Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:46, 12 February 2023

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

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

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 26 June 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

Sahaja Yoga

Hi Roxy!

I'm rather new to this so please forgive me. I noticed that you reverted the section on the Sahaja Yoga page without prior discussion on the talk page. May I inquire as to why such swashbuckling methods were employed? I was in the belief that my section, on which I worked on so earnestly, was within the full remit of the rules and regulations on Misplaced Pages :) If not, let me know what I can improve as this is my first edit, and now I feel a bit disheartened. All the best, Hutch — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.R.Hutcherson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It was an "in bubble" contribution, horribly sourced to in universe sources that are not acceptable for the use you put them. See WP:RS for our sourcing policy, and WP:MEDRS for our more stringent policy on biomedical claims, which you also made in that edit. You used external links which are not allowed, WP:ELNO, and many many other problems.

As regards to "was within the full remit of the rules and regulations on Misplaced Pages" - I'm afraid it was not, not by a long way. Lastly, "swashbuckling" !!!, nope, yourself on the other hand have added a huge chunk of unnacceptable stuff.-Roxy the dog 18:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• WP:CATW#3 strikes again. Bon courage (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear me ! Fuck me backwards.

With the change in the skin, it took me ten minutes to find my own talk page. Good Grief. - Roxy the dog 18:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

(Would that be "doggy style"? Sorry, I couldn't resist.) I agree, it's awful. I'm trying very, very hard to be a good little fish and give it a fair chance, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to roll it back to what it was before, for my own preferences. (In fairness, it's not that awful for the general public who are simply reading articles, but if one wants to edit....) Here is how to do it. At the far top right corner of the screen is a little cartoon icon of a person (head and shoulders) with a down-facing arrow to the right of it. Click that arrow. You should see "Preferences" there, and that's the same Preferences as in the past. Go to "Appearance", and the first section is "Skin". You'll see that the nice folks at WMF who know better than we do have made "Vector (2022)" the default. Change it back to "Vector Legacy (2010)" (that's what it was for me, there are other choices if you were using something else), and "Save". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I can now confirm that the "thanks" flag works, and the "you have new talk page messages" work as before. I'm going to persevere with it for the time being, as one can get used to anything, but it really feels strange. I suppose it should feel strange. The double pane editing window was a shock to my system as well.

Thank you for this help. - Roxy the dog 20:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

A few minutes later, and I gave up and threw in the towel. I've changed back to Legacy/2010, and am slowly regaining my composure. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The GUI functionality went downhill the day they removed the orange bar of doom. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have been here some years, but how long ago was this doomy bar? Has my memory just gone the way of the rest of me into senility? I see dotage and decomposition on the near horizon. - Roxy the dog 20:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting rid of the orange bar of doom is the one good change that happened. Under Preferences, Gadgets, Appearance, there's something you can check called "Display a floating alert for new talk page messages" that might be it, if you want to get it back for yourself. Just don't do it for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Using Chris' edit summary, I looked at Template:OBOD, and there's a delicious bit of semi-vandalism there that I would not dream of reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll keep on for now, but the "recent changes" link which I use a lot is now two clicks away (I think) and I haven't found "user contributions" yet. - Roxy the dog 20:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For your own user contributions, they are on the same menu as where the preferences are. For someone else's, if you go to their page or talk page, it's still on the left side of the screen. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I confess I gave up too, before the end of the evening. The skin affected my clicking about so much that I couldn't function. To have to think about every click after more than ten years clicking unthinkingly in my "workflow" was too much to take. I had started out with good intentions, and vowed not to add to the inevitable general hoohaw on complaint and dramah boards. In the past I would have been ranting about it, but it isn't worth it.

I've re-instated the "floating alert" for shiggles, but as is usual, it may take days for another comment to appear here. sigh! - Roxy the dog 18:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Just reporting that the "floating alert" mentioned above actually works, but looks different to what it used to look. I haven't decided what to do with it now that I've seen it working again. - Roxy the dog 09:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Holford

Hello Roxy the Dog

I have made minor edits to Patrick's page which are in line with his career and life achievements. His title was incorrect and I've added more information. He has published 45 books in 30 languages, I don't understand how you can dispute that? What I have done so far, are minor changes - there are more to come. Furthermore, we have taken advice from a lawyer and here is the response. If we are not permitted to make changes, which are factually correct, we will have no choice but to put the matter into legal hands.

I look forward to your response.

Best wishes

Emma

The relevant legislation is the Defamation Act 2013 (Act) and the Regulations made under it, the Defamation (Operators of Websites) Regulations 2013 (Regulations).

Under this Act, a statement, maybe defamatory if its publication has caused or would be likely to cause "serious harm" to the reputation of the claimant. Damage to the claimant's reputation is not deemed to be "serious harm" unless it has caused or was likely to cause the claimant "serious financial loss"

Accordingly, in order to succeed in legal proceedings (against either the author or Misplaced Pages) in relation to the matters of which you complain, it will be necessary for SH to be able to prove serious financial loss.

Further it will be necessary for SH to be able to establish that none of the defences permitted by the statute apply, these are that the statement complained of:

(i)                  is true

(ii)                is an honest opinion or

(iii)              its publication is a matter of public interest

Actions against an operator of a website, in this instance Misplaced Pages, in respect of a statement posted on its website are covered by section 5 of the Act. Section 5 provides that it can be a defence for the operator of the website to show that it was not the person who published the statement on the website. However, section 3 provides that this defence can be defeated if the claimant is able to show that:

(i)                  It was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement

(ii)                the claimant gave the operator Notice of Complaint in relation to the statement and

(iii)              the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint

In the Notice of Complaint, the claimant must

a.    specify the complaints name,

b.    et out the statement complained of and explain why it is defamatory of the complainant,

c.    specifies, where on the website, the statement was posted and

d.    provide such other information as is required by the Regulations

The Regulations (Regulation 4) provide that in addition to the matters referred to in the Act the Notice of Complaint must

(e) specify the electronic mail address at which the complainant can be contacted;

(f) set out the meaning which the complainant attributes to the statement referred to in the notice;

(g) set out the aspects of the statement which the complainant believes are:

(i) factually inaccurate; or

(ii) opinions not supported by fact;

(h) confirm that the complainant does not have sufficient information about the poster to bring proceedings against that person; and

(i) confirm whether the complainant consents to the operator providing the poster with:

(i) the complainant's name; and

(ii) the complainant's electronic mail address.

Following receipt of a Notice of Complaint, an operator must act in accordance with Regulation 4 (see below).

If you have submitted a Notice of Complaint, to Misplaced Pages, in the prescribed form, please send me a copy with a copy of its response. If not, may I suggest that you draft one which is complaint with the Act and Regulations and let me see this before it is submitted. EmmaSRC (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's OK, I've reverted your changes for the same reason as last time. - Roxy the dog 09:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

User has been blocked for legal threats. - Roxy the dog 09:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Your recent editing history at Cryonics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You need to learn counting. - Roxy the dog 06:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I need to learn 2 + 2 = 3. Got it. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Roxy the dog reported by User:SurfingOrca2045 (Result: ). Thank you. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Odd that. I found a report about you edit warring, but not me. My goodness. - Roxy the dog 07:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. Editor appears to be firing blanks, and has since been page banned for tenditious editing. - Roxy the dog 16:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Cetacean clearly not needed. (Sorry!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

This comment is unnecessary and against the spirit of collaboration on Misplaced Pages, and it trivializes all that has been done to protect marine mammals from extinction :( See WP:NPA. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I don't know, smells more like Sealioning at this point. KoA (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit that it was petty of me to joke about another editor's username, so I apologize for that. In case it is not clear, it is a reference to "citation needed". However, the fact remains that this editor's conduct has not been constructive. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that I dont believe for a moment that Trypto had any other intention than to reanimate an old and jaded joke, in the same way that in my head I have a reputation for witty name alterations. - Roxy the surfing dog 19:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Per WP:BLPUNDEL, "hen material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". Salvio 16:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

How does it not comply with policy Salvio?? - Roxy the dog 16:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what should decided by consensus and I am not going to make a call on content; however, until a consensus has been found that such addition does not violate BLP, it needs to stay out, per BLPUNDEL. If you are willing to wait without reverting and participate in the discussion on the talk page, I will remove the block right now. Salvio 16:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I dont believe I have violated any policy, and I am happy not to revert again until a consensus has been found. I believe this block was harsh too. I'm not sure I want to take part in a discussion on this subject on the talk page though, as without question I am a TERF. - Roxy the dog 16:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I have unblocked you based on your reassurance that you're not going to revert again. In my opinion, the policy you violated was BLPUNDEL, because you saw that other editors had good-faith objections to the material that other editors were adding and opted to restore it without waiting for consensus that it did not violate BLP. I also don't think the block was particularly harsh, it was fairly short and you are a very experienced user, so I am certain you are aware of how BLP works and how seriously we all take it... Salvio 16:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed yes re BLP. Thank you for the unblock - I'm not going to labour the harshness, and you'll forgive me if I go to a totally unrelated Talk page first before indulging at the Thomas talk page. - Roxy the dog 16:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Roxy, I think it should set off a red flag in one's mind, when one makes a revert over a content dispute (not a straightforward revert of vandalism, but something that reflects different editors actually disagreeing about content) at the same time that one feels uncomfortable discussing it on the article talk page. Let me please suggest that you stay away from that kind of reverting on anything that has anything to do with gender identity. As best as I can remember, that's the topic area that's been involved repeatedly when you've had these kinds of run-ins, and I think it may be best simply to avoid it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I dont know how to do it, but there is a way to look at an imdividual edit history in an article. look at mine - I am aware of my bias here in the same way I am aware of my bias in ALT_MED. My overarching issue is the nature of fairness in sport. There is a cyclist on my watchlist, Rowling, Navratilova, Bliijean King, Crisp, a girl who died of glioblastoma, etc. I didn't know about Gamergate until very recently because who gives a shit about games!! Really! I edit according to policy and consensus; you know this.

But you are correct. My spidey sense was tingling even before I got sent to the naughty step above. - Roxy the dog 21:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)