Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:07, 26 February 2016

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

January 2016

Your recent editing history at The_Destruction_of_the_European_Jews shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
the history page shows you've deleted the wikitext displaying left|frame|Professor Raul Hilberg three times in under a week. The B in BRD was your deletion. The R was my revert, which restored. The D is what's happening, which should happen while the restore stays in place. Your edit warring is contrary to that. You've opened the FFD, now let it run its course. In the mean time, the restore should stay in place. I urge you to undo your last revert. Elvey 07:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep restoring an obvious copyright violation and you will find yourself the one in hot water. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to review

"Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first." In my judgment the content you are restoring does "unquestionably violate the non-free content policy." I think the case is crystal clear. I have indicated as much at Files for discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply filed at the FFD.--Elvey 08:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that an administrator with (c) expertise has supported my position that "]" should stay in the article during the FFD, writing, "Image is currently at FFD. Removing it while the discussion is ongoing prevents other users from being able to see it and opine. Adding link to discussion.)". I hope that's enough to get you to stop edit warring and avoid acting like that in future. WRT the FFD, he agrees with you. --Elvey 11:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mmaofine (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Einstein's American Citizenship

Somebody keeps reverting my correction in the introduction. Albert Einstein was a German-born American physicist. He was born in Germany, hence the German born part. An American citizen born in another country is a (country of borth) born American. His U.S. citizenship is even included in this very WP article under the title "U.S. Citizenship." I don't get the resistance to facts. NapoleonX (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually multiple editors have reverted your change now. You should be discussing it on the talk page and trying to get consensus, instead of making the same change over and over. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "David Irving". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 February 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning David Irving, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Why were my edits reverted?

I make an edit and explain why it was done, and then it get's reverted because apparently I didn't explain why it was done. How is Liberalism a political philosophy? This doesn't make any sense. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Engels and the Slavs

I could use your endorsement of my proposed edit for the Engels article, if you're so inclined. Please bring friends. Aspencork (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hold on, there's been a mistake here. I have not endorsed anyone's edits, or proposed edits, and don't intend to. I simply asked for an explanation of an edit that someone made - I never said it was a good or bad edit. As for, "Please bring friends", no. You need to read WP:MEATPUPPET. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Related and FYI: you are mentioned here. --JBL (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

3RR

FYI, you just passed 3RR on Christina Hoff Summers. I'm don't believe your claim that the difference between 'some' and 'most' is a BLP concern that gets exemption from 3RR, so please self revert. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing "some" to "most" violates BLP if there are no sources to show that "most" is correct. "Most" seems to be made-up opinion, unacceptable as such. I regret it if 3RR was violated, but why would you ask me to restore something I consider a BLP violation? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years

As to A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years: Revision history, thank you so. 'Twas mighty qweek. Please return any time. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"Homosexualities..." book

Hi, I hope you'll have no problem with my inclusion of GSS material on the "Obsolescence" subsection, since it is directly relevant to the findings discussed. 2804:7F7:D180:395E:0:0:0:1 (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but unless the source specifically mentions the book by Bell and Weinberg, I do not consider the addition relevant. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Reading the Original Research guideline, I'm not sure my edits fit the description. Are you OK with asking more people for their input?2804:7F7:D180:395E:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's clearly original research to take a source that does not mention a particular book and try to use it to argue against that book or show that it's authors findings are outdated. Please don't do that kind of thing. I don't see any need to ask other editors for their views; you of course are free to ask anyone you like. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Beg your pardon?

You reverted a talk page edit??? I've never even heard of such a thing. I'm really asking -- I want to address you by something that you won't find offensive, but I won't use your username. Klortho (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)