Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:34, 7 April 2015

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Independent Information

This page is unambiguously promotional.However, every time I try and make a page that isn't promotional you delete me while I'm making the page. I'm trying to create a page about my company as a lot of my interns coming from england find it hard to understand the russian website. The page is factual not promotional. Promotional implies bias which it isn't. If you feel I written biased info tell where it is and I'll delete it. I keep having my page deleted by different "monitors" and so I'm to explain myself ever time. Could please help/ Advise me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yours Independent informtion

Titles of Refs

Re: Talk page FAQs

What the Heck

My information was true considering the fact that a news report confirmed it, so they had no business deleting it, because either way it was true,they probably didn't even try searching it up! Here's the report: http://www.newsnet5.com/entertainment/celebrity/nicki-minaj-gets-animated-for-steven-universe_09416171

If they were following the rules then they could have easily done some research to see if it was true or not. I did.So I hope they got a notification too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarldquatz (talk • contribs)

The talk page didn't have any one talking about confirmation on dates that's why I didn't bother! and I did give a source that apparently wasn't "reliable" but yet a News website confirmed it, making what I wrote true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarldquatz (talk • contribs)

Thank you

Thank you! that's all I wanted! fans have been waiting for this information for 3 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarldquatz (talk • contribs)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, EvergreenFir. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs)

November 2014

Flyer22222

I would just like to let you know that even though i had vandalized a different page, the adjustment to the Anthony jeselnik page was completely valid because he very often in his comedies talks about how awesome he is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer22222 (talk • contribs)

Reverting changes to Statistical correlations of criminal behaviour

Hi EvergreenFir, I just wanted to drop you a note to explain why I'm reverting your recent change to Statistical correlations of criminal behaviour. If you view the page then do a find in your browser for "</ref>", you will see that this text appears at the end of the "Biological" section when it should never be visible to users. My previous edit removed it and your reversion reinstated it. If you take a look at the code for the 2nd & final paragraph of "Biological", you'll see there's one empty reference (after "among criminals") and one with contents (starting "J. Tiihonen" and ending "doi:10.1038/mp.2014.130."). The "</ref>" tag at the end of the paragraph which I removed previously has no matching opening "<ref>" tag and so is invalid, which is why I removed it and am now removing it again.

Rejection of Belfast section of Gangs in UK article

Hi Evergreen. Your rejection of my contribution to the Gangs in the United Kingdom article () wasn't sufficiently explained. Can you elaborate on why you thought it wasn't a constructive addition? I used multiple sources throughout. What was your problem with the content sourced from: http://www.octf.gov.uk/organised-crime-in-northern-ireland/organised-immigration-crime.aspx ? And why did you use this as a reason for rejecting all of the Belfast section? 77.99.12.140 (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You copy pasted text from that website which is a copyright violation. Misplaced Pages takes them very seriously, so I rejected your addition. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now amended that section so it should avoid copyright violation. I can't see any other problems with the edit, but let me know if you take issue with something else 77.99.12.140 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be following my edits on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps this is connected to the Sexism article? 77.99.12.140 (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi 77.99.12.140! I see you resubmitted the edit and it was approved by another reviewer. Thank you for rewording it. As for following you, I've not been looking at your contribs page. Didn't know you edited on sexism until you mentioned it (and those edits seemed fine to me). Have I encountered you elsewhere? I don't see any other pages I follow in your contributions, so I'm a bit confused why you asked this (and the interaction checker shows we haven't crossed paths much). Rest assured I'm not following you around. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again - well thanks for letting me know about the copyright concern, I'm not the most well-versed in Misplaced Pages policies (although I'm trying to progress). As for the following thing, I'm obviously just imagining things! Hope you have a lovely day 77.99.12.140 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

To answer a question, two cases are being opened. The other case, American Politics 2, is also being opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your reverting of vandalism on "S&M"!  — ₳aron 09:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Steven Universe Edits

Dear Evergreen, I'M sry if I caused any trouble. I'm a new wikipedia user and I didn't know these rules or what they mean. I don't know why but Artemis Panthar keeps deleting my summary of the Steven Universe Episode Joy Ride. What should I do? HawsBoss

PS but I don't know how to make a new edit tab sry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawsBoss (talk • contribs) 

@HawsBoss: For information about future episode, it must be sourced per this policy. I think Artemis Panthar made that clear in their edit summaries. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Evergreen. As I said before I am a new user and will look into the guidelines in the future. I just wanted people to know the summaries of steven universe episodes. Please forgive me. Hawsboss — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawsBoss (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

MRM revert

Can you explain what I could've done different to not have this edit reverted? The issue is definitely a men's rights issue Shazen27 (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Shazen27: Hi! The main reason I reverted your edit was because it was WP:SYNTH (a type of "original research"). While changing tables might be an issue the MRM addresses, the sources never mention the MRM. When you tie the two together, that's "synth". It may be obvious to you that something's related, but we need reliable sources to say it is. On a side note, I found it interesting that feminist groups are also sharing that story as an example of feminism. I hope that makes sense. If you have more questions, I'm happy to answer. Might also want to start a discussion on Talk:Men's rights movement to see what others have to say. Thanks for reaching out and asking! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My fat fingers

My fat fingers did a rollback on your page but I reverted mineself. Sorry for any confusions.--MONGO 04:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: No worries. Thanks for messaging. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I just did this to a couple of your edits on BLPN -- no idea how. I've reverted it back in. Apologies... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol y'all need to stop going through my contribs list so much! J/k. No worries Nomoskedasticity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

formatting changes vs. content changes

If you can separate changes, like your recent one at Lynn Conway, into separate edits for formatting changes versus content changes, your formatting changes will be more acceptable. I had to undo your formatting changes on the ref format in order to be able to use the history diff mechanism to see what you did to the contents. It needn't be that hard. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Yeah, forgot Misplaced Pages's diff view thing is annoying like that. I try to separate stuff but sometimes forget. That said, there's really no reason to undo the ref spacing edit. Anyway, I'll try to remember to make separate edits in the future. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason I undid the ref formattings were 2: (1) I like the way I did it before better; (2) after undoing it I can use the diff mehanism to see what you changed (which was very little and hard to spot otherwise). Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Blum (writer)

Hi EvergreenFir, Thank you for the post , I would love to know how can I improve the page and what was wrong in what I added... Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haniyosef (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Trouting

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For this edit. Self-trouting per request here. If only this were a Friday, it would have been perfect. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Haunted Mansion

Hello EvergreenFir. About two weeks ago you undid my edits to Haunted Mansion even though all of the information was clearly stated in the source I provided. Zackdaman (talk • contribs) 11:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Conduct and mistaken reversion

Hi EvergreenFir, You reverted the addition of a Failed verification tag claiming the reference "leads directly to said chart". That is obviously not the case.
As for conduct, please respect WP:ROWN. Additionally, you alleged the reverted edit was "continuation of disruptive editing from before" in your edit summary without explaining which disruptive editing you referred to, which constitutes a personal attack. I hereby warn you that I will report you should I see you resort to personal attacks again. --Chealer (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chealer: You know damn well I'm referring to your block by Swarm on March 12, 2015, for the same behavior. You incorrectly use the failed verification tag. The source does verify what the ref supports. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please watch your language.

You certainly did not refer to any block.

If you think I incorrectly used the Failed verification tag, explain how. --Chealer (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir has done nothing wrong. On the other hand, you should watch your reverts because a report will be filed as soon they continue. Δρ.Κ.  19:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC).

EvergreenFir has removed the Failed verification without removing the unsourced content nor providing a proper reference. I always watch my reverts, and your threats will not change that. --Chealer (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I always watch my reverts, and your threats will not change that. Your recent block history belies that fact. These are not threats, just some commonsense advice. But you obviously do not seem to heed it, something not unexpected of course. Δρ.Κ.  19:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

How would my recent block history bely that fact, as you grant yourself? And how would announcing your intention to report my reverts as soon as they "continue" constitute advice? --Chealer (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

How would my recent block history bely that fact, as you grant yourself? It is precisely this type of enquiry that leads me to believe that you are unable to process the connections between your disruption and getting blocked for it. and how would announcing your intention to report my reverts as soon as they "continue" constitute advice? I advised you of my intention should your disruption continue. You can Google the expression. Δρ.Κ.  19:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Which disruption are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the disruption you are causing is obvious. I also think that this obvious disruption is visible to everyone but you. The problem is, if you really cannot see the disruption you are causing you will not be able to stop it. What's worse, you will not be able to prevent being blocked because you cannot see the disruption. Not sure how I can help you. Δρ.Κ.  04:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, nobody needs your help. You should just explain which disruption are you referring to. --Chealer (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you know the reason why you were blocked twice in March, the first time for three days and the second time for a week? Δρ.Κ.  18:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I can use whatever language I damn well please on my talk page. I said it was a continuation of an edit war, which it is. That's the reason for your block. See Template:Failed verification for when it should be used. Your addition failed #3. I will not further engage in your WP:IDHT questions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You did not say it was a continuation of an edit war. The addition complies with #3. --Chealer (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Chealer: Please drop your threats of reporting EvergreenFir. Your disruptive, long-term edit-warring is the continuation of your past edit-warring and will lead to further reports at an appropriate noticeboard. Also be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG should you choose to act on your threat of reporting EvergreenFir. Δρ.Κ.  19:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at English Misplaced Pages 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.
Please respect WP:ROWN, particularly - but not only - WP:REVEXP. --Chealer (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't abuse templates. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's useless arguing with this editor. Let him/her file an edit-warring report and then watch the WP:BOOMERANG land. Δρ.Κ.  04:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Chealer topic ban request

Just wanted to let you know that I've moved your request to WP:AN — the incidents page doesn't generally discuss requests for topicbans and sitebans, unless they grow out of other discussions regarding an editor's conduct. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)