Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:01, 3 January 2009

Hello, Spotfixer, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.

ϢereSpielChequers 22:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Human rights. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Continue at Talk:Human rights. -Zahd (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop being biased and egregiously disingenuous and come talk on the HR talk page. Go ahead and finish your late snack first. I've got lots of things to enlighten you about. -Zahd (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You also brought the edit war with Zahd over to Abortion last night and reached 3RR. Continued edit warring simply will not be tolerated. Work out your differences on the talk page. Don't edit war. Hopefully these warnings have helped explain things to you, but if you don't understand WP:3RR, I suggest you ask questions before it is too late. If the disruptive editing continues, you could be temporarily blocked from editing.-Andrew c  16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User pages

Re Zhad's userpage your interpretation of WP:USER is way off, please leave things like that to more experienced users & definitely don't change other userspages to insults/parodies as you did in yr last. If there are potential problems with other user's behaviour they should be dealt with through discussion etc. Thanx. Misarxist 10:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to repeat this message: please don't put misleading, satirical or parody links into other editors' user pages. Users have a certain leeway to express their views within thir own user space, and you should respect this, whether you agree with them or not, in the interest of supporting a collegiate editing environment. See Talk:Abortion for a demonstration that I'm not just saying this to support a friend's POV. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 03:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Human rights draft moved

The draft page for human rights Human rights/Fetal, reproductive sections has been moved to talk:human rights/temp, per (WP:SUBP#Disallowed uses). Thought I would let you know since you contributed to the page recently. Zodon (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What to put on your own userpage?

Basically, whatever serves to identify you and your purposes/goals here.

Some folks (like myself) prefer to be pretty explicit and autobiographical, using a combination of text, images and/or userboxen to clarify who we are, what our skills and interests are, what we stand for, and any strong points of view we may have which may influence our edits (consciously or otherwise), in the interests of full disclosure and NPOV.

Others prefer to use their userpages to proclaim what articles they have worked on (or are working on), what articles they've created or overhauled, etc.

Still others are cryptic or covert, or simply refuse even to create a userpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And a few treat their userpage like it was a LiveJournal, Facebook or MySpace homepage, behavior definitely frowned upon and which can in extreme cases lead to deletion as a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Done! Spotfixer (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning

If I see any more nonsense such as this at User:Zahd, I will block you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits regarding Soul page

Thanks for the welcome. I'm afraid I would have to actually disagree with your logic with regards to my edit on Soul, however. The existing text states that biologists and neuro-scientists have reached consensus about the soul. While I'm certain there are theories in place, consensus implies that the vast majority of biologists agree on the soul, which is in itself an uncited claim I might add.

Research is coming forth that suggests the dualism theory, and many prominent scientists, including those that were once opposed to the afterlife, are stating that the evidence is mounting for existence of a separate conscious (soul) after death, which in turn comes from a variety of sources ranging from paranormal psychologists to physicists, philosophers, and even biologists/neuro-scientists. To a final point, 75%-84% of the world (give or take error) believes in some form of God and Afterlife (I cite Demographics of Atheism as evidence). How can there be any consensus when over 3/4ths of the population of Earth report to the contrary.

In conclusion, while there is opposition to the belief of a soul (or conscious separate from our biological mind), there certainly is no consensus amongst scientists. Our world would be a radically different place if agreement was reached on either side, and I feel that the statement of a consensus favors an atheist view, which in itself is uncited and in violation of the NPOV article, which is what you accused my edit of being.

I'm not upset by any means, to clarify, I know this is the way wikipedia works.208.103.224.55 (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

To the talk page!

Regarding the Clinic escort page, I started a discussion regarding the shield v. insulate terminology and which would be best for the article. Also, not to be awkward but are you just going through and undoing all my edits? Whats up with that? - Schrandit (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And when there is a consensus to remove "shield", you can change it. Until then, you can't.

If you look carefully, you'll see that I'm only undoing the changes you've made that violate Misplaced Pages policies and damage the quality of articles. I will continue to do so if you continue to violate policies. Here's a hint: citation requests are intended for improving articles, not for littering them. Spotfixer (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty thin cover and I wouldn't go too far under it if I were you. - Schrandit (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not negotiable so I will not negotiate with you. If you vandalize Misplaced Pages, your actions will be corrected and you will be reported. It turns out that Misplaced Pages is not intended to convey only the Catholic POV, so you're not going to see articles in precisely the form you prefer. This is something you're simply going to have to either learn to live with, or get banned for violating. Spotfixer (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And when I vandalize wikipedia you go ahead and report me. I'm trying not to sound like a jack-ass as I write this but check Unsourced material and I am allowed to question the notability of anything. I could be wrong, dead wrong, but I can still ask the question. - Schrandit (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are, in fact, wrong. I've explained how on your talk page. Spotfixer (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. - Schrandit (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Amongst the many rules you really should become acquainted with is the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule. Please, please abide by it or start bringing these challenges to talk pages or something other than these en mass reversions. - Schrandit (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain I haven't violated this rule, but you're in danger of doing so yourself. Spotfixer (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohio Patriot Act history - As it stands, you have. - Schrandit (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are, of course, mistaken, but do feel free to report me so that an administrator can explain your mistake to you. I'm sure they won't be the least bit annoyed by your false accusation that wastes their time. Spotfixer (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Spotfixer, I have no vested interest in either side of this debate, but I feel that some of Schrandit's edits (which you reverted) were correct. He should make an effort, as per WP:etiquette to find agreement and to keep his biases in check. But that doesn't give you justification to delete his tags. For instance, his changes to Ohio Patriot Act were legit. There are weasel words, and as is, that article violates WP:NPOV and requires citations. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I never denied that some of his templates were correct: there were articles that needed further citation or used weasel words. My concern is that he has been placing these templates excessively, and solely in articles that disagree with his religious/political view. He's also deleting sentences that require citation without making any effort to find that citation. Combined with his hostile attitude, it appears that he's trying to damage these articles. Spotfixer (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your concerns. I think you (and others) would be justified to keep track of his contributions, and undo his deletions by providing the relevant citations. If his goal is to censor content he disagrees with, then by providing references, this content will be strengthened. But edit warring isn't the right way to address this disagreement. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually disagree with anything you've said, but as it stands, we have a few things that need to be dealt with:

1. Excess demands. He has peppered some articles with so many quibbles that a casual reader might think these articles were pure fiction. While most articles would benefit from more citations, he keeps demanding proof of things nobody genuinely doubts. Essentially, he's acting in bad faith; gaming the system by quickly expressing false doubts that take us much time and effort to allay.
2. Outright deletion. Anything that (probably) needs citation but nobody's gotten around to recently, he deletes. He makes no effort to obtain those citations himself, which shows his true goals quite clearly. His self-appointed job is to lay doubt and remove facts, not improve articles. And when we restore, he reverts to his deletion, insisting we need citations. See above for why this is no more than a trick. It is no coincidence that many of these articles are stubs or of minor interest, so they are not prioritized for citations.
3. Incivility. Talking to him is pointless. He just launches frivolous admin attacks or pretends to hug the Constitution. Though I've been very nice about not bringing up the fact that he's just some ignorant kid, he was quick to attack me by demanding my age. The irony is priceless, though probably lost on him. Fundamentally, he lacks the maturity and civility needed to work with his opponents instead of just butting head.
4. Sheer quantity. He makes bad changes to many articles without wasting any time gaining a consensus, discussing these issues in talk pages or otherwise working to bring in the sort of people who might be willing to take the time to track down citations.

For all of these reasons, while I've done my best to carefully revert just the deletions and the more obviously unreasonable demands, it is often the case that reverting his changes wholesale is the only way to undo the damage he causes to an article. Now, if you have a suggestion of some better course of action, I would be most interested in hearing it. Spotfixer (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

1. What are "excess demands"? Can you point to WP:Excess demands? Its perfectly legitimate for me to tag unsourced material as unsourced and remove unsourced material that has been tagged for a reasonable amount of time. This is an encyclopedia, doubt is not the measure for inclusion, verifiability is. It doesn't matter whether or not you think something is true, it should not be included until it can be linked to a reliable third party source. See WP:Verifiability

2 Material that needs citation that has not been cited for a reasonable amount of time is slated for deletion. Removing unsourced material from an article or stub is improving it. See WP:Unsourced material

3 You're the one the sparked an edit war while I tried to address concerns on talk pages. I asked you age when you left a classic 3rd grade burn on my talk page and left a 3RR warning without signing it.

4 Quantity? Really? I don't need consensus on a talk page to take down a few lines of unsourced material that has been tagged for over a year and a half.

Everything that I have done falls in line with wikipedia policy. Again, I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way but my edits are legit. - Schrandit (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained in sufficient detail just why your edits are illegitimate, so I'm going to rest my case and move on. I will be reverting your vandalism as I see fit. Spotfixer (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this

You and I clearly don't see eye-to-eye but this fight isn't getting either on of us anywhere. I want those pages cleaned up and you're worried that I'm just gaming to eliminate pages on subjects I find objectionable. How about this - you let my initial round of edits stand and I promise that even if sources are not found, I will not remove any content from those pages. - Schrandit (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You've very much mistaken if you think WP:NPOV is negotiable. For that matter, you've been routinely uncivil and have violated a number of other rules, particularly with regard to edit warring.

All of this will stop or you will wind up blocked. This is a promise, not a thread. I don't have to do anything at all; your own continued actions guarantee the predicted result.

So, in summary, no deal. I will edit as I see fit, following the rules of Misplaced Pages. If this puts me in conflict with you, then too bad for you. Spotfixer (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV isn't negotiable but I maintain that I have not, to the very best of my knowledge, violated that policy. I'm pretty sure that I have not, in fact, violated a number of other rules and while I concede I did lose my cool a few times you did too and have also been uncivil. You know that for every edit of mine you revert I can just re-post, why not look for some way to settle which version of the edits should stay and then move on? Would you be willing to go with me to, say, Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance or Misplaced Pages:Third opinion and see what they say? - Schrandit (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you do what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do. When you get banned, you'll stop. Spotfixer (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a very uncivil and antagonistic tone towards this other user. Misplaced Pages is a place where anyone can edit. That means people who disagree will run into each other. Please consider taking Schrandit's concerns sincerely, and try to find ways to compromise and work together. Misplaced Pages cannot work if two users are too hardheaded to see past their own nose. And it only makes matters worse when there is spite and bad feelings thrown in, coupled with two parties continuing reverting each other. Normally, if two people are equally reverting each other in an edit conflict, I personally, as an admin, prefer protecting the page to try to force the users to work with each other, as opposed to sending each party to time out (i.e. a block). But since this dispute involves possible stalking and many, many different articles, I have a bad feeling things won't end well for either party if the edit warring won't stop. So please consider other ways to work out your differences, and seriously consider your tone and the personally comments you make about other editors. Users who disagree should still remain civil. Thanks for your consideration, and good luck.-Andrew c  04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that, given how much Schrandit has baited me, I've remained far more civil than he deserves. But if you agree with him that I'm some "vindictive jerk", then by all means block me. How nice that he's allowed to insult me freely, but I'm the one getting threatened. Whatever. Spotfixer (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on Richard, there has to be a way to work this out that doesn't end in one of us getting blocked. - Schrandit (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My name's not Richard. You kept changing an author's first name from Richard for no apparent reason.

As for getting blocked or banned or whatever, I'm entirely willing to take my lumps if I take you down with me. Spotfixer (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, nor a place for soapboxing. That said, anyone is allowed to edit, even people who are Catholic, and NPOV says that all notable views, even ones you don't like, are supposed to be presented, with due weight, in articles. I really encourage you, Spotfixer, to stop viewing Schrandit as an editor who must be stopped at all costs, and Schrandit, perhaps it would help if you tried to actually add sources to articles, as opposed to deleting content and adding fact tags. Anyone can go around and add tags to articles, but it takes a real editor of strength to do the legwork to IMPROVE article content. For example, see what a couple minutes and a search engine did for me here. Seriously, you both need to learn to play well together. This isn't a battle, and if you two can't stop acting childish, you both may very well end up being blocked. I don't want it to come to that, and Spotfixer, your tone seems very fatalistic. So seriously, just relax, and try to get along and work out your differences. -Andrew c  15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in here to note that reasonable and methodic tagging and deleting can be a valid method of improving articles. Unsourced, non-notable, or badly written content can detract from the quality of articles. In my opinion, Misplaced Pages has more of a problem with quality of information than it does with quantity. From what I've seen, the majority of Schrandit's edits have been reasonable. -Neitherday (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tourism in Vatican City

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tourism in Vatican City. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gentgeen (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The war is over, unless he ignores the citation. Of course, he's quite likely to, as he's got a track record of doing anything to protect his precious little church's reputation. Spotfixer (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)