| Revision as of 03:25, 11 September 2015 editKoA (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,888 edits →Edit warring: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:58, 11 September 2015 edit undoAbductive (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers128,926 edits →Edit warringNext edit → | ||
| Line 410: | Line 410: | ||
| Please slow down, as you are adding content that is not reflected by sources see ] and adding editorializing language. ] (]) 03:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC) | Please slow down, as you are adding content that is not reflected by sources see ] and adding editorializing language. ] (]) 03:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *Listen, bud, I am becoming concerned that you really are a corporate shill. You know damn well that a court of law has found that the FDA erred, and the court ] Dow. You know that sources exist. And it is you that are in front of arbcom. Now, if you are wise, you will cease your pro-industry stance and go away. <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 07:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:58, 11 September 2015
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
the unnecessary rewriting of metadata...
In this edit you rewrote perfectely good references -- changing the number of blanks. I never rewrite perfectly good references -- in order to keep diffs useful. I'd appreciate other contributors doing likewise. Some automated editing aids suggest a lot of unnecessary changes to metadata. I would prefer other contributors to not allow their editing tools to make unnecessary changes.
In particular, although I personally find {{cite}} templates that put everything on a single logical line, I don't add newlines, when I fix these templates, or add new fields.
I use a monospaced font in the editor. I use enough spaces so all the equals signs in a {{cite}} template line up. It makes errors easier to find and fix. Collapsing all those spaces doesn't alter how the wikipedia software parses the template. So, why would you collapse all the spaces, to a single space?
WRT the MOS -- doesn't it explicitly recommend not rewriting compliant references for internal cosmetic reasons? Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.
In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far 
Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was 
Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.
The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.- Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.
The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.
Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!
Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see
What Misplaced Pages is not#Is it promotional in archaeological articles to mention the university leading an excavation?. Doug Weller (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Sulfoxaflor 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 slow down, as you are adding content that is not reflected by sources see WP:OR and adding editorializing language. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Listen, bud, I am becoming concerned that you really are a corporate shill. You know damn well that a court of law has found that the FDA erred, and the court found against Dow. You know that sources exist. And it is you that are in front of arbcom. Now, if you are wise, you will cease your pro-industry stance and go away. Abductive (reasoning) 07:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)