Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:55, 8 March 2014

Hello, Useitorloseit, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.We're so glad you're here! User:Goethean (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2014 (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. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Useitorloseit reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Would you like to self-revert this edit, which is well beyond 3RR, or would you prefer I go ahead and block your account? —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, and I am happy to, if you please just explain one thing: why isn't Gamaliel the one who's guilty of 3RR violations? He had 3 in 20 Feb., before me. I am not a troll; i honestly believe the other user is the problem.

The bright-line is making more than three reverts; Gamaliel stopped at three. —C.Fred (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the 3RR. Do what you like about the edit. But I believe the other editors didn't behave in a way at all encouraging to new members, and they should have since they've been here a while. I was never a troll and added the line in good faith and it wasn't worth deleting endlessly.

After the third time it was removed, you needed to discuss the matter on the talk page and reach a consensus, not keep edit-warring and adding it back in. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note Gamaliel reported me to the BLP noticeboard ("generally dealing with...libelous or defamatory material"). I believe it was clearly an attempt to shut down an edit they just didn't like, by making false accusations about it. The Talk page was the appropriate place, not calling in admins. So much for WP policy about being welcoming. Perhaps you could speak to them about it.

Concerns about other conduct

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe this user abused Misplaced Pages process by making a clearly unjustified allegation on the BLP Noticeboard about "potential infringing". I would like a Misplaced Pages admin to evaluate whether that user made a false claim in the hopes of shutting down a debate they didn't want to have. This user seems to have a history of such tactics.

The initial report on BLP/N looks in order to me. It was neutrally written and does not appear, on the face of it, to be unjustified. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my request. I believe the discussion could have been given a chance before being raised to a reporting issue.

Where?

Please identify where this is actually supported . There is no hits for "abuse" none of the hits for "2006" or "2009" are related to the claim. Yes, it talks about administration and admins, but I see nothing at all in the source that supports the claim as it appears in the article -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is more appropriate to discuss this on the page's Talk page, rather than my personal page.

fine then, make your response there. Talk:Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Claims_not_verified -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog 22:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Useitorloseit, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Useitorloseit! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Useitorloseit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No fair warning or opportunity to be heard given before block that arose from spurious charge of vandalism against my own talk pageUseitorloseit (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A fair warning and opportunity to be heard were given, but you ignored it and persisted in your behavior. only (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Useitorloseit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The only block warning I received was from the same user I was arguing with; I am unclear if they are an admin or not and if they had any authority to issue such a warning. If I had received a warning from a clearly identified admin I would have acted differently, although I do not understand what rule I broke in my RfC post. Useitorloseit (talk) 8:56 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

So you think it's okay to ignore the rules as long as you haven't been warned by someone you deem worthy enough to issue such a warning? Frankly, that's ridiculous. You need to drop this line of argument right now if you ever hope to lodge a successful unblock appeal. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was not aware RedPenofDoom was an admin. Are they? They are the one involved in the argument, which is why I did not put a huge amount of weight on their "warning." Useitorloseit (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could have given me a warning about a potential block? Did you ever consider that? Do you always block people without asking their side? I started a RfC to try to get fresh users, only to have it immediately deleted by the same user who's been arguing all along (then they reported me for "vandalism" when I restored it). I brought the same admin from last time into the discussion yesterday and they didn't say I was doing anything wrong. So your description of my behavior is not accurate. The 2 other editors have been trying to shut down this debate since it began by 1. claiming I broke some constantly changing rule and 2. insisting I prove I didn't. You should have weighed that before issuing a block, or asked for my side. I have noticed here on Misplaced Pages editors cast aspersions very easily - I was repeatedly accused of being an SPA, for example. Perhaps you have made a big mistake. You should consider that. Useitorloseit (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It may possibly save the administrator who assesses the latest unblock request a little time searching if I give links to three warnings of the possibility of a block, from three different editors: , , . There was also a mention of a possible block in the discussion about this at the edit warring noticeboard, which can be seen here. For Useitorloseit's benefit, I shall explain that any editor may warn an editor who may be heading for a block, to help that editor change their actions and thus avoid being blocked: a warnings is not somehow invalid if it comes from someone who is not an administrator. However, C.Fred is an administrator, and he gave you not just a general warning that you might be blocked, but a specific warning that he would block you unless you changed your ways. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I had no idea any editor could warn anyone. That is a recipe for disaster, IMHO. Second, the first two warnings are the old ones from the first edit war, which I had made a good faith effort to move past by soliciting comments and taking a cooling off period. I think those warnings should have "expired". The last warning you cite is the same one I already disputed: it was from the same user I was arguing with, and it was a spurious accusation. I brought C.Fred in AFTER that and he made no comment about any misbehavior on my part. So the claim I ignored warning is just not accurate. The other users and I have a disagreement about BLP; I have tried to answer their concerns, but they don't do anything but make conclusory statements like "You violated BLP" and "Quit violating BLP or we'll report you." You cannot reach consensus with people like that.Useitorloseit (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Once you have been informed of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring, you are presumed to know about it, and don't need warning again and again. If you know that there is a policy against doing something, and you do that thing, then you can expect to be blocked. The idea that a warning should "expire", and you should go back to being treated as though you had never been told about the policy, even though we know you have been told, makes little sense. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not edit your unblock template after it has been declined. Leave it in the state that it was when I declined it. only (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry; I didn't realize what I did. It was an innocent mistake. Please do not misinterpret it.Useitorloseit (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Citations for Coates's arrest

Misplaced Pages says consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments. So here's mine:

Here's the original blog post I read that I had been trying to find for a while (note that the author refers readers to "longer version' in his book: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/a-quick-note-on-violence/259508/

Here's another: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/if-i-were-a-black-kid/276655/

Here's another: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-littlest-schoolhouse/308132/

Here's another: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2009/06/things-i-dont-understand/19326/

Here's a piece referring to the adult author's temptation to hit someone and how he resisted, using lessons from his upbringing: http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2010/10/a-culture-of-poverty/64854/

Here's a piece discussing the author by highlighting his background (not sure if it's worthy of inclusion as a cite or not): http://2014.wascarc.org/content/ta-nehisi-coates-why-we-teach-and-why-we-learn

That's four of the author's own blog posts, plus his book, totaling 5 sources, all mentioning his arrest and suspensions. If that's not reliable and notable enough, I don't know what is. Face it: the arrest is relevant to this guy. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In other words, it has never been reported on by an independent or third party source. — goethean 22:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you honestly say you don't think it is true? Useitorloseit (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth — goethean 22:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliability is the issue, and the author's own mentions, frequently repeated over the years, of negative incidents from his own past should be enough for anyone to believe.Useitorloseit (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, if you wanted to write a biography of the guy, and this incident was included in the context of what he and others have written about his life, that would be one thing. But that's not what you are doing here. You came here to get people to think that he's a criminal, despite him never (to your knowledge) being charged with a crime. It seems like you have some kind of animosity against this guy for some reason. — goethean 23:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Gee, "write a biography and include it in the context of what he wrote" - if only there was an online place to do that! That is precisely what I am doing. And please don't make assumptions about why I came here. I came here because I was aware of his arrest and thought it illuminated his career and writings in a meaningful way and therefore deserved a mention. That's all. He's the one who talks about it; doesn't that count for anything? My opinion of Coates is irrelevant.Useitorloseit (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

RedPenofDoom, do not write on my Talk page again unless I give you permission, or I will report you for vandalism. You are not a serious discusser of this topic because you only make conclusory statements: , , and , to list a few. A conclusory statement is when you merely state the matter as fact rather than explain why it is a fact. So talking to you is an utter waste of time here.Useitorloseit (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

To Yunshui

I never said I "ignored rules." I thought there was a system on Misplaced Pages about who gave "official warnings", and getting one from the user who was trying to delete my attempt to encourage discussion didn't seem very official to me. You are basically telling me any user can threaten any other user with a warning. That is a ludicrous system.Useitorloseit (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of warning you about a policy is so that you know about the policy, and can start complying with it: it is not a "threat". The idea that only certain people should be able to help an inexperienced editor by letting him or her know about a policy that he or she doesn't know about makes no sense. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing about merely letting them know about a policy. I'm talking about issuing official warnings. Big difference. Especially since the user doing the warning was highly involved and not a 3rd party to the dispute. Someone should have said, "I have the power to block you and I will if you don't stop." Not to mention the fact that I hadn't edited in 12 hours so a block at that time was unnecessary. I don't think that was handled very professionally at all. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)