Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:04, 22 January 2014

"Beware of the 'innocent' man who plays his part too well."

"Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to let your brains fall out."

"A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing."

"He used . . . sarcasm.
Oh, he knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire."

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Emailed you

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Corruption Perceptions Index may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• is impossible to measure directly; instead, ] for corruption are used.{{cn|date=January 2014))

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edgehill Church of Spuyten Duyvil may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {Infobox nrhp
• | name = Edgehill Church of Spuyten Duyvil<br>{Riverdale Presbyterian Chapel)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bradbury Building may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Child Bride may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 ""s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• intention of ] her. Before they can do this, however, Angelo the dwarf {99Angelo Rossitto]]) and Mr. Colton (George Humphreys) arrive with a shotgun to save the day.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 125th Street (Manhattan) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• pdf?res=F50A1FFE3B5E157A93C5AB178DD85F448285F9 "Harlem Street Renamed"] '']'' (June 27, 1920}`</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fieldston, Bronx may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fieldston, Bronx may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Both  Done (I think) BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your move of Broadway (New York City) has been reverted.

There is a longstanding and established consensus at Talk:Broadway (New York City)#request move for this page to be titled Broadway (New York City). Therefore, any move requires a move request and a new establishment of consensus. I may be remembering this wrong, but seem to recall that you have made some controversial page moves without discussion in the past. Please note that Misplaced Pages:Requested moves states that you must initiate a move request discussion "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". To clarify this point, there is good reason to believe that a move will be contested if it is either a longstanding title, or if the title has a large number of incoming links. In short, please do not move any longstanding or heavily linked page without first initiating a move discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's life. Make sure you revert all the redirects I changed. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look. A bot will correct all double-redirects. I'm not looking to pick a fight or dissuade you from editing - we're all trying to improve the encyclopedia here. It's just important to keep in mind that bold moves can stir bold responses, and it's always worth checking to see whether there has been a previous consensus against such a move. bd2412 T 15:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've got no grudge. Since the previous consensus discussion was 2 1/2 years ago, and the result was hardly overwhelming (!), and the question keeps coming up every couple of years, I think the better choice on your part would have been to allow the discussion to continue (as a de facto RM) rather than short-circuiting it, but people are different and make different choices - so be it.

Maybe you'd like to take a look at the mess on Talk:Lap dance, where an editor has taken an extreme ownership position on the article, calling any changes to it "virtual vandalism", ignoring the comments of myself and other editors, and vilifying those who dare to disagree with him. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

To avoid fruitless irritation, I think just about all moves ought to be announced days in advance in order to invite dissent. Exceptions would be articles small, new, and with few inbound links. Which, yes, often stalls the process and lets me walk away to less contentious actions. Jim.henderson (talk)

@BMK, the move discussion has not been closed. I'll have a look at lap dance tonight or tomorrow, when I'm in an environment more conducive to material of that nature. bd2412 T 16:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In effect, you did close it, since the request to move to "Broadway (New York)" came about because I moved "Broadway (New York City)" to "Broadway (Manhattan)" - but, yes, you are correct, the RM is still open, just not the de facto RM for the move I made, as opposed to the move Epicgenius suggested.

I understand about waiting to look at Lap dance. See what you think when you're situated for it. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked that editor for 24 hours for his 3RR violation. We'll see if that improves his discourse. For what it's worth, I agree that the second picture on the page is gratuitous, unnecessary, and probably not reflective of a typical experience in that genre of entertainment. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in on it. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

{{Ethnic New York City sidebar}}

This should be added to the neighborhood articles, so that there are links to the actual cultures (e.g. Puerto Rican migration to New York). Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Use the navbox, please, it's much more comprehensive. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that. Epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I'm not used to be on the opposite side of an issue from you, so wanted to explain my position. Part of my thinking is that I support reasonably broad leeway on user's page (ironic since I believe I removed something from a user page today for the first time ever, and may catch heat for it), but that isn't my prime motivation. My prime motivation is that I see symptoms in MM that are consistent with someone more interested in playing Wikilawyer than actual building an encyclopedia. I hope I'm wrong, but I get that sense. One course of action is to confront such tendencies, as they are energy sapping, and push for change or retirement is change is not forthcoming. Such an approach may be the best option, but it isn't my preference. I'd like to bend over backward to make sure that if someone is really angling to get thrown out, and hoping to amass a list of plausible grievances, we'd be better off to limit the number of instances where an outside observer might think he was unfairly targeted. I will fully understand if you see if differently. I don't see this as a clear right and wrong, I see it as a choice in tactics, and I can't say for certain that my tactic is best. While I feel fairly strongly that he ought to retain talk page access, my preference for restoration of the removed material is a weak preference. Just wanted to make my position clear; I'm concerned that we have one editor sucking up valuable resources.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and the explanation. I do see it somewhat differently, in that my concern is more with protecting the project (which is not to say that it isn't your primary concern as well, I'm certain it is) than with maintaining a perception of "fairness" that is rooted, I think, in Angle-American jurisprudence. Things that I would be screaming bloody murder about were they to occur in the real world, where rights and fairness have palpable meanings and can prevent great harm from being done, just have little relevance, I feel, in the context of this project. In that respect, I'm a hard-liner in regard to participation here.

In the best of all possible Wiki-worlds, there would be a metric which weighed each editor's beneficial contributions to the project against their non-beneficial ones. Editors with a high WikiQ would be rewarded with more user rights and their opinions would carry more weight in discussions; they would also get a correspondingly greater "benefit of the doubt" when conflicts arise. On the other hand, editors who are, essentially, free-loaders, who spend all their time talking and debating and don't contribute productively would be warned when they reach a certain level of non-productivity, and kicked out when they didn't straighten up and fly right. Note that this is different from banning and blocking on the basis of misbehavior, I'm talking about making "pulling one's weight" a pillar of the place.

That's all fantasy, and, of course, will never happen, but I do think it illustrates my take on how I feel editors should be dealt with when they, as you say, suck up too many community resources. I've long been concerned that Misplaced Pages may be an example of the Tragedy of the Commons, and that we're in danger of destroying what is most important to us simply by not taking steps to protect it.

In any event, thanks for your thoughts, I don't see this as a big deal. I was going to post in my last comment on MM that if someone restored it I wouldn't be put out (for some reason I've been somewhat mellower in the past few days, after going through a pretty crank patch before), but decided not to say so explicitly - but, as I said, no big deal. Best, BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that your WikiQ concept is fantasy, but I like the idea. It puts substance to some thoughts I have had, I can think of some editors who have unquestionably added some positive material, but who are net negatives when all is factored in. I don't think it would be hard to sell this general notion, although there might be disagreement about who belongs on the list.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Bradbury Building and Hollywood Reservoir

Please read the reply I left you on my page (including the links regarding comma usage) under the "Commas and stuff" section you created. JustAMuggle (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is nonsense, they are clearly independent clauses as they can stand alone by themselves. There's no need for me to be "educated", since I know perfectly well what is proper, there's a need for you to stop making non-grammatical edits which I have to correct. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Is open for walking, hiking, and jogging" is not an independent clause. An independent clause requires a subject and a verb, and "Is open for walking, hiking and jogging" does not have a subject. Additionally, corcerning your revert on Paley Center for Media, a comma is required before "such as" when it begins a non-restrictive clause (as can be seen on Grammarly and The Chicago Manual of Style). The sentence "It was renamed The Paley Center for Media on June 5, 2007, to encompass emerging broadcasting technologies, , as well as to expand its role as a neutral setting where media professionals can engage in discussion and debate about the evolving media landscape" has the same meaning with or without the non-restrictive clause "such as the Internet, mobile video and prodcasting," which only provides additional (but unnecessary) information about the types of broadcasting technologies. Therefore, the comma is necessary.

Jesus Christ Almighty "IT is open to walking, hiking, and jogging." The "it" is IMPLIED. Please do some other kind of editing, you clearly don't know shit about what you're doing. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Rockefeller

Hello - I reverted your edit of Rockefeller's career description because it was his wealth as an oil magnate that enabled him to be a philanthropist and it's important for people to see how one enabled the other. You are right in that he wasn't acting as an oil magnate when be set up the Cloisters; he created the Cloisters because he was financially able to and it's important to indicate that his job in life was not a philanthropist per se, but a businessman who earned enough money to become a philanthropist. Because the Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, we need to keep all the dots connected as part of its educational mission.

It is always important to know what enabled someone to become a philanthropist.

Thanks,

Teneriff (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Archivist

I did read the article, and I didn't find your suggestion to do so civil. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you read the article, and you still slugged it with a notability tag, then either your understanding of Misplaced Pages's notability standards is poor, or your reading comprehension is. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I liked your original comment better, since it more clearly indicates your point of view:

I did read the article, and I didn't find your suggestion to do so civil. Since when has being a dance archivist been in the definition of notability? Merce C. is famous, sure, but since when has notability been inherited by being someone's archivist? We used to ask for reliable independent sources, not vague assertions of being an expert archivist. Gee, we could have an article on Merce's floorsweeper. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest starting an article on Merce's "floorsweeper", but the guy who's recognized as the world expert on Merce Cunningham's repetoire and history, and a noted scholar of celebrated choreographer Frederick Ashton as well... now, that's a different matter. I guess I should have added a third possibility to the two I mentioned above (i.e. that you don't understand Wikinotability or that your reading comprehension is suspect), which is that you don't know shit about the dance world. That's OK, I really don't know all the much about it either, but then, I don't go around slapping inappropriate tags on articles concerning subjects I'm clueless about. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Spuyten Duyvil, Bronx (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Philipse Manor, Fourth Avenue and Robert Gardner

Seward Park Campus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phoenix

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages! Gg53000 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure what provoked that, but thanks. I'm pretty sure I only need one, though, so I'll remove the second Tesla. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Swimmer

Thanks for your message. However, it is okay to remove erroneous material from Misplaced Pages. If something is not accurate and it is potentially defamatory, and it is coming from a single source that doesn't list its references, and if the person clearly hasn't even seen the film (i.e. is referring to multiple scenes with a character when there is only one scene with that character) then common sense should prevail and the material can and should be deleted to improve the accuracy. Consensus is NOT a requirement for adding or deleting material, as you know. Of course it is preferential to not have any edit warring, but there is none here. Actually, probably all references to the TCM article for the TV showing should be removed as there are numerous errors in the research. FYI. Hugs and kisses. Peace out. - MikeHippie (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not OK to remove it even under those conditions, since those are your evaluations of the information, and therefore qualify as WP:OR, which we do not accept. If there are two sources, with differing information, list them both. "Accuracy" isn't something we can easily check, but WP:VERIFIABILITY is a core policy and can be checked. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix mugshot image

As you have shown interest in this image before, you are invited to comment on its deletion discussion. It can be found at Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2014_January_8#File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg. Taylor Trescott - + _{my edits} 18:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

This has got to be one of the most unbelievable comments I've ever seen made by a WP admin, and I thought I'd seen them all in my seven years of editing. I probably should award you a barnstar out of appreciation and admiration for such cunning and witty use of the English language and projection of your WP authority. Great work, man. Keep it up. You have renewed my faith in humanity and given me fresh hope that WP's administration is well on its way to getting its act together. I would ask if you were subject to recall, but I know by experience that that would be a complete waste of my time. So, you get away with it. Way to go! Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It would be a waste of time, since BMK isn't an admin. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Death threat

Thanks for your diligence, BMK. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your work catching Andajara120000 et socks! Thank you! Λuα 04:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'm glad it all came together. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sadie McKee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Robert Young, James Dunn and Arthur Jarrett

Greenwich Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Saxon language and Garrett

The Penguin Pool Murder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Plot Thickens

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Speedy deletion nomination of American Academy of Project Management

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on American Academy of Project Management, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. RJC _Contribs 15:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Nice work on Andajara120000! Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Mission Viejo

Hello, I have reverted your edit to Mission Viejo. While that is a fine photo that adds a lot to the story, it is of a few homes, on the lake and a snow capped saddleback in the background. That is not really what Mission Viejo looks like, and the aerial photo provides a visual of MISSION VIEJO, the city. Simply removing a valuable aerial photo from the story in fact undermines its ability to be a reference page. Remember Misplaced Pages is not a brochure and encyclopedic value overrides visual appeal but when it is an issue, we use everything and let the end reader decided what is of value to his/her project.

Thanks! WPPilot 03:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)(talk)

70% of that photo is NOT Mission Viejo, it is Saddleback mountain, Saddleback mountain is not in Mission Viejo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. Your Bold edit was Reverted, now it's time for you to Discuss why you want to change the article on the article's talk page-- you do not revert again. While discussion is in progress, the article remains in the status quo ante. So, your turn, make your arguments -- not here, but on the article's talk page.BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have made my case, the photo as artistic as it is NOT Mission Viejo, I have already rather respectfully I mind you MADE MY CASE, please take a moment to read above and reply. You are degrading the story, and simply removing costly and valuable aerial photos to place a artistic photo that you seem to think is more represented of what its like in Mission Viejo. Quite frankly, its NOT and unless you provide some rational regarding why a picture of a mountain that is not part of Mission Viejo covered with snow, something that rarely happens, is a more descriptive photo then a aerial photo of the ENITRE lake and north east section of the city.WPPilot 03:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't post here, post on the article's talk page. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Then reply!WPPilot 04:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, give me a few minutes, man! BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial

The images of the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial are flagged for deletion from the commons due to there being no freedom of panorama in France. The new image link is to the same image but uploaded to wikipedia. The commons image is likely to go dead in a couple days.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You just put it in the wrong slot. I'll fix it. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you're transferring them over before deletion, good work, more power to you. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I see now that you actually put them up for deletion on Commons (the 3rd time they've been there), so I take back my compliment, your action there was not beneficial to the project. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Think I got it. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjohnjames. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

They'll probably never give up. A few more attempts and it'll be time for a community ban. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

BN

Very hypothetical, I'm sure. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, it may become pertinent, and I not only wanted to know if there was a policy or precedent, just out of pure curiosity, and at the same time I thought it was a good idea to get people thinking about it, in case they hadn't already, and in case that possibility came to pass. But since I don't really have a position about whether the admin in question retired from the tools "under a cloud" or not (I think there's a decent point to be made that effectively he did, but also that technically he didn't), I wanted the question not to turn on that issue, which is why the hypothetical Admin Alpha is definitely stated to not be under a cloud. That's actually the reason I asked it as a hypothetical, because I didn't want the answer to get embroiled in the "cloud/no cloud" issue, which I think it probably would have if I had asked it directly. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Historical note...

An example of toplessness from ancient Greece. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, made me laugh. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not me. I was hoping for some real beauties. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I have notified at ANI. Please discuss there of your removal of cited content.EconomicTiger (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Special Investigator (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Song of Bernadette, Henry King, Erik Rhodes, Thomas Lennon, Sheila Terry and Russell Hicks

George Bartenieff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lyceum Theatre, Conviction (TV series) and David Hare

Riverdale Presbyterian Church Complex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gables

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done, although others got to most of them before me. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at No Other Woman (1933 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Dpmuk (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)