Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 12 May 2010 (→May 2010: no, you still don't get it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

How do you get a bot to archive your talk page automatically?

{{help me}}

I don't really like archiving my talk page by myself, and I've seen other users use a bot to automatically archive their talk page. Does anyone know how to do this? Thanks!--Valkyrie Red 14:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo which explains how to use MiszaBot III to do so. Regards SoWhy 14:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Valkyrie Red 14:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with my signature?

{{help me}}

I know how to sign posts after finishing them (you add Valkyrie Red 14:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC) at the end) but for some reason, whenever I sign my posts it says "preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red. Even if I click the autosign button it still says that. How do I fix my signature/Can someone tell me what's wrong with my signature? Thanks! (When I'm done with this post and I sign it, it will say that phrase)--Valkyrie Red 14:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you add ~~~~ at the end of your posts? Jarkeld (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Like right now, I will add itValkyrie Red 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your signature does not have a link to your userpage or talk page. Simplest way to fix it is to turn off the "sign my name exactly as shown" in your preferences. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot man! Appreciate it!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Valkyrie Red, I sense you have a strong passion for the American Civil War subject matter. Your enthusiasm is welcome, even encouraged, but the type of edits you've been making haven't endeared you to other editors who work in the same content area. We all must cooperate (not agree, heaven forbid) within the social norms set by the community and set down in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Most recently, you appear to have chosen to brush up against the limits the community endorses. I have been one of several editors who have reported your behaviors, so you might think I'm hostile to your pagespace or talkspace positions, and by extension, you as a Wikipedian. If I have by my actions or words made you feel unwelcome or abused, I offer my humble and profound apologies.

I see in the unblock reasonings expressed above that you really want to make a change in your behavior so you can continue contributing to the pedia. That's good to read. Sometimes users who get blocked get angry and come back mad, ready to re-engage pagespace editors on subjects of disagreement. This would be a bad thing at this point.

If you're willing to accept my apology, I offer some useful advice as well which may help you find a meaningful way to contribute to the pedia, get you some pagespace victories (which are always successful constructions, not individual arguments), and get your account rehabilitated to the point where an admin doesn't block your account indefinitely. That would be a bad thing for Misplaced Pages, for you, and for all the rest of us too. You have a passion for the subject of American History. Start small. A sage Wikipedian once told me that working on stub articles was always a good way of learning the process while making serious, important contributions to the subject. Plus, people leave you alone, you get some writing under your belt, and all of a sudden you've got a good article, or even a featured page when you get help from others.

This all starts with successfully working with your fellows here, peers of varying ages, educations, nationalities, creeds, points of view. Finding somebody good to argue with is a refreshing and powerful reward in itself. Finding you can work well and achieve much with people you disagree with? That's a life skill, my friend.

So when you come back, I suggest you work on some American History or American Civil War stub pages. Help some small pages grow with sourcing and well-cited assertion. You would find many allies and willing partners in such work. You could count me among those partners. I suspect you'd find that every admin who's blocked you would also be pleased to help. None of us want to see a new editor leave. Consider this next week as a chance to do better. If you need help, click on my talk link. I'll be very happy to get you moving forward. If you'd like me to mentor, I'd be happy to help.

No matter how this ends, no hard feelings between us. BusterD (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you're scheduled to be unblocked within the next few hours. Edit boldly. I urge you to avoid disagreement on ACW battle infoboxes by restraining any impulse to edit them. Please consider what I've written above. If you can find some satisfaction in building humble pagespace here are a few places where you can find some pages which need wikilove: American Civil War stubs, United States history stubs, Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/American Civil War, Template:WPMILHIST Announcements/United States military history, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States#To do. Many more such locations exist where you can find deserving articles which beg for the kind of attention you could provide. Doubtless some pages you edit will have established page defenders who reflexively revert your edits. I'm guilty of this myself, on occasion. Don't let this disturb you. The practice is bold, revert, discuss. But please avoid revert wars, edit wars of any kind, and especially disagreement related to usage of the term "decisive" and to casualty parameters. If you persist in the pattern of your previous edits, you'll likely be blocked indefinitely. If that occurs, anytime you're discovered to have a new account, that account will also be indef blocked immediately. You'll eventually find the only way you can continue to contribute is to create an account and edit in such a way that nobody recognizes your behaviors (that is, no one objects to your edits). So you can do it the easy, right way; you still have time. Or you can edit one step ahead of 1000 dedicated admins ready and willing to block you on recognition. Sorry for the rant. If I didn't care, I wouldn't composed this post as carefully. BusterD (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Prequels

In the case where there is a prequel developed after the initial film, we would consider that to be "followed by". For the Star Wars films, although they started with the later films and then went into the prequels, it is more helpful for readers who know nothing of the topic to know what came first. These films were several decades apart and resulted in different special effects, new actors, and more developed techniques from the director and crew. Although it may be confusing which may come first, there should always be a section in the article that talks about any prequels/sequels to clarify for the reader. There is a current discussion going on at WT:FILM if you would like further thoughts by other editors. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you redirect to a section of an article

{{help me}}

Like if I were to redirect to the section "second gathering" in the Trojan War article. How do I do that?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

For example, ] = This bit.

] gives Trojan War#The second gathering.

See Misplaced Pages:Linking#Piped links to sections of articles.  Chzz  ►  01:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Need Fellow Users to Help Me Prove a Point for the Civil War!

{{help me}}

Hello there fellow Wikipedians! I need to help to make Misplaced Pages a more reliable source of information. For this I am talking about the Battle of Gettysburg Article, which was indeed a decisive victory for the North but unfortunately there is a user who uses articles written by himself to claim that it wasn't a victory. Someone please aid me!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, any and all facts relating to the Battle of Gettysburg, victory or not, must be verified, by independant reliable sources. And if either you or the other user are using your own original research it is unacceptable for the article. You must discuss this on the talk page with this other user and if the dispute continues then follow the steps laid out in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests. -- œ 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Need Fellow Users to Help Me Prove a Point for the Civil War!

{{help me}}

Yeah, the above guy didn't help at all, so is there anyone else willing to join in?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide me a link to this user and articles he references? Spitfire19 (Talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I made the edit for you as of right now. Please come to User talk:Spitfire19 if you have any more issues with this topic. :) Spitfire19 (Talk) 21:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If your only goal was to recruit editors to "join in" and take your side over another's to "help you prove a point" then no, I guess I didn't help at all, as that is NOT what the helpme template is for. I suggest you read the advice I gave above regarding dispute resolution. -- œ 15:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You asked if the victory was "decisive". Most commentators seem to think so. If you look at the other articles on Misplaced Pages in other languages, for example, they pretty much all say "Decisive Union Victory". The German one though is cautious like this article is at present, and calls it a "Union Victory". Personally I think it was decisive as it is considered the turning point of the war, and after it the Confederates went into headlong retreat. The Union was also easily able to replace the 25% casualties. The Confederacy was unable to replace its 33% losses. All and all, it was a disaster for the South. Wallie (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Spitfire19 (Talk) 21:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Proving Gettysburg

Oh wow, that was almost two years ago. Sure, what do you need help in? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, sure I'm willing. I'm just unsure if that is risking point of view pushing on a topic. Before I start work, tell me why you decided to work on this issue. Also, do you have credible evidence to back it up? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are involved in a content dispute here, one that has been going on for almost three and a half years. I am willing to mediate it, but I am not going to get involved. The fact that you have also used a sock to edit-war here also makes me less inclined to help. If you can produce something that might swing my opinion, by all means try and do so but at this time I'm not gonna help you directly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Your edits to Troy (film) have been reverted. MM 207.69.137.27 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That wikipedia is not a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy is specifically stated: WP:CIRCULAR. MM 207.69.137.27 (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you check how many times an article is viewed?

{{help me}}

I remember that this other user said that this article is viewed more than the others. How do you check that? Thanks!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

http://stats.grok.se/  Chzz  ►  19:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you report another user?

{{help me}}

Yeah, another use insulted me. How do you report them? Thanks!--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume that you mean this edit. I would not, personally, consider that to be a personal attack, or in breach of any Misplaced Pages policies, therefore I do not think any further action is necessary.

If you wish to pursue the matter (which I do not advise), you could either discuss it directly with the other user, or raise it on Wikiquette alerts.

However, my advice is to drop the STICK and have a nice cup of tea or something. Best,  Chzz  ►  22:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Posting this after you were warned to knock it off, and seeing as this isn't the first time you were blocked for similar behaviour, it appears clear that you're currently not interested in building anything of encyclopaedic value. MLauba 22:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Valkyrie Red (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is totally unfair. I was just telling the above user to see the page WP:NPA. He may have been trying to warn me, but calling me a pissant and saying "Either get a clue or get out. You are distracting the productive & constructive editors with your trifling. Talk about disruptive...." doesn't make it any better.

Decline reason:

You completely miss the point of Misplaced Pages: it is a collegial editing project that requires WP:CONSENSUS, and not aligning one's self with people to either tag-team, or prove a specific WP:TRUTH. I'm going to concur that with offers to disrupt by tag-teaming, attempts to draw only like-minded persons to an article, there is a huge case of WP:OWN. While blocked, go back and re-read WP:5P. Continued editing along the path you have been will lead to the end of your Misplaced Pages career (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

With no intended disrespect, a quick look at WP:NOTTHEM might be beneficial in helping you formulate successful future unblock requests. - Vianello (Talk) 02:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Noting for reference that if I had seen this invitation to tag team edit war before issuing the block, I'd have doubled the length. MLauba 08:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Valkyrie Red (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you're going to block me at least block the user I have said above. He insulted me by calling me a pissant and I would like to see him punished for that.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM.  Sandstein  20:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Valkyrie Red (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't see how I vandalized the article itself. Sure I requested help from other users to help get the discussion lean in my favor, but I was just for the time being having a discussion on the talk page. You can't block me for just having a discussion on a talk page, even if it was leaning towards something else. It says I was blocked for vandalism, but I truly never did that.

Decline reason:

I can't unblock based on this request, because it doesn't address the reason for your block, or indicate that you have a plan for editing differently in the future. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ah yes, you're right, the block template I used doesn't match the block log. You were not blocked for vandalism but disruptive editing and violation of WP:BATTLE, as warned immediately prior to the action that led to your block. I fixed the block template accordingly. MLauba 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Valkyrie Red (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand now that my arguments will never get through on the Battle of Gettysburg article. I also understand that the other users were right and I was wrong. Please unblock me and I'll stay away from Gettysburg article until I learn to become a more creative and responsible editor who makes good contributions to the Wiki. I promise to work on other articles that may need assistance (movies have been my fascination on here). Please unblock me kind admins.

Decline reason:

This latest in a series of extremely gently escalating blocks is not properly addressed by this unblock request. You continue to show a lack of understanding as to why your activities have been inappropriate and harmful to the project as a whole. Although your offer to stay away from an article will be expected at the end of this two week block, that article is not the main reason for the block: it's the treatment of other editors, and WP:OWN. Go back to WP:5P, and learn it well over the last week-and-a-bit of this block. I highly recommend you do not request another unblock, as talkpage access could be revoked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A few questions:

1. Do you think it is ever appropriate to discuss other editors rather than the content of articles?
2. What would you do, in the future, if another editor attacked you personally? In addition, please read (and confirm here that you have read) WP:CIVIL

Excirial 00:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Off course not; which is why it hurts me whenever people talk about me and don't get punished for it.

2. I would follow the steps of WP:DR as well try to stay cool when the editing gets hot. I assure you that I have read that article, as well as WP:NPA, WP:Consensus, and the other two articles stated above.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A few pointers for you, then

1. The editor who attacked you had his edits redacted, a redaction that he accepted. Blocks aren't punitive but preventative. You are still not understanding WP:NOTTHEM
2. You still don't understand what's happening at Battle of Gettysburg. If you want the victory status or the casualties changed, simply harassing the others or planning to "beat" their viewpoint is the wrong approach. You're not meant to "win" an argument based on your convictions alone and yelling "bias" when people don't take you seriously. The correct approach is to offer better sources. To find these for eg. the casualties, go to a library, read Busey from cover to cover to see how they came up with their figures, then search for Busey on Google scholar, see what works cite them, find those that correct, improve or refute their viewpoints, read and understand their reasoning, then go back to Google scholar, search authors and scholars who comment on the source you just found, read their arguments, and once you are able to fully understand how the most recent research contradicts Busey, bring that argument to Talk:Battle of Gettysburg. You'll find that all of a sudden people will regard you as a valuable contributor even if they disagree with you, rather than someone who makes himself a nuisance.

Assuming the editor clarifies his above statements and demonstrates he has finally understood the points everyone has been making, he may be unblocked without further input from me, noting however that any relapse of the previous behaviour will result in a 1 month block with talk page access removed. MLauba 01:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above assessment, and i would point the following things out as well:

• Canvassing is not allowed. Keep this in mind when you are locked into a discussion.
• Keep civility in mind and assume good faith in other editors. A ball thrown at the wall will bounce back. If you behave civil, other editors tend to do the same thing. If you don't, they are likely to mimic this behavior as well. Keep in mind that your throw influences the way the ball bounces. If the ball bounces the wrong direction you should examine the throw before examining the bounce. In other words, reflect on your own actions before you reflect on others. Their reactions may very well be caused by your actions.

Finally i would note that you have received 5 blocks so far, and each of them has been for the same offense. I think that Laura made it crystal clear that continuing the same behavior will lead to stronger reactions. So please, think before acting and prove that the above response is a well intended comment, and not a mere summary from the pages i mentioned. Excirial 01:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand sir/ma'am, and I now know the consequences of actions as well as how to be a better editor. I will take these with me the next time I edit (though it most likely will not be the Battle of Gettysburg article). May I please be unblocked now so that I may turn a new leaf?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)