Plangent

Tip of the moment... Spoken Wikipedia There is an ongoing effort to create a number of Wikipedia articles that can be listened to instead of read. Many users can greatly benefit from this feature and there is a constant need for contributors.   See Spoken articles for the current list of completed articles. This is a hidden category and is not shown unless the corresponding user preference 'Show hidden categories' is set. Do not include this category in article content categories.   Convert Wikipedia article to voice audio Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip Read more:   WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia   Wikipedia Spoken articles   Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use {{totd-random}}

House

hehe you smell like poopy-poop-poop! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozyzozy (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing WikiProject banners

If you feel the need to remove a WikiProject banner, [1] you might discuss it on the article's talk page first - or even bring it up at the WikiProject itself. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"A mockery"? Removing the LGBT project banner from "the first transsexual comic book character" would appear to be the mockery to me. But as I said - could we not discuss this on the article talk page or at the WikiProject? Making decisions for a project you aren't a member of, especially without consulting the editors involved, seems a bit rude. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've requested input from the project's members. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I have already indicated to one of the adminstrators your apparent plan to "gang up" on me with other editors. I say plan, becuase of the unreasonable and illogical remarks you made on my talk page. If you continue in this manner, apparently in collaboration with another editor, you are likely to be blocked. You have already made irrational remarks on my talk page and now seem to be entering a little communal edit war. Kindly grow up. Why not find your own images to illustrate this article? Add content by patient research? Translate french sources? Otherwise, as far as I can tell, you are at the moment just playing a kind of video game in order to wind up another editor. Please calm down and stop being so aggressive. You have not added an ounce of content to this article. I will make a separate report about you to the administrator and if you continue I will report you for disruptive editing and wikistalking on WP:AN/I. Bonne nuit, Mathsci 20:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That was a heavy message in reaction to a relatively small edit (style fixes per MOS). Exactly who is being aggressive here? --Plangent 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

These are not standard fixes, or else a Bot could do it.

My complaint to the adminstrator is that you seem to be in league with Rettestat. You appeared out of the blue. You seem to be targeting me in particular and I have no idea why. Guidelines are guidelines and certainly not binding. There are certainly problems with images - eg on Mary Magdalen, a total mess - but this is everywhere on WP. You should not feel that you can just come to an article and make global changes as you just did without discussion. Besides, if we forget for a moment about images, and turn to real content, when I edit mathematics articles, rules are more or less made up depending on the nature of the content. These edits occur by consensus. For example when I had to write the mathematics of the Cauchy-Kowalevski theorem from scratch I was delighted that my friend and colleague R.e.b. enriched the article in an unexpected and nice way. But you seem to be creating a rather bad atmosphere at the moment; perhaps this is not intentional, but you and R should not descend on articles to bully good-faith editors who have contributed significantly to the article. I have the feeling you are playing a game with me: please stop and find something better to do with your time. --Mathsci 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I made one edit to the article Marseille‎, following guidelines which are formed from a larger community consensus.

I made what I thought was a helpful comment about the status of open wikis as unreliable sources for the purposes of citation in Wikipedia, intending to explain that Rettetast did not appear to be acting in racist manner.

Your reaction to this has, quite frankly, been over the top. No bullying has occurred, no aggression has been expressed towards you, people have simply been trying to be helpful.

Seriously, take a step back from the computer and start thinking things through. If you consider the matter a little more carefully, you may discover that there are no villains here. --Plangent 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No it was a global edit with a lot of changes - that is deprecated on WP. You may like writing articles on trivia, but an article on the numerically second largest city in France is quite a different matter, And when somebody starts calling into question the number of arrondissements, a well-known fact to most of the french, we enter the realm of the ridiculous. Have fun with your fantasy film trivia, but don't play games with other people. Stick to what you know about. --Mathsci 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To take things in order:

• it was a global edit with a lot of changes

I fixed the thumb sizes to user default, per MoS. This was hardly a major shift of content.

• that is deprecated on WP

WP:BOLD says otherwise. --Plangent 22:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bold refers to being creative. Do you know what that means? Mathsci 22:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Both you and R seem to be incapable of reading WP articles. Further down the page of Marseille is a description and map of the 16 arrondissements of Marseille, the topic that you unwisely chose to corner me on. This seems to confirm your own poor judgement. You just don't bother to read. Both of you need to get new pairs of spectacles. Better luck next time you try to play games like this. --Mathsci 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also the original assignation of places to arrondissements was quite incorrect. That is why the disputed reference was added. Of course, because you don't appear to have examined the history of this page or read any of the article for that matter, you would have no idea about that. I worked it out with one of my maps; the french reference page was also useful. It took quite a while. Could you have done it? Why are you editing pages on France? --Mathsci 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I never expressed an opinion on whether the number of arrondissements needed a citation or not. What I have written is that open Wikis, including the various language editions of Wikipedia, aren't generally used as reliable sources. And I did so (he explains yet again) in order to point out that Rettetast did not appear to be expressing a racist point of view.

And in case your eyes have slid past that last part, I'll write it again, in the hope they'll eventually land on the relevant point.

1. My comment about citing Wikipedia articles was to explain that Rettetast was not being racist.
2. By the way, my comment about citing Wikipedia articles was to explain that Rettetast was not being racist.
3. Oh, and my comment about citing Wikipedia articles was to explain that Rettetast was not being racist.

There. Good night. --Plangent 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary the list of arrondissements of Marseille on the French WP page is 100% accurate (why wouldn't it be?) and conforms exactly with my map. It was this source that Rettetast was disputing; and he didn't notice the map further down the page. His claim that the French would allow an inaccurate list of arrondissements of Marseille to linger on the wikipedia is ridiculous. You and he were quite misguided in pushing your challenge, which as far as I can see was just a little game. Rettetast's comment was racist. There are no inaccuracies about the geography of NY City on en.wikipedia and for the same reason there are no inaccuracies in the number of arrondissements in Marseille on fr.wikipédia. His remark seemed to imply that all French people are dimwits. Please think about this before spouting any more nonsense. Rettetast made two serious errors: first in his value judgement about this kind of extremely well-known information; and secondly in not reading the page properly. You just blindly followed him and then made some of your very first ill-informed edits to a WP page on France. --Mathsci 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* You don't appear to have taken in the fact that a source can be correct on a given issue while still not being classed as reliable. Indeed, as far as I can see, Rettetast has not claimed the French Wikipedia article was incorrect. As for your continued insistence on his racism, well, the mind boggles. --Plangent 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Rettetast dismissed the particular french wp page. He might later have tried to justify himself, but his explanations did not seem reasonable for this particular kind of rudimentary article. That is the problem and the source of Rettetast's misjudgement.

A supplementary list of quartiers in each arrondissement was added for clarification. The allocation of arrondissements in the Marseille article was inaccurate and I corrected it. I myself used a map to determine in which arrondissment various landmarks were situated. Rettetast was wrong in placing doubt on the particular reference, which allowed anybody to check data. However, if you now try to find out in which arrondissement Andoume or Belle de Mai are, you might have some difficulty. So, in a sense. Rettetast has actually harmed the article by his intervention.

A similar inaccuracy happened in Phedre. The synopsis did not accurately describe the action in the play (theacts were mixed up). I had three versions of the play (2 in french, 1 in translation) to sort out the mess, common to both the french and english wp sites. That is how WP articles are written: it is time-consuming and painstaking. You don't seem to have any idea about this at all. Bonne nuit, Mathsci 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skeleton warriors.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Skeleton warriors.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.

• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)