This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I didn't understand your edit, I looked over the revision several times, and I could have sworn the previous one was the one that had been there before, so I reverted it, and left an edit summary to express my confusion. I'd appreciate it if you did not assume bad faith about my edit summaries, thank you. Or at least not put abrasive template warnings intended for new users. Zazaban (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not assume bad faith. Had I assumed bad faith, I would have reverted your edit at once. On the contrary, I merely expressed why your edit summary did not enlighten me as to your reasoning. As for leaving a template, I leave those if they are relevant at any user page; for new users and for users that have been here several years – so nothing else should be read into that. If I do something that can be addressed by using a template, people are free to leave a template at my talk page. I hope this clears everything? --Law Lord (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Er, sorry, I overreacted. I really overreacted. Zazaban (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Are we okay to change the wording back to "also" in the article? --Law Lord (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm going to dispute that. I don't see how free love can support that kind of thing, logically. Zazaban (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, I am adding a dubious tag for it then. --Law Lord (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Law Lord, I've got a question for you regarding this at Talk:Free love#Polygamy. -- ToE^T 06:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, ... and a short reply back at that section. -- ToE^T 06:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't take ownership of anything but it makes no sense why someone would get rid of a proper internal link so it simply gets redirected to the place it should have been sent in the first place. That's completely illogical.Donmike10 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There was actually a text change as well. Anyway, I have let the change of text stand but fixed the link to Folketinget. Hope that solves it. Cheers --Law Lord (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

As you have shown an interest in the subject in the past, I was hoping you could comment on the current discussion at Talk:MTV Generation. I am hoping to finally settle the validity of the topic of the MTV Generation for Wikipedia. There have been two previous nominations for deletion, here, and here.

Those discussions chose to keep the article, with the caveat that the article would have to be "cleaned up" and purged of original research. Coming up to four years after the original request for deletion, I see little evidence that this has been accomplished. The article is still rife with unsourced claims and speculation. MTV Generation is a term in use around the internet, but it is "not clearly definable, and has different meanings to different people," wikipedia's own description of a neologism, which it clearly says are to be avoided.

Based on my search of available internet sources, I cannot find any single authoritative definition of the term. I believe that the article currently fails WP:NEO. To quote: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles."

I have no axe to grind against this term, but I think it is high time that we included some actual sources to support its claims. I have made an honest effort to find some, that talk about the term MTV Generation, rather than simply mentioning it, but have failed to do so. If you can find some I would really appreciate if you could present some, as I would like to settle this issue soon. Otherwise, if you could simply comment on the potential for this article I would be grateful. Thank you very much.

Peregrine981 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we could shorten the names of the articles about Danish regions a bit by removing "region", e.g. from "North Denmark region" to just "North Denmark"? (Except of course for capital region). Would it be incorrect?--Underlying lk (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is all pretty tricky, since the English names chosen by two of the regions – Central Denmark Region and North Denmark Region – do not really conform with their Danish names nor with popular understanding of the geographic area. The important thing must be to distinguish between the region (a government entity) and the geographic area. That is why I have suggested going with the official English names. Cutting off Region would cause problems (for Region Zealand it would impossible since Zealand is an island). Nobody knows what "North Denmark" is (we call it North Jutland), so keeping Region is the only way of giving people a hint. However, my main reason for keeping region is that it is part of the official names and always included when people refer to these entities. --Law Lord (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just had the same Reversion problem (2 reversions) with the same editor (whom I shall not name). Do you know whether he is an Administrator? You are an Administrator, right? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am not an administrator, but I can point you in the right direction. If you have a problem with an editor, you can first try to address the problem by contacting the editor at his talk page. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of such a contact, you can ask for assistance from administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Though it helps, if you believe the editor in question has violated some policy or other. Feel free to ask me again if you have any further questions. --Law Lord (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I saw in my watchlist you reverted an IP edit as vandalism, and placed a final warning on the IPs talkpage using Twinkle. However, I believe in this case you made a mistake; the IP's edit was not vandalism, but a constructive contribution. Arguably some of the added wording may be redundant, though made in good faith. It did include a typo/fingerslip, which I think is probably what led to the vandalism interpretation.

As the notice plus editsummary you gave was a Level 4 final warning (((uw-vandalism4im))) of blocking for disruptive vandalism, given in error in this case, please would you correct the IPs talkpage accordingly? (Incidentally, the reversion tied to the previous Level 1 test-edit notice there was undone moments afterward, by the templating user, with summary "Sorry, my bad. Reverting my edit.")

Please take care when marking edits as vandalism as far as possible, particularly with semi-automated tools; mistakes, happen to all of us at the best of times of course. The recent edits from the IP, those attributable to that editor, are enthusiastic good faith contributions even if the editor still has more to familiarize themself with about referencing or finger-gremlin avoidance. Thanks, Law Lord. :) –Whitehorse1 19:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

I saw your warning at User talk:Muzemike, and wanted to call your attention to WP:Don't template the regulars. Muzemike is an established editor and an administrator. He's likely aware of Wikipedia's style guidelines. Equazcion (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)