Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter M Dodge (talk | contribs) at 22:03, 5 November 2006 (Reply →VP2: and a note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Wizardry Dragon/Templates/UserTalkPage Post a new message.

|} |}

Active Discussion

Editing Disputes

Lately there have been a few editing disputes I have tried to mediate. I remind people that are involved in such disputes to be civil, remember internet etiquette, and please, please assume good faith when posting arguments, explanations, or grievances here. If you want comment or explanation of a comment, please post a edit "diff" with the appropriate comment. If you want clarification of an edit you disagree with, please post in the talk page of the article. Thank you. If you want to bring a dispute to my attention, or have comments, suggestions, or grievances related to a dispute I am currently involved in, either mediation-wise, or simply a party to, please post to the Disputes sub-page of this Talk Page. Likewise, dispute comments that were previously on the talk main page are on the Disputes subpage.

Archived Discussion

Archive of October 28, 2006 Archive of October 30, 2006

For those looking for the old dispute-related content, it is now on a "Disputes" subpage, to free up the main talk namespace for other discussions. The diff history of this page should be unaffected.

MfD

Hi,

I have reverted your bizarre reopening of the MfD. No admin should simply revert a closing without discussing the matter with the closer, or taking the matter to DRV. For a non-admin to do so is very strange, indeed. I'll assume AGF here, but further reopenings from you may result in a block. If you disagree with the closing, DRV is available. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by what you're saying here. The dispute was closed without prejudice to it being re-opened. Are you saying I should have discussed the matter with DRV first? -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages)} 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The MfD was closed without prejudice to an entirely new MfD. You merely edited the old one. Furthermore, I recommended that some time pass before renomination for mediation to proceed. I assumed everyone would understand that cooling off time was necessary. As you did not, let me be more explicit: I insist you wait at least 10 days, to give the RfM time to mature. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I missed that bit in your ruling, and certainly understand it and will abide by it. I really don't think it should be deleted myself, which is something that was the subject of some talk on Psychonaut's talk page, I merely felt that there was enough dispute to reopen it so a more binding descision then "closed as inappropriate." :) In any event, for my future reference, how would I open an entirely new MfD then? I simply followed the steps outlined on the MfD page. -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages)} 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, WD - I had no idea you were you so avid to have Psychonaut's ProblemUser watchpage deleted. If you wish to renominate his page, under you OWN name and under your OWN charges and rationale, please feel free to do so and I assure you that neither Z nor myself will do anything other than watch you and Psychonaut hash it out. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 20:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah... okay, that explains things a little better. :) When any page has had a previous MfD or AfD, one needs to alter the suggested page-name for a new nomination a bit by adding "(second nomination)" to the end of it. Otherwise, one simply over-writes the prior debate log, a very bad thing on many levels. I see now that your action was one of confusion only. I thought you had actually reverted my closure, but you really only over-wrote my closure accidently. My apologies -- I wouldn't have been so harsh had I realized this.

For AfDs, this can accomplished by using the template "Template:afdx" instead of "Template:afd1". For MfDs, this must be done manually. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've dealt with AfD's before in the case of vanity articles and such, but my experience with MfD has been null, and I'm finding it's a little different. :) I could probably easily hack a mfdx template in my userspace when I have a moment. Anyways, no hard feelings, I just apologize for the confusion I caused. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages)} 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Wizardry Dragon! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I look forward to using it as this should make combating vandalism a lot easier than doing it by hand as I have been. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon _{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages)} 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

Dear Editor, I am informing you that I have mentioned the recent revert war on Kosovo at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Kosovo. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo ban

I made some notes on the case but left them at my other computer. Generally I believe you and MK103 each removed the disputed sentence twice, Fairview reinserted it three times, and everyone else involved only had one revert (either in or out), so I went for the twofers. As I told Fairview, although no individual violated 3RR, each "side" did (there were 10 reverts in all, I believe). Probation is meant to allow admins to be proactive in not allowing a culture of disruptive editing to develop again. Hopefully a group of good editors can negotiate politically sensitive edits. Thatcher131 00:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A question

You are posting on my talk page. You have removed My replies to accusations against me and removed a section requesting other editors not discuss articles on my talk page but on the talk page of the article. You continue to warn me not to remove sections, while you just blanked my comments. Please explain how that makes sense. Kilz 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This is due to an edit conflict which is caused most often when two editors are editing on the same article at the same time, or when one editor is editing using an old version of an article when it has since been changed. I will attempt to restore the changed seciton.

I fear that I will be accused of removing sections that you removed with that edit.Kilz 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate on the issue at hand, blanking: there is a difference between archiving your talk page, and blanking out parts of it. Archiving a talk page is moving it wholesale, or several sections wholesale, to another page. You cannot remove warnings from your talk page without obvious reason - this is considered vandalism. You do not own your talk page - Misplaced Pages does.

I have not selectivly archived. The archive page contains all edits to my user page that were removed from my talk page. You have posted that I have selectivly removed things. Please provide an example of what is not on my archive page. Kilz 00:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

By posting on and using Misplaced Pages, you agree to be bound by it's guidelines and policies. If you do not like them, you can always discuss your objections on the appropriate talk page. There are some I disagree with too, but I still am bound to abide by them. Hope this clarifies things a little. -- Wizardry Dragon 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 02:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I will see if I can't do some more editing mining for the evidence page when I have a free hour or two. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon 15:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Qingzang Railway

It's obviously not vandalising. Please refer to talk:Qingzang railway for details. :-) — Instantnood 16:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing an article introducing a POV is generally regarded as a form of vandalsim. If you want to find a more NPOV way of putting the edit, you can always request a comment at WP:RFC. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon 16:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not introducing a point of view to that article. Rather I made the article more NPOV. :-) — Instantnood 18:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

VP2

Since you're using VP2, it doesn't hurt to actually look into the substance of the edits before reverting them and posting the silly "stop adding nonsense" warning on one's talk page. You may want to ponder whether you should continue to use the tool. Beit Or 17:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting templates from a page before the issue has been dealt with is considered vandalism. The template in question was a NPOV one. Relevant DIFF: . If you want to establish that the article adheres to NPOV you can always request a comment at WP:RFC and gain consensus. As to the warning vandalproof gave you, it was inappropriate as it was not even the one I told it to give you. All I can do in that regard is edit it and report the bug to AmiDaniel who develops the tool. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon 17:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A glance at some other reverts that you've made, such as this or this, strongly suggests that your continuing usage of the tool may not be worth the disruption caused. Beit Or 17:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What disruption, exactly, is caused by adherence to WP:NPOV? The first was a blatantly POV edit. -- Wizardry Dragon 17:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that the problem is worse than I initially thought. Removing a disputed tag is not vandalism, still less if it's combined with substantial overhaul and adding sources to the article; if someone thinks that the article is still disputed, they will restore the tag. I have no opinion on the POV or NPOV nature of the edit to Kargil War, but you may want to familiarize yourself with the difference between vandalism and POV editing. In the latter case, instead of claiming vandalism, you should explain the reasons why you think the edit was in violation of NPOV on the talk page and revert it with an accurate edit summary. From what I can see, you're using VP2 to automate reverts of perfectly legitimate edits, which is a clear case of tool misuse. Beit Or 17:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how POV edits are legitimate, but for the sake of keeping process integrity, I can restrain my use of Vandalproof to blatant vandalism if you wish. -- Wizardry Dragon 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't POV edits in Kargil War. If anything I was adding more sources for an line tagged as "citation needed". All the sources are from reliable multiple sources from Indian and Pakistani authors. You should atleast take the time to read them before gunning them down arbitrarily. VP is only for vandalism, not for anything. Tx. Idleguy 18:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You are aware of the parties involved in the Kargil War, correct? Information from an involved party is bound to be inherently biased. -- Wizardry Dragon 22:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is one complaint I have with VP2 that really contributes to the problem with both of these edits, as opposed to VP 1.3 - it pigeon-holes you into just reading the diff in question, and you can't rollback just one edit of a user, you have to rollback all of them. For that reason, I'm back to using 1.3 until those issues are resolved. Thanks for the input guys, it may not have been positive but it still helps, and I appreciate the time you took out to point out such problems. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon 22:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)