| Revision as of 17:21, 18 August 2015 editMusikAnimal (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Administrators120,565 edits →STOP DELETING TALK: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:56, 18 August 2015 edit undoMusicAngels (talk | contribs)1,089 edits →STOP DELETING TALK: Ans.Next edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| ::There are also multiple disruptive editing messages on the various dynamic IP editor Talk pages which other editors have posted. Each time I try to send another Talk message for that dynamic IP editor, they seem to change to another IP address. If there was any content, references, or reliable sources included on the Talk page then it should be retained. Without one single reference or reliable source given, then it appears to be the "vandalism" as identified by ClueBot NG quoted above. ] (]) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC) | ::There are also multiple disruptive editing messages on the various dynamic IP editor Talk pages which other editors have posted. Each time I try to send another Talk message for that dynamic IP editor, they seem to change to another IP address. If there was any content, references, or reliable sources included on the Talk page then it should be retained. Without one single reference or reliable source given, then it appears to be the "vandalism" as identified by ClueBot NG quoted above. ] (]) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::First off, ClueBot is not the authority on what constitutes vandalism. Secondly, what happens on the article page does not dictate what happens on the talk page. Often unconstructive edits are accompanied by fully constructive talk page edits. The talk page is for just that, talking. Unless it is completely inappropriate and off-topic you should not be removing others' comments, period. Looking through the page history at ] most of the comments appear relevant and constructive. Finally, your edit summary simply read ''Unsigned and improper format for Talk page. Message to IP editor on IP editor Talk page'' which is very much an inappropriate justification for removal. We never remove comments because they were "improperly formatted". New users almost never sign their posts, but they of course are still allowed and encouraged to participate in discussion. I hope this clears things up <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 17:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC) | :::First off, ClueBot is not the authority on what constitutes vandalism. Secondly, what happens on the article page does not dictate what happens on the talk page. Often unconstructive edits are accompanied by fully constructive talk page edits. The talk page is for just that, talking. Unless it is completely inappropriate and off-topic you should not be removing others' comments, period. Looking through the page history at ] most of the comments appear relevant and constructive. Finally, your edit summary simply read ''Unsigned and improper format for Talk page. Message to IP editor on IP editor Talk page'' which is very much an inappropriate justification for removal. We never remove comments because they were "improperly formatted". New users almost never sign their posts, but they of course are still allowed and encouraged to participate in discussion. I hope this clears things up <span style="font-family:sans-serif">— <span style="font-weight:bold">] <sup>]</sup></span></span> 17:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::{{ping|MusikAnimal}} My initial purpose in doing this was, Option A, to encourage that IP-editor to open a regular account and to encourage them to start taking responsibility for their edits. If the IP-editor was still not listening, my next step would have been to ask for page protection for a few days as a further encouragement to get the IP-editor to open a regular account in order to continue responsible editing on the poetry Talk page discussion and other editing. Your Option B appears to be that you would like me to reformat and retitle the section on the Talk page there, and to make a third attempt to reach out to the dynamically changing IP-editor Talk page, in addition to the attempts I have already made. I'm ok with either option if you could indicate whichever one you would prefer. Any message you could leave for that IP-editor for proper editing would be helpful. ] (]) 20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:56, 18 August 2015
MusicAngels, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi MusicAngels! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
Your userpage
See Misplaced Pages:User_pages#User_pages_that_look_like_articles.
Also Arthur Rimbaud exists already, so, what are you doing? You can test all you want of course but it looks a little strange as your main userpage. — Jeraphine Gryphon 15:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Rimbaud this month, perhaps Emily Dickinson next month. These are meant as suggestions for people to read the full articles. MusicAngels (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that work better if you actually provided a link to the main article? — Jeraphine Gryphon 17:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- This clearly falls under the category "User pages that look like articles". Can you give any reason why it should not be deleted? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
STOP DELETING TALK
You need to stop deleting conversations going on on talk pages or I will report you. 199.48.242.82 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, just because someone forgot to sign their comment does not mean it should be removed. You can instead, if you wish, append a {{unsigned}} template to the comment, but do not remove it. For more information see the talk page guidelines. Thank you — MusikAnimal 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: You appear to have returned an unsigned and unformated entry on that Talk page from a dynamic IP editor which has been flagged for vandalism and section blanking on the article edit history page in question multiple times. This is the entry from the article edit History page:
- (cur | prev) 12:27, 10 July 2015 ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) m . . (112,972 bytes) (+112,972) . . (Reverting possible vandalism by 64.9.130.42 to version by MusicAngels. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (2287478) (Bot)) (undo)
- There are also multiple disruptive editing messages on the various dynamic IP editor Talk pages which other editors have posted. Each time I try to send another Talk message for that dynamic IP editor, they seem to change to another IP address. If there was any content, references, or reliable sources included on the Talk page then it should be retained. Without one single reference or reliable source given, then it appears to be the "vandalism" as identified by ClueBot NG quoted above. MusicAngels (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- First off, ClueBot is not the authority on what constitutes vandalism. Secondly, what happens on the article page does not dictate what happens on the talk page. Often unconstructive edits are accompanied by fully constructive talk page edits. The talk page is for just that, talking. Unless it is completely inappropriate and off-topic you should not be removing others' comments, period. Looking through the page history at Talk:Poetry in the early 20th century most of the comments appear relevant and constructive. Finally, your edit summary simply read Unsigned and improper format for Talk page. Message to IP editor on IP editor Talk page which is very much an inappropriate justification for removal. We never remove comments because they were "improperly formatted". New users almost never sign their posts, but they of course are still allowed and encouraged to participate in discussion. I hope this clears things up — MusikAnimal 17:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: My initial purpose in doing this was, Option A, to encourage that IP-editor to open a regular account and to encourage them to start taking responsibility for their edits. If the IP-editor was still not listening, my next step would have been to ask for page protection for a few days as a further encouragement to get the IP-editor to open a regular account in order to continue responsible editing on the poetry Talk page discussion and other editing. Your Option B appears to be that you would like me to reformat and retitle the section on the Talk page there, and to make a third attempt to reach out to the dynamically changing IP-editor Talk page, in addition to the attempts I have already made. I'm ok with either option if you could indicate whichever one you would prefer. Any message you could leave for that IP-editor for proper editing would be helpful. MusicAngels (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- First off, ClueBot is not the authority on what constitutes vandalism. Secondly, what happens on the article page does not dictate what happens on the talk page. Often unconstructive edits are accompanied by fully constructive talk page edits. The talk page is for just that, talking. Unless it is completely inappropriate and off-topic you should not be removing others' comments, period. Looking through the page history at Talk:Poetry in the early 20th century most of the comments appear relevant and constructive. Finally, your edit summary simply read Unsigned and improper format for Talk page. Message to IP editor on IP editor Talk page which is very much an inappropriate justification for removal. We never remove comments because they were "improperly formatted". New users almost never sign their posts, but they of course are still allowed and encouraged to participate in discussion. I hope this clears things up — MusikAnimal 17:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- There are also multiple disruptive editing messages on the various dynamic IP editor Talk pages which other editors have posted. Each time I try to send another Talk message for that dynamic IP editor, they seem to change to another IP address. If there was any content, references, or reliable sources included on the Talk page then it should be retained. Without one single reference or reliable source given, then it appears to be the "vandalism" as identified by ClueBot NG quoted above. MusicAngels (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)