Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Alex79818 (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Falkland Islands Article in Arbitration
Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is:
I have protected the page in an effort to get you two to discuss it, and a mediator may have a look at it if assistance is needed. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
You have written that you were interested in reading my contributions. I have created an overhauled article that fixes the major issues that I percieved, namely, lack of flow, structure, and npov. I have started an RFC on the issue already. I perceive you as a balanced editor, I am interested in reading your assessment of my article, be it praise or criticism. Dabljuh22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Medical analysis of circumcision
It's my conclusion that no mention of CA-MRSA will be allowed under any condition. Likewise, the issue of bleeding in babies with undiagnosed coagulation issues has been censored repeatedly and will not be allowed. There is a group of like-minded admins that ensures this and bans anyone who gets in their way. See my talk page for examples. Alienus10:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. I do have one suggestion. I notice that, after acknowledging what you consider to be unacceptable incivility (presumably by me, though you might have meant others), you go on to describe some rather nasty tricks that some (unspecified) people use to get their way. I wonder if you might be willing to be more specific about who is doing what. If you mean me, please say so. If you mean someone else, likewise. Anyhow, that's my suggestion. Alienus01:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just started reading this article and researching on google. I have not found anything to justify this term as an article as I have only found it as a non capitalised description of a point of view (this is in contrast to terms such as Pro-life). To be honest circumcision advocacy seems no more of a separate term than chocolate lover or tennis enthusiast. From what I have seen so far I would want to nominate this article for deletion (or better still redirect it to Circumcision#Cultures and religions which explains the reasons why circumcision takes place). You seemed to be the person most in favour of keeping the article last time so I would like to know what you think of this. Sophia16:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the warning and I will bear it in mind. IMHO I have not found external justificaion for this article - but I may have missed something so please point me in the right direction. Sophia22:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I took your comment as well meant. I'm aware that everyone has a POV and I have made it clear on the talk page that personally I do not support non-medically required circumcision. You have valid points but POV forking off to dilute the debate won't help. Circumcision and it's directly related articles are where these issues should be addressed. I genuinely don't see the justification for Circumcision advocacy and feel that it's clouding the issue. The info you have added should be in the main articles. Sophia23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I sooo agree.I will also defend to the death a NPOV stance on the circumcision page so hopefully we can constructively work together to merge the contents in without loss of important material. I'm a veteran of the 'ol "off topic" and OR/RS fights from Christianity pages so I'm aware of the issues and will be reading up carefully to make sure all the evidence gets a NPOV place in the main article. Sophia06:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
Hi, I'm going to be mediating your case, regarding the Medical analysis of circumcision.
The mediation will take place here. If you are planning to take a wiki-break in the near-future or will be unable to partcipate in the mediation could you please let me know. --Wisden1719:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Mediation News
I've now added my initial questions and comments on this page. I would ask that you add this page to your watchlist, as this will be where the mediation will take place.
As I've said on the page, we must keep all debate Civil, and I will not tolerate any personal attacks. In order to resolve the issue all of you must be willing to listen to each other's view. It does appear that you have debated this issue qutie extensively already, and so if we are to achieve anything we must not keep repeating what has already been said, although reference may well be needed back to previous comments you have made.
If you have any questions or comments then please either e-mail me or leave a message on my talk page. Again if you are planning to take a Wikibreak, or know you will be unable to access Misplaced Pages for any length of time then please do infrom me.
I've been trying to make corrections, which you can see here #22 and after.
Mostly I'd like you to help when I write a new sexual effects intro and new text to the main body. I'll be back for that in about a week.TipPt22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Careful with pushing non-neutral POV's
Your recent edit to Circumcision was not cast in a neutral voice, but blantantly anti-metzitzah. Firstly there has been no evidence linking the death of the NY infants with the mohel. Secondly, Phil Sherman is in no way shape or form a notable mohel. Try Paysach Krohn if you want to find someone who has done something, I believe, over 5,000 brisim. Next, casting the decision as "political" is at most your opinion, and that is not apparent from the article, if you read it. Please be careful with WP:OR and WP:NPOV in wikipedia in general, and very careful with potentially contentious articles. Thank you. -- Avi23:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Same POV issue. Warning #2
This issue was discussed months ago. This edit has no other ostensible bearing in the Circumcision article, other than to disparage Orthodox Jews. Please revert your NPOV comments. For the record please adhere to Misplaced Pages's WP:NPOV policy, otherwise the appropriate measures will be taken to protect the encuyclopedia. Thank you. -- Avi02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Avi, Please look at the link that I provided. The article said, "The ultra-Orthodox community lobbied the mayor, saying freedom to practise their religion was guaranteed by the US constitution." What I have added to the article, I believe, is a fair summary of this quotation.
As a person of Jewish descent, I find your accusation that I was casting aspersions on Jews or any Jewish group unwarranted, inaccurate, offensive and unfair.
Secondly, it is perfectly respectable for people to lobby politicians. That is certainly the case in Australia. If lobbying politicians in America has different connotations, please let me know.
Thirdly, my statement was backed up by a report in a reliable source, namely, the British Medical Journal.
Finally, it is necessary to understand that there was lobbying about Metzizah to make it clear that there were political as well as religious and medical considerations affecting the decision-making process.
Please do not try to bully me. The rules of Misplaced Pages advise you to assume good faith. Please adhere to that policy. As I said before, I am willing to work with you to put material in a way that does not cause unnecessary offence. However, that does not extend to suppressing facts.
Please read your comment again. The obvious typo suggests to me that you are reacting too emotionally to think clearly. Please calm down and reconsider your position. Michael Glass12:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
RE:
I apologise, but I wouldn't know where to start helping you. I assume you clicked my username at random from the history; choose another long-term contributor to that article. --AdamM09:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In answer to your questions. It doesn't require a complaint to be blocked for breaking the 3RR, if an admin happens to see a violation someone can be blocked regardless, but most often it is a complaint that draws an admin's attention to the situation. We have a noticeboard for 3RR complaints, yours was filed there.
Also, please read the page on the three-revert rule. Reverts need not be bit-for-bit identical versions to qualify, just substantially similar. Generally, if you're reverted even once, it's time to go to the talk page and hash things out. If you feel that biased editors are trying to own a page, you certainly can file a request for comment on the article to get input from the wider community. Sometimes mediation is also beneficial, there's an informal mediation process here, and the formal committee mediation here. I would strongly advise you engage in some of these dispute resolution steps rather than keep making a controversial change over and over-that just ends up being a disruption, and inevitably ends badly. Seraphimblade21:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You asked for a citation on "(Smegma) has a characteristic strong odor and taste." on the Circumcision page. Where do you expect to find such a citation? Do we need to ask a *professional* sex worker, or would we be okay with someone who just enjoys it a lot? Hopefully we can find a trustworthy reference for this assertion of "fact". Thanks! -- Cjbprime03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
My reason for putting the citation notice there was that we need to be able to verify the information that is in the article. That is all. Michael Glass06:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Your latest edit
Michael, I'm unable to verify the quotes you added in this edit. The text states that:
The 2004 statement "did not recommend circumcision for newborn boys" and noted "Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
However, the text cites the 1996 statement (which, assuming that the Canadians have yet to perfect time travel, seems unlikely to refer to a 2004 document). I can't find the quoted text in either document. This may be due to a web browser bug on my machine - would you mind quoting the full paragraph for each? Thanks Jakew10:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Jake, When I made that edit I was relying on the "quotation" embedded in the article. Thanks for showing that it is a furphy. I stand corrected. Here is a quote from the abstract of the 1996 policy: "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." . Michael Glass23:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Circumcision topic
There are so many gross misrepresentations and omissions in the current version ... why not adopt the honest version?TipPt18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that it removed some changes that were simply stylistic improvements. I'll have a closer look at it when I have time. Michael Glass23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I've made changes to Sorrell's in Sexual Effects to account for Jakew's objections.
Please see the difference in the introduction (AMA cited emphasis on cultural ritual), outline (emphasis on circ as a surgical not religious practice), procedures, sexual effects, judaism (current omits discussion of brit periah), risks (the current version omits meatal stenosis), and pain ... the current version leaves readers ignorant of the fact that separating the prepuce from the glans is extremely painful.TipPt01:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Your work fixing the CPS statement is good and interesting; but note that Jakew created that statements section to highlight the CPS saying benefits and risks are balanced. It's been fixed at least four times, to be reverted to Jakew's biased version (usually by Jakew). The discussion of Sorrells was also interesting, because most of those sexual effects studies are MORE grossly flawed. I showed that study (and the related discussion) to a UCLA professor (stat) ... does study design reviews ... and he said it was well designed and the conclusions valid.TipPt20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, TipPt. I believe that the article as it stands is too long. I think the introduction could be cut drastically and several other parts could be dealt with in other articles such as the medical analysis of circumcision. Michael Glass05:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comment in your Holy Prepuce discussion
You're the best writer, and most likely to not get reverted ... please include text stating cultures have placed high value on the prepuce.
Don't you object to how the jewish tradition is represented? See History
"The Jews adopted circumcision as a religious ritual8,10,15,18 and preserved this prehistoric practice into modern times.10,16,18 The circumcision of Abraham removed only the very tip that extended beyond the glans penis.8,17,22,28 Moses and his sons were not circumcised. (Exodus 4:25) Although Moses apparently prohibited circumcision during the 40 years in the wilderness,15,18 (Joshua 5:5) Joshua reinstituted circumcision at Gilgal after the death of Moses.15,18 (Joshua 5:2-10) It is interesting to note that after the Israelites were circumcised, they immediately became soldiers in Joshua's army for the conquest of Palestine. (Joshua 6:1-3)
In contrast to the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans placed a high value on the prepuce.31 The Romans passed several laws to protect the prepuce by prohibiting circumcision.31
Much later in the Hellenic period, about 140 C.E., the circumcision procedure was modified to make it impossible for a Jew to appear to be an uncircumcised Greek.8,18,25 A radical new procedure called peri'ah was introduced by the priests and rabbis. In this procedure the foreskin was stripped away from the glans, with which it is fused in the infant (See Normal.) In a painful procedure known today as a synechotomy, more foreskin was removed than before and the injury was correspondingly greater. With the introduction of peri'ah, the glans could not easily be recovered, and so no Jewish male would easily be able to appear as an uncircumcised Greek.8,18,25
It may have been at this time that the Pondus Judaeus (also known as Judaeum Pondum), a bronze weight worn by Jews on the residual foreskin to stretch it back into a foreskin,8,18,23 gained popularity amongst Jewish males. This lessened the ugly appearance of the bare exposed circumcised penis.18 This restorative procedure was known by the Greek word epispasm,8 or "rolling inward."
The third stage of ritual circumcision, the Messisa or Metzitzah, was not introduced until the Talmudic period (500-625 C.E).8,17,23 In Metzitzah, the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucks blood from the penis of the circumcised infant with his mouth.31 This procedure has been responsible for the death of many Jewish babies due to infection.13 In modern times, a glass tube is sometimes used instead."
Michael, can you find a reliable source that discusses the HPV vaccine in the context of circumcision? If it hasn't been linked in a reliable source, it'll have to be removed. Jakew12:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Jake, I can't understand your reasoning here. I feel that it is important background information. In Australia the Federal Government has released the Gardasil vaccine and made it available to all young girls, so this will obviously have an impact on the spread of the HPV virus. Michael Glass12:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Michael, you may well be right in saying that it will have an impact, but WP:NOR does not allow us to synthesise facts unless others have already done so. Surely if it is important enough to include then at least one WP:RS will have already linked the two facts? Jakew14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Re this edit: In the interests of harmonious editing, I've been refraining from editing that section of the article while discussion is going on about it. Perhaps you didn't notice the currently very busy talk page section Talk:Circumcision#BMA source curiously used. I think it would be a good idea if you self-revert and participate in the discussion, waiting until consensus before implementing changes. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that at the top of Talk:Circumcision it says "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." Some more heavily-edited or controversial pages work like that. In practice, if an edit is not controversial people get away with just editing anyway, but on some pages almost any edit is controversial. My revert was also because the same paragraph/sentence was already under discussion on the talk page. I hope you don't mind. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Dispute on FGC
Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on FGC. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Phyesalis (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments on your talk page. Michael Glass05:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I've responded here. I've got some questions that you might be able to help me understand. Phyesalis01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
April 2008
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kristen O'Hara, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AP Shinobi (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for this, I was using an automated system known as Twinkle and Lupin's Anti-Vandal System. It picked up common vandal terms such as sex and automatically reverted your edit. AP Shinobi (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Survey request
Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Misplaced Pages. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.
Hi, You added a referenced height for Glastonbury Tor on the Glastonbury article but this is different to the one on Glastonbury Tor. If you are confident of the source could you change the Tor article as well so that they are consistent?— Rod17:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Cancel that I was looking at "prominence" by mistake, but it might still be worth adding the ref to the Tor article.— Rod17:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your edits to Somerset & I can see your rational for putting metric units before imperial ones where this is what is given in the source, however this means that the article now contains some imperial (metric) & some measurements in the format metric (imperial). The WP:MOS says that the order of presenting them should be consistent within any article & I was wondering if you are planning to change the others (the complicating factor is that for some other measurements the source used are imperial measurements).— Rod15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Rod, thanks for your message. Yes, I did plan to change the units to metric first because on a quick check I noticed that this was what was given in the sources quoted. I also want to keep the order consistent within the article. However, this is a large job which I plan to do step by step. If there are sources that give the imperial measurements first I will search for authoritative sources that give metric measures. Where this is not possible, a note should be added to alert editors that this is the case. Please get back to me if my proposal is problematic in any way. I do not want to do anything that might threaten the article's status as a featured article. Michael Glass (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, That sounds fine (& if you want a challenge there are a few (hundred) other Somerset articles which use imperial (metric)). Would it be best to use the convert template throughout? I would also add to your note on the talk page explaining that you are planning to change all the measurements in the article to keep individual editors ( & potential FAR reviewers) informed. Thanks. — Rod11:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the Coastline reference. I'm not sure about the inches for rainfall. The table is very busy with the conversions but they may be helpful for some readers. I will leave it for others to decide that one. Michael Glass (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't the table I was thinking of (which I see you've converted) but the text in the weather paragraph.— Rod08:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at this passage and agree that it would flow better without the conversions to Fahrenheit. As Fahrenheit is supplied in the table they don't have to be repeated. Michael Glass (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Michael Glass! A Top Priority article you have been involved with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Northamptonshire, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there. (This is a generic message. if it has been placed on your talk page inadvertantly, please ignore it.) --Kudpung --Kudpung (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted your last contribution as the source you based your changes on is not a reliable source. If you read the page you will see that in fact it is based on the Misplaced Pages article for Bath and is not an original work. Take a look at WP:RS and feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Correct Information
If an edit changes factually correct text, with text that is manifestly and fundamentally incorrect, then I will revert it as the easiest solution. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. I provided an instructive edit summary that should have pointed you in the right direction. Justintalk11:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Your stated reason does not stand up when the error has been remedied. Nor does it justify removing a whole edit because there is a fault in part of it. You give yourself away when you say it is the easiest solution. It's just lazy. You couldn't be bothered to take the time to edit the material to make it better. So don't preach edit when you're not prepared to edit, or preach use when you're not prepared to use. Michael Glass (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No the previous text was accurate, you merely copy edited it, so reverting erroneous text to that which is accurate is perfectly acceptable. It didn't need editing to make it better. Your ego doesn't seem able to accept that your editing wasn't an improvement and you're unreasonably antagonistic in pointing fingers at people, labelling them "lazy". At least I edit on subjects that I know intimately. Justintalk14:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You only objected to one part of my edit, which I corrected as soon as you pointed out what was wrong. You made no comments about the accuracy of the rest of the edit, so I presume that you have no problem with it. If that is not the case, speak up. Please go to the talk page of Falkland Islands and work with me to improve on the version that stands in the article at the moment. It is out of chronological order and cites no references. Michael Glass (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Also the words that you restored to the text are misleading. Please see my comments on the talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Falkland Islands. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Woody (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I note that you gave a 3RR warning to both Justin Kuntz and me. I made a complex edit based on information that I found and added it to the article. Justin made a tart comment about one part of the edit and reverted my work wholesale (his first revert). I changed the part that he objected to (my first revert) but he reverted it wholesale once more (his second revert). I took into account his further objection, made a further change and reverted once more (my second revert). He has now reverted my edit wholesale once again (his third revert). It would appear from this that Justin is in breach of the three revert rule, but not me. If I have miscalculated, please inform me. Nevertheless, I will take heed of your warning and not make any changes in this part of the article for the specified period.
I think the record makes it clear that I have made two attempts to deal with Justin's stated objections. Despite this, he has persisted in his combative approach "(Undid revision 337359837 by Michael Glass (talk) rv its still wrong, Strong led an expedition sponsored by Lord Falkland". The words that he reverted made no statement that would contradict what he asserted were his reason for reverting that third time. My edit read (in part):
"The Falkland Islands" derives from the English mariner, John Strong, who encountered the islands in 1690. He named the channel between the two main islands "Falkland Sound" after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland and this name extended to all the islands.
I have noted the number of reverts but prefer to come to an amicable solution rather than blindly blocking. Any further reverts from this moment on will result in blocks. In response to your note about specified period, please note that 24 hours is not a blind limit, simply waiting 24 hours to continue reverting is still edit warring.
I suggest the way forward is for you to open up a discussion on the talkpage of the article that invites comments regarding your additions. Hopefully you can both then collaborate to come up with a solution to the issue. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:BRD is a good read. Note that in all my comments I said neither of us were in breach of 3RR. Knowledge of the subject matter of the article you're editing is also helpful. Regards, Justintalk13:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Reading other people's edits in detail is also helpful. It is also helpful to revise instead of reverting. What about going to the talk page and doing something positive about the wording. Michael Glass (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not reward Justin for 3RR or for his wikilawyering either. I suggest you wait a reasonable amount of time, at least two days, preferably 72 hours to respond to your latest comments on the talkpage. If he does not respond to your requests for discussion or offer suggestions for improvements then it would be reasonable to assume consensus exists. Qui Tacet Consentit. If he reverts instead of revising then he is liable to be blocked for edit warring as he is plainly aware. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for making it clear that Justin can be blocked for edit warring if he reverts instead of revising. I have agreed to wait 72 hours. Please see the talk page. Michael Glass (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Michael, some of your edits on the above article are skewing the article. Argentina has not always claimed the Falkland Islands, it has only claimed them since 1833, when Moreno lodged the first process. Neither has Argentina continuously claimed the islands, the claim has been dropped and resurrected several times. The claim and counter claim is full of exaggerations and half-truths, please be a little more thorough in your research and don't take claims on face value. Justintalk23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Undiscovered Scotland
Michael, I think that you should try to work the article "Undiscovered Scotland" into the text - possible showing how we have moved from Scotland and England having their own measures onto a single system of units for the whole kingdom which in turn is giving way to a world-wide system of units. BTW, I corrected your reference - it did not display properly in its original form. Martinvl (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
References are supported to go immediately after punctuation, with no spaces. It would be helpful if you could follow that as you add them. Also, you might want to take a look at {{Cite web}} and use it to post references, as it is much more helpful to readers than the bare URLs that you use right now. Do ask for help if you don't understand how to use it or the other citation templates. --Simple Bob (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Metricating the length of the River Thames on the back of a Primary School source (which more than likely got the figures as a conversion from miles), and you are not gaming the system, or maybe this your idea of "the most authoritative source". Really? wjemather11:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The WP:MOSNUM guideline does not give you license to change which units are listed first in an article based on which units are used, or listed first, in any particular source used to support the information in the article. Thus your command "Find a better source or shut up" is irrelevant. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Michael, you are well aware that any number of sources can be found (the BBC or visitbritain for example, both much better than Mandy Barrow of Woodlands Junior School). In fact it is no doubt covered by many of the references already in the article. As advised, you have no license to change the primary units based on your preference of source. wjemather12:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to add a new reference because reference 1 by Hart already supports the stated length. As already indicated, the fact that Hart gives SI units first with customary conversions is irrelevant, because Misplaced Pages usage is determined by the general style used in the relevant English speaking country, and Hart is not an authority on that. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Economy of the Falkland Islands. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Justintalk09:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Your first edit was a revert of material you'd removed previously, a fairly obvious attempt to wikilawyer your way out of edit warring will not impress. You have been warned and as I said I will report it. Justintalk10:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Michael, your removal of the content and then edit warring over it, yes you were edit warring, is not acceptable especially given how well aware you are of the reaction it is going to elicit. In addition, two of your other edits today, diff1 and diff2, where you have changed the primary units with a misleading edit summary are of particular concern. I recommend that you stop now – you are well aware that there is no consensus for metrication of any articles including those related to the Falklands. I would rather not have to take this further. wjemather10:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it metric measures come first on Falkland Island articles with certain exceptions, and hectares aren't among the exceptions. I considered the rounding error more important than the fact that the measure was metric. As for the content I removed, it's misleading because wool is sold by the kg and not by the lb. As for the charge of edit warring, I am sorry that you felt it was that way, but I specifically modified my edit to take into account Pfainuk's objection. Michael Glass (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You know that square miles are in use on the majority of these articles and chose to convert a select few, but my primary concern is that you did so without stating what you had done in the edit summary. There is more that enough room to adequately explain what had changed and why. If you find there is not enough room then you can always start a thread on the article talk page. For what it's worth I agree that it seems unnecessary to list a measure that something is never sold in (I don't think it is misleading though), but am sure that less friction could have been generated by waiting for the conclusion of the discussion before reverting (twice). While not technically in breach of 3RR, that can still be considered edit warring. wjemather16:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Bleh, Michael chose to make a complete mess of several Falklands articles by having them list dozens of areas in hectares just for the sake of listing areas in hectares. Most of the time they weren't even in sentences - just a case of X Island (5 ha), Y Island (4 ha), Z island (46275 ha), A island (6432 ha)... and on and on and on, listing 20 or so islands. No conversions, obviously, because everyone in the world clearly has a very good idea what a hectare is </sarcasm>.
When I saw these, I rather took them as an indication of the relative importance, in Michael's editing, of measuring areas in hectares against having useful and readable articles: the former was pretty obviously the more important factor.
The ones you noticed also raise a good point. This is the editor who argued that measuring a hill in metres was inconsistent with measuring distance in miles, even if those measures were in completely different parts of the article. Now he's arguing that there is no inconsistency with putting miles first and square miles second within about five words of one another. Again, one rather gets the impression that this has more to do with which system is being used than whether there is genuine inconsistency. Pfainuktalk17:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Pfainuk, here are my responses.
Firstly, I take offence at your charge that I made a complete mess of several articles. Apart from the measurements, my edits have, for the most part, remained as I wrote them. I challenge you to find one article where I put in a list of 20 islands. If you cannot find an article where I have put in a list of 20 islands, then I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Secondly, I still maintain that mixing units is less than ideal. However, I am conforming to your policy. Your idea of what is a genuine inconsistency varies from article to article. Mostly you have no problem putting the hectares first, as per the Falklands Island policy; occasionally, you have insisted that it must be changed, and square miles must be put first. My edits were designed to make the best of your inconsistent policy; now you turn round and blame me for the inconsistent policy of your own making.
Thank you, however, for reminding me of the information that you removed from the Hummock Island article. I will attempt to return this information to the article. Michael Glass (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
A check of that article showed that the areas of the minor islands don't need to be mentioned because of the links to articles on both of the other islands. However, there are other improvements that could be made. Michael Glass (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
This confirms my statement. Your list of islands with areas attached was almost entirely unreadable and of zero benefit to the encyclopædia. You apparently decided that the article shouldn't even be written in sentences. And it's not the only article where there was a similar list. And you still fail to format your references. Again, that's not exactly isolated.
You say: Your idea of what is a genuine inconsistency varies from article to article. False. Actually it's pretty consistent. Where the areas are in the same sentence or paragraph as a distance in imperial units, it's inconsistent. Where they aren't, there's nothing in the article to be inconsistent with. Pfainuktalk06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that passage did need attention, but not excision. When you ditched the whole paragraph you also removed information about a rat eradication program on some of the islands. Now I know it takes a lot of work to turn such a list into something that is more readable, but I'll give it a go a little later. Michael Glass (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
In the mean time I would like you to look at Hummock Island. There are no extra figures in the text but information about the area of the various islands is included by way of footnotes. If you have any issue with this arrangement I hope you will revise the text or the footnotes rather than deleting them. Michael Glass (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Michael, that is not how inline citations are used. I would suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:CITE as you obviously don't know how to do thinsg properly. Justintalk11:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
That edit was quite extraordinary. No, that's no better. The article is still rendered fairly unreadable and the information you wish to enter (information that is largely irrelevant to the articles at hand) is nigh-on impossible to extract. Your continual addition of areas where irrelevant is very WP:POINTy, in both cases. And your continual refusal to even make a vague attempt to format your references is also a fairly serious problem, making a complete mess of what were previously perfectly good stubs. Pfainuktalk16:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Sea Lion Island
I have again reverted your edit. Claiming rounding errors is not an excuse for metrication. It is highly likely that the source is only accurate to the nearest 5 hectares, which would make one decimal place for square miles appropriate. While hectares are sometimes used in the UK, square miles and acres are far more common. In fact most sources I have seen so far for the area of these islands give acres first, e.g. . wjemather14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, but it appeared to be a commercial advertisement for the Sea Lion Lodge. Are you seriously arguing that this is a more accurate source of information than a scientific study? Michael Glass (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it was simply the first in a long list from a Google search that gave acres first. In any case, your scientific study it is not a geographical survey and it is highly unlikely that the figures given were produced as a result of the study. Most likely they were taken from somewhere else, and we do not know to what level of accuracy. wjemather15:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Not that accurate?
Wjemather, I noticed your edit here: You said the source was "not that accurate". I am interested to know where you got that information. Could you quote the reference, please? Michael Glass (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
As per comment above, it is highly likely that the number quoted in the source is subject to rounding due to the nature of irregular land areas, which makes conversions from that number subject to inevitable variance errors. This means giving 2 decimal places of accuracy for the conversion is misleading and inappropriate. wjemather15:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, so if those figures were subject to rounding errors and the conversion is subject to more rounding errors, the conversion may compound the inaccuracy. But what the heck. The information is there for readers to follow if they are so inclined, and the note alerts them to the source figures. End of story. Michael Glass (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hummock Island
Edit warring to impose an edit that contravenes WP:CITE, no I won't go beyond 3 reverts but I will report it. Wikilawyer out of it if you like. Justintalk16:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Justin , perhaps it would have been better if you fixed Michael's contributions rather than simply reverting assuming you have no issue with the substance of the additions.
Michael, if the land area needs to be given, it should be done so in the prose, not in the footnotes, and the same units for the same measure should be used consistently throughout the article. wjemather16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate you're trying to be neutral about this but that is precisely what I did in the first place and instead of taking the advice Michael chooses to edit war to impose a change that is not supported by policy. And as I and Pfainuk have tried to get over to Michael its simply not appropriate to simply add a list of unrelated facts to an article. Not only this article but I've just noticed another article he has done the same too. As Michael is an experienced editor I suspect this is Michael deliberately choosing to be disruptive, simply because we will not accede to his demand to metricise this series of articles. Justintalk16:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, the land areas don't need to be given. There's very little benefit in regurgitating a source in this way. The entire thing is WP:POINTy and a waste of everyone's time. Pfainuktalk17:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind if the information is in the body of the article, or in the footnotes, and I am not going to contest it if you insist on putting square miles first even though I disagree with it. However, I cannot see what the fuss is about giving the areas of the other islands in the Hummock Island group. If metrication is the problem, put the information Imperial first and follow the Falklands policy of noting this. As for the assertion that the information is unnecessary, that is a subjective view. Another reader might well be interested in these areas, especially as there are no separate articles on several of the smaller islands. If debating this such a waste of time, then why not try working with me, as Wjmather suggested, instead of deleting, deleting, deleting? Michael Glass (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Michael, you're not listening, it isn't an appropriate thing to add. You're not doing it the right way. We are trying to work with you but you're creating work for people cleaning up after you, then when people try and explain you respond in a hostile manner, then wonder why people get fed up with you. Justintalk08:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No you haven't, I tried to explain why you don't use inline citations to add a list of areas, Pfainuk did. You edit warred to keep it, dropped a 3RR message on my talk page and went on to do the same on a number of articles. You seem to think anyone that contradicts anything you want to do is being obstructive and respond in a hostile manner - case in point the comment above you describe as an attack. You're disruptive and create work for others to clean up and you're not listening to good advice. Justintalk09:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Justin, you haven't explained what is wrong with putting some information in footnotes. I read the policy you directed me to and could not find anything that applied. As for your other complaints, please remember that If you delete, delete, delete, others might restore, restore, restore. Then, when you give people 3RR warnings, others may follow your example and do the same to you. If you make personal attacks, such as the one above, expect a response. In a nutshell, if you dish it out, expect to take it.
Wjemather advised you to consider fixing the work of others rather than simply reverting. This is good advice. Please consider it. Michael Glass (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically, per WP:CITE and WP:FN, text in footnotes should be used to clarify information in the body of the article should it be deemed that it would be distracting to have such clarification in the text. The information you were adding does not fall into this category, so should have been worked into the main text. I think (?) another of the issues is the multiple use of the same source in an article. Although it is mentioned briefly in WP:CITE (which Justin directed you to), WP:REFNAME should be of more help with regards reusing a single instance throughout an article. wjemather10:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Wjemather, thank you for your advice, which I shall try to take on board. I have had no previous experience in using the refname template, but I'll soon find out how to use it.
There were several problems with the information that I wanted to include in the articles. The first one was that the information was in metric units, which got people's backs up. The second thing was that it was about islands in a particular island group when the article was about the main island. It might be worthwhile to consider changing several of the articles so that they cover the island group. The third issue was the problem about multiple references. Your helpful comments are much appreciated. Michael Glass (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Copy-edit Champ
I just wanted to quickly say thank you for your copy-editing of Don Valley Parkway, and other articles.
Note that it appears Andrew Leigh, just elected for the ALP, may be using the journalist to attack the independents who hold the balance of the hung parliament right now. 200 alleged suicides per year saved cannot be saved by trading semi-autos for legal bolt actions. This journalist is plainly acting in a partisan fashion, becasue he has not asked any hard questions.
Thanks for the links, Chris. I based my edit on the report that was published in "The Age" (and also the SMH). Are there any issues with the edit as it stands? Michael Glass (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
What you wrote represents the news article fairly. I will wait and see if anyone can get a reply published, or write a better one :-)
Hi, the Metrication in Australia article is getting a bit messy in regards to the exceptions to the use of metric. In particular the use of feet and inches for people's height. It only really needs one or two references to the occasional use of imperial in this area. I don't believe we need to reference where metric is used (not quite sure why the AFL etc was used to describe this). I propose to simplify it and put back the idea of an occasional use. Since you've done some editing in this area what are your thoughts? PS I may not be able to reply for a short while as I'm away for a week. Ozdaren (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for some good copy-editors to take a look at some articles I wrote and I felt a little suspect about submitting them to the LOCE because what you get there in terms of editors is kind of a mixed bag imho. Plus it takes forever. I noticed you're pretty good. So would you mind taking a look at a small little article I wrote? Here a DYK style hook to get you interested: Did you know...
Hello, I'd like to thank you for your interest in copy-editing the Petitcodiac River article, but I would like to inform you that your changes modified the meaning of a lot of the sentences. Most of the time it was somewhat minor, but nonetheless, I felt obligated to do something. In addition, most of what you changed seemed to simply dumb down the prose (which is not exactly a bad thing in some cases, as prose can get complicated and hard to follow, but nevertheless, I don't think that was the case here). I reverted most of your edits (I'd guess perhaps 50%, and I can justify them all if you feel that it was an unnecessary or insulting move), but left the rest intact, as you did correct a few legitimate issues. Please keep in mind that this is because the article is currently at FAC (its second, thus making it a very sensitive collaborative work) and it already went through a copy-edit by the WP:GOCE around five days ago, so external eyes have already taken a proper look at it. I felt the need to contact you about this, because it seems to have been a work of at least an hour. Regards. EricLeb (Page | Talk)02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
"Though the Petitcodiac River's watershed is geographically distinct..." -> If you insist so much on changing this, at least make it "Although", as "Though" is informal and not recommended.
The word goes unremarked in my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary and both are accepted in Fowler's Modern English Usage. I would rather go by them than an anonymous Wikipedian, however well-meaning. Michael Glass (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing "English" to "British"; it was something I had noticed while writing but completely forgot about.
I don't usually mind copy-editing, but I would highly appreciate if it would stop, as one of the criterion for FAC is 1. "(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." I REALLY don't want to go through another month-long process over something as trivial as stability. EricLeb (Page | Talk)02:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
PS Your most recent edit, which reverted to square metres, is inconsistent with the source, which said "about 3 hectares". Worse, the source says nothing about a danger to housing from flooding, only to structures like gazebos that were built on low ground. See Michael Glass (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem, I appreciate the help. Also, I am referring to this quote regarding housing: "People who live along what is now the headpond have also received a warning, he said". I agree about the sqkm thing; I've changed it back (I thought I had entered "disp=flip" for the convert template, which is what I normally do when the source gives an imperial value... this wasn't the case, apparently). EricLeb (Page | Talk)19:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Glad to be of help. In the case of the warning that was sent to householders, this is what it said:
People who live along what is now the headpond have also received a warning, he said.
"The communique that came out from the province to our mayor indicated that anyone living along the headpond now that has barbeques, gazebos, baby barns that's on low ground right now, get them out of the way cause potential is there you're gonna lose those," said Clibe.
Note that the warning was about the danger to structures built on low ground, like barbecues and gazebos. There is no suggestion here that houses were in danger of flooding from extremely high tides, only structures built on low ground. I therefore suggest that you consider amending the text to this:
Flood warnings were issued by the provincial Department of Supply and Services for the town of Riverview, warning that high river tides could lead to the flooding of over 3 hectares (7.4 acres) of sport fields or built on low ground;
This puts the emphasis back on the sports fields, as in the source, but does not ignore the potential danger to other structures built on flood-prone land. Michael Glass (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't saying that the residential areas are simply flood-prone (because I think it would be safe to assume that, if items on low ground properties are at risk of flood damage, then the property itself must be equally at risk) be sufficient? " warning that high river tides could place residential properties and over 3 hectares (7.4 acres) of sport fields at risk of flood damage."
Since there's been confusion about which version of 'mile' is in the aviation article, would you be able to specify 'statute mile' where appropriate in 1910 London to Manchester air race? Note that the convert template uses '|smi|' rather than '|mi|' for this purpose. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Presume that wasn't what you were trying to do here, but you added a link to Younes Kaboul's Premier League profile and part-overwrote the existing link to Cudicini's Chelsea profile. I've fixed it. Incidentally, I understand your reasoning for using the units given in the cited source, which in the case of the Premier League are in metric, and have no problem with that for non-UK players. But you are presumably aware that their measurements are already conversions from imperial? It's particularly clear from the weights. If weighing an adult in countries that use metric measurement, it's rare to use greater precision than .5 of a kilo, yet John Terry's weight is given as 90.34 kg, which is the conversion to an overly precise 2 decimal places of his plain imperial weight of 14 st 3 lb. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up this mistake. I agree with you about the weights of the players though electronic metric scales give measurements to the tenth of a kilo. This is so precise that your weight goes up or down every time you eat a meal or go to the toilet! This is one reason why I have steered clear of weights and stuck to heights.
I think it would be good to have uniformity of weights and measures in the profiles but this is impossible. Several clubs give no height or weight details, a few clubs give these details only in Imperial; others give both measures, and the Premier League and several other clubs just give the details just in metric. In the circumstances, the best we can do is to follow the sources, and as you know, I have made Premier League my source. Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Another matter arising: Just noticed that if I click the link to a random player's Premier League profile page, as used to verify his height, I reach his page, but with his height blank, in fact without any personal content at all apart from his name. If I then go via the Players tab and A-Z list, his page is displayed with apparently the same URL, and with all its content complete, as if it's only created when accessed via the correct hierarchy. Does this also happen for you? and if so, perhaps we should be looking for an alternative source that actually contains the data on the URL as linked to? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. What you described hasn't happened to me. I have, however, noticed that some of the Premier League profiles are incomplete, and when that has happened I have not used that particular web page as a link. I have used the Premier League as my source because it would seem to be more authoritative than Soccernet or Soccerbase, and more complete than using the profiles of individual clubs. Very occasionally I have noticed that the height that was given varied quite a lot for an individual player. When that happened in one case (sorry, I can't remember which one now) I removed all information about the player's height because it varied too much between sources such as Premier League, FIFA and the individual team.
If you notice that what you have described happens with a specific reference, please let me know and I will do my best to remedy the situation, or if that proves impossible, I will look for a different reference. Michael Glass (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I've had a better look at it, and the problem appears to stem from how I access the page. If I click the superscript reference number of any of the Premier League player heights, e.g. Carlo Cudicini ref #2, thus taking me to the References section of the article, and then click the url in the References section, it works fine. However, if I hover over that superscript reference number with Navigation popups enabled, a popup window appears containing the details of that reference, and if I then click the url in the popup, it takes me to the incomplete Premier League player page. No idea why that would be, presumably a conflict between Navigation popups and something in the PL page and/or something in my system, but it's clearly not your problem. Sorry to have bothered you, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Your edit to Gareth Thomas has been undone (see this). Looks like you've left plenty more mess for other editors to clean up too. You think you're being cute or what?--Jeff79 (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see my comments on your talk page. If I have made a mistake I am happy to fix it, but I respond better to politeness, thank you. Michael Glass (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kristen O'Hara, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AP Shinobi (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Michael Glass! A Top Priority article you have been involved with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Northamptonshire, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there. (This is a generic message. if it has been placed on your talk page inadvertantly, please ignore it.) --Kudpung --Kudpung (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Falkland Islands. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Woody (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
