| Revision as of 07:45, 9 September 2010 editScolaire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits →avoid ad hominem please: another small edit for clarity← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:04, 21 November 2024 edit undoScolaire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits notedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ]: Jan. 2010 - May 2010 | ]: Jan. 2010 - May 2010 | ||
| }} | |||
| ]: Jun. 2010 - Dec. 2010 | |||
| == Ulster Special Constabulary == | |||
| ]: Jan. 2011 - Dec. 2012 | |||
| Hi I liked your approach to the Easter Risng article - especially on shortening and summarising material. | |||
| ]: Jan. 2013 - Dec. 2013 | |||
| Although I think that article needs more work, would you have any advice/input on the re-write I'm doing at ]? | |||
| ]: Jan. 2014 - Dec. 2014 | |||
| Your help would be appreciated. | |||
| ]: Jan. 2015 - Dec. 2015 | |||
| ] (]) 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ]: Jan. 2016 - Dec. 2016 | |||
| :I have a list of articles I want to work on. There's eight articles on it at the moment (not including Easter Rising) and I'm a ''very'' slow worker. The chances of me being drawn into Ulster Special Constabulary before the end of the summer are slim indeed. Thanks for the invite, anyway. ] (]) 12:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ]: Jan. 2017 - Dec. 2017 | |||
| ::No worries. I'll talk to you on the Easter Rising page. ] (]) 12:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ]: Jan. 2018 - Dec. 2021 | |||
| == Hope you don't mind but I thought you could maybe use this == | |||
| }} | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. Your account has been granted the "<tt>reviewer<tt>" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a ] scheduled to end 15 August 2010. | |||
| == Talk:Easter Rising == | |||
| Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ]. | |||
| I am not aware that I reverted anything. I guess it was a mis-click. Sorry. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious ] or ], and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see ]). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found ]. | |||
| :No problem. I posted at your talk page. You needn't respond. ] (]) 12:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI thread about User:Jonathan f1 == | |||
| :Thank you very much! It's always nice to be called a "trusted user". Pending changes looks to me like a good idea, especially given some issues I've had on a page that's now indefinitely semi-protected. I don't know whether or how much I'll use my new privileges, but I'm certainly going to read up about it. ] (]) 21:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. Thank you. ] (]) 00:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == An apology == | |||
| :I have joined the discussion. Thanks. ] (]) 11:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry for bungling that thread. I could see that the diffs you posted were the most important part of the discussion but for whatever reason when the user in question got way into the weeds of the Clontarf article I just couldn't help but respond in detail. I'll try to stay on topic in any future Wiki administrative matters. ] (]) 02:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::No problem. As I say, he does seem to have stopped posting his rants all over the place. If he starts again, he can always be reported again. ] (]) 10:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == ACAS == | |||
| Scolaire i want to apologise to you for my recent attitude, i let another editors continuing attempts at what i see as blurring the border and lack of will to make concessions piss me off big-style and let it harden my position. I really do want a concensus on the county ledes issue and i hope we are able to reach one that we can all agree with. I am an editor who is quite willing to make concessions if something reasonable is given back in return, as the new IMOS placenames issue shows. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I would value it if you could add a ====Comment==== at ]. I've been thinking about our conversation last month about ] (not just for mass creation, but for everyone). I think this question is close enough that I shouldn't propose another question directly about that, and I do still want to know why articles with <10 sentences are bad. ] (]) 05:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Apology accepted and thank you. It's never easy to do, and I have great respect for anyone who has the bottle to do it. I don't think I'll rejoin the discussion, though. My ideas are there for anyone who wants to read them, and I'll go along with anything that gets a consensus. ] (]) 07:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|WhatamIdoing}}, I have done so now. ] (]) 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Your input will be missed. Superfopp is quite unwilling (RA to a lesser degree) to move or give something in return in respects to anything on Northern Irelands position, and Laurel_Lodged and Canterbury_Tail both standing firm on their beliefs in regards to Northern Irelands position by not discussing alternative proposals. Even if i had of reached a deal with you there still wasn't a concensus without LL and CT backing it. I fear (along with other facets i've had to raise) the issues will have to be taken further along the Content Dispute Resolution path, i.e. the Mediation Committee, for RA and Superfopps unwillingness to discuss and ability to remain silent when it suits them when i raise questions is stifling the other issues and making me more unwilling to compromise with them. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| :::Sorry to stepping in, Scolaire - | |||
| :::Mabuska, I think you're being a little narrow sighted and unfair. From the very off-set, I've said that the NI context should be emphasised above the Ireland context. I suggested that we explicitly state that NI in the UK and avoid any arrangements of words that might lead a reader to believe that all of Ireland forms one jurisdiction. I've supported suggestions by both yourself and Scolaire. I've made suggestions for new wordings that place the NI context foremost. From my first breath on this topic to my very last one, I have said that the NI context needs to be explicitly stated, given precedence over the Ireland-context and not be overwhelmed by the Ireland-context (in contrast to the current wording in the articles). That is hardly the position of someone who is "unwilling to move or give something in return in respects to anything on Northern Irelands position". --RA (]) 12:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To avoid hijacking this talk page of anothers user i've responded over at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> | |||
| Hi | |||
| == You are now a Reviewer == | |||
| If you don't mind, may I pick your brain regarding mark up language on a Misplaced Pages users page. What does a sole lower case 'r' indicate in relation to an edit detailed on a users contribution list refer to? | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. Your account has been granted the "<tt>reviewer<tt>" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a ] scheduled to end 15 August 2010. | |||
| Thanks | |||
| Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ]. | |||
| Mogh ] (]) 20:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious ] or ], and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see ]). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found ]. | |||
| :Hi ]. I looked at your contributions. When I hovered over the "r" it said "This edit needs review". The edit was also highlighted in yellow. This is some algorithm that searches for I don't know what, and on the basis of that marks it as potentially problematic. Since you know it wasn't problematic, you can just ignore it. ] (]) 21:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. <!-- Template:Reviewer-notice --> ] (]) 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah ok. Thanks Scolaire. ] (]) 21:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing sourced material == | |||
| == Acknowledgment == | |||
| Any reason for that? The Heraldry WikiProject said the arms are accurate and the images were sourced. It is disruptive to remove sourced information. So I would like an explanation. <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">'''</span>]] ]</span> 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Just wanted to acknowledge your level headed and fair input to a number of discussions that we have been involved in over the past few months. | |||
| :I am happy to explain ''ad nauseam''. The "WikiProject" said nothing. You're deluding yourself. The images are not sourced. ] says: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, ''so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments''". The fanciful elements in your fanciful design are not published anywhere. You won't listen to me but that's fine, you're only beating your head against a wall. ] (]) 23:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I appreciate the fair treatment and sound guidance you've given me. Thanks ] (]) 20:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Mary lead image == | |||
| Tamfang said "It's true that any two renditions of argent a sinister hand gules are legally equivalent". Seven Letters said "Coats of arms, full achievements, etc, are defined by words, not design. If different illustrations have the same blazon, they represent the same coat of arms, baroque or not. The style is entirely up to the artist". While only two, there are ''no'' Heraldry contributors that refuted this, so you should have at least considered I was not lying to you. Yet, instead of going with me and two other editors, you decided to ignore them and go with "I still don't think so". So, I found the American Heraldry Society article, which stated "With the exception of the lozenge (diamond), there is no significance to the shape of the shield. The lozenge has traditionally been distinctive of the arms of women in the heraldry of certain countries, including much of the United States (see section 3.2 on heraldry of women). Other than that, any style of shield is available to anyone." But you deleted it without concern. Since it is not an original nor unique idea, and it illustrates centuries-old blazons, it does not violate the original research policy. Oh, and it was posted there already and they ignored it. That might be a hint. So, again, why did you remove it? And please do not argue in circles with any of the points which have been refuted here yet again. <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">'''</span>]] ]</span> 00:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Given your interest in the earlier RfC, you might be interested in ]. ] (]) 13:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| :I must argue in circles, since you are arguing in circles, making points which I have refuted again and again. That is why I said I am happy to explain ''ad nauseam''. The "WikiProject" said nothing. Three editors do not a Wikiproject make. Your quote from Seven Letters is a general comment on matters heraldic; he specifically said he was "not familiar with the particular arms in question", so it was not possible for him to say that "the arms are accurate and the images were sourced." Tamfang said "It's true that any two renditions of argent a sinister hand gules are legally equivalent, ''but that doesn't oblige me to blind myself to the image's inappropriateness on other grounds''." You say I "should have at least considered you were not lying to me", but deliberately editing somebody's comments to make them appear to say the opposite of what they do say is as near to lying as makes no difference. The consensus (1 - 0) on the Heraldry talk page is that the image is ''inappropriate''. | |||
| <blockquote>'''This is fully covered by the main "martyr" article.'''</blockquote> | |||
| :Secondly, you say you found the American Heraldry Society article, which stated Blah, but can you find the Misplaced Pages guideline that says an article in a heraldry journal is the arbiter of what is original content in WP images? | |||
| :Oh, and I have looked in vain for the image that was "posted there already" and ignored. If by "there" you mean ], that image appears to have been deleted, so how can I judge it? The article is not much watched or edited - I myself was not watching it - so the fact that it was ignored does not indicate approval. If by "there" you mean the Wikiproject page, the fact that it was ignored definitely does not indicate approval. ] (]) 08:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| ::What is wrong with you? Three members does not a WikiProject make? It is three people that know about heraldry that were in agreement that the drawing was within normal and acceptable guidelines of heraldry. Seven Letters did not refrain from siding with that, he refused to comment on whether the arms were supposed to be a left or right hand. Tamfang said the arms are not an acceptable style for Legendary Ireland, which I never claimed them to be. They both still said my shield does not need to match exactly a pre-existing shield-shape, which was the point of your argument, that you could not find the hand on ''that'' shield. | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| ::Now, since there was a consensus that a coat of arms must be sourced and show a link to a photograph where one may see an exact replica, then you must apply the same standard to any new images you wish to add. So, stop being hypocritical and live by your own standards. Source the images before you add them again, per your own consensus. <span style="border-top:0 px solid black;font-size:80%">'''</span>]] ]</span> 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> — ] (]) 14:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR & Edit warring == | |||
| == Black Irish == | |||
| ] | |||
| Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly{{#if:O'Neill dynasty|, as you are doing at ]}}. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for ], even if they do not technically violate the ]. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR -->] ] 13:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hi @]. | |||
| :This applies also to all the other articles you two are edit warring over. ] ] 13:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I saw your comment on the redirect discussion for ]. | |||
| == RfC == | |||
| As you have previously dealt with the old page for Black Irish (relating to white Irish with dark complexions), I though you might in interested in having a look at ]. It's a new enough article and has already proven contentious. | |||
| Thanks for your time ] (]) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Scolaire, | |||
| The RfC should be moved over to Leo XIII. I don't think anybody over there will get the posts. What do you think?]] 20:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I've , but beyond that I don't care to contribute. I don't remember how I got involved back in 2013, but the topic actually doesn't interest me at all. I said at ] back then that unless an encyclopaedia article can say unambiguously what it is about, it cannot serve a useful purpose. From the discussion, it seems that people still can't agree what it is about. ] (]) 19:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Won't get ]? Nobody has commented. Xanderliptak should take the hint and just close it, period. But I won't withhold permission if that's what you're asking. | |||
| : |
::Can't say I blame you for wanting to stay out of it, it's a bit of a mess alright. Thanks for having a look anyway. ] (]) 19:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | ||
| ==Merger discussion for ]== | |||
| ] An article that you have been involved in editing—]—has been '''proposed for ]''' with another article. If you are interested, please participate in ]. Thank you. ] (]) 06:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Derbiul Bucureștiului== | |||
| == Wikimedia Ireland == | |||
| See ]...hope looks good after few details fixed. You became topic expert/native speaker with quality wiki knowledge honestly. ] (]) 16:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. I might have a look tomorrow. ] (]) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you for your patience in dealing with a difficult situation == | |||
| Hi Scolaire, | |||
| I very much appreciated the collegial approach you attempted. I honestly think the user tends to conflate other users' actions with their motivations. While you and I know avoiding this habit is a Misplaced Pages social norm, such conflation is way more common in vernacular these days than many would think, or you and I would like. They seem honestly regretful. Thanks for your work on European sporting stuff. I would not have the patience you nice folks exhibit daily. If I may be helpful, please call on me. ] (]) 13:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Just dropping a line to wonder if you would be interested in participating in ]. It took a year (almost to the day) but ten editors have expressed an interest, which meets the criteria for a "critical mass". How would you feel about it? Know of anyone who might be interested? | |||
| :Thank you for your kind words. Not everybody is as appreciative of my approach ;-) ] (]) 16:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Steaua again == | |||
| By the way, you might also be interested in joining the , if you are not already on it. --RA (]) 20:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I am seriously worried about the edits of . All his recent edits have a summery "Changing redirect link to the correct one" when he changes a redirect to FCSB into a redirect to Steaua București. And set my alarm bells of. What is going on here? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 20:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I do have an interest in media, and some of the "What could a Wikimedia Ireland do?" items are very attractive, especially the idea of persuading individuals and organisations to make certain media free. I also like that so many of those who've expressed an interest are actively involved in uploading or using media. On the other hand, I'm not currently in "dynamic" mode: if you look at my contributions you'll see I've scaled down my activity considerably. I'm reluctant to add my name just for the sake of making up numbers, especially when there are so many "curiouses" and "interesteds" already. I'd love to see the project work but I'm not sure I'd be able to commit myself in any meaningful way. Thanks for asking, anyway. ] (]) 17:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :It's perfectly straightforward, I'm afraid. The user believes, as did our departed friend, that FCSB are not entitled to the name or the records of the old Steaua; therefore he is changing all FCSB links to CSA Steaua (in many cases linking to the omni-sport club instead of the football club). That includes instances (like the Mo Salah edit) where the team was called Steaua but the courts have retroactively ruled that they were not entitled to call themselves that. This is not vandalism; it is good faith editing, even if we disagree with the edits. Only you and {{U|Onel5969}} have reverted, as far as I can see, and there is no talk page discussion on any of those pages, so he is not editing against consensus. Nor is he edit-warring. There isn't even enough activity to take it to DRN. The best course I can think of is to open a discussion at ] and see if we can get a consensus there. ] (]) 13:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have pointed him at the prior discussion at the records dispute article and more or less begged him to take part in the discussion there. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I saw that, but I very much doubt he'll take any notice. ] (]) 14:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Let me say: you have to try something. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 14:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've opened a discussion at ]. --] (]) 15:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| ::I hadn't seen this. Completely understand. If you're subscribed to the list, keep an eye on developments and if you can make it on the 25th I'm curious about meeting other editors in real life. | |||
| ::p.s. my real reason for coming to your page was to give a thumbs up to this: "I had to laugh when you said the dispute goes back to the Crusades. I didn't become a user until well into this century, but I can well believe it's true." You're a great wit when you get angry. --RA (]) 11:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] ] ] 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, no, I have to cool right down before I'm capable of that kind of wit :-) I knew you'd appreciate it, though. ] (]) 11:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:BIDIRECTIONAL == | |||
| ==Talk:Pope Leo XIII== | |||
| Hi, Given that you were involved in that, I think you might be interested again. ] (]) 04:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hello. | |||
| :You're mistaken, I'm afraid. Beating my head against a wall is not actually one of my hobbies. ] (]) 06:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I think you need to read ]. The list article you referred to is linked in the navbox, and so should transclude the template, but the article you reverted isn't, and so it shouldn't transclude the template. Being linked to from <u>another article in the navbox</u> doesn't cut it. | |||
| ==DYK for The war to end war== | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| |style = notice | |||
| |small = | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| |text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page <small>(], )</small> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
| }} <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 18:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| A rule of thumb is that only articles that are linked from a navbox should transclude it. | |||
| == Images of pictures == | |||
| *Hi Scolaire, if you object to the pics so much then just remove them. Despite their standard, I do think they give some historical context, aid understanding and show their continuing relevance as they are in a current exhibition. These are relevant contemporary media, useful for readers and for their understanding. I will add this to the discussion too. ] (]) 09:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The purpose of navboxes is to provide convenient links to articles that have something more specific in common than just "Law of the United Kingdom", which is a huge topic. Routinely slapping vaguely relevant navboxes onto articles that merely are in the ballpark (so to speak) isn't meaningful. Why provide links to <u>every list article of any era from every other article</u>? | |||
| == BISE == | |||
| The solution is obviously to create navboxes for articles covering legislation from the same era, the same geographical entity, or the same judicial sub-topic – if you feel it's needed. So if you want to create sub-templates for articles within the same era, subtopic, etc, that's where links to <u>the individual articles</u> go, and <u>those are the templates</u> that should be trancluded. | |||
| If editors wants to particpate at BISE? they can. The more who participate there, the more effective BISE becomes -per article-. If editors don't want a thing to do with BISE & go straight to the articles themselves? so be it. The more who don't participate at BISE, the less effective it becomes. It's up to the individual, all BISE is is a collaborative idea, a place to keep an eye on ''all'' related articles. Wowsers, there's editors out there who can't stand WikiProjects for similiar reasons. Remember what ] said? ''"I never wanted to belong to a group, that would have me as a member"''. It's up to you Scolaire, if ya wann disregard BISE or kill it & bury it? that's your choice. You'd be neither right or wrong. ] (]) 14:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| E.g., if you want to create a navbox template for the articles in the list article, ], that would be the correct template to transclude from those articles. | |||
| :No, see, my problem is I don't care about the British Isles dispute and I don't want to hear about it. As long as it keeps the feuding parties in one place and away from "my" articles (i.e. the ones that interest me) I think BITASK/BISE is great! When they start coming onto my articles and telling us what they've decided we're going to do, all I want is for them to go back in their hole, and not try to "pull" anybody else with them. I respect you, GD, and I don't mean this in a sarcastic or hurtful way, but talk of BITASK/BISE becoming "more effective" is a pipe-dream. It's only effective as a soap-box, and it will never be effective as anything else. Still, It's nice to chat to you again. Our paths don't seem to have crossed for a while. ] (]) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::BISE is whatever editors make of it. PS: 'tis good to cross path with you. ] (]) 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Will you self-revert? | |||
| == avoid ad hominem please == | |||
| Cheers. ] (]) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Scolaire please avoid ''ad hominem'' remarks like these. This kind of comment is unhelpful and violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG--] <sup>]</sup> 18:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I did read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but thanks for the clarification. I will self-revert. ] (]) 09:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :''Ad hominem'' is "an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." The post you link to does not relate to any premise; it is a post to a user talk page asking that user to modify his attitude and behaviour towards me. Throwing trilogies of abbreviations at me (thank you at least for not linking them) is a rather lazy way of saying that you think "behave like a grownup" is a trifle over the top. You say it is unhelpful, but I haven't seen the same behaviour from LB since, so I conclude it ''has'' helped me. However, if the phrase bothers you, I will strike it. ] (]) 21:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Problem with Steaua again, now with players == | |||
| Scolaire an ''ad hominem'' comment is a remark (usually belittling or offensive) made about a person (it's the equivalent of 'playing the man not the ball' in sport). And yes please strike that remark. <br/>Also note that your comment above is ] and uncivil. I would suggest that is not the best idea to test the limits while operating in an area under probation (as the British Isles naming dispute is). And I'm afraid I have to warn you once more for misuse of the talk space. Please modify that behaviour--] <sup>]</sup> 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :@Cailil, if this example is characterized as an ''ad hominen'' remark, I look forward to your future warnings to participants at BISE. I'll start holding my breath .... 3 .... 2 ... 1 .. now! --] (]) 00:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hello @], i have a problem with user Cezxmer, especially with the dispute between CSA and FCSB. I have a problem with him because he is reverting my edits especially on the players who played for Steaua before 2017, like Florin Nita, Gheorghe Hagi, because he says that team was CSA. Please help me with this problem. I am very worried because he will destroy anything which is connected to this subject. After all i want to thank you for what you did on FCSB page, regarding this situation ] (]) 08:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This time, Cailil, I'm going to have to ask you to spell out your objections. You have a right to warn me if you don't like my language, but you don't have the automatic right to a grovelling reply. If your use of a term is wrong (and yours is - I quoted from Misplaced Pages while your definition is unsourced) I have every right to say so. If I think your warning is pompous and overbearing, I have a right to say so. You could have said, "Scolaire, please avoid the sort of gratuitous insult you used on LB's talk page" and I would have replied, "you're right, I'm sorry and I won't do it again." However, I am not a school-child and you are not a master and you don't have the right to address me as though that is what we are. In particular, I resent your suggestion that I am "testing the limits" by simply standing up for myself. I am well-known in "areas under probation" and anybody in any of those areas will tell you that I never even go close to the limit. All this is, of course, assuming that what you object to is what I think you object to. So will you now, please, list every part of my original post that you believe is against policy and explain why, and every part of my reply to you above that you believe is against policy and explain why, and provide diffs if there is any other post to a talk page that you consider is against policy? ] (]) 07:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:04, 21 November 2024
 Archives |
|
Archive 1: Sep. 2005 - Mar. 2007 Archive 2: Apr. 2007 - Dec. 2007 Archive 3: Jan. 2008 - Aug. 2008 Archive 4: Sep. 2008 - Dec. 2009 Archive 5: Jan. 2010 - May 2010 Archive 6: Jun. 2010 - Dec. 2010 Archive 7: Jan. 2011 - Dec. 2012 Archive 8: Jan. 2013 - Dec. 2013 Archive 9: Jan. 2014 - Dec. 2014 Archive 10: Jan. 2015 - Dec. 2015 Archive 11: Jan. 2016 - Dec. 2016 Archive 12: Jan. 2017 - Dec. 2017 Archive 13: Jan. 2018 - Dec. 2021 |
Talk:Easter Rising
I am not aware that I reverted anything. I guess it was a mis-click. Sorry. The Banner talk 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. I posted at your talk page. You needn't respond. Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
ANI thread about User:Jonathan f1
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jonathan f1 should be prohibited from editing Ireland-related articles. Thank you. ComradeKublai (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have joined the discussion. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for bungling that thread. I could see that the diffs you posted were the most important part of the discussion but for whatever reason when the user in question got way into the weeds of the Clontarf article I just couldn't help but respond in detail. I'll try to stay on topic in any future Wiki administrative matters. ComradeKublai (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- No problem. As I say, he does seem to have stopped posting his rants all over the place. If he starts again, he can always be reported again. Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for bungling that thread. I could see that the diffs you posted were the most important part of the discussion but for whatever reason when the user in question got way into the weeds of the Clontarf article I just couldn't help but respond in detail. I'll try to stay on topic in any future Wiki administrative matters. ComradeKublai (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
ACAS
I would value it if you could add a ====Comment==== at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale#Question 5: Minimum article quality when created at scale. I've been thinking about our conversation last month about whether stub creation should be banned wholesale (not just for mass creation, but for everyone). I think this question is close enough that I shouldn't propose another question directly about that, and I do still want to know why articles with <10 sentences are bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, I have done so now. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Question
Hi
If you don't mind, may I pick your brain regarding mark up language on a Misplaced Pages users page. What does a sole lower case 'r' indicate in relation to an edit detailed on a users contribution list refer to?
Thanks
Mogh Mogh Roith (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Mogh. I looked at your contributions. When I hovered over the "r" it said "This edit needs review". The edit was also highlighted in yellow. This is some algorithm that searches for I don't know what, and on the basis of that marks it as potentially problematic. Since you know it wasn't problematic, you can just ignore it. Scolaire (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ok. Thanks Scolaire. Mogh Roith (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Acknowledgment
Just wanted to acknowledge your level headed and fair input to a number of discussions that we have been involved in over the past few months. I appreciate the fair treatment and sound guidance you've given me. Thanks Cashew.wheel (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Mary lead image
Given your interest in the earlier RfC, you might be interested in Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus#RfC on primary image for article - Runoff. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Martyr (politics)
The article Martyr (politics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This is fully covered by the main "martyr" article.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Black Irish
Hi @Scolaire.
I saw your comment on the redirect discussion for Black Irish.
As you have previously dealt with the old page for Black Irish (relating to white Irish with dark complexions), I though you might in interested in having a look at Black Irish (folklore). It's a new enough article and has already proven contentious.
Thanks for your time Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've edited to restore chronological order, but beyond that I don't care to contribute. I don't remember how I got involved back in 2013, but the topic actually doesn't interest me at all. I said at Talk:Black Irish back then that unless an encyclopaedia article can say unambiguously what it is about, it cannot serve a useful purpose. From the discussion, it seems that people still can't agree what it is about. Scolaire (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Can't say I blame you for wanting to stay out of it, it's a bit of a mess alright. Thanks for having a look anyway. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Merger discussion for FC Steaua București
An article that you have been involved in editing—FC Steaua București—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Derbiul Bucureștiului
See Derbiul Bucureștiului...hope looks good after few details fixed. You became topic expert/native speaker with quality wiki knowledge honestly. 93.138.225.202 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I might have a look tomorrow. Scolaire (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience in dealing with a difficult situation
I very much appreciated the collegial approach you attempted. I honestly think the user tends to conflate other users' actions with their motivations. While you and I know avoiding this habit is a Misplaced Pages social norm, such conflation is way more common in vernacular these days than many would think, or you and I would like. They seem honestly regretful. Thanks for your work on European sporting stuff. I would not have the patience you nice folks exhibit daily. If I may be helpful, please call on me. BusterD (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. Not everybody is as appreciative of my approach ;-) Scolaire (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Steaua again
I am seriously worried about the edits of Cezxmer. All his recent edits have a summery "Changing redirect link to the correct one" when he changes a redirect to FCSB into a redirect to Steaua București. And this edit set my alarm bells of. What is going on here? The Banner talk 20:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's perfectly straightforward, I'm afraid. The user believes, as did our departed friend, that FCSB are not entitled to the name or the records of the old Steaua; therefore he is changing all FCSB links to CSA Steaua (in many cases linking to the omni-sport club instead of the football club). That includes instances (like the Mo Salah edit) where the team was called Steaua but the courts have retroactively ruled that they were not entitled to call themselves that. This is not vandalism; it is good faith editing, even if we disagree with the edits. Only you and Onel5969 have reverted, as far as I can see, and there is no talk page discussion on any of those pages, so he is not editing against consensus. Nor is he edit-warring. There isn't even enough activity to take it to DRN. The best course I can think of is to open a discussion at WT:FOOTY and see if we can get a consensus there. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have pointed him at the prior discussion at the records dispute article and more or less begged him to take part in the discussion there. The Banner talk 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I saw that, but I very much doubt he'll take any notice. Scolaire (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Let me say: you have to try something. The Banner talk 14:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football#FCSB v CSA Steaua București (yet again). --Scolaire (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Let me say: you have to try something. The Banner talk 14:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I saw that, but I very much doubt he'll take any notice. Scolaire (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have pointed him at the prior discussion at the records dispute article and more or less begged him to take part in the discussion there. The Banner talk 14:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Martyr (politics) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Martyr (politics) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Martyr (politics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
Hello.
I think you need to read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. The list article you referred to is linked in the navbox, and so should transclude the template, but the article you reverted isn't, and so it shouldn't transclude the template. Being linked to from another article in the navbox doesn't cut it.
A rule of thumb is that only articles that are linked from a navbox should transclude it.
The purpose of navboxes is to provide convenient links to articles that have something more specific in common than just "Law of the United Kingdom", which is a huge topic. Routinely slapping vaguely relevant navboxes onto articles that merely are in the ballpark (so to speak) isn't meaningful. Why provide links to every list article of any era from every other article?
The solution is obviously to create navboxes for articles covering legislation from the same era, the same geographical entity, or the same judicial sub-topic – if you feel it's needed. So if you want to create sub-templates for articles within the same era, subtopic, etc, that's where links to the individual articles go, and those are the templates that should be trancluded.
E.g., if you want to create a navbox template for the articles in the list article, Defence of the Realm Act 1914, that would be the correct template to transclude from those articles.
Will you self-revert?
Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did read WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but thanks for the clarification. I will self-revert. Scolaire (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Problem with Steaua again, now with players
Hello @Scolaire, i have a problem with user Cezxmer, especially with the dispute between CSA and FCSB. I have a problem with him because he is reverting my edits especially on the players who played for Steaua before 2017, like Florin Nita, Gheorghe Hagi, because he says that team was CSA. Please help me with this problem. I am very worried because he will destroy anything which is connected to this subject. After all i want to thank you for what you did on FCSB page, regarding this situation DNT (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)