| Revision as of 02:13, 15 November 2014 editEChastain (talk | contribs)2,665 edits →Refactor: re Mansplaining← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:17, 15 November 2014 edit undoEvergreenFir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,254 edits →Refactor: sighNext edit → | ||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
| p.s. ], you don't know what you're talking about on ], but it's not worth my time dealing with you. I would expect a better understanding of what ] is from a teacher or an "academic" which you claim to be. The uninformed statement that people such as you decide what a ] is versus a ] is pompous silliness. ] (]) 02:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | p.s. ], you don't know what you're talking about on ], but it's not worth my time dealing with you. I would expect a better understanding of what ] is from a teacher or an "academic" which you claim to be. The uninformed statement that people such as you decide what a ] is versus a ] is pompous silliness. ] (]) 02:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Following you around when you pinged me? You really don't get how WP works. Also I do recommend reading ] since you clearly have not. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 02:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:17, 15 November 2014
Welcome
|
arbcom
You are clearly editing in response to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force. Please follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines and rules, specifically regarding WP:RS. You do not seem to be adhering to a neutral point of view. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@User:EvergreenFir There are no reliable sources in Mansplaining supporting your claim that it's an academic concept. No reason for your revert. EChastain (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- There are. Read WP:LEAD. Also see Talk:Mansplaining#Meme. Attempting dispute resolution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@User:EvergreenFir, I read WP:LEAD, and Mansplaining doesn't follow it. It doesn't have a lead that can stand alone and sums up the article:
"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
- Do not violate Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.
EChastain (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Your recent editing history at Mansplaining shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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.
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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting. After posting the screenshot of the article that you didn't read, you still reverted anyway. WP:IDHT. I'll let others weigh in. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: you should know better than to revert three minutes after my revert (which I had justified on talk) without engaging on the talk page or even reading it. You had not responded to the link I gave to the scholarly article you used for the citation, proving that it didn't say what you claimed it did. I have posted quite a bit on talk, while you have posted nothing of relevance, except to claim that you have no time to look into the problems and asking others to do it. Really? What made it so important that you must revert without knowing anything at all about why? Please, be a more professional academic if you're going to claim you're one, or you'll make us all look bad! EChastain (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PG. 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) 12:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Misplaced Pages. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Help:Watching pages. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a good deal of freedom in what you write. DSCrowned 14:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- @DSCrowned: How was my edit to Help:Watching pages that you reverted a "joke edit"? I corrected labelled Misplaced Pages:Talk page stalker listed under the "See also" section a "humorous essay". Misplaced Pages:Talk page stalker says
This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.
- @DSCrowned: How was my edit to Help:Watching pages that you reverted a "joke edit"? I corrected labelled Misplaced Pages:Talk page stalker listed under the "See also" section a "humorous essay". Misplaced Pages:Talk page stalker says
- So I don't see how my edit could be called a "joke edit" and reverted on those grounds. EChastain (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- @EChastain: Just remember that every Misplaced Pages article, policy page and help page shouldn't be humorous or contain jokes, unless tagged with the {{humour}} tag. Thank you for your attempt to lighten up Misplaced Pages though. DSCrowned 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe I might be wrong, I think your telling me that this article is a humorous article. Oh that's why I am sorry. DSCrowned 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- So I don't see how my edit could be called a "joke edit" and reverted on those grounds. EChastain (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timothy Treadwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 16:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Refactor
Go read WP:REFACTOR. I'm perfectly allowed to improve the format of the page. I did not edit your comment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
User:EvergreenFir, you're not the hall monitor. Stop acting like one. Go read WP:REFACTOR. Your refactoring was not for any of the right reasons. Stop following me around on arbcom. I don't think very many other editors find your comments useful. EChastain (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
p.s. User:EvergreenFir, you don't know what you're talking about on Mansplaining, but it's not worth my time dealing with you. I would expect a better understanding of what reliable sourcing is from a teacher or an "academic" which you claim to be. The uninformed statement that people such as you decide what a social phenomenon is versus a slur is pompous silliness. EChastain (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Following you around when you pinged me? You really don't get how WP works. Also I do recommend reading WP:REFACTOR since you clearly have not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)