| Revision as of 23:18, 11 April 2023 editBill Williams (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,455 edits →Telling an editor who reverted you with a clear reason in the edit summary that they reverted without justification looks like a personal attacck← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:46, 29 November 2024 edit undoBill Williams (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,455 edits Archiving previous discussionsTag: Replaced |
| (35 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Ds/aware|blp|ap|ab|cc|covid|gc|a-i|gg}} |
|
{{Ds/aware|blp|ap|ab|cc|covid|gc|a-i|gg}} |
|
{{Archives}} |
|
{{Archives}} |
|
|
|
|
== Call for presentations for WCNA 2022 and Mapping USA == |
|
|
|
|
|
{|style="border-radius: 8px; padding:5px; width:90%; font-size:100%; border: 2px solid #321414;" align="center" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|<big><div class="center">'''''Call for presentations for ] and ]'''''</div></big> |
|
|
This is a call for presentations by ], Sunday, October 15, for ] (Nov 11-13), held jointly with ]. We encourage you to please submit your Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia proposals at ] or OpenStreetMap US proposals at . |
|
|
We are sending this ] to you because we deduced that you may be in North America and interested in maps in Wikimedia or Misplaced Pages, , or . We are looking for lightning talks in particular on Friday, Nov 11. Some suggestions: |
|
|
*Cultural similarities and differences, for instance OpenStreetMap and Wikivoyage (map and describe what you know) versus Misplaced Pages (verify with citations) |
|
|
*Type of licensing for each project and how they differ: OpenStreetMap, Commons, Wikidata, and Misplaced Pages |
|
|
*The flow of information from one project into another, and how maps are generated |
|
|
*How OpenHistoricalMap works and possible interactions with Wikimedia projects |
|
|
*Your ideas! |
|
|
] (]) 23:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Peaceray@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Peaceray/sandbox/users_interested_in_maps&oldid=1113529854 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== September drive bling == |
|
|
|
|
|
<!--The box below was generated by ]--> |
|
|
{| style="border: 2px solid gray; background-color: #FFFFF0; vertical-align: middle;" |
|
|
|rowspan="2" | ] |
|
|
|rowspan="2" | |
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |'''The Minor Barnstar''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This barnstar is awarded to '''Bill Williams''' for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the ]. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! ]] 19:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== antifa == |
|
|
<nowiki>I was interested on your comments on antifa. Of course most of their activities are non-violent. The same is true about any violent organization. Even violent people sleep one third of their lives and spend a lot of time awake eating, exercising or engaging in other non-violent activities. ~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 03:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I still think it's highly misleading to claim that "most of their actions" are nonviolent. Their most significant rallies mostly turn into violence, and that is what matters most for the purpose of the article, because some rally of 10 people being completely peaceful is not something substantial relating to Antifa, while dozens of counter-protesters engaging in a brawl is clearly more relevant. It's about as relevant as saying "Most of Ted Bundy's actions were nonviolent," but that's absurd because his most relevant actions to his article are the violence he enacted. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Registration is open for WCNA 2022 and Mapping USA == |
|
|
|
|
|
{|style="border-radius: 8px; padding:5px; width:98%; font-size:100%; border: 2px solid #321414;" align="center" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|style="padding-left: 3em; padding-right: 3em;" |] |
|
|
|] will be virtual, November 11-13. We will hold it jointly with . Our theme this year is open knowledge allies. |
|
|
|
|
|
<big>'''Registration is now open !'''</big> Please register by the 10th so that we can set everyone up online on our platform. Like last year, we are planning on using Hopin. |
|
|
|
|
|
Our schedule is will be finalized and available in the next few days. We have an exciting line-up of sessions related to Wikimedia, OpenStreetMap, and the intersection of the two. Stay tuned! |
|
|
|
|
|
Local meet-ups will occur in Indianapolis and New York City - if you are available and interested in attending either of these, you can find more details ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to connect with other participants or have questions, please join our Telegram channel . |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Peaceray@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Peaceray/sandbox/users_interested_in_maps&oldid=1119181612 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit warring at ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
Points to note: |
|
|
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;''' |
|
|
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' |
|
|
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> |
|
|
]] 02:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is no edit war, I instituted an edit, you reverted me, and I reinstituted my edit because it is the precisely what the sources state and the most accurate representation. You can revert me again and discuss it on the talk page. If you have a disagreement with the four separate sources, then please explain it. ] 02:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Something may be difficult to prove, but the point is she claimed she was correct and had no evidence, so she had no evidence. Did she have evidence? ] 02:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::You've gotten your warning. Your edit warring has been noted by other editors. If you make any further disruptive edits to the article and if you fail to use the talk page, you will very likely be banned.]] 03:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There was no edit warring, the other editor and yourself are the ones who deleted the current content and replaced it with something contentious. There is no two revert rule on the article, and I suggest you consult the sources before implementing controversial wording that myself and three others objected to. ] 12:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::According to your own logic, you edit warred on the IRA, considering I implemented one edit and then reverted one edit on Stacey Abrams, while you also changed the content of IRA in a way people disagreed with, then reimplemented your edit regardless. ] 12:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit warring at ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
You need to stop repeating your edits after they've been challenged by reversion. On many articles, your content additions, wording, and framing are not NPOV. If you continue this, you may be banned from American Politics.]] 03:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:You have never stated how a single one of my edits is NPOV. If you revert me and I reinstate my edit in a manner which I believe is better than the previous edit, that doesn't break a single rule. Please refer to any time I've violated 3RR or 1RR in a dispute with you. You claimed "generally agree" was weasel words so instead I added "most experts state" which is what five separate sources are claiming. You did not provide any reliable sources to oppose what I added. ] 03:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I also find it ironic how you reinstated your edit on the exact same page immediately after being reverted. ] 03:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Content that misrepresents the source will be removed. Edit-warring will get you banned. Your opinions will not change either of those.]] 03:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Instead of threatening me for things that you did on the very same article, read through the five separate sources which I provided, all of which clearly describe how you are wrong. ] 13:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Don't make undocumented ] like that. You are just making things worse for yourself. Warnings are not threats. They are site practice to give editors a chance to improve their behavior so that they (you) can avoid getting blocked.]] 14:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yeah you're right that's my bad, I misinterpreted you as claiming you were going to get me blocked. Still, I don't need your warnings, because you did the exact same thing as me, and yet you're on my talk page complaining about reverts. ] 19:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Is this a joke? No, I did not act like you and yes, you may be reported to enforcement any time you act that way -- reported by anyone who sees your behavior.]] 19:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I already said I understand your point, but you did the exact same thing. You made a revert, someone else reverted you, and then you reverted them in response. That is the only thing you have accused me of doing wrong, so please stop repeating that on my talk page and leave me alone. ] 19:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::But to clarify, I will refrain from reinstating my edits in the exact same form if someone reverts them, until I have gained consensus on the talk page. That was a mistake on my part. ] 19:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You state: {{tq|I will refrain from reinstating my edits in the exact same form if someone reverts them ...}} That is not enough. Please note that the policy at ] states: {{tq|An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.}} Best to not edit the page at all until the dispute is resolved. - ] 19:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I did not know that, and I apologize for misinterpreting the rules. I will not edit the page and will stick to discussing the issue on the talk page. ] 19:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::My rule of thumb, which I will admit it took me many years to reach, is, if I think an edit reduces the quality of the article enough, I will revert. If someone reverts my edit, and I feel the issue is important enough, I will start a talk page discussion. Unless the edit is clearcut vandalism, a copyright violation, a blp violation, or something else that, by policy, cannot be allowed to stay in the article, I will not revert after the first time. If the edit really does not belong, hopefully another editor will come along and deal with it. ] 20:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Yeah I think that's a reasonable point of view, I'll keep that in mind. ] 21:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> |
|
|
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div> |
|
|
<div class="ivmbox-text"> |
|
|
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
</div> |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/07&oldid=1124425181 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== ANI notice == |
|
|
|
|
|
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 11:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{u|Dronebogus}} It is insane that you would not even interact with me a single time on any article talk page nor my own talk page before going straight to ask administrators to block me for something that you never even complained to me about. I would like you to tell me specifically what issue you have with me and why it urgently necessitates an administrator. ] 21:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Telling an editor who reverted you with a clear reason in the edit summary that they reverted without justification looks like a personal attacck == |
|
|
|
|
|
As you did at ] ] ] 16:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:It isn't a personal attack, I simply stated that the editor didn't provide any evidence of the claim in the lead, because the editor didn't provide any evidence of the specific claims that the Oath Keepers leadership support Sovereign Citizens, Posse Comitatus, or that they chiefly believe that sheriffs are the highest authorities in the land. I reviewed through the sources and they never specifically state this in relation to the Oath Keepers anywhere, and that's all I said to the editor. ] 16:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::By the way, it's been over a week and still nobody provided a single quote from any of the "sources" that backs up any of the content I removed, which is because that content isn't even related to the sources. ] 22:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The material that was replaced I presume you mean. It doesn't say that the leadership support anything. Why should anyone find sources about the leadership? ] ] 13:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The lead is false, the "leadership" wording wasn't the only issue. It states that "the group... espouses a number of conspiracy and legal theories associated with the sovereign citizen and Posse Comitatus movements, chiefly, that sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities in the United States." The sources state that literally one person in the Oath Keepers espouses these beliefs, how in the world does that make it DUE for the lead? This information isn't even in the body of the article because it's so minor. ] 23:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|
