Misplaced Pages

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

• If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
• If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

Scotire

A few FYIs regarding this user:

1. Now blocked for 6 months on Commons (edit warring and personal attacks).
2. An obvious related IP has been identified (Special:Contributions/59.167.60.9
3. I have identified a copyvio on WP see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Scotland#Scotire and copyvios

The last of these is particularly worrying, as I expect there are many more affecting many articles. Do you have any idea on the correct process to follow?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably all of his contributions will have to be removed. Lot of work. --John (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly agree its a lot of work! :( I don't think all the contribs are copvios, but between that and removal of the POV issues he introduced... sigh.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It might be easier to remove all his contributions than to search each one to see if it is a violation. What a nuisance. --John (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Shires of Scotland

I am attempting to follow the debate on the removal of categories referring to Scottish 'shires'. The term 'shire' is in common use in Scotland. I understand that the Post Office no longer uses that element in an address, and that Scottish Council areas are an administrative delineation, but shires do still exist. There are at least ten Scottish Westminster constituencies which are shires.

Who has made the decision to make these changes? And where can I find that recorded?Shipsview (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. --John (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

obsolescent / obsolete

http://en.wiktionary.org/obsolescent gives a definition inconsistant with usage in warrior article , surely one must be incorrect ? 78.105.186.64 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary is user-generated and so it isn't the best source. All the same, "In the process of becoming obsolete, but not obsolete yet" seems fair to me. Like the Panavia Tornado in 2013, the Warrior could still do some useful work but was definitely no longer state-of-the-art. Or like Windows XP, as I said. --John (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting comparisons. I must agree that "obsolescent" is by no means a less clear or unduly verbose wording of "obsolete" - it means a different thing. I recall in particular the appendices to The Battle for the Falklands by Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins, which contained an exhaustive listing of the weapons used by both sides in 1982, and noted specifically that many weapon systems used by the British were either obsolete or obsolescent at the time.

The outstandingly fiery example of either one or the other, was the Sea Slug (missile). The version in use had a limited capability against ships, and the British tried to exploit this by approaching at night and attempting to fire at the Argentine defences of Port Stanley airfield from more than a dozen miles offshore.

The attempt was an utter failure, but the British fleet received a request to try again, from British ground forces who by this time were on high ground within sight of Stanley. Asked whether the request was because success was likely, the ground forces said no, absolutely not - the weapon should be used again purely because its ridiculous take-off sequence, involving multiple separate booster rockets spinning like a Catherine Wheel, was a grand display even from the British positions, and might have an equivalent effect on the morale of Argentineans who saw it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. I have that book and I must reread it. --John (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's rather surprising. I see the editor in question has self-reverted, which seems like the wise thing to do. --John (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning on Brad Pitt

Before you claim a WP:BLP exemption, please note "hat counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Neither the BLP board or ANI have given any indication your actions are exempt from WP:3RR. --NeilN 23:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Before you come here giving me a "warning", please ensure you haven't just restored multiple instances of tabloid journalism to a BLP, in contravention of WP:BLPSOURCES. --John (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Shoah (film)

I've just spent a wet Sunday trying to improve Shoah (film) only to see a lot of it undone. I wonder if I could trouble you for your opinion whether the article was better before or after . I am a slow editor and reluctant to throw good time after bad, but if you think it was better before, I am prepared to have a go at defending my edits per BRD. Thanks. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)