Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:47, 29 November 2014

This user is new to Misplaced Pages. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while they become accustomed to Misplaced Pages and its intricacies.

Welcome Inthefastlane!

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

July 2014

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my edit would undo yours; I'll be more circumspect about this the next time. Inthefastlane (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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

"This user is new to Misplaced Pages"

• Look at (the removal of 'conservative') vs (the addition of 'progressive').
• Look at edit summary = "actually had a look through the archives (#38) and it wasn't deemed not noticeable, so I'm removing (as per talk) the whole section" vs the actual discussion

Puzzling, no ? If you planning on making any more edits to articles in the WP:ARBPIA topic area, I suggest you don't. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing puzzling in my edits. On the other hand, you must be lacking a sense of irony in using the word 'puzzling' because for somebody who has attracted this and this comment on your talkpage, you're not in an ideal position to judge whether people should be editing articles in the WP:ARBPIA topic area, let alone Misplaced Pages itself.

With regards to your specific points:

(1) the rationale behind my actions is valid - FAIR calls itself progressive (and hence, the reason why I added that label) while the Hoover Institute has no 'conservative' self-description. (It calls itself as a public policy think tank promoting the principles of individual, economic, and political freedom so if that description/label was used instead, I wouldn't have removed it.) To be fair, I should have made clear that the FAIR label was a self-description, but that should not detract from the fact that my thought process behind those two edits implied no double standard.

(2) What about the discussion? Although it never says explicitly that the section should be removed, it's easily inferable from how that discussion proceeded (and in particular, from: how the discussion ended, how the majority of the discussion participants did not support the inclusion of that organization's activities into the main article and how the problem of notability was reflected in the relative lack of reliable sources to which the organization's activites were cited in the extant version of the main article) that the section should've been removed. That said, if you still find my edit puzzling, you could be less vague about your comments and come up with a substantive solution as to how you could improve that edit so that it would be less puzzling - like, for example, finding more reliable sources in which the Vanguard Leadership Group is cited. Inthefastlane (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

I restored the citation needed tag on Terrorism in Canada which you removed. Teh reason for this tag was explained in the edit summary, in the tag itself, and on the talk page discussion Terrorism in Canada#2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. As the tag reason states, there is no reliable source cited which states that this act was "Islamist" terrorism. Here's what was wrong with your edit:

1. Undid my edit without leaving an edit summary, which is the same as calling my edit vandalism. The undo edit screen clearly says "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only."
2. Removed a valid maintenance tag without fixing the problem. The "Islamist" label is not only unsourced in this article and not used in the main article, but (as far as I can tell) has not been used by any reliable sources. That makes its use in this article WP:OR or WP:POV.
3. Removed the tag without participating in the talk page discussion Terrorism in Canada#2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. The "Islamist" label has been challenged and is under discussion. You can't arbitrarily change it back without giving any reason. Meters (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough and I should've put a citation stating or suggesting that it was an "Islamist terrorism" (which at the time there were plenty of articles that did say that), but I didn't at that time because I thought that connection was so obvious it didn't need discussing. Will be more careful next time. Inthefastlane (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Domestic criticism U.K., Canada

Hello Mr/Mrs, in article '2014 American-led intervention in Iraq', 19 Nov, you threw out the domestic criticisms in U.K. and Canada, here and in the next edit. Seems to me not a good idea: it is presented as an international operation, 'American-led', so I would think also other partaking countries can have their 'domestic' criticism. Please return that material, or give your reaction and motives in discussion Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq#Section 10.1: ‘Domestic criticism U.S.’. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I moved the UK and Canada criticism section is that nothing in the Misplaced Pages text and the articles to which the text is cited contains either a criticism or, more generally, an explicitly discussion of America's intervention in Iraq. Despite the controversy of its misnomered title, the 2014 American-led intervention is a documentation of America's contribution to its fight against ISIS in Iraq, ergo making the criticisms irrelevant. It would be more relevant to put the sections here but that is different than the Misplaced Pages article for which that talk page is concerned. Inthefastlane (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Wifione 11:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)