Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trinacrialucente (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 23 September 2015 (Thanked Floquenbeam). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Trinacrialucente! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent edits

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 ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italians of Ethiopia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks so much for the message. I actually tried to link to ANOTHER wikipedia page on Fascist Italy, specifically this link here http://en.wikipedia.org/Fascism#World_War_II_.281939-1945.29 Unfortunately there has been an editor who has been picking on my posts and that is probably where things got left. I think Fascism and Fascist Italy is a common enough concept that it doesn't necessarily need to be cited/linked from that page, so I don't mind taking the link off altogether. Please let me know your thoughts here. (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Teahouse Response and the Italians of Ethiopia Article

I saw your question on the Teahouse and wanted to try to explain why you may be encountering problems.

I really wish you had read the complaint in the entirety before adding your two cents. The point was the editor was reverting before giving me the chance to cite external sources(in fact WHILE I was editing). And no, I did not make the edit that sourced the link you said http://robevan.xoom.it//robevan/principale/uso_vietato.htm...if you bothered to check the edits, that phrase AND source was not done by me. Finally,the phrase about Mussolini's war crimes was already a "given" since I cited he used mustard gas...a war crime (cited externally). Therefore, one with a rationally thinking brain who has read that far already realizes he has commit at least ONE war crime cited, so the subsequent "among the war crimes committed..." does not negate neutrality since: a) his first war crime was using mustard gas and b) his second crime was to steal art treasures (crimes, plural...get it?) Since the word crimes is plural, all I need to do is establish two. I hope this makes sense. And rest assured, further "guidance" from you is completely undesired at this point. buh-by.

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello@Kansas Bear:...if you will kindly check on the "Talk" page, I have made several edits (i.e. not simply undoing revisions, but updating sources, text and overall modifications) based on feedback from the "Talk" page https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Crusades

Regardless of the sourcing, there is one user who is simply "reverting" to old edits; erasing ALL of my edits throughout on totally diverse topics. Can you please look into this? ? -- Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2015

No, this accusation is false. I reverted you twice and informed you it was for placing improper content and formatting in the lead. You were later reverted by Norfolkbigfish and Ealdgyth for doing the same thing -- whatever superficial changes you made to the content did not remedy what you were being reverted for. After you moved the content into the body, Ealdgyth reverted you because your sources did not support the addition. I reverted again in support of her, after you re-added the content without discussion. None of these editors were "simply reverting" you. In each case you were told why, and you continued to add the content when you knew you did not have consensus. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like Trinacrialucente hasn't reverted any more after getting their first edit warring notice; @Berean Hunter:, do you mind if I unblock and explain in more detail? I'll reblock if the edit warring continues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right Flo (I had just unblocked him). I misread the timing of events. My apologies to Trinacrialucente but please do listen to the other editors regarding edit warring.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks BH! --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

More info

Trinacrialucente, by my count 4 different experienced editors have reverted your edits at Crusade. That is a clue that your edits are disputed, and need to be discussed more before they are re-added. They are not expressing minor concerns that can be addressed with the simple addition of a new reference or tweaking the wording (I know yours were not pure reverts, as you were tweaking things; but it can still be edit warring without being a pure revert each time). It is not incumbent on people to gain consensus to remove newly added material; it is incumbent on you to get consensus to add it. See WP:BURDEN. The general rule is that edit warring (repeatedly re-making your edit in whole or in part) is disruptive, and basically never works anyway. You should also consider trying to gain consensus for portions of it at a time, restore the ones that no one objects to, and discuss the more complicated ones. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I did "listen to the other editors regarding edit warning" and 1) did not post any further edits (as you now see) and 2) kindly asked Kansas Bear to take a look a the "Talk" page to see I had indeed been asking for consensus You are unfortunately indicative of certain editors who fail to listen/read but instead simply act (i.e. blocking or reverting instead of taking the time to research or dialogue).

@Floquenbeam: thank you for stepping in and doing the right thing, but it at this point unnecessary as it is clear there is only one acceptable narrative for the Crusades on this site. As you point out, no matter how many sources I provided on the Talk page and subsequently edited in concession after believing we HAD reached some sort of consensus (hard to do with 5+ people offering differing opinions on different portions of a very long entry) all it took was 1 user to "revert" to an old version erasing all my edits. So, I'm done. But once again, thank you for the guidance.