Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 13 March 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Cincinnati Bengals. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Pats1 /C 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

January 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Pittsburgh Steelers, you will be blocked from editing. Grsz 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, you will be blocked from editing. Grsz 17:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

February 2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom‎. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to The Shot. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did to Koman Coulibaly, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Barack Obama, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~DC 17:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

March 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to New Black Panther Party appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Maya Calendar

I've reverted you there as your edit was against our guideline at WP:ERA. I see a lot of warnings above, and no responses, which is unfortunate. However, your edit at Cassowary looks constructive, which is great. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mel Blount have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

July 2016

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Hillary Clinton. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —MelbourneStar☆ 13:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JohnTopShelf. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Hello, I'm Smd75jr. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Hillary Clinton— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Smd75jr (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Hello, I'm Zazpot. You made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Hillary Clinton, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so it was removed by another editor. Misplaced Pages has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Zazpot (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Legal recognition of non-binary gender

Hello, I'm Zazpot. Misplaced Pages is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Legal recognition of non-binary gender seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you are unfamiliar with the singular "they", this may help:

Many people tell me that my pronouns are grammatically incorrect; however, they use “they” as a singular pronoun on a daily basis without thinking twice about it. When telling a story, Person A will say, “I met up with a friend from college last night!” Person B will respond, “Oh, cool! What’s their name?” In this scenario, Person B does not know the gender of Person A’s friend, therefore defaults to a gender-neutral pronoun.

— Tyler Ford

Zazpot (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Tyler Ford (August 7, 2015). "My life without gender: 'Strangers are desperate to know what genitalia I have'". The Guardian.

October 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Singular they, you may be blocked from editing. Funcrunch (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Funcrunch (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to LaVar Ball. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JohnTopShelf. 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)

Obama edits

When opinions are clearly factual, and the opposing views are fringe ones pushed mostly by unreliable sources, we state the facts and ignore the fringe by giving the fringe the weight it deserves, in some cases no mention at all. Framing factual opinions as mere "opinions" poisons the well and serves to undermine the factual nature of the content. It would serve to frame facts as mere opinion which can be ignored, and frame debunked conspiracy theories as factual. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 17:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note this information about biographies of living people

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.  Bishonen | talk 17:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC).

Template:Z33

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories 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. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Lima Central Catholic High School, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JohnTopShelf. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Leviv ich 21:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Please stop trying to change it to "socialist" (diff, diff). You can start a discussion and try to seek consensus on the talk page. Leviv ich 21:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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 the 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Z33

SERIOUS WARNING: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Hi John! I need like a half hour to write out a response to your questions on my talk page about why I reverted you and "what the problem is" with your edits. However, in the meantime, you should stop edit warring on that page immediately. It's under discretionary sanctions, and furthermore, it's a WP:1RR page, which means you can't keep putting back language after you've been reverted–you only get one revert per 24 hours, and every time you put "socialist" back in, that counts as a revert. Please self-revert these edits that you just made: diff, diff, diff. An admin has placed a DS notice (just above this thread), and while I'm not an admin and I'm just going to write an answer to your questions and I myself can't take any kind of action, some other admin might come along and block you for violating the 1RR rule. I strongly urge you to self-revert those edits and don't put them back, at least until I've had a chance to write a longer explanation about this issue, which I will do shortly. Thanks. Leviv ich 17:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. Your posts on my talk page boil down to two questions: How could I possible violate any policy by stating that Ocasio Cortes is a socialist? ... There was no reason to revert my edit. and What on earth is wrong with calling her a socialist?. The former is about conduct and the latter is about content, so here are my answers. Leviv ich 18:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Conduct

How could I possible violate any policy by stating that Ocasio Cortes is a socialist?

Totally irrespective of any particular content issue (e.g., whether or not AOC is a "socialist"), there is the issue of a conduct policy violation. The policy is WP:1RR, which is a stricter version of WP:3RR, part of our edit warring policy. Because Misplaced Pages is "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit", the only way that can work without becoming chaos is if we all agree not to repeatedly put in the same content over and over again (not to "edit war"). You've been doing this at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: You added "socialist" and "radical group" on Feb 19, it was reverted by an editor other than me; you changed "progressive" to "socialist" on Feb 21, it was reverted by me; you again changed "progressive" to "socialist" on Feb 22, it was reverted by a third editor; you again changed "progressive" to "socialist" less than an hour later, part of the three recent edits that I urged you to self-revert above (and still urge you to self-revert, for the reasons I explain here).

The last two of those four edits were all 1RR violations. You can be blocked from editing for this. Repeated violations can lead to additional sanctions like topic bans and longer blocks. It's a very bright-line rule: you can only make one revert at that article per 24 hours. The third and fourth of those four edits were both reverts in under 24 hours. You'll note, for example, that I am not reverting your fourth edit, because my last revert was less than 24 hours ago, and that would be a 1RR violation for me. This is taken really seriously, and I think the only reason you haven't been sanctioned yet is because you only have a couple hundred edits and have only recently had a DS notice placed. If you self revert, I think an admin would look favorably on that. If you don't self-revert, or worse, if someone reverts you and you put it back a fifth time, I think the chances are very high that an admin will block you.

People take 1RR seriously even if they agree with your edit. For example, when I recently crossed the 1RR line, an editor notified me on my talk page within minutes pointing it out and asking me to self-revert. I did self-revert. The same editor then used up their 1RR to revert the same edit I reverted. My point is that this 1RR conduct policy is taken very seriously and people even put aside their feelings about content to make sure this rule is enforced.

To put it bluntly, if you mess around with 1RR, it's only a matter of time until an admin sees it and blocks you, and as of right now, you may be "vulnerable" to being blocked because you have an un-reverted 1RR violation sitting there.

I noticed that while I was typing this, you edited the article to add "progressive" back in. I appreciate the effort at compromise, but I'm not sure that will be seen as a self-revert by an admin, and also the article now says "progressive socialist", which doesn't make a lot of sense (and isn't a term I think used by any reliable sources). Leviv ich 18:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Content

What on earth is wrong with calling her a socialist?

Two things:

1. You don't have consensus to call her a "socialist." As a basic matter, you'd have to discuss this on the article talk page and gain consensus for making the edit. That's how the bold, revert, discuss method works. You made a bold edit; it was reverted; rather than putting it back (a 1RR violation), the next step is to discuss on the talk page.
2. The reliable sources may not support "socialist". This has been discussed on the article talk page here, here, here, and here, and probably other places that I'm missing. If you raise a discussion on the article talk page, it won't go anywhere unless you bring new sources that haven't been discussed before that call her a "socialist".

It doesn't matter if you or I or any of us think she is or isn't a "socialist". Basing the content on what we think would be original research. What matters is what the reliable sources say. I think the only way you'll get consensus for describing her as "socialist" in the article is if you can show reliable sources using that label. (Note that "democratic socialist" is not the same thing as "socialist", nor is "social democrat".) To make sure a source is reliable, check the WP:RSP list of perennial sources, and also search the archives at the WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard.

I hope this helps. Leviv ich 18:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

March 2019

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Chelsea Manning, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Do not reinsert material which has been removed unless there is clear consensus on the talk page that it should be included in the article. You need to engage in the consensus-building discussion process and not attempt to force through your proposed changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Bradv🍁 20:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Moore is not a Greenpeace co-founder

is not a Greenpeace co-founder. He lied. He's a coal industry lobbyist and only worked for Greenpeace's Canada branch for some time, which he used as a credential to back his lobbying for polluting industries. Greenpeace disowned him multiple times. His criticism of AOC therefore has serious conflict of interest issues and including that in the AOC page would be POV and a serious violation of BLP guidelines. The other editor were correct. Any sensible person would recognize that as a something from a deranged lunatic. This is a place for you to complain about leftists either. Please stop. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)