Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:04, 12 July 2015

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Verifiability is a cornerstone of Misplaced Pages, and is one of the policies that has served as part of the bedrock of editing philosophy. "The threshold for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is Verifiability, not truth." While this simple and strict statement has been a source of derision by many newcomers, switching the focus from truth to verifiability is part of what allows Misplaced Pages to function. In an encyclopedia built by volunteers, in which no real vetting of an individual's expert status is feasible, this policy simplifies discussion greatly. Instead of relying on debate over the validity of a fact or viewpoint, the debate focuses on the easier to tackle issue of whether it is verifiable. Even if experts could be vetted, this philosophy is still preferable. Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles. ~Someguy1221

WP:Don't template the regulars

Templating regulars with user warnings that are unwarranted is an abuse of their intended use, and may be construed as WP:Uncivil or WP:harassment. It is always better to WP:AGF and write a polite warning advising that editor of the problem. Templates are not a requirement for blocking disruptive behavior. It is also not wise to use templates or written warnings, polite or otherwise, as a ploy to game the system in an effort to distract from your own noncompliance with WP:PAG, such as WP:edit warring or WP:OWN behavior. Sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. Atsme

Actually for stuff like edit warring templates are prefered as they are standardized and reduce confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes they might avoid confusion, but they can be very scary to receive until you know what is going on. Some editors use these deliberately to harass others, a behaviour which I believe should be prevented somehow.DrChrissy 11:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting Doc. Of course the real answer is to avoid behaviour that leads to templating in the first place. You and Atsme both know this. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing noncompliant material is not edit warring. The editor who starts reverting the work of others with invalid edit summaries is the one who is edit warring. Instead, we're seeing one editor being ganged up on which actually stems from WP:OWN behavior at an article where a particular POV is being pushed and information is being suppressed. NPOV is one of our core content policies and the passage I removed and expanded had been disputed as noncompliant with NPOV and MEDRS. No RfC was called to keep the noncompliant material, therefore, since it was disputed as noncompliant, I had every right to remove it and make the lede compliant. Any editor who wanted to restore the disputed noncompliant material must do so via consensus. Each time my edit was reverted, it was to remove compliant material and restore disputed noncompliant material. That is edit warring. The onus to replace noncompliant material is on the editor who wants to restore it. Read the PAGs. I agree that we know what edit warring is, but it appears you don't. Atsme 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting one edit as I did here is not edit warring either, but I received a template for it. I am sure the Project Medicine crew have no problem with this, or anything certain privileged editors may do, based on what I have observed. IMO, this favoritism is non-neutral and is very destructive to the project overall. petrarchan47คุก 19:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: since Atsme has stated this is going to ArbCom (which hopefully will settle the issue once and for all), we all stop telling each other that none of us understands policy, and let ArbCom sort it out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How 'bout leading by example? petrarchan47คุก 19:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all you do! Jusdafax 01:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Jusdafax. If I am to be condemned for contributing freely as a volunteer to enhance public knowledge in an online encyclopedia, only to be ganged up on and treated like I've done something wrong, then we all need to step back and analyze what WP is becoming and what it was actually intended to be. We are at a crossroads and it will be our choice to allow the bullies to take over and censor everything that goes into WP, or we can take a stand and support freedom of speech and full dissemination of RS information to our readers. As the saying goes, we either stand for something or we'll fall for anything. That's where we are at this point in time. Atsme 03:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Misplaced Pages is at a crossroads, but in my view there are trucks of corporate and military/intelligence owned editors barreling down on concerned unpaid editors from all directions. The 'pedia is increasingly functioning as corporate/political PR, and those in the way are targeted, just as Scientologists target "Repressive Persons." There are times I can't believe my eyes and have to walk away. I salute your willingness to engage. Jusdafax 12:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for copy editing

Hello Atsme this is Singhaniket255 ...well as i am a beginner on wikipedia.....so i would like work with you..or need some help to ...improve the page "SLIET" that is Sant longowal Institute of engineering & technology. As i hav some of my contribution to wikipedia but with good..but..im facing problen with this page..so..i u can put some of your effort or guide me how to do it the it will be a great help..thnk you!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhaniket255 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Singhaniket255 I'm happy to help. Please give me some time to read and research and then I will discuss the article with you on the article's TP. Ok? Atsme 17:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a pride thing

It's common to men and women. It's common to all races. It's common to gays and straight. It's common to people with Gender issues. It's pride. Everyone has it and it can be stubborn.

Honestly the whole thing was really mishandled. It is really a minor COI. The main thing the wikipedia community really needs to be sure of is that you aren't improperly trying to plug that organization. Really and again that can be done by checking to see if those links and sources attributed to that website meet wikipedia policies. Then asking you to avoid posting them. Instead they are acting like you are Madoff coming to wikipedia to clear his name. Seriously, a connected contributor to an Alligator gar? Do they think you watched it evolve? Even the Racz situation is obvious and it's also clear there's no COI. This whole thing has solely been done to be punitive it seems to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh my! Watched it evolve? Now I really feel old. It was punitive but some good came of it. The Racz article did need better sources. I wasn't aware of MEDRS last year and I'm developing a much better understanding of it. I see where a lot editors including myself can get confused over MEDRS because they're not used consistently, and then I recently learned they are malleable, depending of the situation of course. It also gave me a chance to tighten up the prose a bit. There was a comment you made last year that impressed me, so I kept it in my quote folder. You were polite and succinct, Just a fair reminder to all of you biologists. Your expertise is prized and valuable and thank you so much for taking part in wikipedia, however your expertise doesn't amount to a trump card. I loved it. I would have included it on my user page but I didn't because you seem to be very private person. Atsme 02:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Factchecker atyourservice/Innuendo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on User talk:Factchecker atyourservice/Innuendo. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom case

Hello Atsme - I have received the message that you have initiated an Arbcom request about the specific situation in which we recently interacted. Having been an arbitrator for a few years in the fairly recent past (and indeed having initiated a case just a few months ago), I do have a fairly good idea of what will be involved in the coming months (yes, it will take months if the case is accepted). I have a few suggestions about what you might want to think about.

• What would you consider the ideal outcome of the case? A good outcome? A satisfactory one? One that would be awful?
  • If you are able to make clear what you wish to see right now even before a case is opened, it may be possible to find a solution short of having to spend a lot of time, energy, frustration and worry during an actual case. Are you looking to have someone "topic banned" from conflict of interest discussions/activities? Blocked from any Misplaced Pages participation? Administrator permissions removed from one or more administrators you've included as parties? (Note - Jytdog is not an administrator.) Are you seeking to see the Arbitration Committee interpret the English Misplaced Pages COI policy, probably in a particular way? Like anything else in life, knowing what your objectives are is useful and may help to reduce stress. Arbcom cases are not fun, and their outcome can be unpredictable.
• Please be prepared for any edits you have made that are not deleted (and perhaps even a few of them) to be presented in evidence, if the case is accepted. I realise that's a little bit "kill the messenger", but it's what happens. When the Arbitration Committee accepts a case, it will examine the behaviour of all the parties as applicable, and as a major party, your own edits and behaviour will be included in the review.
• Please be open to trying other means of resolving this situation, even if the result isn't everything that you'd want.

Just some thoughts from me. I am very, very strapped for time this week and may not get as far as commenting on the RFAR (I am traveling in a few days), but I'll try to keep my eye on it. Risker (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Risker - I really do wish there was an alternative, but what you haven't seen are the private emails which will demonstrate the COIN action was punitive. The editors named do not have clean hands, and some accusing me of a COI over fish articles have done far worse. The behavior, the PAs, reverting my edits on almost every article I edit including an essay I created has to stop. It's not just me who has been abused by this cabal-like behavior - it's clearly patterned behavior by the same group of editors over and over and over. If ARBCOM will actually review those diffs, they will see the abuse. What happened to me was uncalled for and if they want to dredge up edits I made that date back 7 or 8 months, I'm ready for that, too. I don't care if they delete all the articles I ever edited. It doesn't hurt me - it hurts the encyclopedia. Besides what good does it do to let it go when they are the ones who won't let it go. I'm weary of the reverts and criticisms wherever I go no matter what I do. I gave this a great deal of thought before I took action, and if the unpredictability of ARBCOM gives them a free pass and me a block or ban, then at least I'll know where WP stands and I can move on to bigger and better things. I can't edit now as it is without being reverted so what difference does it make either way? Atsme 03:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's entirely fair, Atsme, and I can understand your frustration. I know that this is not an isolated incident. I'm not particularly tuned-in to what Arbcom is and is not likely to accept as a case, and it might be difficult to pull it all together, but perhaps some others will also help out, if this is accepted. This will likely be a pretty big battleground if the request is accepted. Risker (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)