| Revision as of 17:37, 27 October 2013 edit76.112.8.146 (talk) →October 2013: inapropriate warning response← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:03, 27 October 2013 edit undoAussieLegend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers173,395 edits →October 2013: clarifyNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | ||
| ::Again, aussie, you are reverting my edit and the edit of others as having been discussed on the talk page, then you warn me about it like you're not the one doing it. That's inaprorpriate. | ::Again, aussie, you are reverting my edit and the edit of others as having been discussed on the talk page, then you warn me about it like you're not the one doing it. That's inaprorpriate. | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. 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.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
| # '''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; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' | |||
| # There has never been any consensus to remove the category from {{cl|Organizations accused of eco-terrorism}} and your persistent removal constitutes edit-warring. Current discussions are simply about removing ] from {{cl|Eco-terrorism}}.<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 19:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:03, 27 October 2013
June 2013
Hello, I'm Tentinator. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Duela Dent because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Tentinator 15:14, 22 June 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.
August 2013
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Mosaica Education has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Mosaica Education was changed by 76.112.8.146 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.86448 on 2013-08-10T04:41:40+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Categorisation
As Qwyrxian has told you, "Either eco-terrorism or an appropriate sub-cat should stay". This advice is supported by WP:SUBCAT which says, "a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category". Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a subcategory of Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism which is a subcategory of Category:Eco-terrorism, so there is no need, nor is it appropriate to place Sea Shepherd Conservation Society directly into Category:Eco-terrorism. This has been discussed several times on the article's talk page over the years. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- In discussion Qwyrxian asked for editors to self-revert to reinstate the original category. Using subcategoeies to hide categories doesn't help understanding, it's just a way of keeping categorical info of the main page. It brings LESS viewership to useful information. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian specifically said to you, "Either eco-terrorism or an appropriate sub-cat should stay". The article is in a subcategory which is entirely appropriate and the rationale for the subcat is explained on the SSCS talkpage. Subcats don't hide anything, they're a way of putting articles into specific categories and a category titled "Organizations accused of eco-terrorism" is entirely appropriate, unless you're arguing that SSCS hasn't been accused of that, in which case it shouldn't be in Category:Eco-terrorism. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding but I don't think I need you to speak for that editor. From what I read and from what he stated to the other editors in the talk page, he agrees SSCS needs a cat on that page, which there now is. You are missing the fact that the subcat was not on the SSCS page. The subcat was under the SSCS category, removing it from the page entirely. Go take a look at my last edits. I didn't remove the subcat from the SSCS main article. I added a category referencing ET where there was none. (And yes I get that there was a subcat of a subcat of a subcat that one might have been able to find, but ET is not an appropriate sub cat of SSCS as SSCS is not the appropriate parent for all things ET.) And stop giving me a warning every time you disagree with my edits. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- "You are missing the fact that the subcat was not on the SSCS page. The subcat was under the SSCS category" - Yo don't seem to understand categorisation. Category:Eco-terrorism is the parent cat, Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism is a specific subcat of that and Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a subcat of that. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is the main article and a member of Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society so it does not need to be in the parent cat. By being in a subcat it's already a member of the parent cat. You've posted to Category talk:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society so you should have seen the comment by C.Fred in which he says "the rule of thumb is that no article should be in a sub and parent category". --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding but I don't think I need you to speak for that editor. From what I read and from what he stated to the other editors in the talk page, he agrees SSCS needs a cat on that page, which there now is. You are missing the fact that the subcat was not on the SSCS page. The subcat was under the SSCS category, removing it from the page entirely. Go take a look at my last edits. I didn't remove the subcat from the SSCS main article. I added a category referencing ET where there was none. (And yes I get that there was a subcat of a subcat of a subcat that one might have been able to find, but ET is not an appropriate sub cat of SSCS as SSCS is not the appropriate parent for all things ET.) And stop giving me a warning every time you disagree with my edits. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian specifically said to you, "Either eco-terrorism or an appropriate sub-cat should stay". The article is in a subcategory which is entirely appropriate and the rationale for the subcat is explained on the SSCS talkpage. Subcats don't hide anything, they're a way of putting articles into specific categories and a category titled "Organizations accused of eco-terrorism" is entirely appropriate, unless you're arguing that SSCS hasn't been accused of that, in which case it shouldn't be in Category:Eco-terrorism. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Single issue subcats shouldn't even be a question here. They serve no beneficial purpose. And please stop going around calling me disruptive. Assume good faith I'm trying to help the article look more scholarly and less like a promo piece. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Admin help?
If there is an admin out there I need to request help but I'm not sure how. A certain editor provides rude warnings every time he disagrees with my edits. I am following wiki policy as I understand and he seems to be throwing warnings at me to maintain a positive POV spin on a certain article. I've asked him politely to stop & tried providing him with warnings on his page. Where do I turn to help next? 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC) edit: figured out the admin help template, it's now on the SSCS article. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Your edits do not reflect the current consensus AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 26 October 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.
- Again, aussie, you are reverting my edit and the edit of others as having been discussed on the talk page, then you warn me about it like you're not the one doing it. That's inaprorpriate.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
- There has never been any consensus to remove the category from Category:Organizations accused of eco-terrorism and your persistent removal constitutes edit-warring. Current discussions are simply about removing Sea Shepherd Conservation Society from Category:Eco-terrorism. AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)