| Revision as of 14:57, 6 June 2013 edit2001:db8 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,935 edits Undid revision 558590907 by DPL bot (talk) - bad bot, I did mean to point at the dab page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:01, 7 January 2024 edit undoSDZeroBot (talk | contribs)Bots705,325 edits Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion at AfD | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | ||
| All discussions prior to |
All discussions prior to July 2013 ]. | ||
| ==Edit blanking== | |||
| Hey, sorry about blanking out your comment- I'm a little new to making edits, I've made a few in the past but clearly I'm still learning. :-/ ] (]) 04:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't worry about it. :) I ] as noted in my edit summary. We were all new at editing at one point; like I said on that article's talk page, be bold! Edit things, and don't worry too much about messing up; someone else can always correct any mistakes, and my view is that it's better to fix things that you think are broken than to hesitate and let errors stand. Let me know if you have any other questions...I'm not a particularly "experienced" editor myself, but I've certainly run into similar pitfalls with screwy accidental edits and the like! – ] (] | ]) 04:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion on ] == | |||
| ==Completing the Move== | |||
| I am contacting you to let you know that there is currently a discussion going on that you might be interested in on ]. I noticed that you were one of the top contributors to the article, so I figured I would let you know. Please don't feel like this invitation means that you have to participate, but feel free to do so if you desire. ] (]) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| How do we get the Kidnapping page moved exactly? ] (]) 16:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :This discussion was recently closed by me, but has since reopened. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. ]] 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It has to be moved by an admin. Hopefully, some admin will determine we have consensus sooner rather than later...but we may need to wait the full 7 days (until the 15th) for the proposal to run its course before a consensus decision is made. (And even then, it might be the case that the reviewer thinks there's no consensus, and we get stuck with the horrible title even longer. But hopefully not.) – ] (] | ]) 17:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ugg, maybe we can get an Admin to look at it.Have you seen this? <ref>http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/10/ariel-castro-cleveland-abduction-cold-blood-kidnap/2149831/</ref> {{unsigned|Legacypac}} | |||
| :::I imagine there are plenty of admins watching the page; there's really no way to get it brought up for a speedy review. Chances are, folks have decided it's too contentious to close quickly and to let it run the full 7 days. (Also, as others have asked, please try to format your comments properly...when you reply, you should generally use an extra ":" to indent one block further than the comment you're replying to, and remember to use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to sign things. Read ] if you haven't. Preview before you submit and you can see if it looks right.) – ] (] | ]) 17:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles == | |||
| ==Re-listed thread== | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I re-listed a thread where you had commented and I did hope to hear ]. Thanks. ] (]) 04:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for looking for input on this rather than just removing it. :) – ] (] | ]) 04:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I have started a discussion that may interest you at ]. ] (]) 08:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ], to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ]. | |||
| The discussion will take place at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. | |||
| I know we've had our disagreements on the Boston Marathon bombings article, but your recent edits regarding this guideline are borderline trolling. and are beyond the pale... don't undo those again. Your interpretation of that guideline is untenable. Don't undo obvious convention on any articles before this has wider discussion. ] (]) 07:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't realize how widespread your disruption on this issue was. ] (]) 07:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tps}} After noticing this thread, I can't help but echo Shadowjams admonishment here. Sometimes it's hard for me to be as direct, but the sesquipedalian pandering and the candid perfunctory prose arrive at exactly the same conclusion. You are basing your efforts in good faith on an absolutely "untenable" interpretation and you have to open yourself to hearing the explanation of where your misunderstanding lies. If you don't even believe there is any possibility that you've misunderstood a thing, there is no reason for me to even try to explain. I tested your amenability to such a possibility when I last stated to you. "I do think you are missing some nuance the guidelines". Unless you asked me to explain that statement, there would not be a reason to try. I still think you are missing the same nuance, and it is causing you to egregiously err. --] (]) 08:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}How is applying guidelines with clear explanation ''and'' being willing to discuss them in a reasonable manner trolling? Attempting to comply to the MOS with policy-based arguments is not "trolling." In the case of the Boston Marathon bombings article, Shadowjams never explained why the two examples were not identical (frankly, I wondered if using almost the exact wording from a negative example in the MOS was itself trolling, but I will continue to assume good faith.) My76Strat never expanded on the ''specific issues'' I had raised with the previously proposed alternative, which I took the time to clearly address point-by-point. But let's ignore that particular article for now; interpretation there was decided some time ago, and not just by me, and we've all spent an excessive amount of time discussing that one so far. | |||
| To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 01:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template --> | |||
| Furthermore, I'm applying this guideline as it's been applied by consensus on many other high-traffic articles with similar structures. (For what it's worth, I didn't originate that hidden comment; I picked it up from other editors who had been applying the same policy on previous articles that I was editing, after I was reverted myself for incorrectly bolding a title and pointed at the policy.) | |||
| I find it more disruptive that you would go and apply your ''own'' interpretation across whatever instances of a policy disagreement you can find in an editor's recent history, reverting edits without an edit summary when you are clearly involved in the policy dispute yourself. When there's clear contention between editors on the interpretation of a specific guideline, the solution is ''not'' to go and apply your own interpretation, but to discuss it with that editor first and seek further input if needed. | |||
| I'll agree that a couple of those may have been borderline calls, such as . (Note that ] addresses this case of a list specifically, though.) But on an example such as , I find your need to revert every instance you could find indefensible. Can you please explain your specific objection to the latter case, which appears to be a rather ludicrous revert to me? I can't see any reason other than that you decided to look for anything with BOLDTITLE in my edit history and revert it. | |||
| My76Strat's suggestion that I don't believe in the possibility that I've misunderstood the guideline is based on discussion from a ''single article'', which I argued in particular since there was agreement over the policy earlier in the article's life. I firmly stand by my interpretation of the guideline ''in that instance'', but I am quite open to discussing the guideline as it applies to other articles, such as and . Perhaps those were overapplication of the policy as well, though I tend to think they were not as they removed redundancies. (Per ].) As for the Moore and Joplin articles, I gave my precise policy-based reasoning on the talk page; as you can see, I further edited the Joplin page to try to improve it after the other editor stated it was less readable. Your contribution there was basically to say ] and revert without constructive input. | |||
| My proposed remedy for this is that we discuss all of these examples on an MOS talk page, and look for community input there as to proper application of the MOS in these instances, which should hopefully help clarify the general application of the policy for all involved. Would the two of you agree to that? I think it would be more constructive than just going and reverting things you don't like from another editor's contributions with no warning or discussion. – ] (] | ]) 12:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that this should go to a full RFC. If I caused you grief in any way from the comments I made, I apologize and did not intend for anything like that to transpire. I am very preoccupied this exact moment, it seems my email has been hacked and my password may have been jeopardized so I need to address this matter further, as a priority. Cheers.--] (]) 14:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't worry about it; I didn't take any real offense at your comments, and I can understand the need for somewhat stronger wording after our previous discussions deadlocked. I'll open up a discussion on the MOS talk page when I get a chance; I think that's a more appropriate venue for this than a general RFC, being MOS-specific, though let me know if you disagree. – ] (] | ]) 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <s>I have opened a discussion at ]. Please provide your views there so we can hopefully get useful input and clarification. Thanks.</s> – ] (] | ]) 16:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :After reading further, that doesn't seem like the right place to post it. I've summarized the relevant content at ] and posted it to the DRN at ]. If you feel a regular RFC is preferable, I would be happy to withdraw the dispute and do that, since I'm not fully sure what the best venue for this is. – ] (] | ]) 18:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}I believe your current assertion of "correctness" regarding the interpretation of the policy is at odds with various input from ]. I do not intend to edit any of the specific disputed article ledes for now (I added a wikilink at ] following another edit, but that's about it; and I hope you'd also refrain from re-ledeing ] without consensus to change it), but I feel that the two of you are asserting ] over the interpretation of policy here. Thus, I no longer intend to refrain from editing ''other'' articles that I may randomly come upon. Frankly, I've been pretty patient here in heeding your "warning", since it only relates to our personal interpretations of the MOS. You're welcome to drag this to AN/I or whatever if you find any further occasional edits in my history that do not comply to your interpretation of the guidelines, but I do not feel it reasonable to defer to your interpretation after a good-faith period of dispute resolution and now-ongoing ] discussion where I voluntarily refrained from making further such edits (and am still doing so where I was reverted against good faith.) But again, you cannot ] interpretation of this policy when there has been past consensus and now other contention over your interpretation. – ] (] | ]) 05:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your request for rollback== | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi 2001:db8. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have <span class="plainlinks"></span> rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: | |||
| *Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing ]. | |||
| *Rollback should be used to revert ''clear'' cases of ] ''only'', and not ]. | |||
| *Rollback should never be used to ]. | |||
| *If abused, rollback rights can be revoked. | |||
| *Use common sense. | |||
| If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see ] (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my ] if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ] (]) 21:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)<!-- Template:Rollbackgiven3--> | |||
| ] (]) 21:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks! – ] (] | ]) 22:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Star Trek== | |||
| I'm not entirely sure how these talk pages work. I'll do my best. Reading the Christopher Pike page, it contained a spoiler for Star Trek: Into Darkness. I changed it to the false name that Khan uses during the movie for the first half so that it was possible to get the information, yet wouldn't spoil it for the casual glancer. I am changing it back, and while I appreciate your kindness in your response, continuing to make the change will only serve to inconvenience both of us. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Thanks for the clarification. As for spoilers, please read ], which explains that we do not include spoiler warnings or otherwise restrict them. Basically, we assume anyone reading such an article will realize it may contain spoilers. ("It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.") – ] (] | ]) 00:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Understood, however I am neither encouraging nor restricting the spoiler. The change is correct for all intents and purposes-perhaps even more so, as we believe his name to be John Harrison when he kills Christopher Pike. John Harrison links to Khan's page, and it reflects the belief of the viewer and the characters at the time of the action <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, and good luck editing. – ] (] | ]) 00:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| No problem. Thank you, and to you too <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Reviewer == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. Your account has been granted the "<tt>reviewer<tt>" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at ]. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at ]. | |||
| Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. | |||
| ''See also:'' | |||
| *], the guideline on reviewing | |||
| *], the summary of the use of pending changes | |||
| *], the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.<!-- Template:Reviewer granted --> ] 17:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Great, thank you! – ] (] | ]) 17:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==1788 Election edit== | |||
| I agree with your edit putting Jay and Adams back in the "Presidential Candidates" section (I'm actually the person who added them there a few months back). My concern was that having them both in the Presidential and Vice-Presidential sections was confusing, and that as Washington was elected unanimously, it would be safe to categorize them as simply Vice Presidential candidates (this is the position McCullough's "John Adams" and Mecham's "Thomas Jefferson: the Art of Power" take). Since the method of electing the President did not make distinguish between Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, I realize this is an ambiguous issue. Do you have a suggestion? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :You know more on the issue than me, having been the one to add them and being familiar with the references. A reasonable thing to do would be to look at how the articles for following elections are structured, until the electoral college reform was made to distinguish between the offices (maybe you've already done this.) Though, that doesn't necessarily mean the other articles are correct. Did any candidates at the time declare or specifically campaign for the separate offices at all, even though that wasn't how the electoral system worked? If they didn't, then maybe it would make sense to combine these into a single "Candidates" section, noting Washington was considered the "primary" candidate for the various reasons, etc. (Though if the references categorize them separately, then we should too; basically, reflect what the references say as well as you can and explain any inconsistencies.) | |||
| :I don't think having candidates in multiple sections is an issue though, as long as it's clearly explained why they're there. (Couldn't we still do that today, say, if a candidate ran on one party line as president and another as vice president? That might vary from state to state, and of course would never reach the electoral college since they'd realistically have to be tiny third parties.) | |||
| :You might also want to consider creating an account, especially if you're going to be editing the same topic over time! – ] (] | ]) 18:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks! The article on the 1800 election (the last and most complete election article on the pre-12th Amendment electoral college) has the candidates listed in a general "candidates" section similar to what you suggested. I will review the sources to make sure this is the most applicable option for 1788-89 in particular and act from there. | |||
| Thanks for your help and advice!] (]) 18:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mohamed Morsi== | |||
| The reason I removed the large amount of text from his profile page was that the information in the text (while true) it does not require to be at the beginning of the page. Meaning, it is not required as information to define who the person really is. It could be added at the November 2012 declaration section and not before. It also gives out names of political figures and movements that are much of a topic of debate as to their legitimacy. | |||
| It also neglects the other point of view of political figures who were actually for the declaration. This means that the text is biased. It should not be at a defining spot of who the person in question is. | |||
| <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :If you believe it should not be at the top, then it should be moved elsewhere on the page...not removed. (But you should try to summarize the information back into the lead, in condensed form.) I agree it does seem excessively detailed for the lead section. As far as disputing the legitimacy of those figures and movements, you should discuss it on ]. If material from other relevant points of view is left out, you should certainly add it in (properly referenced, etc), and bring up any concerns about bias on the article's talk page as well. ] is one of our key policies and covers such issues. Keep in mind that this is a fairly high-profile article, so you should be aware that any major changes may be contentious. – ] (] | ]) 19:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Censorship== | |||
| The edit was accurate and based on US history and culture, not a magazine article by someone who is neither a US citizen nor historian. This flippant censorship is the reason I explain to all my students that Misplaced Pages is not a legitimate source for papers or knowledge, except to point to legitimate sources. | |||
| I know this will be deleted as son as it comes across, but there is no readily apparent means of communication, other than posting. I will never use my knowledge or experience to correct another Misplaced Pages entry. I will, however, continue to inform all my classes of the inaccuracies and illogical censorship. | |||
| As for generic edit blackouts by IPs, ISPs use dynamic IP assignment, so that may serve to censor the wrong person altogether. Of course, that is the Modus Operandi of Misplaced Pages, it seems. | |||
| Delete away! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Replacement of sourced information with unsourced, speculative content is not helpful. If it is accurate, then you need to provide sources, and should provide an edit summary as well. If you do indeed teach classes, surely you should understand the need for citing references, and attributing contentious statements rather than presenting them as facts. There is no "generic edit blackout". – ] (] | ]) 00:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == 1876 edit? == | |||
| I haven't made any edits to the 1876 election article. You must have me confused with someone else. ] (]) 01:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Two edits were made from your IP address to ], which blanked material for no apparent reason, shown here: . You can see the full history for your IP at ]. If you are on a shared or dynamic IP address, you should consider creating an account to avoid such notices. – ] (] | ]) 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Use of rollback == | |||
| Be careful when reverting edits with rollback—the tool should only be used for vandalism, not good faith edits, like this one . In cases where a good faith edit needs to be reverted, revert manually (or use the undo function) so that you can provide an edit summary explaining why the revert is necessary (I may be wrong, but this looks like a good edit to me, other than perhaps not having a source). Thank you! —]] <span style="font-size:75%">]]</span> 04:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for the warning. I'm just starting to use rollback, and that was indeed a good-faith edit that should have been properly marked as such in the edit history. I'll be more careful in the future. (I guess one out of a couple hundred marked incorrectly isn't horrid, but the goal should obviously be zero!) – ] (] | ]) 04:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank You == | |||
| Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. =) - ] (]) 05:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Barnstar == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #ffffff;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:|alt|]| ]}} | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Cleanup Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | message Helping with a vandal who messed with the ] article and elsewhere.] (]) 13:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Mick Molloy == | |||
| Dear 2001:db8 why do you keep undoing my changes to pages e.g Mick Molloy. All i am doing is correcting and adding new info to these pages i know the people and they would like real info about them on here. Please stop removing my edits the internet is for truth not for one minded people like your self pushing there agenda. Thank you and have a nice day <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Your edits removed large amounts of information that was well-sourced, replacing it with information that was vague and/or did not make any sense. – ] (] | ]) 05:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The edits came from the people the pages were about. the old info was wrong. Stop changing the pages to false or libelous information please. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :If you believe there is libelous information, you need to read ] and contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. – ] (] | ]) 05:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| That is not what Misplaced Pages is about. Why do you keep changing pages you know nothing about? All the changes i made where true you can search any other site on the internet and find the same info. All i was doing was fixing wrong info. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Talkback == | |||
| {{tb|Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#Jairo_Maro}} | |||
| :I wouldn't normally leave a talkback, but the story is oldish so I wasn't sure if you'd notice my reply with new evidence. --] (]) 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:01, 7 January 2024
All discussions prior to July 2013 have been archived.
Discussion on Talk:Hurricane Sandy
I am contacting you to let you know that there is currently a discussion going on that you might be interested in on Talk:Hurricane Sandy. I noticed that you were one of the top contributors to the article, so I figured I would let you know. Please don't feel like this invitation means that you have to participate, but feel free to do so if you desire. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion was recently closed by me, but has since reopened. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. I, JethroBT 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles
I have started a discussion that may interest you at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)