Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:19, 16 June 2014

Please read

Hello. Thanks for your interest in editing out articles. You need to read the guidelines for adding categories at WP:CAT. In particular note this section Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Articles where it states A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession. In other words "Yes" Fionnnula Flanagan was in a western but "No" it is not a defining part of her career. The category is correct for someone like Henry Darrow but it "is not" for most of the actors articles that you are adding it to. So please be more careful in your editing. MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW you have not created the category properly. Thus you have a red cat link in all the articles that you have added it to and those can be removed by any editors that see them. If you have a question about how to create the category properly you can ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE. MarnetteD|Talk 17:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

False reasoning applied by you. WP:DEFINING states "Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic." – given that all of the actors I have categorised are because they are listed on articles on Western TV shows, those TV shows are already "notable" and "verified", and therefore the actors inherit that fact. That makes you one of those "users can become confused between the standards", IMO. You are removing categories because you are confused as to what is notable and what meets your personal-ideals. I would suggest you stick with policy instead of applying false reasoning. I will also note that http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fionnula_Flanagan&diff=613163908&oldid=613163709 was a WP:3RR breach. I'll give you 10 minutes to self-revert, before I report you for war-editing, as your reasoning is not supported by any of the exceptions and that is not good for your defence. That'll learn you not to WP:BITE IP editors in future. I've been editing here for ages, I don't need lessons from you, thanks. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. MarnetteD|Talk 17:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN it is up to you to do things properly. MarnetteD|Talk 17:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOOD FAITH is not for you to abuse. Your removal of "red links" is simply side-stepping policy to push your own view. It is uncivil and nonsensical time-wasting. We're here to build an encyclo. but you appear to be dismantling it. There are no red cats. anyhow. And you have 5 minutes until I report that 3RR. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You now have four WP:3RR breaches. Doesn't look good for you. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring basic WP:CATEGORY guidelines. You may want to read WP:BOOMERANG as well. MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR doesn't allow for "boomerang" as an excuse - if you can't apply any of the 7 exception you're guilty, if I'm making good faith mistakes 3RR isn't an option. I see you've been smacked before in your block log for 3RR. Some people never learn. Those are what we call "bullies". 2 minutes remain. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

3rr also applies to you. You are still violating the guidelines for cats and as such:

You aren't making good faith edits when you have been shown the appropriate policy and you continue to ignore them. MarnetteD|Talk 17:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong - 3RR applies per article - I have yet to revert any article more that 2 times. You have reverted several article 3 times. That's your problem to explain to ANI/3RR not me. I can change IP in seconds if blocked, but you can't change this account if it's blocked. Look to your own flaws before mine. Your template threats have zero effect, you are no admin material and your policy interpretation is flawed.

82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No I haven't and please do not alter my posts. MarnetteD|Talk 17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:TALKO lets me remove whatever I want... your idle threats have been removed, and I'm off to 3RR to report you. Enjoy the drama. For someone who doesn't know that Eric Fleming major role was Gil Favor in Rawhide you're one ignorant individual. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this cats are not red if they are created properly and the SPA user that created the cat did so after my edits not before. have you filed your report yet? MarnetteD|Talk 17:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A question regarding your edits has been filed here Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). Please feel free to add your input. MarnetteD|Talk 17:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The question remains, why you choose to war-edit rather than simply add a TOC to the new category yourself. It would have taken you 5 seconds, far less time than reverting dozens of pages under the bad faith guise of "red cat". I think your practice here was thoroughly dishonest, attention-seeking and wasted my time and yours. Like picking a fight with your neighbours for finding a piece of litter on the lawn instead of taking a few seconds to simply bin it and avoid trouble. Clearly you were trolling, or if not, it was poorly-engineered behaviour which you should be ashamed of. Drama queens waste more time on this site than vandals for those of us who simply want to get on with things unharassed by lawyer-like editors who think themselves better than everyone else. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am under absolutely no obligation to do your work for you. The bad faith is all on your part as you have continued to ignore the policy regarding cats after it was pointed out to you. The continued violation of WP:NPA (which I also feel no obligation to respond to) on your part also shows bad faith. MarnetteD|Talk 18:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't aware you would be "working for me" by adding a TOC - if that's your attitude then don't edit Wiki at all, because every edit benefits someone. Your adoption of that form of WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude is what I mean before, your 3RR block log shows your unwillingness to collaborate because you are self-serving rather than community-serving. No personal attacks from me either, only observation of your misdeeds and mass-scale bad faith reverts. Also you defined the editor who TOC'd the cat as an "SPA", but WP:SPA and Arbcoms specific def. on an SPA does not support your statement, so perhaps that's another example of your hostility towards IPs and new editors. You are very aggressive, and the ownership-like behaviour you have placed on these articles in your own interest rather than Wiki's is all too evident. There is no point my beating about the bush, I'm 100% honest, you're a bad faith editor who misrepresents policy, uses it to his advantage and ignores the wider benefits of doing something good and chooses to argue instead. I've remained perfectly civil with you, despite your intolerance and oppressive mannerisms. I don't work for you, but you chose to make my edits as a personal afront to your standards, rather than those set out by the community. You reverted 30+ articles without even knowing what you were reverting, the Eric Fleming article being a laughable example that you were bul reverting without a care for who or what you harmed. Foregone conclusion is simple for anyone to see, you don't like IPs/newbs so you WP:BITE them harshly, rudely and subjectively with undue force. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The WP:BATTLEFIELD is all on your part as you continue to ignore policy - which is set by the community BTW. I did know what I was reverting. I have a long record of helping IPs and newbies so your accusations have no basis in fact. Continue to vent if you need to. You are also free to file an 3rr (as you threatened to on more that one occasion) or a RFC/U. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Your "whatever you say I do, you did first" rhetoric is so childish, might I suggest you grow up and learn to accept when you are in the wrong. Your record isn't of interest to me, your discriminative behaviour is, I am the here and now, not your past record. You have a long block log too, with 3RR disruptions being a factor, it all balances out in the end: a leopard can't change its spots. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding categories

Hi 82.8.252.13, the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Question_regarding_categories was moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Question_regarding_categories for more input. Cheers Mion (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

1. in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form