Misplaced Pages

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

fixed it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yazidis

Hi. Nationalist sock-puppet corrupted the article Yazidis. He also do similar things about Zaza-Gorani people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.140.220.194 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Things will probably die down once events are off the front pages of event newspaper in the world. It's ironic that a community has to be a victim of ongoing genocide before anyone on Misplaced Pages bothers about you. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement editing restriction: Armenia and Azerbaijan

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are, for three months, restricted from making more than one revert (as defined at WP:3RR) per page in any 24 hour period with respect to pages that relate to the history of Armenia or Georgia.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  16:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Assyrians

is there anyway I can view my content on Anti-Assyrian sentiment? I know the page is deleted, but I'd like to keep the info for personal reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Spinningspark the administrator who deleted the page can help . Or see here, though it might not be the latest version (and be quick, copy the text before it is deleted because it is no longer on wikipedia): http://www.wikigrain.org/?req=Anti-Assyrian+sentiment. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Kardashian Index

Hello. You may be interested in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:J04n&oldid=628510613 --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Pedaling History Bicycle Museum

Hi, I'm Kmccook. Tiptoethrutheminefield, thanks for creating Pedaling History Bicycle Museum!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Very interesting essay. I hope you can update and expand.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kmccook (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Haven't been editing long enough to understand the "bare urls" / "link rot" thing. Will try to expand the article in the future. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

wp:burden

NB:, the following was a response to this Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand who the burden is on. Please read wp:burden. You can't input material that is not sourced to RS refs, and foist a burden on other editors to either leave it be, or to supply the very RS refs you failed to supply.

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

When an editor deletes such material per wp:v, which includes wp:burden, it is completely appropriate. It is not "blind." Or POV. You use those terms pejoratively, as though there is a burden on that editor to keep that uncited material in. It is, obviously, just the opposite.

Please stop making ad hominem attacks, and asserting that other editors are doing things blindly, or per their POV, when they are following out guidelines. And please stop seeking to chill them from following our guidelines, but suggesting they refrain.

If you have an RS citation for a claim, please feel free to supply it.

Furthermore, it does not suffice (other than, perhaps, in lists) to look at a second linked-to article and say "Oh, the ref is there!"Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The above response is unfortunate. It seems as if I am going to have to watch all of your edits in the future, given your eagerness to delete material that is both uncontested and factually correct. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I delete material that is wholly uncited in accord with wp:v, my deletion constitutes my contesting the uncited material. Please re-read wp:burden -- the burden is on you, if you are adding uncited or deleted material that is wholly unsourced, to provide a proper inline cite ... you do not by adding wholly uncited material foist the burden on other editors at the project.

I have now explained this to you more than once.

You are not "going to have to" do anything of the sort. If you wikihound me, I will take appropriate action. Please take this as a warning. Have a nice day. Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wikihounding. Please stop singling me out and following me from place to place on Misplaced Pages as you threatened you would do. That you have done so reverting me here, after my above warning to you that you not wikihound me, concerns me, annoys me, and inhibits my work and my enjoyment of editing. I understand that I just disagreed with you at the Basildon Town Centre AfD. And disagreed with you above, when following our disagreement at that AfD you first followed me to other unrelated pages. That's not reason for you to engage in this behavior. When you threatened it, I said as much to you above. Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your work/enjoyment of editing seems to consist too much of deleting material for no good reason. My enjoyment of editing would be improved by not spending time having to go around restoring material that has been unjustly deleted by you, and not having to find sources that you should and quite easily could have found. If you were to change your editing style re deletions, it would benefit us both. Until then I will continue to take a look at those of your edits that consist of deletions of content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

As explained above, deletions in accord with wp:burden are not unjust. Nor are restorations of uncited material, without any refs, "just" ... or acceptable. And as to who has the burden of supplying refs to such uncited material, you misunderstand if you think that you can add uncited material -- and then foist the burden on others to supply your RS refs. All of this is explained above. If you continue to follow through on your threat, and to make inappropriate reverts as you did just before in the above diff, it will continue to be inappropriate. I've warned you more than once, and asked you more than once, to stop. Epeefleche (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have given you good advice on your talk page regarding deleting material. You really should read it again and try to accept it. Just try to google for sources and use fact tags before deleting - it is that easy. I said I will continue to take a look at those of your edits that consist of deletions of content. And with such edits I will restore content you have deleted if I find the content removal to be incorrect. In doing so I will also gather evidence of your ongoing unconstructive edits. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop following me around Misplaced Pages. And as here, reverting perfectly appropriate edits of mine with the assertion that they are vandalism. Epeefleche (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have stated, as clearly as it is possible to say, that I will continue to look at those of your edits that consist of deletions of content. And if I find the content removal to be incorrect, I will reinstate that content. That is normal editing. You do not own any of the articles you edit. I made no "vandalism" assertion - present some diffs if you want to claim otherwise. Your edit was a lazy and unproductive edit, the sort of edit that wastes the time of other editors who have to restore the content and do your job of finding references. In that instance it was not much of a time waste, since it took me less than a minute to find a source confirming the factual correctness of the deleted material , but that is beside the point. Why did YOU not search for a source before deleting? Are you that pressed for time? I think there is nothing more to say, so I will give you time enough to read this message, then delete this whole section. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

outsider's comment on the above dispute

Tiptoethrutheminefield, I realize that you are angry at Epeefleche for deleting material that you do not think should have been deleted, but you are dealing with it the wrong way.
In a situation such as your's, you essentially have two choices... 1) You can shout "This is wrong!" and spend days (and even months) arguing that the referenced information is so obviously accurate and non-controversial that it does not need a citation... or... 2) you can think "what an asshole" to yourself, and spend a few minutes (or perhaps even just seconds) to find a source which will allow you to return the material.
My advice is to take the second option. The first option might seem like "a fight worth having", but it isn't... Trust me... I have gone that route. You just get more and more frustrated and angry. Taking the second option, on the other hand, quickly resolves the debate. To quote the wise advice given in Star Wars: "Let the Wookie win". Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I accept it - and actually Option 2 is what I have been doing in any article edits: restoring the content but adding a source (or two) for it as well. But I had been trying to convince Epeefleche through advice (advice that maybe was a bit too argumentatively and aggressively presented - which maybe made it sound a bit like option 1.) to try and find sources before deleting. I don't want to follow his edits since I have no interest in many of the article subjects, so would have liked him to just change his editing style. But I think you are right, the advice giving part was just promoting anger in both parties. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor

Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but this comment is troubling. Following another editor's edits may constitute WP:WIKIHOUNDING. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

They will not. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)