Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:20, 25 June 2016

Hello! If there's any reason you'd like to contact me, feel equally free to leave me a comment here or wikimail me- I should be able to reply fairly quickly in either case.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Metal gear Solid 5

Hey PeterTheFourth. I had to undo one of your reverts and added an explanation for your convenience. IP's version sounds a bit less hostile or antagonizing, while the message is still left intact. The criticism section could use more professional and valid criticism. Or the praise could be reduced quite a bit. (The whole article seems a little bloated, IMO. I wonder how much of it is actually relevant for people trying to get a general overview over the game. This not Metacritic after all.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShiningExample (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Please see Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard a merge against consensus was done, and the AfD is included in the discussion I ping past participates who are active in the discussion. Had you reviewed the discussion you would have seen this. Therefore your warning is a violation of WP:AGF. Valoem 04:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Valoem: I don't believe my rather politely worded caution violated WP:AGF- but certainly, reverting this caution as 'vandalism' would count as a bit of an assumption of bad faith, no? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

And I find it odd that you would jump from one discussion where we disagree to another without checking the history just to "warn" me. When a merge is done against consensus it seems completely reasonable to ping the involved parties against that consensus ... all of whom were directly involved in the discussion. Valoem 05:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Valoem: A discussion about whether or not you are canvassing (with examples from three independent editors) is not "vandalism". You seem to have difficulty understanding that vandalism is "addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Misplaced Pages." You really need to stop abusing the word. - SummerPhD 11:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sargon of Akkad (YouTube)

That page doesn't look like it establishes notability, but I have neither the time nor desire to go through an AfD process on what would definitely be contentious. Is there someone impartial I could hand this off to and let them deal with it?204.11.142.106 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're truly looking for impartiality, I'm not your best bet- I'll take a look now, though, because now my curiosity has been piqued. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hi Peter. You appear to have broken the 1RR restriction on Gamergate with these two reverts within 24 hours: . I'm sure it was unintentional. A self-revert would be the easiest way to settle it. Thanks! James J. Lambden (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Per WP:EW- "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.". I don't believe the first diff you linked is a revert- it's a change to wording. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Both edits removed the following text:

"...began principally in the area of video game journalism"

Neither replaced it in substance.

You're welcome to consult more senior editors but the case is straightforward. If necessary I'll link AE requests you filed and/or participated in concerning similar reverts, showing your understanding these edits fall within the definition of "revert" and the scope of the restriction, but they'll come in an enforcement request and I'd prefer to keep this collegial. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll phone a friend- The Wordsmith, do you believe the first diff linked by James J. Lambden is a revert? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

They both remove some of the same phrasing. While some of the content is different, they both are substantially a revert by the standards used here, and Arbcom Findings of Fact, AE and AN3 have sanctioned for similar edits. I do believe that it was an accident, and not in bad faith. To avoid giving anyone ammunition to cause drama, I would appreciate it if you would self-revert as a gesture of good faith. The Wordsmith 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No worries, will do. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable. It is rare in this topic area, as I'm sure you're aware. The Wordsmith 14:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia

Thanks for your edits to List of reportedly haunted locations in Colombia. If you follow the edit history you'll see I have been trying to weed out non-reliable accounts and uncritical acceptance of the fringe view that real ghosts exist in all of these places, but another editor has been blind reverting me. Edward321 (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)