Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 05:37, 5 November 2019 (Substing templates: {{Unsigned}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

2019, Summer

Death of JonBenét Ramsey

I think you made some valid points in earlier edits. Your most recent mass reversion, however, is baffling. I made 3 or 4 additions, using an A&E documentary as a source, quoting known experts in the field. Did I understand you correctly that you thought I used self-published sources?

Vcuttolo (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken about the source. I explain the issues in more detail here. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Question/comment/rebuke around Xq28 and WP:synthesis.

Hello, I would like to ask a few questions and make a rebuke to your removal of a section me and another editor worked on on the page Xq28 given I have my questions about the applicability of the reasons for removal you've given. I doubted my sanity for a moment given I doesn't appear to violate WP:synthesis as claimed.

Let me try to explain:

Let me quote directly from the study: "In contrast to linkage studies that found substantial association of sexual orientation with variants on the X-chromosome (8, 23), we found no excess of signal (and no individual genome-wide significant loci) on the X-chromosome (fig. S4)."

(Source 8 being the Hamer study, the main study that gave basis to Xq28's relation to Homosexuality at the top of the Xq28 page, and which the subsequent studies on Xq28 where also based on), giving direct statement this study could not reproduce Hamers findings in relation to Xq28 (as it could not in the entire chromosome it's located in, and is specific in noting it could not reproduce Hamers Findings which where solely around Xq28), given that is the only such relevant relation in Hamers findings to begin with.

This is, as such not a new conclusion on my end at all and is directly apparent from the research and as such does not appear to be in violation of WP:Synthesis at all and as such the section appears to have been removed for invalid reasons.

If I am wrong, I would like to know, with an explanation so I can avoid the same mess-up in the future, and If I am correct here I would appreciate it if you restore the section which you've removed (in that scenario) for invalid reason. Kind regards from me. V60club (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi V60club, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I had done a "find" for Xq28 in the study and did not see it, and now I see I did it wrong. I was quick to remove it because the editor who originally added it has been known to inaccurately represent sources, which he had still done in this case, as you commented on his talk page. I have now restored the material, but rewrote the description to even more closely represent the study. (I dealt with this same study on another article.) Thanks for catching the inaccuracy in the first place. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I had a feeling that is what happened here with the page search on Xq28. I may suck at English but I do take great care in making sure what I wrote was accurate, which is exactly why I replaced the other guy's piece and made sure the information was accurate and why I commented on his talk page. - Sorry if I came across a bit harsh trying to explain in the previous post here on your talk page, I am not a native English speaker and I struggle with bringing forth tone a bit sometimes. Anyway, Your wording is a lot better and I really appreciate that you fixed it up and made it better then I could've written it. I do suggest, given the relevance to the article maybe explicitly noting on top of what you already put down that "finding nothing in the X Chromosome" also includes Xq28, which the page is about, as that may not be directly clear to readers right now. What are your thoughts on this? And lastly, thank you for your warm welcome to the English Misplaced Pages. Very much appreciated. V60club (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

V60club, your English is quite good. I have now edited it to mention Xq28 specifically. You were doing the right thing by checking sources and rewriting accordingly. -Crossroads- (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Heya, that is a lot clearer for readers of the page, thanks for editing that. Thank you for the compliment by the way, both on my English and checking sources and rewriting accordingly, I do my best. :) Wilburg22 - The insufferable potato! (Click here for my talk page!) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Uranian poetry

Hi Crossroads1, would it be possible for you to take a look at Uranian poetry and the associated biographies of poets (this one, e.g.)? They seem heavily based on Timothy D'Arch Smith's Love in earnest: some notes on the lives and writings of English 'Uranian' poets from 1889 to 1930. D'Arch, who coined the term "Uranian poetry", was apparently a contributor to the International Journal of Greek Love. I am really not inclined to request his book through inter-library loan, but the available google snippets seem highly suspect. Cheers, gnu57 19:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi gnu57, I very much appreciate you pointing this out. I really think you are on to something.

I am also unable to obtain a copy of Love in earnest, and I can't even see snippets on Google. I did, however, find this. Between that book's quotes of D'Arch Smith, and that book itself, it is clear that these two authors not only clearly distinguish between pederasty/"boy-love" and homosexuality, but take a positive view of pederasty. In fact, that book's website looks very suspect, both reliability-wise and otherwise. I also recognize it as one of the sources indef-blocked account Haiduc used when he wrote the old version of the pederasty article. I did check authorship stats on the Uranian poetry article and a couple of the individual poets, but didn't see any significant authorship by Haiduc or other accounts that stood out as suspicious.

For the poets themselves, we'll probably have to evaluate them one by one. I looked at a few of them; at least based on a cursory impression, some appear notable and others do not. Authorship varied as well, and it would not be surprising if some of the articles were in fact written by Haiduc or similar accounts.

For the Uranian poetry article itself, deletion is likely warranted. The only two sources I found so far that use the term Uranian poetry as the article does are the two sketchy authors I mentioned above. While some of the poets appear notable, the idea that they constitute a group called "Uranian poets" does not appear to be.

For short articles with few references and low traffic, I find PROD is less of a hassle than AfD. If that fails, I then go for AfD usually.

Thanks again for pointing this out. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction: I have since found a couple GBooks sources that rather briefly talk about Uranian poetry, but whether it is enough to get it over GNG is questionable. I haven't thoroughly looked for sources yet however. Note that many sources use "Uranian" in the manner of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, even using the phrase Uranian poetry independently, but they are not referring to the specific concept D'Arch Smith is. Such a source would seem inapplicable - for us to tie together disparate uses of the phrase with no clear definition would be original research. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

For John Gambril Nicholson, my PROD was removed, but I have nominated it for AfD. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Genericusername57, I wanted to get your direct opinion on this source, which I also mentioned above: It looks like fringe pedo-advocacy to me. Do you agree? 9 articles use it as a source presently: It should probably be removed. Also, I suggest you read the section below titled "Articles", as there is some info there you may find interesting, both about specific articles and about remaining work by Haiduc. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Thanks; received and replied. For future reference for whoever is reading - I check my email regularly, so no need to give me this template message. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles

Here are some of the problem articles:

Ganymede (mythology):

Haiduc, the same banned editor that had a big influence on the Pederasty article also had a pretty sizable influence on this article.

This is what a user had to say about it:

“This article still contains remnants of the pederastic agenda associated with a banned editor (who may or may not be responsible for all of it). I've tried to fix some things, but it really is quite a mess. It isn't so much that it's wrong as that the POV stands in the way of a more structured, capacious approach. It's also sorely lacking in sources.”

Since the user left that comment on the talk page, I do believe that it has been cleaned up a little bit but it still has some problems.

LGBT History:

You seem to already know that this article has some problems because you have made some edits to it, but I was hoping that I could add my 2 cents.

This shows that 4 of the top 10 editors to this article (by authorship) are now blocked from editing Misplaced Pages indefinitely. The blocked editors are Lionhead99 (who has the most edits), Haiduc, Tjmayerinsf, and Ash. That alone should raise some questions, but there is more.

The following sentence is in the beginning of the article: “What survives after many centuries of persecution—resulting in shame, suppression, and secrecy—has only in more recent decades been pursued and interwoven into more mainstream historical narratives.” Not only does the sentence come off as very biased, far too broad, but also untrue. It makes it seem like that every society in history totally favored homosexuality, and it is only in recent times that LGBT people have come under persecution. Anyone with a little bit of digging can find out that persecution of LGBT people has a long history, and this article goes out of its way to make it seem like it has always had widespread acceptance. When you read a specific section of the article that talks about a particular society that supposedly had a whole lot of evidence for homosexuality it makes it seem like to the reader that because it existed in a particular society, it had widespread acceptance. Just because there is evidence for it, does not mean it was universally accepted or practiced.

Additionally, this article unfortunately cherrypicks pieces of evidence, and tries to present them as representative of the whole subject. It also sometimes very conveniently does not mention evidence to the contrary and it makes some very bold statements and it cites to very questionable sources.

Here is a small incident that was documented in the Talk page that you have probably already seen:

Do we have a source / citations for the following?: One ancient saying claimed that "Women are for business, boys are for pleasure." 67.174.217.47 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: I've looked all over and the only thing close to reliable I've found is this opinion piece Breawycker (talk to me!) 02:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Done: No reliable sources state that the phrase is "ancient"; sources that do mention the phrase are about the Bacha bazi of Afghanistan, not Ancient Greece. Nanophosis (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Some users found a rather bold, and broad statement that had been included in this article for a long time without any reliable source. And they did the right thing, they removed it. But I fear that there are many other statements like the one discussed above that are currently included in the article.

Pederasty in Ancient Greece:

3 of the Top 10 editors to this article are now blocked indefinitely. The Number 1 editor is our banned friend Haiduc, who has had a huge impact on this article.

There are 15 “citation needed” templates to this article. That definitely raises some eyebrows. This article includes the same problems that I mentioned for the other articles above.

---

This is what I have for now. But I can continue to send you more articles that have problems as I come across them. It seems like there was a concerted effort by users in the past who are now banned to work on articles with this type of subject matter. Finally, I would hate for people to think that I am targeting pages with a specific type of subject matter, but often times I have come upon pages that are related to pederasty that are biased, and heavily impacted by banned users. Sorry if there are some errors, I posted this in a hurry. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi TrynaMakeADollar, thanks for providing this. It's good to engage in analysis like you did. Please do send me more articles you feel have problems as you come across them, and feel free to boldly make fixes yourself too. I'll give some tips on that below.

It's not surprising to me that pages that relate to historical pederasty in some way have these problems. Part of it is that history in general is difficult; sometimes it seems like there are as many narratives and interpretations as there are historians. Even a good faith editor could mistakenly use a source that is just one valid scholarly view among others, or even fail to notice that a certain view is fringe. Of course, POV pushers make the problem much worse, and Haiduc was perhaps the foremost of these.

Check out his user stats: Active for over 5.5 years with over 9,200 mainspace edits. It's no wonder we're still cleaning up his damage today. And even though his obsession was with pederasty, he, much like NAMBLA, tried to siphon off legitimacy from regular homosexuality. He was active on LGBT pages, attached the LGBT portal to his pederasty categories, and regularly called his opponents homophobic. So there may still be some of his damage even on LGBT-related articles. Note too that 46 articles exist that were created by him: Some of these probably are non-notable pederasts and should be deleted; others might still have bad sourcing or slanted language in part.

Note however that to ascertain who is responsible for the present form of an article, the pie chart to focus on is the "Authorship" one lower down. The earlier charts are about who historically has made edits or added text, but the stuff they added could have been removed later. They also only calculate percentages out of the top 10 rather than everybody. As an example, check the stats for "Pederasty": The "top editors" charts will make you think Haiduc wrote most of what is there, but the authorship chart says that I wrote 75.3% of the present version (actually, most of that was copied by me from other articles). Haiduc still wrote 6.2%, but that has been vetted and shouldn't be an issue. In other articles, though, authorship by him should indicate caution, since people may have overlooked any issues. Note too that it is possible that when somebody moves content or reverts a removal, the system thinks the authorship changed - I am not certain how it works.

Regarding the three articles you pointed out:

Ganymede (mythology): This article relies too much on primary sources and I have tagged it so. The user who left that comment was Cynwolfe; so we know she is aware of Haiduc's agenda. Haiduc has 8.9% authorship, but that by no means implies the rest is necessarily good.

LGBT history: Lionhead99 has 10.7% authorship, and the other blocked users apparently have <2% each. Not a lot, but we don't know the carefulness or motivations of the many others who worked on it either. I don't see any issue with the sentence in the lead you mentioned. The article shouldn't focus excessively on persecution, but it also shouldn't make it seem like it was more accepted or even common in certain cultures than it was. I actually haven't read too many talk pages. I am sure there is much room for improvement in this article.

Pederasty in ancient Greece: As I mentioned, Cynwolfe was well aware of Haiduc's agenda, and it appears she made efforts to fix his messes. At this article, she has 49.3% authorship, with 17.1% for Haiduc. She probably reviewed the whole thing though. Still, we don't know her approach, we don't know the quality of the other authors, anyone can make mistakes, and there are remaining issues, some of which you mentioned.

I appreciate you sharing this with me. Don't be afraid to try to fix issues as you see them as well. Worst that can happen is you're reverted; and I'm watching these pages and can weigh in for any change. If the sources are cherrypicked, you can find additional and/or replacement sources on the subject, use those, and modify the supported statements accordingly; or make a comment on Talk. If any statement is not supported by its source, then change it so it is. If a statement is dubious and unsupported, and especially if it has a citation needed tag, you should just remove it. The rules are that the WP:BURDEN of supporting it is on the one bringing it back after removal. I wouldn't go wild with removal however - sometimes you can stick a citation needed on it. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"Vast Majority" vs "Most"

Hey, maybe I missed something but in the Heterosexuality article it is stated that "Across cultures, most people are heterosexual". But I think that the source's wording is stronger than what is presented in the article. The source says that in all cultures the "vast majority" of individuals are heterosexual. Is there a reason for why the words used in the article are different than the one's used in the source?

Also, perhaps a slightly longer sentence about the (for lack of a better word) prevalence of heterosexuality in all cultures could be included in the article's Demographics section? TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey TrynaMakeADollar, both of these ideas sound reasonable to me. I suggest implementing them. I originally didn't put "vast majority" so as not to make the statement too strong, in case there was an objection to having it at all. But since others support it now, we may as well try to make it fit the source more. I am not aware of any similar MEDRS sources that contradict it. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright I'll get on it. TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a note here that this discussion was continued at the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:TERF

You may wish the check your pronoun use in this contribution to Talk:TERF, given the subject of the paper under discussion. Lmatt (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Changed to gender neutral to be safe. The name is admittedly unclear anyway, I don't know why I assumed male. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quantum suicide and immortality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Continuum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Helpful bot. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit warring

You have repeatedly been edit warring on the Death of JonBenét Ramsey page. Earlier, you removed my edit for allegedly using a NRS - without actually checking the source. Then on the Talk page, you repeated a false accusation against me made by another editor. Now you have removed an edit I made that was clearly warranted, and your reasoning is highly dubious: A two-source rule? Nowhere on Misplaced Pages is there a two-source rule. If there is, then the majority of Misplaced Pages's content is in violation. As it is, the source I provided is widely considered the bible of JonBenèt books, and a NYT bestseller.

I have had strong disagreements with other editors, specifically Acroterion and Flyer22 Reborn. And yet they have given specific explanations as to how I could edit differently to their satisfaction; I have therefore made the appropriate changes. It seems obvious, though, that your reversions of my edits are aimed at me. How often have you reverted someone for using a NRS without checking the source? When have you ever demanded a second source?

The information I added is very relevant; the article could be seen to imply that the ransom demand was definitely related to John Ramsey's Christmas bonus of the previous year, but no such conclusion was reached by investigators.

Please stop targeting me for reversion or for any other hostile act, and please stop edit warring. Otherwise I may need to refer you for sanction.

Thank you. Vcuttolo (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Vcuttolo, your threats to get me sanctioned will get you nowhere. WP:Edit warring has a very particular meaning - "repeatedly overrid each other's contributions...An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring". I reverted you one time. Another dispute over different content is not edit warring, as it is a different matter. The rest of this is also a distortion. I removed Dailymotion as a source; as it turned out, it was a copyright violation, not user-generated, but still a problem. I never said anything about a two-source rule. But just because something is sourced does not mean it merits inclusion. See WP:UNDUE. And I know you are aware of this because you alluded to it in your last edit summary. You should take back your false accusation that I have edit warred. And keep your content disputes on the article talk page. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Vcuttolo, I've looked at the article history, and your report above is mistaken; there was no edit warring. See your talk page here for details. Cordially Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Welcome to MFD as another voice of reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Mmm, thanks! -Crossroads- (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

e-mail

Hi Crossroads1, I was notified that you sent me e-mail, but it has not arrived. If it was important, please try again. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 10:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Pbsouthwood:, it was a RevDel request. There was a page that listed recently active admins and I chose you from there. If you still didn't get the email, please let me know. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I was just renamed from Crossroads1 to Crossroads, as requested

Leaving this here as a permanent record of my username change. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Halo Jerk1 might be disappointed that you're leaving the superfluous-numeral-1 club. WanderingWanda (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ain't it something, folks, just a glorious day, to see WanderingWanda go from harassing my sister to harassing me. What other reason could you have had for pinging and commenting on me, if not to poke the bear and make an inside joke that Crossroads and I are the same person? So, wait, I'm both my sister and Crossroads? We're all the same person? Crikey!

I have ya figured out, Wanderer. You took your sweet time before making your presence known in a discussion at Kolya Butternut's talk page, where you bash my sister repeatedly. Guess you wanted those admins (Cullen328, JBW, and Johnuniq) to clear out before the subsequent bashing (with unsubstantiated accusations) commenced. Let's say you weren't hounding my sister, like you claim (even though you seem so focused on her that you like to welcome folks who have bashed her). El C still wasn't defending you. You were still harassing her. Three editors (two of them admins) had to warn you. It's in your archives! Your babbling on Kolya Butternut's talk page is the stuff of legend, as is the declaration you intend to use as an excuse to hound and harass my sister some more. But hold up.................. She uses HOUND to harass you and other poor souls, you claim? Man, I wonder why admins never see it that way and always see where she's coming from. It's always the harassers calling her a harasser and then calling her paranoid. Kolya Butternut's behavior matches up with HOUND. No one should be watching the talk page of someone they don't like and following that editor to an article to cite some image guideline that they've been in dispute with the other editor about. Come on now. It's amazing that Crossroads puts up with you following him and watching his talk page. Just between the two of us, you are kinda using Crossroads to keep up with my sister, ain't ya?

Anyhoo, I know she wouldn't have wanted me to take the bait and comment here. I knew you'd poked me, but coming back onto the Wiki and seeing that notification and being annoyed to lay my beautiful eyes on your username? Well, I couldn't resist saying hello. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Listen here, ya silly person. This is WanderingWanda's brother, ManderingManda. I ain't gonna put up with ya harassing WanderingWanda like this. Anyhoo, you should mind your business. – ManderingManda (WanderingWanda (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC))

This is clearly a personal attack in the form of Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, stating your continued unfounded belief in sockpuppetry by another editor. I suggest you read ArbCom's statements in WP:ASPERSIONS. I won't allow that on my talk page. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ya. The above is Wanderer's MO. CUs and admins who say different on it don't matter to that one. I could be standing side by side with dear sister in real life, and this one here would still swear we're the same person. I gather, in certain folks' heads, my sister waited this long to reply to WanderingWanda and decided to reply as me. I'm flattered that WanderingWanda admires my southern twang enough to copy it. It's a little something I picked up from one of the forums I frequent, like the mocking emoji I picked up from WanderingWanda. Too bad WanderingWanda thinks it's something to mask my "true self." I do say "sister" a lot on the Wiki, but I won't be calling her "Flyer." I don't know her as "Flyer" and it sounds foreign to me whenever I attempt to call her by that handle. WanderingWanda's recent aspersion is going in my evidence jar. In the interim, WanderingWanda can go back to Wikipediocracy and cry some more. 😊 Halo Jerk1 (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

IP ending in A2B2 says:

Yeah that’s not vandalism sooooooo....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B160:35EA:C98A:1541:2602:A2B2 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

A look at your contribs says otherwise. And don't bother me here anymore. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s a threat I’ll report you to the internet police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B160:35EA:C98A:1541:2602:A2B2 (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL! -Crossroads- (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages really sucks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B160:35EA:C98A:1541:2602:A2B2 (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

And they said this: Hopefully they learn their lesson after their 36 hours. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

TERF

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.

Please note that the TERF article is under a 1RR restriction. Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Newimpartial, kindly retract this pointless warning. As it shows, edit warring "means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be". I changed it back one time, as permitted under 1RR, which I am well aware of. That means I did not repeatedly change it back. You did 2 reverts in 26 hours, though, for the same content, here: -Crossroads- (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't this also a revert? Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Totally different content by a totally different editor. That's not edit warring. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As an FYI, 3RR and 1RR operate on a per page basis, not per content or per editor. You might want to keep that policy in nind, moving forward. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about this so I double checked, and the guideline does say A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. (talk page watcher) WanderingWanda (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

But that policy says at the top, emphasis added, An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring....An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring. That makes no sense with totally different content from different people. On the other hand, the definitions for 3RR (and hence 1RR) are less clear. This may be a weird case not foreseen by the letter of the law, that is technically against 1RR but not edit warring. At any rate, as a sign of good faith, I would revert myself on one of the two, but I've already been reverted on both. I'd appreciate any other opinions on the situation as well. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Bwahaha! He didn't violate a thing. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't really count as an opinion. More like a cackle. Newimpartial (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This may be a weird case not foreseen by the letter of the law, that is technically against 1RR but not edit warring. I can agree that it's against 1RR but doesn't really count as edit warring. But I don't think this is a "weird case" or "not forseen". The whole point of 1RR is that it's super-strict, to the point that it proscribes behavior that would normally be considered reasonable. There's a reason that it isn't implemented on most pages! WanderingWanda (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Since you can agree that it doesn't really count as edit warring, then you should also agree that Newimpartial shouldn't have given me a template almost entirely warning about edit warring. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Since 1RR blocks are a form of EW block, it seemed the most relevant template to place. It would be downright rude for anyone to be hauled to a drama board without having received an appropriate warning first, so I was trying to be proactive. If there is a special template for 1RR violations that some editors don't see as technically counting as edit warring (perhaps a Bwahaha template), please direct me to it for future reference. Newimpartial (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The part you wrote yourself about 1RR, without the template, would have worked fine. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean

I apparently have a problem that I have to work on. I read your revert to the end this time. Last time I read till I saw the negatives and stopped. This is what I am talking about What still bothers me is that I had to read past the negatives to get to the positive, and as we know (from even my own exprience. People are influenced by what they read or see first. Madison Ave (advertising) bases their whole business upon that premise.Oldperson (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Thanks. Yes, I think you should work on fully reading and understanding what you are replying to. And you do need to stop throwing around accusations, as here, here, and here. If a topic is too distressing, it may be better to avoid it. And there should be no expectation that a person's individual edits handle content in a certain order; rather the order the article handles it is the only one that matters. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

CrossroadsOr maybe editors should carefully choose their words, since carelessness can be misinterpreted. It is not up to the reader to understand the mind of the author, but it is up to the author to convey his thoughts clearly. I don't appreciate your arrogance and condescension. Who do you think you are talking to anyway?Oldperson (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So now you are telling me that I, an editor, can not, should not edit. I do not believe that isthe way things work. Editors are expected to make edits, and your choice of quotes is sensationalism, prurient and inappropriate for the general public, especially the young folk who might access the page.Oldperson (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This is apprently in reference to this, which I will leave to the reader to judge. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Menstrual hygiene

Please see Talk:Menstrual_hygiene_products#Naming_of_article. "Menstrual hygiene" is the term used in authoritative literature. "Feminine hygiene" is an outdated marketing term used to describe not only menstrual hygiene products, but a whole range of douches, perfumes, deodorants, and other products that have no relevance to menstrual hygiene. There is a reason we have an article at penis, not schlong. -- The Anome (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It's being discussed there. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Desmond is Amazing

You labeled my addition as vandalism(!) and removed it as “redundant and therefore undue”. I may have missed where any other media publishing attack pieces has been added to the article. Can you help me understand your thinking on this? Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: I did not label it as vandalism; that is false. It wasn't so much you adding it as it was you reverting Genericusername57's removal. As they said in the edit summary, "The breitbart piece was covering the nightclub performance; these are the same death threats mentioned in the previous sentence." I understand this to mean that it is redundant; I concur. It also misleadingly makes it look like a separate incident. And you should discuss this sort of thing at the article talk page, not mine. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The instructions on undo edits says in part, “If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only.” So my mistake if the default message inclusion doesn’t imply vandalism.

I removed the part that they objected to (“which resulted in death threats”), so no, it was no longer redundant in any way.

Your point that it could be seen as a separate incident is valid. And that is a reason rewrite, not wholesale removal with misleading edit summaries.

I came here as I wanted to see what you meant as your edit summary wasn’t helpful to understanding your action. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Why revert edit on many worlds interpretation?

I was trying to fix the entry for the many-worlds interpretation. You reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Many-worlds_interpretation&oldid=prev&diff=924497095 How should this information be incorporated? I was trying to explain the existing sentence "In that sense, it would make the Novikov self-consistency principle unnecessary." That is stated without explanation. The explanation of why it would make the principle unnecessary is in the other pages, but it seemed key to elevate it here. The inability to recover information from the time travel is what makes the NSCP unnecessary.

This is information I believe should be elevated to this paragraph. How should it be incorporated?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AristosM (talk • contribs)

The problem is that unsourced editorial commentary on the implications of the many-worlds interpretation is basically original research, no matter how logical it seems to us. Sci-fi adjacent topics like this one tend to attract such content. The solution is to back up the existing unsourced statements and what you want to add with a reliable source, as all Misplaced Pages content should have. I suggest checking the Fabric of Reality source already in the paragraph. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)