Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Holydiver82 (talk | contribs) at 20:22, 24 January 2024 (→January 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

January 2024

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Your recent edits to The Mummy (2017 film) & Transformers: The Last Knight seem to be about making a point due to the consensus reached at Talk:The Marvels#Box Office Bomb. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

so correcting[REDACTED] articles to make them as accurate as possible is a problem? if someone learns about[REDACTED] guidelines related to a subject and then goes and works to improve articles based on the guidelines that is wrong?

very confusing why you are assuming such bad faith from edits made to improve articles based on a better understanding of[REDACTED] and its guides on how to write articles Holydiver82 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Given your previous posts, it's clear you are editing articles to prove a point after the outcome of the discussion surrounding The Marvels, it's not a bad faith assumption to make. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

you can read minds? what happened to[REDACTED] assuming good faith? Holydiver82 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not reading minds, just observing clear patterns in editing. I would normally assume good faith, but the way you've talked and edited has made me assume otherwise. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

learning about[REDACTED] guides on how to write articles and then improving other articles in line with those guides? to make them as accurate and correct as possible based on reliable sources?

you people seem to dislike anyone other than yourselves making an edit Holydiver82 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No I don't - you seem to be assuming bad faith yourself. And while learning from Misplaced Pages guides is nice and a good thing, that doesn't include editing other articles to make a point, per WP:POINT. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

what point is that? since that accusation keeps getting thrown around so often Holydiver82 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

A point to make against the consensus reached surrounding the description of The Marvels (film) as a box-office bomb. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

correcting articles with unsourced opinions does that how?

baseless accusations..sad Holydiver82 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Holydiver82! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor 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. As an aside - if you have issues with the MOS:ACCLAIMED policy, I would suggest starting an RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Film instead of editing to make a point. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am working to improve and correct articles with unsourced opinions, quite a few film articles have these unsourced opinions that are not in line with wiki guidelines and policy and need improvement. Holydiver82 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review the policy on Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing which states:

"When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.

Such tactics are highly disruptive to the project. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages.

Note that someone can legitimately make a point, without disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate it."

As I stated at Talk:The Marvels, if you're here to build an encyclopedia, then there are ways to make your point without disruptive editing (such as gathering more sources or starting a discussion at the project page which set a policy). But you shouldn't bludgeon the process because you don't like the consensus. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

how is it disruptive editing to correct articles that have unsourced opinions? in order to improve them to follow[REDACTED] guides on having sources for claims, especially exceptional claim under MOS acclaimed.

I am working to correct/improve articles that have unsourced opinions, unsure why more of you are not out there reviewing film articles that do this in order to correct them?

or why you would have any sort of problem with corrections being made to improve those articles? you dont want the articles to be as accurate, correct, and unbias as possible? Holydiver82 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)