| Revision as of 18:17, 18 December 2014 editMoxy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors129,451 edits →Discussion and consensus ..attribution Misplaced Pages:Contributing to Misplaced Pages: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:41, 23 December 2014 edit undoCinteotl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,603 edits →December 2014Next edit → | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{quote|Every article on Misplaced Pages has a ], reached by clicking the <tt>Talk</tt> tab just above the title (for example, ]). There, editors can discuss improvements to the content of an article. You can participate too! If you ever make a change that gets ] by another editor, discuss the change on the talk page! The ] is a popular method of reaching consensus, and may be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. While discussing matters, it is very important that you conduct yourself with ] and ] on the part of others. ] (repeatedly overriding or reimplementing contributions) is highly discouraged. There is a bright-line rule called the '']'', the violation of which may lead someone to be ] from editing to prevent further disruption. ] is not always intentional, as new editors may simply not understand ].}} -- ] (]) | {{quote|Every article on Misplaced Pages has a ], reached by clicking the <tt>Talk</tt> tab just above the title (for example, ]). There, editors can discuss improvements to the content of an article. You can participate too! If you ever make a change that gets ] by another editor, discuss the change on the talk page! The ] is a popular method of reaching consensus, and may be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. While discussing matters, it is very important that you conduct yourself with ] and ] on the part of others. ] (repeatedly overriding or reimplementing contributions) is highly discouraged. There is a bright-line rule called the '']'', the violation of which may lead someone to be ] from editing to prevent further disruption. ] is not always intentional, as new editors may simply not understand ].}} -- ] (]) | ||
| == December 2014 == | |||
| ] Please ] other editors, as you did on ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. ''Do not accuse another editor of vandalism in a content dispute. The allegation of vandalism, in a content dispute, is a personal attack, and a strong one. If you have been editing Misplaced Pages long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism.''<!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ] (]) 18:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| ::Thank you for your attention to the situation regarding the article Metropolitan (1990 film). However, I do not see how my assertions about user FelixRosch constitute "attacks." The user has continually reverted the text in the article to a summary which appears to have been written by a non-English speaker and is composed of grammatically and syntactically incorrect sentences. He has also refused to engage in dialogue about the article until other users "acknowledge him," and as a cursory glimpse of his talk page will show, has a history of abusive behavior towards other editors and administrators. I have put forth numerous good faith efforts to edit the page to be up to Wiki's quality standards, efforts which FelixRosch has repeatedly held up for no other reason than no one consulted him before edits were made to the page. | |||
| :::You said that ]'s edits were minor vandalism. They were not vandalism, but a content dispute. Claiming that another editor's edits in a content dispute are vandalism, when they are not, is a personal attack. Drop the ] thread. Drop the claims of vandalism. Read and use ]. Your own conduct, in claiming vandalism, is at least as disruptive as that of the other editor. ] (]) 22:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thank you for your continued attention to this issue. I respectfully change my complaint of vandalism to an issue of ] as regards language difficulty. An examination of Felix's edits, which I have requested multiple admin to make, will reveal that his contributions to the page do not demonstrate a proficiency with the English language.] (]) 23:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|76.31.249.221}} You may not know that some very experienced editors consider the term "vandalism" to be "fighting words." Better to back-off the term. With respect to "competence": even if FelixRosch did have language competency problems (and he does not appear to), it's not a ''conduct'' issue. No admins are going to sanction him for making edits that you consider poorly writen. So, this is a losing claim too. | |||
| :::::::Though, in theory, your opinions on content and conduct should be weighed equally with those of FelixRosch, when push comes to shove, the fact that you've chosen not to edit through a registered account works against you. Even if FelixRosch were totally in the wrong in this matter, you'd still lose the argument. | |||
| :::::::Here's my advice: Shut up about FelixRosch, and shut up about who was right and who was wrong. Request that your ] issue be withdrawn and closed. Then create a Misplaced Pages user account, and start a discussion on the article talk page intended to reach a consensus on the content. But, whatever you do, don't let anyone chase you away from contributing to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:41, 23 December 2014
Edit conflict at Metropolitan
You may wish to consider opening an account at Misplaced Pages for your recent edit for the advantages that an account offers to you. Your recent edits at Metropolitan appear to be disruptive and normal policy is for you to open Talk page discussion there and not force your edits into the article. FelixRosch (TALK) 20:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- IP Talk page has been posted for edit warring. IP has refused to start Talk discussion of any kind and continues to WP:EW. BRD applies at all times and you must make consensus before further edits. If you continue edit warring WP:EW and WP:3RR without responding to Talk of any kind you may be reported for being blocked and may be blocked without further notice. FelixRosch (TALK) 17:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion and consensus ..attribution Misplaced Pages:Contributing to Misplaced Pages
Every article on Misplaced Pages has a talk page, reached by clicking the Talk tab just above the title (for example, Talk:Metropolitan (1990 film)). There, editors can discuss improvements to the content of an article. You can participate too! If you ever make a change that gets reverted by another editor, discuss the change on the talk page! The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a popular method of reaching consensus, and may be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. While discussing matters, it is very important that you conduct yourself with civility and assume good faith on the part of others. Edit warring (repeatedly overriding or reimplementing contributions) is highly discouraged. There is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule, the violation of which may lead someone to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. Disruptive editing is not always intentional, as new editors may simply not understand the ins and outs of Misplaced Pages.
December 2014
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:ANI. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Do not accuse another editor of vandalism in a content dispute. The allegation of vandalism, in a content dispute, is a personal attack, and a strong one. If you have been editing Misplaced Pages long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- Thank you for your attention to the situation regarding the article Metropolitan (1990 film). However, I do not see how my assertions about user FelixRosch constitute "attacks." The user has continually reverted the text in the article to a summary which appears to have been written by a non-English speaker and is composed of grammatically and syntactically incorrect sentences. He has also refused to engage in dialogue about the article until other users "acknowledge him," and as a cursory glimpse of his talk page will show, has a history of abusive behavior towards other editors and administrators. I have put forth numerous good faith efforts to edit the page to be up to Wiki's quality standards, efforts which FelixRosch has repeatedly held up for no other reason than no one consulted him before edits were made to the page.
- You said that User:FelixRosch's edits were minor vandalism. They were not vandalism, but a content dispute. Claiming that another editor's edits in a content dispute are vandalism, when they are not, is a personal attack. Drop the WP:ANI thread. Drop the claims of vandalism. Read and use dispute resolution. Your own conduct, in claiming vandalism, is at least as disruptive as that of the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your continued attention to this issue. I respectfully change my complaint of vandalism to an issue of competency as regards language difficulty. An examination of Felix's edits, which I have requested multiple admin to make, will reveal that his contributions to the page do not demonstrate a proficiency with the English language.76.31.249.221 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- @76.31.249.221: You may not know that some very experienced editors consider the term "vandalism" to be "fighting words." Better to back-off the term. With respect to "competence": even if FelixRosch did have language competency problems (and he does not appear to), it's not a conduct issue. No admins are going to sanction him for making edits that you consider poorly writen. So, this is a losing claim too.
- Though, in theory, your opinions on content and conduct should be weighed equally with those of FelixRosch, when push comes to shove, the fact that you've chosen not to edit through a registered account works against you. Even if FelixRosch were totally in the wrong in this matter, you'd still lose the argument.
- Here's my advice: Shut up about FelixRosch, and shut up about who was right and who was wrong. Request that your WP:ANI issue be withdrawn and closed. Then create a Misplaced Pages user account, and start a discussion on the article talk page intended to reach a consensus on the content. But, whatever you do, don't let anyone chase you away from contributing to Misplaced Pages. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your continued attention to this issue. I respectfully change my complaint of vandalism to an issue of competency as regards language difficulty. An examination of Felix's edits, which I have requested multiple admin to make, will reveal that his contributions to the page do not demonstrate a proficiency with the English language.76.31.249.221 (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- You said that User:FelixRosch's edits were minor vandalism. They were not vandalism, but a content dispute. Claiming that another editor's edits in a content dispute are vandalism, when they are not, is a personal attack. Drop the WP:ANI thread. Drop the claims of vandalism. Read and use dispute resolution. Your own conduct, in claiming vandalism, is at least as disruptive as that of the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention to the situation regarding the article Metropolitan (1990 film). However, I do not see how my assertions about user FelixRosch constitute "attacks." The user has continually reverted the text in the article to a summary which appears to have been written by a non-English speaker and is composed of grammatically and syntactically incorrect sentences. He has also refused to engage in dialogue about the article until other users "acknowledge him," and as a cursory glimpse of his talk page will show, has a history of abusive behavior towards other editors and administrators. I have put forth numerous good faith efforts to edit the page to be up to Wiki's quality standards, efforts which FelixRosch has repeatedly held up for no other reason than no one consulted him before edits were made to the page.