| Revision as of 05:23, 16 January 2010 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,209 edits Added {{tilde}} note.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:58, 5 September 2021 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,066,103 editsm →Edit Warring report filed: Task 24: removal of a template following a TFDTag: AWB | ||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| {{Talkback|Omarcheeseboro|Miklasz}} | |||
| == Welcome == | == Welcome == | ||
| <!-- Template:Welcomelaws --> | <!-- Template:Welcomelaws --> | ||
| Line 31: | Line 28: | ||
| ==Your recent edits== | ==Your recent edits== | ||
| ] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion{{#if:|, such as on ]}}, you should ] by typing four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 05:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | ] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion{{#if:|, such as on ]}}, you should ] by typing four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 05:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Edit Warring report filed == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. <!-- {{uw-3RR}} --> ] (]) 04:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Just so you'll know, I filed a report here . ] (]) 04:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ] at ]. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| In view of your recent edits at the same page, I have to warn you that you do not need to breach the ] rule in order to be blocked for ]. In addition, you may not accuse fellow editors of bad faith without very good reason (]), which does not remotely exist in this case. Be patient, look for more sources, use dispute resolution. Also, always consider the possibility that (a) you may be wrong; and (b) that sometimes you may not get your way even when you're right; and that in the case of B, this does not require or prove bad faith. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| What do you call it when you clear the objections of an editor only to have them throw more at you? As a business person, I call it negotiating in bad faith. ] (]) 00:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I've no idea of the relevance of your business experience, but in general, it is quite normal and human to focus on the most obvious and easily explained objection to something, rather than listing all of them. If the most obvious one is actually sufficiently addressed, then the other objections come out of the woodwork, as it were - but they were always there, and to assume that they're being frivolously produced on demand is a violation of ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::http://www.settlenow.org/BadFaithNegotiations.html. Apparently there is a Wiki "culture" definition of bad faith and a real world definition. Assume that I write in the real world, thus be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut. ] (]) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, that looks like much the same definition. The difficulty is (especially in a text-based environment) determining intent. It's very hard to do, so the Misplaced Pages principle is to ]. The principle isn't there to tell you to do that when it's ''easy'' - it's there to tell you to do it even when you're sorely tempted to drop the assumption. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've no idea of relevance of your Wiki experience in the real world of negotiations, but I assure you that what Dayewalker is doing would be considered bad faith if this were a legal or business discussion. ] (]) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| By the by, a ] can often be helpful to allow drafting (even collaborative drafting) of disputed material without the pressure of it being in the "live" article, which is a problem particularly in ]s. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks! ] (]) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:58, 5 September 2021
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Misplaced Pages:
- The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
Please bear these points in mind while editing Misplaced Pages:
- Respect copyrights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view - this is possibly the most important Misplaced Pages policy.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
- No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.
- Lastly, if you are editing an article about an individual or group of people, please adhere to Misplaced Pages's Biography of Living Persons' policy.
The Misplaced Pages Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!
Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
January 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bernie Miklasz. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Shadowjams (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Edit Warring report filed
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Dayewalker (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just so you'll know, I filed a report here . Dayewalker (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
In view of your recent edits at the same page, I have to warn you that you do not need to breach the WP:3RR rule in order to be blocked for edit warring. In addition, you may not accuse fellow editors of bad faith without very good reason (WP:AGF), which does not remotely exist in this case. Be patient, look for more sources, use dispute resolution. Also, always consider the possibility that (a) you may be wrong; and (b) that sometimes you may not get your way even when you're right; and that in the case of B, this does not require or prove bad faith. Rd232 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you call it when you clear the objections of an editor only to have them throw more at you? As a business person, I call it negotiating in bad faith. Sdiver68 (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've no idea of the relevance of your business experience, but in general, it is quite normal and human to focus on the most obvious and easily explained objection to something, rather than listing all of them. If the most obvious one is actually sufficiently addressed, then the other objections come out of the woodwork, as it were - but they were always there, and to assume that they're being frivolously produced on demand is a violation of WP:AGF. Rd232 09:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.settlenow.org/BadFaithNegotiations.html. Apparently there is a Wiki "culture" definition of bad faith and a real world definition. Assume that I write in the real world, thus be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut. Sdiver68 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, that looks like much the same definition. The difficulty is (especially in a text-based environment) determining intent. It's very hard to do, so the Misplaced Pages principle is to assume good faith. The principle isn't there to tell you to do that when it's easy - it's there to tell you to do it even when you're sorely tempted to drop the assumption. Rd232 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've no idea of relevance of your Wiki experience in the real world of negotiations, but I assure you that what Dayewalker is doing would be considered bad faith if this were a legal or business discussion. Sdiver68 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, that looks like much the same definition. The difficulty is (especially in a text-based environment) determining intent. It's very hard to do, so the Misplaced Pages principle is to assume good faith. The principle isn't there to tell you to do that when it's easy - it's there to tell you to do it even when you're sorely tempted to drop the assumption. Rd232 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.settlenow.org/BadFaithNegotiations.html. Apparently there is a Wiki "culture" definition of bad faith and a real world definition. Assume that I write in the real world, thus be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut. Sdiver68 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
By the by, a userspace draft can often be helpful to allow drafting (even collaborative drafting) of disputed material without the pressure of it being in the "live" article, which is a problem particularly in WP:BLPs. Rd232 09:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sdiver68 (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)