This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grufo (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 6 August 2020 (→August 2020). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:24, 6 August 2020 by Grufo (talk | contribs) (→August 2020)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Misplaced Pages:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Please bear these points in mind while editing Misplaced Pages
- Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page and follow Misplaced Pages's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
- No edit warring or sock puppetry.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
- Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Misplaced Pages is not a forum.
The Misplaced Pages tutorial is a good place to start learning about Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!Template:Z129
Reminder on sources
Hello Grufo, thanks for your ongoing contributions. As a reminder, any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source, per WP:V. Regards, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Rolf h nelson: Hi! I agree completely. What exactly are you referring to? --Grufo (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- . Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Rolf h nelson: Oh, yes, I apologize. What happened in that article was that I restored a useful content and then I slowly started to add references to it. But searching for references takes its time. --Grufo (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- . Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Negative mass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton's law (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) 10:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Edit-warring
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You seem to be reverting whole-scale edits, including mine. Given that you're introducing extremist Islamophobic sources (see WP:QUESTIONABLE), I get the feeling you may not even be fully reading what you're reverting, or that you don't understand WP:RS. Please stop reverting.VR talk 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VR talk 14:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
August 2020
Your addition to Islamic views on slavery has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: I am sorry, what part would I have copied? --Grufo (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- All of it was copied. The text "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl' and "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl' stemmed from the belief that God, not their masters, was responsible for the slave's status" appear in the Medium article here, which appears to be quoting some other source, likely the same source you actually cited. The remainder is a match for this book, page 170.— Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Because of your intervention I have no more access to the history of my edits for checking. I definitely used the BBC page as a source for a small paragraph (so definitely not “all of it”), but I referenced it, so I don't see the problem. Furthermore, besides that small paragraph I had given many more further contributions that surely have nothing to do with the alleged copyright infringement you talk about, but it seems you enjoyed removing them as well under the same umbrella motivation. But as I said I cannot access the history page and check for the extension of your intervention. --Grufo (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Your contribution to the page was removed pretty much in its entirety, because it all appears to have been copied from the two sources I already mentioned. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more.— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Since I cannot check I will go by heart. All the interventions of mine that were taken from the BBC page had a footnote with the source and in most cases used double quotes. It is a typical case of fair use and perfectly normal within Misplaced Pages pages. --Grufo (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
None of that is true.I have temporarily undone the revision deletion so you can see for yourself.— Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)- @Diannaa: Thank you. I see. I think there is a misunderstanding. To understand my interventions you will have to compare revisions 971482722 and 969279725, where you can see Vice regent's edits reviewed by me, plus some additions from me containing the BBC quotations. All the other books that according to you are plagiarized have not been added by me and were already present in the page. --Grufo (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Correction: I did remove a large quotation from the BBC article, it was done as a separate edit with the edit summary "remove quotation; no reason why original prose could not be prepared". Since after I did that I found additional copyright material that had to be removed, the removal of the quotation was caught up in the revision deletion. It would be best if it was done right at the end so it's not a hidden diff, but that's not what happened in this case unfortunately. What I would like you to do is have a look at this sequence of edits, which shows the difference before you began your additions to the article and after my removal. None of the text I removed was already present (other than one iteration of the phrase "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl'"). Meanwhile your comparison shows a large amount of text added by someone else, text which I did not remove and is still present in the article.— Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: My intervention was literally a review of Vice regent's edits, so if you compare my edits after Vice regent's edits (as the Diff page you linked shows) you will probably see some text added that apparently is from me. But if you go back before Vice regent you will see that that text eventually comes back. This is because my edits were a revision of Vice regent's interventions, and in the specific case I did not approve one or more removals by Vice regent. It is important to emphasize that the dispute between me and Vice regent (#1) has nothing to do with copyright, but only on content, so I believe neither of us checked whether previous material present in the page was protected by copyright. --Grufo (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Are you saying that there was a copyright violation before I started editing, then I removed that copyright violation and you brought back that copyright violation? VR talk 15:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying exactly that (if it is true that a copyright violation was present in the page and of which you were in any case completely unaware). --Grufo (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- And you see nothing wrong with that? Restoring copyright violation is as bad as introducing it in the first place.VR talk 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying exactly that (if it is true that a copyright violation was present in the page and of which you were in any case completely unaware). --Grufo (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Are you saying that there was a copyright violation before I started editing, then I removed that copyright violation and you brought back that copyright violation? VR talk 15:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: My intervention was literally a review of Vice regent's edits, so if you compare my edits after Vice regent's edits (as the Diff page you linked shows) you will probably see some text added that apparently is from me. But if you go back before Vice regent you will see that that text eventually comes back. This is because my edits were a revision of Vice regent's interventions, and in the specific case I did not approve one or more removals by Vice regent. It is important to emphasize that the dispute between me and Vice regent (#1) has nothing to do with copyright, but only on content, so I believe neither of us checked whether previous material present in the page was protected by copyright. --Grufo (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Correction: I did remove a large quotation from the BBC article, it was done as a separate edit with the edit summary "remove quotation; no reason why original prose could not be prepared". Since after I did that I found additional copyright material that had to be removed, the removal of the quotation was caught up in the revision deletion. It would be best if it was done right at the end so it's not a hidden diff, but that's not what happened in this case unfortunately. What I would like you to do is have a look at this sequence of edits, which shows the difference before you began your additions to the article and after my removal. None of the text I removed was already present (other than one iteration of the phrase "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl'"). Meanwhile your comparison shows a large amount of text added by someone else, text which I did not remove and is still present in the article.— Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Thank you. I see. I think there is a misunderstanding. To understand my interventions you will have to compare revisions 971482722 and 969279725, where you can see Vice regent's edits reviewed by me, plus some additions from me containing the BBC quotations. All the other books that according to you are plagiarized have not been added by me and were already present in the page. --Grufo (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Since I cannot check I will go by heart. All the interventions of mine that were taken from the BBC page had a footnote with the source and in most cases used double quotes. It is a typical case of fair use and perfectly normal within Misplaced Pages pages. --Grufo (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Your contribution to the page was removed pretty much in its entirety, because it all appears to have been copied from the two sources I already mentioned. The revisions containing the copyright material were hidden from view under under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion policy, and that's why you can't access them any more.— Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: Because of your intervention I have no more access to the history of my edits for checking. I definitely used the BBC page as a source for a small paragraph (so definitely not “all of it”), but I referenced it, so I don't see the problem. Furthermore, besides that small paragraph I had given many more further contributions that surely have nothing to do with the alleged copyright infringement you talk about, but it seems you enjoyed removing them as well under the same umbrella motivation. But as I said I cannot access the history page and check for the extension of your intervention. --Grufo (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- All of it was copied. The text "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl' and "The Prophet ordered slave-owners to address their slaves by such euphemistic terms as 'my boy' and 'my girl' stemmed from the belief that God, not their masters, was responsible for the slave's status" appear in the Medium article here, which appears to be quoting some other source, likely the same source you actually cited. The remainder is a match for this book, page 170.— Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Since I've been mentioned in this discussion twice... Grufo is following me around wikipedia, undoing my edits and adding original research (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hounding). This revision (now deleted) by Grufo both added original research and violated copyright from this BBC article. My revisions, which are not deleted and can still be seen, did not introduce any copyright material.VR talk 14:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- This shows once again that you live in parallel discussions, Vice regent. As it is emerging from this discussion, my quotation from BBC was not what triggered the copyright violation discussed here. --Grufo (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Diannaa confirmed that your quotation from BBC was removed with the edit summary "remove quotation; no reason why original prose could not be prepared".VR talk 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: I understand your desperate search for approval from others, but I would leave it to Diannaa to say whether my BBC quotation constituted a copyright violation or not. --Grufo (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
- Diannaa confirmed that your quotation from BBC was removed with the edit summary "remove quotation; no reason why original prose could not be prepared".VR talk 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)