Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:26, 8 August 2009

If you leave me a message, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template.

August 2009 - Edit War Reply

Excuse me i apologise if this sounds round, but i think you need to look at what an edit war is. a WP:edit war is defined as two users who are constantly reverting each others edits. On the Exposed (Kristinia DeBarge album) page i have NOT engaged in an edit war because reverting incorrect edits by another user (yes there were 4 that i was aware of) does not constitute an edit war. if the IP user had reverted them back then yes you would be correct in giving me a warning. Frankly i feel insulted by you leaving me such messages on my discussion page and i dont think it is fair seen that it gives the impression that i am unware of wikipedia rules, that i cannot edit properly and that my editing behaviour is near unacceptable. I would request in the future that you check yourself that you fully understand editing protocol before making such claims. i feel that your motive for doing so my not have been WP:good faith but more to do with the fact that we clashed previously on this article regarding an issue with the way singles are listed in the infobox. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

I know fully well what an edit war is, I have been involved in many, please do not try to educate me. Making four revisions in 24 hours or less is a violation of the WP:3RR, and while there are some exceptions to the rule, being right is not one of them. I know this firsthand, as I was recently blocked for the same mistake you are currently making. I'm not trying to be uncivil or assume bad faith, and I'm not holding any grudges. I just want to warn you about your breach of policy, before you wind up getting a block like I did the other day. POKERdance /contribs 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

once again without meaning to be rude i also have been involved in edit wars and know what constitutes to one. please don't try to educate me either because ironically i've been editing much longer than yourself and have learnt the rules through discussion with adminstrators and other experienced users. there are exceptions to the rules, i believed that the IP edits effected the quality of the article hence i reverted them. in heinsight i could have just restored the article to a previous version which is what i will do in the future. if it is any consolation it is almost admirable that you want to warn others about the dangers of edit warring. but i would have appreciated it if you had left me a more subtle warning first because in most cases edit warring involved actions (reverts) from both users. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm not trying to educate you on what an edit war is, you seemed to demonstrate knowledge in your previous comment. I'm just trying to explain to you that being right can still get you blocked if you violate the three-revert rule. And I would have left a more gentle warning so as to not appear as demonstrating bad faith, but 3RR warnings are single-level templates.

Please do not wave around your seniority as an excuse to talk to users in a demeaning tone. It's not only quite disrespectful, but it could be seen as a demonstration of bad faith. POKERdance /contribs 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

of course i didnt mean it like that but what i meant to say was that i have been editing now for a long time i have had past experience with edit wars and so i was quite familiar with the consequences of such and also what constitutes to one. i am sorry if my words offended. i might be a little blunt sometiems but i never do things in bad faith. I really should stop editing at night lol the tiredness makes me lose my sharpness. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Out of context, now

I think anyone reading over our conversations will see that I have assumed good faith with you at all times (and do even now, despite the fact that I will be surprised if you aren't blocked by morning). That was the reason that I advised you of your violation, and gave you a chance to revert your bad edit before it was noticed (not too late for that, BTW: a self-revert goes a long way towards avoiding sanction for 1RR or 3RR violations). I noticed that you seemed to be an editor with good intentions that was a little heavy on the rollback and revert buttons, and tried to advise about it before you wound up blocked. It didn't work. There isn't anyone that will be surprised that I monitor your edits: I keep track of any editors to pop culture articles that are under editing restrictions or blocks that I am aware of. I haven't been uncivil towards you at any time, and I'm sorry that you read it that way.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that restoring to old versions of page history was the same as reverting, but I will keep this in mind in the future. But regardless, there is no point in reverting the edit to Selena Gomez now, since doing so would be a violation of MOS:CAPS#Title. That would only be counter-productive, no? However, from now on, I will remember that manually changing things is the same as reverting. Thank you for making me aware. POKERdance /contribs 01:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me make a suggestion. Don't undo in any way (revert, rollback, undo or manual) anything anyone else does for a while. Does that make sense? Toddst1 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion considered and not taken. Forgive me for sounding rude, but your request is ridiculous, especially since I haven't been involved in any edit wars since my unblocking. Furthermore, it's not fair to me on two counts: (1) you're implying that all I'm good for is vandalism around here, and (2) it wasn't a part of our agreement. Your 1RR rule is fine right now. Please don't tack on additional restrictions for no reason. POKERdance /contribs 06:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any additional restrictions. That was only a suggestion for you - about as constructive as I can get around here. For some reason, you seem to gravitate towards edit war-like conflicts. I was thinking that perhaps adding new information might be more helpful and less likely to find you in a conflict than reverting or warning or some such. Either way, it's your call.

FWIW, KWW is a pretty smart guy. Toddst1 (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

no subject

You assume So Close is not notable just because it is not on the charts. What is not notable to you is notable to so many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.200.75 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the "So Close" discussion ended on July 21; I don't know where you've been. Secondly, WP:NSONG states:

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

Does this song meet any of that criteria? No. It may be notable to some people, but it's not notable enough for inclusion here on this encyclopedia. If you disagree, you should probably state your argument here instead of here. Thank you. POKERdance /contribs 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Misplaced Pages has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Selena Gomez, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Also, please do not assume ownership of articles. --Tweetsabird (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you know how to copy and paste. However, I would appreciate it if you didn't demonstrate that knowledge by vandalizing my talk page with unwarranted warnings. POKERdance /contribs 03:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Pokerdance. Doing so is a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. --Tweetsabird (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't know if you think you're being cute or something, but I really suggest that you stop issuing me warnings that I have legitimately given you. If this continues, you may end up being blocked. POKERdance /contribs 16:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Pokerdance. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Stop copying warnings that I have issued you legitimately, and posting them on my talk page for no reason.

You have no authority, only administators do, but nice try. :) --Tweetsabird (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but quite a few admins are paying attention. Toddst1 (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

For your sake I hope that's not true, it's against the rules to spam other users' pages like you've been doing to me for no reason. --Tweetsabird (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Really now? You can't be serious. The dates that my warnings to you were issued are undeniable proof that you are the one warning me for no reason. It's about time for a final warning for the last unwarranted warning you left here. You should probably quit, because you will be reported if this happens again, and most likely blocked for vandalism. POKERdance /contribs 02:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you abuse a warning or blocking template, as you did to User talk:Tweetsabird, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --Tweetsabird (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)