| Revision as of 22:35, 4 April 2014 editJayaguru-Shishya (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,964 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:43, 4 April 2014 edit undoJayaguru-Shishya (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,964 edits /Archive 1Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | ||
| ==Welcome!== | |||
| ]]] ], Jayaguru-Shishya! Thank you for ]. I am ] and I have been editing Misplaced Pages for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on ]. You can also check out ] or type {{tlx|helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Also, when you post on ] you should ] using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! ] (]) <small>(formerly ])</small> 16:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2013 == | |||
| ] Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to ] has been undone by an automated computer program called ]. | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| * ClueBot NG makes very few ], but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please ], , remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again. | |||
| * For help, take a look at the ]. | |||
| * The following is the log entry regarding this message: ] was by ] ] ] ANN scored at 0.913283 on 2013-08-30T14:00:56+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 1718027 -->. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 14:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Genre bickering: == | |||
| ] Please stop your random biased genre bickering particularly on the ] related bands and artists. It seems you're desperately removing them whether including or excluding sources. If you've got any problem please be patient, discuss on talk page and wait for a general consensus.--] (]) 11:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == "DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THE ENTRIES ON TALK PAGE" == | |||
| Please show me the edit where I did this (hint: I didn't). You should check the talk page history before you go shouting at other editors. ] (]) 09:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2014 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> — '''''] ]''''' 18:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Dear Richard BB, there is no on-going edit-warring. No more on my part than, for example Shallowmead077's part. There is a Misplaced Pages rule that entries made on talk pages '''should not be removed'''. However, certain writers do that after each single entry. | |||
| :When it comes to articles, there are on-going discussions at the talk page, ones which the other contributors who keep reverting every single change refuse to attend to. Besides, they are involved in reverting as much as I do + 1, so please point your claiming finger equally to them. | |||
| :Every single time I have removed some section, it's since there are no grounds ever so far for the claims represented; the sources do not make such statement they are referred to support even, the sources are completely unreliable, etc. It is not my part to proove that "God doesn't exist". If one makes a claim without sources, it is his/her obligation to prove it right, not the other way around. ] (]) 20:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Firstly, I'd ask you to provide diffs of talk page posts being removed. Secondly, even if that has happened, it doesn't negate the fact you ''are'' edit warring. Finally, I think you need to read ], which I have linked you too numerous times. All everyone else is doing is reverting to the status quo, while you are actively trying to ''change'' things. No one else is changing anything, they're just reverting to the version which last had consensus. If you have an issue you have to take it to the talk page ''first'', and then alter it ''after'' you have consensus. So far, you do not have consensus. When multiple editors keep reverting you, it should be a clue that you're doing something wrong. Until your version is agreed upon, the old version stays: it's as simple as that. Now I'd ask you to stop edit warring and simply talk things out first. — '''''] ]''''' 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::He posted on my user page, not on my talk page. --] (]) 18:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Dear Richard BB, as I have told you numerous times: there is an on-going discussion at the talk page, one which you have not attended to. You just keep rudely reverting the edits even without discussing the changes at the talk pages. | |||
| :::So far, I have presented the very grounds for the changes I have made; it has been open for discussion at the talk pages; and it has not been opposed. | |||
| :::Therefore, stop reverting the edits and please participate the discussion at the talk pages if you should have any further doubts. Thanks. ] (]) 18:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And ''I'' have told ''you'', these discussions need to end before you get ''your'' way. I have to repeat myself now: '''read ]'''. Because your edits are disputed, we revert to the status quo for the time being. If your edits weren't disputed, then we'd certainly allow your version. However, until we attain consensus, we do not accept your version. — '''''] ]''''' 19:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removing sourced content== | |||
| You don't get to arbitrarily declare sources as "invalid" just because you don't agree with the content. I suggest you stop removing sourced section without getting some sort of consensus on the talk page '''before''' removing any established content. <b>] ]</b> 18:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of ] to ] because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks!<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> <span style="font-family:Black Chancery;text:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">''']''' (]) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Talkback|:Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#Novels: So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish}} | |||
| == March 2014 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on . | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>'''Hanbok''' (South Korea) or '''Chosŏn-ot''' (North Korea) is the traditional</nowiki>{{red|'''['''}}<nowiki>Korean dress. It is often characterized by vibrant colors and simple lines without pockets.</nowiki> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, 1, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on . | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>* Nico</nowiki>{{red|''']]'''}}<nowiki> – collaborator on vocals with the band on four tracks on ''The Velvet Underground & Nico''</nowiki> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, -2, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 20:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Hanbok == | |||
| Please stop removing sourced content and add information that is contradictory to those reliable sources that you have removed. Finding reliable sources for additional information that you add is your burden, not others. Also, use the talk page to discuss relevant matters. ] (]) 22:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your message Cydevil38. I'm sorry but I did not mean to remove reliable source. However, I do find that the sources that I restored back to the article (I haven't discovered them in the first place) are reliable enough as well, and they are stating things different. ] (]) 17:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Los Natas edits == | == Los Natas edits == | ||
Revision as of 22:43, 4 April 2014
 Archives |
Los Natas edits
- Please see the definition of the word "coined."
- Please use the correct method of asking for more information. It is not interpolating "such as?" into the text of an article.
- There's no need to seek consensus on an article's talk page before making edits.
· rodii · 01:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Rodii. I think the right place for discussion is at Los Natas -talk page where the other contributors could follow the discussion as well in order to improve the article. If you find errors though, you can also help to improve the article by correcting those faults instead of removing one's contributions. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Appropriate level of wikilinking
Good message at WT:MOSLINK. I do a lot of maintenance work that includes unlinking common terms and chronological items. But en.WP is ahead of the game in this respect compared with most of the other WPs. May I ask whether you have experience at another WP? And if so, whether you've had any success in convincing other editors to use the wikilinking system more skilfully? I've watchlisted this page if you want to reply here. Tony (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Greetings there Tony1! And thanks for your message, I'm glad to hear that there is someone else concerned with the same problems too.
- I agree with you, the English Misplaced Pages is way ahead it's other language version counterparts. I am currently contributing to the Finnish language Misplaced Pages aside from the English one, and I must say that I am really giving up hope with it completely... Few practices still vivid and alive at the Finnish Misplaced Pages:
- 1) They are linking all the dates (official WP-policy there, e.g. October 5th, 2004)
- 2) ...linking a lot of common terms
- 3) ...linking compounded words from the middle even (e.g. toothpick)
- => If your try to remove excess linking - even with well-grounded reasons and participating the discussion at the Talk page - it is likely to just get reverted without any explanations. There is also a very little contributor base in the fi.wiki, and therefore it is pretty much the same group of contributors that keep patrolling on the changes in the articles and backing-up the doings of one an each other.
- If there shall be any discussion though, it tends to be taken to your User -talk page, often on a very personal level, and taken away from below the eyes of the other article contributors...
- I have also launched a discussion at the fi.WP, one where "I got mistaken to refer" to the English Misplaced Pages policies. This resulted into fierce responses, according to which Finnish Misplaced Pages is completely different, and that the English policies have no value at the Finnish side. Well, that's actually true and I do understand it but.... how about benchmarking? Is it bad in general? In Finnihs Misplaced Pages, it seems it is.
- The Finnish Misplaced Pages has sunken deep with it's current conceptions, and the general mindset with wikilinks still seems to be "the more, the better".
- That's pretty much my experiences in my rather small language version. Maybe I should just drift towards Citizendium (http://en.citizendium.org/Welcome_to_Citizendium) slowly xD ... How about your experiences Tony1? Which language edition you've been working with? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- You might tell them that overlinking has the same ill effect for all readers—whether of en.WP or fi.WP. The particular language is irrelevant. The war about linking started with the ridiculous date-autoformatting that was introduced into en.WP in 2003 as a ham-fisted solution to editors' fights about US vs non-US formatting. Only logged-in editors who had chosen prefs saw any "benefit". Not readers.
The main battle was won about six years ago: what was surprising was the vehemence of objection, and the fact that within a year or two hardly any editor objected. The whole attitude has turned 180 degrees. It's a symptom of how crude the wikicultures are in other languages that readers don't count. The linking system is washed out and the text looks pretty bad, because no one has stood up to the mind-set of the geek-nuts who are in control. Very happy to have you editing here.
- User:Tony1/Most_poorly_wikilinked_article_award, User:Tony1/Survey_of_attitudes_to_DA_removal, User:Tony1/Information_on_the_removal_of_DA, User:Tony1/Build_your_linking_skills. Tony (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- You might tell them that overlinking has the same ill effect for all readers—whether of en.WP or fi.WP. The particular language is irrelevant. The war about linking started with the ridiculous date-autoformatting that was introduced into en.WP in 2003 as a ham-fisted solution to editors' fights about US vs non-US formatting. Only logged-in editors who had chosen prefs saw any "benefit". Not readers.
Wikilinks
Hello,
WP:OVERLINK states that "Links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I can't really understand why you are neglecting this? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like the edit infobox didn't capture this (was left empty), sorry. Anyway, I undid revision back to version by Rothorpe (talk) =P So I'm in favour of his/her edit... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's allright. I appreciate your concern over the overlinks by the way. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Mass original research in the lede
All the well sourced text in the lede was deleted. I think the sourced text should be restored not deleted. The current lede is poorly written. QuackGuru (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please continue the discussion at the appropriate Talk Page of the article (Talk: Chiropractic). There other contributors can follow the discussion and the grounds for your edits as well. I started there a new section where I quoted your post at my talk page. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not give you permission to move my comment to the talk page
I did not approve of this. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's what you originally wrote, and which was answered as such. Please do not change your original post that has already been commented at the Talk Page. It will distort the progress of conversation. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not originally post that comment to the talk page.QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really get your point. I am free to quote your post at the talk page too since 1) it pertains to the article, and 2) you made edits on the article and argumented those edits by your post. I moved it to the Talk Page because that's where it clearly belongs. Now the other contributors can also see the discussion about the sources and edits about the article. You are not trying to make edits behind other contributor's back, are you? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages policy is pretty clear when it comes to moving fragment discussion to one location:
- Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link. If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and linking to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why. (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_all_talk_pages_used_for_collaboration)
If you ever post a comment on an article talk and sign another editor's name again - as you did here - your editing privileges on Misplaced Pages will almost certainly be removed. You can delete other editors' posts from your talk page (but not refactor them); and you can quote the content of another editor's post elsewhere (with proper attribution); but you may not make a post that gives the impression that another editor made it. Please take this warning seriously - the community looks very unfavourably on deceptive editing. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- No, my editing privileges on WIkipedia are just fine and the most certainly will not be removed. Don't be silly, my dear. Show me, where i have refactored anybody's posts? you may not make a post that gives the impression that another editor made it.? Too bad, I can take direct cites as much as I want. What on earth are you ranting about? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:QuackGuru_reported_by_User:Jayaguru-Shishya_.28Result:_.29 - It seems that ] (]) already disagrees with you. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Talk page vandalism?
I wrote "This was not my original post to this talk page. You moved my comment from your talk page here without my permission."QuackGuru (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You deleted a comment I made to the talk page. Please don't remove my comment again. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please try to follow good manners while interacting with other contributors in Misplaced Pages. Your current editing style and behaviour is aggressive. Thanks. As you can read above and as you haven't even disagreed, it's quite obvious that the the discussions concerning the edits you have made on an article, belong to the article Talk Page. It seems that you are trying to make edits behind the other contributors' back. Please argument your edits to the other contributors of the article, not me individually. I will restore your post here now, and therefore consider the post at Talk:Chiropractic as a quote from you. Therefore, do not edit a direct quote given. You are vandalizing a Misplaced Pages's Talk Page at the moment. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- You deleted my comment again. I am not interested. QuackGuru (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Point. QuackGuru (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Strike if you will, but do not misuse the Template:Collapse top {{Cot}}. {{Cot}} clearly says that:
- The {{collapse top}} template (a.k.a. {{cot}}) and its paired template {{collapse bottom}} (or {{cob}}) are used for placing a collapse box around a talk page discussion, especially when the content contains complex wikimarkup such as tables. For very simple content, the one-piece template {{collapse}} can be used instead.
- These templates should only be used in accordance with the Misplaced Pages:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.
- If I reverted your strikings as well, it has been an accident. However, do not try to hide end the discussion by using {{Cot}}. If you still keep vandalizing the article Talk:Chiropractic Talk Page and violating the Misplaced Pages Policies, I will have to report you. Please always respect other Misplaced Pages contributors and try acting nicely instead aggressively. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you are deleting my comments without my permission after being told to stop. QuackGuru (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, just restoring the original quote of yours (whether quoted or moved as a fragment discussion). Comments you can add as separate posts, but do not alter the original ones. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, you are right. My apologies. I mistakenly observed that you modified your old comment even you added a new one. Sorry for that, my mistake. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- You deleted a diff I added and moved my comment. You added mass OR to the lede and deleted the tags without fixing the problems. In exactly what way is that a summary? Please revert your edits to the chiropractic page. I have replied to your report. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you are deleting my comments without my permission after being told to stop. QuackGuru (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This looks like an April Fools joke in mainspace. You claim His latest revert today makes it pretty hard to understand his claim that it is not about the sources. When we look at his latest revert, we can see that it is very well about the sources. However, the text you added to the lede is original research and failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)