| Revision as of 21:23, 3 October 2021 editJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors372,356 edits →Improving the 1970s–1980s section to horror film: Talk:Horror filmTag: Reverted← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:47, 18 December 2024 edit undoJohnuniq (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators86,575 editsm Reverted edit by 2600:1700:1150:758F:0:0:0:100A (talk) to last version by ShellwoodTag: Rollback | ||
| (518 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|WT:BOLD|WT:BEBOLD |
{{Talk header|WT:BOLD|WT:BEBOLD}} | ||
| {{metatalk}} | {{metatalk}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == |
== Redirect from WP:JUSTDOIT was blanked == | ||
| ] now points to a page that just says "Giatricotloi". The blanking was made three weeks ago, first by an account ] that no longer exists, by an IP account 65.25.1.132 and by another IP account 2001:ee0:229:14ce:d102:ed09:7ce3:c07b. I reverted again and will be taking it to ] shortly. ] (]) 03:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| To say "can not" instead of "can't" <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)</span> | |||
| == Adding a sentence == | |||
| :This talk page is not for talking about the main page. Do not ask general questions on this page. Do not talk about articles on this page. This page is for discussing the Misplaced Pages page ]. ALso, you cannot just ask to edit the main page like that. The page changes every day, and there is no way for the admins to know where the exact spot that you want to be corrected is. Anyways, there is no reason to change "can't" to "can not", because they mean the same thing, "can't" is just short for it. ] (]) 17:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I’d like to add a sentence as follows: | |||
| == boldness is not accepted == | |||
| {{cquote|The admonition "be careful" is especially important in relation to ], where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won compromise—which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to ]. However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed. <u>Likewise, changes that merely rephrase, or make explicit what is already implied, or otherwise clarify existing policy, are less likely to be problematic for the bold editor, as compared to changes that substantively alter existing policy.</u>}} | |||
| In future, if people get into hot water for boldly editing policy (as once happened to me), a person who raises this particular issue should not be ignored or dismissed, because it’s an important distinction, IMHO.] (]) 00:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any comments, plaudits, or objections?] (]) 05:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :* I'm not sure that this text will do anything to discourage ] from opposing any change to policy and guidelines. And if it won't then it's ]. - ] (]) 16:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*], the purpose of my proposal is to protect bold editors of policy from hostile administrative action (bans, blocks, et cetera) if they make a bold policy edit that merely rephrases, clarifies, makes more explicit. Bold policy edits can get an editor into a lot of trouble, especially if he relies upon those policy edits at some later date. But they shouldn’t get anyone in trouble if the bold policy edits do not make any *substantive* edits to policy. As you can see from the blockquote above, bold editors are already protected if they fix “spelling and grammatical errors”. Why stop there? I don’t care much whether bold policy edits are reverted or not, what I mostly care about is whether the bold editors are sanctioned for no good reason.] (]) 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::*:I am a fairly bold editor of policies and guidelines and I too frequently run into status quo warriors, some of whom have been administrators. However, I have never faced hostile administrative action for making the original change (even when the reverting editor thought my change was substantive). Do you have an example of where that happened to you or someone else? - ] (]) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Well, it’s a very hard thing to search for, but I have my own experience with it. I repeatedly argued that my bold edit to policy did not change the substantive meaning of the policy, but no one seemed to think that was relevant (weeks after making the edit the issue had come up again at article talk so I referred to the policy which I had edited). It doesn’t make sense to me that this policy protects bold editors when they fix spelling and grammar, but not when they rephrase or make an implication explicit. So I’ve been topic-banned now for maybe 15 years or so. Not trying here to get out of the topic ban, just trying to prevent it from happening to other people. <small>The edit I made was to ], to clarify that there is not yet consensus to change article text until there is consensus on what it will be changed to.</small> ] (]) 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*:Reading between the lines, you made a change that you believed was copy editing and, when another editor (or was it other editor'''s'''?) opposed the change, you repeatedly argued that the change was okay because it was not substantive. Ultimately, you received a topic ban. Do I have that right? - ] (]) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::*Almost. I made a policy change that I believed was basically copy editing or clarifying what the policy already implied (I inserted a sentence which is described at the end of my last comment above) and, in the edit summary, mentioned that the change would be useful because of my experience at an article earlier that day. The policy change I made was not reverted as of weeks later. At that time the issue resurfaced at the original article where I noticed the problem, so I mentioned the changed policy at article talk. At that point, I was accused of having edited policy to advance my position in a content dispute, my policy edit was reverted, and I’ve been topic-banned. I appealed repeatedly for removal of the topic ban, asserting that the policy edit merely made explicit what was already implied, and I don’t recall that anyone ever denied that assertion, or agreed with that assertion, it was simply not considered relevant. The edit proposed above would ensure it’s relevant, next time it happens to someone else.] (]) 23:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Whether justly or not, it appears that what happened to you arose from conduct that The Powers That Be believed was ]. If I am right then adding the sentence you propose here seems unlikely to protect future editors in a similar situation. - ] (]) 03:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::They have refused to explain why making something explicit in a policy, that was already implicit, was gaming the system. In my view, it never can be gaming the system. If this present policy would address the matter then that would help future editors in this situation, because they could quote this policy. But you may have a point, because if “The Powers That Be” don’t like article content, then perhaps they will find some excuse to ban the editor who put it there, no matter what Misplaced Pages policies may say, but I like to think that such backhanded censorship is odious enough to be rare.] (]) 05:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I ''may'' have a point? I think you meant that I ''do'' have a point. 😉 - ] (]) 17:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Be bold????? == | |||
| you invite bold edits. Without exception all my bold and less bold edits were reverted. Please don't invite for bold edits if you don't want them in the first place. ] (]) 19:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The first sentence reads "We would like everyone to be bold and help make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia." | |||
| :Please also see ]. Your bold edits are certainly welcome, but if someone else disagrees with them then it's standard for the edits to be reverted, after which you can discuss the changes on the talk page. ―] (]) 11:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :That is '''completely normal'''. As the guideline said; "''Of course, others here will edit what you write. ]! They, like all of us, just wish to make Misplaced Pages as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be.''" ] (]) 17:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| When I try to find the edit button, all I find is "View source" and "This page is semi-protected". | |||
| == Improving the 1970s–1980s section to horror film == | |||
| This is ridiculous. | |||
| Dear friends I have one request for you about the 1970s–1980s section to ] you know the 1890s–1910s section 1910s is 20 years apart from 1890s so it can stay that way but the 1970s–1980s section 1980s is only 10 years apart from 1970s is it ok if you can revamp it it can be called the 1970s and 1980s section just change between turn "–" into "and" the ] decade sections would look a lot better like this. <br>1890s–1910s<br>1920s<br>1930s<br>1940s<br>1950s<br>1960s<br>1970s and 1980s<br>1990s<br>2000s<br>2010s<br> See you can't tell the difference between 1970s and 1980s so what do you say do we have an agreement? ] (]) 21:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :] is the right page for this comment. – ] (]) 21:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| NB We'll see how long can this bold edit of mine can stay :) ] (]) 10:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for your effort to improve Misplaced Pages. There is an explanation of what "semi-protected" means at ] . - ] (]) 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:47, 18 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Be bold page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | YOU MIGHT BE ON THE WRONG PAGE.This page is not meant for general questions, nor discussions about specific articles. This page is only for discussions about the Misplaced Pages page Misplaced Pages:Be bold. To discuss an article, please use that article's talk page. To ask for help with using and editing Misplaced Pages, use our Teahouse. Alternatively, see our FAQ. |
Redirect from WP:JUSTDOIT was blanked
WP:JUSTDOIT now points to a page that just says "Giatricotloi". The blanking was made three weeks ago, first by an account User:Gebelil that no longer exists, then by an IP account 65.25.1.132 and then by another IP account 2001:ee0:229:14ce:d102:ed09:7ce3:c07b. I reverted again and will be taking it to WP:ANI shortly. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Adding a sentence
I’d like to add a sentence as follows:
| “ | The admonition "be careful" is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won compromise—which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first. However, spelling and grammatical errors can and should be fixed as soon as they are noticed. Likewise, changes that merely rephrase, or make explicit what is already implied, or otherwise clarify existing policy, are less likely to be problematic for the bold editor, as compared to changes that substantively alter existing policy. | ” |
In future, if people get into hot water for boldly editing policy (as once happened to me), a person who raises this particular issue should not be ignored or dismissed, because it’s an important distinction, IMHO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Any comments, plaudits, or objections? Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that this text will do anything to discourage status quo warriors from opposing any change to policy and guidelines. And if it won't then it's kudzu. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:Butwhatdoiknow, the purpose of my proposal is to protect bold editors of policy from hostile administrative action (bans, blocks, et cetera) if they make a bold policy edit that merely rephrases, clarifies, makes more explicit. Bold policy edits can get an editor into a lot of trouble, especially if he relies upon those policy edits at some later date. But they shouldn’t get anyone in trouble if the bold policy edits do not make any *substantive* edits to policy. As you can see from the blockquote above, bold editors are already protected if they fix “spelling and grammatical errors”. Why stop there? I don’t care much whether bold policy edits are reverted or not, what I mostly care about is whether the bold editors are sanctioned for no good reason. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am a fairly bold editor of policies and guidelines and I too frequently run into status quo warriors, some of whom have been administrators. However, I have never faced hostile administrative action for making the original change (even when the reverting editor thought my change was substantive). Do you have an example of where that happened to you or someone else? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it’s a very hard thing to search for, but I have my own experience with it. I repeatedly argued that my bold edit to policy did not change the substantive meaning of the policy, but no one seemed to think that was relevant (weeks after making the edit the issue had come up again at article talk so I referred to the policy which I had edited). It doesn’t make sense to me that this policy protects bold editors when they fix spelling and grammar, but not when they rephrase or make an implication explicit. So I’ve been topic-banned now for maybe 15 years or so. Not trying here to get out of the topic ban, just trying to prevent it from happening to other people. The edit I made was to WP:Consensus, to clarify that there is not yet consensus to change article text until there is consensus on what it will be changed to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Reading between the lines, you made a change that you believed was copy editing and, when another editor (or was it other editors?) opposed the change, you repeatedly argued that the change was okay because it was not substantive. Ultimately, you received a topic ban. Do I have that right? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Almost. I made a policy change that I believed was basically copy editing or clarifying what the policy already implied (I inserted a sentence which is described at the end of my last comment above) and, in the edit summary, mentioned that the change would be useful because of my experience at an article earlier that day. The policy change I made was not reverted as of weeks later. At that time the issue resurfaced at the original article where I noticed the problem, so I mentioned the changed policy at article talk. At that point, I was accused of having edited policy to advance my position in a content dispute, my policy edit was reverted, and I’ve been topic-banned. I appealed repeatedly for removal of the topic ban, asserting that the policy edit merely made explicit what was already implied, and I don’t recall that anyone ever denied that assertion, or agreed with that assertion, it was simply not considered relevant. The edit proposed above would ensure it’s relevant, next time it happens to someone else. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it’s a very hard thing to search for, but I have my own experience with it. I repeatedly argued that my bold edit to policy did not change the substantive meaning of the policy, but no one seemed to think that was relevant (weeks after making the edit the issue had come up again at article talk so I referred to the policy which I had edited). It doesn’t make sense to me that this policy protects bold editors when they fix spelling and grammar, but not when they rephrase or make an implication explicit. So I’ve been topic-banned now for maybe 15 years or so. Not trying here to get out of the topic ban, just trying to prevent it from happening to other people. The edit I made was to WP:Consensus, to clarify that there is not yet consensus to change article text until there is consensus on what it will be changed to. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Whether justly or not, it appears that what happened to you arose from conduct that The Powers That Be believed was Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system. If I am right then adding the sentence you propose here seems unlikely to protect future editors in a similar situation. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- They have refused to explain why making something explicit in a policy, that was already implicit, was gaming the system. In my view, it never can be gaming the system. If this present policy would address the matter then that would help future editors in this situation, because they could quote this policy. But you may have a point, because if “The Powers That Be” don’t like article content, then perhaps they will find some excuse to ban the editor who put it there, no matter what Misplaced Pages policies may say, but I like to think that such backhanded censorship is odious enough to be rare. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I may have a point? I think you meant that I do have a point. 😉 - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- They have refused to explain why making something explicit in a policy, that was already implicit, was gaming the system. In my view, it never can be gaming the system. If this present policy would address the matter then that would help future editors in this situation, because they could quote this policy. But you may have a point, because if “The Powers That Be” don’t like article content, then perhaps they will find some excuse to ban the editor who put it there, no matter what Misplaced Pages policies may say, but I like to think that such backhanded censorship is odious enough to be rare. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:Butwhatdoiknow, the purpose of my proposal is to protect bold editors of policy from hostile administrative action (bans, blocks, et cetera) if they make a bold policy edit that merely rephrases, clarifies, makes more explicit. Bold policy edits can get an editor into a lot of trouble, especially if he relies upon those policy edits at some later date. But they shouldn’t get anyone in trouble if the bold policy edits do not make any *substantive* edits to policy. As you can see from the blockquote above, bold editors are already protected if they fix “spelling and grammatical errors”. Why stop there? I don’t care much whether bold policy edits are reverted or not, what I mostly care about is whether the bold editors are sanctioned for no good reason. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Be bold?????
The first sentence reads "We would like everyone to be bold and help make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia."
When I try to find the edit button, all I find is "View source" and "This page is semi-protected".
This is ridiculous.
NB We'll see how long can this bold edit of mine can stay :) 202.40.137.196 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your effort to improve Misplaced Pages. There is an explanation of what "semi-protected" means at WP:SEMI . - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)