Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:28, 30 June 2007

This editor has full permission to remove, without replying, any comments he feels are likely to inflame dispute. If you have a problem with this editor, you are invited to bring that concern to the attention of the administrators noticeboard or a member of the arbitration community, but please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment.

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066949.html

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=133164991

Enough of this bullshit

I am tired of explaining, ad nauseum, to a specific group of people why WP:BLP is important. If you disagree with explicit emails drafted by Jimmy Wales, please take it up with him on your own. Burntsauce 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerned about edit summaries

Burntsauce, would you reconsider enabling the automated edit summary request in the MediaWiki interface? In case you've misplaced it, the instructions are in this diff from your talk page's history. While edit summaries indicating deletion nominations are required by policy (links are in this past block notice) you should be making an effort to use them all the time.

It's not acceptable that other editors should have to follow your edits and check each and every diff to find out which edits have had a major effect on articles. (You recently nominated Lorraine McLees for deletion – via WP:PROD – without mentioning deletion in your edit summary.) Please start using edit summaries regularly, otherwise I will start issuing blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:51,

I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer to my comments as trolling. My requests are supported by long-established policies, to which I have linked in the past. (I see no reason to recopy those links for you again, since you tend to delete them from your talk page without comment—and they're in the history link in my last message.) Your last block for failure to use edit summaries was reviewed and widely supported.

At a bare minimum, the edit summaries that you use for nomination deletions need to indicate that a deletion nomination has taken place. In the case I linked, as well as in some edits from today (River City Church, Paul Kelly (U.S. musician)) your edit summary mentioned nothing about deletion. In the remainder of your edits, nobody has an inkling of what you've done, because you've not bothered with the courtesy of even a brief edit summary.

I have no doubt that you're contributing to Misplaced Pages in good faith, and that you have only the improvement of this resource in mind. I think that much of what you're doing is very valuable and beneficial, and I strongly agree that every effort should be made to encourage better sourcing of our content, particularly where living people are concerned. Nevertheless, don't you see how your omission of edit summaries might be annoying to other editors at best?

I am not creating new policy here. I am asking you to comply with (at a minimum) established policy and (hopefully) established community norms of etiquette. My request – and warning – stands. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel my edit summaries in these specific cases are insufficient, will you please bring it up on the appropriate forums and copy me? I would like to engage in this discussion but feel that it needs consideration far, far beyond my talk page. Burntsauce 23:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The requirement for a descriptive edit summary when making a deletion nomination doesn't require further discussion or consideration — it's already a matter of policy. I would assume that a minimum requirement for a 'descriptive' edit summary when PRODing would include some indication that a PROD has taken place. (Someone encountering the vague edit summary "non-notable subject, no evidence of non-trivial third party coverage" may wonder if you mean, "I added a {{notability}} tag" or "I PRODed this article" or "I removed some non-notable information about a third party from the article". You see the problem...?)

The use of edit summaries for all edits isn't etched it stone, but it is a strongly-encouraged practice and a Misplaced Pages guideline. At a minimum, when you're adding a tag (like {{unreferenced}} or {{fact}}) to an article, it takes a very small effort to copy/paste that to the edit summary field, and it saves every editor who has the page watchlisted from having to check the diff to see what it is that you did. It may also encourage someone to fix the problem that you've identified.

As well, even if "edits that feel warrant justification are being summarized" , you may want to err more on the side of caution in applying that maxim. To draw an edit without summary from your recent history, what do we make of this? Did you remove this list without leaving an edit summary because you felt the information wasn't important? Because the redlinks would encourage the creation of pointless articles? Because you felt the information was in error? Or was it just because you forgot to leave an edit summary? (The edit was so inscrutable that another editor reverted it as vandalism a short time later.) Why not take the two seconds to leave an edit summary each and every time? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough

Your hardline take on WP:BLP is becoming irritating and you have been either asked (by me) to explain your warped view on the policy here and, then when you deleted the mesage, here, told you're wrong by both an admin and a very experienced editor here, and proved as having interpreted the policy completely incorrectly here. That's three warnings too many and so I'm issuing you with an official warning to cease: Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. DavyJonesLocker 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother trolling my talk page. If you have a problem with editorial policy take it to the talk page or file an arbitration case. Burntsauce 23:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, perhaps the language I used when posting the message was inappropriate for the situation, if so, I apologise. Secondly, you should look up the definition on trolling. Thirdly, and most importantly, you blanked the Warrior (wrestler) article, again, after recieving the above warning. Now, I could file an arbritation case, but that would imply a degree of dispute on both sides exists and not just the reality of you simply ignoring rules, views and advice given to you. So I issue you with another vandalism warning;

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. DavyJonesLocker 01:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanna let you know that you are a jerk, you are a punk, you are living a sad, meaningless life. Why the hell do you go around ruining articles with valid info, most of us have lives outside of wikipedia, we don't have all day to just put sources on everything, but in time, it will be fine. But you need to stop blanking articles. Dannycali 03:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Silly rabbit 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)