Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:41, 27 January 2015

Archives

Pre-2010 Template:Multicol 2010 Jan-Apr May-Aug Sept-Dec Template:Multicol-break 2011 Jan-Apr May-Aug Sept-Dec Template:Multicol-break 2012 Jan-Apr May-Aug Sept-Dec Template:Multicol-end Template:Multicol 2013 Jan-Apr May-Aug Sept-Dec Template:Multicol-break 2014 Jan-Apr May-Aug Sept-Dec Template:Multicol-break 2015 Jan-Apr Template:Multicol-end

Welcome to my talk page. Please Note I am usually only online during weekdays during the day. If you post a question in the evenings don't expect a response before the next day, or on Monday if posted during the weekends. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. Please note I try to archive discussions as soon as the topic is no longer active. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.I end up editing alot for a short time and they have to wait for a while, so I'm hit and miss.

A question...

Hi, Artist! I have a question about an aspect of WP I know nothing about (edit warring and reporting to an admin), and wanted to seek the advice of someone hopefully more "in-the-know" on the subject that I. I and another editor have recently gotten into something of an edit war (though not frequent enough to meet the precise WP definition of this crime, LOL) with a third editor over the article Missouri Executive Order 44. Myself and the first editor have explained our concerns on the talk page with regard to the second editor's edits, but editor #2 insists on telling us that our refusal to unconditionally accept his edits is because his edits are an "inconvenient truth" for us. I know there are times I can get hot under my own collar about such things, but his refusal to even come to the talk page to address our concerns (he says there's no need for him to do so) has gotten me to the point that I feel the need to involve an admin in it. Since it doesn't come under the "three revert per day" rule for "edit warring" (this one, so far, is more like three reverts or so per week), I don't know if that's the right thing to do; or if I were to do it, even how to go about it. Any thoughts? I'm not asking you to wade into this one by any means, I just wanted to solicit advice from someone maybe more experienced than me who might be able to offer a better perspective. We've interacted before on various LDS projects, and I've always found you to be a fair-minded, level-headed person who wasn't afraid to disagree with me or anyone else--but you've always done it like a gentleman, with grace and style. Any advice you might care to give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, and God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. Sorry--I just realized after sending you this, that I have a lot better things to do with my time anymore, than get involved in a long, protracted battle over something I don't really care that much about, anymore. I looked at the wp:editwarring article, and the whole process looks like more trouble than it's worth! I think I'm just going to wash my hands of the whole thing. I believe that the article will suffer as a result, but I just don't care that much about it, anymore... My sincerest apologies to you, my friend, for my wasting your time here. Take care, and may 2015 bring you and yours only the best. - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL....LOL....

I know you said "Never mind", but I just thought I would let you know, I just asked the very same question to an administrator I've worked with before (User:Good Olfactory). I have been having the same problem with an IP editor on a different page, but his behavior was exactly the same. I have also had issues with who I would suspect is the editor you are on different pages (but since he is an IP editor I want know for sure). It can be extremely frustrating. Basically his suggestion was:

If you've approached them on their user page and they continue to be defiant (or just don't respond) and the edits continue, then I think it is worth bringing it to an uninvolved administrator's attention. If you can't find anyone specific to help, then I suppose the best place to report it would be at WP:ANI, which usually takes care of general problems that can't be categorized anywhere else.

I haven't needed to yet, as it hasn't come up yet, but that is my plan. I hope it helps.--- ARTEST4ECHO 14:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much for responding! And thanks too, for the barnstar--that's very much appreciated, as are your words here. I was actually thinking along the same lines, that maybe I just need to grow a thicker skin and stop letting these things get to me so easily (easier said than done in my case, my friend!). It's extremely frustrating when they refuse even to come to the talk page to discuss your concerns, and insist (rather snidely and rudely) that their way is the only way and that if I wasn't so stupid, I would see this. I understand the desires of partisans on any subject to make WP an apologetic for their particular "truth," but the general purpose (and greatest redeeming factor) of this encyclopedia is to avoid that very thing, and maintain true neutrality as far as humanly possible on each and every subject it contains. Some folks just can't see that--or don't care. I appreciate the pat on the back, and the practical advice as well. I think I will revert this guy's edits yet again, and just let the "war" continue until I decide to take the road you suggest, or until some WP "higher power" intervenes. Thanks again, my friend--you've definitely made my day. God bless! Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I already revered his edit. I noticed that you put it back his way, but only because you decided it wasn't worth the hassle. However, I felt that you were correct, and figured that a 2nd editor making the same change might help stop things.

I have had problems with this guy myself on other pages, so don't feel like you are alone. However, the one big problem I see is that he is an IP editor, I think from the University of Wyoming, but he is using some kind of method that give him a new address with every edit. Since he isn't using the same IP address, as far as I know I don't think there is a way to block him, assuming it is found that he is violating some rule at WP:ANI.

As for "grow a thicker skin and stop letting these things get to me so easily", I to have the same problem. A number of times I've steamed about something so much that it kept me awake at night. I try not to let it happen, but every once in a while it does. All I can say is that in the end it's not like the world is going to end because of Misplaced Pages. Your a good editor and I would hate to see you go because of someone misbehaving.--- ARTEST4ECHO 18:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. You have truly made my day. I added some more detailed stuff on the talk page; hopefully he'll come over and present his side--but if he doesn't, we can show that we've gone the full distance to do our part according to WP etiquette. I'm equally glad to know that I'm not the only one having problems with him. Thanks again--two heads are definitely better than one, in this situation! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

After much thinking, I think that, if the IP editor continues to refuse to talk about the issue,the best option would be to request Semi-protection from an admin. Unfortunately, as I have said above, I don't think there is a way to block just that IP editor.--- ARTEST4ECHO 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking that very thing. I guess we wait to see what he does, then go from there... Sounds good to me! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems our friend "Keepitreal2" (whom I would assume is our IP editor, since he's/she's used the same language and style of speech in both his/her signed and unsigned edit summaries) is back. I have forwarded a request for semi-protection to an admin; if that doesn't work, I'll see what full protection will do. - Ecjmartin (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You recently said that I did not provide any edit summary. You yourself said I had made more than 19 edits. The mobile tag appears because I am editing from a mobile. Also it took me hours to properly edit the article and add more text to it. All of it was reliably sourced so I don't know why you say you did not like or dislike it. I cannot keep adding edit summaries every time. There is no such policy that a user has to add edit summaries every time. It already takes too much time on the edits anyway so I can't keep adding edit summaries especially when I don't have much time. Let's not fret over a thing as to why I didn't add edit summaries. Sometimes I have very less spare time. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I should mention it is extremely difficult to edit on a mobile. It takes way too much time as compared to a desktop. Therefore I sometimes have to avoid adding edit summaries because of lack of time. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you had to, I just said that it catches people's eye when you don't, which make people revolutionize your edits more. All it dose is make it harder on yourself. However, it is considered "Good practice".--- ARTEST4ECHO 14:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

response

Wow thank you for posting this publicly as I have archived for my dispute case which I will embark on when I have a moment to spare. I was not the one disurupting. If you read the guidelines you will see the person deleating sourced material simply because they don't like it and it doesn't fit in line with their point of view is the one in violation. Your assumptions are not going to help your case. I am female and no you have not had any other issues with me. The IP edits were a result of not realizing I was logged out. Web 101 fellas. Now I can prove your malicious assumptions and assertions are false, not to mention misogynistic. In addition to the claim you on focus on Mormon pages and are not Mormon, which demonstrates unequivocally you have an agenda. Keepitreal2 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Failed Verification question

Thanks for inserting the more correct tag at Deseret Books#Excel Entertainment Group, I was not aware of it. I do however have a couple questions on the usage of this tag. Would you help me understand the following?

• It looks like you inserted a {{FV}} tag inside the REF and also another one outside it. Why two tags?
• I had placed the {{CN}} tag after the word "dropped" to point out the problem text. Placing it after the whole paragraph suggests that the citation failure is larger than just the single fact. Wouldn't it be better to put the FV tag in the same place I had the CN tag?

I am not challenging your edit, in fact (like I said) I appreciate you using this tag, but the instructions on the template page seems to suggest that what you did is not the way it is supposed to be used so I want to learn your logic to see how to use the FV tag right. Based on what I read on the template instruction page I would have done the detailed FV tag that you added first, but in the text by the word "dropped".

Thanks. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Chalcedonianism vs Nestorianism

It's complex. To vastly simplify it, in Nestorianism you have 2 persons (a Divine person and a human person) but in Chalcedonianism you have only 1 person (a single God-man). Both Nestorianism and Chalcedonism hold that Christ has 2 natures (the Divine and the human). Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I can see it is complex. I guess ultimately I don't need to understand it. Since Category:Protestants is in Category:Chalcedonian Christians that is where I will put the them as they hold the "Traditionally Protestant view of the Trinity". If it's wrong, I hope someone who understand it better then me fixes it.--- ARTEST4ECHO 14:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you deserve this...

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For your recent efforts to mediate an ongoing mini edit-war at Missouri Executive Order 44. It takes guts and character to wade into something like that when it wasn't your fight initially, and I want you to know that on my end at least, your efforts are deeply appreciated. And on a more personal note: thanks for helping me 'cool down' about it... I deeply appreciate that, too! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just thought you should have this... - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much.--- ARTEST4ECHO 12:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)