| Revision as of 19:49, 28 June 2013 editSPECIFICO (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,511 edits General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:51, 28 June 2013 edit undoGrandmartin11 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users606 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| == June 2013 == | == June 2013 == | ||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of ] did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the ] which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use ] for that. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> ]] 19:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of ] did not appear to be constructive and has been ] or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the ] which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use ] for that. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive1 --> ]] 19:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> | |||
| Thought you might want to be notified of this given your participation in the previous AFD. ] (]) 19:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:51, 28 June 2013
Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors.
 Green Line for Barnstars, Archives, Other Stuff
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Gender bias task force
Hi Carol, something here you might be interested in. Best, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (use English)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (use English). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
OR noticeboard
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Misplaced Pages prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#WP:OR.2FSynth_argumentation_in_biography, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.
SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- At this diff: Frankly I've seen blunter language taken to ANI and gotten held up. See also Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Dealing_with_biased_contributors.
- Rewritten to make the point that if you would give a policy based argument maybe this would be over. Refusal to discuss issues when two editors make a point is in itself disruptive. (And LawrenceKhoo hasn't bothered to respond either.) The discuss in BRD is to stop people from getting ticked off and is what collaboration is all about. Refusal is edit warring. Maybe I need to leave that on your talk page. But trying to be more constructive. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Skousen
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please read the source. Not synth. Skousan is making the connection in the cited source. Please replace the text you deleted. Do not revert properly sourced content. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Again, you make a false accusation. This is part of the whole ongoing discussion of WP:OR which two editors have objected to. In the past I corrected the Skousen quote which was totally inaccurate per the source. See talk discussion. I also objected to the new Skousen WP:OR and tagged it.
- However, I reverted it for the first time yesterday here because you added even more absurd WP:OR re: Salamanca school. If you and LawrenceKhoo really believed you were in the right you would have defended your position at WP:BLPN and WP:ORN. But he ignored the notices put on this talk page (since he doesn't participate in the article talk page) and at notice boards you only came up with disruptive issues which editors at Editor's Assistance already told you were irrelevant. And continued WP:Disruptive editing on this and other articles. This is your second false charge. See User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_VIII#SOTO. I think I've given you more than enough warnings on all of this at this point. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Rothbard
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Use talk. Simple way to have the world know your concerns without disrupting the improvement of the article. You should be confident you know what is said in the cited sources before you state your view. For example, which source says that Murray is more notable as an economist than as the progenitor of the anarcho-capitalist school of thought, American right-libertarianism, and the Mises Institue. Please give a careful read to the policy. "even if you believe your view is correct..." You may not edit war. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wholesale reversion of something you, Specifico, know darn well is controversial is what is edit warring. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please review applicable policy and guidance. Please read each of the cited sources. Avoid SYNTH reasoning. BTW, 4 editors agree on the anarcho-capital thing and one lonely you disagree. Lew Rockwell didn't eulogize MR as an economist, in fact who did? He was notable as a political theorist, controversialist, and organizer of minds and men as the Founder of Right Libertarianism. RS: Rockwell. Please undo your ew and contribute additional sources if you wish to contend MR is more notable in economics than political theory. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, FYI, knowing Murray-- he would not have been pleased to be called an 'economist' before a political philosopher, though he would be pleased that I noted his association with Mises in the lede. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know who two of these four alleged editors are or what their reasoning is. And these last two entries belong on the talk page. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that you're not familiar with the edit history and do not recall the comments of other editors suggests this would be a good time to review all relevant article, talk page, and source materials relevant to your revert. In the meantime, please undo your edit-war revert and feel free to copy conten-related text to the article talk page. I will not comment further in this thread here. Please review the warnings. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know who two of these four alleged editors are or what their reasoning is. And these last two entries belong on the talk page. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Thought you might want to be notified of this given your participation in the previous AFD. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)