Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:19, 9 October 2010

Friendly bit of advice

Please be very careful with any more edits to King's College London as you have now made 3 sets of reverting edits today. Codf1977 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, User:Codf1977, as best I can tell none of Rangoon's edits today on KCL constitute reverts -- in fact in my view they constitute entirely constructive editing with no element of reverts at all. If nothing else, they aren't sets of reverts because they don't undo something that an intervening edit by someone else has done. I would strongly urge you to read WP:STALKING, though I suspect you're already familiar with it. Rangoon, the place to go if there is additional trouble along these lines is WP:ANI -- but be sure you've got your ducks in a row and are not vulnerable to accusations of the same behavior for which you are reporting someone else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I dispute your claims about his edits :

WP:3RR clearly defines a revert as "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of the three-revert rule"

• This, the fist set of edits removes sections, which is covered.
• so is this one as it reorders and changes the text.
• and so is this one which clearly changes text.

none of them are IMO covered by the exceptions.

You are correct in your assumption that I am aware of WP:STALKING and my watching of the actions of Rangoon11 is covered in the second para when it says "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." - I have had worries about this editors actions, enough to warrant my actions. Indecently, I have no issue with any of his edits to King's College London today and my post here was to make sure that he did not inadvertently overstep the WP:3RR rule, there is nothing wrong with that, I used a personal message, not a template and it was polite and friendly. Codf1977 (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an extremely expansive interpretation/application of "revert", and I doubt it would be taken seriously at 3RR/N. But since you say you are merely trying to be helpful, it would seem that we don't need to worry about that... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity, thanks for your support and advice, which is genuniely appreciated. Codf1977 has been stalking me - in fact I think that the word harrassing is more accurate - fairly consistently for a while now. I'm no longer willing to engage with them directly as I don't now believe that it will make matters better. I have now made a formal complaint about Codf1977's behaviour and hope that might improve things. Thanks again. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please do not make personal attacks. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy against personal attacks. Stop accusing me of harassment - I am not and you are aware of that as Shell Kinney made it clear that I was not when she replied to your accusation.

As for assertion that "it is not necessary to 'build consensus' for the addition of cited material such as this" that is wrong. Codf1977 (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

User:TinaMH

Is this User:TinaMH you? Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.117.88 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)