Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:53, 27 February 2015

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

• News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm

• Op-ed: Text from Misplaced Pages good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot

• Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong.

• Gallery: Far from home

• Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?

• Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired

• WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight

• Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering your unblock

As I'm getting lit up to some degree for accepting your unblock request... I wanted to formally warn you that if any (and I mean any) type of disruptive behavior comes from you again, you will be blocked by me personally for 6 months. I'll be keeping an eye on you, so I hope you truly hold to your promise to edit in accordance with our policies. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I accept that, Coffee. No problem; you don't have to worry about me. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

I saw your response at Coffee's talk page and it does not reassure me in the least that you have any idea of how you were disruptive. So here are some examples of things to avoid (on any articles) if you hope to escape a 6-month block:

• When you are upset with an editor, do not go to an article they have written and deliberately look for problems. That is spiteful (aka WP:POINTy). Triple that for a Featured Article that has already been scrutinized to get to that status. To my knowledge, you have done this to Eric, to victoriaearle, and to John. This needs to stop, effective yesterday.
• If you see a potential problem with an article, talk about it on the talk page first. Noticeboards are great if you need an outside opinion - but if you haven't even asked the people most involved with the article for their perspective, then you have no idea if an outside opinion is needed. If you had stopped the disruption here, that would have been one thing. But you escalated.
• When uninvolved editors tell you that the source is reliable, and you start nitpicking the source to death to prove them wrong, that's tendentious. When one of the uninvolved editors is a university professor (verified) and the source in question was published by a leading university press AND you are given multiple links to academic reviews lauding the book....that's TENDENTIOUS in all caps and pretty much deserved a block then.
• If you think there is a conflict between person A's interpretation of source Y and person B's interpretation of source Z, ask them both in a non-confrontational way BEFORE you start filling up an article's talk page. The spew on Donner Party, combined with your pings to Slim Virgin about a book on a totally different topic, looked point-y in the extreme. The spew could have been avoided easily by asking questions before slinging accusations about the quality of the article.
• If you cannot understand the difference between a primary source, a secondary source, and a tertiary source (and understand which one belongs on Misplaced Pages), if you cannot grasp the concept of a historical narrative or see the difference between that and historical fiction, then you have NO BUSINESS nominating any history-related article for FA, and, honestly, no business editing a history-related article at all. That's basic source evaluation.
• You should not accuse any editors of misrepresenting sources unless you are positive that this occurred. The fact that you made this accusation and retracted it a few minutes later showed you were a) specifically looking for problems and b) incompetent at doing so.
• Your post on WP:SUMMARY violations was laughable. My third-grader could have read the article and that policy and told you how you were wrong. That post was the last straw for me. It showed the you either did not understand policy AT ALL, in which case you need to stop editing, or you were deliberately looking for ways to be annoying.

You have been editing for months. You have taken articles to GA and nominated them for FA. You have spent plenty of time observing the dispute resolution processes. You don't get to play the "I didn't know any better card"; that's impossible to AGF given your history. Your insistence on such is an insult to all the editors whose time you have wasted. Karanacs (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And, as a sign that I will practice what I preach: I was planning to review your nomination of Irataba, as it's a time frame that interests me, but I will refrain from doing so. Don't want to give the perception that I'm trying to prove a point or get back at anyone, or in any other way escalate a conflict. Karanacs (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)