Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 11 July 2020

Ms91, you are invited on a Misplaced Pages Adventure!

Hi Ms91!! You're invited: learn how to edit Misplaced Pages in under an hour. Hope to see you there! Play The Misplaced Pages Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

IRANPOL GS notification

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. Before continuing to make edits that involve this topic, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I have carefully read this before, wish I could say the same about you (; Ms96 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

When did you read this? You haven't received this notification before AFAIK.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

On your talk page!! The best part was your reply "So you copy-paste this message without attribution? Please provide details about what template you used to post this notice. Thank you." !!! :) Ms96 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Attributing is important. At the end of the notification there is a hidden comment that says <!-- Template:IRANPOL GS notification -->, this is the attributing. There was no attributing in that admin notification in my talk page. It turned out that the admin who posted that notification is the creator of the template. Attributing is important because all text in English Misplaced Pages is protected by this license.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

WOW, Creative Commons ... must be interesting!!!! MS 会話 23:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Warning

If you accuse another editor of "vandalism" and of "lying" you will be sanctioned. Don't do this again, please. El_C 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C So let me ask only once more, was he not lying?! So help me understand which English word is used now? Also, see , what are these? MS 会話 15:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

For accusing that editor of "lying" in your very next edit, you have been blocked for 48 hours. I'm not sure where you're getting that they're lying about Farsi being their mother tongue (evidence only in the form of diffs, please), but I view it as a provocation. Please feel free to launch an unblock request, but you should really read the guide to appealing blocks closely first. El_C 15:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If you keep accusing them of lying while blocked, I will revoke your talk page access. I'm not sure what you expect me to learn from those two diffs — whatever it is, I don't get it. El_C 15:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:El_C No I'm not gonna ask for unblock, but I don't understand "where you're getting that they're lying about Farsi being their mother tongue". What I meant was that while his mother tongue is Persian (same as me, what provocation?), he tries to deceive other users by claiming that the content is not supported by the provided source. You mean the edit I made in my talk page by "next edit"? MS 会話 15:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Those diffs show he is disruptively deleting whatever he desires. WP:CoI. MS 会話 15:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Alos take a look at his block log and its reason.MS 会話 15:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean your next edit after this very warning. Stop making use of bad faith terms like "lying" and "deceive" — you are not getting it. Assume there was an error rather than an intentional attempt to mislead. Please stop refactoring responding constsntly so that I can reply. El_C 15:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

What conflict of interest? What disruption? El_C 16:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen my talk page and hence your message before that edit. MS 会話 16:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Just go for any random edit by this user to see how harshly he's supporting the Iranian government and eradicating any single negative issue thereof (also the reason and the page that he's blocked in). Those two diffs are examples of his disruptive pattern, simply removing any well-sourced, correct material. MS 会話 16:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If a user is being disruptive, a well-documented report on the Admin noticeboard is your next step. El_C 16:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can't help that. And yet you continue with "deceive" even after you were aware of the warning. The point is that you went about resolving this content dispute the wrong way. I'm not saying they are without blemish, either, but the whole "vandalism," "lying," "disruption", "deceive," "uw-disruptive" templates — that was the wrong way to go about it. El_C 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:El_C Yes, I wish all of that was error, but errors don't happen that often. He kept insisting on that issue for 2-3 days and repeated his speech like 4-5 times. MS 会話 16:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Please just wait between responses for me to reply. I'm getting tired of all these edit conflicts. El_C 16:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:El_C Though I hadn't seen my talk page and hence your message before that edit you mentioned, I personally think you were right in blocking me. Anyway, I didn't mean to be rude by any means. Also, sorry for wasting much of your time here. Feel free to ask any questions if any of what I said is not clear. MS 会話 16:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I just think you need to follow the correct procedures: for possible disruption (ANI) or for a possible conflict of interest (COIN) rather than resort to these problematic, poorly-documented shortcuts which are far from a substitution to substantive reports. El_C 16:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:El_C I reserve reporting to ANI as a last resort. But aren't these personal attacks , ? Just a bit confused. Could you please bring this RfC into conclusion as well?MS 会話 09:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I decline to further engage that RfC in any way, due to SharʿabSalam's related attack on myself — for the moment, I want as little interaction as possible with them, in general. But you may list it at ANRFC, if it isn't there already. As for those aforementioned purported personal attacks by Saff V., I'm not seeing any in those diffs you cited, so please quote directly. El_C 16:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant he has a habit of mentioning the number of users' edits. Forget about it. MS 会話 16:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus in Iran/Saff V.

Hello, I just wanted to mention how the Wiki page about coronavirus in Iran has been hijacked by a group of Iranian users (or multiple alternate accounts of the same user, it is quite possible) attempting to censor the misgivings about Iran's obviously fake numbers on the coronavirus epidemic there. The lead sections, for instance, contains a line referring to a 2 March WHO statement claiming that there was nothing wrong with Iran's numbers, which is outdated and contradicted by more recent WHO statements that claim that actual numbers are likely five times higher. Attempts at updating this, deleting that outdated and incorrect claims, have been sistematically reverted by these users, that have also deleted several lines and links referring to outside sources that estimate a far heavier toll in Iran. Iran claims to have far less cases than Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and the USA, and less deaths than Italy, Spain, and France (soon enough the USA as well), despite the outbreak in Iran starting at the same time as Italy and much earlier than in the other countries, and Iran not implementing a national lockdown unlike them (on the contrary, Iran early on denied the outbreak and held elections anyway). So, a few days ago I reported these users, one of which is User:Saff V. who has already been blocked for vandalism and non-neutral edit warring on Iran-related wiki pages, for edit warring on the Administrators' page, and? I got blocked immediately, without even a discussion! --Pesqara (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

General sanctions alert for Covid-19 related pages

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 17:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date", but did you see any problems with any of my edits? MS 会話 17:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Important notice re White genocide conspiracy theory

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 (I am not singling anyone out. I am notifying any of the last three editors to that talk page if they have not been notified in the past year.) - SummerPhD 18:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. MS 会話 18:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. O3000 (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! take a look at the talk page and add whatever you consider necessary instead of using these useless warning tags. You could also start by actually taking a look at the links you just provided above. Thanks. MS 会話 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Calling this post useless is a problem. You are re-imaging the entire article and forcing your version in. WP is built upon consensus. You do not have consensus for these major changes. O3000 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Carefully read WP:DEMOCRACY. And of course, WP:EW because you apparently have no idea what warring actually is. If you see any problems with 12 references that I had provided, you're free to express your concerns in the talk page of that article, not here. MS 会話 20:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop telling me to read things I have read many times in the 13 years I've been here. By pointing me to DEMOCRACY, you are merely declaring that you are right. I have looked at your sources and commented. I have expressed my content concerns there, not here. I have expressed my conduct concerns here, not on the article TP, according to guidelines. I used an info template instead of a warning template as you have few edits. You have not violated WP:3RR. But, you are edit warring. O3000 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, there were actually zero users favoring the removal of the content you deleted. I just want to mention you'd better give up trying to "build everything upon consensus", in general. Worth noting that one of your "content concerns" was, among others, that reverse racism "is pushed by the current POTUS". You really need to chill out buddy. MS 会話 20:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have restored the article to the status quo ante. You must stop edit warring with multiple editors, and your proposed changes must be discussed on the article talk page and receive consensus there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The status quo ante is certainly where we are right now, MS96, but I wanted to point out that your insistence on reverting to your own version, rather than my more moderate version that immediately preceded the removal of the new material, suggests an IDONTHEARTHAT attitude that does not contribute to effective collaboration on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial Because, your more moderate version contained doubts about the existence of reverse racism, and used the word "alleged" for it. However, the last source I provided clearly states: "most agree that some cases of reverse discrimination exist" on page 2948. MS 会話 04:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Where one RS states that reverse racism "exists", and many many RS state that reverse racism does not "exist", we cannot state in WP's voice that it exists, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm 100% agreed with this first logical argument I've come across here within days. Will try to find more sources though. MS 会話 14:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverse racism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reverse racism; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Where have you been in the past 4 days? Have you even bothered taking a look at the talk page at all? Do you have any objections to the sources? or the discussions? MS 会話 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(I took a 4-day vacation on Mars.) See WP:DEADLINE Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks more like an exhausting business trip though. MS 会話 21:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Super-secret space business, you understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

But keep in mind the new spaceships are anything but safe. MS 会話 22:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't fool me, that's not a space ship, it's some spaced-out shit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This conversation made my day. Thanks!MS 会話 22:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

NP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller Hi. Not sure which edit you mean, please specify. MS 会話 10:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"I've read it multiple times, have you?" When someone asks you to read something and your response suggests that they themselves have not, that shows a lack of good faith. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh!! Thanks. MS 会話 11:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet Please explain for everyone and for the sake of keeping some record, which of my edits "means that I am repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be". (Note that you should provide more than 1 edits, since "repeatedly" automatically implies a number greater than 1.) MS 会話 18:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The warning is a standard template. The wording is boilerplate stuff, lacking full applicability for all recipients. I don't apologize for the wording or endorse all of it. Here's the point, though: the act of putting it on your talk page is a required step of getting you blocked for disruption. It's a sharp warning to stop disrupting Misplaced Pages or else the organization will take protective measures by blocking you. That's the important part. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

BinksternetThanks for this reply which is an obvious evidence that you have a weak, if any, understanding of the meaning of edit warring because "An edit war occurs "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" (the very first sentence in that page). All I did was some civil discussion. Sure you are not forced to apologize, no one needs it.MS 会話 18:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's see, you have 399 edits, and Binksternet has 329,000 edits. Who would you suspect has a better grasp on what edit warring is, on general principles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Typical mean and empty argument made only for the purpose of personal attacks. This isn't anything new to me. MS 会話 18:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, "you have a weak, if any, understanding of the meaning of edit warring" is indeed a "mean and empty argument", and perilously close to a personal attack. You should watch that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Things won't change as long as the left breeze sweeps through WP. This warfare I am under without crossing a single red line or even approaching it is a clear sign that freedom of non-profit organisations in a Western democracy is a complete hoax (MSpiracy theory). I said it to another user today; now I say it to you and all other stalkers: have fun with your falsehoods. MS 会話 19:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for making it abundantly clear that your editing is controlled by your personal political ideology, and not by the relevant Misplaced Pages policies, which is what (the vast majority of) the rest of us follow. You're welcome to the warmth and comfort of your personal conspiracy theory, and your rather bizarre thought patterns, but your efforts to tilt Misplaced Pages away from reality and verifiable facts towards your preferred beliefs are not welcome, and will continue to be countered at every opportunity. We're here because we believe in Misplaced Pages, you're obviously here for other reasons entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"tilt Misplaced Pages away from reality and verifiable facts"(Citation needed) Beautiful lies. Stick to them. Deprecate Telegraph. Occupy Fox. Forgive my bizarre thought patterns. Have fun with your majority. MS 会話 20:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Not "majority", WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Reference: ..."the vast majority of"... by Beyond My Ken, in A Tribute to My Left Fellas in the Talk Page of the Carcass of a Canceled Retarded Rural Psychopath, 20:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC). MS 会話 20:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't fix a ping

You have to make a complete signed new post. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I didn't know. Thanks MS 会話 18:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)