Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:53, 22 June 2016

This is Voidxor's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Peer review for Light-emitting diode

I have requested a peer review for the Light-emitting diode article. Apparently, my issue is that the article makes little to no distinction on green vs. pure green LEDs, even though the former has existed since the 1970s while the latter wasn't introduced until the 1990s. The article seems to consider both to be one in the same, even though they are not. ANDROS_TALK 18:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Andros 1337: Yeah, that article is still rough around the edges. My availability isn't very good right now, but let me know if you want me to weigh in on a !vote or something. – voidxor 23:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your removal of reliable information on the Shebang (Unix) article

Hi, please inform yourself about what reliable sources are. What you removed are no personal websites but the most reliable information that is available in the net. Schily (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I seem more informed than you as to what reliable sources are, and aren't. Per WP:NOTRELIABLE (again, please read it), personal websites—meaning websites or sections of websites controlled entirely by one person with no review process—are not reliable sources. As you pointed out, http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/ is entirely controlled by one person, Sven Mascheck. Thus, it cannot be used as a reference. Stop simply reverting me and explain why you feel policy should be ignored in this case. Furthermore, and as I said in my previous edit summary, the correct forum for such an explanation is the article's talk page, not my talk page! We want all interested editors to have a chance to chime in. – voidxor 18:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

With your interpretation, we would need to remove all references to fsf.org as this is entirely controlled by a single person, Richard Stallman. But your claims cannot be found in the reference you have given, so you claims are void. Schily (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." That's from the second paragraph, so I'm not sure why you're struggling to find it.

And no, www.fsf.org is most certainly not a personal website. The Free Software Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. It has several employees in dedicated office space. It's not at all the same thing as Mascheck's personal directory on www.in-ulm.de. – voidxor 15:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

XHTML

Hi, why did you do this? MediaWiki has not served XHTML for several years - it now serves HTML5, where the <br> and <br /> forms are equally valid. Also, what does it have to do with accessibility? As it's a list, an edit like this would significantly improve accessibility. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Because that's the way that it's done in 99% of infoboxes?! If that's not correct then you're welcome to update the syntax as you see fit (i.e. across all articles). I am not familiar with HTML5 and was unaware the servers had switched; I was just following the previously established norm. – voidxor 00:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Spats (footwear)

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Nice try, but I did not re-revert; I reverted for the first time. A "re-revert" is a second revert performed by a single user in a short period of time (i.e. 24 hours). The only person here who has re-reverted is you just now (hypocritically, I might add). 3RR only applies on the fourth such revert (a re-re-re-revert, to use your terminology). I got nowhere near that.

As to WP:BRD, that's an essay, not a policy nor even a guideline. Although you're citing it, you apparently haven't even read the first sentence: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus."

As to discussion, not all discussion occurs on an article's talk page. I have been making my case all along in my original edit summary, revert edit summary, and a pertinent thread I started on your talk page (although let the record reflect that you rapidly expunged my attempt at discussion and simultaneously came here to lecture me about failing to discuss). Again, and again, and again, and again, you've failed to counter my arguments on a point-by-point basis—choosing instead to troll with inarticulate and combative arguments such as "better before" and "Your layour sucks, it's made the article worse then it was. Our aim is to *improve* article not to make them worse." If you truly were committed to BRD, you would be articulating why we shall exempt one particular article from the wiki-wide policies and guidelines that I cited. – voidxor 23:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and BRD is somewhat inapplicable here because my original edit was not bold; it was a minor maintenance edit to bring the article in line with consensus-established style guidelines. These guidelines are critical to applying a consistent layout across all articles, and also for accessibility reasons (as is the case for WP:IMGSIZE). My edit didn't even affect the body of the article. I've made thousands of such edits and you are the only editor to take issue. If either of us is not here to move the article forward, it's you. – voidxor 00:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting User talk page comments

Did you know that reverting a user talk page comment which has been deleted by the user can be, and has been, considered to be disruptive editing, and that editors have been blocked for doing so? Please do not do so on my talk page again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Can you cite policy on that? You have yet to cite a single policy to justify any of your arguments. Also, would you mind explaining why you are intent on expunging the discussion that you accuse me of not having? I know you're adverse to meaningful edit summaries, but I feel I'm owed a little explanation. – voidxor 01:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spats. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BMK (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)