Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:03, 1 October 2009

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

.

India

Thanks. I actually did not know that there was an Europa version. Otherwise, i would not have added a pic of Nano Europa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkul (talk • contribs)

please do not be aggressive

Whether it is intentional or not, your huge warning about edit warring can be interpreted by a reasonable person as being aggressive and edit warring. You could have noticed that I've stepped back from the article and used the talk pages and did not repetitively put back material. Furthermore, you put your big warning not even the same day as the editing in the article and I did no editing to the India article today so I could observe it.

Some with less restrain or bigger tempers could interpret your big red warning as hostile or even disruption on your part by creating a hostile Misplaced Pages environment.

I am telling you this so that you may reconsider when you do it to someone else. Courtesy goes a long way but aggressiveness is the cause to many administrator type disputes, as some of the noticeboards prove. Let's work together to improve Misplaced Pages and treat everyone with kindness and respect, Mr. Dare! This will help everyone and Misplaced Pages! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Abce2|This isnot a test 23:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. Abecedare (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's what has happened:

1821 25 Sept India article, sentence about Goa (a disputed territory) placed after text about disputed territories
1838 25 Sept, removed

1909 25 Sept, 1821 edit put back but added references (thought that was the problem as the 1838 edit had no talk page explanation)
1919 25 Sept, talk page discussion started by me regarding 1909 edit by me

1912 25 Sept, 1909 edit remobed by Abecedare citing in the edit summary "revert undue, pov, and poor sourced" 1952 25 Sept, talk page Abecedare but objects to linking Goa with China/Pakistan and the use of a Lonely Planet reference

2327 25 Sept, as a result of talk page discussion, the reverted Goa text is NOT put back but Goa is added as a now reduced to a phrase, not even a sentence, with link for more info and reference to prove it happened, and with no link the China/Pakistan but rather placed in a new area about de-colonialisation. This satisfies the objection the Abecedare mentioned in the talk page. Abecedare might not have liked it, but I cannot read his mind, only his talk page comments (which it complies with). Summary: new location in the article, not linked with China/Pakistan, better reference used, very short/only a phrase, not even a sentence.
0256 26 Sept, Abecedare: revert, later states in talk page that Abecedare doesn't think Goa is important enough, a claim refuted by Gaunkers of Goa.

Analysis:

1. didn't put the text back with China/Pakistan anymore as per Abecedare wanted.
2. found a better reference as Abecedare wanted.
3. Always kept on coming up with suggestions for improvement and compromise while Abecedare is firm on having his way, no exceptions. This is dangerous as an administrator because it can quickly turn into bullying.
4. Abecedare, himself, is involved and threatening block when he should also be threatening himself, too, as he is an involved party.

Possible solution:

1. Continued discussion of the article on as friendly and polite terms as possible.
2. Discussion about the warning template (see new section below). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss the content issue on the article talk page, and also consider your warning-template suggestions below to be useful. However, it is not going to be productive to rediscuss the sequence of past events at India/Talk:India, and the 3RR warning that you got. If you still believe that the warning was not appropriate (as opposed to objections to the language of the warning template), may I suggest that you consult any experienced editor or admin whom you trust and ask them to review the situation ? Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning template discussion

Like it or not, the warning template is harsh except for unmistakenable edit/revert/edit/revert situations.

Using a template warning is no excuse. You must always be responsible for what you sign your name to.

Instead of this: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on India. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Consider the following, which I may make into an alternate warning template:

We currently appear to be engaged in an edit/revert cycle in the article, India. Note that there is a three-revert rule that prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator blocking an editor from editing.

...or if one objects to "we", then...

I would like to inform you of an important Misplaced Pages rule about edit/revert cycles, which seem to be happening in the article, India. Note that there is a three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator blocking an editor from editing.

Both of these avoid the "you are committing a crime, you are disruption, you will be blocked" when there could very well be an explanation or even a talk page discussion started.

Does anything that I'm writing about the warning template make sense? Don't you think this might be a useful addition to Misplaced Pages? I hope we can have some friendly and productive discussion about this section. This would be very nice and show that we are both reasonable people, not hardheads! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually like your second suggest ("I would like to inform you of an important Misplaced Pages..."), which has a less confrontational tone that the current choice. It may need to be made a bit more concise, and we may need to be explicit that the person receiving this message is on the verge of (or has broken) the WP:3RR rule - but it is a good starting point for discussion.

However, I have not been involved in crafting the standard user warning templates, so my talk page may not be the best forum to discuss the suggestions. I would highly recommend that you copy your message to the WT:UW page or even the talk page of WP:3RR, where editors more involved with the issue will be able to provide feedback and hopefully proceed to actual implementation. Who knows: our minor kerfuffle may lead to a change that will benefit all future users. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sock, though I've gotten that before. Abce2|This isnot a test 19:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first time I saw your signature at some talk page a few months back, I had to do a double take to make sure that it was not me! :-) Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't gotten that before, though.Abce2|This isnot a test 20:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

After seeing some of your edits, I would like to inform you of an important Misplaced Pages rule about edit/revert cycles. In particular, this seems to be happening in the article, India. Note that there is a three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period (but making several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule). A possible resolution is to first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Repetitive edit/revert cycles can be considered disruption, which can result in an administrator blocking an editor from editing.

How about this? It is a reminder, but a bit stronger than a general informational message. However, there is a subtle disclaimer ("seems") to cover something that the offending editor may have written in the talk pages but we might have missed. If you concur with the language, I'll suggest it as an alternate, sort of a warning 3b, not a replacement of warning 3. If you don't concur, let me know what changes you think are useful. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are the changes I would make to the current {{Uw-3rr}} template:

• Change "engaged" to "involved" in the first sentence. I think it is useful to come directly to the point, since otherwise the central point may be lost. However by using "involved" the user doesn't feel that it is necessarily they alone who is being blamed. (The word "appear" in the sentence, serves the purpose of being a disclaimer like "seem" that you suggest.)
• Rewrite the last sentence, "Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing" since it states as a fact that the user is being disruptive, while that is not always the case. Also the second person pronouns unnecessarily personalize the block threat (although I can see arguments that this is by design!). My preferred wording would be something like, "Please reconsider your actions on the page, as editing that is considered disruptive can lead to users being blocked.", which requests the editor to re-think their behavior rather than simply threatening them with a block.

That said, discussing this among ourselves is not very useful (except as a mental exercise), since any changes to these well-established templates requires much wider consideration and consensus - especially from members of the community who have given such matters much thought. Therefore, it would be best to take your proposal to WT:UW or WT:3RR, where discussion can lead to actual change. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Deepavali தீபாவளி வாழ்த்துக்கள்

I don't have your talk page watchlisted but I do check talk pages where I've left messages for a few days after the discussion is finished. I've left you a message on your RFA as #70. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A bit early, but we can always start celebrating. :-) Abecedare (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks. The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster is what we were all waiting for! Abecedare (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mysore and Coorg FAC

Your feedback at History of Mysore and Coorg FAC is greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Great to see a WPINDIA article at FAC after so long. I expect to be busy during the week, but will read the article and provide feedback over the weekend. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Abecedare

Good thing I checked the list this wekk YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Gaunkar

Yes,You are right ,I forgot that I shouldnt feed the trolls. Just revert and ignore 'im. --Deepak D'Souza 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

Thank you for caring re: my loss. DS (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Now here's your . Get to work! (I know it's about you and not about me but you should see the satisfied smirk on my face!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Now get to work and finish this please ;) -SpacemanSpiff 20:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)