User talk:Bosonic dressing: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:45, 6 February 2009 editBosonic dressing (talk \| contribs)3,591 editsm -flamer s'more← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:50, 6 February 2009 edit undoBosonic dressing (talk \| contribs)3,591 edits remove gibberishNext edit →
Line 92:		Line 92:

	:Hi, that's great, I have put the reference into a cite template for consistency across the article. Thanks for the ref. Regards, ] (]) 18:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)		:Hi, that's great, I have put the reference into a cite template for consistency across the article. Thanks for the ref. Regards, ] (]) 18:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Changing Canadian templates ==

	Hi. Please revert your most recent edits at ],], and ]. For one, the entire design was discussed at length at ], and approved as it stood. For another, you made a bold change, it was reverted--you should not have reverted back. Please see ] for why. So, please revert your latest edits, and raise the discussion at ] if you want to change the design, as it affects hundreds of templates. Not sure if you're still online, so I'll give you some time to self-revert before I go ahead and do it on your behalf. Thank you. //] ] 19:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)</small>
	:The clear consensus is at ] ( ); I trust those very specific discussions which were entirely about the template format will suffice. And before you say "oh but the link colour wasn't discussed," it wasn't discussed because obviously nobody had a problem with it. However, you ''will'' self-revert, because that's the appropriate thing to do. You made a bold change which was challenged by someone reverting it. It is now '''up to you to start a discussion''' and not just keep reverting. Please read ]. I'll be waiting for your self-reversions to appear on my watchlist. //] ] 20:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)</small>
	::I have reverted your changes. Please seek consensus before changing again. BRD may be just a guideline, but it is the most collegial way to solve disputes. //] ] 20:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 05:50, 6 February 2009

Bolding of "Taiwanese Passport"

It is curious to me that a new account has such strong insistence on a very specific POV of the issue of ROC passport. And this very specific POV is mirrored by other accounts. Plus, all these accounts edit this article with the same specific POV within a relative short period of time. And the tone used in the reasonings is similarly specific. The new account jumps right into an edit war as its first article. Finally, this new account has the knowledge to operate Misplaced Pages proficiently.

I have sufficient ground to believe that this account is a sockpuppet of another account after assuming good faith. Therefore I will proceed to refer this matter to the authorities.

Given the edit war on the ROC passport article, I will also proceed to request having the article protected.

I have explained numerous times, one POV is not having Taiwan mentioned at all. Having Taiwanese passport mentioned without having it bold is a compromise trying to accommodate a neutral of view and a view that ROC passport is the Taiwanese passport. You said you quoted other variants, like the United Kingdom, when that term isn't controversial and you clearly are aware that 'Taiwan' is. It is disappointing that this compromise was not taken in good faith.--pyl (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This matter is now being investigated by Misplaced Pages. I shall make no further comments in relation to this.--pyl (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

The warning on my page was incorrectly given. Please check the revision history as I have not made 3 revisions on the article within 24 hour period but you have. If you don't retract the warning by tomorrow, I will refer this matter to Misplaced Pages.--pyl (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK then. I shall refer this matter to Misplaced Pages. And btw, I think you have a great understanding of the Misplaced Pages rules for a new account.

Consider this a only warning from me to you. If you continue to revert to that page, you will be blocked. How about trying discussing the issue on the talk page, or dispute resolution? Either way, do not continually revert. Tiptoety 23:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but did you also warn the reporter to not continually revert? You should: it takes two to tango.

As well, I think dispute resolution is premature: after all, this editor and I have really been the only ones discussing this. I believe that further discourse with this editor wouldn't be productive. However, I welcome input from other editors -- perhaps you can weigh in? Bosonic dressing (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I was going to give you a Stern Warning about edit warring and warning users. But after Iw's reaction to my friendly warning I think I'll just give you some friendly advice instead. Do please make more attempt to discuss reverts on the talk page, and with the other user, and ive them a proper 3RR warning William M. Connolley (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Central Time Zone (North America)/Central Time Zone/Central Time Zone (Americas)

I really don't care where the article is located but when you moved the page you left behind several double redirect and I am not going to spend ages cleaning that up. For now I have put everthing back. To figure out where the page should be got to Talk:Central Time Zone (North America) and discuss it and when an agreement is made the page can be moved and the people wanting the move can take care of the mess left behind. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Rationale for the move was provided upon the move, and it is not wholly controversial. So, I have moved the article back. If you opt to not spend time cleaning up double redirects, that is your prerogative, but the neutrality of the article/title/topic matter needn't suffer due to your ignorance or laziness. Bosonic dressing (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to read Misplaced Pages:Civility. Also you were the one that orignally moved the page and left the double redirects so why does that make me ignorant and lazy? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be civil, you -- as an administrator -- would not undo a reasoned move due to irrelevancy and leave such whiny commentary on my talk page: many of the double redirects existed before the move. So, if you are not ignorant and lazy, someone else may be. I'm ending this discussion. Bosonic dressing (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Please see Wikiquette alert regarding edits at Quebec (seeMisplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Failure_to_assume_good_faith). Please remember to assume good faith.--soulscanner (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Bosonic dressing, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I know you've been here for a few months, but never officially "welcomed". Here are some pages on vital policies that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ♪BMWΔ 10:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Québécois (word)

There have been a number of changes to the lead recently. Of course, I'm glad that the claim is no longer made that "Québécois" refers specifically to francophones in French. However, some other inaccuracies have appeared.

One is that the word can mean only "francophone Quebecer" in English. While this is probably its most common meaning (in any case, based on my experience), it is not the only one. The Merriam-Webster gives two senses, one being "a native or inhabitant of Quebec" and the other "a French-speaking native or inhabitant of Quebec." Saying that the word can mean only the latter in English is an exaggeration.

Second, it is false that "Québecois" is incorrect. This is given as one spelling in the Merriam-Webster, with the etymology "F québecois, québécois, fr. Québec Quebec." In fact, in older usage, québecois was common in French and was thought of as an annoying exception because it differed from the pronunciation. It is uncommon now. The spelling first appeared in 1775 according to a government website. (Type "Québec" into the query field at the Liste des gentilés of the Commission de Toponymie.)

A Google Books search for orthographe "québecois" yields a couple of interesting results. Unfortunately, you only get snippet views, but the following should be enough to demonstrate that "québecois" was once an established spelling.

La chasse-galerie et autres récits: La Chasse-Galerie et Autres Recits‎ - Page 335 by Honoré Beaugrand, François Ricard - 1989 - 362 pages ... ou Québecois ? À mon sens, l'une ou l'autre orthographe peut s'écrire sans inconvénient » (NED). Québec désigne ici la ville, et non la province. ...

Bulletin du parler français au Canada‎ - Page 198 by Société du parler français au Canada - French language - 1906 L'orthographe des ... et Québécois (ou Québecois). L'usage hésitera sans doute encore quelque temps entre ces deux formes. AR Y at-il une différence entre ...

Maybe you can do better than I can at getting more complete quotes. Joeldl (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding unsourced info

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie 18:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Postnominals

The Governor General's site, as well as the Department of National Defence lists the post nominal letters with periods in between for the purposes of distinction. I am curious as to why you took these out in the OofP. I will leave it be for now, but would like a response soon or I will change it back. JMesh (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

National Order of Quebec

I have raised objections to the move from "National Order of Quebec" to "Order of Quebec" based on the arguments you have put forward in the article's talk page.

I see that you are a very recent editor in Misplaced Pages. I take this occasion to welcome you here among us. Bienvenue! :-)

For future reference, and I say this because you are new and may not know, it is common practise to announce the intention to move an article's name in the article's talk page before performing the move. This is done to allow some time for people who may have objections to respond. Maybe you already knew. -- Mathieugp (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Canadian VC

Where has this come from: "cast in an alloy of metals from Russian cannons from the Crimean War (1854-6), the Confederation Medal (1867), and from regions nationwide." As far as I was aware, the original cannons were not used for the Canadian VC. Do you have a source for this? It needs to be explicitly sourced.

Can I also suggest that you use the show preview button? There are a lot of minute changes and errors that could have been avoided that are now clogging up the page history. If you have any questions, please leave them at my talkpage. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that's great, I have put the reference into a cite template for consistency across the article. Thanks for the ref. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)