| Revision as of 18:42, 21 July 2023 view sourceCorbieVreccan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,682 edits →Edit-warring and POV Push at Witchcraft: new sectionTags: Reverted New topic← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:16, 21 July 2023 view source Skyerise (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers141,569 edits Undid revision 1166463033 by CorbieVreccan (talk) read; I've already discussed this at the talk page, and it has nothing to do with Christianity; opinion on witchcraft has been divided since classical timesTag: UndoNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| :{{ping|Esowteric}}, well, I see a bot notified ]. Not sure if the bot will eventually notify the other projects, but if it doesn't, that notice is neutral, so long as all the listed project are notified. ] (]) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) | :{{ping|Esowteric}}, well, I see a bot notified ]. Not sure if the bot will eventually notify the other projects, but if it doesn't, that notice is neutral, so long as all the listed project are notified. ] (]) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
| == Edit-warring and POV Push at ] == | |||
| Copying here what I put at ] as that page is very cluttered now: | |||
| @]:, you are editing against consensus, while discussion is going on. You have been blocked for this before. We are, and have been, working very hard on this. It is inappropriate for you to go in and make wholesale changes that you don't have consensus for. This view is not just historical, and not just due to "Christians". You are privileging a Western, white view that leaves out traditional and Indigenous cultures worldwide. Those cultures never redefined this word or concept. Only those who bought the witch cult theory did. As for "white witches" and such - that's a modification that, by it's very modifiers, indicate the negative status of the word/concept it modifies. This isn't my preference or choice, it's just what we are documenting. Stop the POV push. - ] <sup>]</sup> ] 18:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:16, 21 July 2023
|
 | Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account. |
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |  2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · 2021 · 2022 · 2023 |
Carlos Castaneda
Hi. You repeatedly reverted my edits where I specifically marked unsourced passages in the text. And you did this with misleading comments, pretending that I added unsourced material rather than what I actually did, which is marking the existing material as unsourced. Here's your latest revert: I strongly suggest you stop such disrupting reverts. If you did it in good faith, please take a careful look at my edits again, and compare them against the sources listed, as well as the lack thereof. If you disagree with anything, please discuss first. cherkash (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Cherkash: Grumpy, grumpy. I misinterpreted your edit the first time, because you removed the source that was provided. Looking at it closer, it should never have been allowed to be added. I must have been traveling. That kind of BS should just be removed, not tagged with three tags (one at the end of the para would have been sufficient). Also, please see WP:ASPERSIONS. If you can't be civil, please don't post on my talk page. You didn't even take the time to look at my subsequent edit before posting your knee-jerk reaction! Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- You reverted not once, but twice. First time could be considered a simple mistake, second time was not so easy to give you the benefit of the doubt. Also, the reason I left the paragraph mostly intact, is that some sources corroborate this account, just not at this level of detail - hence it's plausible the statements were factual, while simply lacking proper sources. So it's better to keep it tagged as challenged for a while rather than removing it right away. cherkash (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Cherkash:: and I'm allowed to revert more than once. Don't come over here and tell me otherwise. Use the article talk page to discuss content related issues. You edit your way, I'll edit mine. Understand? I don't want you posting here anymore. And I am allowed to say so. Skyerise (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- You can say whatever you want, but this doesn't make your comments very civil or done in collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages. I came here with a hope you made a simple mistake (maybe even same mistake twice - which is ok if done in good faith). Given you clarified your reasons, and I clarified my rationale behind the edits, I'll go ahead and restore the paragraph you removed - with the appropriate tags marking its unsourced parts. If it stays unsourced for a while, let's remove it then. Let's give someone more knowledgeable about the topic a chance to source it. cherkash (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Cherkash:: and I'm allowed to revert more than once. Don't come over here and tell me otherwise. Use the article talk page to discuss content related issues. You edit your way, I'll edit mine. Understand? I don't want you posting here anymore. And I am allowed to say so. Skyerise (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- You reverted not once, but twice. First time could be considered a simple mistake, second time was not so easy to give you the benefit of the doubt. Also, the reason I left the paragraph mostly intact, is that some sources corroborate this account, just not at this level of detail - hence it's plausible the statements were factual, while simply lacking proper sources. So it's better to keep it tagged as challenged for a while rather than removing it right away. cherkash (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@Cherkash: You wrote "Your authoritarian ways" - but it was you who came here and started to try to dictate how I edit with your first rude comment. I've restored the section, so there is now no reason for you to copy it. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Misplaced Pages's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Misplaced Pages's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Wikiproject listings
Hi, a requested move of Witchcraft has been initiated, but I don't know whether the discussion should be listed at wikiprojects, nor how to do it. Do you, or could you help out? Many thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Esowteric:, well, I see a bot notified Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Not sure if the bot will eventually notify the other projects, but if it doesn't, that notice is neutral, so long as all the listed project are notified. Skyerise (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)