Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:45, 13 December 2017

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	In recognition of the hard work and integrity with which you've tackled articles. Both you and your work are truly appreciated. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope it's only temporary retirement

I know Misplaced Pages can be frustrating, but I'd like to imagine that you're just taking a break to get over the recent stress you've felt. From time to time, we all get caught up in particular issues that seem insurmountable, but Misplaced Pages needs good editors. Hope to see you back on the horse again... soon. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about retirement. I don't have faith in the project anymore. But sometimes I enjoy the edit in Misplaced Pages. I won't going to retire from it. I need to take it cool and don't involve myself too much on it. I can't save it from the OR. I must accept that it will be there until the community join together to do something about it. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I fully appreciate what you're saying. I doubt, however, that we'll ever be able to stop the OR as it's inherent to the nature of this social experiment. I think that the only way to stay (relatively) sane is to keep ploughing on and doing our best to eliminate the OR and POV. It doesn't take long for any editor to find out that working on content isn't a walk in the park... but that's not what we commit ourselves to. My experience is that it's best to step back for a month or a year until problem users get bored or blocked, then start cleaning up the worst of the mess (leaving talk page missives for other editors in order to get consensus). It's surprising how many editors are prepared to step up to discuss the content rationally once the most combative 'contributors' have left the arena. I have no doubt that the majority of reasonable editors watch articles, but really don't want to have to push back against tyrannical editors. Who can blame them? Letting it go at the time it's most contentious doesn't mean never returning... . --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Non-free image use

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically Home Secretary, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Your work on 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis is much appreciated. It's been nominated for In the News even. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well done, Rupert loup! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Liberal bias redirect

Since the aforementioned redirect was discussed at a discussion which resulted it being retargeted to Media bias, if you disagree with the target, please nominate the redirect at WP:RFD so that the community can discuss the suitability of the target, cheers. --- CHAMPION 08:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

David Stove

Hello, Rupert loup. Some time you removed uncited material and original research from the article David Stove. Please keep an eye on the article as efforts are being made to restore that content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Predatory sources

See predatory open access. These don't meet our reliable sourcing standards. I'm not seeing any evidence that embassypages.com is reliable either. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Warning

You are now edit-warring in a source that you claim is "official" but plainly, and by its own admission, is not. Please stop or you may be blocked. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Edits on Britain First

I've had to revert your edits as they are not particularly helpful to the topic in hand. I think what we currently have in the article will suffice; we don't need to name-check everybody condemning the comments. I'm sure those who lead Britain First would jump with joy at finding an edit that fails verification and shout "Look! Misplaced Pages spreads fake news - they're all Muslim sympathisers!" from the rooftops. So why take the risk? Ritchie333 15:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, the sources stated that and the named are members of the parliament and other notable people. So it's not OR. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It was more WP:DUE than anything else. Although since the PM has joined in, I don't see harm in adding that. Ritchie333 16:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rupert loup. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Josephine Butler 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Issues at Josephine Butler

Just FYI, better to discuss on talk page, very close- too close!- to 3RR, etc., now. Take care! Serial Number54129 16:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

us recognition

I think in your last edit you accidentally copied the part about Jewish scholars also - it's now in the article twice, and where you copied it to does not make sense because it contrasts the reform view. That "in contrast" should also be edited to preserve the logical flow of the section after the reorganization. These look like minor good faith mistakes, but I can't fix them right now because of 1RR. Seraphim System 00:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway I removed it, what happened was I think you just forgot to take out the paragraph when you were splitting them up and reorganizing. I didn't need to change any content so I don't think it is really a revert, but feel free to look it over. Seraphim System 00:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)