Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 13 April 2015

Welcome!

Hello, EauZenCashHaveIt, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to The Blacklist (season 2). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jc86035: thank you for your welcoming message. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 08:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. You may need to cite your sources more though, since in some of your edits you added unreferenced information. Nice signature, by the way! Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jc86035: thanks, I was just fooling around with the preferences here. Could you please be more specific as far as the unreferenced information goes? As far as I understand, when editing TV show related articles it is sufficient to describe characters as seen and heard on screen. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree you don't really need references for those. If you're not writing plot summaries or the like, though, you should cite sources. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Better Call Saul. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please 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, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

The split of the two articles was not done correctly, and you're dealing with editing that is far too advanced for someone who has only been editing here for a month. Slow down, learn policies fully. Additionally, you've misapplied WP:BURDEN, which applies to the addition of new content, not the retention of existing content. Please stop reverting and just discuss, or you risk being blocked for edit warring. --Drmargi (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of hazing I am supposed to receive here, but the policies I did read so far, like WP:Assume good faith, tell me you should know better than calling my edits unconstructive. If the split was not done correctly, why do you do the exact thing you are telling me not to - why are you blanking the article instead of improving it? The Better Call Saul article is bloated at the moment, and the seasonal article has come to its aid. If anyone is acting in an unconstructive (is that even a word?) manner, it certainly isn't me. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not hazing, but rather a perfectly routine warning template used when an editor needs to be alerted to an issue with their editing. Your repeated reverts are not constructive because they're doing nothing to build the encyclopedia, just to keep what was becoming an edit war going. You're a very new editor and should steer clear of controversial edits, such as the article split until you're well versed in WP policy, which you're clearly not. As for assumption of good faith, my response was civil and done appropriately, but your editing was problematic. I could have approached this very differently, instead, I chose the established means, which does assume good faith, to bring you attention to the issue. On the other hand, how are your accusations, beginning with the assumption I was hazing you, an assumption of good faith?

Let's be clear. I didn't blank a page. I edited the page to remove duplicated content and inserted a redirect back to the original article. That's not page blanking, and was a perfectly appropriate edit. The page had been redirected once previously, and another novice editor, instead of learning how to handle episode lists properly, removed the redirect and simply cut and pasted a hunk of text on to the page. As I've said repeatedly, that's not how season articles are written. Drovethrughosts gave you a nice explanation and some examples of well constructed season articles, and the policy that governs episode list pages and season articles. I suggest you step back from such complicated edits, read WP:EDIT, and work on learning basic editorial policy, then familiarize yourself with MOS:TV and spend a lot of time working on a sizable number of TV show articles before going anywhere near such complex edits. You'll find you'll have a much better experience here. --Drmargi (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

An editor has attacked me with accusations of disruptive editing and threats of losing my editing privileges, and I am not entirely sure how to proceed. Thank you.

EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello I noticed your Help Me sign and was wondering what is the problem. Thank You JohnGormleyJG (✉) 09:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The section above this contains all the necessary details; I'm not sure what isn't clear here. ekips39 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor above was clear enough with their reasoning. You should discuss edits like this before making them, not just press ahead if opposed. Mdann52 (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Efforts to build Misplaced Pages are never improved by personal attacks on editors, even in edit summaries . It's frustrating to see another editor damaging the project, but when done in good faith, that editor's contributions can only be improved in the long run by addressing the content of the edits themselves. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Willondon: please see the article history; the problematic user kept reinserting damaging edits after being reverted by three (!!!) editors, hurling ACTUAL personal attacks at everyone, and generally trolling. See this ANI report for more detail: . There has actually been an extensive amount of good faith on my part, namely on his talk page. I tried giving out some advice, even after making clear that his edits were a menace to Misplaced Pages. He replied with incoherent blabbering, said "thank you and good night", and proceeded with an edit war that would put the Middle East to shame. If those are not the actions of a little brat, I don't know what is. Cheers. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been following the whole drama at Better Call Saul, and ancillary pages. I stand by my assertion that "efforts to build Misplaced Pages are never improved by personal attacks on editors". Vandals are easy, but "good faith" means an editor who actually thinks they're improving things. A tougher challenge indeed. I've found that with patience, the Misplaced Pages machine resolves things in satisfying ways, but not through personal attacks. Willondon (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Willondon is right, EauZen. The temptation to fire on an editor, particularly one as problematic as the one we've been dealing with, is tremendous, but it does nothing but inflame the situation. We want cooperation, not more disruptive editing. Think about the best way to accomplish that, particularly given the administrative corps has left us on our own to deal with it. --Drmargi (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: what can we do then? A bully is on the loose, the police is nowhere to be found, and each and every one of the numerous good faith attempts made by all of us is constantly met with more bullying. Do you kill him with kindness? I really can't see how. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 01:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a happy medium between the two. Be polite, be firm, but be civil and you'll get your point across without making matters worse. Don't give him any ammunition. --Drmargi (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is on fire. Relax, chill out; this isn't a massive emergency. 1 of the 5 million articles might be a bit wrong for a few days; try to keep it in perspective. Maybe edit something else for a couple of days, and come back to this. It'll all get sorted out, eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.20.95 (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wise words indeed. Willondon (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Using twitter as a source

It has nothing to do with a personal dislike for twitter, or a vendetta against the template. It has everything to do with what should and shouldn't be in an article and how that should be sourced.

• This - What makes this a notable case if Vitiligo? If it isn't reported on by a secondary source, it isn't considered notable.
• This has nothing to do with the discussion at TfD, it has everything to do with BLP sourcing.

Even if the template is kept, Twitter is not an appropriate source for these sorts of edits. Stop reverting or you will find yourself blocked for being in violation of the BLP policy. --kelapstick 12:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You've been told, by myself as well as several others, that your argument is invalid. You keep pushing this forcefully, in spite of still having very little support on the noticeboard discussion. I am doing the right thing by not letting you reshape Misplaced Pages according to your world view. Let's be adults about this, OK? See you at the noticeboard. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Use_of_Twitter_as_a_source_for_BLPs. --kelapstick 13:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please remove that personal attack, in which you say I have a pattern of pushing a personal agenda. --kelapstick 16:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)