| Revision as of 17:31, 6 July 2017 editMediationBot (talk | contribs)5,654 edits A request for mediation which you are a party to has been rejected← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:34, 7 July 2017 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,971 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2017/June) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == New Page Review - Newsletter No.4 == | |||
| <div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px"> | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},] | |||
| <big>Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have {{NUMBERINGROUP:patroller}} reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If ''every'' reviewer did just {{red|'''55'''}} reviews, the {{red|'''22,000'''}} backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!</big> | |||
| But do remember: Rather than speed, '''quality and depth''' of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again ]. Get help ]. | |||
| Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read ]. | |||
| <hr> | |||
| <small>If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go ] ] (]) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)</small> | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=781482931 --> | |||
| Again, even though the tweet was poorly worded it means nothing. You are saying that my sources are not a reliable, colleges and university never use Misplaced Pages as a reliable resource. Sounds like that you are biased and want to erase what this man said, however whether he said he said it poorly or not, he is a public figure, and it's still history and it was said. If it is too controversial for your perhaps you need not to be here. Nance said it therefore it should be mentioned. Every time there is a negative mark on a liberal entity, people are quickly try to erase by justifying as not free speech, poorly said, unreliable resources, fake news, a right wing or left wing conspiracy, etc... What if CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, ABC, CBS mentioned the tweet? Would you call them reliable? They are not reliable either, they are all biased based on their political views. I have seen many controversy removed with some explanation that is fruitless as the one you described the removal of my paragraph. If you have a problem with being unbiased and to resolve at our level perhaps we need to escalate this higher. I am trying to work with you here and add the stipulation so we all can agree with. | |||
| We should not alter history to inflate one side. You said "Great to hear! When will Misplaced Pages start "requiring" to treat things with "neutrality." As far as I can see/read it's mostly a biased agenda." Does it make it right for everyone follow the shepherd that leads his sheep to a cliff? We all are biased but as mature adults we need to set aside our biased ideologies and come together as people and compromise. I am going to add a stipulation and if you want to add more to it go ahead-- we should find middle ground and we should not dismiss one person's comment because it makes Nance or his political party look bad. It was said and he is a public figure so he has to live with it like everyone one else. Once he comes back and says "What I meant was..." then we can add his explanation. | |||
| ] (]) 21:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is not a free speech platform and we have standards about what sources we accept and do not accept - particularly for defamatory claims about living people, and the claim that anyone encouraged a terrorist attack is most surely defamatory. Moreover, Misplaced Pages operates on a consensus basis, and there is no consensus that anything about the tweet should be included in Nance's biography. I encourage you, as a new user, to review our content policies such as ], ] and ], all of which are implicated in this matter. ] (]) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == (Unexplained major revert including poorly-sourced defamatory material; removed per BLP.) == | |||
| Define how it is poorly resource and defamatory? As I explained earlier Nance did in fact say it therefore it should be mentioned? Why can't you compromise with me? If you wish not to compromise with me perhaps we can have the adults (Arbitrators) take care of it. I thought I was talking to an adult with an open mind, but you decided to call my material poorly sourced and defamatory. I disagree. I said I was going to compromise with you and you could have added a stipulation, but since the conversation here is already it's your way or the highway I cannot see other recourse but to bring it up to the Arbitrator. I would like to give a change to better explain how it is defamatory and poorly sourced before I will take it to Arbitration. I was hopping that 2 adults can solve this issue without escalating higher.] (]) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I can see if he was not the one whom wrote the supposedly defamatory tweet I would agree with you. His tweet was genuine and Twitter verified there is nothing defamatory for something that he said personally. It is defamatory only when someone else fabricates the tweet. ] (]) 22:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :You are welcome to escalate this to ANI or to ArbCom, but I warn you that you will not find the outcome you seek; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Misplaced Pages strives to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and an avoidance of sensationalism. ] (]) 22:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| You mean to tell me that even though he personally, consciously, and freely wrote "This is my nominee for the first ISIS suicide bombing of a Trump property". Misplaced Pages don't want to be unfair for what he said? Wow,I didn't know that Misplaced Pages is politically correct to a certain group of people and political views. I would like to know how is defamatory to Nance for what he wrote. No one else went to his Twitter account which is verified and published by Nance himself. It makes no sense that it is defamatory to oneself for writing something that could be defamatory to others. I can't wrap my mind around this. Help me understand I am just a stupid libertarian that doesn't understand how it makes defamatory. ] (]) 22:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Okay no problem. Go ahead and give me the silent treatment. I honestly was trying to understand what you meant, but your vague comment will result more confusion than anything else.] (]) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, he wrote that tweet. The problem, for you, is that when you place that tweet in the context of the other tweets he was posting, it is clear that he was discussing the prospect for Trump-named buildings in other countries to become high-profile terrorist targets — not, as you appear to be asserting, asking a terrorist group to bomb a specific building. Your choice to take that tweet out of its context is not shared by reliable sources, and hence will not be shared by Misplaced Pages. Your interpretation of that tweet, in other words, is not verifiable in mainstream reliable sources, as all content on Misplaced Pages must be, by ]. Moreover, as it is highly defamatory to accuse a living person of supporting terrorism, Misplaced Pages policy dictates that ] — they must be supported by high-quality ]. Once again, your accusation and claim fails on the merits. The long story short is that no, Misplaced Pages is not going to say what you want to say about Malcolm Nance. It just won't. ] (]) 05:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == United Daughters of the Confederacy Edit == | |||
| You may have noticed I revised your edit on the UDC article again. I believe that your addition of more information was detrimental to the sentence structure of the ''memoirs'' paragraph. At the moment the sentence you added to is used to explain the expression and defense of the Lost Cause narrative . The topic of the sentence and the sources cited convey this. The UDC did (some would say does) justify and defend slavery, but I do not believe that this sentence should be the locale to include information on slavery. Perhaps elsewhere in the article?--] (]) 20:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==MfD nomination of ]== | ==MfD nomination of ]== | ||
| ] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 03:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC) | ] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 03:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:34, 7 July 2017
MfD nomination of Draft:Gamergate controversy
Draft:Gamergate controversy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gamergate controversy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Gamergate controversy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Vandalising CNN controversies pages
Please, stop
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at CNN controversies. --DraKyry (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CNN blackmail controversy". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 July 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning CNN blackmail controversy, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)