This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matthead (talk | contribs) at 19:46, 4 August 2008 (→Sedan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:46, 4 August 2008 by Matthead (talk | contribs) (→Sedan)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
User talk:Matthead/Archive2006 - User talk:Matthead/Archive2007 - User talk:Matthead/Archive2008
Did you know & Signpost
 |
|---|
| 15 January 2025 |
|
"Poor Maria" from A Sentimental Journey
- ... that one 18th-century reader was so offended by some chapters of Laurence Sterne's 1768 novel A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy (scene pictured) that they glued the pages shut?
- ... that only two people are known to have seen Du Toit's torrent frog alive?
- ... that Jeanne Trevor's name was misspelled on the cover of her first album?
- ... that the Sitaleshwar Temple remained a place of worship even when it was in ruins?
- ... that the comet C/1975 T2 (Suzuki–Saigusa–Mori) was independently discovered by five observers within the span of half an hour?
- ... that viewers of an Indiana TV station's newscast in 1995 could send emails to the presenter live on air?
- ... that the diary of Erich Lassota von Steblau is an important primary source on the 16th-century Zaporozhian Cossacks of Ukraine?
- ... that nearly half of the wins achieved in 2024 by the San Jose State Spartans women's volleyball team were by forfeit?
- ... that Japan's oldest expressway is intended to be transformed into a park?
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.
— Coren for the Arbitration Committee, 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Notability of Karl Höfer
A tag has been placed on Karl Höfer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hqb (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but when I saw the article it contained virtually no content, and in particular no indication of why the subject was considered notable - nor did a quick Google search turn up any obvious indication of notability (any hits were swamped by Karl Hofer). The article had not been edited for 10 minutes, and there was no indication (such as {{underconstruction}}) that additional content was forthcoming in the near future. I have removed the {{db-bio}}, but in the future it might save everyone some time if you create articles in a more complete form. I understand your annoyance about over-eager speedy tagging, but I believe that under the circumstances this particular tag was not unreasonable. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- While tagging may not have been unreasonable, it still was annoying. I had to connect some dots first too, creating some articles, adding links to already existing articles etc, all while being busy in discussion, and on German Wiki, too (where they speedily deleted my stub on the battle). In the future, I recommend to you to have a look into the recent contribs of the user to see what he is busy with. Rome was not build in a day either. -- Matthead Discuß 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Move
What is your proposed move in relation to Kulmerland? PatGallacher (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the article the redirect points to should be moved, see Talk:Chełmno Land for discussion and sources. The current name is unsourced, the article should be at the common name in English, Kulmerland. -- Matthead Discuß 16:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Your rename of Chełmno Land
Matthead, I don't think that asking you to file a proper WP:RM request for a controversial rename is a "reckless POV pushing". Your suggestion to rename the article to the German name has been already contested by another editor before, and you've been advised to go for WP:RM instead. Why did not you do it but instead renamed the article yourself ? As to this edit of yours, I have no doubt that you did it on purpose to make a simple revert of your rename impossible. And now you are reporting me ???! :-) --Lysy 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sedan
Did you even read my comment on Talk:Sedan before reverting? I am not disagreeing with you about the ambiguity; in fact, I tend to think you are correct. But my objection is about process -- this is a potentially disruptive change to many other articles that shouldn't be done without discussion and consensus. The correct course is to use the template {{move}} to propose a move of Sedan (disambiguation) to Sedan, then list the proposal on WP:RM. If you do that, we can form a consensus instead of having an edit war. --Russ (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I did not move, some body else did. The potentially disruptive change is not disruptive, all articles can be fixed, with a bot if needed. No harm done, except to the old habits of a few. -- Matthead Discuß 15:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the point (and your estimate of the capabilities of bots is, sadly, overly optimistic). The point is that there's no way to determine whether it's "a few" or many until the move has been proposed and discussed; continuing to revert the redirect is not constructive. Sedan's been an article about a type of car for the past two years plus; will it hurt anyone if stays that way for another ten days or so to allow discussion? --Russ (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as I understand, it was your RussBot which fixed the links this afternoon anyway? Kind of ironic? Whatever, I've cast my vote at the move proposal, and I'm out of this for now. -- Matthead Discuß 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the point (and your estimate of the capabilities of bots is, sadly, overly optimistic). The point is that there's no way to determine whether it's "a few" or many until the move has been proposed and discussed; continuing to revert the redirect is not constructive. Sedan's been an article about a type of car for the past two years plus; will it hurt anyone if stays that way for another ten days or so to allow discussion? --Russ (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Sedan Edit War
I have protected Sedan given the on-gong edit war. I would remind you of WP:3RR. You have reverted this article three times. I have chosen to protect in this case. However, repeat conduct like this will likely result in blocking. Please discuss this issue on the relevant talk pages. Community consensus should determine the result; not edit warring. Let me know if you have any questions. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)