Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Revirvlkodlaku (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 19 August 2023 (→Live). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You deserve this

even if you don't want it, just delete it then... :)

		The Music Barnstar
		for all that good work on the Mucky Pup and other pages on which we've crossed paths... Luminifer (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Vince

Nice job adding to the "Legacy" section. The negatives were written objectively, no undue weight, and the two paragraphs didn't come off as smear pieces. Nice job. Kjscotte34 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Correa vandal

Thanks for suggesting protecting List of people from Minnesota, which I have now done. When I wrote the talk page message saying "The article you have been vandalising has now been protected", I had seen only one article that had been affected, but later I realised there are more. It looks as though you probably know more about this vandal than I do, so if there are other affected articles that you can let me know about, I'll consider protecting those too. JBW (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I know they had been hitting Shannon Sharpe at one point but that calmed down. However, they may resort to hitting that one again now that the others are blocked. NJZombie (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, there has been continual vandalism at Shannon Sharpe for years, so I think protecting it may be a good idea anyway. I have now checked all of the editing history of all the accounts I know of, and semi-protected all of the articles. Unfortunately, sometimes the effect of doing that is just to drive the vandal to other articles, but it's still worth trying. JBW (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Live

Hello @NJZombie, I don't think it's appropriate that you undid my revert on the Live page the way you did—especially when I specifically asked that you discuss instead of reverting; doing so feels arrogant and provocative. I see nothing wrong with the way the images were placed—as far as I'm aware, their placement isn't in breach of any wiki standards or protocols—so any disagreement you have with me on the issue is stylistic and thus should not degenerate into edit warring. I strongly encourage you to discuss the matter with me on the talk page. Additionally, if you must revert, please only undo the specific changes you object to—do not make wholesale reverts that affect other edits you have no beef with. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You don’t get to request changes not be made and have everyone bow down to that. That’s not a thing. No one person owns an article and it’s not at your discretion to decide what works and what doesn’t. You’ve been an editor here long enough to know this. If you read the guideline that I provided, you’d see that stacking photos is discouraged. The images placed, the way they are, is sloppy and in no way helpful to the article. If you feel that they are useful, read the guideline and follow it on how to better place the images. Considering you’re the one to make the first two reverts of a change made, it is you taking the first steps towards an edit war. NJZombie (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

But you clearly did edit war! The definition of edit warring is that you revert back after your edit has been reverted, and you did exactly that. In the process, you not only undid my revert of your own edit but also my revert of the previous user's edits, so you were totally sloppy about your revert, and now you're trying to deny it and shirk any responsibility for that action, which is plainly immature. Had you properly explained why you didn't think the stacked images should stay—as you have finally done now—this issue would not have arisen. I recommend being more conscientious about your edit summaries in the future, as this will avoid unnecessary conflict. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)