| Revision as of 01:58, 7 July 2014 editMonochrome Monitor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,037 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:08, 7 July 2014 edit undoWikieditorpro (talk | contribs)668 edits →WP:1RRNext edit → | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| :: What the hell is wrong with you?! I know NPOV because I explicitly asked what it meant on Talk: Rachel Corrie. God you are just assholes. And Malik Shabazz is an admin?!? | :: What the hell is wrong with you?! I know NPOV because I explicitly asked what it meant on Talk: Rachel Corrie. God you are just assholes. And Malik Shabazz is an admin?!? | ||
| I have no other accounts, but I'm considering abandoning this one. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New>]<big>_</big>]</span></small> 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC) | I have no other accounts, but I'm considering abandoning this one. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New>]<big>_</big>]</span></small> 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::: Then the terrorists win. ] (]) 02:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:08, 7 July 2014
Input needed
Please see: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anti-war#Requested move. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: Anti-war project discussion
- Why not just wikiproject:Peace? Is that already taken?
I could support WikiProject Peace studies at the top level. But let us keep the discussion open for now. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:ARBPIA alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Template:Z33 — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 16:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:1RR
You have violated WP:1RR on Palestinian people. Please revert, or you will be reported. Within 24 hours you have done:
- 22:50, 4 July 2014 edit -line: "(due to modern DNA analysis we know that palistinians are arabs, related to jews, etc, but we don't know that they are related to "canaanites" or "sea peoples", that is just psuedohistory and can't be proven)"
- 15:39, 5 July 2014 exactly the same revert
- 21:45, 5 July 2014
Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- What the hell? For making the same edit twice? What kind of corrupt system is this? --monochrome_monitor 22:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, it is the same "corrupt system" for everyone. I would probably have been blocked by now if I had edited the same way. Oh, and violations of WP:NPA in edit-lines: it is *not* looked upon favourably. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand what I did wrong. I don't understand all the lingo, I haven't even read the rules. I just do what seems productive and I have tried to make some biased articles more neutral. Edits are good, they mean change. It's silly that everyone's terrified by so many edits happening. Edits mean the article is improving, don't they? --monochrome_monitor 23:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Honestly, those initialisms look like a foreign language to me. Am I not allowed to edit controversial things? Wouldn't that mean they stay one-sided forever? --monochrome_monitor 23:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- On behalf of everybody, sorry about the bluelinked TLAs (three-letter acronyms that link to policies, guidelines or essays). They're the local jargon. Please remember that 1RR exists on Misplaced Pages's most controversial content to stop incipient edit wars in their tracks and to force polite, substantive conversation on difficult topics. People have been arguing about Palestine, Israel, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Korean-Japanese relations and dozens of other topics since Misplaced Pages began, all of them are convinced they're right, and many are prepared to revert aggressively to try to make sure their voice is the one that's heard. 1RR is a way of throttling the edit stream so that people can't just revert to their preferred version without achieving a consensus, if such a thing is possible. Acroterion (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help! Sorry if I was being rude. --monochrome_monitor 23:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- On behalf of everybody, sorry about the bluelinked TLAs (three-letter acronyms that link to policies, guidelines or essays). They're the local jargon. Please remember that 1RR exists on Misplaced Pages's most controversial content to stop incipient edit wars in their tracks and to force polite, substantive conversation on difficult topics. People have been arguing about Palestine, Israel, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Korean-Japanese relations and dozens of other topics since Misplaced Pages began, all of them are convinced they're right, and many are prepared to revert aggressively to try to make sure their voice is the one that's heard. 1RR is a way of throttling the edit stream so that people can't just revert to their preferred version without achieving a consensus, if such a thing is possible. Acroterion (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Honestly, those initialisms look like a foreign language to me. Am I not allowed to edit controversial things? Wouldn't that mean they stay one-sided forever? --monochrome_monitor 23:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand what I did wrong. I don't understand all the lingo, I haven't even read the rules. I just do what seems productive and I have tried to make some biased articles more neutral. Edits are good, they mean change. It's silly that everyone's terrified by so many edits happening. Edits mean the article is improving, don't they? --monochrome_monitor 23:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, it is the same "corrupt system" for everyone. I would probably have been blocked by now if I had edited the same way. Oh, and violations of WP:NPA in edit-lines: it is *not* looked upon favourably. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations on breaking 1RR on Rachel Corrie. Please self-revert (i.e., undo your last edit) or you may be reported. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why are you guys such condescending jerks? I don't even know what I did. What contribution should I revert, and why?
- I would advise you remove the personal information on your talk page particularly relating to your age, gender, religion, culture. It is being exploited by by an editor who dislikes your edits and thinks that based on that information, you are young and vulnerable, and he can easily overwhelm you with bullying, threats, and a bunch of impenetrable Wiki jargon. Feel free to delete this comment too. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- You made one reversion earlier today and then another edit that had the effect of reverting another editor's changes. As I wrote, please self-revert or you may be reported at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (also referred to as WP:ANEW or WP:AN3). The consequences of not self-reverting may including being blocked. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- What edit? Can you link it? I honestly don't know what you're talking about --monochrome_monitor 02:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- You made one reversion earlier today and then another edit that had the effect of reverting another editor's changes. As I wrote, please self-revert or you may be reported at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (also referred to as WP:ANEW or WP:AN3). The consequences of not self-reverting may including being blocked. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for self-reverting. If you find yourself making the same (or similar) changes day after day, chances are you are edit warring. Such behavior will get you blocked, regardless of whether you violate 1RR or not. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
- Repetition of threats and again invokes more of the same difficult to understand Misplaced Pages rules without any explanation in an attempt to overwhelm and intimidate new user. It's unfortunate certain individuals use Misplaced Pages as a power trip. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for self-reverting. If you find yourself making the same (or similar) changes day after day, chances are you are edit warring. Such behavior will get you blocked, regardless of whether you violate 1RR or not. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up. The page used to be very biased and was based mostly on an unreliable source's account, so I just tried to make it NPOV. I didn't mean to introduce bias just to counteract it. And it was largely supported on the talk page.--monochrome_monitor 03:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, heh, familiar with the concept of "NPOV", are you? May I ask what other account-names, if any, you have previously edited under? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- What the hell is wrong with you?! I know NPOV because I explicitly asked what it meant on Talk: Rachel Corrie. God you are just assholes. And Malik Shabazz is an admin?!?
I have no other accounts, but I'm considering abandoning this one. --monochrome_monitor 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Then the terrorists win. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)