User talk:Mabuska/Archive 42012/March

carlingford lough

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Carlingford Lough - Location field". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravyring (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good points Mabuska.Gravyring (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

You did the right thing in taking it to the Dispute Resolution Board, or any form of dispute resolution as after all as its subject to the Troubles Arbitration means that editors that come into a dispite must seek third-party opinions. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean it is safe to make the change?Gravyring (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

No as the dispute resolution is an on-going process. The more opinions the better. No change should ever be made until the issue has been officially sorted. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

insert picture of banging head against brickwall.Gravyring (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cormeen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Celtic, King Charles II and King Charles I

Melanagh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mullan and King Charles I

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

NI

In case you miss it, I've replied to you here. The gist is change the introduction. Change it substantially, if that is what is needed. But let's move away from reverting to "stable" versions and entrenching things in talk page discussions. That's not the way to develop articles. (And I think it has outlived its purpose even as a way to keep the peace.) --RA (talk) 09:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe i can't remember but i don't recall saying ayhting about "stable" versions - just the pre alleged consensus version - but thanks for the notification. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't mean it as quoting you. Rather as scare quotes, referring to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. --RA (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

On the same subject, you seem to have called me "politically biassed"? I'd be grateful if you would withdraw that, or provide some explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not meant as an offense and i apologise if you read it as such. We all have a political bias, i was simply pointing out (quite bluntly) that the so called consensus was politically biased by nationalist editors. I wasn't using the term in a derogatory manner. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I won't object to being called "nationalist", but I would be astounded if you could find the slightest justification for that view of me. I think you may be misinterpreting my edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think i misinterpreted who you were. I've gotten you mixed up with Daiceragos. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

An easy mistake to make. (??!!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't ask me how. I guess as i only know of two Welsh editors here and as soon as i noticied a Welsh editor my mind made me think of Daiceragos who've i've come across more. My very bad, and i offer my apologies if any offense was taken. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No probs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Just in case you miss it, I replied to you here. I'm happy to start over in terms of faith. Faith has gotten blown out of hand in that thread. I'm not going to take the blame for that - but let's start over in terms of faith (at least) without blame. --RA (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

To add, that's not to say that my conduct in that thread was ideal - but let's start over. --RA (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)