| Revision as of 23:08, 4 February 2015 view sourceIronholds (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers79,705 edits →Online/Off line Sources: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:15, 4 February 2015 view source Mishae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users85,764 edits →Online/Off line SourcesNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
| :::Because that's how I read it. I read the part that ''a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute''. So, what I thought was that adding a verifiable content would never be disputed so it requires ''no review'' according to me ''the editor'' who ''believed'' in that. And therefore that warning too, was a bit over the top and how do you expect me answering him on that? ''Thank you for the warning'' and ask him ''when the block will be''?--] (]) 23:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | :::Because that's how I read it. I read the part that ''a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute''. So, what I thought was that adding a verifiable content would never be disputed so it requires ''no review'' according to me ''the editor'' who ''believed'' in that. And therefore that warning too, was a bit over the top and how do you expect me answering him on that? ''Thank you for the warning'' and ask him ''when the block will be''?--] (]) 23:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::If you genuinely can't see any options other than outraged histrionics or kowtowing, your problem is not whether your edits are minor or not. ] (]) 23:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | ::::If you genuinely can't see any options other than outraged histrionics or kowtowing, your problem is not whether your edits are minor or not. ] (]) 23:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::What are the other options you would suggest? Considering that he is even newer (since late September 2014), it suppose to be me who should template him, not the other way around.--] (]) 23:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:15, 4 February 2015
 Archives | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| For completing 1 review during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Trespass in English Law
Hey there, I undid your undoing of my edit to Trespass in English Law. I came across that page when casually going through it. I am studying English law from the University of London International Academy, and I made the edit in line with what I have and am studying in English Criminal Law and English Tort Law, respectively. I found the earlier version to be factually incorrect. If you think my edit is factually incorrect, feel free to tell me that. I do not wish to engage in an edit war, I never have; I did that with the best of intentions and beliefs. Kind regards Ahmer Jamil KhanChat? 10:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Ahmer Jamil Khan: fair enough. The problem comes with the distinction between common assault and assault; Common assault is an assault, or a battery action, while assault consists exclusively of the apprehension of physical force. So we're both slightly off - if it's okay with you, I'll tweak the article and ask you to review it? Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Ironholds: Sure, anything that serves the greater good. Assault in English law, in both Tort and Criminal, is defined as apprehension of immediate, unlawful forced by the defendant/claimant.Ahmer Jamil KhanChat? 14:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, the problem is the distinction between common assault and assault. My suggestion would be we tweak it to:
- @Ironholds: Sure, anything that serves the greater good. Assault in English law, in both Tort and Criminal, is defined as apprehension of immediate, unlawful forced by the defendant/claimant.Ahmer Jamil KhanChat? 14:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Under English criminal and tort law, an assault simply means to act in such a way that the claimant or victim believes they are about to be attacked
Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
RfC: AfC Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- I...don't think I've ever been involved in AfC, but thank you for letting me know. Ironholds (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Online/Off line Sources
Hi! Can you please see in which guideline does it mention that sources are not required to be online? I need to show it to one contributor that insists on replacing a dead link rather then removing it, and I failed to find archived copy of it. Many thanks.--Mishae (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- I..what? Why is there a problem with replacing a dead link? Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes the official link is better then the one that mirrors it. For example do you know anything about Campeoes do Futebol site? I personally don't know anything about it and comparing to CBF site which was dead, I think the new one is less official, and therefore might not meet RS. Or am I wrong?--Mishae (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- When we say "sources are not required to be online" we mean "you can cite books", not "cite websites that no longer work". The reason citing books is acceptable is that someone can find a copy of said book and verify that way; how exactly would you propose one verify the content of a site that no longer exists? Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you still can verify it. Everything else is there; title, author, date, accessdate, work, publisher... Am I right?--Mishae (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- ...but not the content. Because the site. Is dead. There is no policy I can point you to that says "removing archived links that work and replacing it with links that don't is a good idea!" because it's not a good idea. Verification is verifying what the content says, not just who wrote the content. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- You missed the point... I removed dead link because there was nothing in either WebCite or Wayback Machine.--Mishae (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- But there was an alternative reference they provided, yes? If the options are "no sourcing" or "substandard sourcing"...well, ideally the statement as a whole should be removed, but absent that being a good idea, "substandard sourcing" is better than nothing, and a dead link with no wayback entry is nothing. Ironholds (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Initially no. The original link was dead, and it was also dead in the archives as well. In an instance if the link is dead and it can't be archived (both ways fails), then the url should be removed. Am I right? Like is some cases sites use robots.txt and therefore they can't be archived. Either way, I remove dead links only when I am dubious about the alternate source and if both archives fail.--Mishae (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- But the alternate source is live, yes? So use that as a citation. If you do not think it is reliable, don't remove the link, remove the statement as a whole. Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I also was templated by a User:SLBedit for a minor editing that was somehow major, but is it a fair practice to template experienced users? Like I seen it somewhere that its not, but can't remember where. Can you find me it, please?----Mishae (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a major edit, you added new content to "Paris Saint-Germain" section. SLBedit (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I also was templated by a User:SLBedit for a minor editing that was somehow major, but is it a fair practice to template experienced users? Like I seen it somewhere that its not, but can't remember where. Can you find me it, please?----Mishae (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- But the alternate source is live, yes? So use that as a citation. If you do not think it is reliable, don't remove the link, remove the statement as a whole. Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Initially no. The original link was dead, and it was also dead in the archives as well. In an instance if the link is dead and it can't be archived (both ways fails), then the url should be removed. Am I right? Like is some cases sites use robots.txt and therefore they can't be archived. Either way, I remove dead links only when I am dubious about the alternate source and if both archives fail.--Mishae (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- But there was an alternative reference they provided, yes? If the options are "no sourcing" or "substandard sourcing"...well, ideally the statement as a whole should be removed, but absent that being a good idea, "substandard sourcing" is better than nothing, and a dead link with no wayback entry is nothing. Ironholds (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- You missed the point... I removed dead link because there was nothing in either WebCite or Wayback Machine.--Mishae (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- ...but not the content. Because the site. Is dead. There is no policy I can point you to that says "removing archived links that work and replacing it with links that don't is a good idea!" because it's not a good idea. Verification is verifying what the content says, not just who wrote the content. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you still can verify it. Everything else is there; title, author, date, accessdate, work, publisher... Am I right?--Mishae (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- When we say "sources are not required to be online" we mean "you can cite books", not "cite websites that no longer work". The reason citing books is acceptable is that someone can find a copy of said book and verify that way; how exactly would you propose one verify the content of a site that no longer exists? Ironholds (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes the official link is better then the one that mirrors it. For example do you know anything about Campeoes do Futebol site? I personally don't know anything about it and comparing to CBF site which was dead, I think the new one is less official, and therefore might not meet RS. Or am I wrong?--Mishae (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
indeed, that's a major edit. And frankly, Mishae, the repeated problems around very basic issues suggest that, "don't template the regulars" would not be appropriate here. Perfection is not expected, but basic logical reasoning should answer most of the disputes you keep running into. Ironholds (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I do admit my mistake, but I don't understand SLBedit's angry nature toward a very simple question; is archiving considered to be major or minor resulted in this warning on my talkpage. He warned me for a minor edit mistake but then on the bottom he says that if I will ask him a question like that (or similar) again he will report me for harassment. Really? Since when asking a question is warranted harassment warning? I think user SLBedit is the one who provokes harassments. Sorry, but my question was just a question, nothing more nothing less. If he doesn't want to answer it, that's fine, that's why I came to your talkpage instead because it really bothers me. Like, maybe I am doing something else wrong too. I would appreciate if user SLBedit will apologize for his harassment accusation, otherwise it sounds like I can't use anyone's talkpage to ask them a Misplaced Pages related question. I'm thanking you in advance.--Mishae (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- SLBedit's comment about harassment was probably not harassment, but to be honest, you didn't exactly show up full of goodwill, charm and generosity. You went in and in your opening message, informed them that their actions were "outrageous" and patronisingly (wrongly) explained to them what a minor edit was. That's how you chose to open a discussion about a mistake you made. What outcome did you expect? I don't agree with SLBedits' comment on harassment but I entirely understand where they come from. In the future, operate under the assumption that the users you're interacting with might actually be correct. It frustrates people a lot less than scolding them for correcting you. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Because that's how I read it. I read the part that a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. So, what I thought was that adding a verifiable content would never be disputed so it requires no review according to me the editor who believed in that. And therefore that warning too, was a bit over the top and how do you expect me answering him on that? Thank you for the warning and ask him when the block will be?--Mishae (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you genuinely can't see any options other than outraged histrionics or kowtowing, your problem is not whether your edits are minor or not. Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- What are the other options you would suggest? Considering that he is even newer (since late September 2014), it suppose to be me who should template him, not the other way around.--Mishae (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you genuinely can't see any options other than outraged histrionics or kowtowing, your problem is not whether your edits are minor or not. Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Because that's how I read it. I read the part that a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. So, what I thought was that adding a verifiable content would never be disputed so it requires no review according to me the editor who believed in that. And therefore that warning too, was a bit over the top and how do you expect me answering him on that? Thank you for the warning and ask him when the block will be?--Mishae (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- SLBedit's comment about harassment was probably not harassment, but to be honest, you didn't exactly show up full of goodwill, charm and generosity. You went in and in your opening message, informed them that their actions were "outrageous" and patronisingly (wrongly) explained to them what a minor edit was. That's how you chose to open a discussion about a mistake you made. What outcome did you expect? I don't agree with SLBedits' comment on harassment but I entirely understand where they come from. In the future, operate under the assumption that the users you're interacting with might actually be correct. It frustrates people a lot less than scolding them for correcting you. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)