Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:04, 28 January 2013

Misplaced Pages:Help_desk#Editing_system_is_extremely_poorly_thought-out

Having nothing better to do for the past fifteen minutes, I read the whole discussion and must say that I am impressed with the calm and mature attitude that Py0alb has displayed. I would say, however, that (1) this place is probably not the forum for his subject and (2) he has as much chance of changing WP policies and the attitude of obtuse editors as an ice cube on a hot griddle. Sometimes a WP:Wikibreak is helpful. This discussion was closed before I had a chance to post this. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes

I see that you were referring to Spin bowling, and that your requested edits were being disallowed through pending changes. There was quite a lengthy discussion about this on your IP talk page, so there's hardly any call to claim that you were being reverted without discussion. You were asked to provide a reference if you intended to redo the edit; why not simply comply? As was discussed in WP:HD, information needs to be verifiable in reliable sources. When a form of protection is in place on the article, a reference for any additions is necessary: when requesting any such edit, including semi- or fully-protected article edits, you must provide a source. In the amount of time you've spent arguing that everyone else must be wrong and that you're an expert, you could have simply found and provided a source for your information. GiftigerWunsch 00:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Py0alb, when you are not logged in and click edit at Spin bowling, this is displayed at top of the edit page in a blue box:

Note: Edits to this page are subject to review (help).

If you click the linked "help" then you get a page starting:

"Pending-changes protection" (PC protection) is a tool that is being tested on a limited number of articles during a two-month trial.

Special:ValidationStatistics currently shows that it only applies to 899 out of 3,555,545 article space pages (0.03%). It appears your whole experience and subsequent suggestion for a fundamental change of how Misplaced Pages should operate on all articles was based on a system only applying to 0.03% of articles, but your post gave us no way to determine this. You kept claiming that the specific page didn't matter but it would have been really helpful if you had revealed the page when people kept asking you for it. Your initial claim in and apparently the premise for your suggestion was: "Currently every single change that is made to improve a page requires completely unnecessarily rigorous referencing before that change is allowed". But this is false for more than 99% of Misplaced Pages articles (some unsourced edits may be reverted on other articles but certainly not always). Another time, please reveal what you are basing your claims and suggestions on, and don't assume a single experience has taught you everything relevant about a complex site with millions of pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've undone your edit to spin bowling... Text like "one of the greatest" or "considered to be" is editorializing. We report on verifiable facts, not opinion. I love that you're editing and know the rules can be comp,ex. Have you considered the adoption program so that there's someone to help you navigate them? Philippe Beaudette (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

as one example, text like "considered one of the greatest bowlers of all time" would be editorializing. No source is cited. Considered by whom? Philippe Beaudette (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a case where it's really important that anything that's posted to the page be corrected referenced. How is someone who comes in later to know that those words go with your reference? There's a referencing style that needs to be followed. I'd be happy to set you up with a user who can help you do that, but I'm unwilling to reintroduce that edit until the it's properly referenced, because it creates confusion for the reader. Also, please note, I'm copying the talk on my Foundation account over to this personal account. I was logged in on the wrong one. Sorry about that! - Philippe 14:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I had a quick look at the reference provided with some of the recent changes, and I've removed the statements which included weasel words, and moved the reference to the references section since it was not laid out as an inline citation. However, the page the URL directed to doesn't specifically give much relevant information that I can see, and it certainly doesn't seem to verify most of whta was added. The article is going to need some strong sources to support the added material (and in fact the existing material as well), since as it stands it's more or less completely unreferenced. GiftigerWunsch 14:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have asked on the cricket portal talk page for someone with more editing knowledge than me to assist in the renovation of this page. Py0alb (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply

You have deleted all the things which were not able to delete. So I done it, please be cool and its policy.--—just feel it 10:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Belated welcome

It seems no-one's yet extended you a proper welcome, neither before nor since you registered an account. So apologies for the delay, and here goes:

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bowling (cricket), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Slips and Bouncer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Cup-300x225.gif

A tag has been placed on File:Cup-300x225.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Cup-300x225.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cup-300x225.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Indoor Cricket image

Hello. Unfortunately you seem to have misunderstood my deletion rationale. I wrote that there is a chance of someone having a free image at hand. However, that doesn't mean that I know where to get one. Apart from that, Stefan2 was right in that the previous image you uploaded would not have passed a fair use check. This is so for the following reasons: can you comment on the specific situation shown in that image and why said situation is worth of being described and pictured in a Misplaced Pages article? Placing a fair use picture in one of our articles requires that the image provides an aspect that cannot be conveyed by words alone or that the image itself is relevant to the article in question. Neither is the case here: we can easily describe a cricket match with words alone and the photo in question didn't show anything newsworthy that should have been covered in an encyclopedic article. De728631 (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Its impossible to convey the nature of a sport as well in 10,000 words as it is in a single picture.

Here are the facts:

a) this picture is necessary

b) there are no other pictures freely available

c) you don't know nearly enough about cricket to be able to dispute either a) or b)

Probably the best thing for you to do now is to undelete the picture asap and apologise. Thank you in advance for doing this Py0alb (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That is absolutely not how fair use works. The picture is replaceable in that anyone can go and take a photo of any random indoor cricket match and publish it under a free license. E.g. you could do that yourself. Therefore it is not suitable to put any non-free image into an article about the general nature of indoor cricket where there is already a free image to illustrate the article. I'm sorry but I can't undelete that non-free image. De728631 (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There's already one free picture in Indoor cricket, namely File:Indoor cricket at Lords.jpg. De728631 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The only one making mistakes here is you. I've explained the rules for fair use to you more than once and it is you who would like to have another image in the article. Hence it is you who has to do the research for suitable free media (as has also been explained to you by Gimli). See also the comment by JohnCD below. Seriously, you should drop this case now. Feel free to find a new free image but your current attitude is not very helpful. Please continue this discussion at WP:Deletion review if you feel the need for it but I won't answer to any further messages on my talk page. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, although I've said I wouldn't reply here any more, let me just state that this whole discussion – spread over several user talk pages and a deleted file talk – shows how you are trying to make a point that you have been wronged, which is not the case. You've been told by multiple editors that nothing was wrong with deleting the cricket image you took from that website and still you kept accusing me of making mistakes . So please drop the stick now and move on. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need to apologise for acting according to the relevant guideline which you should have read before uploading the image. And Instead of asking me to further explain my deletion rationale, your first request to me was about replacing the image; if you so disagreed with the deletion why didn't you ask me for the reasoning in the first place? I, GimliDotNet and JohnCD have in fact repeatedly explained the fair use requirements to you. You, however, keep accusing experienced editors . I hate to say this but I'm now going to have this discussed at WP:ANI. Please feel free to comment over there. De728631 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility

WP:CIVIL is not optional. I suggest you read it, then check why your comments above fall way short of it. Comment on the issues at hand, not the editors involved and always try to assume good faith. GimliDotNet 05:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The image was deleted because it failed to match the policy for non free images. This has been explained to you several times. I note you have not withdrawn the above attack, no the one on De's talk page dispute being asked to. If you continue down this route of misapplying policy and making attacks on editors then you're going to end up at WP:ANI GimliDotNet 09:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Now you're being disingenuous. The debate at File talk:Cup-300x225.gif includes reasons for the deletion, you have admitted reading the reason for speedy deletion on DE's talk page and he responded with clarification here. Just because you choose to disagree doesn't mean you haven't been informed of the deletion rationale. GimliDotNet 13:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The policy the file was deleted under was perfectly lucid, obvious and correct. The onus for inclusion of the file is on the person wanting to include it, not visa-versa. You just disagree with the policy - frankly that's though luck. GimliDotNet 13:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

File talk:Cup-300x225.gif

I have deleted this talk page as the talk page of a deleted page. The file has been deleted, and the reasons explained to you several times; there is no point continuing the argument on the talk page. If you wish to contest the deletion further, the proper place is WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

ANEW

Based on the report filed at ANEW, you have been edit-warring on the article. Worse, your conduct has been personally attacking on the article talk page and certainly not conducive to achieving a consensus. If you wish to avoid a block, you must promise to (1) self-revert your last edit so the article is back to the status quo (see WP:BRD); and (2) not edit the article for 7 days. You are free to continue discussing your changes on the article talk page in a civil manner and use any dispute resolution mechanisms available to you, but you can't touch the article itself. If you agree to these conditions, you will avoid a block. Please respond here (or at ANEW) as to what you wish to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Condition #1 is now impossible as there has been an intervening edit. You have to agree only to condition #2.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the intervening edit. in2itive (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I should have let you know on your talk page rather than assumed you'd see my comments at ANEW or here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to close the report at ANEW. Technically, you did not violate condition #1 because you edited only the new article crated by In2itive. Your comments at ANEW consist mainly of personal attacks, and although I warned you above about being civil, I'm uncomfortable sanctioning you for the personal attacks at ANEW as, at this point, such a block would probably be more punitive than preventive. However, consider this an only warning that if you persist in such attacks, I may block you without notice. Some of those attacks are repeatedly calling In2itive's edits "vandalism"; they are not. Read WP:VANDAL. You also accuse them again of promotion without any evidence except your own point of view; that, too, is a personal attack. Your understanding of WP:3RR is unusually flawed. For example, your edit summary at the Indoor Cricket article indicates that a 3rd revert will violate 3RR. That's incorrect. It is a 4th revert that violates 3RR. Plus your comments at ANEW about 5 reverts is also incorrect. To violate 3RR, you have to make at least 4 reverts in a 24-hours window. Some of the reverts you included go back to last month. Finally, your accusations of In2itive being uncivil are baseless; I see nothing uncivil about their comments, only yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)