Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:41, 25 April 2021

Discretionary sanction awareness notices

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style and article titles policy articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles climate change discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour the Troubles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

AIV

Nope, nothing wrong with that. Congratulations on your first AIV report! --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks, pressed enter by accident.

The testimony is cluttering the page, unformatted and way too biased in favour of the state.

I am in the process of making a new section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:ce10:d900:a886:1ffc:4211:4bd (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging problems

Thank you for your quite thorough third opinion. I thought it worth noting that given this edit was clearly an attempt to ping, that I did not receive any ping. Not sure why myself, mind. CMD (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! I posted a message on Nomad's talk page just in case. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Safavid Georgia

3 users try to Persianise and Islamise the names of Georgian Kings. They WERE NOT Persians and Muslims, they were Georgians and Christians. One of them is the saint of Georgian Orthodox Church. All academic society knows them with their Georgian names. I have provided plenty of sources and can provide more if it is needed. BTW Can you imagine Christianisation of the names of Muslim kings in Misplaced Pages, will it be right? What is your logic when you reverted my edition?Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Giorgi Mechurchle! I don't have any opinion on the content of that page yet. I need to do more research. I reverted your edit because you broke an important Misplaced Pages rule, the three revert rule. You just broke it again by reverting my edit. I highly encourage you to self-revert your own recent edit to avoid being blocked. I think you are making good points, but that you need to take time to persuade others and stop edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

But what can I do, those 3 users reverted my edition everytime, they have 0 argument and no logic at all! Can anyone explain why the names of Christian, Georgian kings (as I mentioned one of them is a saint of GOC and both of them were fighting against Safavids during their lifetime) should be written in Persianised and Islamised form in English Misplaced Pages? What a cynicism is this?

P.S. I do not want to break any rule, but hope somehow it will be possible to give the article more academic form.Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Giorgi Mechurchle, first, do you understand the WP:3RR rule? I am happy to answer any questions you have about it.I have a limited amount of knowledge about Georgia's history, so I am trying to learn more before commenting on this content dispute. I do think it's likely that at least some of the kings should be mentioned in the article primarily by their Georgian names. I want to encourage you to pick one—the one for which you have the strongest argument— and make a clear, short case for the change on the talk page. Then be patient as other editors process your point. I am worried that if you even give off a hint of edit-warring that you will be banned from this topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

If someone is already dealing with a vandal, there no need for you to as well, at the very same time. Too many cooks in the kitchen and all that... - wolf 06:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, I take your point and will keep an eye out for opportunities to be better in the future. In this case, though, all I did was see the Canadia change in Recent Changes, revert it, and post a vandalism warning. At the time, this user didn't appear to have any other warnings. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

With vandals, it's good to take a quick look at their contribs, that'll show you if they just made the one edit, or if they're on an active spree. You can also see if edits have been reverted, or are current. That one look can tell you a lot. Also, especially with registered accounts, the first thing (that I always do at least) is add a 'welcome' template to the top of their page. It shows we're not biting a possibly confused, or very young, newcomer, but it also eliminates the excuse "I didn't know" after any further vandalism. You'll note the welcome template, your revert and notice, and my reverts and notices are all within minutes of each other. (just an fyi). - wolf 06:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)