Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:19, 16 November 2018

To keep discussions together, I've adopted the use of the {{ping}} template, and will reply here if you leave me a message. By using the ping, this ensures a notification will appear for you when I reply to your message. If I make a comment on your talk page, I will likely watch the page for replies, but please do consider using {{ping}} as well. If you do leave a comment here in response, I will respond here rather than returning to your talk page.

Disney Streaming Services/BAMTech

Amakuru: "rv undiscussed changes to lede and infobox. This article is about BAMTech, an entity which still operates - https://www.bamtechmedia.com/. Material about Disney Streaming Services seems quite speculative at the moment, but probably belongs in its own article or with Disney+"

It was undiscussed because it was sourced, which was found during a discussion at Talk:Disney+#Disney Streaming Services and other naming issues. Please actually read the changes to the article that sources this information. "...reports to Michael Paull, president of Disney Streaming Services (formerly referred to as BAMTech Media)." (And confirmed by his LinkedIn page.) Since the Disney Streaming Services was previously (logically) attached to the Disney+ article, having been under that name for a short period such to become a redirect, I had to request a G6. Technical deletions: "Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves." Which was granted by administrator @Anthony Appleyard:. Only for you to wheeled/revert his resulting move. Spshu (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Involved actions on Jaggi Vasudev

Hi Amkaru, I appreciate your contributions on Jaggi Vasudev, Since you have already participated in the talk page discussion and RM discussions. May I suggest you not to take actions in your administrative capacity on pages and incidents related to this subject per WP:INVOLVED--DBigXrayᗙ 13:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I am not involved in the edit conflict to which you allude, I have only participated in Jaggi Vasudev in relation to the rename discussion, which is unrelated to the dispute you had with Raymond3023 and Cpt.a.haddock. I was, however, disappointed to see an experienced editor such as yourself edit warring on the article, and if you had used the talk page to resolve the issue, rather than repeatedly reinstating the contentious material, I wouldn't have had to protect the article. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Amakuru, as I said in the beginning above, that I appreciate your comments and joining the discussion on the talk page. Although you did not participate in the said reverts, but by participating in the talk page discussion and participating in the !vote on a particular side you are clearly under the definitions of WP:INVOLVED as far as this page Jaggi Vasudev is concerned. If you feel admin actions are needed there, you should request Admin boards RFP etc for the sake of neutrality. Being an admin, you clearly should know about it better.
• Now regarding my edits and your accusation of edit warring, please note I had made several edits (total 15) first time that ta counted as a "Bold edits" and not a revert. Raymond as he stated in his edit summary had concern with the allegations about his wife and yet he reverted all 13 edits. The said content on wife was reliably sourced and mass revert of other 13 edits was clearly uncalled for in my opinion, so I made my first revert. And immediately started a talk page discussion.
• Instead of Joining the talk page discussion, Raymond made a second blanket revert That only referred to the allegation. It was clearly a misleading edit summary for the type of blanket edit that was done. He then joined the talk page and clarified that he only opposed content related to his wife. So I removed from my edit, the content related to his wife, that was objected by him and restored my other edits , this revert clearly wasn't the same as the first revert and yet I was blanket reverted by Raymond for a second time again again without proper edit summary. This was clearly disruptive reverts from Raymond with misleading edit summary, but nevertheless I decided not to make any further edits on any of those contents.
• So clearly I only made 1 revert (since the second revert did not include the content he questioned in his edit summary and talk page) and the reasons for them I clearly mentioned above.
• I am not sure if you were already aware of these points I said above, but I felt I should clarify since it was questioned. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)