| Revision as of 20:55, 9 April 2013 editMartinevans123 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers232,714 edits →Edit war at Annie Lennox?: link← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:55, 9 April 2013 edit undoDr.K. (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers110,824 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Annie Lennox. (TW★TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | ||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. - ] (]) 20:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. - ] (]) 20:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 20:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
Revision as of 20:55, 9 April 2013
Realisable sources
Sources confirming the nationalities of these people have now been applied. Sources cannot be argued with, nor changed! The edit war will not cease. Thanks Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- They do not in anyway count as confirmation. It's just the individuals writing the articles saying that. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- These articles however still confirm their nationality! No articles had I found said British! What satisfaction are you getting from this? And once again! Why are you not changing the likes of Adele, Billy Idol, Paul McCartney? Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- No they don't. Not in any way what so ever do they prove that. All it is is somebody writing their nationality as such. As for why not random english ones. We'll because I'm not going to change everything am I. I'm more annoyed about the attempts to pretend that the UK does not exist then referring to people as Scottish. Why Scottish is more appropriate, for example with Alex Salmond, I would champion that. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well you could start? So far, you seem to be very very anti-Scottish! Alex Salmond has nothing to do with this! And for your information, no one is "pretending" that the UK doesn't exist! It mentions it in the Scotland articles first line!!! Just because UK isnt added onto a KT Tunstall article doesn't mean the UK has ceased to exist!!! Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Alex Salmond was an excellent example of someone who it would be inappropriate to refer to as British over Scottish. I'm not anti-Scottish, I'm anti-nationalism yes, but not anti-Scottish. KT Tunstall in particularly is prominent as a British artist. Not mentioning the UK in the origin tag would thus be dis-honest. However, there is no particularly strong association with Scotland but not Britain so British is more appropriate (especially given the whole BRIT award thing) since the rule of thumb is to use the sovereign state. 78.150.28.18 (talk)
- Again, winning a BRIT award has nothing to do with being British? Look, can't we just let this go? Let the articles remain English, Scottish etc respectively! People know that the UK is four countries, and just because British or whatever, UK etc isnt added into a music article, doesn't mean the UK doesnt exists. People know that Scotland is in the UK so what is the big deal? Ps, I'm also not a nationalist but however I think the articles should be left as they are. As this. Right here is what happens! Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Alex Salmond was an excellent example of someone who it would be inappropriate to refer to as British over Scottish. I'm not anti-Scottish, I'm anti-nationalism yes, but not anti-Scottish. KT Tunstall in particularly is prominent as a British artist. Not mentioning the UK in the origin tag would thus be dis-honest. However, there is no particularly strong association with Scotland but not Britain so British is more appropriate (especially given the whole BRIT award thing) since the rule of thumb is to use the sovereign state. 78.150.28.18 (talk)
- Well you could start? So far, you seem to be very very anti-Scottish! Alex Salmond has nothing to do with this! And for your information, no one is "pretending" that the UK doesn't exist! It mentions it in the Scotland articles first line!!! Just because UK isnt added onto a KT Tunstall article doesn't mean the UK has ceased to exist!!! Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- No they don't. Not in any way what so ever do they prove that. All it is is somebody writing their nationality as such. As for why not random english ones. We'll because I'm not going to change everything am I. I'm more annoyed about the attempts to pretend that the UK does not exist then referring to people as Scottish. Why Scottish is more appropriate, for example with Alex Salmond, I would champion that. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- These articles however still confirm their nationality! No articles had I found said British! What satisfaction are you getting from this? And once again! Why are you not changing the likes of Adele, Billy Idol, Paul McCartney? Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Leave them as they were? The KT Tunstall article said British when I first came along. In-fact I've actually generally been undoing edit by 90.213.93.226 which generally ammount to removing mention of the UK. Sadly, many people don't know that the UK is not England or that Scotland is not an independent country. The rule of thumb is the mention the sovereign state that an individual comes from. In these cases that would be the UK. I would not say that the constituent country not be mentioned as well (and as you may well notice, I've not been removing that). You must realise that this is not a one way street, you are fueling this as well. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I 100% agree, but the constituent countries identities should not be demolished. You have however been removing it from the Texas article I see? However, I can say the KT Tunstall article has long read Scottish, like all the other articles, so why change? (I've been here on Misplaced Pages a long time). What are you really achieving from this? It's now an edit war, so really its pointless, as everything you do from now will end up removed etc, even if it is a good edit! Please, let's leave it there? Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- When I first came across the KT Tunstall page it read British, and jumping back to a couple random older ones also read the same. It really is a more appropriate description as she is widely know as a British artist. The fact that the google test of "KT Tunstall """ returns almost 3 times more results for British backs this up. I could ask you all the same things. If you want me to compromise, you need to be willing to do the same. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Other users are now also reverting your edits, simply because a source has now been provided and you are removing the source. The only reason a Google search is reading British is because you are changing it to British. If you were to leave it as Scottish, on Google it would say Scottish by the finish up. People know, anyone who is Scottish is British, so either way, I don't see how having British in the article justified your caseUh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- We'll we're just going to disagree then. There is no reason whatsoever NOT to mention the UK in the origin tag at the least. However, the links you have used are not in anyway reliable sources for what you are trying to prove. It's the equivalent to asking someone what another persons hair colour is and them saying "Ginger" while the person concerned would say "Red". It's meaningless. I also think you misunderstand what I mean when I say "google test". It refers to the number of results returned, not the little fact box that google pops up. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, we will just need to disagree, as really, I have other things to be doing and I am sure you do too. I honestly believe its best the articles remain the way they are, every British article mainly refers to the person, object or song to be from the constituent country...Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- We'll we're just going to disagree then. There is no reason whatsoever NOT to mention the UK in the origin tag at the least. However, the links you have used are not in anyway reliable sources for what you are trying to prove. It's the equivalent to asking someone what another persons hair colour is and them saying "Ginger" while the person concerned would say "Red". It's meaningless. I also think you misunderstand what I mean when I say "google test". It refers to the number of results returned, not the little fact box that google pops up. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Other users are now also reverting your edits, simply because a source has now been provided and you are removing the source. The only reason a Google search is reading British is because you are changing it to British. If you were to leave it as Scottish, on Google it would say Scottish by the finish up. People know, anyone who is Scottish is British, so either way, I don't see how having British in the article justified your caseUh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- When I first came across the KT Tunstall page it read British, and jumping back to a couple random older ones also read the same. It really is a more appropriate description as she is widely know as a British artist. The fact that the google test of "KT Tunstall """ returns almost 3 times more results for British backs this up. I could ask you all the same things. If you want me to compromise, you need to be willing to do the same. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I disagree. I honestly believe that if something is British, it should be mentioned, just as you would mention that someone from Texas is from the US. You have accused me of being un-willing to compromise however your refusal to accept the compromise on the Annie Lennox page is telling. 78.150.28.18 (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Edit war at Annie Lennox?
I think you have just broken WP:3RR at Annie Lennox. Could I suggest that you discuss fully at the article Talk Page before before making any more reverting edits? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are also engaged in an edit war at KT Tunstall and have apparently still made no efforts to discuss the problem at the article Talk Page. Please could you do that before making any more reverting edits? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
April 2013
Please do not remove properly sourced content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Annie Lennox with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- That link was not "properly sourced". It was one chosen to support another user's position that proved nothing. Also, Overlinking? Really? 78.150.28.18 (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to KT Tunstall with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
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. - DVdm (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Annie Lennox shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. 20:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.