This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Itsmeront (talk | contribs) at 17:39, 12 May 2015 (→Inappropriate Actions and behavors by Editors Padenton and Msnicki). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:39, 12 May 2015 by Itsmeront (talk | contribs) (→Inappropriate Actions and behavors by Editors Padenton and Msnicki)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Help:Contents
Archives
| Previous requests & responses | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
| Other links | ||||||||
Restoring edit because no consensus could be reached (Talk:Female genital mutilation)
I introduced changes that started an edit war. 5 days of discussion including edit warring noticeboard and reliable sources noticeboard posts and an RfC have taken place since edit warring stopped with the reverted version being protected. The protection has now expired and no progress has been made toward a consensus. Is it permissible for me to restore my edit? My understanding of 3RR is that the limit applies to reverts, not to the initial change - does that mean the reverters have to stop after 3 times and leave the edit in place? PolenCelestial (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't dug into your edits, but since you say "I introduced changes," I would think that the second bullet point of the "No consensus" section of the Consensus Policy would apply. It says: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Does that address your question? (There can, of course, be other policies and guidelines which, if clearly applicable, cause this principle not to apply, as it is the default all-else-being-equal position.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- No, because it only says what commonly results and I'm asking whether a consensus is required in order to restore my edit. PolenCelestial (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @PolenCelestial: I took a quick look at the page, and while I have no opinion on the edit or the source, the issue is one of WP:CONSENSUS. In this case the article is a recent Featured Article which means that a group of experienced editors have reviewed the material and come to a consensus on the quality and content of the article. In short there is an assumed consensus for material as it stands.
Misplaced Pages articles with several editors generally improved by a process known as Bold, Revert, Discuss this means an edit is made and if someone objects to it they revert the edit. The editors then discuss the edit on the talk page. The new edit is not included in the article until a consensus forms among the article editors whether the new material/wording should be used, the old material/wording stays or some third compromise version should be used. Right now it looks to me that the consensus is against your edit. You should not continue to add it back in until there is consensus to do so. Continuing to do so can be seen as disruptive or edit warring. Please also understand that edit warring is not based on elapsed time as you seem to think based on your edit summary of
(24 hours have elapsed since first revert; added same info to lead. Censors are ignoring cited sources, claiming UNICEF is the only valid source (see talk). Edit warring noticeboard if reverted again.)
. Please see WP:3RR and note in particular it says "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring...The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." I hope this helps answer your question. Jbh 23:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @PolenCelestial: I took a quick look at the page, and while I have no opinion on the edit or the source, the issue is one of WP:CONSENSUS. In this case the article is a recent Featured Article which means that a group of experienced editors have reviewed the material and come to a consensus on the quality and content of the article. In short there is an assumed consensus for material as it stands.
- No, because it only says what commonly results and I'm asking whether a consensus is required in order to restore my edit. PolenCelestial (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Carlisle Military School
I am at my ropes end on how to respond to various editors recommending deletion on images from subject article. I have tried to address it upon being notified, by attempting to rejustify/edit copyright code. But it appears all my attempts have failed - it appears once an image is recommended for deletion it goes into an automatic mode and nothing can prevent them from being deleted. Then those images go into a dark hole where it appears it is impossible to get them retrieved. I have tried to reload them with newer coding with explanations of why an image has no copyright at all (public domain or pre-1923, or both) - and these are then deleted based upon the original deletion without any consideration for additional background. My main issue is when those photos have no documented copyright at all - or are pre-1923 where any copyright that existed have expired and/or already in the public domain (even if not yet on any web site). The latest deletion that occurred is on photo that I actually created - and it was of a roadside historical marker that is in the public domain. I would like some help. At least in providing me an image by image (those deleted from subject article) rationale why pre-1923 or public domain images cannot be posted as I had them - AND providing me a correct coding that makes them acceptable to wikipedia editors. Again, I am at a loss here - I have requested assistance from the editors who recommended deletion of my images, I have posted an open request on the Help Forum. No one who are actively involved in recommending deletions of images have offered any assistance. Merely re-quoting the copyright rules is not helping. I need someone to explain in detail how I need to keep my images with the proper coding for pre-1923, public domain, and those photos that are out of a shoebox and are scanned by me - with no known living originator or owner who never had a copyright to begin with. SandHills (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I can tell you that you had a couple images deleted over at Commons: Commons:Deletion requests/File:SCHistMkr.jpg. Some of the other ones you've uploaded there are tagged for speedy deletion because you haven't provided sufficient information about where you got the images. It's like when you cite a source, it's generally not enough to give the title of the book; most citation standards require you to give title, author, publication date... sometimes publisher and place of publication. In the same way, in order to have a PD argument for a scanned image to be accepted you need to tell us things like when the document was published. I would suggest consulting Commons:Hirtle chart for more guidance on the formalities with which you need to comply for Commons. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Verification
Several months ago on a Misplaced Pages forum I asked about verifying a page I created and have contributed to regarding a Native American writer, poet, activist and business person and received the answer they seemed to generally meet guidelines from someone who perused the page. Content have been verified and continues active, and is far more than the majority of any Native American entry has received and has more verifiable content than many Native American entries show. Yet still, there is a general message on the page that says "The topic of this article may not meet Misplaced Pages's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted."
Why has this not been verified further? If so, why is this message still appearing? Before, when I went to add content to any page or edit when I was logged in, I was given the option to submit it for verification. I don't see that anymore, so I have to now write further to ask the question as I think it needs answering.
When I asked it before citing other pages with less content and sources NOT having that message, I was just told "Those need to be reviewed and might be reviewed." SO MANY pages allowed without this message are up. Please finally clear this message on the page of this important Native American author and activist, and please reintroduce or make a better system where a page can be reviewed. My apologies to you all if I missed that, cause I might have done so. https://en.wikipedia.org/Red_Haircrow
Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributingauthor (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- If you believe that the {{Notability}} tag no longer serves any useful function, you can remove it from the article. Make sure that your edit summary explains the removal; something along the lines of "I'm removing the {{Notability}} tag as I believe that Red Haircrow's notability has been sufficiently established. If anyone disagrees, please nominate the article for deletion." would be appropriate. For more information on removing tags, see Misplaced Pages:Tagging pages for problems#Removing tags. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Factually Inaccurate Article
Http://en.wikipedia.org/Rated_people#Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi there,
I hope you are well.
I would like to flag the 'Controversy' section of the Rated People page as factually inaccurate, as it does not have accurate, reliable or factual references to back up this claim.
I would like to request that this section of the page be reviewed as it does not adhere to the Misplaced Pages guidelines of being unbiased and properly referenced.
Kind regards, 81.133.144.31 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Removed as the section was largely unsourced and was being used as a soapbox. However this source could be used to write neutrally worded content. --NeilN 17:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate Actions and behavors by Editors Padenton and Msnicki
This isn't a forum to discuss user conduct. This forum is for helping editors how best to edit the content of articles. Editors who have issues with other editors' behavior and don't feel that they can hash it out between them on their respective talk pages should take their complaints to an administrator or to one of the conduct forums, AN, ANI, ARBCOM, or Arbitration Enforcement, as applicable. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to draw your attention to ]. The editors that proposed this deletion have been running their own personal vendetta.
This deletion request is, in my opinion, a vendetta against my arguments to keep the article NIM. ] by Padenton|✉ and Msnicki (talk) who have tried to retaliate by deleting a slew of articles. Sources of information that were and are in my opinion quite notable are being deleted by Padention and Msnicki. Notice from a comment in the comment in the Nim deletion discussion how many articles are now missing.(Written by Itsmeront 23:06, May 11, 2015)
- Keep. There are Misplaced Pages articles about hundreds of programming languages. Many of them don't have any secondary sources. So why do you think Nim is not notable, but the following languages are? Obol (programming language), Picky (programming language), Little Interpreted Language, Seph (programming language), Halide (programming language), Roy (programming language), Plaid (programming language), Join-calculus (programming language), Objeck (programming language), Nemo (programming language), Ooc, Cl4 (programming language), Slave Programming Language, PureScript, Hope (programming language), MX Language, MCTRL, SmilScript, Wigzy, Mobl, Napier88 (I have just picked some random articles) --Trustable (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- That argument is Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists. Just because those haven't been deleted, doesn't make this article subject notable. ― Padenton|✉ 00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Also note in ] when the vote when against them Pandenton 'Msnicki' decided to inappropriately push the issue "Sorry, I really hate when people blackmail me. Please take it to DRV if you think it has any merit.--Ymblanter (talk)"
This is just another long run of actions that should have wikipedia editors to consider the modivations of these editors.
Itsmeront (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Time for a WP:BOOMERANG.
- The article you made as a memorial for your friend does not establish his notability and his notability is in question, which makes it perfectly fair game to be nominated at AfD, especially since searches do not establish his notability either.
- Those were all deleted fairly, you're welcome to talk to the closers and seek deletion review. Otherwise, get over it and stop re-posting this everywhere hoping someone will care, because they won't. I doubt even Trustable cares. You're welcome to ask him/her.
- I have NEVER edited on Ymblanter's talk page, and the history proves it, so don't accuse me of stuff I have never done. The vote also didn't "go against me", it was no consensus for both the AfD and the deletion review.
- It's nice that you notified Ymblanter on his talk page. But you failed to do so for myself and Msnicki as you are required to do in any editor dispute.
- Can someone close this as there isn't a single honest thing Itsmeront has said and this isn't even close to being the correct venue? Though he's been forum shopping on this already a fair bit. ― Padenton|✉ 04:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I corrected the reference above and attributed the blackmail to Msnicki. I also added a notice on both of your talk pages. Dr. Raab was was notable on his own, he was the heart and soul of a very large open source community, the deletion request is a tatic and harrassment. See also: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Roscelese for previous warning and collusion and the following on Msnicki (talk) page:
Itsmeront (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Please stay as far away from me as you can. If I do something wrong, surely somebody else will notice and take care of it. You do not need to try to police my activities or to make frivolous accusations that I started an attack page. Really? The nerve!
Thank you for the link to ( Trustable Talk) I do think that the comments from Caroliano are very useful and should also be reviewed.
@Padenton: You nominated a whole bunch of programmming languages at the same time based on his list. I can't do a serious search for sources on so many languages at once, and I don't want to see them all deleted, so I came here to ask for help, as he was interested in Nim deletion, maybe he don't want some of those languages articles lost. And I do think Misplaced Pages is being hurt by this. Caroliano (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Itsmeront (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Itsmeront: Not sure why you're linking the Roscelese enforcement request I brought to ArbCom, it doesn't support or serve as an example of a single claim you've made. All it shows is I'm a responsible Misplaced Pages editor that seeks admin assistance when an editor with previous restrictions reverts 1 1/2 weeks of a new editor's changes, possibly providing insufficient explanation. But here's an idea: how about you stay out of discussions you know nothing about? It seems more likely that you are the one with a grudge here, if you're digging through my history looking at every discussion I'm involved in. Is your goal to link to random discussions involving responsible acts by those you've accused in the hope that the reviewer of your claims will not read it and judge us guilty based on our being in those discussions? I said ask Trustable if he/she cares, not ask Caroliano. ― Padenton|✉ 14:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)