Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:18, 19 July 2014

Welcome!

File:Mapping Iraq ~ June 15th 2014.png

Hi, thank for your map. Can you please upload a more clear and update map. Unfortunately, it is difficult to read the names of the cities in the current map.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It's available in a 2000px format by clicking on the largest format . After it loads you may need to click on it to enlarge it. The map maker has promised to update it every to weeks, so if he does it will be at the end of the month. - Technophant (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Length of Lead in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

I have left you a message on the ISIS Talk page about this. I didn't want to remove the banner you put up - you will see why in my note. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikifying BBC News in ISIL

I have just unwikified all the "BBC News" mentions in the footnotes! I didn't see your summary edit until afterwards just now. I did think there were more wikified ones than I remembered seeing, and now I know why! I thought the first wiki would be enough, but do you feel strongly about this? If so, I can wikify them again. Let me know. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1, I think it should remain mostly due of the use of inline citations. I know it seems simple, but I also to try presume that the audience may be a gradeschooler how hasn't heard of BBC News and wants to know more. Is there anything in the manual of style about overusing wikilinks in citations? - Technophant (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a point. I'd be happy to put the wiki links back in. Not sure about MOS on this - I think it's meant to be only the first time the name appears - but this would be an exception, I think. Nice to know someone thinks about the readers, which is what I try to do as well. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1 Readers aren't reading the references one at a time, not top to bottom. I do think this is a sensible exception. Keep up the good work! - Technophant (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Re the list on the ISIS Talk page, not quite sure what you mean, but it looks as if I somehow inserted my comment before the end of yours preceding it, though wasn't aware of doing this. Sorry! --P123ct1 (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1 The list saw after you started a new section were caused by the use of citation templates in the lead rewrite section causing the references to be put at the bottom of the page. They weren't added by an unsigned user. I added reflist to the bottom of that section that fixed the problem. Also, I'm not familiar with the updated mechanics of chat. Do I need to put in the @ template to get your attention while talking on my talk page?- Technophant (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I know it's a pain, but I think you'd better put in the template if replying on your Talk page, otherwise I won't be alerted that I have a message, but if you put a message on my Talk page, I will automatically get alerted. Think this is how it works. (I've just reformatted the "BBC News".) --P123ct1 (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 QuackGuru (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources and poor sources

You tried a similar edit before that was reverted for obvious reason. I think you should revert your edit. Adding poor sources and primary sources does not improve the article. See Talk:Acupuncture#Sourced text was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

According to this comment you are aware you added primary sources. I think we should use better sources. QuackGuru (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru Please don't contact me on my talk page again. You are being argumentative and unproductive. Anything you need to say about sources can be said elsewhere. - Technophant (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

−

July 2014

−

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Acupuncture. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

− Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

−

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.

−

1. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

− If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

−

@2/0: "Repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement"? Evidence? I put it up once, then it was removed for being poorly sourced, then I rewrote it with an additional source and after that edit was removed by a different editor I haven't reintroduced it. That's not edit warring, that good editing. - Technophant (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Friendly notice

Please note. You removed the tags without fixing the problems. I went ahead and deleted the primary/poor sources. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru - I reverted your edits but restored your MEDREF tag. The proper way to handle that would be to restore the tags with a detailed explanation on the article talk page explaining why you think they should be there. Then it is discussed and action is taken if needed. Your slash and burn (shotgun) approach of removing all primary sources with no easy way of reverting it has gained you topic bans and blocks in the past. This is your first and only warning. - Technophant (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I already discussed this on the talk page. The bogus warning was inappropriate. Please don't restore primary sources for controversial claims. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

More bogus warnings are not helpful. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary was incorporate information from the article "myofacial meridians" into this section. But you also deleted "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians." Did you accidentally delete the sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is a proposal of a topic ban of yourself here unless you can provide decent justification for your edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Acupuncture 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. 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.
A warning was previously posted here about the same article. Removal of warnings is not appropriate. MrBill3 (talk) 07:51, 19 July 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:Technophant reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to get the page toward a neutral NVOP against a team of bias hounds. I restored the warning. How long do you have to keep the notice up? Technophant (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)