Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:22, 12 December 2015

bygone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

If I left a post on your talk page...

Please answer there. I'll see it, no worries.

Request for Advice

Hi, you are listed as semi-active. First, I inquire if what I am asking is ok to ask. Second, I ask if you would have the time to advise me about an incident in which I was acussed (I think, unfairly) of violating WP rules? The case is not moving forward, apparently. But this is my first time being dragged into this type of dispute while I was trying to deter vandalism (newbie at that), and I am, sincerely, at loss. I simply want to know what are my options now and what can I learn from this? Are there steps I could take in order to give it a satisfying completion? The urgency lies in the need to plan my future relationship to WP. Thanks for your time Historiador (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• It just came to mind, perhaps I am taking all this too seriously. Anyhow, your thoughts are valuable to me. Cheers, Historiador (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to give me a short rundown along with some diffs I'll be happy to have a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; of course. These are the diffs of my reverts:

This is reverting my own change back to the original, but with a tag:

The entire saga is here, next in line to be archived, but without a result. The user accused me of edit warring, incompetence, and of making him, and the other supposed editors, feel like idiots.

You can skip to the end. The following two paragraphs explain the diffs and so repeat information found in the urls; the last two are important:

• This is what happened from my side. I was using STiki, and the page came up with a case of potential vandalism or new user's mistake. The user was very new (in the last 24 hours), with a warning from a bot already on his Talk Page. This user had inserted a sentence, and a change in numbers, but without a summary explanation, no source connected to the sentence, and no follow up in the article's Talk Page. So, I reverted it in good faith and asked the user to provide sources (it was the automated response from STiki).

• User Andy quickly reverted it back with a comment that did not make sense to me: "That thing in the "< ref >" tags? It's called a reference." Though it made sense to me much later, it was still incomplete and confusing (and sarcastic), because the introduced sentence had no source linked to it. So, I reverted it but with a much longer message, and pleading for help: "If you bring an argument that's new for the article, explain it in the comments sections, justify it in Talk Page or place a reference. How else would we verify it?" Andy then revert it with this also cryptic message and no explanation: "Rv repeated blanking on sourced content" (I did not know what Rv meant). So in my 3rd and last revert I wrote: "One more time. Verify, explain, and source. You know how it works, and you know the time it takes to make sure these rules are followed." It took me less than 12 minutes to realize that the problem was poor communication, and I went back to the article and reverted my own doings, and placed a tag for citation at the end of the sentence hoping the editors would see what why I did not see a source (nor an explanation). Eleven minutes later, without warning nor an attempt to communication through Talk Pages, I was being called to the Edit Warring forum.

When Andy said he felt offended, I apologized for giving him and the editors that impression. I also accepted that I was moving both rather quickly (Andy was too). But I was hoping to leave for work with a page safer than before.

I feel that Andy did not follow procedure when he failed to communicate with me and did not follow good practice when he quickly sent me to the Edit Warring committee. And in the subsequent conversations, he was rude and disrespectful. The saga took much energy and time, for nothing to be solved, and being left insulted for trying to do my work. The event was unfair, I feel, and it is being left unattended. Perhaps, however, there is something that else that I am not seeing (besides the haste).

Would very much appreciate your view of my actions.

Forgot to sign my post here for December 8, 2015. It happens very rarely. I am signing here the next day. Historiador (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your post above, please do!

Ok. Misplaced Pages:Edit warring says this: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.

Edit warring here is any kind of back and forth over content. Beginning with that second revert, you did edit war. Now you know! Also, cheers to you, because in the end you put the content back when you saw that feathers had been ruffled. Doing this also ended any thought that you meant to edit war. It is also why the thread at ANI dwindled. This means it has very likely ended, which is good!

Be careful when editing with tools like STiki, since along with being helpful, they can fog one's outlook here and there and then make it easy to do too much in haste. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. It was indeed resolved this morning with no action stating there was no violation. EdJohnston wrote that my signing with a different name from my username (historiador/Caballero1967) brought some confusion. I wonder, then, if it would be better to change the feature that allows users to sign with different names. I was not meaning to misinform. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your feedback. You taking the time shows good will. I have learned much from this. Cheers, Historiador (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I think it's true, some things tend to go much easier for an editor when their signature matches, or comes very close to matching, their username. Misplaced Pages:Signatures does say: A customised signature should make it easy to identify the user name...

I'm not keen on customized signatures myself, but some editors like to dress up their usernames a bit with color or by tweaking the text (there may even be a true need for the latter now and then) and I get that. So I think the feature allowing it is ok. The website design here is very much meant to let one swiftly leap in and do stuff straight off, then learn policies and all the other ins and outs "by doing," as needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

One obvious talent you have is to explain rules, policies, and practices. It makes sense.  Thanks Historiador (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute

There is still a content dispute concerning Elvis-related topics to be resolved. May I ask you for commentaries on Talk:Toilet-related_injuries_and_deaths#Elvis.27s_death_on_the_toilet and Talk:Graceland#650.2C000_visitors. Onefortyone (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)