Revision as of 07:00, 7 June 2015 editAtlantacity (talk | contribs)135 edits →Edit warring← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:15, 7 June 2015 edit undoNomoskedasticity (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,766 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
:Look, Im not going to count your contributions on the topic. Just citing your own words seems enough to deduce consensus. Greetings from another woman ] (]) 07:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | :Look, Im not going to count your contributions on the topic. Just citing your own words seems enough to deduce consensus. Greetings from another woman ] (]) 07:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
== June 2015 == | |||
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
'''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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:15, 7 June 2015
Welcome!
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Atlantacity! Thank you for your contributions. I am Bosstopher and I have been editing Misplaced Pages for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or type {{help me}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Bosstopher (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Guess you should know about this too
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 Bosstopher (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring at Mattress Performance
Hi, I'm afraid you don't understand WP:BRD works. What you're doing is considered disruptive editing and can result in sanctions if it continues. Since I'm in a good mood, I'm writing this instead of just slapping the disruptive editing warning template on your talk page. I'm reverting you again. Please go to the talk thread and discuss this there. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Mandruss, thanks for your message but I'm not the only one thinking that a reference to the Jezebel article must be included. It's the world upside down that you keep removing the footnote even though you're alone in your position. Please leave it in until you have found more people that agree with you. Atlantacity (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your article talk post. The next step is to give the discussion some time to play out, understanding that some interested editors only have time to come to the article every few days. Understand that consensus does not require unanimous agreement, which is very rare anyway. See WP:CONSENSUS. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- But that goes for either side, that consensus doesn't require anonymity. Atlantacity (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- In a discussion about a content dispute, arguments should be based on policy and guidelines, which are all written down on one WP page or another. You don't just make a statement, you back it up with a link to the policy or guideline page, perhaps with a quote from that page. In theory, the side with the stronger argument wins, even if they are outnumbered. In practice, it's more complicated, since there are many editors with some experience who don't really understand the policies they are citing, and misinterpret them, and so on. In those cases, if you care enough about the issue, you can pursue some of the things in dispute resolution. But, until you have spent a considerable amount of time learning all those policies and guidelines and where to find them, you will be outgunned in a discussion. Unless there are other editors around to support you, you will probably lose most disputes. Every editor goes through this very difficult beginning phase, and I can only suggest trying to be patient, stay calm, be willing to lose, and read policy and guidelines. Your heart is in the right place, you just need experience. Feel free to call on other editors you respect for guidance, and there's always the Teahouse and Help Desk. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Really, I think little of what happens on Misplaced Pages is rule based, it's mob based instead. But that's probably not something you like to hear. Atlantacity (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're both right and wrong. There's a lot of both. It's maddening at times, and I basically had to stop caring quite so much if I wanted to continue and keep my sanity. I even created a personal userbox for my user page, "This user understands that, in the end, it's only Misplaced Pages". I learned to recognize when I needed a WP:WIKIBREAK, and to take a short one when things got too difficult. So I have survived to be one of the good guys, so far, instead of being driven off by the bad guys. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Really, I think little of what happens on Misplaced Pages is rule based, it's mob based instead. But that's probably not something you like to hear. Atlantacity (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I don't think I risk a Misplaced Pages addiction anytime soon. Atlantacity (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring
Hi, I don't want to have to spend time reporting people for edit warring, but I will if you restore the complaint again. If you want it to be added, gain consensus on the talk page. If you can't, open an RfC for more eyes. Sarah (SV) 06:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- You wrote yourself on the talkpage that linking to the complaint was okay. Your subsequent argument that a text message is taken out of context doesn't hold up though, so there is consensus. Atlantacity (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- That you have to keep restoring it shows there's no consensus – five times in three days, plus an article about it three times, and for some of that time the lawsuit was already in the article. Sarah (SV) 06:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Look, Im not going to count your contributions on the topic. Just citing your own words seems enough to deduce consensus. Greetings from another woman Atlantacity (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
Your recent editing history at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)