Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coffee (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 29 February 2016 (→Bernie Topic Ban: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Chetblong/bar

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Coffee}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 Long Inactive Period October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 June 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 October 2014 December 2014 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Mikveh

• Please remove "protection" from Mikveh page. Debresser is objecting to unsourced material being removed and objecting to referenced material being added. His imposition of Orthodox Jewish views on a page that should reflect perspective of all streams of Judaism is really censorship of Reform and Progressive Judaism. We should be allowed to add referenced material and delete unreferenced material. the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Debresser: @VanEman: The protection I put in place is not an endorsement of the current version, as the template states. I will not change the protection nor remove it, as there is no evidence that "the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons". But, I repeat VanEman that this is not an endorsement. You two need to talk this out on the talk page, and follow the processes listed at WP:DR. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Our huge disagreements notwithstanding, I noticed two things:

1. VanEman has not reverted my undo after I added a source, and per his post on the talkpage it is likely that the fact a source was added means he will not continue the edit war regarding that specific section.
2. His recent removals do not mean he disagrees with the information, and it will be fairly easy to find good sources for them.

In other words, I join VanEman in the request to unprotect the page, and allow us to continue to improve the article. Alternatively, I think that it is clear his removals will be undone by the community sooner or later, and I would like to ask you to undo his latest edits/removals, which per WP:PREFER is a decision to be made at your discretion. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible rollback abuse by Chrisw80

Hi Coffee, Noticed you granted rollback privileges to Chrisw80 a couple of days back. I believe he/she may have abused such already, specifically regards the points you referred to on his/her talk page:

"* Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits."

"* Rollback should never be used to edit war."

Chrisw80's dispute (and edit-war) are discussed here and highlights he/she is not willing to 'WP:Assume_good_faith' with my editing and my obvious knowledge of text in the WP:RS. He has wrong copy of book (a non-Aussie one) and is causing some havoc and edit-warring because of beligerance. Thank you.

(P.S. I'm not perfect, but at least don't expect any special privileges like Chrisw80 does!) Gongwool (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Coffee, sorry you're getting the backscatter on this. For Gongwool, as you pinged me in your post, I feel I should respond. You've posted on JzG's talk page about me, and I responded politely there, as I'll respond politely here also. Firstly, I've explained the reason for my reverts regarding the citation's to Mr. Mnookin's book several times, and am perfectly willing to have a polite discussion with you about it. Secondly, I did not use Rollback to revert those edits (as the logs will show). I'm perfectly aware of the rules regarding the use of Rollback. I didn't even use Twinkle rollback, in fact, for the AVN article edit. I actually opened the article, edited it, gave a clear and concise edit summary explaining my actions, and have politely responded to your comments regarding the matter. If the admins feel that I have been misused Misplaced Pages policy in any way, I encourage them to let me know, as I am only here to improve Misplaced Pages. If you have an issue with me, as you seem to, I suggest you look at Dispute Resolution. Various admin's talk pages are not the correct venue for trying to resolve a dispute. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Gongwool: After a review of Chrisw80's edits, I did not find any abuse of the rollback tool as you had claimed. Therefore, I would ask that you not bother me (or any other admin) with such matters in the future, without you doing the proper research of what tools are being used to edit. I also suggest that you follow the dispute resolution process to move forward in editing with your peers here. Good day. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Review Request

Hi User:Coffee, This is in regard to the Rollback rights that I requested but was denied owing to my less number of mainspace edits at Misplaced Pages. I had missed the word "MAINSPACE" before applying for the user rights. Else I wouldn't have applied for it. I would also like to bring it to your notice that I had already enrolled for the Counter Vandalism course that you suggested. Thank you for clearly explaining the reason for the rights denial. Could you please take some time to review my contribution and suggest the fields that I should concentrate more so as to improve my contribution to Misplaced Pages.

Thanks in Advance and Happy Editing..Sanket Edits Wiki (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanket Edits Wiki: I would just suggest that you continue to use Twinkle and other CV tools, and keep up the good fight as you've been doing. In about a month, with a good reversion track record and the right amount of edits, you should be good to re-request rollback at WP:RFRB. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you User:Coffee for your time and for the valuable inputs too. Happy Editing..Sanket Edits Wiki (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 20#Federal Way Public Academy

I have taken your close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Federal Way Public Academy to Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 20#Federal Way Public Academy. Cunard (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi. Could you please protect Eilabun massacre‎ as well as my talkpage. Thank you.--Opdire657 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

R-block

What would you think of a rangeblock of 2604:2000:F20E:2800:/64. I've been told that a /64 is practically nothing, and it would cover the three recent IPs. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston: Hey, from what I'm looking at a /64 range block would indeed cover the network that they're using... under normal circumstances I wouldn't block it considering that it covers 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IP addresses (still just one network), but I think a range block for AE purposes would permit it at this time (if we hit any good users and they request an unblock then we can look at this again). I'm going to go ahead and put the block in place, wish me luck heh... Thanks for the heads up Ed! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Excuse me, but when I requested for rollback, you decided to ask Missionedit, my adopter, to see if I am fit for the permissions. I'm just a little worried she won't reply in time, and the Rollback rights requests will archive. FiendYT ★ 05:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

FiendYT: The bot in control of the clerking at WP:RFRB is usually pretty good at not archiving open requests, but just in case it somehow gets closed by another admin I'll ping @Missionedit: here so that she may inform my decision on whether you are ready for the rollback right at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! FiendYT ★ 05:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks. Still getting the hang of this thing... Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Peacemaker67: No worries, definitely takes a bit to get everything down! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding Back the Sudip Bose Article

Hello,

Is it possible to put the 'old' stable version back up? I agree that the edits were not in proper tone. But the subject is notable. See the White House article in the 'Deletion' discussion page.

It would be better if you can help improving the article.

Thanks

Sitaray (talk) 05:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Topic Ban

Hi, I want to know why I was banned from the page? All the people claiming Bernie is not Jewish are erroneously claiming Wikipolicy states that it has to come from his own mouth "Bernie Sanders HIMSELF (not some anonymous staffer) must publicly self-identify." Which is incorrect, there is no policy like that. But I found the Huffington Post article which had Bernie himself say "I am proud to be Jewish." So I put that in, so that covered all the bases. The press kit which said Religion:Jewish, which should have been enough and now I added a RS and SELFIDENTIFY, so why was I banned? It is very disgusting that out of all the 535 members of congress only 1 person's article's page is subject to scrutiny. Misplaced Pages should not determine how religious a person is. He identifies as Jewish and that is it. It is not up to us to determine how Jewish he is.Sir Joseph 17:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You know full well why the sanctions were put in place, as you were well aware that I had already applied sanctions to the article. Yet, you still decided to violate the discretionary sanction. The explanation in full is on your talk page. You may discuss the matter further on Talk:Bernie Sanders, but there will be no more unilateral editing decisions made by you on that article. I've had enough of the childish edit warring going on there, and I made that clear hours before the sysop protection lifted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

But like I said, they are claiming a policy that doesn't exist, which I still satisfied. I added the religion, which all presidential candidates (to the best of my memory) and all members of Congress have. I added the ref from his press kit. Their claim was satisfied. How did I edit war? Their consensus was that his religion needed to be "self identified" whatever that means, and the HP article was. They are the ones being tendentious and stubborn. When the entire world reports on the religion of Sanders but two or three editors hijack an article, and don't allow a stupid infobox edit is that fair?Sir Joseph 17:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

From WP:EW: "Misplaced Pages encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." - You already knew the controversial edit was opposed by other editors, and therefore the first edit in and of itself was a continuation of the previous edit war that led to the page being protected. I'm not here to get involved in whether or not I think your edit should or should not be added to the page, I'm merely enforcing the sanctions I already imposed on the article to ensure that disruption was kept to a minimum. If you want to discuss the merits of your edit, and perhaps actually gain consensus for them (as was required by the sanction) then I suggest you continue this conversation on the talk page of the article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would I assume the HP edit would be controversial? As per those editors who say it needed to be from his own mouth, the HP article quoted Bernie himself. That should have satisfied them. Sir Joseph 17:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Sir_Joseph Thanks, Sir Joseph 17:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4 (I could keep going)... I'd say it's pretty clear you knew that edit was contentious. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)