Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jargo Nautilus (talk | contribs) at 14:30, 29 July 2022 (→Marking edits as vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Quotes

You have some great quotes on your page! Thanks for sharing, Zen. - JGabbard (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@JGabbard Hey J, apologies for the late reply! Thank you! All quotes I have on my page hold some kind of weight & meaning in my life. It's good to see other's relating to it too. zenzyyx_ (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

ATTENTION

I DELETE TOPICS ON MY TALK PAGE ONCE THE DISCUSSION HAS BECOME DORMANT IN ORDER TO AVOID CLOGGING THE PAGE, UNLESS I WANT TO KEEP IT. zenzyyx_ (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Marking edits as vandalism

I would request that you don't just immediately mark someone's edit as vandalism. I was rewriting a section of the article "Donetsk People's Republic–Russia relations", and you immediately reverted it and labelled it as vandalism after I deleted the pre-existing section. This was in spite of the fact that I had both (1) written a sufficient edit summary and (2) explained my removal of content in the associated talk page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus Consensus must be reached before you go ahead with such changes. You can't just state why you're changing the article drastically in the talk page without consensus being reached (per WP:CON). If you are struggling to reach a consensus, there's advice on how to deal with that on the consensus page. zenzyyx_ (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a drastic change mate. There's hardly any content in the article at all. The article is a stub in its present state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Literally, this article is so small that it can be summed up in a paragraph or two, and that's literally how it looks at the moment. There was never even a consensus to create this tiny article in the first place, let alone to agree upon the structure and contents of it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus It is a drastic change considering the longevity of the article (or, rather, the lack thereof).

No consensus needs to be reached in order to create an article and how said article should be structured. That's a discussion to be made after an article is created. If you believe the article needs to be removed from Misplaced Pages, raise the issue on the talk page. If no one is replying/very few people are getting involved, there's advice on the consensus page on how to deal with that problem. zenzyyx_ (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a drastic change when you consider that the section that I deleted was merely a background section that could easily be copy-pasted from the main article. Indeed, that's basically exactly what I've done. I've rewritten that section. The "referendum" section actually had nothing to do with DPR-Russia relations, but was more to do with the DPR exclusively. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There's also already a discussion occurring on the talk page about how to restructure or delete the article, and there are *already* several participants in the discussions. Not a whole lot of editors, but enough to reach a consensus. But I digress. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus Again, you must wait for consensus to be reached on your proposed edit (per WP:CON). Please consider this the next time you attempt to remove a large section of an article. Thanks. zenzyyx_ (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No I don't. There's no need to wait for a consensus when all I did was delete a background section and then subsequently rewrite it. The background section is NOT the main article itself and hence it's not fundamental to the main topic of the actual article. I obviously wouldn't hastily delete or change any information that is directly about the DPR-Russian relations and is well-sourced, which I haven't done. All I did was delete (and then subsequently add a new version of) background info. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please explain how the "DPR independence referendum" has anything to do with DPR-Russia relations. Background information is useful for getting a context of a situation, but it's not actually critical to the contents of the main topic at hand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus I'm not interested in the topic, so I couldn't tell you. I deal more with the removal of content without consensus, which you have done. You've removed a large section of the article and replaced it with a size only a fraction of what it was before.

I needn't repeat myself once again, you now know that consensus must be reached among multiple editors before making big changes to an article. Thanks. zenzyyx_ (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The section was not large, and it had nothing to do with the main topic of the article. I don't care about your opinion on the article, but if anything, that makes you less qualified to justify your false allegation of "vandalism". I don't give a rat's ass that you've reverted an edit of mine, which I can easily overcome anyway. I am criticising your usage of the word "vandalism". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus It was termed vandalism because of your explanation;

"I was in the process of rewriting this section, but then I realised that I was basically just copy-pasting the introduction of the main article about the Donetsk PR... I think this just goes to show how useless this article is, but anyway."

You stated that you were rewriting the article, but then implied that you had stopped doing so and suggested that the article was "useless"

3000 bytes is a large edit. In this case, it was 2 entirely sourced long paragraphs. zenzyyx_ (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't state that I was "rewriting the article". I stated that I was rewriting a *section* of the article, but then I realised that the section was useless in its present state. Obviously, I've found a way to create a better interpretation of that section after the fact. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus That is your opinion, which you would have to present in the talk page and see if most agree with your motion of removing a large amount of writing and replacing it with what YOU think is suitable. Have you ever read WP:CON? I feel like I'm speaking to someone ignorant of what's written in that article (guidelines pertaining to consensus), which I've mentioned to you like a hundred times. zenzyyx_ (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I am speaking to a pretentious prick who doesn't bother to analyse a situation beyond what he sees in the first 2 seconds. Also, his analysis in the first 2 seconds was wrong anyway. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, the sources that were cited didn't seem to actually support the information that they were attached to. I read the sources (to the best that I could), and there was practically nothing in there directly relating to the statement that was being said. There's some possibilities for why this is the case. Maybe the source was borrowed from somewhere else, or the sentence itself had been rewritten so many times so as to be unrecognisable, or maybe the source was just irrelevant from the beginning. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus Again, there's no use of you explaining this to me here. You should've done so in the talk page of the article. You're not trying to prove your point to me but to editors who will disagree/agree with you on the talk page. zenzyyx_ (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I've already explained my edits in the talk page. I created a whole new section about my edits at around the same time that I initially deleted those two paragraphs. Also, the reason I deleted those paragraphs was that they were basically identical to some paragraphs in the DPR article's introduction, and I didn't want to copy-paste the info when I could instead easily just say "this is the main article, go and read more details over there". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

For example, the part about the Minsk agreements, which mind you was unsourced (and had a "citation needed" tag), was nearly identical to a major paragraph in the introduction of the DPR's main article. So, copy-pasting that entire paragraph was unnecessary since it's the same info. And the sources do exist, but they are just in the main article. The reason for deleting the whole section was that my initial solution had been to simply copy-paste that paragraph from the main article into this section, but then I realised that this was pointless and is basically just POV-forking. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that this talk section has more content than than the entire article that we are discussing. Great job my friend. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I will add also that there was a "citation needed" tag on one of the paragraphs. As for the sources, I think at least one of them can be revived for another sentence in the new section. Specifically, where it says that a lot of countries don't recognise the referendum results. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that a significant part of the info in the "referendum" section was wrong. For example, the Donetsk PR actually declared independence *two weeks* before the referendum took place. The article's section wrongly stated that the Donetsk PR declared independence after the referendum took place, as a direct result of the referendum's outcome. This can be easily disproven as the actual declaration of independence took place via a speech that occurred two weeks prior. The DPR had already come into existence two weeks before the referendum took place, so the referendum was by definition NOT asking voters whether the DPR "should be" created, but it was instead asking voters to *agree* to the establishment of the DPR, which had *already* been created beforehand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Analogy: It's like "I go to the canteen and grab a sandwich and eat it. Then, I ask the cafeteria worker whether I should pay for it or not." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Keyword: *Background info*. Not a "large section". Background info. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to heed any advice from you. You have no authority over me. And I probably won't remember anything you've said today. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus Removing a large amount of content without consensus is a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies (per WP:CON). If you cannot reach a conclusion, refer to the consensus page. Please do not do so once again, or warnings will eventually have to be posted on your talk page for admins to review. Thanks. zenzyyx_ (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There was already a consensus in the talk page. You can go have a look. The editors there agreed that the article was largely just a POV-fork of the main article about the Donetsk People's Republic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus There was no consensus pertaining to your edit, though. zenzyyx_ (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be. So far, nobody has objected to the edit except you. And even then, you don't care anyway, which is why you haven't edited the article ever since your initial revert. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)