Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Firkin Flying Fox (talk | contribs) at 23:13, 7 October 2013 (→Is it an RS ? A newspaper quotes a veteran who speaks about issues other than his experience?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, Sepsis II, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Misplaced Pages

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

If you want your edits to stick it would be a good idea to read through some of the links above. Importantly always provide a reference for anything you add that may be subject to challenge. Also if editing in controversial subjects such as the Israel/Palestine conflict it might be worthwhile to make one edit at a time, then non-controversial edits will not be undone, while more controversial ones can be discussed further on the talk page. Another important thing to remember is not to edit war: In topics related to the Israel/Palestine conflict, you are only allowed to make one revert per article in 24 hours after that you should go to the article's talk page. Unfortunately even if you have good intentions, if you do not stick to the rules you will find that you won't be editing in the topic area for very long. Dlv999 (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the Frank_L._VanderSloot article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Sepsis II reported by User:Ryan Vesey (but everybody is at fault)(Result: ). Thank you.  Ryan Vesey 01:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, I'm Zymurgy. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Talk:Settler colonialism, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Zymurgy (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed racist soapboxing from the talk page, please do not re-add racist soapboxing to the page for obvious reasons. Sepsis II (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit

Your edit has reverted several edits, including mine with meaningless edit summary 'anti-resistance propaganda'.

I'm reverting this change. Maybe splitting your change into more manageable and organized smaller edits could help. Generally a removal of a neutrally attributed reliably sourced content should be discussed. Please take it to the article talk page, if you wish to reinstate your edit or part of it and also read WP:ES. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do hypocrites realize their hypocrisy? Do not make wide scale reverts due to your laziness, making your changes "into more manageable and organized smaller edits could help". I am happy to see the part you objected and you re-added was removed by another editor for the same reason I removed it. I will be undoing the collateral damage which you wreaked upon the article. Unless you can explain why the other editor and I have removed your addition I do not see further discussions with you on any matter to ever be fruitful. Sepsis II (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA notice

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Operation Pillar of Defense is on a 1RR restriction which you just broke, please self revert Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have heard of no arguments in favour of the previous version, one which I find to be blatantly bias, falsely sourced, and distortive of reality - in other words, unacceptable and far inferior to the current version. Any rule which burdens me to make an edit to the detriment of the article's quality is a rule I will always ignore per WP:IAR, which my edit clearly does fall under. Sepsis II (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News Ankh.Morpork 17:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Asia topic

As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning of arbitration remedies

Hello Sepsis. I see that you have already been warned about the editing restrictions that have been imposed on the general Israel-Palestine topic area by the Arbitration Committee. I'd also like to remind you of the clause in the Arbcom motion authorising the RfC that says, "The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect." I also see that you have been edit warring over the content of the source summary in the RfC, against my close of step three questions 1-2 of the moderated discussion, and after I left this comment about your addition on the talk page of the RfC. I've tried to point this out to you nicely, but that hasn't worked, so I'm giving you an official warning. I consider the behaviour I have outlined above to be disruptive to the RfC process, and if you revert again I will likely ban you from the RfC. This would be a shame, as it has finally got to the part where you can comment on the actual content of the article. If you're not willing to stop edit warring, though, I'm afraid that you will leave me with no choice. You are welcome to include your findings in the discussion section of the RfC, but they cannot go in the source summary. Sorry. As always, let me know if you have any questions about my actions here. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Misplaced Pages, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rob Ford

I did this to the section heading you added. No offence is intended. "Censor" is a strong word and in my experience these sorts of discussions are likely to go better without those kinds of words. Again, nothing personal towards you was meant. Thanks, Paul Erik 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, someone else has removed it altogether. Probably best to let it go. Most editors know how to find it easily in the article history (unless someone starts making use of the revdelete tool). Paul Erik 17:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If I had one wish it would be that those people who can not understand policy were smart enough to know that they can not understand policy. Sepsis II (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

your recent edits

Sepsis,

I have the following concerns with your recent spree of reversions.

1. Personal attacks against other editors and failure to assume good faith: on numerous occasions you have accused editors of being "socks". You have also described editors as "malicious or incompetent" and "pov-pushing".
2. You have not discussed controversial edits on the relevant article talk pages, instead relying on accusatory and contentious edit summaries.
3. You have reverted contributions by User:Plot spoiler on (by my count) 11 separate articles in the last two days. This raises significant concerns of WP:WIKIHOUNDING.

Setting aside all questions of content, I am concerned that your recent edits create an environment that is a battleground and not conducive to collaborative editing. I agree with some of your edits, but I hope that you will consider making changes in how you interact with other editors. GabrielF (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

- how would you describe this account? And sorry, maybe you're not so bad, but you still did enable a sock. As for plot spolier, I do not follow him to annoy him, but to correct the massive number of disruptive edits he makes. My lack of interaction is only with certain editors, ones who are either clearly socks or seem to have such a strong ideological reason for editing that makes any discussion futile. I hope more people join the RSN discussion which I am happy to see is so far in favour of allowing a work by the article's subject to be allowed mention in the article. Sepsis II (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that an editor is a sock, then you should go to WP:SPI and request an investigation by editors who have the appropriate tools. You should not make accusations without trying to substantiate them. In addition, you need to engage in a discussion with User:Plot Spoiler rather than revert him at nearly a dozen different articles. I would point out to you that, based on your edit history, you also appear to have "strong ideological reason" for editing. There are several places where such a discussion can take place, including Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. You should not make this volume of reverts without some attempt to engage the editor. GabrielF (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could show me how it's done, these three accounts are all obvious socks -, , , would you mind creating the SPI, I mean we are both against socks who are adding quotes attributed to a man who has never said such quotes, right? Sepsis II (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting at AE

If you're going to keep reverting at WP:AE, which is an admin board, on grounds of User:Sisoo vesimhu being a sock you really should open an WP:SPI containing your arguments. Otherwise your edits could be viewed negatively. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I'm just getting the SPI in order right now, been busy today. Sepsis II (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: WP:ARBPIA

Hello, please read the conclusions I've entered at the AE thread you opened, . Please make sure to avoid the appearance of tendentious editing by choosing to use one side's advocacy groups' reports in articles and not the other's. While I recognize that there may be valid editorial grounds for such choices, if made repeatedly they can create the impression of non-neutral editing. In general, it seems to me that editors would do well not to use advocacy groups from either side as sources at all (even if they only republish material from other, more neutral sources) or extremely sparingly. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Aloha

I don't believe a Daily Show video is considered a reliable source. If you disagree, you're free to discuss on the talk page and revert me. I suggest you WP:AGF and stop trolling my contributions and focus on contributing positively to Misplaced Pages yourself. Also curious, have you ever edited under another username? Given your quick proficiency at editing Misplaced Pages, it appears you had prior experience. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it an RS ? A newspaper quotes a veteran who speaks about issues other than his experience?

article: 1948 Arab–Israeli War

You reverted my Citation needed|reason=According to a wp:rsn opinions, Mr Neumann is a primary Source as for he was directly involved in, otherwise not a source.

your claim:nonsensical, primary sources are fine as long as their is no attempt to interpret, read wp:primary.

Why will not you read the wp:rsn opinion ? Ykantor (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1 RR violation

Your recent edit at Students for Justice in Palestine broke the 1RR restriction on that page, Undo it or you will be blocked from editing. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)