| Revision as of 13:17, 14 April 2015 editCassianto (talk | contribs)37,404 edits →Holloway: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:04, 14 April 2015 edit undoCassianto (talk | contribs)37,404 edits →Holloway: ceNext edit → | ||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| == Holloway == | == Holloway == | ||
| Which part of ] are you having trouble |
Which part of ] are you having trouble understanding? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :The part where you and your buddies ] the article, and consistently choose to be wrong. ] (]) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see that under that essay. So you appear to be both disruptive and stupid. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Rather than throw spurious ownership claims, perhaps, as per my edit summary, you could try to civilly '''discuss''' things on the talk page, rather than engage in a knee-jerk edit war. That would be a much more constructive path to take. - ] (]) 13:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, it isn't. I know you both; I have seen your work, and your appearances on the drama boards. You write good articles, and deserve proper respect for that. But you do not choose to communicate, civilly or otherwise. You ] to get your way, and it is tiresome. I am done with children for a while. Keep your little playground. ] (]) 13:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Still uncivil, I see. If you decide not to take part in consensus-building discussions on a consensus-driven project, that is entirely up to you. - ] (]) 13:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I gladly talk with those who listen. As far as civility is concerned, one reaps what one sows. One can be civil on the surface, and a petulant child behind the words. For me, it is much more civil to lecture little the schoolchildren, so that they might grow up to be truly civil in the full meaning of the word. Whether you choose to let that comment to refer to you and your playmates, or not, is entirely up to you. The philosophy of discipline remains unchanged. ] (]) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We do listen; however, most of the time we are not listened too and, like you correctly point out above, we receive no or little respect. I see you have "seen work"; similarly, you have seen us on the drama boards. This begs the question: have you only warred and been disruptive here to initiate a long and laborious thread at ANI? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I will answer your question with a question: Have you seen me file any requests at AN/I? What did I do the last time we "communicated" here on Holloway? I dropped the issue, looked at it from another perspective, and did not pursue it. In that one conversation, I learned a lot about your approach to the process. While I still think infoboxes are important - largely from a metadata and data mining perspective (allowing greater access to to data for more types of users, one of Misplaced Pages's stated goals) - it is not worth fighting with you. I have never brought anyone to the boards, except IP's making legal threats. I disagree with your approach to the articles you maintain your "stewardship" but I would not choose to drag my own name through the mud while slinging it at yours. ] (]) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't know. I try and steer clear of ANI as it's full of self serving and sycophantic arseholes most of the time. In terms of the stewardship; why the hell not? Have you seen the current state of ]? That is a prime example of what happens when the primary editors walk away and leave an FA to rot. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I will repeat that I like the way the articles you have contributed to have ended up, for the most part. You guys are better editors and authors than I am. My problem comes with the way you seem to automatically dismiss others' contributions, and an antagonistic approach to it. It could very well be warranted; this is a contentious place. It took me years before I decided to actually start to edit. It's a nasty place overall, with all kinds of negative personalities. Maybe I haven't given you guys a fair shake - but I felt ] the one time we interacted. I was feeling that way again this morning. Some things seem simple - and the "birth place" for Holloway seems quite simple to me. It looked like blind reversions, coupled with tag-teaming. So, maybe it isn't, but from an outside view it looked that way. So, I will choose to apologize for my apparent incivility. I hope you will take a moment to try to look at it from my perspective, and maybe see that there there is a kernel of truth in my observation. Not all IP's are bad, and sometimes it may be possible that others' opinions are valid. It's an excellent article overall, and work that the contributors should be justifiably proud of. But maybe a tweak in one spot or another is not unwarranted. Fair enough? ] (]) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I appreciate your praise and I'm honoured that you should find the articles on which I work so engaging (I'm sure {{u|SchroCat|Gavin}} will too). Let me clarify; I didn't and don't have a problem with the edit in general, and I would've been happy to discuss it per ] on the talk page. My problem was the constant reverting by both yourself and the IP. That is why I bit. I would be happy to consider implementing your edit as, in truth, I find it largely ok. In the body, we have explained that Manor Park was formally in Essex. Is it in the lead section that you would also like it clarified? Personally, I don't think the lead is the place for clarifications within parenthesis as it can become quite cluttered and make for some bumpy reading. I think the best thing is to discuss it, like adults, on the talk page so others can chip in and give their two penn'orth. Is that a worthy compromise? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:04, 14 April 2015
Civil discourse is welcome.
ScrapIronIV, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi ScrapIronIV! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Misplaced Pages; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC) |
Invitation (to work)
Hello ScrapIronIV, I have noticed that you are concerned about Waverley Line. You are cordially invited to constructively contribute to User:KlausFoehl/Borders Railway if you wish so. If you prefer to keep working on Waverley Line, I'll be happy about that as well.--KlausFoehl (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aircraft
Thanks for signing up for this project. It is a very busy and active project with lots going on and we can always use more help and especially a fresh set of eyes. If you haven't done so already you might want to add Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft to your watch list as this is where much of the background discussion occurs. You may also want to watch Misplaced Pages:New articles (Aircraft) as this is where newly created articles get listed for peer review. Having a look over these new articles is a great way to get a feel for how things are done on the project and also most new articles need reviewing anyway. If you have any questions you can leave me a note or post at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft, either way you will get a quick response. - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Climate Change Discretionary Sanctions
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, 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. jps (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Holloway
Which part of WP:BRD are you having trouble understanding? Cassianto 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- The part where you and your buddies own the article, and consistently choose to be wrong. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see that under that essay. So you appear to be both disruptive and stupid. Cassianto 13:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Stanley Holloway shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cassianto 13:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Rather than throw spurious ownership claims, perhaps, as per my edit summary, you could try to civilly discuss things on the talk page, rather than engage in a knee-jerk edit war. That would be a much more constructive path to take. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it isn't. I know you both; I have seen your work, and your appearances on the drama boards. You write good articles, and deserve proper respect for that. But you do not choose to communicate, civilly or otherwise. You tagteam to get your way, and it is tiresome. I am done with children for a while. Keep your little playground. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Still uncivil, I see. If you decide not to take part in consensus-building discussions on a consensus-driven project, that is entirely up to you. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I gladly talk with those who listen. As far as civility is concerned, one reaps what one sows. One can be civil on the surface, and a petulant child behind the words. For me, it is much more civil to lecture little the schoolchildren, so that they might grow up to be truly civil in the full meaning of the word. Whether you choose to let that comment to refer to you and your playmates, or not, is entirely up to you. The philosophy of discipline remains unchanged. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- We do listen; however, most of the time we are not listened too and, like you correctly point out above, we receive no or little respect. I see you have "seen work"; similarly, you have seen us on the drama boards. This begs the question: have you only warred and been disruptive here to initiate a long and laborious thread at ANI? Cassianto 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I will answer your question with a question: Have you seen me file any requests at AN/I? What did I do the last time we "communicated" here on Holloway? I dropped the issue, looked at it from another perspective, and did not pursue it. In that one conversation, I learned a lot about your approach to the process. While I still think infoboxes are important - largely from a metadata and data mining perspective (allowing greater access to to data for more types of users, one of Misplaced Pages's stated goals) - it is not worth fighting with you. I have never brought anyone to the boards, except IP's making legal threats. I disagree with your approach to the articles you maintain your "stewardship" but I would not choose to drag my own name through the mud while slinging it at yours. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know. I try and steer clear of ANI as it's full of self serving and sycophantic arseholes most of the time. In terms of the stewardship; why the hell not? Have you seen the current state of Theatre Royal, Drury Lane? That is a prime example of what happens when the primary editors walk away and leave an FA to rot. Cassianto 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I will repeat that I like the way the articles you have contributed to have ended up, for the most part. You guys are better editors and authors than I am. My problem comes with the way you seem to automatically dismiss others' contributions, and an antagonistic approach to it. It could very well be warranted; this is a contentious place. It took me years before I decided to actually start to edit. It's a nasty place overall, with all kinds of negative personalities. Maybe I haven't given you guys a fair shake - but I felt bitten the one time we interacted. I was feeling that way again this morning. Some things seem simple - and the "birth place" for Holloway seems quite simple to me. It looked like blind reversions, coupled with tag-teaming. So, maybe it isn't, but from an outside view it looked that way. So, I will choose to apologize for my apparent incivility. I hope you will take a moment to try to look at it from my perspective, and maybe see that there there is a kernel of truth in my observation. Not all IP's are bad, and sometimes it may be possible that others' opinions are valid. It's an excellent article overall, and work that the contributors should be justifiably proud of. But maybe a tweak in one spot or another is not unwarranted. Fair enough? ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your praise and I'm honoured that you should find the articles on which I work so engaging (I'm sure Gavin will too). Let me clarify; I didn't and don't have a problem with the edit in general, and I would've been happy to discuss it per WP:BRD on the talk page. My problem was the constant reverting by both yourself and the IP. That is why I bit. I would be happy to consider implementing your edit as, in truth, I find it largely ok. In the body, we have explained that Manor Park was formally in Essex. Is it in the lead section that you would also like it clarified? Personally, I don't think the lead is the place for clarifications within parenthesis as it can become quite cluttered and make for some bumpy reading. I think the best thing is to discuss it, like adults, on the talk page so others can chip in and give their two penn'orth. Is that a worthy compromise? Cassianto 19:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I will repeat that I like the way the articles you have contributed to have ended up, for the most part. You guys are better editors and authors than I am. My problem comes with the way you seem to automatically dismiss others' contributions, and an antagonistic approach to it. It could very well be warranted; this is a contentious place. It took me years before I decided to actually start to edit. It's a nasty place overall, with all kinds of negative personalities. Maybe I haven't given you guys a fair shake - but I felt bitten the one time we interacted. I was feeling that way again this morning. Some things seem simple - and the "birth place" for Holloway seems quite simple to me. It looked like blind reversions, coupled with tag-teaming. So, maybe it isn't, but from an outside view it looked that way. So, I will choose to apologize for my apparent incivility. I hope you will take a moment to try to look at it from my perspective, and maybe see that there there is a kernel of truth in my observation. Not all IP's are bad, and sometimes it may be possible that others' opinions are valid. It's an excellent article overall, and work that the contributors should be justifiably proud of. But maybe a tweak in one spot or another is not unwarranted. Fair enough? ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know. I try and steer clear of ANI as it's full of self serving and sycophantic arseholes most of the time. In terms of the stewardship; why the hell not? Have you seen the current state of Theatre Royal, Drury Lane? That is a prime example of what happens when the primary editors walk away and leave an FA to rot. Cassianto 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I will answer your question with a question: Have you seen me file any requests at AN/I? What did I do the last time we "communicated" here on Holloway? I dropped the issue, looked at it from another perspective, and did not pursue it. In that one conversation, I learned a lot about your approach to the process. While I still think infoboxes are important - largely from a metadata and data mining perspective (allowing greater access to to data for more types of users, one of Misplaced Pages's stated goals) - it is not worth fighting with you. I have never brought anyone to the boards, except IP's making legal threats. I disagree with your approach to the articles you maintain your "stewardship" but I would not choose to drag my own name through the mud while slinging it at yours. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- We do listen; however, most of the time we are not listened too and, like you correctly point out above, we receive no or little respect. I see you have "seen work"; similarly, you have seen us on the drama boards. This begs the question: have you only warred and been disruptive here to initiate a long and laborious thread at ANI? Cassianto 15:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I gladly talk with those who listen. As far as civility is concerned, one reaps what one sows. One can be civil on the surface, and a petulant child behind the words. For me, it is much more civil to lecture little the schoolchildren, so that they might grow up to be truly civil in the full meaning of the word. Whether you choose to let that comment to refer to you and your playmates, or not, is entirely up to you. The philosophy of discipline remains unchanged. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Still uncivil, I see. If you decide not to take part in consensus-building discussions on a consensus-driven project, that is entirely up to you. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)