Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:25, 7 May 2015

Abusive posting by block-evading harasser removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware. So far, I think DrChrissy's contributation are quite all right. But it does indeed worry me that s/he adds clarification templates without adding a comment on why so. I've pointed this out to her/him and hopefully s/he will include this on adding the template. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timelezz. Please immediately delete this entire thread. It is entitely inappropriate to post OR host thread headings on your Talk page which contain an editor's name. The editor that posted this is an IP hopper who has been blocked several times before and has been extremely disruptive. I strongly suggest you do not engage in conversation with this IP as they will almost certainly start making false accusations against you - avoid feeding the Troll. I will now explain my clarification template on the article Talk page. All the best. __DrChrissy (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Another posting removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, just let you know that there is an original research case of DrChrissy on the notice board.

Have a nice day!124.149.69.224 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Timelezz. I am repeating my request for you to immediately delete this entire thread from your talk page. I am allowed to delete this myself under Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, however, in the intrests of acting co-operatively, I would do this very reluctantly. Could I suggest that for each minute you leave this thread on your talk page, you are tacitly supporting this personal attack. This will not be looked upon favourably should you or I raise a dispute.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you do not like what is written about you. On that point I sympathize. But at this moment I do not consider the above as a true personal attack on you which would allow the removal of text. And not a bit the removal of the whole thread, as most is within the boundaries of normal conversation. I agree, it is a gray area. So perhaps I'll change my mind. Optionally, you can request a moderator to make a decision. I would be fine with that. Lastly, I hope you can see the difference between refraining from censorship and support of the content. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Timelezz. It seems pretty clear to me that one editor accusing another editor on a third editor's talk page of "lies" is a personal attack. I also urge you to remove this personal attack from your talk page. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Email as source

Before reinserting your cite to the email, please discus the matter on Talk:Marius (giraffe), where I have posted my reasons for removing it. DES 18:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Hello again, Timelezz,

Please be aware of this language in our guideline about user pages which says "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so—such content is only permitted with the consent of the community." In my opinion, it is inadvisable to keep material on your talk page accusing another editor of being a liar. Your failure to remove these personal attacks on another editor from your talk page may be reasonably construed by other editors as an endorsement of these charges. That would be unfortunate. I encourage you to investigate the credibility of the IP hopping editor with a grudge who is making these charges. Please do the right thing, and remove these attacks as soon as possible. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Timelezz, I have again removed the offending postings. Please note that if you should insist on restoring them, per WP:BAN, you can only do so if you are willing to completely endorse their content, and be held responsible for everything in them as if you yourself had authored it. In that case, however, since the postings were part of a pattern of attacks and harassment against the other editor, you would be considered to be yourself the attacker and harasser, so I would block you for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've requested for a moderator to judge whether it is really considered a personal attack. I assume you are a moderator and I notice the debate that was going on. I think that is appropriate way to deal with it (other than other users moderating my Talk page). So I'm perfectly fine with this resolution. And I applaud that you only removed the sections that were refering to words as 'lie', and did not remove a reference to "an original research case", which I agree, can not be considered as a personal attack. Inded, it would be inappropriate to remove the whole thread, as DrChrissy requested me coercively. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

] are you accusing me of original research? Please make a clear statement.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

Please don't change the spelling in an article unless there is a valid reason. Read WP:Retain for some guidelines. The Wood Duck article was originally written in British English so it must stay that way. Dger (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. I was defending exactly the same guideline. Please, next time add an edit summary to motivate your edit. Not many non-natives are experts in Canadian-English. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sanitising your Talk page

I noticed that you edited your Talk page to delete an issue regarding your editing. It is generally considered inappropriate to make such edits, even on your own Talk page. I suggest you re-insert the messages you deleted to give other editors a complete and transparent view of your editing history.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed an automatically posted notice by a bot. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether the notice was automatically generated or manual. You are removing links and history of your editing activities which other editors should be able to see and access for openess and transparency. Please re-instate the deletions.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

DrChrissy: Please ask at WP:HELPDESK before offering opinions on what other editors should do, particularly on their talk page. Even if the assertion were correct (it's not), making such an accusation ("Sanitising your Talk page") is not helpful particularly on a page where there was an earlier disagreement. Time to move on. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

citations

Hello, thanks for your edit here. I noticed you didn't use {{cite book}}, which is considered standard. This app can help you speed up the process. Happy editing, Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I forgot: for journals the standard is {{cite journal}}. This app automates the creation of citations with DOI. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Seth Andrews for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seth Andrews is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seth Andrews until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yoninah (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction in force on Gender controversy related topics

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, 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.

Template:Z33

• Timelezz, this is just an FYI but you should be aware that controversial topics related to gender are under special scrutiny on wikipedia. Your repeated reverts on Feminism and creation of a pointy disambiguation link are disruptive. Please read the policy and the ruling before repeating these behaviour or you may find yourself sanctioned for breaching these special enforcement measures. Furthermore please note the topic of Men's rights (which seems to be substance of your edits to feminism as evidenced by your comments on its talk page) is itself under probation, a notification of this is below--Cailil 13:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware the topic of the Men's rights movement, is on probation. A detailed description of the terms of probation may be found at WP:MRMPS. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Thank you for leaving a note. I've stopped editing, since there seems to be a controversy. I'm engaging in the discussion. Timelezz (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

nirmukta page restoration

Hi timelezz, I've added several more citations from independent news sources which mention the work done by nirmukta. These include all major indian news sources including times of india, hindu and DNA. And also international news sites like global post and wall street journal(blogs). I've also fixed some broken links, some of those links are slow but not broken, if you find any of them broken, please tell me and I'll fix them as well. Please tell me what else shall I do to get the page restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latheist (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)