![]() Archives |
---|
Welcome!
Hello, Cordless Larry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Djegan 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents
- 1 Talkback
- 2 Re:Merging articles
- 3 Pending changes
- 4 Talk page indentation
- 5 Please comment on Talk:List of state leaders in 2016
- 6 Question
- 7 As you say i have give you a link of deleted page.
- 8 Your question at the Help desk
- 9 Dubrovnik
- 10 Another contributor re-inserting incorrect information
- 11 Emily's D+Evolution changes...
- 12 Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products
- 13 Wikipedia: Requested articles
- 14 Disambiguation link notification for March 29
- 15 Collaboration
- 16 A kitten for you!
- 17 Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence
- 18 edit war over plagiarised material
- 19 A pie for you!
- 20 Superdiversity
- 21 Ok
- 22 I hereby award you the Cup & Saucer Award of Integrity
- 23 Updating a Page Name on Wikipedia
- 24 Bureaucratic Response
Talkback
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re:Merging articles
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Pending changes
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talk page indentation
Cordless Larry, please have a look at Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation. Following the standard indentation style on talk pages makes discussions easier for others to follow. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which edits or page does this message refer to, RockMagnetist? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Most of your edits at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Religious_Bias. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Take another look and you'll see that it is the editor who I am responding to who is not indenting comments, RockMagnetist. I have been indenting mine. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oops - sorry about that! I wasn't paying close enough attention to which link I clicked. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, RockMagnetist. People asking questions at the Teahouse often fail to indent their comments (and to sign them) as they are new and inexperienced. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oops - sorry about that! I wasn't paying close enough attention to which link I clicked. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Take another look and you'll see that it is the editor who I am responding to who is not indenting comments, RockMagnetist. I have been indenting mine. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Most of your edits at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Religious_Bias. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of state leaders in 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of state leaders in 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Question
Is my post "Article title as possible original research" on the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard the proper place to have it? I've never used this noticeboard and no one responded to my post. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the right place, but that noticeboard doesn't appear to be very active these days. Give it a few days and hopefully you'll receive a reply or two, Mitchumch. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
As you say i have give you a link of deleted page.
First of all thank you so much for your reply. It's name is mithilalok & here is the link " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithilalok ".
I am waiting for your reply.Designprasho (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have already replied at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions, Designprasho. Let's keep the discussion there. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Your question at the Help desk
Hello Cordless Larry. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you! | |
Message added on 09:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template. |
Dubrovnik
Hi there. I don't think I lost anything in that revert to last stable version. Did I? I think that content you restored came afterward. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Anna Frodesiak. Your revert changed "was" back to "will be". That change was made a couple of days before your revert. Not a problem though! Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Ah, it must have been added and removed during that span. My revert shows no difference between the 06:18, 10 March 2016 version and my version. I feel a bit daft today. I have been doing some off-wiki things today that have taxed my brain and I'm a bit spaced out. I still haven't quite figured out when it was added and removed. :) Thank you kindly for finding that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- No worries at all, Anna Frodesiak. I'd had it in my mind to make these changes since I first saw the edit in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- No worries at all, Anna Frodesiak. I'd had it in my mind to make these changes since I first saw the edit in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, it must have been added and removed during that span. My revert shows no difference between the 06:18, 10 March 2016 version and my version. I feel a bit daft today. I have been doing some off-wiki things today that have taxed my brain and I'm a bit spaced out. I still haven't quite figured out when it was added and removed. :) Thank you kindly for finding that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Another contributor re-inserting incorrect information
Hi there, I corrected a factual inaccuracy on the page on a living person (Sugata Bose), by deleting the claim that he is married to Ayesha Jalal (the page on whom I also corrected). Mr Bose is unmarried. Another contributor repeatedly re-inserted the inaccurate information (on both pages), using as 'source' media items which contain the inaccurate claim (probably taken from Wikipedia!). As I am deleting inaccurate information, I cannot put in any 'attribution'. Also, it is not possible to provide proof of something that is non-existent. There is a legal affidavit by Mr Bose available online which shows he has no spouse. But as I am only deleting wrong information, not adding any, I couldn't see any way of referencing it. I can't understand why the other contributor insists on the wrong marital status....Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danube41 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Danube41. The best place to discuss this would be on the talk page of the article concerned, which is at Talk:Sugata Bose. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, head on over to Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Emily's D+Evolution changes...
...hi, and thanks for helping me out on the album page for Emily's D+Evolution. It looks like you included some interview excerpts/quotes, which is awesome. I resubmitted it, and again, much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewcasebier (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- And I've accepted it! Congrats on the acceptance, Matthewcasebier, and thanks for your help, Cordless Larry. /wiae /tlk 12:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products
Hello Larry,
I have recently contributed to Wikipedia. The article that i have written is Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products. I see that the article may be deleted on some grounds. I was hoping you can give me some suggestions on how i can improve this article. Also i was thinking that maybe i should shorten this and add this to the advertising page rather than having a page for its own.
Your advise is appreciated!
Regards,
Akshay Massey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaymassey (talk • contribs) 21:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Akshaymassey. Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, and appears to include original research (did you conduct the questionnaire?), which Wikipedia does not publish. I suggest heading over to Wikipedia:Teahouse for further advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Larry,
I did not conduct the study not developed the questionnaire, but i do agree with your insights. Where can i request this article to be taken off? I will modify this article as per the requirements and post it under the advertising section.
Thanks for your help!
Akshay Massey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshaymassey (talk • contribs) 22:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion and Advertising of Controversial Products, so you might want to comment there, Akshaymassey. Please note that Wikipedia doesn't have an "advertising section", though. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Requested articles
You often advise people at the Teahouse who want article about themselves or their bands to post requests to WP:Requested articles. While that is the right answer on paper, there is no right answer in reality. You are essentially telling them to put their requests in, if not a black hole, a rabbit hole. (It isn't a black hole because they are still there, and the information paradox does not apply. However, articles very seldom come out of the hole. Rabbits and wiki-gnomes may go in and out, but they seldom bring articles out.) You are probably doing the right thing, in that, if they think that they will get their articles some day, they will avoid posting them to AFC and wasting everyone's time. Perhaps the right answer would be to tell them that if they or their bands are notable, someone else will do it, but, since they probably aren't notable, no on will do it. As long as they think that their articles will come out, it is a Lie to children. Thanks, sort of. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good point, Robert McClenon (although I think "often" is a stretch), and I myself wonder whether it is worth telling people to post there, but that is the correct forum, whereas the Teahouse isn't the place to ask other editors to write an article. I'll consider just telling them what you suggest in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- After writing that, I think that it is best to do as you do. Just tell them to go to RA, and maybe they will do so, and maybe nothing will happen for a while. That keeps them from asking us to write their article, or from submitting a draft and asking us to clean it up from their bias. I think that the advice is a Lie to children, and is the right advice to give to children who want us to help them. Once in a while, they may really have notable topics. Usually, they don't. It is often kinder to tell them to go to a rabbit hole than to tell them that they aren't notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- What I was going to write above, but didn't quite get around to, Robert McClenon, was that I think in future I might tell them that if the subject is notable, or becomes notable, then at some point it will get written about, and that putting in a request might speed that up that process a little, but that there's no guarantee. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I put my grandfather in in 2013. He was the principal author of the United States Code. He hasn't come out. Actual notability is no evidence that an article will come out. However, it is a useful rabbit hole. If you shrink to rabbit size and go down the rabbit hole, you won't bother the rest of us. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- What I was going to write above, but didn't quite get around to, Robert McClenon, was that I think in future I might tell them that if the subject is notable, or becomes notable, then at some point it will get written about, and that putting in a request might speed that up that process a little, but that there's no guarantee. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- After writing that, I think that it is best to do as you do. Just tell them to go to RA, and maybe they will do so, and maybe nothing will happen for a while. That keeps them from asking us to write their article, or from submitting a draft and asking us to clean it up from their bias. I think that the advice is a Lie to children, and is the right advice to give to children who want us to help them. Once in a while, they may really have notable topics. Usually, they don't. It is often kinder to tell them to go to a rabbit hole than to tell them that they aren't notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Specialized Bicycle Components, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chris McCormack, Javier Gomez and Matt Hunter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- All fixed. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Collaboration
Lets collaborate on a article . Hihiimpal (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer, Hihiimpal, but most of my time for Wikipedia is being dedicated to the Teahouse at present. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
you are so helpful and informative! Keep it up!
Sparkling Waters (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sparkling Waters. Happy editing to you! Cordless Larry (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
edit war over plagiarised material
Hi Larry,
You helped me out by giving me advice on how to deal with an edit war at the TeaHouse the other day. Unfortunately, the editor in question continues restoring unsourced and plagiarised material to the article (American Council for Capital Formation), even after being reprimanded by the BLP board. She still refuses to engage substantively on the talk page, though she did threaten to block my account.
I looked into her history to what I'm dealing with, and it looks like she moves from target to target, copying in every negative story she can find--first about Kyle McCarter, then about the Dish Network and its CEO Charlie Ergen, now about the ACCF. Most of these edits look like plagiarism or close to it--sometimes she just cut-and-pastes sentences from hostile news stories, sometimes she copies in the paragraph and then changes a few words. I know we're supposed to accept good faith, but is it possible she's some kind of Wikipedia gun for hire? To whose attention should I bring this? Also, how do I avoid this user blocking my account?
Per your (or somebody's) suggestion, I'm going to try to edit elsewhere for a bit, but if there's any way that someone else could look in at the article, I'd appreciate it. I'm sure my own edits aren't perfect, so a second opinion would be very helpful.
And I've gotta ask--is Wikipedia always like this?!? So far it seems more like the kind of arguments you'd have in a newspaper's online comments section than an encyclopedia, though I guess I can see how those demographics would overlap.
Thanks for your advice. Best, Ellen EllenMcGill (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi EllenMcGill. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into this, but can I suggest that you either ask for advice at the Teahouse or report the user concerned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Only administrators have the ability to block users, and they are held to account for doing so, so I don't think you need to worry about that. Unfortunately Wikipedia can be like this, but thankfully for the most part it isn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Larry! I will see what happens with my post at the edit-warring board (so many boards!), and if they aren't interested in those bigger issues, I'll repost as you suggest. Best, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've just seen your post there, EllenMcGill. It might be a bit too long and complicated to get a proper response, but give it some time before taking the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. The first response there seemed to suggest that it's not edit-warring as long as we only delete each other's material once a day, and they're not interested in the other stuff, so I'm not optimistic. For now I guess I will keep deleting LA's material once a day the same as she deletes mine until she agrees to talk on the talk page. Anyway, I really appreciate your taking a look. EllenMcGill (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like what's called the three-revert rule hasn't been broken, EllenMcGill, but edit warring can also take a slower, more long-term form. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Got it. Happily, I'm 99% sure I identified the digital PR firm she works for today--almost all of her edits seem to relate directly to their client list. Maybe she will just go away, but even if we continue to work on it together, her agenda is now out in the open. Thanks again for the advice and for keeping an eye on me. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies for the further confusion about the correct place to report this, EllenMcGill, but it seems that it is now being taken seriously at WP:COI/N. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Got it. Happily, I'm 99% sure I identified the digital PR firm she works for today--almost all of her edits seem to relate directly to their client list. Maybe she will just go away, but even if we continue to work on it together, her agenda is now out in the open. Thanks again for the advice and for keeping an eye on me. -- EllenMcGill (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like what's called the three-revert rule hasn't been broken, EllenMcGill, but edit warring can also take a slower, more long-term form. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. The first response there seemed to suggest that it's not edit-warring as long as we only delete each other's material once a day, and they're not interested in the other stuff, so I'm not optimistic. For now I guess I will keep deleting LA's material once a day the same as she deletes mine until she agrees to talk on the talk page. Anyway, I really appreciate your taking a look. EllenMcGill (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've just seen your post there, EllenMcGill. It might be a bit too long and complicated to get a proper response, but give it some time before taking the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Larry! I will see what happens with my post at the edit-warring board (so many boards!), and if they aren't interested in those bigger issues, I'll repost as you suggest. Best, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem at all! It was a rapidly evolving situation, and given what now looks to be a big scope to it, it makes sense that it would require a lot of forums. I'm glad somebody else has taken over and I can move on to other stuff, or just take a long break! EllenMcGill (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
A pie for you!
![]() |
Thanks for taking the time to welcome newcomers. It's too bad I can't give you one of my pies in real life. =) Best, Ellen -- EllenMcGill (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
Superdiversity
The DRN thread cannot be opened until you are properly notified. Also, the filing party misspelled your user name, but I corrected it. We are still waiting for proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Is there anything I could or should do, Robert McClenon? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- No. If you are properly notified, you are encouraged, but not required, to file a statement, and are encouraged, but not required, to participate in moderated discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also, did you see my comment about the removed RfC? How does that affect a possible case? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw it. It doesn't affect a case, since it was withdrawn. An open RFC would pre-empt other dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, Robert McClenon. To be honest, judging by the user's comments on the article talk page, I don't think they really understand much about how Wikipedia works, and they may well not be aware of what they need to do in relation to DRN. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- First, it is common for filing parties who come to DRN not to understand much about DRN or Wikipedia. That isn't a problem if they are willing to listen, because the moderator can explain how Wikipedia works and how DRN works. It only becomes a problem if one of the parties (filing or otherwise) is stubborn, and then the moderator can fail the case after admonishing the parties. Many new editors don't understand, but DRN can be a way to learn. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Second, I have never heard of superdiversity outside of Wikipedia. That makes me think that it is Commonwealth English, and it appears that the closest American English equivalent is affirmative action. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Third, since the dispute seems to be about superdiversity in New Zealand, it isn't clear whether the article should be superdiversity, or superdiversity in New Zealand, or New Zealand, or what, but that can come out in DRN, if accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Robert McClenon. My point was really just that the editor could perhaps do with some guidance on how to notify the other parties, as I suspect that they don't realise they need to do this. Perhaps a Teahouse invite would be in order? I'd be perfectly happy to take part if the case gets off the ground, though I am by no means an expert in the topic. The only reason I got involved is that the article is on my watchlist from when there was some dispute over use of the term at Somalis in the United Kingdom. I am familiar with some of the literature, however, and I can say for sure that superdiversity isn't the same thing as affirmative action. The latter is a policy prescription designed to reduce inequalities between racial or ethnic groups, whereas superdiversity is really a descriptive concept that describes the changing nature of diversity in countries such as the UK. The idea is basically that whereas such countries have a history of large-scale immigration from a limited range of countries, in recent decades these migration flows come from a much broader range of countries and include an increasing range of people, from workers to students to refugees. This article, by the sociologist who coined the term, explains it better than I can. On your final point, I agree that there is some confusion about the article is actually about. The material about New Zealand was added relatively recently, and is the source of the dispute. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I understand your point about the difference between superdiversity and affirmative action. However, the term superdiversity is not, to the best of my knowledge, used in the United States, so that I assume it is a Commonwealth term. As to whether to notify the other party how to notify, I will let them ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's barely used outside of academia (in fact, outside of the discipline of sociology), Robert McClenon. There is some literature applying the concept to the United States and to the Netherlands, but most of it is focused on the UK from what I can tell. If you asked a British person on the street what it meant, though, I very much doubt that they would have heard of the term. It doesn't get used much in the media or in policy circles, from what I can tell. By contrast, I was at the British Sociological Association conference last week, and it was a bit of buzzword. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, the term may not have existed around 1970 in the United States, but was implemented by a reform of the immigration act which eliminated national origin quotas and focused on in-demand job skills and family unification, and had the effect of significantly increasing immigration from Latin America and Asia as opposed to from Europe. I don't know what superdiversity would be in New Zealand since I don't know what non-British immigrants New Zealand has traditionally had. I understand that the United Kingdom has accepted some number of immigrants from former African and Asian colonies, so that superdiversity would be from other parts of Asia and Latin America. So in the political sphere it is a goal of immigration policy, while affirmative action has to do with citizens and examines their national origin. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I remember Somalis in the United Kingdom, where eventually someone had to be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that article led to all sorts of fun and games, Robert McClenon (sarcasm!). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the first time the term was used was by Steve Vertovec in 2005. Of course, the conditions it describes may have pre-dated that significantly. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's barely used outside of academia (in fact, outside of the discipline of sociology), Robert McClenon. There is some literature applying the concept to the United States and to the Netherlands, but most of it is focused on the UK from what I can tell. If you asked a British person on the street what it meant, though, I very much doubt that they would have heard of the term. It doesn't get used much in the media or in policy circles, from what I can tell. By contrast, I was at the British Sociological Association conference last week, and it was a bit of buzzword. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I understand your point about the difference between superdiversity and affirmative action. However, the term superdiversity is not, to the best of my knowledge, used in the United States, so that I assume it is a Commonwealth term. As to whether to notify the other party how to notify, I will let them ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Robert McClenon. My point was really just that the editor could perhaps do with some guidance on how to notify the other parties, as I suspect that they don't realise they need to do this. Perhaps a Teahouse invite would be in order? I'd be perfectly happy to take part if the case gets off the ground, though I am by no means an expert in the topic. The only reason I got involved is that the article is on my watchlist from when there was some dispute over use of the term at Somalis in the United Kingdom. I am familiar with some of the literature, however, and I can say for sure that superdiversity isn't the same thing as affirmative action. The latter is a policy prescription designed to reduce inequalities between racial or ethnic groups, whereas superdiversity is really a descriptive concept that describes the changing nature of diversity in countries such as the UK. The idea is basically that whereas such countries have a history of large-scale immigration from a limited range of countries, in recent decades these migration flows come from a much broader range of countries and include an increasing range of people, from workers to students to refugees. This article, by the sociologist who coined the term, explains it better than I can. On your final point, I agree that there is some confusion about the article is actually about. The material about New Zealand was added relatively recently, and is the source of the dispute. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, Robert McClenon. To be honest, judging by the user's comments on the article talk page, I don't think they really understand much about how Wikipedia works, and they may well not be aware of what they need to do in relation to DRN. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw it. It doesn't affect a case, since it was withdrawn. An open RFC would pre-empt other dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok
Ok, cordless larry. :-) ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I know list is incomplete, it need,s work, but It is difficult for me to work alone, list need more editing by another jatt users. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message, ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~, but it is better to reply at the Teahouse, where you originally asked your question. I did not say that the list was incomplete, but pointed out that there were problems with the links - some of which point to articles not bout Jat clans. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok. ~~(…MA.Tay.CA…)~~ (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I hereby award you the Cup & Saucer Award of Integrity
![]() |
Cup and Saucer Badge |
Awarded to those who uphold the values of the Teahouse by being respectful and courteous to guests and hosts alike. |
|
For gently reminding us to hew to our principles. ;)
J-Mo 23:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
|
- Thanks, Jtmorgan. That means a lot, especially coming from you. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Updating a Page Name on Wikipedia
Hi Cordless Larry,
How do i update a business or company name i have created on wikipedia.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmyth4time (talk • contribs) 09:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Dragonmyth4time. If you want to update an article that you have create, navigate to that article and click the "edit" tab at the top of the page. If you have any other questions about Wikipedia, you might want to ask them at the Teahouse, where you can get input from a wider range of editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I now see that you probably mean that you want to change the title of an article. To do that, you need to click "Move page" on the "Page" drop-down menu, but you can only do so once your account is autoconfirmed, which happens automatically once it is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits. I can move a page for you if you give me the details. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Bureaucratic Response
I'm writing this warning to you for your own good. You are in danger of falling into a bureaucratic mindset. You referred me to another department that would merely be another head of the same multi-headed serpent. And you must have realized that you did so. It was the typical bureaucrat's move. You've been involved in this for too long. 122.2.121.104 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- And some advice for you: it might be time to drop the stick regarding Derry and WP:COMMONNAME. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
And so should you. 120.29.76.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)