Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:52, 19 May 2007

Misplaced Pages Tip of the Day         →

Tip of the day... Search & replace in thousands of articles with AWB Do you need to correct a spelling error on a large number of pages? Are there terms you need to linkify across an entire subject? Do you need to replace a category tag on 500 articles? AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) can do that and more. It is a free-licensed, semi-automatic editor created and maintained by Wikipedians, available to editors who have made at least 500 responsible edits in the main namespace. AWB includes a powerful list maker (up to 25,000 articles), to help you gather the titles of the articles you wish to process. An extended AWB Listmaker is available as a plug-in. AWB will even do regex (regular expression) find/replace. Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more:Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser   Become a Misplaced Pages tipster To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd}}

Words of Wisdom

Why we are here

You know it ain't easy

Protect the encyclopedia

Assume no clue

Wonkish & Arbish

See also: Quotes from Wiser Editors • Defend Each Other

Signature talk

→ See also: Signature talk section in Archive 1.

Apropos of nothing

Hi A, just wanted to say your curated signature collection inspired me to try being creative with my own. Ruhrfisch _><>° 21:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful fish, love the bubbles! — Athaenara 09:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>° 11:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

→ See also: Miscellaneous section in Archive 1.

You're a genius?

I hope this doesn't offend you, but you didn't seem like a genius. And you don't edit anything particularly brilliant, but rather, your edits seem to be just simple fixes here and there. How about completing the table of logic symbols? That's something I actually wrote on the article's talk page that I was going to do, but never did. Or how about "dumbing down," the articles on advanced mathematics and physics, so that, for example, the average reader can understand what the hell this means? At least maybe you can help me correct the article on Classical Liberalism. Robocracy 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC) aka HP_Owner in the IRC

No, I really cannot imagine why Mensa let me in. Given your low estimation of my intelligence, you won't be disappointed that I decline your offer of an assortment of ambitions in which you've lost interest. — Athaenara 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow

I don't think I've come across anyone on wiki that works as hard as you. You rock. Keep up the good work! I wish I could work the way you do, I'm serious. I've had a bad two days, suffered some personal attacks and stuff, and I've been thinking about quitting Wiki. I'm not going to do it. Looking at your edits was pretty inspiring. I've resolved not to let certain people get me down, and get back to fighting vandalism, something I'm pretty good at. Thanx for renewing my inspiration in Wiki.

Sue Rangell 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you, it is very kind of you to say so, and I'm glad you're back on the job. — Athaenara 09:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Biographies of living persons policy & Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Reverting

→ (In re: Arbuthnot family sections on BLP/N and COI/N)

Please do not revert my edits to discussion pages as you have done here . I suggest you think before making edits if you are not happy to have people respond to them. Giano 11:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing other users' posts

Please see and . Athaenara, if you've become ashamed of your post, please leave it on the page and strike it through, as Chris did with his. As for taking it on yourself to remove Giano's "peevish retort", that's actually vandalism, a word I don't use lightly. Don't do it. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

No. An imputation ("ashamed") seems to have been contributed by your own imagination, and you are free to remove that conjecture from my user talk page.

I was annoyed that my direct response to Chris Croy, after posts had been interjected by at least four other users, was treated by User:Giano II as a springboard for further crosstalk stemming from his own annoyance.

I do comprehend the point you are making here. — Athaenara 14:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand me. But are not ashamed? I see. Your own post looked to me like a rather nasty attack on Giano and One Night in Hackney, but since it was merely a private message to Chris C, that other people weren't supposed to reply to, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Chris's user talk might have been a better place for one of those, though. Or perhaps a note "Please nobody respond to this except Chris" would have been useful? Bishonen | talk 18:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

To User:Athaenara:

No, my reply was a direct response your crude attempt at innuendo. When I replied you responded with vandalism. Please do not behave in such a fashion again. Giano 14:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted nothing crude, and I have a question for you. Why did you not simply restore the crosstalk I had removed? When I read your first post here on my own user talk page, I thought you had already done so, which would have been fine. — Athaenara 14:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Crude as in clumsy and I do not choose to restore your vandalism. Giano 15:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Either removing minor crosstalk was vandalism or restoring it would be vandalism, not both. One can't have it both ways. — Athaenara 15:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To User:Giano II:

This was the sequence when I posted:

"…Have you considered programming a bot to automatically delete all of his articles? I'm really worried you might miss one and leave a single spec of worthwhile information somewhere on Misplaced Pages. Chris Croy 16:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)"

"One wonders if User:One Night In Hackney and User:Giano II have worked together on this. — Athaenara 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)"

I am a noticeboard volunteer who is dedicated to serving the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the biographies of living persons policy and the conflict of interest guideline, and my primary bias is in favour of scholarship. I do not share the particular bêtes noires which not infrequently are displayed in noticeboard reports.

Specifically, in this instance, I am not on the warpath after Arbuthnot family articles. The most striking aspect to me of your report on BLP/N was an apparent antipathy to Arbuthnots which was similar to that evinced by another editor who had opened an Arbuthnot section on COI/N two weeks earlier. Through the lens of having witnessed two weeks of determined efforts to trivialise Arbuthnots and abase a respectful and experienced editor, Croy's post made me laugh. It was a brief light moment in what had been a distinctly humourless context.

The next day, when I saw your post (reproduced below), any continuity which had existed had been utterly obscured by messages interjected by other users and the redaction of Croy's post.

"Not unless One Night In Hackney has been helping me for the last few days bringing up to FAC Class one of Kittybrewster's stubs - what have you been doing for them? Certainly nothing to improve them. Giano 17:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)"

In my frame of reference, I was being snarled at for failing to pursue your objective rather than the ongoing and painstaking task of preventing the noticeboard from being overwhelmed by reports which often outnumber the volunteers who may attend to them. Perhaps it would have been wiser simply to have ignored you, but I did not, and at 03:27, May 13 2007 (UTC) I removed both my response to Croy's post and your sideswipe at my response as crosstalk cluttering a noticeboard which addresses {{Blp}} policy matters.

However little you may care about the larger context of the noticeboards, there it is. It is quite possible to be not lightminded but lighthearted (the New Oxford American Dictionary antonym is "miserable") and still be devoted to serving the encyclopedia well. In retrospect, I might have been better off without a sense of humour in the first moment, simply noting for reasons which were raised not long after that the BLP noticeboard was not the most appropriate venue for your report, and left it to other editors to ignore or decide the crosstalk issue less briskly in the second. — Athaenara 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Apropros of nothing in particular

These two whom I have so greatly displeased have apparently collaborated very productively in the past, as on the exemplary John Vanbrugh article. — Athaenara 19:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Your rhetoric (if that is what you wanted it to be) was misplaced and misguided. Your speculation as to whether I was working alone or in collusion was offensive and totally missed the point which is to improve wikipedia's standards. That is my goal - I sincerely hope that is also your aim. In short do not make clever snide little comments unless you want them addressed and are sure of your facts. Giano 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I have had about enough of your idle speculation, apolagise, substantiate whatever it is you are alluding to or lets's to to RFC and let someone else decide. Giano 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My praise is sincere. Whether or not I approve of how someone is approaching me on one matter, I'm still quite capable of appreciating and enjoying excellent work they may do in other areas.

You may see this as a contradiction. I don't. — Athaenara 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What..? Well, I don't see it as a contradiction, I see it as trolling. I'd advise you to say what you mean, because pretending that you're not hinting and alluding and hiding between the lines simply makes you look foolish. What's your point—writing Featured articles is disgraceful? Me and Giano collaborating on one in 2004 means what we say needn't be taken seriously? Or what? Bishonen | talk 20:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Comment from uninvolved third party.

I stumbled upon this discussion because this page is on my watchlist following some technical help that I provided Athaenara a while ago. The tone of the comments surprised me, so I read through the discussion and some of the linked pages.

An accusation of trolling is way off-track, and inappropriate in this situation. I do see that Athaenara made a comment or two (including the removal of the "crosstalk" exchange), that may have came across as insulting though (as she said) no insult was intended. So maybe there was a mistake, and then following that, good faith attempts to clear it up.

Trolling implies that someone is using various methods to cause trouble on purpose. There's no way that Athaenara is doing that. Her contribs show page after page of hard work to improve WP, including lots of the relatively unsatisfying and difficult nuts and bolts noticeboard patrolling that most editors don't help with and just take for granted when they have a case they want heard.

I'm not taking a position in the arguments you've been discussing. I just wanted to point out that all of this is over a small thing, a simple mistake or miscommunication, and that no harm was ever intended.

What's the point of angry comments? Athaenara has explained her actions, even acknowledging that perhaps she could have handled it better; and to show she does not intend any disresepct, she's expressed praise for Bishonen and Giano's collaboration on another article.

That's not trolling or even antagonistic. Why not just agree that this was an unpleasant interaction and leave it at that? All of the people in this discussion are clearly dedicated editors. Wouldn't it be best to come back to the core and assume good faith? --Parzival418 _Hello 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Duggar family

→ (In re: Jim Bob Duggar article)

I agree. Way back I changed it to the Duggar Family, and the redirect was reverted within a few days. I never fought it, but I still think that should be the case. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinions

Third opinion project

Loudness war

→ (In re: Talk:Loudness war#Popular Examples Refs)

I just provided a third opinion there, but it seemed you had picked it up while I was writing. Well, two third opinions can never hurt. --User:Krator (t c) 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oy, isn't that the way it goes. I'll go ahead and post, and if it turns out my view isn't useful it can be reverted or ignored or laughed at or whatever. — Athaenara 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

;) --User:Krator (t c) 08:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

House swapping

→ (In re: Talk:House swapping)

I saw you removed it saying there was no indication of where discussion (if any) was. Did you look at the article history and compare diffs? I did, just to see if I might be able to determine what the dispute even was about and found a conversation at the bottom of the article using hidden comment tags. It seemed to be a fight over external links. I responded on the talk page. Just thought you might be interested in where I found it. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at 3O history, user contribs, talk page, article history and last two diffs. At that point, I lost patience, so I missed out on the secret messages! I'll go take a look to see what you gave them, thanks for the note. — Athaenara 18:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Above & beyond the call of duty, ONUnicorn, and a very nice job. Athaenara 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Conflict of interest guideline & Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

See also:

• WT:BP: Blocks for COI-only accounts?
• WP:AN: Expand indef blocking for COI-only accounts?

Endal

→ (In re: Talk:Endal#Pedigree)

Just a quick note to say thank you for your help in bringing the Endal page in to line with WP rules. I have pasted an article in the Endal discussion page, sent to me by the Labrador Club of Great Britain, which I hope resolves the "which Earl" problem (I do though have to salute your very thorough research, your personal effort in doing so is much appreciated and sets the standard for any additions)

Re the reference books, please free to contact us as I hold copies of all the books mentioned that Endal either has chapters in or is heavily referenced. But by your past record I don't think you'll need my help on this one either. Endal and Allen 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement, you guys! — Athaenara 15:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vanishing

→ (In re: COI/N Archive 7 and Right to vanish)

Yes right to vanish does include blanking materials from google searchability. Content remains in the article history and no revisions were ever deleted. This is entirely appropriate per right to vanish. Please do not revert again. Feel free to review the discussion here for a second opionion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is not a problem. All I'll do then is check the archive to see that the single section was removed with all its pesky markup; it's a little tricky with the collapsible collapsed navbox format. — Athaenara 18:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)  

Archived section

→ (In re: Roy Gordon Lawrence section on COI/N)

Hi Athaenara. Regarding this edit you made: (edits under line 200) What was the reasoning for moving the Roy Gordon Lawrence part to archive. I didn't see any notes as to why this was removed and was just curious on process, methodology, etc. Just trying to understand. Was this a mistake or intentional? Andyru 14:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is usual on an active noticeboard to archive inactive sections after two weeks or so. The one you refer to here had been inactive since May 1.

If a report needs more attention, returning it from an archive is not a problem, and I'll be happy to do that for you if you like. It will help, I think, if you can clarify it a bit, as it's hard to know what was meant by "scroll to bottom and view highlighted text." — Athaenara 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sure, bring it back and I'll make it more clear. If it goes inactive again, well then that should prove that it isn't worth the interest of public reviewers :) Andyru 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Athaenara 14:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I of Spain Template:Blpwatch-links

• Juan Carlos I of Spain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Juan Carlos I, King of spain is repeatedly being vandalised by ChrisO, who inisists on adding the false title of "King of Gibraltar". After the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 (as demonstrated in the talk page) monarchs of spain no longer enjoy that title. The article is about this specific individual, and he simply does not have such a title. The ONLY Sovereign of Gibraltar is Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. This is a simple fact.

In light of the spanish govt's avowed intention to attempt to annex the homeland of the Gibraltarians irrespective of their democratic wishes it is highly offensive for someone like ChrisO, who clearly knows nothing about the issue to insist on calling a foreign monarch "King of Gibraltar", when this title is so demonstrably wrong.

No doubt ChrisO will attempt to vandalise this contribution as well. Chris0 is behaving in an obsessed trollish manner. The "ban" on Gibraltarian was totally unjustifiable by any means, he did NOT request arbitration, it was the troll user: Ecemaml, and it was HIM who repeatedly vandalised anything he posted in his defence. For too long WP has been used as a platform by some for peddling their racist poison, and spreading their fascist inspired lies. Gibraltarians only "crime" was to stand up against this blatant racism from Ecemaml and others.

This is not an issue of POV, it is a simple fact. Juan Carlos is NOT, repeat NOT "King of Gibraltar", and this title has not belonged to any spanish monarch from 1713 onwards. This is the sole prerogative of the Sovereign Power, in this case H.M. Queen Elizabeth II.

The contention that Juan Carlos enjoys the "King of Gibraltar" title is not only demonstrably wrong, but also highly offensive to Gibraltrians. WP has a duty to truth and accuracy.

No doubt Chris0 will attempt to vandalise this too. Please do not allow this. 212.120.239.110 10:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, even the spanish govt does not make this claim, and the spanish royal family's own website does not claim this either. It is just ChrisO being a biased troll, nothing more.