| Revision as of 22:25, 1 December 2021 editGorillaWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators119,019 edits Warning: Edit warring on 2021 United States Capitol attack.Tag: Twinkle← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:48, 22 August 2023 edit undoNil Einne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers73,019 edits →BLP contentious topics alert: new sectionTags: contentious topics alert New topic | ||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== May 2022 == | ||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I wanted to let you know that one or more of ] have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 07:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please remember to ] when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-agf2 --> ] ] 14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == December 2021 == | |||
| ] Please do not add or change content, as you did at ], without citing a ]. Please review the guidelines at ] and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-unsourced2 --> ] ] 14:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. | |||
| == regarding your edit on the Dec 15 2022 Twitter bans page == | |||
| Points to note: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;''' | |||
| Hi, | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| On https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1128042133?diffmode=source, you've reverted the name applied to the event ("Thursday Night Massacre") by some with the reasoning that it's a term applied by victims. While the first notable instancd is indeed by the victims, it has sufficient media coverage with that title from journalists unaffected by the suspensions as well: | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (she/her • ]) 22:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musks-twitter-suspension-journalists-draws-global-backlash-2022-12-16/ | |||
| * https://nypost.com/2022/12/17/wikipedia-documents-thursday-night-massacre-after-twitter-suspensions/ | |||
| * https://www.mediaite.com/tech/twitter-suspends-several-reporters-accounts-in-thursday-night-massacre-i-havent-been-given-a-reason/ | |||
| * https://mashable.com/article/musk-journalists-suspended-twitter-accounts-reinstated | |||
| * and a few more, less reliable news sources, but all from people who were not suspended. | |||
| There are many cases in history where names for events that happened came from the victims and was picked up by the general public, and this appears to be one of them. I do not like the name personally, but it follows ], and as such deserves a mention on the article at least. | |||
| As such I'll be reverting the title in, and ask that you do not edit it back out. Thank you. ] (]) 09:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Nina Agdal == | |||
| Looks like you are trying to portray ] sex life in a negative light, with poorly sourced controversial material from gossip rags. Please take a look at ] which has a critically important bearing on this stuff. ] (]) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :We’re looking at the personal life section of a model. Of course the pages reporting on her will be “gossip” pages. That doesn’t discredit the content, which is usually just citing public social media posts. If there’s an issue with the only sources reporting on her, then you may want to revisit whether she is even notable. | |||
| :Also, for my “intentions”, I have ground to add any information to her page so long as it is factual. ] (]) 05:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::You wrote that her public display of affection was "raunchy". I don't think that should be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. This stuff should be presented as neutrally as possible. | |||
| ::Another way to portray Agdal's sex life negatively would be to seek out every minor connection she had to impress the reader with numbers. If you want to tell the reader that she is having too much sex, you must cite a source saying exactly that, with attribution. ] (]) 05:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::> Another way to portray Agdal's sex life negatively would be to seek out every minor connection she had to impress the reader with numbers. If you want to tell the reader that she is having too much sex, you must cite a source saying exactly that, with attribution. | |||
| :::makes no sense. Info is info. | |||
| :::You take issue with the word “raunchy” — what word would you use? We can use that instead. ] (]) 09:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2023 == | |||
| ] Please stop adding unreferenced or ] biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did at ]. Content of this nature could be regarded as ] and is in violation of ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-biog3 --> ] (]) 20:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 06:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block uw-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for violations of Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's ], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. ] 12:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-bioblock --> | |||
| *Misinterpreting sources in BLP, or re-including contentious content through edit wars in BLP, are instantly blockable offences. For your benefit: | |||
| :* Pushing a "raunchy" misrepresentation, using ] | |||
| :* Edit warring to include "raunchy" and DailyMail | |||
| :* Misrepresenting and including "Danis said that the pictures drove Paul insane" when the source never connected pictures with insane. And the article is about Nina, not Paul. | |||
| :* Edit warring to include the misprepresentation "Danis said..." | |||
| :* Edit warring to again include a misrepresentation of the source (digital spy) that Nina dated George. The source only said that George claimed to be dating Nina. If you are quoting a source, you cannot be misrepresenting with an aim to paint the BLP in a negative light. | |||
| Sorry but you will soon have an indefinite block coming if this is continued. Hope you understand the grave issues here and the need to protect BLPs with the highest editorial standards. ] 12:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Please also note that ] basically says you need consensus before restoring material that has been deleted on good faith BLP objections. ] (]) 12:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == BLP contentious topics alert == | |||
| ] You have recently made edits related to articles about ], and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about ], and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see ]. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see ]. ] (]) 12:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
Latest revision as of 12:48, 22 August 2023
May 2022
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Make America Great Again, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
regarding your edit on the Dec 15 2022 Twitter bans page
Hi, On https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1128042133?diffmode=source, you've reverted the name applied to the event ("Thursday Night Massacre") by some with the reasoning that it's a term applied by victims. While the first notable instancd is indeed by the victims, it has sufficient media coverage with that title from journalists unaffected by the suspensions as well:
- https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musks-twitter-suspension-journalists-draws-global-backlash-2022-12-16/
- https://nypost.com/2022/12/17/wikipedia-documents-thursday-night-massacre-after-twitter-suspensions/
- https://www.mediaite.com/tech/twitter-suspends-several-reporters-accounts-in-thursday-night-massacre-i-havent-been-given-a-reason/
- https://mashable.com/article/musk-journalists-suspended-twitter-accounts-reinstated
- and a few more, less reliable news sources, but all from people who were not suspended.
There are many cases in history where names for events that happened came from the victims and was picked up by the general public, and this appears to be one of them. I do not like the name personally, but it follows WP:GNG, and as such deserves a mention on the article at least.
As such I'll be reverting the title in, and ask that you do not edit it back out. Thank you. Aveaoz (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Nina Agdal
Looks like you are trying to portray Nina Agdal sex life in a negative light, with poorly sourced controversial material from gossip rags. Please take a look at WP:BLP which has a critically important bearing on this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- We’re looking at the personal life section of a model. Of course the pages reporting on her will be “gossip” pages. That doesn’t discredit the content, which is usually just citing public social media posts. If there’s an issue with the only sources reporting on her, then you may want to revisit whether she is even notable.
- Also, for my “intentions”, I have ground to add any information to her page so long as it is factual. Goblintear (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- You wrote that her public display of affection was "raunchy". I don't think that should be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. This stuff should be presented as neutrally as possible.
- Another way to portray Agdal's sex life negatively would be to seek out every minor connection she had to impress the reader with numbers. If you want to tell the reader that she is having too much sex, you must cite a source saying exactly that, with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- > Another way to portray Agdal's sex life negatively would be to seek out every minor connection she had to impress the reader with numbers. If you want to tell the reader that she is having too much sex, you must cite a source saying exactly that, with attribution.
- makes no sense. Info is info.
- You take issue with the word “raunchy” — what word would you use? We can use that instead. Goblintear (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did at Nina Agdal. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lourdes 12:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Misinterpreting sources in BLP, or re-including contentious content through edit wars in BLP, are instantly blockable offences. For your benefit:
- Pushing a "raunchy" misrepresentation, using DAILYMAIL
- Edit warring to include "raunchy" and DailyMail
- Misrepresenting and including "Danis said that the pictures drove Paul insane" when the source never connected pictures with insane. And the article is about Nina, not Paul.
- Edit warring to include the misprepresentation "Danis said..."
- Edit warring to again include a misrepresentation of the source (digital spy) that Nina dated George. The source only said that George claimed to be dating Nina. If you are quoting a source, you cannot be misrepresenting with an aim to paint the BLP in a negative light.
Sorry but you will soon have an indefinite block coming if this is continued. Hope you understand the grave issues here and the need to protect BLPs with the highest editorial standards. Lourdes 12:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Please also note that WP:BLPRESTORE basically says you need consensus before restoring material that has been deleted on good faith BLP objections. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
BLP contentious topics alert
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)