Misplaced Pages

User talk:Steven1991

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steven1991 (talk | contribs) at 04:34, 17 October 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:34, 17 October 2024 by Steven1991 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Steven1991! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 10:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Erroneous captions to 2 of your images on the St Andrews Cathedral page of Misplaced Pages

You have uploaded two photographs you have taken onto the St Andrews Cathedral page of Misplaced Pages. Both feature the Tower of St Rule's along with what you call St Rule's "western turrets". This is not correct. What you call "western turrets" is, in fact, the (remains of) the eastern wall of the (later) sanctuary. The parallax caused by the angle of your photos may have misled you. My source? Cruden, Stuart (1950), St Andrews Cathedral - Official Guide, Edinburgh: Her Majesty's Statioery Office, ISBN 0-11-490696-3. I guess any more recent guidebook with a decent map of the site would do, but Cruden's two maps and photo no. 4 seem definitive. I don't know whether you can correct your errors (if not you, who can?) but if they aren't corrected soon I shall raise the matter on the Talk page of 'St Andrews Cathedral'. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind correcting them for me then? Steven1991 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I have edited the captions as you request. Unfortunately, the actual file title to one of them mentions the supposed "St Rule's Western turrets" and its image shows the deceptive parallax which might lead the viewer to accept the notion that the "turrets" (of the Eastern wall of the later Cathedral are actually in line with the axis of St Rule's Church, when your other picture shows plainly that they are not. I know of no way that the file's title (as opposed to its description or caption) can be altered/edited. If you know of a way, it should be corrected to avoid any further confusion. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help. Steven1991 (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I've noticed you doing the important work of adding a bunch of sources, and adding wikilinks in compliance with the MOS; you're improving the encyclopedia, and seem to be learning the arcane rules of the MOS quite quickly. Quicker than I did! Well done, and thank you for your help in improving Misplaced Pages! EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Number & quality of sources

Hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of removing the duplicated template on that discussion. One should be enough. Andre🚐 06:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, check out WP:OVERCITE and WP:CLUMP. You should trim and citebundle. 3 or 5 or 8 cites might seem informative but generally you can get by with less, and focus on the higher reliability stuff. Less is more. I once had a history professor that, when I turned in my magnum opus that was 4 pages longer than the max page limit for the assignment, she gave me a C and called it self-indulgent. It's a good lesson. Be succinct and to the point and cut and trim the fat. People will respond better and it makes for an easier to understand logical article structure. Andre🚐 06:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your humble advice. I am currently working on it with my best effort. Steven1991 (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure you will. You might want to slow down and fix the problems for a while before embarking on any major new expansions. Keep in mind that other people are going to try to scrutinize and check your work. That's how it works. Thanks for being cooperative and trying to listen to feedback. That is critical. Andre🚐 07:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Demonization in other religions or movements

I didn't intend to imply there were POV issues or factual inaccuracies in the section I edited & apologize if it read as such to you. I meant more that I was editing the tone to be more clinical & encyclopedic without changing the contents.

My comment on sources was in regards to the citations for Islamists & anti-Zionists in the following paragraph, both consisting largely of opinion pieces. Again, apologies for any confusion. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Great. I am removing the opinion articles and other less reliable sources. It would take some time. Steven1991 (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for your excellent cleanup on Antisemitic tropes. It's a long, complex, important article and you're giving it the careful attention it deserves. Great work! Ocaasi 16:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I dispute your reverts of my edits on the List of antisemitic incidents in the US

How do I dispute your reverts of my edits on the List of antisemitic incidents in the US? Clearly I'm not vandalizing anything ; the rows I deleted are all ambiguous as to whether they constitute antisemitism. I'm not going to delete something if it clearly states from a trustworthy source that the incident is antisemitism. Warning me for vandalism is a shande. Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If you have an issue with article content, please properly discuss it at the talk page. Mass deletion with no/poorly given reasons is considered vandalism, regardless of intent. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I am still new to wiki and have generally never used a talk page so I appreciate the response,
1) Just to get it a straight - new rows can be added without having to go through the talk page. But new rows cannot be deleted without being discussed. But my deletion of rows was basically just a reversion of the Steven entity @Steven1991's edits. The Steven entity did not have to "discuss properly" before reverting my edits. Therefore, I am able to revert his mass-edited rows without have to discuss, right?
2) In any case clearly the Steven entity @Steven1991 would just dispute my proposals if I went through the talk page and "properly discussed" so I dont understand the point of that
3) Is it possible to circumvent discussion through making more thorough edit reasons? How do I prevent the Steven entity @Steven1991 from merely mass reverting my edits, and warning me falsley for "vandalism"? Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
You are the user who initiated mass deletions with no or ambiguous reasons. Reversal of these operations is justified to try protecting the article. Steven1991 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
So to be clear, you are open to possibility that some of your reversals were incorrect? And you reverted my edits, out of wanting to protect the article, because you took it as a threat to that I initiated mass deletions for no or ambiguous reasons.
It's not that you believe the rows I deleted should have stayed - it's just that you just found it threatening that many rows were being deleted.
Im not making a gotcha point, I am just understanding. Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Your “edits” were predominantly mass deletions with no reasons or spurious reasons (“Lol”), which constituted fundamental violations of the editing rules. If it’s one or two, it’d be fine, but you erased tens of thousands of bytes of content not supposed to have been removed en masse without discussion. That is the source of the problem. I am not saying that you must have done it in bad faith, but you’d have to be fair to other editors having spent time and effort on expanding the article. I believe that the points are clear and appreciate your time reading through it. It’d be much better for you to summarise the concerns in the article’s Talk page as mentioned above. Steven1991 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
1) Do not refer to another editor as an "entity".
2) You were the instigator in this case, so @Steven1991 was justified to return the article to status quo. Continued deletion of content afterwards without discussion is what's considered vandalism. Best practice then would be to discus at the article's talk page to settle the content dispute. If this doesn't work, it may be escalated to a noticeboard for broader discussion.
3) It doesn't matter if other editors may disagree with you, you must discus. It does not even matter if your desired edit would be "correct" or not, as WP:BRINE. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you can post on the article’s Talk page. Steven1991 (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I am sure there's a lot you would appreciate. Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

How does it constitute edit war? I just reverted your edit once. I didn’t seen your message on the article’s Talk page when I saw a significant amount of the article’s content had been removed as I didn’t subscribe to the specific message on that Talk page.Steven1991 (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
you have done more than 3 reverts on an article that multiple folks worked on in a short timeframe.
You are showing WP:OWNING behavior and doing WP:1AM.
The 3 revert rule is 3 reverts total, not 3 reverts against a single person. Also please be noted, this article might be subject to WP:1RR due to WP:CTOP restrictions, and admins will also consider slow motion edit wars or attempting to do reverts just outside the 24 hour period as examples of WP:GAMING the system. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Last night, a user engaged in vandalism on the article and got blocked by an admin. I reversed that user’s edits as per Misplaced Pages guidelines. So, I believe that those shouldn’t count. Steven1991 (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Did not realize wikipedious was vandal. Agree that doesn't count towards 3RR rule.
Even without wikipedious, the pattern of reverts is concerning and indicates a slow-motion edit war with beluga and others. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Please engage with talk page discussion. I gave a reason to remove the excess incidents in the edit summary and was discussing it in the talk page as per wikipedia policy. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, thank you for your clarification. You may go ahead to make any proper restorations, but I believe that the July 2019 Miami synagogue shooting and the September 2024 Congress swearing incident get to stay as they are significant enough in nature. Steven1991 (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll stay away from that article for now and do other stuff and let folks figure it out. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Highlighting Tagged Passages

Hi Steven. I was wondering if there was a particular guideline you were using when you highlighted passages you applied maintenance tags to. I ask because I haven't seen it done before, and it seems like it could confuse the reader, but I also didn't find any guideline against it, so it makes me wonder if I'm just missing something. If there's no guideline, I'd recommend avoiding highlighting in-article and just adding a talk page post clarifying (if needed) the extent to which the passage applies. If there is a guideline or template instruction, I'd appreciate it if you could point me that way; I'm always looking to learn more!

I also wanted to say again that I'm impressed with how quickly you're picking all the wikipedia quirks up; I've been pleased to see a long string of solid contributions from you. Thank you for helping to improve Misplaced Pages! EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Using a very POV piece

Hello. I noticed your edits related to antisemitism. Some are good, and I appreciate your interest in this problematic topic, but others are, well, problematic; in particular related to your use of a controversial source, and treating opinions in it, very biased, as facts. Please read: User:Piotrus/Response for some context. I would like to ask you to consider removing the highly non-neutral content you have added, referencing the source mentioned there. While there are indeed many shameful antisemitic deeds that we should shine the light on, there is also some fake news or bad research we should avoid, least it detracts from the real problems. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been removed after reassessment. Steven1991 (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Antisemitism in Poland

You may be interested in helping improve this draft. The editors who worked on this in the past, including myself, seem to have run out of steam. I intend to publish this shortly in mainspace, but you are welcome to edit it before (and after), of course. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)