Misplaced Pages

User talk:Karl.i.biased

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 C.Fred (talk | contribs) at 03:01, 10 December 2017 (→Just a heads up: and that's four reverts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:01, 10 December 2017 by C.Fred (talk | contribs) (→Just a heads up: and that's four reverts)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome, fellow video game enthusiast!

Hello, Karl.i.biased, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- ferret (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Suggested WikiProjects

Hey Karl.i.biased—thanks for your recent contributions. I noticed your interest in Misplaced Pages's video game content and thought you might be interested in the video games WikiProject. We've done some great work (over 250 pieces of Featured content and over 800 Good articles), but there is plenty more to do. Come say hello on our talk page, participate in our current events, or let me know if I can help with anything. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope I'll see you around. -- ferret (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Regarding your comment here, WP:RS covers what a reliable source is. What other editors are telling you in this particular instance is that regardless of what Wikileaks may be doing at this point, they have received criticism from reliable secondary sources in the past. That fact doesn't change as time goes by. It can possibly be amended that Wikileaks later did cover Russian topics, but the criticism still existed. Wikilinks itself is a WP:Primary source though and must be used very carefully when discussing itself. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Bennv3771 (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at WikiLeaks 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 a dead end, you can 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. Dr. K. 04:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Hey, thanks for contacting me. I am rather new to Misplaced Pages, so forgive me if I was supposed to respond somewhere else. I got 2 warning for those 3 edits, but I honestly don't understand why. And I am not even talking about the substance of those edits, I am talking about the system of warnings. So there was (and still is) this statement on the page about wikileaks, in the first paragraph even, that said that any crticism of Russian is absent on wikileaks. I've changed it because it's factually wrong. I literally went on Wikilaks to check the original statement the moment I saw it, thinking about searching for the word Russia on wikileaks, only to see a big report on Russia literally on the main page of the website. Which is why I changed the original statement on wikipedia about the absence of reporting on Russia. And I explained this edit by saying what I just told you in the edit summary. Now, maybe the original statement was right still, maybe the reports on wikileaks are, i dont know, false or whatever, but my edits were immediatly reverted with no explanation. Nobody made any arguments or whatever. I made mine, and it appears as if nobody read them. And then my edit was reverted 3 times by the same guy. By one guy. I re-reverted his reversion by again stating my case in the edit summaries, expecting him to engage in conversation, but he reverted, again, with no explanation. And now I get warning for edit warring? And he doesn't? I am not that fluent in English, but I am pretty sure that after I gave my arguments the burden of proof was on him to disprove me. Please, explain this to me, I don't understand. ----
  • Once you get reverted, you are supposed to click on the talkpage of the article and start a discussion there. The link is Talk:WikiLeaks. That's where discussion should take place, not in edit-summaries, not on your talkpage. Dr. K. 17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but you started this discussion. As for your argument, once I get reverted it's ME who should start the discussion? Doesn't that break the concept of burden of proof? I made my case, if you disagree - by all the Gods do, but you should make your case too. Not just revert the edit with no explanation. ----
  • Once you get reverted by more than one editor, it is a good indicator that your edit is not acceptable. It is up to you then to go to the talkpage to try to convince the reverting editors that your edit is good. Please see WP:BRD. By the way, I did not start any discussion. I just informed you that edit-warring through edit-summaries is not acceptable. Once you start edit-warring, you should be willing to go to the talkpage to resolve the problem, not continue edit-warring; such behaviour can lead to loss of you editing privileges. Dr. K. 17:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't reverted by more than one editor. And I don't think you understand what the burden of proof is. Can you link me the Wiki rule that you are quoting here? Because it doesn't make any sence so far ----

I wasn't reverted by more than one editor. Yes, you were. Click on this link and check. And I don't think you understand what the burden of proof is. Can you link me the Wiki rule that you are quoting here? Read WP:EW, WP:3RR, and WP:BRD, carefully. None of these policies exempt edit-warring due to WP:BURDEN. You edit-war, you get blocked. Simple. Dr. K. 17:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No I wasn't. Not untill after I was reverted 3 times to be a single user with no explanation, for which I got the edit warring and he didn't. Note that I didn't revert then the other user joined defending the article.

The rules are clear to me, burden of proof should be upheld. If a user makes an edit and makes the case as to why the edit he made is correct - it's up to other users to disprove the edit if they revert it. Which contradicts with what I did with the article, I am reverting it back now ----

Ok, but don't tell me I didn't inform you when you get reported and, subsequently, WP:BLOCKed. Dr. K. 18:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You refuse to engage in a conversation, instead you dodge questions. When I ask you to tell me the rule I broke you link me to the list of rules asking to "read carefully" and you refuse to explain how did my actions break any of the rules. . And now you are basically threatening with a block? Cool. ----

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to WikiLeaks. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dr. K. 18:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • How is any of this original research? Your original statement literally said that there's no reporting on russia on Wikileaks. I link you to the page on wikileaks about Russia, and you claim it's original research? What? ----
  • Lecture? As far as I can see our conversation right now your point is that any time an editor reverts other editor's input on wikipedia, this editor, whos' input has been reverted, has to go to talk page to state his case, even though he made his point in the edit summaries already. It seems incredibly funny, because, according to you the burden of proof is always on the editors to prove that the reversion was wrong. And ofcourse you couldn't link me the rule that says that, I wonder why ----

I've opened a discussion at Talk:WikiLeaks#Russian coverage. I highly suggest you use it to discuss your changes before re-attempting to add them. I tried to provide some helpful advice above. At this point, you are very close to a block, and a less lenient admin possibly would have already applied one. I think you have some good contributions to offer Misplaced Pages as an editor, so please, try to heed the warnings you've received and engage in a discussion of the changes you want. -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Al Arabiya

Hi If we remove Al Arabiya we should also remove Masdar. The problem is the both are WP:reliable source despite that there are not neutral sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem is we have not the right to remove biaised reliables sources. Please stop the removing. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • We do. IF there is a consensus that the source is pov (point of view), as is the case with Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya news channel because Saudia Arabia is officially a side of war in the yemeni civil war, we prefer to try and find other sources for the same info. If only al-arabiya is reporting on the death toll, there's reason to believe that they are biased in their reporting, which is why i am removing that info. IF you really want this info to stay, you should try and find it being reported by other sources. I couldn't and that is in itself a big question mark for the al arabiya reporting credibility Karl.i.biased (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."--Panam2014 (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
That is true, but your statement about executions is sourced solely by al-arabiya. It doesn't help represent different points of view, it just tells a story nobody else is reporting. Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I do not agree with you. Also, another user is against you. You could also see arabic sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Look, my position is simple. If what you are adding is not pov/biased, then surely you would have no problem finding another major news organization reporting the same thing. Itried searching, and the only google result was al arabiya, which does not look good. Sorry. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add source that they are Saudi state media, not Saudi-affiliated media. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up

Regarding using Urban Dictionary as a source, please see WP:USERGENERATED as to why it's unreliable. Also, it being used on multiple articles isn't grounds for including it either, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks. --TL22 (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Got it. But did you see where this sources was used in the article? IT was used to "prove" that an article about this word was written on the urban dictionary. Sourcing statements like this by user generated content is certainly allowed on wikipedia. Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Such information is irrelevant if there isn't any independent coverage by secondary sources about the word appearing on Urban Dictionary, which appears to be the case here. Also, I recommend bringing the matter to the page's talk page, otherwise you might border on edit warring and breaking the three-revert rule. --TL22 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I would have brought the iscussions to the talk page, but I do believe it should have been one by the person who nominated the article for deletion, I am not going to do that for him. As for the "Such information is irrelevant if there isn't any independent coverage by secondary sources about the word appearing on Urban Dictionary" I am pretty sure at least one of the other sources used in the article mentions that this word appeared on that website.
And on top of all that, you removed two links, not just the urban dictionary, but the other site too. What was the basis for removal of that link? Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Baizuo 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I am sorry, maybe i am not familiar with the wikipedia's rules, but if two persons revert each other, and one of these two persons tries to contact the other person and explain his position to him, and the other ignores him, I am pretty sure the warning should go to the person who ignores him, but I don't see a warning on Toon's talk page. Strange, huh? Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Toon is neither new nor at three reverts. You're at three reverts and in peril of being blocked if you revert again. —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Wait, so you base your decisions as to who to block on being new? Is that what you are trying to say? And by the way he turned out to be wrong after all, I just added a secondary source for the urban dictionary. That secondary source was already used in the article btw, but Toon didnt bother to check Karl.i.biased (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a fourth revert. The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule. I strongly suggest you self-revert, so the edit is washed out, lest you be blocked for violating 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)