Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:30, 1 December 2020

RamRaghubn (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hi BunnyyHop! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Slavery that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Misplaced Pages – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia 19:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning! BunnyyHop (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Vallee01 (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Marxism–Leninism

Hello BunnyyHop. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston! Thanks for offering your time. An editor as made a comment on the talk page, and I have altered my article according to his concerns.

I have some questions. When do I know consensus has been reached?

In the article it's defined as: "Consensus on Misplaced Pages does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. "

For example, I think I have addressed the concern of this editor, but there's two more (one of them hasn't replied in a while). When do I know it's okay to place it in the main article? If he says he's okay with it today, do I put it in the main page today? Or do I have to wait for the other editors to express themselves? What if this editor who expressed his concerns, or the editors, don't reply in say, two days, do I still have to wait until the day they reply? When I gave one day limits I did that because I thought that way I wouldn't be edit warring, but that's equivocated. What if an editor doesn't give me anything concrete to edit and just delays the conversation for days? BunnyyHop (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Among those who have expressed their opinion at Talk:Marxism–Leninism, it seems that "At least four other editors have opposed your changes" according to Asarlaí (talk · contribs) and you are the only one in support. So I think it would take at least two people verbally expressing agreement with you on some new wording for the situation to change. You could also just ask on Talk, 'Is there now consensus for XX?' The others seem to believe you are whitewashing Marxism–Leninism, giving it credit for its promises rather than the actuality of how it worked out when it was tried. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this was very useful! I have expressed my opinion in the Talk page, and so far the other editor has only protested about 2 minor things which I have already fixed. Seems like it's going in a good route, and I'm happy! BunnyyHop (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop you are removing sections without a prior consensus

BunnyyHop revert the edit, please do not edit war. Vallee01 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC):

Vallee01, express your concerns on the talk page. The forked paragraph was replaced by an already existing article that goes in detail about criticism of communist party rule.BunnyyHop (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop if there is no consensus, and someone has an issue with your edit you have to revert. BunnyyHop this is a warning. Vallee01 (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Your objection has already been extensively criticized. I'll keep it in the overview to be altered. BunnyyHop (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Vallee01 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

BunnyyHop (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the onus is on those who want to add the content and I no longer see consensus as BunnyyHop, The Four Deuces and I object

Thus, there's a consensus that it should be removed. If 3 out of 5 editors agree, it's a consensus. And more, in the consensus article of Misplaced Pages, the following is stated:

"The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.". This rule was completely accomplished by the colleague who changed his mind. "In the above report, people speak about a prior block of this editor." I have not been blocked before, only warned (in the same page). "Bunnyyhop was blocked twice in the month of November on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for as long as a week in a similar topic area", China and Fidel Castro. Here. "This source was not inserted in the body of the article when the update was made, so the block was applied because of this", which I thought was a big stick measure since everyone can forget to insert some source or put it in the wrong place, can't we? The second was due to persistence in using a word which if chosen arbitrarily may constitute of a POV. But I was more inexperienced, so the admin explained everything to me and we ended up changing the page itself (see my last edits on Dictatorship of the proletariat)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello, ]. Despite the multiple lies written by my colleague which I hadn't the chance to reply to, I'll only address your final conclusion - "There is a very long talk page thread in which it is hard to perceive any clear result." and "They have continued to revert now without getting a talk page consensus" Consensus is given , and made even more clear . From the total of 5 users on this talk page (despite one of them not being engaged in a while), 3 of them (including me) have expressed themselves against this. As my colleague stated: ''the onus is on those who want to add the content and I no longer see consensus as BunnyyHop, The Four Deuces and I object'' :Thus, there's a consensus that it '''should''' be removed. If 3 out of 5 editors agree, it's a consensus. And more, in the consensus article of Misplaced Pages, the following is stated: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.". This rule was completely accomplished by the colleague who changed his mind. "In the above report, people speak about a prior block of this editor." I have not been blocked before, only warned (in the same page). "Bunnyyhop was blocked twice in the month of November on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for as long as a week in a similar topic area", ] and ]. . "This source was not inserted in the body of the article when the update was made, so the block was applied because of this", which I thought was a big stick measure since everyone can forget to insert some source or put it in the wrong place, can't we? The second was due to persistence in using a word which if chosen arbitrarily may constitute of a POV. But I was more inexperienced, so the admin explained everything to me and we ended up changing the page itself (see my last edits on ]) PS: In fact, my colleague also moved the paragraph to ] ] (]) 00:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, ]. Despite the multiple lies written by my colleague which I hadn't the chance to reply to, I'll only address your final conclusion - "There is a very long talk page thread in which it is hard to perceive any clear result." and "They have continued to revert now without getting a talk page consensus" Consensus is given , and made even more clear . From the total of 5 users on this talk page (despite one of them not being engaged in a while), 3 of them (including me) have expressed themselves against this. As my colleague stated: ''the onus is on those who want to add the content and I no longer see consensus as BunnyyHop, The Four Deuces and I object'' :Thus, there's a consensus that it '''should''' be removed. If 3 out of 5 editors agree, it's a consensus. And more, in the consensus article of Misplaced Pages, the following is stated: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.". This rule was completely accomplished by the colleague who changed his mind. "In the above report, people speak about a prior block of this editor." I have not been blocked before, only warned (in the same page). "Bunnyyhop was blocked twice in the month of November on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for as long as a week in a similar topic area", ] and ]. . "This source was not inserted in the body of the article when the update was made, so the block was applied because of this", which I thought was a big stick measure since everyone can forget to insert some source or put it in the wrong place, can't we? The second was due to persistence in using a word which if chosen arbitrarily may constitute of a POV. But I was more inexperienced, so the admin explained everything to me and we ended up changing the page itself (see my last edits on ]) PS: In fact, my colleague also moved the paragraph to ] ] (]) 00:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, ]. Despite the multiple lies written by my colleague which I hadn't the chance to reply to, I'll only address your final conclusion - "There is a very long talk page thread in which it is hard to perceive any clear result." and "They have continued to revert now without getting a talk page consensus" Consensus is given , and made even more clear . From the total of 5 users on this talk page (despite one of them not being engaged in a while), 3 of them (including me) have expressed themselves against this. As my colleague stated: ''the onus is on those who want to add the content and I no longer see consensus as BunnyyHop, The Four Deuces and I object'' :Thus, there's a consensus that it '''should''' be removed. If 3 out of 5 editors agree, it's a consensus. And more, in the consensus article of Misplaced Pages, the following is stated: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.". This rule was completely accomplished by the colleague who changed his mind. "In the above report, people speak about a prior block of this editor." I have not been blocked before, only warned (in the same page). "Bunnyyhop was blocked twice in the month of November on the Portuguese Misplaced Pages for as long as a week in a similar topic area", ] and ]. . "This source was not inserted in the body of the article when the update was made, so the block was applied because of this", which I thought was a big stick measure since everyone can forget to insert some source or put it in the wrong place, can't we? The second was due to persistence in using a word which if chosen arbitrarily may constitute of a POV. But I was more inexperienced, so the admin explained everything to me and we ended up changing the page itself (see my last edits on ]) PS: In fact, my colleague also moved the paragraph to ] ] (]) 00:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock