| Revision as of 23:45, 1 December 2018 editWikieditor19920 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,766 edits →Linda Sarsour: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:55, 1 December 2018 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,452 edits WP:BLPREMOVE WP:DTRNext edit → | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
| Please read ]. You have removed content citing ] several times now, but merely duplicating content on several articles does not imply that the material is a content fork. This is only a notification, and I'm not watching this talk page. <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 18:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) | Please read ]. You have removed content citing ] several times now, but merely duplicating content on several articles does not imply that the material is a content fork. This is only a notification, and I'm not watching this talk page. <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 18:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| ] 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 are 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, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the ], if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than one ] on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the one-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-1rr --> | |||
Revision as of 23:55, 1 December 2018
 | "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue"There exist countless reliable, published sources pointing out that the sky is, in fact, blue. Beware of strenuous arguments for including more marginal information via comparison to this well-documented fact. No matter how questionable the sourcing, some editors will insist that various kinds of trivia or sensationalist gossip, especially regarding living people, are vital to the project, and accuse others of censoring Misplaced Pages to suppress The Truth™. Chances are that such arguments arise from a misunderstanding of the purpose of an encylopedia and draw heavily upon confirmation bias in the absence of high-quality sources. See also Appeal to common sense. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Thanks
...for that series of edits to Gamergate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just trying to understand for myself what the whole thing is. "Torturously complex" doesn't begin to describe it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- I want to give you my thanks as well. Normally I'd use the thanks tool but you've been prolific and the sum total is just great. Goodonye. --Jorm (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
NPOV / AESTHETIC
Hi SdeBoeuf! I *don’t think* your recent edit to WP:NPOV has worked as intended?
You inserted it as a policy shortcut alongside WP:SUBJECTIVE. Both link to the same bit of WP:NPOV . . I’m not sure if you intended the duplication? (or are you thinking that AESTHETIC may be more expressive / more likely to catch the reader’s attention productively?)
And - this baffles me! - both links actually render redirect-pages. The reader has to click through them to reach anything the reader is likely to recognise as an intended destination.
The two pages differ - and your link brings up the weirder by far of the two! It’s really earnestly telling me something; but I have no idea of what, or of why or when it might matter!
( I also have a suspicion I’m not putting this in the right location and style for a talk-page entry; but I’m vague on how to check and don’t want to get deflected! I wanted to send you an email: but I got a screen saying *my* (!) email address is not carved deeply enough in the relevant stone. Sorry for any infelicities: no offence intended! )
SquisherDa (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back - and for the pointer to the Shortcuts write-up. There’s some useful stuff in there!
In terms of the original problem, though - if it is a problem? - I’m still doubtful that the intended effect is to fill the user’s screen with a page s/he simply has to click through. It reminds me of links that lead to a DAB, which the reader has to click through without yet having seen anything the writer intended. So it still looks to me as if neither of those shortcuts in the NPOV article is working as intended? But maybe they are / maybe there’s something here I don’t understand (well, actually, yes, we can be pretty sure there is); and I’m certainly happy if you are.
SquisherDa (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what problem you're referring to. A shortcut allows links to pages and sections without having to type out the full page name. If the redirect is working properly, no clicking through is required. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- mmm . . have you tried it? (“If the redirect is working properly”: I think you might have put your finger on something there!) :-) SquisherDa (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I still don't see what the problem is. Could you be more exact? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bit pushed for time *right* now . . I’ll see if I can sort out something like a screen-print (well, a diff-kinda-thing) later :-) SquisherDa (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I still don't see what the problem is. Could you be more exact? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- mmm . . have you tried it? (“If the redirect is working properly”: I think you might have put your finger on something there!) :-) SquisherDa (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Here’s what I’ve been getting: ].
- But I think the ‘problem’ is that the shortcuts box is meant to be a *list* of shortcut aliases applying to this location . . whereas I thought it was a kind-of on-the-spot ‘see-also’ arrangement. I was clicking on the listed shortcuts expecting to land *somewhere else* and learn new things! - and getting results no-one has really anticipated! (So yes, there was quite definitely owt I didn’t understand!!) SquisherDa (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Draft talk:Joan Kelley Walker
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Draft talk:Joan Kelley Walker. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
ANI
On behalf of 76.115.64.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS):
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Sangdeboeuf engaging in disruptive editing. Bradv 01:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Content forking
Please read WP:RELAR. You have removed content citing WP:CONTENTFORK several times now, but merely duplicating content on several articles does not imply that the material is a content fork. This is only a notification, and I'm not watching this talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 18:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)