| Revision as of 21:06, 13 January 2020 editBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,736 edits →American politics discretionary alert: new sectionTag: contentious topics alert← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:01, 13 January 2020 edit undoRafe87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,839 edits →Cease POV-pushingNext edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| You have a corrupted, perhaps intentionally mendacious, understanding of what Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy entails. Opinion articles have never been banished from its entries, and their use is allowed as long as it is made clear that it represents an individual perspective and not the facts themselves. But seeing your behavior in the entry's talk-page, where you're railing against any acknowledgement of Ed Schultz's firing from MSNBC, an extremely notable fact and very relevant to the entry's subject, shows what you're all about. You don't care about notability, you care about pushing a pro-corporate media POV. ] (]) 20:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) | You have a corrupted, perhaps intentionally mendacious, understanding of what Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy entails. Opinion articles have never been banished from its entries, and their use is allowed as long as it is made clear that it represents an individual perspective and not the facts themselves. But seeing your behavior in the entry's talk-page, where you're railing against any acknowledgement of Ed Schultz's firing from MSNBC, an extremely notable fact and very relevant to the entry's subject, shows what you're all about. You don't care about notability, you care about pushing a pro-corporate media POV. ] (]) 20:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :{{ping|Rafe87}} I'm quite confused by your message, and suggest that you may want to review ]. We do not cite opinion as fact. We ''do'' describe the opinions ''of notable people'', and properly cite those opinions. But what you proposed, an op-ed in a liberal magazine by a non-notable author which purports to predict how media will react to Sanders's poll standing, does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. My objections to some of the sources regarding Schultz are very clear: the only sources reporting a link between his views and his firing are not ], and correlating those two incidents without referencing RS is ]. If a reliable source stated that Schultz was dismissed from MSNBC ''because of'' his pro-Sanders views, I would unequivocally support such a statement's inclusion. That said, such a discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. I also strongly suggest striking your ] against me. I am not here to push any kind of agenda or POV; I am here to help build an encyclopedia. --] (]) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC) | :{{ping|Rafe87}} I'm quite confused by your message, and suggest that you may want to review ]. We do not cite opinion as fact. We ''do'' describe the opinions ''of notable people'', and properly cite those opinions. But what you proposed, an op-ed in a liberal magazine by a non-notable author which purports to predict how media will react to Sanders's poll standing, does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. My objections to some of the sources regarding Schultz are very clear: the only sources reporting a link between his views and his firing are not ], and correlating those two incidents without referencing RS is ]. If a reliable source stated that Schultz was dismissed from MSNBC ''because of'' his pro-Sanders views, I would unequivocally support such a statement's inclusion. That said, such a discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. I also strongly suggest striking your ] against me. I am not here to push any kind of agenda or POV; I am here to help build an encyclopedia. --] (]) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :: National Review might not be a RS for facts, but it's a RS for National Reviews's own interviews. It's a notable media outlet, even if partisan, and unless you're arguing that it changed the transcript and doctored the audio of Schultz's interview with them, you have no excuses to keep the subject banned from the Bernie-media entry. You keep insisting on removing any references to this subject because you are, I repeat, a POV warrior disguised as someone with merely "procedural" objections. You're a POV warrior with an agenda is to suppress evidence of media bias against Bernie from Misplaced Pages. This is nor a personal attack, it's an accurate description of your behavior and agenda. ] (]) 22:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == American politics discretionary alert == | == American politics discretionary alert == | ||
Revision as of 22:01, 13 January 2020
| This is WMSR's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
| This is WMSR's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
noticeboard/Edit warring situation HEJ004A
Hello, I received a message from you where you accused me of Blanking an Administrators' noticeboard report about me, I think there is an error because I was making a report to a user who is eliminating my contributions just for bothering me, but what happened is that I sent the report 2 times accidentally and badly edited because I have not understood very well how to use the platform to report an edit warring, so what I did was erase everything I wrote in one of the duplicate reports thinking that I could delete it but apparently it was not So and I only won a warning that they can block me for no reason, apart from that there is no logic where you say Blanking an Administrators' noticeboard report about you (me), because what I tried to eliminate was a copy of a report I was making to another user, I was not self-report, I put this because you called me brazen and it is disrespectful without having seen how the situation is.
In the end I could not solve the main problem of the edit warring with the user who reported because in the end the report disappeared.
--Hejo004A (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Template editor granted (permanent)
.svg){kind=icon}
Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Misplaced Pages:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Misplaced Pages's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
- Useful links
- All template-protected pages
- User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
- Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection
Happy template editing! RexxS (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Misplaced Pages.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Cease POV-pushing
You have a corrupted, perhaps intentionally mendacious, understanding of what Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy entails. Opinion articles have never been banished from its entries, and their use is allowed as long as it is made clear that it represents an individual perspective and not the facts themselves. But seeing your behavior in the entry's talk-page, where you're railing against any acknowledgement of Ed Schultz's firing from MSNBC, an extremely notable fact and very relevant to the entry's subject, shows what you're all about. You don't care about notability, you care about pushing a pro-corporate media POV. Rafe87 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Rafe87: I'm quite confused by your message, and suggest that you may want to review WP:NPOV. We do not cite opinion as fact. We do describe the opinions of notable people, and properly cite those opinions. But what you proposed, an op-ed in a liberal magazine by a non-notable author which purports to predict how media will react to Sanders's poll standing, does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. My objections to some of the sources regarding Schultz are very clear: the only sources reporting a link between his views and his firing are not WP:RS, and correlating those two incidents without referencing RS is WP:SYNTH. If a reliable source stated that Schultz was dismissed from MSNBC because of his pro-Sanders views, I would unequivocally support such a statement's inclusion. That said, such a discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. I also strongly suggest striking your personal attacks against me. I am not here to push any kind of agenda or POV; I am here to help build an encyclopedia. --WMSR (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- National Review might not be a RS for facts, but it's a RS for National Reviews's own interviews. It's a notable media outlet, even if partisan, and unless you're arguing that it changed the transcript and doctored the audio of Schultz's interview with them, you have no excuses to keep the subject banned from the Bernie-media entry. You keep insisting on removing any references to this subject because you are, I repeat, a POV warrior disguised as someone with merely "procedural" objections. You're a POV warrior with an agenda is to suppress evidence of media bias against Bernie from Misplaced Pages. This is nor a personal attack, it's an accurate description of your behavior and agenda. Rafe87 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
American politics discretionary 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 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.