Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andromedean (talk | contribs) at 14:19, 29 August 2012 (→Technologies used for Olympic sports). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Showmebeef, 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:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Madalibi (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Your recent editing history at Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Whether you think the users removing material are right or not they are acting in good faith. I count at least 4 reverts in about 5 hours, no more please Basement12 (T.C) 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I didn't know about this rule. I believe there are some concerted efforts by some folks (I hate to suggest where they might hail from) to delete certain controversial sections. I think a page protection is a good way to go. How do you go about getting that put into place? I could search for how to do it, but if you could provide a pointer, it's much appreciated. Thanks!

Oh, I did post my comments regarding each section I feel warrants the inclusion in the article in the talk section. I was hoping that the other editors would do the same thing. But they don't--some of them don't even register a user id and kept deleting the paragraphs.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Technologies used for Olympic sports

Thanks for your contributions here, I made similar points to yourself earlier. Since two editors are clearly being disruptive for nationalistic or politically motivated reasons and are employing every tactic to remove important and objective information which describes how technology could undermine the fundamental principles behind fair sporting competition, I suspect we will have to consult an higher authority. --188.220.205.42 (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I guess I (plus the OP) am not alone here to observe that some are practicing cyber hooliganism. Tags/labels are slapped onto the article without much justification while slashing/modifying the piece to make it utterly unreadable.

Yeah, a higher authority might be needed here as no self-restriction have been practiced by certain editors. Any suggestion as to how we can reach for one? I think I can post a note on Treehouse asking for suggestions. (Showmebeef (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Electric Catfish 17:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, I have clearly stated the reason for the revert as being "deletion not justified: repeated requests for providing justification have failed." The proof of these requests are here. Vast amount of the article has been deleted, and the editor who has made the deletions has repeatedly ignored my requests for justification for making the deletion--no specific violation against any Misplaced Pages guideline is cited by the editor against any statement he has deleted. (Showmebeef (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

Note the response on my board! Haven't we been using DRN resolution for a week now and got nowhere? Perhaps the http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WQA is the way to go, since the disruption seems to be widespread and not isolated to the technologies section.--Andromedean (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we haven't really used WP:DRN--we only used "talk page and got nowhere. On DRN you would get experienced user(s) who would provide neutral, 3rd person observations that I think would certainly help in the case we've got here, and the focus in on content. But we can't really use it due to the RfC. I think what you suggested, WP:WQA, would help, but probably not as effective as DRN since the focus is on etiquette--it could easily descend into something like a "you did this, he did that" fight. I visited the board there, and have seen users slashing it out right there, just like on talk page--although you potentially could get more 3rd party users to chip in. Does it not require that no outstanding request for resolution as a pre-condition? Showmebeef (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just been warned for 'soliciting' for asking for an experienced mediator on the board!

Assuming me posting this message isn't soliciting, perhaps we could keep a record of the following infringements by certain un-named persons?

Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process. Issues that are settled by stubbornness never last, because someone more pigheaded will eventually arrive; only pages that have the support of the community survive in the long run.

Shortcuts: WP:FORUMSHOP WP:ADMINSHOP

Forum shopping, admin shopping, and spin-doctoring. Raising the same issue repeatedly on different pages or with different wording is confusing and disruptive. It doesn't help to seek out a forum where you get the answer you want, or to play with the wording to try and trick different editors into agreeing with you, since sooner or later someone will notice all of the different threads. You can obviously draw attention to the issue on noticeboards or other talk pages if you are careful to add links to keep all the ongoing discussions together, but best practice is to choose one appropriate forum for the consensus discussion, and give (as much as possible) a single neutral, clear, and objective statement of the issue. See also Misplaced Pages:Policy shopping.

Then present it at one of these forums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WQA

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AN/I --Andromedean (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

and another answer. NtheP (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Question on unfounded suspicion

Why have you done this? Do you have any reason to suspect me for anything? If you do suspect me of anything, without even circumstantial evidence you could at least have the decency to tell me. The implied distrust is hurtful and I recommend that you read this thoroughly. As for what weight you should give my opinions the answer is "equal weight". 88.88.164.152 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a new user here and just started editing and recently got a taste of the "politics" involved here. I've found that there are some users who know the inner working of Wiki well have used that knowledge to their advantage. So I want to learn about Wiki as much as I can. That's why I posted the question. It's nothing personal. To be fair, (in response to your note that "you could at least have the decency to tell me") I did ask if you could post your comments using a registered user id, (right after your first post, then)--especially now that you've shown quite an interest in the RfC and have posted there repeatedly. If you took exception to what I did (although I don't think I did anything quite wrong), I apologize. But you won't find out about this if you haven't followed me around, right? Showmebeef (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hardly followed you, I merely pressed your "contribs" link to see if you were active as you had not responded to my reply regarding my previous editing. I still think it would have been better if you had waited for my response before taking it further, although I can understand asking for advice on how to deal with such situations. Some of the places to report things are needlessly complicated.
About the section discussed in the RFC. Do you have any sources that meet my criteria? Feel free to respond to my comment there if you do (or if you don't, but disagree with my criteria). 88.88.164.152 (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your response. I believe I've started with a healthy doze of "good faith" for anyone, but recent happenings have severely damaged that confidence. So my excuse there.

As for response to your comments, I do have something that I think I can challenge your reasoning there. I am in the process of fashioning them in a presentable way. Stay tuned.

Best regards, Showmebeef (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)