Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fyddlestix (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 18 October 2015 (→RFC: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Mr. Magoo and McBarker! 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! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. @ 23:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Misplaced Pages The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Political correctness 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I did a single undo per person (there were two). Not in a row, by the way. After that and after finding out they aren't budging, I started removing bits from my own stance to get to a concensus progressively through edits. The descriptors of my edits also greatly pointed out that I were dropping my points to appease. At this point I didn't think this was being an edit war, but rather an editing process between two disagreers - realpolitik concensus. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Antifeminism while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Misplaced Pages's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For context, see the this edit and the three that follow, and the string of edits made by the same IP at Antifeminism. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Very early on I informed you that this is not my user account because I don't have access to the password-saving feature. I also informed you I will shortly be back on my real user account. Very neatly you forget that and paint a bad picture of me. I posted a more comprehensive view on Doug's talk page if you want to take a look. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that your behavior with the IP will be included with your behavior using this account if a block is requested. Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

American Politics discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33

October 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.  NeilN 19:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Why in the world would I be blocked for making two reverts? I mean the edit history has Aquillion having done the same just below, yet he isn't blocked? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made two reverts? The latter of which done when the other person didn't even bother explaining his revert on the talk page? Another editor just below in the edit history did two reverts as well and he wasn't blocked?

Decline reason:

WP:3RR is not an entitlement to revert thrice, twice, or even once a day. Max Semenik (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are blocked for your constant edit warring against multiple editors. There is no right to revert x amount of times. --NeilN 20:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

But the rule is the 24 hour period and three reverts? And there have been others "warring" against them, and "the other editors" (as in two) warring back? And the "multiple editors" (as in two) may very well the same person operating with a sock puppet (or at least they are in cohorts, messaging outside Misplaced Pages), as I proved on the talk page. Is the only way to make a change on Misplaced Pages a VPN, like the other editor? Does the truthfulness of your opinion not matter if you don't use a VPN to pretend to be multiple different editors? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This appears on your talk page: "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." If you suspect sockpuppetting, open a case at WP:SPI. Bear in mind frivolous accusations can be seen as personal attacks. Finally, I see three editors saying there's no consensus for your changes. --NeilN 20:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make the introduction change (which removed an obvious unsourced straw man), but another editor did. The other warrer INSTANTLY reverted this edit, but I reverted it back. Again, is numbers the only thing that matters on Misplaced Pages? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are constantly being reverted by other editors, you need to stop, use the talk page, and wait until the dispute is resolved. This is a basic rule on Misplaced Pages, especially if you want to work on contentious articles. --NeilN 20:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

They have zero interest in even introducing the tiniest change I suggest. I have constantly dropped my edit to a more neutral stance but they aren't okay with anything. They constantly add stuff on their own which if I revert I will get banned because they have the support of each other. Like I wrote, the two are in cohorts outside Misplaced Pages and operate together. Oh and they (mostly Aquillion) constantly break the rule of "waiting and talking before reverting" themselves, yet you do nothing to them? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There is in fact a long justification on the article talk page for my revert. I had not finished typing it before you yourself reverted me. Briefly, 1) you know there is no agreement to include 'labels' where they serve no purpose, it is the opinion of most of us that yours serve no useful purpose. 2) You replaced sourced descriptions of a book with your own assessment of its contents. DRN or RfC are the ways forward if you don't agree with the majority. … … btw Like I wrote, the two are in cohorts outside Misplaced Pages and operate together is a very serious charge on WP, repeating it 5 or 6 times, compounds the felony. Either 'put up' or 'drop it'.Pincrete (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Where? I don't see any. On the removal of all political affiliations section you posted a short bit about me opposing "conservative" for some bizarre reason. I quickly replied, to which you didn't reply back. An hour and 20 minutes later you posted a big bit about only my edit warring (obviously ignoring Aquillion's). In that you talk about sources, but I myself pointed out that it was claimed Dinesh talked about mostly multiculturalism in his book when it's a minor sidenote and he mostly talks about victim's revolution as in victimization. I even posted about this on the talk page but you didn't bother. It's not an "interpretation" when the book is full of that term and little of multiculturalism. I also notice you went complaining onto Neil's talk page that that "no one" likes the current stance of the article and that it should be reverted. You don't even seem to think I exist. I'm some annoyance to be brushed away so that you can write what you want. You don't want concensus. You don't even want a single letter from me added to the article, even if it were apt. It doesn't fit your bias. I constantly change what I want, to appease you. Early, strongest wishes completely dropped in favor of more agreeable edits. From no sources to sources. From wing to affiliation. But you, you never budge. You stay still. And whatever you do stays. I didn't begin by editing the introduction. It was only when that other editor changed it I realized how biased it had been. It's basically a massive straw man of Dinesh, focusing on his sidenotes, to discredit the whole entire term — which he by the way didn't come up with but according to the sources provided popularized. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, your change from trying to use "left-wing" to "left-affiliated" actually made your additions vastly worse. That phrasing has a sinister tone to it and didn't generally reflect even the sources you were using. I'm not opposed to indicating that they're liberal-leaning in some fashion (as I've said and indicated with my edits), but "left-affiliated" definitely strikes me as the wrong way to do it. The lead, beyond that, is well-sourced -- it's all right to be WP:BOLD, but when you're drastically rewriting the lead of controversial article, the appropriate thing to do when someone objects is to seek consensus first. You've barely spoken about most of the changes, beyond objecting to talking about d'Souza's opposition to multiculturalism, which is very well-sourced. --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, the lead change wasn't originally mine. I only noticed how biased it was when it was edited. You changed it back INSTANTLY, without even considering the edits. And left-affiliated has a sinister tone? Yet the very phrase political correctness being linked in its introduction with "opposition of multiculturalism" doesn't reek any bit sinister to you, even when Dinesh's book mentions multiculturalism as a sidenote and mostly talks about "victim's revolution" like I've written? Doesn't it feel like someone's trying to paint a bad picture of the term because they hate it? The article didn't even originally had this Dinesh mention. That appeared out of nowhere, digged by some haters of the term. Must be true because it was referenced to 3 times in the early 90s. That surely must have popularized it! Also, you label anything that agrees with the term as conservative and right-wing. When it comes time to label the opposing view as anticonservative or left-affiliated: oh no, those are entirely too strong and unrelated. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What kind of political description of the two left-affiliated journalists/authors would you agree with? Perhaps "anticonservative?" I mean Will Hutton described himself as left-wing! --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You have not persuaded any other editor of the need to, or advantage of, characterising them at all, beyond British journalists. Any further discussion should take place on the article talk page, or RfC or DRN are open to you, should you feel you have a case. I was drafting a long friendly piece of advice, which edit conflicted with your last post. I now see I would have been wasting my breath, WP:IDHT, applies here. Pincrete (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've pointed out multiple times the article vastly overlabels anything as conservative and right-wing. But you keep ignoring this. You once even yourself edited out one right-wing to appease, but then Aquillion edited it back. It can't get more clear than this. I already wrote how nothing I will ever suggest will be accepted by you. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC

Just a quick note - adding an RFC tag to an existing debate like this is not a great way to start an RFC - if you look at WP:RFC you'll note that it says that RFCs should be neutrally worded and phrased in the form of a simple question. I suggest removing the RFC tag and adding a new one that asks a more simple and direct question (ie, to what extent should Dinesh D'Souza be described as a popularizer of the term "political correctness" in the lede? or something like that). Asking people to read the whole long debate we've already had is just going to make it confusing for them and limit the number of people who participate. This link might be helpful as well. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)