Revision as of 17:45, 17 April 2012 editSpinningspark (talk | contribs)89,216 edits →How do I stop this stupid vandal?← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:05, 17 April 2012 edit undoSpinningspark (talk | contribs)89,216 edits →How do I stop this stupid vandal?Next edit → | ||
Line 240: | Line 240: | ||
:Go to ]. If you have twinkle supported by latest version of your browser, such as ], report him with the TW. --] (]) 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | :Go to ]. If you have twinkle supported by latest version of your browser, such as ], report him with the TW. --] (]) 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
:AIV usually expect a user to have been warned multiple times, including a final warning, before they will do anything, which has not happened in this case. In any case, AIV is for cases of indisputable vandalism and I doubt very much that this will be considered as being that. The edits are more in the nature of a content disagreement, and it has only been done twice. The user is certainly being uncollaborative by not discussing, but the edits are meaningful (I am not saying that tables should or should not be sortable, just that the edits have not actually vandalised). I suggest the best course is to open a discussion on the article talk page with the aim of establishing a consensus among editors. ''']]''' 17:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | :AIV usually expect a user to have been warned multiple times, including a final warning, before they will do anything, which has not happened in this case. In any case, AIV is for cases of indisputable vandalism and I doubt very much that this will be considered as being that. The edits are more in the nature of a content disagreement, and it has only been done twice. The user is certainly being uncollaborative by not discussing, but the edits are meaningful (I am not saying that tables should or should not be sortable, just that the edits have not actually vandalised). I suggest the best course is to open a discussion on the article talk page with the aim of establishing a consensus among editors. ''']]''' 17:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
:{{lu|Rayburne1997}} | |||
:There is definitely something fishy about this user. No communication at all, not even edit summaries. A report to ] may be more appropriate than AIV. ''']]''' 18:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:05, 17 April 2012
Help:ContentsArchives
Previous requests & responses | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
Other links | ||||||||
Unclear why this is being removed?
Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Vegetarianism by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi,
I am new to Misplaced Pages and still trying to figure everything out, so please bare w/ me and thank you for your patience!
I am attempting to add information to a few articles, including Vegetarianism by Country. The source is a verifiable, published policy paper. Here is one of the additions, exactly as I had it written:
- Livestock has also been identified as a primary contributor of the greenhouse gas, methane, which has 21 times the global warming potential as carbon dioxide.
- MacDonald, Mia; Iyer, Sangamithra (December 2011). "Brighter Green Veg or Nonveg: India at the Crossroads" (PDF). Brighter Green. Retrieved March 27, 2012.
One admin on the article's talk page said this was okay. But it was deleted by another admin, and this admin told me, " We don't permit single purpose conflict of interest accounts to canvas links to sites, regardless of the site. If you continue to do this, you will be blocked"
I've attempted to get assistance from the admin who removed my edit, but haven't been able to get much help and am still unclear about the issue.
Obviously I am not attempting to go against Misplaced Pages guidelines and do not want to be blocked. I presume this admin stated my account is a single purpose account because I have only yet sourced from this single article on a few different pages. However, it's a verifiable, published article with information that I believe can add to the content of Misplaced Pages and I would like to offer it to the public. Why, exactly, are my additions not being allowed? And why, exactly, is this source not being allowed?
And for additional info, I am not the author of the paper, nor do I work for the organization.
Thank you very much for your help! Jlanea4 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- People are discouraged from adding external links to partisan or agenda-pushing sources. Your only purpose here appears to be to advertise this paper. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. My purpose here is to get the information from the paper out to the public- not to advertise the paper. Additionally, this paper is unbiased- not agenda-pushing, as can be seen from the paper itself. What I have attempted to add are factual, unbiased statements. Will you please offer some assistance as to how I am able to offer information to Misplaced Pages and the public without giving an appearance that I am advertising a paper? I am still unclear as to why my citation is appearing to be advertisement, when other credible citations are not. What makes this source different than other credible, published papers? Thank you so much for your help!Jlanea4 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- This paper comes from a site that whose purpose is to push to influence policy and therefore fails WP:NPOV. It has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, and therefore fails to meet WP:RS. Any contribution to Misplaced Pages citing this as a source therefore fails to meet WP:V. It is also not suitable as an external link failing WP:EL. Several other editors have already directed you to some of these policies and guidelines: please now take the trouble to read them. There is really no shortage of reliable sources from books and peer reviewed journals if you really want to write something about greenhouse gases from cows. SpinningSpark 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Plot
Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)In Cold Blood (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi! I have been here for a request for someone to write the plot for Lure of the Temptress a month ago or so. Well, I managed to write that myself, but that's because that's a 1990 1,5 hour long game. This time, a friend of mine wrote the plot for In Cold Blood. While I think he did great for a WikiNewbie, it is a bit overlly detailed and long, and I shortened just a bit, but I was wondering if someone with more Plot-experience could help me out. - You don't really need to be familiar with video game article editing for this. All the Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 12:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hold on a second, the only recent major edits to the article were from your account. Permitting others to use your account is against policy, and is a form of sockpuppetry (see WP:ROLE). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Back to the point of this request, however, I agree that the plot summary for that game is overly detailed and needs shortening. From the looks of things, the plot summary details every storyline task in the game, which is just too much. The video game article style guidelines don't provide much guidance beyond advising us to avoid trivial details, but just going by that we can clip out a lot of what's in the ICB plot summary (e.g., in the paragraph on the "land train", noting that there are five cars). A good length for a plot summary for a game like this would probably be 2-5 paragraphs. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- He did not use my account. He re-played the game, wrote down the plot in Word, then he send it to me and I added it to the article. --Khanassassin ☪ 12:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv: Isn't the real problem here not puppetry, but a copyvio? Khanassassin has admitted that he has introduced someone else's work into an article. While I don't doubt that he's telling the absolute truth that he did so with the author's permission, I don't think that kind of informal permission is enough to satisfy Misplaced Pages's copyright policy unless the author grants permission directly to Misplaced Pages via one of the methods set out in the copyright policy. What do you think? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Me and a man (he doesn't want me to reveal his name, becuase he says he wants to stay "behind the curtains") - I mean, really? You need that permission for some guy I know on Facebook to let me use the text? Which he wrote in Word in the last week or so because I asked him to do so? God. I came here to get help on the plot... It's more "editor annoyance" than "editor assistance." --Khanassassin ☪ 16:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, copyright is one of those areas, like biographical information about living persons (due to defamation issues) and a couple of others, that Misplaced Pages is very conservative about due to the possibility of liability. Since under the US law and most international law everything a person writes is automatically copyrighted as soon as the ink leaves their pen or their fingers strike the keys or — well, you get the point — under Misplaced Pages's terms of use stuff you grant a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License license for everything you yourself write in Misplaced Pages, but even that creates interesting situations such as even restricting how things can be copied from one article to another. Let's see what Mendaliv thinks, but I'm pretty sure there's a problem. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I only brought up the socking issue as it leaped out at me, and granting others access to your account is just a bad idea. But since I see that's not the case here, feel free to ignore what I said. =) As to the copyright issue... IANAL (yet), but while the other guy may have implied permission by sending you the text to publish, Misplaced Pages's own policies and guidelines go beyond the bare legal requirements (see WP:COPYOTHERS and WP:COPY generally). It is my understanding as a layman that, although previously unpublished, copyright is still held by the actual creator of the content, and would therefore require permission to be secured (see WP:IOWN). This is the case even if we feel there is no credible legal threat. Furthermore, any subsequent edits to that article wind up carrying the taint of being a derivative work of that possibly improperly licensed material. For Misplaced Pages to achieve its goals, the material we contribute must be properly licensed. There is no presumption that what your friend wrote is in the public domain, therefore, attribution is also necessary. This may merit input from the people at the copyright problems board, as it may ultimately require revision deletion of the text. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Pieces of a Dream past band members
Resolved – Unionhawk 16:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)I have been a past member for Pieces of a dream for 10 years and I do not see my name in the list of past bandmebers. I also wrote 3 songs that landed on 2 of their cds. "You and I" (Ahead to the Past/Blue Note Records) "Your Love" and "Triflin" (Acquainted with the Night) my name is Cherie Mitchell I played keyboards along with James Lloyd You can verify on Pieces of a Dreams website or google www.sweetcherie.com Kindly make adjustments. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashebo (talk • contribs) 14:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done (after checking verifiability) — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
posting interview videos
Answered – Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Dear Misplaced Pages,
I work for the Leon H. Charney Media Foundation. A lot of the video material we have on archives are in-depth interviews of politicians and military men like Ezer Weizman and Peter Malkin. I tried posting this as an external link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP7g4fQXvsE&feature=relmfu on Peter Malkin's entry but my addition was revised.
Will you please let me know how do i post our videos that will will not violate any copyright laws.
thanks!
honeylemonz
- Hi there. Your edit was undone by a bot, which is a computer program that doesn't evaluate the content of the links it removes. I've looked at the site and I think the interview is an acceptable external link. If you have the interviews hosted on the Foundations website, that would help keep the bot from undoing links.
- It would be best, if you have not already done so, if you read our guidelines for editors with conflicts of interest. If your additions are removed by someone other than XLinkbot (you can check in the page history at the top to find out who edited after you), you should suggest adding the interview on the article talk page, but you're free to just undo the edits that XLinkbot makes Thank you for sharing your organization's material with us. Danger 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Re article with major factual problems
Discussion moved – To Talk:Bilquis Sheikh#Recommended deletion of almost whole section on supposed 'Personal Background'. SpinningSpark 09:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Dear Sirs There is an article Bilquis Sheikh, which has many factual problems and gives an entirely false and made up account of the family background/origins of the subject. I have already commented on the article itself and would also please like to draw yoour attention to the fact that even some of the references/citations given therein are fake. For example, regarding the subject's parentage, the memoirs of late Shaukat Hayat Khan are cited (p 17 etc) but no where is the subject of the article mentioned, only Shaukat Hyat mentioning his own birth, background etc. I would be very grateful, as a member of the Hayat family of Wah, if this matter could be please refered to a neutral editor who may check each reference and each point of this article. Thank you. 39.54.63.228 (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Yasir Hyat Khan (Wah family)
Re Bilquis Sheikh
Dear Editors at Misplaced Pages, I am neither an editor nor a regular user; but I have already tried to make some complaints regarding this suubject or article, as mentioned above. It is trying to misrepresent facts on the basis of some citations or references that in fact dont mention the subject at all, and claiming that the subject is someone she wasnt, please. For detailed comments and explanations, please see the article and its associated pages. I would be very grateful as a member of the Hayat family of Wah if the whole section wrongly purporting to be closely connected to one of our clan elders be either removed or changed/amended, please. Thank you. I must apologize for my lack of proper organization of hos things, requests etc operate here. Many regards, 39.54.123.210 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Yasir Hyat Khan
- Another editor is working on the article and has made some comments on the talk page. You should discuss the issues there first before trying to involve others. I see you have also tried to request a third opinion. You should not request help on multiple forums at the same time; this leads to confusion and duplicated effort. In any case, you have not correctly initiated a third opinion. The template goes on the talk page, not the article, and the dispute must be listed at WP:3O before anyone will pick it up. If you need to request a third opinion again in the future, please carefully read the instructions on the page. SpinningSpark 09:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
any assistance?
Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
im a newbie and im having difficulty editing on the article "al-ahbash"..the article is not neutral and some editors are preventing any contribution by other editors..it needs serious expansion as it is a stub...how can i file a dispute resolution effectively? Baboon43 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- What is it that you want to dispute, article content or editor behaviour? SpinningSpark 10:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Seems discussion is happening at Talk:Al-Ahbash, but may be stalled/deadlocked. Could be a matter better suited for WP:ECCN given the flavor of the dispute as it continues. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
its both article content and editor behaviour..ok ill try out eccn. Baboon43 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Gypsy Heart Tour
Gypsy Heart Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Here IP have introduce a lot of dates saying they're true. In es:WP another IP has removed them saying they´re FAKE -in this exactly way-. This article look highly edited by IP. Can someone check this, please? I'm admin in es:WP. Sorry if this is not the place to make this question. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there is nothing wrong with an IP editing. The best place to raise concerns is Talk:Gypsy Heart Tour. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't exactly agree with "there's nothing wrong" since table introduce here has templates in spanish ({{bandera2}} = {{flag2}}) and ask in TP seems not very usefull since the same IP will answer, but thanks anyway. I´ll try to find out in someother way. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is pointless comparing what has happened on Spanish and English Wikipedias, neither can be taken as a reliable source. The first step, as Jezhotwells has already stated, is to discuss on the article talk page. Ultimately, the sources determine what should be in Misplaced Pages, not who entered the information. Have you looked at the cited sources? There is absolutely nothing wrong with IPs editing. Not only is this allowed on Misplaced Pages, it is a founding principle of Wikimedia. SpinningSpark 10:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Who's discussing that? I'm trying to know if the info is right or not, 'cause is pretty much obvious that is a copy from es:WP. I think you did'n understand the point, but there´s no problem for me. Anyway, I've seen this version has the same problem of delete/restore/delete/restore. But, obviously is not my problem anymore. I´ll return to my admin work in es:WP. Good Luck. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- It is pointless comparing what has happened on Spanish and English Wikipedias, neither can be taken as a reliable source. The first step, as Jezhotwells has already stated, is to discuss on the article talk page. Ultimately, the sources determine what should be in Misplaced Pages, not who entered the information. Have you looked at the cited sources? There is absolutely nothing wrong with IPs editing. Not only is this allowed on Misplaced Pages, it is a founding principle of Wikimedia. SpinningSpark 10:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't exactly agree with "there's nothing wrong" since table introduce here has templates in spanish ({{bandera2}} = {{flag2}}) and ask in TP seems not very usefull since the same IP will answer, but thanks anyway. I´ll try to find out in someother way. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Pea bean
Pea bean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Some time ago Pea bean was deleted. I assume I was on a Wikibreak otherwise I would have intervened. Most unusually there is not even a re-direct left behind. I could easily re-create a redirect to Vicia faba but if I did I would loose all the previous history and access to the historical content. Provided that the original deletion followed proper AfD process, I would be grateful if an admin could restore the original Pea bean article and, if required , make it into a re-direct to Vicia faba . That would give me an opportunity to develop a well sourced article building on the original text. If due process was not followed, a simple restore of the article would be appreciated. Many thanks Velella 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article was deleted in February 2011.
- 05:16, 1 February 2011 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) deleted page Pea bean (Expired PROD, concern was: (1) There's no source which confirms that Phaseolus aegypticus is a valid botanical name. (2) What evidence there is suggests that the 'pea bean' is a cultivar of P. vulgaris – see the discussion at [[Wikip)
- Have you tried contacting the admin who deleted? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- As a non admin I was unaware who the deleting admin was
and neither could I see the deletion history. However, your information gives me the possibility of a way forward. Apologies also as I now see that I could have determined the deletion history myself - doooh! Thanks Velella 23:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)course- Articles deleted under the prod process should be undeleted automatically if challenged (because they were deleted without discussion). However, you may no longer wish to challenge after reading the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive54#Pea bean which suggests any undeletion would simply result in a new nomination for deletion at the full WP:AfD process. SpinningSpark 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- As a non admin I was unaware who the deleting admin was
English Defence League
English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My concerns with the above article is with neutrality. The group in the article is described as anti-muslim and far-right. The sources that support these claims simply repeat the same assertion, without actually saying why they are far-right or anti-muslim. I have previously changed far-right to "single-issue movement" and removed anti-muslim, but it got reverted. I have also added a talk page article about both issues.
I need an editors help to clarify if we determine a groups goals as majority opinion of that group, or by some other means, such as the official stated goals of that group. Because this article seems to be using the former method, unfairly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talk • contribs)
- The article uses the former method, fairly. Or to be more precise, we use reliable sources, which overwhelmingly describe the EDL as 'anti-muslim and far-right' - so we do the same. If the EDL wishes to be seen as something else, it is going about it a strange way:... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Ranina Reddy Misplaced Pages
Ranina Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Hi. I am Vithur from India... I have a simple request.. I have added some data to the wikipedia of Singer Ranina Reddy.. Those are all Data which have ample proof and webpages linked to each one of them.. Please consider my requests and approve them... Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vithurgod (talk • contribs) 05:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- You should discuss the issue on the article talk page with other editors of the article and not edit war in the article itself. SpinningSpark 08:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
National Chamber Choir
I have edited a page for the company I work for National Chamber Choir of Ireland on 4 April. My changes were undone by a user who is not connected with my company User:Gerda Arendt to a version of the page that is irrelevant to the company at the present time as it dates back to 2007/2008. I am new to editing a page on wikipedia therefore I have no idea how to go about resolving this issue. I would very much appreciate your help on this matter. Majella Hollywood (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have answered on your talk page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) I have undone your edit again, because it was overly promotional. Misplaced Pages does not allow editors to edit about subjects with which they have a conflict of interest as you do, because you will automatically be biased, you probably don't even realise your changes were promotional. What you need to do is request neutral, referenced changes to the article on the talk page, Talk:National Chamber Choir, using the {{editrequest}} tag--Jac16888 11:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Stand-alone lists (television)
Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists (television) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Now this page is an essay, but it still consists of bunch of advices that may be either unnecessary or bad. Is anybody here interested to slim down the size into a typical essay format? --George Ho (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination". Utter bollocks. Slim it down to two words - "ignore this". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have replaced the recently removed {{failed}} template. This page has the status of a failed proposal (even by the admission of the editor who removed the template) and should be marked as such. If it is really an essay (rather than a proposed guideline) it appears to be the opinion of a single editor and does not belong in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Essays which do not have consensus, or at least support from a significant minority, should be restricted to userspace. If it's not going to be marked as a failed proposal (which generally are kept) I would be in favour of XfDing it. SpinningSpark 12:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I was never in support in creating it as an essay for the sake of making it an essay and moving it to my userspace ever since I proposed the guideline when I first created the page. It should be a failed proposal and stay as a failed proposal and not move the the userspace. "Resurrecting this?" as User:SMcCandlish suggested is fine. As that user suggested,
“ | Obviously a lot of thought and energy went into this. I think it would be more useful to restart discussion and try to come to consensus on what this proposed guideline should say, rather than just slap it with a failed proposal tag. The most obvious way to move forward is to simply delete everything that was broadly contentious, and start with only the points that virtually everyone agrees on. If that makes this 1/10 its current size, that's okay. It'll still be something to build on. PS: I have expressed no opinion, and currently hold no strong opinion, on any side of any of the issues raised, though I might eventually feel strongly one way or another on some of them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 8:43 pm, 18 September 2010, Saturday (1 year, 6 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−5) | ” |
- I am fine with that, and I would love to engage in discussion to make it from a failed proposal to an actual guideline, but in no circumstance do I wish in any way shape or form to transform it into an essay for the sake of transforming it into an essay. The only reason I used {{Supplement}} was to show what policies, guidelines and essays I used in the header in order to write the guideline when I proposed it and to sprout new discussion, and that is why I did not use the {{Essay}} template. If there is or was any confusion on why I changed the template header, I apologize and now make clear in no uncertain terms that Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone lists (television) should be a guideline or a failed proposal, not an essay. Taric25 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted article
Crumbs_Celtic_project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I want to write an article about a research project founded by the European Comunity. The aim of this article is to explain what the project is about and provide external links for the community in order to allow access to the research results. There isn't any intention to promote products or companies, more than a mention to the partners that compose the consortium. I tried two times to create this article and it was deleted due to reasons A7, G11 and G12. I used similar wikipedia entries as examples, such as IST-Plastic or SATSIX. and I couldn't find significant differences. Could you give me some guidance about how to proceed? Jturiel (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you need to establish the notability of the subject. This can be done by providing verifiable and reliable sources. You also need to avoid copy-pasting text from an external website. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Also note that just because other articles exist doesn't mean that your article can exist. Each article stands or falls on its own merit, see WP:OTHERSTUFF for the reasons and more detail. (And, indeed, both of the articles that you named appear to me to be seriously defective and I've marked them for potential deletion.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Chisinau
Chisinau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear Sirs, I am about the capital city of Republic of Moldova -Chisinau article Chisinau is the capital of Republic of Moldova and its largest city. It has a total population of 794,800 inhabitants not as You wrote as 667,000 or 723,000 in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/Chi%C5%9Fin%C4%83u). See: http://www.statistica.md/newsview.php?l=ro&idc=168&id=3719. PLEASE NOTE: accordingly to National legislation in statistics and census, the concept of so called " City proper population" is absent! The Chisinau always is seen as municipality (city + metro), due to its special status, You can not differ the city proper and metro here, it's not correct to Chisinau. Also, it would be good to change its list position according to population, to 97th place, not 116 as it is now in the list (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_national_capitals_by_population). I have repeatedly tried to make changes in the article information (http://en.wikipedia.org/Chi%C5%9Fin%C4%83u)and (http://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%B2#.D0.9D.D0.B0.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5) regarding population, but someone of You makes my changes in vain. It is not correct -there is no more city proper, since 1994, there is municipality (metro) ONLY! Please do not MISLEAD the society. Thank You.
09:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article talk page is the place to discuss this - I see no discussion at Talk:Chisinau about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Please assist with edits that others - in particular one editor - keeps on reverting ("Lego" Misplaced Pages page)
Answered – Discussion occurring on Talk:Lego--Unionhawk 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Hello
On the Lego Misplaced Pages page, I seek to correct a popular myth that the concept that we now know as "Lego" (blocks) originated not in Denmark but in England.
There is a Misplaced Pages page that accurately describes the origins of interlocking blocks, that was copied by Lego. This page can be found by searching Misplaced Pages for "Kiddicraft".
One particular editor keeps on reverting my respectful, accurate edits. Their username is Saddhiyama.
My goal is information on the Lego page that accurately details the origins of interlocking blocks now known as Lego. I am suspicious that there are commercial interests that seek to ensure that the myth, that the blocks were invented by Lego in Denmark, continues to be repeated and believed.
You can read more on these pages: http://www.hilarypagetoys.com/history.php?his_id=4 http://www.brickfetish.com/timeline/1947.html http://lego.wikia.com/Kiddicraft http://isodomos.com/technica/history/1940/1949.php
Thank you for your consideration.
Robin— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pohutukawa (talk • contribs)
- You should be initiating a discussion at Talk:Lego. There exists an editing cycle that should be followed at this point, Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made a bold edit, you were reverted, now you should discuss. reverting further is only likely to end in a block. You should not presume you are right, other editors obviously disagree with your edits, go to the talk page and gain a consensus before editing the article further. Яehevkor ✉ 10:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. We are now at Talk:Lego and will try to achieve an acceptable consensus. --Pohutukawa (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
referencing negatives
my contributions have been deleted for failing to provide references. i have been advised to seek instruction here. please explain how to reference a negative, such as, for an action not yet taken. thanks.
Metoo702 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- In addition to references, information on Misplaced Pages also needs to be neutral. That's my primary concern. Perhaps a better way to go about it would be to state that the criticism exists, and provide a reliable reference including a criticism.--Unionhawk 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
How do I stop this stupid vandal?
Jayne Mansfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rayburne1997 is purposefully disrupting the article on Jayne Mansfield, repeatedly removing codes from sortable lists to make them unsortable (that's about the only thing he is doing. Repeated notices and warnings have made no dent into his/her attitude (he/she just igoners them). How do I stop this person? Where can I report this clear and unambiguous vandalism, though a rather stupid kind of vandalism. Aditya 13:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Go to WP:AIV. If you have twinkle supported by latest version of your browser, such as Internet Explorer 9, report him with the TW. --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- AIV usually expect a user to have been warned multiple times, including a final warning, before they will do anything, which has not happened in this case. In any case, AIV is for cases of indisputable vandalism and I doubt very much that this will be considered as being that. The edits are more in the nature of a content disagreement, and it has only been done twice. The user is certainly being uncollaborative by not discussing, but the edits are meaningful (I am not saying that tables should or should not be sortable, just that the edits have not actually vandalised). I suggest the best course is to open a discussion on the article talk page with the aim of establishing a consensus among editors. SpinningSpark 17:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- User:Rayburne1997 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- There is definitely something fishy about this user. No communication at all, not even edit summaries. A report to WP:ANI/EW may be more appropriate than AIV. SpinningSpark 18:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- MacDonald, Mia; Iyer, Sangamithra (December 2011). "Brighter Green Veg or Nonveg: India at the Crossroads" (PDF). Brighter Green. Retrieved March 27, 2012.