:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I have taken your advice and raised the issue at ], your contribution would be greatly appreciated ] (]) 20:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. Answered there. ] (]) 11:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
== Best wishes for the holidays... == | |||
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 15:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFF7E6;" | |||
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ] | |||
|rowspan="2" | | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Season's Greetings''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! ] is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. ] (]) 10:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== |
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | ||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
Hi. Sorry to revert but there is a logical case for the largest three parties in Westminster as they are so much larger than he rest - or for the top 6 to include some of the smaller, but difficult to see a reason for top 4 other than to allow the Lib Dems to be included. Please outline the case for your preferred option on the talk page. Thanks ] (]) 23:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
:As per ], you need to establish a new ] before making changes. You have not done that. Please do not ]. Misplaced Pages has well established procedures for resolving disputes: see ]. ]. ] (]) 23:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
::Establising consensus requires discussion. I look forward to your contribution on talk outlining why you believe that 4 parties should be in the infobox rather than any other number. Thanks ] (]) 00:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
:::There was and continues to be an ongoing discussion on the Talk page. Particularly over a holiday period, you need to give people time to have their say. I would recommend ] to you. There is a time to be bold to trigger a discussion, and there is a time to be polite and let others speak. When dealing with a highly contentious issue that has produced considerable discussion previously, the focus is going to be on the 'D' in BRD, not the 'B'. ] (]) 00:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
==The sole point of support== | |||
On the seats/votes RfC, I have just noticed that you are the sole opinion, very generous, that is keeping the RfC from being closed as by WP:Snow. Are you sure about this sole point of support? Cheers. ] (]) 18:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I am happy for the RfC to be closed now by an uninvolved editor if they feel that appropriate. This has been a contentious issue and I just want due process to be clearly followed to minimise any hard feelings. ] (]) 18:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
==Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Ward (sheriff)== | |||
]You are invited to join the discussion at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 17:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- ] --> | |||
</div> | |||
== ] == | |||
</div> | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
== Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion == | |||
Hi, a friendly request - please stop removing the ] from the See Also section of this article. Numerous sources in the article comment on similarities between the militia rhetoric and the movement, and individual members' connections to the movement. ] (]) 04:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
: That's not the point. ] is the point. We don't repeat links in the See Also section. ] (]) 09:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:NPOVN-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for January 21== | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 8#Ukrainian Voice}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] 20:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Oldham == | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
Hi Bondegezou, | |||
you've entirely removed the parts where Labour blocked an inquiry. While I can understand wanting to trim down on quotes, this seems like (but I am not accusing you of this) ] | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
I understand the desire to slim it down, and I thank you for your re-wording at times, but removing important details like this does not present the reality as is. ] (]) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks and green light I think == | |||
:I don't think that describes my edits, but happy to discuss this on the relevant Talk page, where we can get input from other editors. ] (]) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Oh, must<nowiki>''</nowiki>ve been someone else then? Regardless, we can go to the talk page of Oldham Council ] ] 13:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Precious anniversary == | |||
Thanks for working on the Occupy timeline transfer. The last post from P seems to say he will stop arguing about it, and all other comments are favorable. Its' a pain to redo one's clerical heavy lifting ... been there done that... but if I read it right, if you have time and willingness there's no risk of EW claims if you wanna take another crack at it. ] (]) 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Seven}} | |||
--] (]) 06:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 06:57, 21 January 2025
Archives | ||
|
||
Prog rock
In the now-archived previous talk page, somebody wrote:
"journey to the center was the first from the classic lineup...."
But wasn't "Journey to the Center of the Mind" actually done by the Amboy Dukes? I guess it is possible that Yes did that song also, but there does not seem to be anything here on Misplaced Pages about it. Tesseract12 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Stepan Charnetsky
Congratulations! Thank you for creating a page about my compatriot, a native of the village of Shmankivtsi Stepan Charnetsky. I will be grateful if you help with filling the page about my family village. Thank you!--Максим Огородник (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I just added more information about Stepan Charnetsky. Take a look, please. Максим Огородник (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
dFM position for Alliance
The Belfast Telegraph source you have put quite clearly supports the idea that a non-Unionist or Nationalist party could hold the dFM position and clearly contradicts the statement that this role "can only go to a party designating as Unionist or Nationalist."; indeed it supports the truth that this is open to the largest party of the largest designation. See also:
"But if it finishes second, it can’t nominate a deputy First Minister if it sticks to its designation, as it is highly likely that either unionism or nationalism would be the largest designation, and the largest party from that section will therefore get the post."
This doesn't require "interpreting" primary legislation much less reading it. Suggest you change accordingly. Trivran (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have re-worded the text to better fit the Belfast Telegraph's explanation.
- I suggest this isn't the sort of thing you should be coming here, to my Talk page, about. If there is an issue about an article, discuss it on the article's Talk page. That way, other editors can see the discussion and input. If you have further comments, go there. Bondegezou (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Ref. Tiverton and Honiton edit
The source was published prior to the announcement from the Returning Officer whose decision it is to determine the day of the poll, so was wondering how that would be a reliable source? My understand is primary sources are allowed and this would be a valid time for a primary source, what do you think? Robidy (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- The decision may be known about before the paperwork is published. But if you think there’s a problem with the secondary source given, then, sure, change it.
- It would make more sense to have this discussion on the article Talk page so other editors can contribute. Bondegezou (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Prog rock
Alan White, a drummer for Yes, passed away on May 26. Tesseract12 (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit-warring, AGF violations, apparent tag-teaming by Alexbrn. Thank you. I mentioned your name not intended as any form of criticism but as you were one of the only other editor who substantially contributed to the discussion which came up there. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Monkeypox outbreak article
Hey, I've not gotten to looking over them (your changes) in detail (yet), but tl;dr version : Effort to tidy up is great, feels to me like its a bit of a shame to be throwing out content though.
So I've been (perhaps a little obsessively :P) involved with that article lately, and I definitely welcome your go at an overhaul (if anything, because it makes it easier to tackle the next overhaul :P ). I guess I just wanted to point out quick that I think - to pick an example - some of the content from multi-country outbreak might be worth throwing into an "timeline of the Monkeypox" article, rather than just cutting out. Nothing I can't do myself of course, and if you feel differently that's fine as well of course!
Anyway, I guess instead of inspecting your changes with a magnifying glass, I should maybe rather be taking the opportunity to tackle the article more boldly myself :) (I think I've been burned so often in the past I kind of shy away from that - I guess that comes with gravitating towards editing controversial topics :P ).
Regards, and perhaps we'll see each other round, Sean Heron (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I felt some WP:BOLD changes were needed, but happy to do things differently. I've suggested at Talk:2022_monkeypox_outbreak#Timeline_article? that we could have a timeline article. Bondegezou (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
2022 monkeypox outbreak task force invitation
Hello! I know you have an interest in the ongoing 2022 monkeypox outbreak, so I wanted to invite you to the new monkeypox outbreak task force, which I started from the WikiProject of current events. The task force’s goal is to improve any and all articles relating to the new outbreak. I hope you consider joining! Elijahandskip (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Open up an RFC on the matter
As you're the main editor who's arguing that the Conservative Party leadership is 'now' vacant. I believe it would be best if 'you' would open an RFC on the matter, with a list of pages that RFC would effect. Should the 1922 committee choose an interim leader & thus a new prime minister to serve, until the party eventually elects a 'new' leader, during the RFC? Then the RFC can be closed, as the disputed topic would become moot. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. I will see what other editors think. I hope you will be able to participate in any subsequent discussion, perhaps by bringing relevant sources to support your position. Bondegezou (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the Conservative Party's official website, is a good source. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I had a quick look and the website doesn't appear to have been updated since Johnson's resignation, but if there are specific pages you see, do please share them in the appropriate discussions. That would be helpful. Of course, WP:PRIMARY applies. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the Conservative Party's official website, is a good source. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Roe vs. Wade
Are there any comments that you would care to make about the horrible overturning of the Roe vs. Wade decision here in the U.S. by the Supreme Court? Tesseract12 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Boris Johnson
Hello. Just wanted to let you know, if BoJo resigned as party leader on July 26? Then perhaps his bio (including infobox) page & the Conservative party page, should also be updated :) GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- The citation has No. 10 saying on 26 July that he has resigned, but it is not clear to me on what precise date he resigned. Leaving the precise date aside, yes, of course the other articles should be updated. Bondegezou (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've updated them using "July 26, 2022", though that can be corrected by anyone. Now, to find out who's the "interim party leader". Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see what the UK Supreme Court's ruling will be on Scotland holding another independence referendum. Odds are, they'll rule in favour of the UK government. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Please, may we keep the three-related pages consistent, until a consensus is reached at Johnson's bio page. Maybe a RFC there, would be the way to go. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delayed reply, GoodDay. I suggest a poor decision at one article shouldn’t be spread to other articles in the interests of consistency. If I can gather the energy, I will try to help the editing community reach a consensus on the Boris Johnson article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's great. But as I recommend, concentrate on the BLP & the other two related pages, will follow that result. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Even if this is not relevant to the current UK political situation, I was surprised to find out today that Johnson was born an American citizen. Yes, I know that the family returned to Britain during his childhood. Well, Napoleon was ethnically Italian, Stalin was ethnically Georgian and Hitler was born an Austrian. (This does not imply a comparison of Johnson to any of the above.) Tesseract12 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Jewish Indian theory
On 16 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jewish Indian theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jewish Indian theory, the erroneous idea that some lost tribes of Israel became ancestors to Native Americans, influenced the Book of Mormon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jewish Indian theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jewish Indian theory), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Vanamonde 00:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 13,978 views (582.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Nice work! Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Johnbod and others. I was surprised there wasn’t an article on the topic and had a boring train journey to fill, so… Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is not clear what is meant by "hook". Clicking on the above link does not help. Can anybody please explain? Tesseract12 (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- The line in a DYK beginning "Did you know..." is called the hook. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining it. Tesseract12 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- The line in a DYK beginning "Did you know..." is called the hook. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- It is not clear what is meant by "hook". Clicking on the above link does not help. Can anybody please explain? Tesseract12 (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Johnbod and others. I was surprised there wasn’t an article on the topic and had a boring train journey to fill, so… Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello
Ok its pointless. Einahr (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- WHAT is pointless? Tesseract12 (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Jamie Muhoberac for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jamie Muhoberac is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jamie Muhoberac until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
QuietHere (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Wendy Savage
I just read your page on here about Wendy Savage. The pro-choice movement needs more doctors such as her. Tesseract12 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Brian Rose (podcaster)
There's been an IP based used trying to change info and I am not clear why. It does seem something already discussed.Rankersbo (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Next Indian general election
Hi Bondegezou, I have a question regarding Template:Infobox legislative election. Does it have a maximum limit? I tried to add Independents as party38= but it didn't show up in the Infobox of Next Indian general election. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi SharadSHRD7. I'm not at all certain, but I think it tops out at 35 rows...? You could try asking at Template talk:Infobox legislative election. You might even be able to get it changed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for quick response. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry I couldn't be of more help! Bondegezou (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for quick response. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Edit on "Arains" page
hi, i've just requested an edit in the talk page of "Arains". Please edit it as required. Thanks MT111222 (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Yestoric infobox
Hi I just didn't have enough time this morning to add the album cover, which I always intended to do. I have now added the image. So I did revert your edit. However, if you still want to delete my edits, go ahead. No problem. SethWhales 15:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
Your recent editing history at Terrorism in Europe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I noticed some of your comments on the dubious Endemic COVID-19 page, I am glad to see someone coming with interesting sources and clear information! :>
Groble (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Misplaced Pages’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Misplaced Pages administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
why do you keep undoing my edits?
a delivery driver is not the same thing as a night delivery driver. from source: "who is currently a night delivery-man for a bakery" -1 accuracy points there
you wrote: 'He said he would seek powers to reduce rents' yet I cannot find this quote anywhere? it's almost as if he never said it.
He did say: " we need is two things. the political will - it needs to be a really strong mandate ... “The other side of it though is, ultimately, you need to get the banks on side"
none of that has to do with seeking powers, or lobbying
"provide solar panels and heat pumps to every home" this is misleading:
"he would look to provide every home with a solar power connection and a small heat pump.
“That’s something that I would want entirely paid for by the private sector,”"
is what was said. you're version implies use of city hall funds
my edit was better, and more accurate - if you have in issue with tone or neutrality that's one thing, but ditching accuracy for the ego win of 'being right' doesn't seem very wiki-cool to me Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Don't WP:EDITWAR or you will be banned. Read WP:3RR for more information. Also, read WP:BRD and follow its advice. Discuss proposed edits to the article on its Talk page, not here. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you have now been blocked from editing 2024 London mayoral election. Bondegezou (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Congratulations - looks like your fiction is now set in stone. shame that you seem to have little respect for truth Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't about the content of the article. You were banned for your behaviour. If you want to be unbanned, you need to recognise that. If you want to improve the content of the article, discuss suggested changes on the Talk page. You still haven't done this. Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- but you did the same thing as me.
- it's egos and admins - what a joke
- You gamed the system to push fiction on Misplaced Pages - super cool
- On a long enough time scale - Every population gets the government it deserves Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Asingleshardofconsciousnes: Bondegezou didn't do the same thing as you. They reverted you twice (two other people also reverted you) and encouraged you to take the discussion to the talk page. I urge you to read the WP:BRD link Bondegezou sent above which explains why this is important. Instead you edit warred against several other editors without discussing the issue on the talk page. Bondegezou hasn't gamed the system, they followed our process – one which you ignored – and has shown you patience. If you feel your edits are valid, explain why on the talk page. — Czello 12:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I clicked the wrong talk page -
- I made my reasons on the edit bit -
- again - and maybe I'm an idiot here.
- So I make edit - explain reasons behind it
- he revert - no reason given
- I re-edit - make reasons more indepth
- he revert say take to talk page
- I re-edit and explain in talk page (his not the article one - new user my bad)
- I don't think the two are the same.
- yet to hear any reason for the edit Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- As multiple people have said, you need to go to Talk:2024 London mayoral election and make a case there. You still have not done that. Please listen to the advice you are being given.
- Also, you will need to make a conflict of interest declaration if you have a conflict of interest, as your prior editing suggested. Bondegezou (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Asingleshardofconsciousnes: Bondegezou didn't do the same thing as you. They reverted you twice (two other people also reverted you) and encouraged you to take the discussion to the talk page. I urge you to read the WP:BRD link Bondegezou sent above which explains why this is important. Instead you edit warred against several other editors without discussing the issue on the talk page. Bondegezou hasn't gamed the system, they followed our process – one which you ignored – and has shown you patience. If you feel your edits are valid, explain why on the talk page. — Czello 12:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't about the content of the article. You were banned for your behaviour. If you want to be unbanned, you need to recognise that. If you want to improve the content of the article, discuss suggested changes on the Talk page. You still haven't done this. Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Congratulations - looks like your fiction is now set in stone. shame that you seem to have little respect for truth Asingleshardofconsciousnes (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
me too
I took care to justify my edits to the three body problem page - so why do you think you did not need to justify your reversal? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Three-Body_Problem_%28novel%29&oldid=prev&diff=1104876065 MarmotteiNoZ 01:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello MarmotteNZ, I did justify my reversal. My apologies if I did so too succinctly, but I was pointing you towards WP:SPOIL, which explains Misplaced Pages's position on spoilers in articles. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Consensus
I think we are experiencing a situation where an editor can't accept that their opinion is not an objective assessment of the situation, but an opinion with which no one else agrees. Rankersbo (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Your revert at "Partygate"
Hi,
Regarding your revert of my edit at "Partygate", please note than in no instance did I change the displayed text of any quoted material, or indeed of any other material in the article. My edit involved replacing piped links with redirects where the existing text was a pre-existing redirect to the same target as the pipe, as described at MOS:NOPIPE, and reducing the degree of overlinking of named characters such as Carrie Johnson/Symonds (linked 13 separate times).
I'm happy to discuss further, but please read WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, WP:NOTBROKEN, and MOS:REPEATLINK.
Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, I thought you had changed "BYOB" inappropriately and you had not. However, some of your Carrie Johnson->Carrie Symonds changes are unhelpful, I think, and obscure the narrative. IF you make a very large number of changes in one edit, it is difficult for other editors to respond. Bondegezou (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I take your point about making a large number of changes in a single edit, but the alternative is to make a large number of (very similar) changes in a large number of edits, which (I'm told) has the potential to annoy page-watchers. Another alternative would be to make no changes at all, of course.
- Regarding Carrie Johnson → Carrie Symonds, again, these changes affect only the format of the link, not the displayed text. "Carrie Symonds" (
]
) and "Carrie Symonds" (]
) both display the same text to the reader, and both link to the same target. The advice of WP:NOPIPE is to prefer the former to the latter. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Post Office
91.190.161.160 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- There’s no point posting these to my Talk page. Post them to the article Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
References
- https://www.computerforum.com/threads/amd-dual-core-problems.58784/
- https://superuser.com/questions/972259/can-cpu-overheating-cause-data-corruption
- https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/12z7zbq/cpu_damage_from_overheating/
June 2024
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Adam Black 17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Adam Black! No, I don't. I nearly always use edit summaries. Why the message? Bondegezou (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- The link provided (at "often") shows that:
- 31.6% of your total contributions have no edit summary
- 21% of your major edits have no edit summary
- 11% of your edits in June 2024 have no edit summary.
- I wouldn't describe that as "nearly always". I noticed many contributors are failing to provide an edit summary at 2024 United Kingdom general election which is what led to me posting these messages to all of the editors I noticed doing this. I included you so it didn't come across as though I was singling anyone else out. Adam Black 11:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Adam Black: Those appear to be historical numbers, so going back to 2005. What's the point of looking at those? Do you want me to go back in time and tell my 2005 self to use more edit summaries?
- It says for this month, 2024-06, that I have 184 total edits and 164 edit summaries, so an 89.1% rate of using edit summaries. Looking at my contributions page, all major, mainspace edits have edit summaries. I often don't bother with edit summaries for minor edits, and I occasionally don't bother with edit summaries on Talk. I do not see this as a problem. I did not find your message helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- The link provided (at "often") shows that:
Jewish Indian theory
I just restored the word "erroneous" removed by an IP. I see your sources almost all criticise the theory, but it isn't really that clear in the article. Shouldn't there be a section devoted to the debunking? Doug Weller talk 10:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Doug Weller, for restoring "erroneous". There's an IP editor who keeps trying to remove it.
- The article is about a bunch of ideas that were promulgated mainly in the 16th, 17th, 18th century. I kinda presumed the reader will know that ideas from the 16th century are often wrong! The notion fell out of favour over time. When dealing with ideas popular in earlier times, I don't know that a framework of "debunking" particularly fits. But I'll look again at the article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Restoring templates that no longer exist
In Special:Diff/1244180266, you added a template to an article that no longer exists (ie, it has been deleted). You can tell that the template has been deleted because it appears in red at the bottom of the article with the text "template:gwenpool". Deleted templates do not add anything useful to an article. Restoring them is kind of pointless, and I don't understand why anyone would do that. The template itself does not exist. I'm struggling to find other ways to explain this, so please forgive me if I repeat myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation, NinjaRobotPirate. Perhaps you could have given a slightly longer edit summary in your initial edit? Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Bruce Gowdy
The article Bruce Gowdy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No references. Cannot find sufficient sources to meet WP:NBIO.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
"Ukrainian Voice" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Ukrainian Voice has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 8 § Ukrainian Voice until a consensus is reached. Anonymous 20:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Oldham
Hi Bondegezou,
you've entirely removed the parts where Labour blocked an inquiry. While I can understand wanting to trim down on quotes, this seems like (but I am not accusing you of this) WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
I understand the desire to slim it down, and I thank you for your re-wording at times, but removing important details like this does not present the reality as is. NotQualified (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that describes my edits, but happy to discuss this on the relevant Talk page, where we can get input from other editors. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, must''ve been someone else then? Regardless, we can go to the talk page of Oldham Council NotQualified (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Seven years! |
---|