Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hello, MrX! You have undone some of my editions on the article Ark of the Covenant. You commented that the source is unreliable. I would like to learn why the source is unreliable and how to identify whether a source is reliable. Bruce Chen 0010334 (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Your edit was largely based on the work of Ron Wyatt. His work is widely regarded as pseudoarcheology. If you wish to include such content, then it would have to be from a reliable source such as a book from a reputable publisher, a scientific journal, or a reputable news source. You can click on this link to learn what constitutes a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards.- MrX20:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I just had a go around with an editor who was trying to shoehorn another living person into that category.- MrX00:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi.
The entries for water ionizer are wrong. Blantantly. The science and research is extensive. Please justify this maility to me. Also, it is not pseodoscience. The eitor may sell water filters or ro. Misplaced Pages is losing validity. Ionization first began in the late 1800s in Rusia. In the 50s Japan took it on. Why is there no coverage of this extensive history and research?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueWaterSource (talk • contribs) 08:16, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
Please start a discussion on the article talk page. Please don't forget to sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end like this ~~~~ (see WP:TPG)- MrX12:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Apologies that including the quote from ANI made it difficult to tell how to respond to my remarks. But you've inadvertently pasted your comment into the middle of mine. Could you be so kind as to move it to the end? Many thanks. Msnicki (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I fixed it. When you quote someone, it may be a good idea to leave their signature out of the quote to avoid confusion. You can also use template:tq.- MrX02:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
There is an additional diff that I would like DangerousPanda to reflect upon. In the interest of keeping the conversation more focussed, I was thinking it might be better for you to remain the sole spokesperson in the dialog you initiated and to present the diff. However, if you prefer that I do so, I can.
The diff is as follows: Last year, the following discussion of a block of PumpkinSky was held and closed. Subsequently, DangerousPanda commented there was "no consensus that the block was unwarranted", which I don't think is an accurate assessment of the conversation. I appreciate that it is difficult to read criticism of one's behaviour, and I believe DangerousPanda has the best intentions for Misplaced Pages in mind. Nonetheless, I hope that the editor can bear in mind, while reflecting upon the feedback of others, the possibility that any actions undertaken may not have resulted in a positive outcome, which I think should help with understanding critical comments. isaacl (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Isaacl: If nothing else, the RFC/U was rather consistent that only activities post my extensive, self-imposed break should be discussed. I appreciate the discussion around Pumpkin Sky, however, you're posting 1/90th of the entire discussion which means that specific link is taken well out-of-context, and has been addressed and clarified a dozen times since then. I have gone out of my way to make peace with Pumpkin Sky, and I am fully aware that my attempts have been appreciated by many members of this project the panda ₯’13:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Isaacl. Thank you for the suggestion. Obviously DangerousPanda is aware of the concerns surrounding his interactions with PumpkinSky as they are well documented. While I think they are highly relevant to the discussion that I started, the examples that I chose were more recent because they establish that the self-imposed admin break was not all that effective.- MrX17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
My concern was not regarding the specific interaction with PumpkinSky, but with the disparity between the views expressed in the discussion I referred to, and DangerousPanda's summary of its consensus. This particular example has stuck out in my mind because the discussion was relatively quiet, even-handed, and unanimous. The conversation on DangerousPanda's talk page has focused so far on the language used; the issue I'd like to raise is taking some time to absorb any feedback given and not being too hasty in making assumptions. I am open to your suggestions regarding the best way to approach this. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand, and I agree with your more accurate description of the situation. I think you would be in a better position to discuss it with him directly though, since I was not involved and only peripherally aware of it when it was happening.- MrX23:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Topsy (elephant)
The Topsy (elephant) the elephant page has been edited to minimize "anti-Edison" bias. I thought I'd let you know because of a friend of mine has a student writing a paper on PT Barnum circus elephants and I don't want to go through the nightmare of trying to wrest a page away from Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Actually, stopped editing because of that.--Atlantictire (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Where a talk page post is clearly and specifically aimed at an editor and makes unsubstantiated claims about an editor personally, it is a "personal attack." It was about the editor, and not in any way about improving the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Collect, I am well aware of TPG. The reason I posted there was not because I wished to look at CFredkin's conduct in general, but because they were citing a guideline (BLPREQUESTRESTORE) on that page while refusing to follow it on another, and this behavior was very relevant to the page at hand. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
No matter what you think of another editor, deal strictly with their edits and the contents of their posts, and not with personal claims that they must work for the subject etc. If you wish to make a charge of sockpuppetry, then file such a claim at WP:SPI. If you wish to assert that an editor has violated Misplaced Pages policies, then file a notice at WP:AN/I. Article talk pages are not a proper venue for such charges. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
DP
Start here. I've done everything I can here and once again achieved nothing. A high school teacher once told me I suffered from overunderdoggerism. Nothing's changed, I guess, except that I've gotten better at accepting that there are some things and people I cannot change and that I am happier thinking about those I can. Good luck. Msnicki (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It's probably best to drop it for now. I don't think you're going to get an apology or what you would consider a satisfactory explanation. Admins are almost never sanctioned for a single incident, unless it involves wheel warring or egregious conduct. My concerns are about DP's overall conduct as an admin, of which this incident is but a part. Hopefully something good will come of the ongoing discussion. Best wishes. - MrX13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, as you already know. I knew from the beginning this wasn't the sort of person who makes apologies, nor did I ever think there was any way to explain this satisfactorily. These were a bunch of poor choices and he got a poor outcome. It is what it is. What I had hoped is that I might someday have gotten to that part, the choices and outcome, not to get an apology or explanation, but an acknowledgment that he had other choices that likely would have produced a better outcome and that he should open to civil discussion along the way. The guidelines and several other editors tried to offer advice during the incident. He rejected all of it. But I got nowhere. If I can be helpful as a witness in the future, I'll stand up again, but I'd be surprised if it's a different outcome. Admins do not sanction other admins. An adminship is too precious to risk. Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you self-revert. I would point out that a single revert is certainly acceptable - but saying that a "reliably sourced contentious claim" is present is clearly wrong. The "anti-gay" wording is specifically sourced as opinion to "EqualityMatters.org" and not to any reliable source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Whatever happened to the principle of keeping existing content until there is consensus to change it? There is an ongoing RfC. Can't you wait for that to finish? I'm pretty sure that I've seen you make the similar assertions on multiple other articles. I will respond to the rest of your comments on the article talk page.- MrX13:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope. The term is contentious, and the sources furnished cite the wording as being from one group - making it the opinion of that group, and not a "fact" to be given in Misplaced Pages's voice. Collect (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
You may want to check the sources that I provided again. Most of them do not attribute the term to any group but actually use it in their own voice just as we should.- MrX22:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken, but I'm more concerned with this policy about headlines not being part of any reliable source. Not only does that seem really odd, but I looked at WP:RS and could not find any mention of it. Could you please provide a link to the relevant policy that dictates that headlines are not part of any reliable source? Thanks! - MrX14:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Headlines are written by headline writers - not by the journalists responsible for the article content. I suggest you read the discussions at RS/N and at talk for WP:RS on that. The exception is where the headline itself is notable ("Dewey Defeats Truman" is the general example noted) but using the headline often misrepresents the actual content of the source. If we use a source, we use what the journalist wrote - not what the headline writer wrote. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
A link would have been helpful, but after searching myself, I do concede that there have been meta discussions that suggest some level of consensus for avoiding headlines. It would be immensely helpful if that were recorded on the policy page. Of course this only disqualifies a couple of the sources that I listed on the article talk page, and there are literally hundreds more available. I haven't seen any independent sources that refer to the groups as "social conservative Christian organizations" in in the context of Winshape.- MrX18:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there was an extensive, recent discussion and RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources on amending the guideline to prohibit headlines as reliable sources. You can find the discussion here. As you can see, consensus held that while "headlines should, at the very least, be treated cautiously and taken 'with a pinch of salt'", the conclusion was unequivocal: "There is not a consensus for any sort outright prohibition on the use of headlines as sources." It's really weird that Collect failed to mention that discussion, and that he's incorrectly asserting that "headlines are not part of any 'reliable source'."
Now, I'm sure Collect isn't being intentionally dishonest. I'm sure he's not purposefully misrepresenting a clear, unambiguous policy consensus to try to win a content dispute. I'm sure he's not trying to game the system to exclude properly sourced material which happens to be critical of a politically conservative agenda item. I suspect he simply forgot about the existence of this discussion, and its clear consensus that headlines may not be prohibited as reliable sources—even though the discussion happened a month or so ago and he participated heavily in it. Memories are funny like that.
Anyhow, you should know that there is no consensus prohibiting the use of headlines as reliable sources—quite the opposite. And on a more abstract level, you should know that when someone makes dubious assertions without providing any supporting links or evidence, a la Collect here, one should immediately be skeptical. MastCell00:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually -- the exception discussed at the policy talk page was where the headline per se was the item of interest -- AS I MENTIONED ABOVE. Your snark about being "intentionally dishonest" here is --- pure snark. The discussion did, in fact, have a consensus that the headline is not part of a source as it is not written by the reporter as a rule. As an admin, you should be aware of how easy it is to make accusations which are not only inapt but blatantly inapt. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, MastCell, for that very helpful information. I can't help but feel that I've been a victim of manipulation here. Collect confidently stated "Note that headlines are not part of any "reliable source." which is very different from "There is not a consensus for any sort outright prohibition on the use of headlines as sources." I wonder what is more likely; that Collect forgot a two-month-old discussion in which he made more than 20 comments, or that he was intentionally trying to deceive me to gain advantage in a content dispute. We may never know...- MrX13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
And again Headlines are NOT part of a news article - they exist independent of the news article, and you might take note of the primary demurrer on that point - and I rather think you should quote the full close which did not state that headlines are part of a news article. Cheers. Snarkum in unum, snarkum in omnibus. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
(od) Please READ before making anything of yourself. I stated that "headlines are not part of any reliable source" and the discussion was clear that headlines are, indeed, not a part of the reliable source. When used, they stand on their own as the headline. You strange insistence on saying this is "false" is unbecoming of any admin. That you consider this a "behavior issue" is unfortunate, but you have been heavily involved with me for an extended period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unsuitablity for admin role and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
If it takes several days of sleep to recharge your batteries after a vacation, what sort of vacation was it, do you suppose? Msnicki (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I see DP has finally made a statement at the RFAR. I have no comment as to the veracity of his reasons for the long delay except to say that Misplaced Pages is not compulsory. An editor's sudden lengthy absence should never prevent vital processes like arbitration from progressing.- MrX12:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Proof how bad you are
There'll be a drama-filled Arb case now, and ... it's all because of you!
I guess I'm on the wrong side now, whatever that means. Arbcom was not awaiting my discussion with DP (unless Arbom=Dennis Brown). They were waiting for DP's statement, which was apparently delayed by a vacation, in laws, hospital visits, internet connection issues, and something involving a kevlar vest.- MrX03:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
See the latest commentary on the talk-page and recent edits to the lead. I would like to know your input if you have any. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hands Up United until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ferguson October until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi MrX,
I just received a link to this "project page" about an artist friend who died in 2009. I don't understand what a "project page" is - this was created by a graduate student in textiles whose professor was one of Ms. Lamb's mentors, and from even a cursory reading of it, I can see problems with lack of attribution and dependence on primary sources (e.g., interview with sister). I'd like to do what I can to make this into a real Misplaced Pages article, but since I don't understand the relationship, if any, between "project page" and real article, I'm stymied. Help!! Ailemadrah (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Longtime page watcher here... I just moved the biography to article space: Mary Catherine Lamb. It was incorrectly made into Misplaced Pages space. I also brushed it up a little in terms of formatting. It looks like some interviews were used as references, but as they are not published, they cannot be part of the biography, so it will need to be trimmed of that information. Such interviews could of course be the sources for magazine articles or similar. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ailemadrah:I see that Bink has stepped in to help in my absence, for which I thank him. Let me know if you still need any assistance.- MrX17:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I do - thanks for the offer! Mary Catherine Lamb had a lot of friends, all of whom are on an email list (myself included) and have been alerted to the existence of the Misplaced Pages article about her, and now they're wanting to add all kinds of details about her that are mostly unverifiable. I've contacted the creator of the article and have promised to help edit it to conform to Misplaced Pages standards of verifiability - however, because of the holidays, the editing won't begin until after the first of the year. I've been hesitant to tell all these excited folks that the article won't stand as written, because they won't understand and will inundate me with emails. Will a delay of a few weeks, and perhaps the addition of yet more unverifiable material, flag the article for deletion? In other words, do we have time to make the necessary changes without endangering the current status of the article and without my having to cause a big fuss among Ms. Lamb's friends? Thanks, as always. Ailemadrah (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
The article is not really in jeopardy of being deleted since there seem to be sufficient reliable sources. The notes and references sections should eventually be combined and the unreliable sources removed (as well as the related content). I will put some maintenance tags on the article which should also help. Have a nice holiday!- MrX18:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for making it unreviewed, I just checked tools.wmflabs and found it that i have patrolled it. I was just tagging the article but forgot to shut off the patrolled button of Twinkle. It was my mistake and it is rare that i patrol articles on wikipedia unless they are meeting CSD. Thanks for letting me know. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 06:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello MrX. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jad El Hage, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers21:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I would be interested to know what you consider to be an assertion of importance in that article. It seems like fairly ordinary CV to me.- MrX21:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MrX, well for example there was "placed him in the forefront of the new generation of Arab poets; the godfather of modern Arab poetry, Yusuf al-Khal, considered Jad “unrivalled by his generation”". ϢereSpielChequers21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. When I spot articles like this where the assertion of importance is four or five paragraphs in I try to cut the newbie a bit more slack as they are obviously genuine newbies and unfamiliar with our deletion processes. ϢereSpielChequers21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
OneClickArchiver new feature!
Hello there MrX! I'm noticing that you comment out Template:1CA when you are not using it. I've added a new feature today that allows you to toggle the script on or off directly from talk pages! The best part is that it will remember what the last state was! Please see the documentation for more details and happy archiving! — {{U|Technical 13}} 00:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I put in the https://en.wikipedia.org/International_Women%27s_Club page since there was not one. I was trying to set up a list whereby we could start to get all the organizations a stub/article. I didn't think you guys would want me creating 70 empty stubs all at once so I included the links as a starting point. This is *not* a link farm page, but an attempt to get more information about these organizations into the wiki.
There is not one single IWC webpage that umbrellas all of the IWC clubs of the world, therefore it really is necessary to treat each one as an autonomous organization. Can you recommend the best way to get this info into the wiki and expand upon it? Should I go ahead and create stubs for each one? I was afraid if I just started doing it you you all might think I was a spammer or something.
Hi KieraJewel. I left a message on your talk page about why you can't create an article with a lot of external links. Generally, list articles should consist of entries with links to other Misplaced Pages articles. Here is an example: List of women writers. You can create a list of International Women's Clubs, provide that such a list (collectively) is notable (see WP:LISTN) and of course you would need at least a few reliable sources to establish that the list itself is notable. I hope that makes sense.- MrX21:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi MrX,
Sorry to be a bother, I am working to bring the page into compliance, please dont delete yet! Each club is an individual entity. Should I go ahead and make stubs for the individual clubs and link to those? I do not control them or know that much about them, but was planning to email all the site contacts and invite them to put information about themselves up. I cannot do it since I am only familiar with the one where I live.
I don't plan to delete it, but someone else might. Would you like me to move it into draft space so that you can work on without it being deleted?
Some of the clubs may already have articles, so you could just wikilink to them. You can create stubs for the other ones if there are notable. A good rule of thumb for determining notability is to do a Google news or book search and see if at least three independent articles or books are listed in the search results. If so, you can use them as sources (see WP:RS and WP:CITE). I hope that helps.- MrX22:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
MrX, Thanks, I will look into the draft - someone already set it for speedy deletion on the individual stub i made - geez you guys work fast lol! Ok for references, would this http://leipzig.usconsulate.gov/clubs.html count as one? an official gov website that links to it? Or a local newspaper article link? I see there are lots of "clubs" listed in the wiki and I think the IWCs are as important as any of those others I have seen. I am just not sure how best to make sure others see it that way. KieraJewel (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
That link will not work as a source for establishing notability. You would need something more substantial, that discusses the club in more detail. Newspaper articles are good, as long as they are not just trivial mentions. A government website that discusses the club could be used, as long as it's not merely a directory listing or a link.- MrX23:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Brietbart
Not sure what you are seeing. That is my first revert regarding that. I removed it earlier, but that was not a revert. Perhaps you could be a little more clear. Arzel (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, that section which I removed initially, had been there for far more than 7 days. My first edit was a regular edit, my next edit was my one revert. Arzel (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually - changing long-established language is not a "revert" in Misplaced Pages usage. WP:REV is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Your definition would appear to assert that BRD edits are "reverts" at the first edit. They aren't. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec)That seems quite arbitrary. How is one to know for sure that the removal of something won't return the article to some previous state without an extrememly difficult and time-consuming edit check? I made sure that during my revert that I had not reverted anything recent. What is your goal here? Arzel (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Arzel, when you remove an entire section, it's reasonable to assert that that is reverting someone's addition to the encyclopedia. As you have a history of removing good content, adding very little content, and edit warring to preserve your versions, I believe you already know this.- MrX14:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Um For a revert to count as a revert under the restriction it has to be of a "specific edit" which only the second of these was. Unless someone can point to a single edit where the section Arzel removed was added (I don't want to search through the page history right now) then their first reported revert isn't one per the restriction seems to indicate my opinion is not the only one with this position. BTW, your claim that I routinely edit war is not borne out by facts - the "block history" is misleading as it includes improper blocks. Collect (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It's already been done by Scoobydunk. I, and at least one other editor has warned you about edit warring in the past few days. Would it be helpful if I presented you with a list of repeated reverts that you have made since your last edit warring block? I would be happy to oblige.- MrX15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Good content is in the eye of the beholder. I remove bad content and BLP violations. Your assumption is that removal of bad content is worse than the addition of bad content. Your personal attack is unwarranted, I have been very civil to you, something you have asked of me. I expect to be treated the same. Do you seriously believe this is good content? Arzel (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Bad content is vandalism, false information, spam, etc. You remove content that you disagree with. That's OK, but claiming WP:BLP violations in the face of solid sourcing, is not a get out of jail free card. Yes, I do believe the Krugman content is good content, as do other well-respected sources and other Misplaced Pages editors. If Breitbart had merely repeated the story, that would be bad. In fact, they added inflammatory commentary and have a history of attacking Krugman, and a history of erroneous reporting.- MrX15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
AirAsia first Facebook and Twitter announcement
I saw you removed the failed verification tag about the time when AirAsia first announce the missing aircraft. However, when I checked both the Facebook and Twitter links, I still see the posting time were 10:41 am and 10:47 am respectively, adjusted to UTC+7. And I don't see there are edited log in both posts. That's why I added the tag on the time.
I guess I assumed that the post times are local times, but I guess that's not the case. It seems that the FB post occurred at 3:41UTC, four hours later that listed in the article. I will update the article.- MrX16:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Excluding a revert of an IP and a minor revert, you are now at 4RR in under 24 hours on the Scalise article. You might wish to consider stepping away for a day or so as a result. Happy New Year! Collect (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@Collect: I certainly did not intend to edit war, and I don't think I have crossed 3RR, but I may have missed something. Would you be so kind as to provide diffs to four reverts that I have made in a 24 hour period? Many thanks.- MrX03:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
16:59 et seq
19:40
20:08 et seq
21:02
23:40
Seems to add up to 4RR in under 7 hours.
And your edit at 15:38 on 30 Dec makes 5RR in 32 hours. I did not count your edits which did not affect prior recent edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious Collect?
Yes, this is a revert, although not a wholesale one.
This is adding new content (sources), not reverting. However, you did subsequently revert my edit here.
This one is especially absurd. I corrected a title in a cite, change the date format on cites that I previously added, and I added information to the cites that I previously added.
Again, this is adding new content. Why would you ever think this a revert?
This trivial change of your grammar error from "...he had spoken at a white supremacist group founded leaderDavid Duke." to "...he had spoken at a white supremacist group founded byDavid Duke.", in practice this would not count as a revert, and it certainly isn't edit warring.
I'm deeply troubled that you would raise this issue with me. Essentially, there is one revert in the diffs you listed. I suspect that you wish this to have a chilling effect to keep me from editing Mr. Scalise's biography. Or perhaps it is meant to teach me a lesson for warning you of your own unambiguous edit warring. In either case, I believe it's petty and vexatious, and indicative of an obvious WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality that I've observed in you for several years.
Collect, please consider this a good faith warning to stop this nonsense and start editing collaboratively; stop edit warring; and stop twisting policies and wikilawyering to suit whatever personal agenda you have. If you continue in this vein, I will have no choice but to escalate these issues, as I believe they are ultimately harmful to the project. Thank you.- MrX13:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I was tripped once on a "one letter change" and if you read WP:EW it does indeed say that even a single letter may be counted as a "revert". Cheers -- Hold yourself to the same standards to which you wish to hold others. Meanwhile I suggest that you recognize that my note was polite and not a template - which I trust you noted but forgot to mention. Collect (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I do appreciate your polite warning, however, you have not addressed the substance of my rebuttal to your accusation. If we have admins who are blocking people for changing one letter (assuming it doesn't materially change meaning), then that's a pretty clear abuse of their authority and a disregard for the purpose of WP:EW which is to encourage collaborative editing and discourage disruption.
If you sincerely believe that I was edit warring, I implore you to open a case at WP:EW/N or WP:ANI, because if my edits on Steve Scalise are actually considered edit warring, then I will no longer be contributing to this project. Best.- MrX13:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , 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.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information: