Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 28 September 2013

September 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Wikia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. If it hadn't been for the misleading edit summary you provided I could have seen it as a "good faith edit", but the edit summary made me doubt your intentions... Thomas.W 13:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

No content was removed and I gave a valid reason for what I did in the edit summary. Don't leave snotty templates unless you are sure you have a valid reason for being snotty. 200.73.232.97 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, content was removed. You deleted a seemingly valid reference without explaining why. Meaning that I, unlike you, do have a reason for being snotty (as you put it). Thomas.W 17:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You accused me straight off of bad faith, simply because you didn't bother to read or understand the edit. You accused me of leaving a misleading edit summary, which was a lie. Your intention is plainly not to be productive; if it was, you'd have simply asked me about any doubts you had, rather than leaving a snotty template, so kindly fuck off and don't post here again. 200.73.232.97 (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Two questions

Hi. I see you moved the information in the "nb" note, "The acquisition of uncyclopedia.org from Jonathan Huang in July 2006 and gamewikis.org from Phil Nelson in October 2007", into the body of the article, with the edit summary "don't put relevant and important text outside the body of the article." That seems fine so far. But the problem is that in doing so, you also removed this reference, without mentioning it in the edit summary. It troubles me a little that you refused to explain the removal of the reference when Thomas.W asked, and instead reverted him with increasingly aggressive edit summaries, and aggressive comments above. Why did you remove the reference, please? Or did you not notice that you'd done so?

May I also ask if the IP 201.215.187.159 is yours? The geolocation and the slow-motion edit war between User:Armbrust and several IPs on 1985 World Snooker Championship suggests that it is. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

The sentence in which the reference was placed is about the possible conflict between the license under which Uncyclopaedia content was available at the time of its acquisition, and the commercial aims of the body that acquired it. The reference did not, as far as I could see, have anything to do with that, being merely a statement that Wikia had acquired Uncyclopaedia, a fact already mentioned and referenced elsewhere in the article. The reference already in place at the end of the sentence, on the other hand, was fully relevant. The user who reverted my edit did so with a misleading edit summary, indicating that he had reverted only the removal of the reference, when he had reverted the entire edit. He accused me of leaving a misleading edit summary, when at worst it could have been considered incomplete. He explicitly said he considered my edit to be in bad faith. I judged that his intent was to assert his authority and not to understand the nature of the edit or work productively on agreeing a sensible resolution to whatever disagreement there might have been over this rather trivial matter. So I responded as I did. Thank you for enquiring and I hope you feel that my answer was a reasonable response.

As to the second question: yes. 200.73.232.97 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the explanation. Though considering that your edit summary certainly was incomplete, I don't see the need to jump down Thomas' throat. Anyway. Thank you for being frank about the other IP, but aren't you aware that a block applies to the person, not a particular IP or account? You were blocked for three months on August 13. That takes us to November 13. I have now blocked this IP until the same date. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

I think it would have been obvious to anyone who actually looked at it that my edit was in good faith, so when someone reverts with a dishonest edit summary, leaves a dishonest message for me, and explicitly says they think I'm acting in bad faith, on the basis of that one edit, do you really think they should be surprised if I take offence?

I have edited Misplaced Pages from many, many IP addresses, for many years. Have you ever tried not having a username? You'll find that you have a very hard time editing for more than a few weeks before someone accuses you of vandalism when you correct a spelling mistake, or accuses you of not leaving an edit summary when you did, or accuses you of removing sourced information when you are removing an explicit endorsement in the voice of the encyclopaedia of a biased point of view, or any number of other offensive and wrong accusations. In this case it only took 2 days. I really don't care if an IP address I am editing from gets blocked; my IP changes often. 200.73.232.97 (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)