Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:34, 5 January 2010

Archives 1 2 3 4 5

[REDACTED] What I do on Misplaced Pages.

My rewards.

What's up?

I mainly follow up on pages from my watchlist, occasionally adding new pages to it that spiked my interest.

Can you help identify these favicons?

I would like to make a little personal use of this talk page.

I collect favicons. At the moment I have over 5400 of them. A few of them are my 'orphans': I do not know the sites they came from.

I you think you could help, and want to do me a big favor, please have a look at them.

My 'orphan' favicons

Thanks! Debresser (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated: some I found, and a few new ones came along. There's now only 23 of them. Debresser (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Special characters

{{helpme}} Just like & #123; gives {, I would like to know how to make , and '. Where is there a list of these things? I looked, e.g. in Misplaced Pages:Special_character, but didn't find what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.degraeve.com/reference/specialcharacters.php --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Isn't there anything on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is, it's well hidden. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

List of XML and HTML character entity references ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 20c9f322ebc5b8e1009a90c36867a16e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Didn't work the first time. Sigh... Debresser (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This tool, http://toolserver.org/~magnus/flickr2commons.php, sucks! At the moment, at least. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, it says "TUSC verification failed" on one page, and "Attention : you are already verified!" on another. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Account creation system

Debresser, thank you for your interest in helping users creating accounts. Your request has been approved. I advise you to read WP:ACCG before you use the system.

At this time, you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day. You won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user. However, if you have reached the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:RPE.

Again, thanks for your interest in the account creation system. Join us on IRC at wikipedia-en-accounts and subscribe to the mailing list by going here. Willking1979 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Account creation request interface Debresser (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CfM etc

Not forgotten. Rich Farmbrough, 10:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Looks like its done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

That was about time. Wonder who did that? And where he got that strange edit summary? :) Debresser (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it's quicker with AWB, Even if I did break one of the top 100 templates today... And no reason you can't use DMC since it is just the parameters that would be substed. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Well, three of the templates are protected, so I propose you do it. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well lets let this bed in. Not sure there's much to be gained from DMC - DMCC perhaps. What needs doing to talk pages etc? Rich Farmbrough, 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Your note

I have semi-protected the article per your request. Crum375 (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you found more convincing reasons to do so than just my request. :) Debresser (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Invade-tation

Actually, I was just wikignoming, i.e. fixing something small. Joining a project was not my intention. Debresser (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of cities by GDP

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of cities by GDP. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of cities by GDP. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion in templates

I saw you added and then removed {{Templaterefsection}} to Template:KwaraStateGovernors. Maybe you can give me advice on this ...

Nigeria has 36 states, each of which has had 5-15 governors since it was created. There are lists of governors for each state, like List of Governors of Adamawa State, which I suppose are sort-of useful. I have been trying to make them consistent, and transcluded them all into List of all Nigerian state governors so I could compare them. Maybe that one is sort-of useful too. But where I really want to go is transclude the lists into navbox templates like the one you looked at, and stick them at the foot of the article for each governor, like Bukola Saraki. (O.k., that article needs a whole lot of work, but that is a different problem.)

I think navbox templates linking a collection of related articles are genuinely useful. Someone interested in one of these governors may well click on other entries in the navbox, and start browsing from one subject to another, which is exactly what we want readers to do. I think the transclusion approach is good too, because that way someone doing a search on "Kwara Governor" will see the list right away, where a template would not show in the search results. And by transcluding the list into the template there is only one list to be maintained. But refs in the transcluded text don't work, or not for the average editor. I can see you have been playing with it. Any advice or comments on technicalities or on the approach in general would be welcome. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Have replied in some detail at User_talk:Aymatth2#Transclusion_in_template_-_reply. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - that is what I suspected. Not a big deal. The lists are "mere facts" (not subject to copyright) so it is not particularly important to carry the references forward. The only problem I see is that an editor who doesn't understand what is happening will add a ref to one of the lists, causing error messages in articles that use the template. I will add a standard warning comment to the lists. Probably not really an issue at all. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratings template

Per your question here, the {{Rating-5}} template can be replaced with {{Rating}} using '5' as the second argument. For example, if the entry says {{Rating-5|3}}, then you can replace it with {{Rating|3|5}}. The output should be identical, as you can see in examples such as this. --RL0919 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just about to replace the reamining usages, when I found that there were only three left. So that's all I fixed. Debresser (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters

We are down to 600+ here and another 200+ in the old cat. Be good to get this empty. I am suggesting that <year> and <month> be deprecated in favour of (and potentially merged into) <date> - they were also part of the auto-formatting problem (<date> was auto-formatted and "July 1981" might have been a red-link). What do you think? Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

I was reluctant to propose that, because many (VERY many) references have |year= and no date parameter. But I would support this: one accessdate parameter, and one date parameter. The thing is that many books cite only a year of publication, and calling that a "date" might be confusing. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is where to discuss this. The previous deprecations were discussed only on {{Cite web}}, and I boldly implemented them everywhere. You may try doing the same. Debresser (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I would use "deprecated" rather than obsolete. I.E. removed from the documentation, maybe an AWB general fix or I suggested RjwilmsiBot to remove/merge in due course. Certainly a GF to remove blank month/year fields would help. I don't think calling a year a date is confusing. Unless you were going on a date. Then it could be very confusing. Rich Farmbrough, 16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

Cool. These are not necessarily hard, but they are different. Rich Farmbrough, 02:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

No it means I write a rule and it picks up maybe 10 or 20 articles. Rich Farmbrough, 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Ran some old rules against the Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters, rather successfully. Rich Farmbrough, 08:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

Indeed. I'll try to clean up the rest. Debresser (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cite video

Depends why date is deprecated. Would have thought the aim would be to end up with the simplest parameter name. Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

April

Yes I am aware that there is a preponderance of "01"s, in many articles. I assumed that it was probably CitationBot. If you can deal with them that's fine, although I expect CitationBot can cite the cite, and there is a database somewhere either assigning "1" or they have a nominal date of the 1st. Basically do what you wish as long as it is good sense and doesn't reintroduce deprecated or likely deprecated fields. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

Takkanos Shum

Hi. I'm not sure what you meant in this edit summary? I think we were edit conflicting; did I overwrite something? -- Avi (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did. See the edit history. But it was not anything important. :) Debresser (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. -- Avi (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be. You did a great job rewriting the article. But I did have a remark/question, which I left on the talk page. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Responded; what can we do to make the article better? -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. I have been through a months-long mediation in the past, and come to the conclusion that just working in an orderly manner is far better <g>. Collect (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Likely. Debresser (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Night of the Demons 2010: help?

Hi! I was wondering if you could help me semi-protect the page or at least to keep an eye on it. There's an unregistered user who keeps trying to add in lengthy & unproven character information for the movie. I've asked them to do a synopsis if they've seen the movie or knows someone who has, but to no avail. Thanks for any help or at least for reading this! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)tokyogirl79

One day, sooner or later, somebody will write that plot. Don't worry: this article is in good shape, believe me. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Kosovo-geo-stub

Hi Debresser - about this edit - first, sorry. I forgot to remove the protection tag when I unprotected the template. About your other comment, though - given that all stub templates are basically fed from one all-encompassing stub /doc file, protection tags and i/w links always go on the template itself. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that I just copied one of the two edit summaries I always use when doing my wikignoming in Category:Misplaced Pages pages with incorrect protection templates, and din't even consider your obviously true point. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you posting this here?

Debresser, is there some reason you are posting this here? It is very nice that you are giving a barnstar to Collect. But why am I being notified? Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As a suggestion that all involved add a small word of appreciation. I left the same note on a few more user talk pages. Debresser (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I liked your idea of giving a barnstar to Collect and just left a supportive little note on his talk page. The admins work hard and not every one could accomplish what Collect did, in terms of making the Judaism discussion more constructive. --AFriedman (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

Thank you for taking care of that protection template that I forgot to remove. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That was 5 years ago! Oh my. Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Reflist

No I can do a more thorough reflist run shortly. Rich Farmbrough, 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

That would be good. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Done also about 38 of those userspace pages.

Marine camels

As a Dutchman, do you happen to know anything about marine camels and waterships? 213.114.155.23 (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Sorry. :) Debresser (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback: Nils von Barth

Masood Ahmed

Ha! Big thanks for filling out that reference. I wrote it offline and didn't realise I hadn't done it properly. I'm so forgetful :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Debresser (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Asaro

I am always happy to accept reversions on good faith when people are courteous enough to inform me. However I am intrigued:

• Could you elaborate on why her date of birth is not included?
• Which redirect is aimed at the section I moved?

Green Giant (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer your second question first (because I know the answer by heart). That is the target of the merged Saga of the Skolian Empire. Which, as you surely agree with me, is the magnum opus of Catherine Asaro. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information, which specifically mentions dates of birth. I seem to remember that Catherine Asaro removed her birthdate herself (as an IP user). A year should be fine though. If you can source it. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I have responded to your CfD query. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So I have voted to support this nomination. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Skolian Empire

A timeline is a useful crib for the casual reader of such a sprawling series, but there seem to be 2 problems. 1)Just reproducing the published timeline from the book looks like copyright infringement. 2)Somehow independently creating a timeline would be attacked as original research. Examples of how to handle it might come from the Harry Potter series or the Robert Heinlein "Future History." The actual timeline listing by Heinlein is not reproduced as such, but there is a listing of the stories in "story world" chronology with the approximate years they take place. In Harry Potter universe there does not appear to be a timeline, althoiugh in the past I believe there were disputes about including hypothetical timelines of when Dumbledore was born, when Tom Riddle was at Hogwarts, etc, based on inferences and calculations from dates and ages given in the books, or from interviewws given by Rowling. Now the article just says the events take place between 1991 and 1998. Edison (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Saga of the Skolian Empire articles saved at Wikia

Misplaced Pages has a sister project called Wikia. If you go to the adoption request at http://www.wikia.com/Adoption you can create a Wikia for the Saga of Skolian Empire. They grant any request, you just having to wait a day or two for someone to approve you. You can then enter every Misplaced Pages article you want to copy over at http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Export and save it to your computer. At your Wikia you click special places, then click import, and all of those pages, edit history and all, are uploaded. Its very simple. Once it exist, others will stop in and help with it from time to time, allowing it to grow. Dream Focus 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of Wikia, from previous experience with Honorverse articles. I didn't know how it works, though. I'm afraid, I am too lazy to really make the effort. Perhaps somebody else can do that. There are even a few articles that were deleted back in July that can be undeleted temporarily for copying there. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

re Thank you

You are welcome. No worries, Cirt (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Advice on navbox template

See below.

I just did the Yar'Adua template, but I prefer the more compact format of the Obasanjo template. The difficulty is that the Obasanjo template does not completely work. It goes up to group20, then stops. I can't find documentation, but suspect that 20 groups is the maximum supported. Both sets have just over 20 entries. I suppose I could figure out a way to format a table that gets the best of both, but don't want to clutter up the content with mark-up that would be forbidding to a new editor. Any ideas or advice? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea. Ask User:Davidgothberg or User:Rich Farmbrough. Debresser (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Haroldsultan

Hi, this User has made some changes to the page about Tzniut and a number of other editors have been attacking him. I'm concerned that, as a new editor, he may not know how to work his ideas into the article. Do you know of a source, such as a liberal Orthodox interpretation, that would support the views he added? Thanks. --AFriedman (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added my opinion to the talk page section. As to your question, I am an orthodox rabbi, and I think the issue is about the halachic point of view, so I do not see the relevance of liberal opinions, which, as you correctly call them, are only interpretations. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a response to you on Talk:Tzniut. --AFriedman (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Signed up. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

shabbat mode

Spotted this at Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves#December_16.2C_2009 and I wonder if it's malformed? Seems to be a proposal for no change! PamD (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. On the article's talk page you can see the correct version. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit in my user space

You do know what sandbox means don't you? SpinningSpark 20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pages with incorrect protection templates get listed at Category:Misplaced Pages pages with incorrect protection templates, could be a little annoying if it gets full of tests. Deb was justified in removing the template. Kind regards, Spitfire 20:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As per a discussion I can't seem to find just now, I wait at least 24 hours before I remove an incorrect protection template from a userpage sandbox. You hadn't edited User:Spinningspark/Sandbox2 for 4 days when I came along. I was just working through Category:Misplaced Pages pages with incorrect protection templates. I hope you understand me, and that you won't hold this against me. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't hold it against you, fair enough if it is cluttering up a maintenance list. The talkback template, on the other hand is another matter, I intend to hate you forever for that. SpinningSpark 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Am box template categories

Thanks for the note but I am unsure why Category:Ambox templates hasn't been listed - there are 3 pages in 4 sub-categories and it looks like the lot could go. I'm fine with the comics ones going as they seem redundant now but we might as well tidy up the whole area at the same time, as they seem to be suffering from the same problems. (Emperor (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

I'll look into it. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it stops things falling through the cracks. (Emperor (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

current

Looks like a cut and paste. Note the "noinclude" section at the end? Rich Farmbrough 23:26 17 December 2009 (UTC). Test: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User talk|]|}}{{Ambox | type = notice | image = ] | text = '''This {{#if:|{{{1}}}|article}} documents a ].''' Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. }}{{DMCA|Current events|from|}}

Looks good to me. Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

Not that current is ever a good template to use. Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

Category:Jewish American gangs

I don't know how to handle this, but it appears that someone or ones have removed all content from this category. Could you check on the propriety of this whether is should be repopulated as before and do whatever should be done. It may be a POV set of deletions as has happened before with several simlar categories. Hmains (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. I think Good Olfactory might be able to help. I'll contact him. Debresser (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I found this edit of 11 December 2009 by Ioiowee. Debresser (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bingo! I reverted all his edits. Debresser (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps his account Ioiowee (talk · contribs) should be blocked? Debresser (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing the problem, which seems to be a temporary passing Hmains (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo!

Hi! Happy holidays! I saw you had a question about that tag I added in a previous edit. I thought I should fill you in, if you even remember having questioned it a few days ago. When I was editing that section, I skimmed like 5 or 6 Google Books entries on the subject, and they all seemed to conflict with the Misplaced Pages page. Rather than saying the attack was that of a madman, this "notorious" radical fellow was saying that the killings were justified. So I sought out the quote on Google Books and in Google, and it does not appear anywhere. So I thought maybe it should be removed, but I didn't have much time for editing, so I thought at least I should register my doubt with the verification request. I'll defer to your judgment! Cheers, DBaba (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Good to be discussing with you, instead of arguing. :) Since the source mentions the newspaper, and the date and author of the article, it seems unlikely that this would be a false source. The only way of invalidating it is going through the paper archives of that newspaper. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic stuff

If you want to put a hat on the thread to archive it I won't object. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt even that will help. Just make a statement that you are leaving the dsiscussion, because you do not think there is any point to it. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Digit time between‎

Thanks for the head's up on the template protection. I used the Time After template as a skeleton structure as this was my first template. So that was essentially just residual. I have no need to apply protected status to it. I'll make a note on the template talk regarding it. aremisasling (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. Nice work. No need for a note. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. aremisasling (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my spelling. No offence given, none taken. Rebele | Talk 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the attitude. :) Good luck, Debresser (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ref names

Thanks for the fix over at Union College. Why is it that numbers in a ref name causes issues? This is how I always do it and I've never had a problem before. ❄ upstateNYer ❄ 15:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Numbers in references doesn't in and of iself cause problems. It is sometimes confusing for editors, which is what caused the problem here. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

Hi Debresser, to keep you informed :) the category is restored, i hope somebody with more brains than me finds the time to write on the article in 2010. Cheers Mion (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for helping! out Mion (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fix

Thanks for fixing the reference in the Earle C. Clements article. Your fix was correct; the Jillson article definitely is not 200 pages long! Thanks again, and Merry Christmas. Acdixon 22:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecology

Hi Debresser - thanks for stopping by the ecology pages, however, you have done something to the history section and I have to work it back to an earlier revision. I've tried to figure out through the history and to do a restore - but having a tough time of it. Please be careful.Thompsma (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see something went wrong. Don't know how that happened. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem...got it fixed. Great to know that others are reading through. Have you read all of it? I've been putting lots of work into it the past few weeks.Thompsma (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that I didn't. I did fix those pictures though. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Taku Forts (1859)

All I have to say is I WROTE THE ORIGIONAL ARTICLE in the first place, it was MY OWN edits I reverted! The stub remained virtually the same for months I wrote the little article like a year ago under a different user name. There was a short paragraph someone added earlier today which featured all of the same edits I was writing on my computer notepad and preparing to add. When I was finished I added mine and deleted the small other which would have been a repeat of the same information. Now if you will happily respect me and not write to me in such a disrepectful way, I might feel inclined to give you a further response.

I should also mention that because you reverted some of my edits, you have now forced me to make more edits regarding the British commanders. XavierGreen and I had a web conversation about this earlier. I was confused and mixed up James Hope who commanded the british during the battle we are writing about and the Battle of Taku Forts (1860) commander James Hope Grant. --Az81964444 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: References

Invitation

I have seen you around, and I am impressed by your work, you maybe interested in a group of editors who try to source documents up for deletion.

Hello, Debresser. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip 19:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time I get invited, but I have to decline as respectfully as the first time, and for the same reason: I am too busy as a wikignome. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

COI complaint and discussion concerning your pro-Chabad POV editing

A WP:COI complaint and discussion concerning your pro-Chabad POV editing and writing has started at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have offered my services there as far as possible. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor removal of uncensured language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BitTorrent_%28protocol%29&action=historysubmit&diff=334709285&oldid=334707686

Just a note to say that I think there needs to be something to replace the phrase you removed as the word 'suboptimal' is itself a technical colloquialism that often implies strong understatement. It was my understanding that "it sucks" is the non-technical equivalent in the American dialect of English and not particularly "harsh language" despite it's roots but I stand to be corrected by a native speaker. Robert@ 86.0.255.130 (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"It sucks" is not encyclopaedic. -- Zsero (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my reasoning also. But I have no problem with a replacement. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your public remark at Categories

Your public remark at Talk:Categories today:

I really think you are editing things that were off just fine without you.

You were, the moment you saved that "without you" remark, out of line. At any other time I would have been proud for your attention, really. I will still respect you though. — CpiralCpiral 03:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that I said a nasty thing. Although not nasty enough that I think it warrant an apology. But that does not diminish the truth of the matter: that you are trying to impose some percieved order of yours on Misplaced Pages project pages without seeking consensus before you do so.

You do not seem to understand and/or respect that people have worked, sometimes for years and with considerable effort, to come to a certain version that should include all points that need to be addressed and in precisely the way they need to be addressed. Even if they failed, which is more than likely, you should consider that and post on talk pages first, before making any big changes.

Apart from that, your edits to these pages are less than perfect. You have been told that already on Talk:Categories, and on Misplaced Pages:Content you also added a lot of fluff (which I have removed). Which could have been avoided if you had discussed things first.

Now if I sould get that message through to you, that would in my eyes justify my nasty comment mentioned above. Don't you think so? Debresser (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If your question is sincere, then you will accept my answer. It is personal, though it seems editorial.

Discussion first is sometimes necessary, depending on the skill of the editor's judgment. The spectrum of skill ranges from spelling to existing logic, and beyond, even to conceptual evolution. It depends on the editor's past education and on the editor's dedication to their immediate education of the situation, or i.e. "their time spent". I agree that it is certain trouble for an average editor to continue to always avoid deliberations first, because of, as you point out, the delicate subtleties hidden in places. The reverting of the edit is sufficient to signal the sophistication of the watchers, which is, in all fairness to the bold, unknown. Natural stages of the development of articles contain these troubling, yet necessary articulations...

Now, I was not the person who added the "fluff" to Content. And it is my opinion it was not fluff, and it is Liefting's opinion ("the reader, who is by far the most common visitor to WP") also, that it is not fluff. The other "fluff" you "huffed" from Content ("Categories and templates are also used for the reader to find the content that they are wish to view.") is, to me, conceptual structural information, the only concept of it's kind in the Content article, (if only construction material), and is not "fluff". I like the word "fluff" when it is applied to irrelevant or redundant statements that erode lucidity and flow.

Perhaps there is never enough time for perfection, but hopefully and willingly trudge along on a never-ending journey toward it, occasionally tripping as we go.

— CpiralCpiral 17:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I appreciate your constructive approach to my criticism. One of the relevant essays concerning reverts is Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which basically says that a revert is a sure sign that discussion would have been in order. The "fluff" I was referring to was added by you in this edit. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just learned that the red parts can be parts that were simply moved, and not necessarily added. "Diff" is amazing, but it's not perfect. See ya later. — CpiralCpiral 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Have fun! Do you mean "red links"? Those shouldn't be the result of a move, because a move always leaves a redirect in place. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the edit you referred to showing that I added something, has red colored text in a side-by-side diff that coincides with what you said I added. I did not add what is shown in red. Look at the left side. Bye for now. — CpiralCpiral 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you may have forgotten it, but the red on the left side is what you deleted/changed from/in the existing text, while the red on the right side is your additions. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Only now did I see what you meant. That is the problem with the red text: it works only inside one paragraph. But it is still fluff, regardless of who wrote it. :) Debresser (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear ya.

I have removed just my and your conversations between us from Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Templates_in_article_categories. I'm sorry for getting involved because it is not something I am directly experienced with. Now I hope you and the other experienced editors can restart the discussion and come up with a good solution. — CpiralCpiral 23:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Next time you want to remove somebody's comments from a userpage, you should really ask for their permission. This is very impolite, and actually against the rules. See e.g. Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace under "Unaccepted practices, unilateral action against policies or guidelines". After that is said and done, I have no problem with it in this specific case. Debresser (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Only trying to help. You know, like eliminating fluff, like refactoring a discussion before an archiving. It is my opinion that your rude remark derailed the discussion. Besides, your Rulership said that my remark had nothing to do with the discussion. It just seemed to me like the right thing to do. That discussion has not gone past us, master Debresser. It stagnates. Later 'gator. — CpiralCpiral 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Always nice to do business with you. :) Debresser (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's. — CpiralCpiral 23:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cfr

Are you sure this should be type=delete, not type = move? Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

Yes. 1. The others are also "delete". 2. A rename in category namespace comes down to a deletion of the old category (or a soft redirect if the old category is kept for some reason). Please correct me if I am wrong. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wondered about box colour and what-not. And I don't know the reason for distinguishing the styles, so it's hard to say. Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

Idols should not confess to being mere mortals. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lianna Nguyen

Thanks for your efforts to save this - I did look carefully at the numerous references, but they were all Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, model agencies... no independent reliable sources to indicate notability. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of to do's...

Any chance you could mention the article you have the problem with my editing? --SeanMack (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There were some 7-8- of them. Will reply on your your talk page. Debresser (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Catholic-cleanup

Hi Debresser,

I was wondering whether it might be worthwhile reconsidering whether {{Catholic-cleanup}} should by default be part of the NPOV category. I say this because I just read an article with the template added to it but it is quite neutrally written, though it should still be expanded. Could I get your thoughts? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that this template is like other cleanup templates: as soon as the cleanup has been done, you can remove it. As long as there is a doubt whether the article still contains outdated or POV information we should leave the template, and therefore both categories are relevant. Also notice that the template reads "may contain etc." Debresser (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied to Template_talk:Catholic-cleanup#Template_categories. I hadn't noticed that that is where the discussion is taking place. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums

Thanks for editing, but unfortunately the other user was right, the article is somewhat self-referential, because I translated some of the fact from the German Wikipedias article. Other facts I translated from the schools homepage. So I did not really use autonomuse surces (nevertheless I am pretty sure the information on the article is accurate). I there another button one could use for that?I am sorry, english is not my native language, hope you understand my anyway--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The {{Self-reference}} template is for articles that talk about Misplaced Pages in inappropriate ways. For example: "It is also very interesting, and should be noted here on Misplaced Pages, that the school will celebrate its 500 jubilee in this century".

To indicate that the article was a translation of a page on the German Wikpedia you could use {{German|Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums}}, usually placed in the references section of the article, and {{Translated page|de|Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums}} on the talkpage (less common). Debresser (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Myers images

A minor cannot legally release an image's copyright, so those images were copyright violations and properly speedied. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I had just found that reason. Thanks anyway. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't want you thinking that there was any other motive for the deletion. -- Avi (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Stevie Ray Vaughan

Looking through the recent history of the Stevie Ray Vaughan article it looks like the last truly good version is yours from way back on September 26, 2009. I know you have done some god work with this article previously. In recent weeks (and especially in the last 4 days) he article has but expanded with a lot of uncited content. This new content is full of poetic, non-neutral wording and glorious peacocking of the subject. SRV was a tremendous talent and deserves an encyclopedia Wiki page. Not the fluff fanpage the article currently sits in. Perhaps, if you have time, you could revisit this article and try to reverse the damage that has been done. Thank you and Happy New Year. 142.167.165.187 (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale template

I was able to reproduce it: User talk:Pewterschmidt Industries --Pewterschmidt Industries (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility

This is a general warning to all users involved in recent COIN and ANI discussions. Please stop talking about other users mental status, mental health or their person. As the WP:CIVILITY policy says, "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment" and WP:NPA which states: "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people". I am drawing a line under what has been said to this point so you all right now have a clean slate, but I intend to start blocking users on both sides of the dispute who continue engaging in violations of the behavioural policies so please accept this as a final warning. Thanks, Sarah 05:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)