Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 2 September 2013

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

The Center Line: Summer 2013

Volume 6, Issue 3 • Summer 2013 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Rewriting Infobox road and incorporating Wikidata Driving around the Pearl of the Orient Fixing our shields licensing	State and national updates Project news in brief Task force reports for CA, GA, MI, MN and WI
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

navigation boxes

Navigation boxes are for use anywhere that the information in them is useful to header. That includes categories. Please stop removing them. Hmains (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

All they do is provide links to places already linked to. Anyway I've started a community discussion here. Come on over....William 13:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hey, I think I managed to get the edit summaries removed. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you....William 12:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hi WilliamJE. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Death Spells, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Specifically, the article asserts credible significance and/or importance, which is a lesser threshold than notability and as such, does not meet the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Cindy(talk) 17:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Security Essentials

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Microsoft Security Essentials. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

By the way, the accusation of WP:OWN is a personal attack. And it is Misplaced Pages's policy that the main subject of discuss must be linked. Fleet Command (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Familarize yourself with WP:Overlink which states 'Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. It was already linked to in the article's intro and in the article's main section before the part that I corrected.

As to WP:OWN, it is plainly obvious that Codename Lisa has been engaging in it at the MSE page for sometime. Read her edit summary of her reversion, the page's edit history. and check overlink and see how it isn't OWN going on....William 15:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

First, you familiarize yourself with WP:BRD, WP:EW and WP:NPA. The last two are policies, unlike WP:OVERLINK which is just guideline but I'll get to it. Know that I, Fleet Command, am the main contributor of Microsoft Security Essentials. If anybody has to be worried about WP:OWN, that's me. But I don't use the word ownership for fighting vandalism, a bunch of anti-Microsoft zealots and edit warriors. (For now consider it not a comment on yourself, though you have broken WP:BRD.) You should have stopped reverting and had to discuss with her. Or me.

Second, I have read WP:UNDERLINK, WP:OVERLINK, WP:REPEATLINK and in general, I am of the opinion that

1. The fact the link goes to the primary subject of discussion of that section outweighs any other issue, per WP:UNDERLINK
2. Even if there was an overlinking issue, you could have removed just any other non-important link like "USB"
3. I don't believe overlinking is the genuine problem here at all. Your non-collegial behavior shows that your edit is just a mean to get back on Codename Lisa and assume ownership of the article. You don't have the good of Misplaced Pages in mind.

Consider going to WP:DR instead. Fleet Command (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There are three links to Windows Defender, two in the body of the article already. You're engaging in WP:OWN because there was nothing wrong with my edit per WP but you feel the need to go after me here....William 16:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Patently false. There are only two links in body. However, there is one in the lead (which must be) and one in the navbox (which is again, okay) too. The total is four, yes. We can switch the one in Future section with a {{main}}. But Windows Defender is the main subject of discussion. I don't believe it is remotely okay to remove those two body links. Fleet Command (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)