Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:09, 22 July 2011

July 2011

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test on the page Virtual Console worked, and it has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McDoobAU93 19:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Virtual Console

Your edits at Virtual Console have been undone. What exactly does "manier" mean? --McDoobAU93 22:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

more than many, duh: few, fewer; many, manier. 71.56.23.123 (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Virtual Console. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

The issue is that the majority of the wording changes you made in the reverted edit significantly reduce the quality of the article by introducing grammatical and spelling errors. I could not see a single substantive edit in your version. The fact that it was previously reverted and you then reverted it back to your version puts you in a position of acting in bad faith, and if it continues, it will get you blocked.

Please let us know if there is a particular item in the article that you feel needs to be changed. We will be happy to work with you on finding a way to make it happen while keeping the article in good shape. Getting into a revert war with other editors is not the way to do it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The bad faith edits are yours when you accuse me of vandalism when it's not, nor are the new wordings worse in quality or wrong. If you do not understand how English works, the meaning of words, and how some constructions fail, it doesn't become my burden to teach you. You can find a dictionary for that. You rush in with your reverts and vandalism templates rather than make standard wikilike edits. 71.56.23.123 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Which dictionary are you referring to? "Manier" and "inoptimized" are not English words, according to the commonly accepted dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, etc.). I'd honestly like to know not only where you're getting this information, but why you're so insistent on it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does a word need to be in a dictionary to be a word? Is computer-like a word? -er is in the dictionary, as is many, as is in-. If you cannot make or understand words, don't scold me. Also, this is not about English (which died 1000 years ago) but Einglish, Latin, and other foreign words. opt- is Latin, not English. -iz- is Hellènic. 71.56.23.123 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you attempting to harm the articles? Ultimately I don't think either myself or the other editor who has warned you believe that. However, your continued addition of improper grammar and made-up words, despite requests that you not do so and requests to assist you, is disruptive and nonconstructive, which can be just as bad as someone who has bad intentions. For the last time, please do not add nonsense words to this or any other article. As noted above, there will be no further warnings. --McDoobAU93 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

See above. I do not add nonsense words or improper grammar. It is you who likes them and wants to harm their meaning. If you cannot understand English, don't scold and threaten me. Now, I'll take off your libelose vandalism tag, as you do not even know what Misplaced Pages policy and definition of vandalism is. You are much deluded. 71.56.23.123 (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

So says the anonymous IP user who's talking to a couple of admins, whose job it is to know and understand Misplaced Pages policy. I don't think there's any more good faith to be assumed here. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Admins are wrong all the time. (There are too many; often they are teens who can barely spell or grasp diction.) If they could quote the policies' clauses which apply to this occasion, of alleged vandalism or whatever, they would; but they don't. 71.56.23.123 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll give you three. First off is WP:SPELL, which advises the use of spell-checkers included within current web browsers that might be used to edit Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, the words you've suggested are not included within the standard American English dictionaries within Firefox 5.0 (the browser I'm using). Second is WP:RETAIN, which advises that the version of English used predominantly within the article should continue to be used; Virtual Console was written in standard American English, and again the words you're proposing don't occur. Finally, the one that applies to your immediate situation is WP:DISRUPT. Your edits to Virtual Console have been shown to not be in the best interest of improving the article, and you have been asked multiple times to refrain from such changes. I highly recommend you read through that last section, especially the sentence in "This page in a nutshell" at the top of the page. You have been warned for the last time; any further disruption will be dealt with appropriately. I hope it does not come to that, but as they say, the ball is in your court now. --McDoobAU93 03:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ho ho, a guideline is not a policy. WP:SPELL doesn't apply as it's for dialects of English, not for neologhs or constructions: computerlike, weatherwise, clayborne, quicklier, unreadiness, misbelief. Spellcheckers are narrow to dialect and don't work outside, and often fail for true transliterate words (such as ai or æ for e, è for e, ò for o, c for k, k or x for kh or ch, q for k, u for oo...). Neither does WP:RETAIN as transliterations are not English. There's no such thing as "American English", wherefore Americans say "Einglish" and follow the Standard Einglish of the late 1800s, where Einglish is a mutt of bad English, Latin, and Hellènic of bad spellings and speakings after 1200. Editors must be true to a word's origin, not to the editors' origin. As for WP:DISRUPT, my edits were not shown to not be in the page's or reader's best interest; it doesn't cover semantics but "point of view" or "sources"; and ye did not follow the Dealing fitt. 71.56.23.123 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice try ... bottom line remains the same: you pull that stunt again at Virtual Console, and you will be reported for disruptive editing. --McDoobAU93 20:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't pull any stunts, and had no violations. I dare you to put up a RfC or RfA. 71.56.23.123 (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't have to. You haven't attempted adding nonsense words to Virtual Console since you received your last warning, which tells me that the warning, for all intents and purposes, has been heeded. That, in and of itself, is enough for me. The final warning stands ... one more time. --McDoobAU93 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U would be the correct venue for this, and of course you are welcome to start one yourself if you feel it would help. I suspect, though, that when an uninvolved editor were to review this case, they would see the edits in question, point to the use of non-standard English (your argument about dialects and transliteration are not consistent with the policies and consensus on the use of English on the wiki) as just a poor edit, and then your subsequent insistence on that phrasing as inappropriate and disruptive behavior. They would also likely point out that the subsequent edits appeared to be made simply for the sake of making edits, but not otherwise improving the article. This is called disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, and is one of the reasons why you could be blocked.

That said, you are welcome to bring this to an RFC/U, or to WP:ANI, at least as far as I'm concerned. Who knows? Maybe the folks there will see something that McDoob and I don't and we'll stand corrected. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As for myself, it's awfully nice of you to make such a sweeping generalization about all Misplaced Pages administrators. Not only have you attempted to insult both McDoob and myself by lumping us into some fictitious category of uneducated, power-hungry people, but you have from the very outset shown a complete lack of good faith, both in the manner of your edits and in your responses to us. I'm with McDoob on this one - we've tried to reason with you, but you've made it obvious that you have no intention of cooperating. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not nescius of me when I did none such. I did not say "all admins"; I said "admins", and then teen admins who are not fictional. I expect admins to know their matter of dispute, and often they do not. McDoob as you saw couldn't tell between a guideline and a policy, nor could either of ye abide how to deal with me and my edits. Nowhere did it say to accuse me of vandalism, and nohow do my edits fit within its definition. I didn't misbehave (Otherwise, I wouldn't be in talk.) when it was clear you broke AGF. 71.56.23.123 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting or overlooking the fact that the officially adopted guidelines have been formed by community consensus, most of them over a long period of time. You're correct in that they are not strictly policies - the policies are the things that are set in stone, handed down by Jimbo Wales, and are not flexible. But just because a guideline is not a policy does not mean you aren't expected to abide by it - coming in with the attitude that "Oh, it's just a guideline, but I know better and I can do whatever I want" generally leads to the kind of disruption that McDoob and I have been trying to reason with you about.

I dropped the assumption of good faith mainly because of your responses to having your edits reverted. Instead of abiding by BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss), you reverted them back in, several times, and you displayed a hostile attitude toward us when we brought the issue to your talk page. All I have seen you do in this discussion is argue that McDoob and I are somehow ignorant of common English and of Misplaced Pages policies, and not even really defend your edits in any meaningful way (other than to give a definition for "manier" with a side of sarcasm). You haven't explained how your edits improved the article or why we should accept them - that is what is meant by "Discuss".

I realize that there's always a chance that you're being genuine, and that you really do speak some obscure dialect of English that includes words like "nescius" and "manier", as well as unusual sentence structures. There are people out there who still speak in "Ye Olde English" and use words like "thou" and "hither" in everyday conversation. But you need to realize that this is not how the average reader speaks or reads. I'm willing to consider the possibility that such a dialect exists, but if it does, you belong to a very small (or at least, little-known) group of people who use it. As such, the vast majority of the English-speaking Misplaced Pages community expects articles to be written in "Common English", and the consensus on that rejects the wording and phrasing that your edits imposed on the article.

Finally, you were accused of vandalism because you kept reinforcing your disputed edits without discussing or explaining them. The general rules on good faith and vandalism specifically allow people to treat edits as vandalism when they are done repeatedly and in a disruptive manner, even if on their own they would not be seen as vandalism. No, you didn't insert a spam link or a picture of a penis in the article, but not only did you keep making your disputed edits, you also acted with hostility toward us when we tried to talk to you about it.

Do you understand now? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

comment - The biggest problem here is the arrogance. Some of what mister 123 did makes sense to me. The abomination "manier" is just broken; though it's valid in Dutch, this is English. The word you probably want is "more". I'd like to speak directly to Mr. 123 for now. Sir, you'll find your time as a Misplaced Pages editor will be better if you don't invest too much in your edits. Make your changes, but accept that people may not agree, and be prepared to discuss the differences of opinion rather than just revert over and over. I speak from experience here. There are some battles I've fought which I am still seriously annoyed about, but it's not worth the increased blood pressure. This is Misplaced Pages, not a Christians versus lions situation.

Now let's speak with the other two editors here now. I know what you're saying, and you know policy and such better than me, no lie. However, one of you introduced an edit I've changed myself. I can't say I know the subject, as I have none of these dinky little consoles. I prefer real arcade equipment. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my goof. :) I never said I was perfect either - thanks for fixing that. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)