Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:17, 11 February 2013

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Info Box for Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

I added an info box for the suggestion of the editor that did the copy edit. I wasn't really sure what fit. However, I added the info box from United States elections, 2012. My thoughts were the article is a supporting that article. Also, I thought was is useful to know the results of the election in the article. Do you have any thoughts? A navbox or an infobox would add to the article, I think.Casprings (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many different kinds of boxes. Some - let's choose at random the antisemitism navbox in Protocols of the Elders of Zion - help a reader find related articles, while others - let's choose the one in my own Battle of Cádiz (1669) - provide a summing-up of key facts about the article itself. But the one you added is a summing-up of key facts about a different article. If there were a navbox for all the articles about the 2012 election, that's the sort of thing that could be added, but the election article infobox doesn't add anything that wouldn't be better added as text, and does add a lot of unhelpful stuff. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your defense of POV wording that you yourself added, removal of citations, personal attacks, and apparent ignoring of request for DR

Hey there. This is about your edits to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. These include (from my perspective, of course) the carefree reverting of added citations, favoring (frequent) hostile reverting in place of discussion, use of edit summaries for personal attacks and vocal assumptions of bad faith ("not that this will get Openverse to stop trolling", rv&"the citation tag was absolutely frivolous, don't troll", "rv frivolous tagging"). There is also your increasingly hostile and personal tone on the talk page (the latest being the rather disparaging "I recommend finding something else to edit - for instance, there are many stub articles on species which could use expansion or formatting"). I suspect you don't want to hear this from me, but your behaviour has been disproportionately hostile, and surprising for an editor who has been around as long as you have.

This issue seems to have come up after I changed POV wording that you added to the lead. I have been polite, refrained from personal attacks, and have made only modest and incremental edits (including the addition of a single cn/failedver tag that you found "frivolous"). I have tried a number of wordings in an attempt to reach consensus, have explained my concerns on the talk page, and have requested that we begin dispute resolution through a third opinion (though you responded quite readily at all other times, you ignored this, and instead reverted my cited edits to a yet-different part of the article). I want to resolve this dispute. Please take a moment to respond on the talk page of the article regarding how you want to proceed. Openverse (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• A request: please avoid referring to edits as "trolling" and "unconstructive" in the edit summaries, especially when you are commenting on edits: 1) in controversial articles, 2) by editors you are in a dispute with, and 3) by editors who are new. I'm hardened enough, but you are almost certain to upset people. Some editors have a strategy of subtly aggravating "opponents", leading to even more heated responses. Inexperienced administrators, who don't have the time or patience to look through what led up to a conflict, then often react harshly to the heated response. You're a mature enough editor that this isn't BEANS to you. This is a strategy that I hope you take pains to avoid, since it tends to make wikipedia an unpleasant place. Openverse (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your concern. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The (sincere) concern is for other editors. For you this is just a visible warning to be nice. Openverse (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Mkdw 04:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Council on American–Islamic Relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Emerson (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) 11:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

AIV report

Recently you made a report on 216.81.94.73 at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. You referred to the editor as an "antisemitic vandalism-only account". At first, I was completely puzzled, as I could see nothing at all looking remotely like antisemitism, and nothing that could be called "vandalism" within recent weeks. I could well have just declined the report an moved on, but I looked further, and I am virtually certain that you made a mistake, and meant to report 2.126.221.170, not 216.81.94.73. I have blocked 2.126.221.170 for three months. Assuming I am right in thinking you made that mistake, it was lucky that I looked further, rather than just declining the AIV report and moving on. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right. I shouldn't edit late at night if it means I accidentally report the users reverting policy-violators instead of the violators themselves! Thanks for your diligence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's an easy sort of mistake to make. I have done similar things myself. I thought I would let you know, though, so you can watch out for similar mistakes in future. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Traditional marriage

Your recent editing history at Traditional marriage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.