User talk:Jugdev - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Macrakis (talk | contribs) at 15:17, 4 October 2015 (sign unsigned note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:17, 4 October 2015 by Macrakis (talk | contribs) (sign unsigned note)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hello, Jugdev, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Thank you for your contributions. To get the most out of Misplaced Pages, you may benefit from following some of the links below.

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field.

Happy editing! --Snowysusan (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Misplaced Pages
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Misplaced Pages Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Misplaced Pages etiquette Practice civility

Rocket Girl edits

Hi, please consult the talk page of the Rocket Girl article regarding my edits on the page and the reason behind them. Please familiarise yourself with the relevant policies that govern the issues addressed (and seek assistance if needed), however please don't just revert the edits without discussing and reaching a consensus on the talk page.Rayman60 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Rocket Girl, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rocket Girl, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Drugstore, Low and P.S. I Love You (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cheree Records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indie

Rocket Girl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Drugstore

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Ché (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dart, Exit, Backwater, Seam, Magic Hour, The Golden Mile, Delta, Dweeb and Bis

Cheree Records (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Loop and State Of Grace

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ché Trading, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dweeb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Eat Lights Become Lights

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Eat Lights Become Lights requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Cindy(talk) 11:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Email

Thanks for contacting me. File:Eat Lights final band pic.jpg was deleted per WP:CSD#F3. Licenses for use "only on Misplaced Pages" are unacceptable. The license must be free and allow commercial use and derivatives. INeverCry 02:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eat Lights Become Lights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rocket Girl may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

as far afield as Japan (]), USA (]), Spain (]), France, Germany (]} and Greece in addition to the key music publications (], ], ], ], [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eat Lights Become Lights, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cluster and Can (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rocket Girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page My Bloody Valentine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Füxa may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* '''''Venoy''''' 1997 (Darla (Bliss Out v.5" CD5/12"EP)
* '''''Photon''''' ‎2013 (7" ]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Füxa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darla (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Füxa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:ELBL Electromagnetika ModularLiving rocketgirl.ogg

Thank you for uploading File:ELBL Electromagnetika ModularLiving rocketgirl.ogg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rocket Girl, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chinese, Drone and Dearborn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hello, could you talk with me at Talk:Internet_of_Things#Unexplained_deletion? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Hi Jugdev. Please advise if you require assistance with the style of writing for articles in the Misplaced Pages. As a starting point, please familiarise yourself with this and this section. Shout if you need help. Enjoy the project. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rui, thank you for your feedback on big data. In response, the introductory paragraph abides by wiki standards: sentence one is a fact; sentence two is a fact; sentence three is as it was before my edits. The first two sentences allow a layer of context to the third sentence, which is why I feel that the paragraph should remain as it is. I look forward to working with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jugdev (talk • contribs) 04:57, 29 January 2015‎

I agree with User:Rui Gabriel Correia--the tone is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, especially for the opening paragraph, which should be a terse summary, per MOS:LEAD--many people see only the lead paragraph, e.g. in search results, so it should be straightforward and stand alone. (If a person searches for "big data" and sees "Big Data is an all-encompassing term for any collection of data sets so large or complex that it becomes difficult to process using traditional data processing applications", they may have learned everything they need to know. If they see "Data has always been Big. The one aspect that differs now (if compared with the past) would be the sheer scale and accessibility of Data, which is the direct result of the super efficient speeds in which data can now be computed", they don't...) -- Narsil (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Narsil. Somehow I failed to convey that to the editor, who still feels that what he done is good and in line with the style for an ecncyclopaedia. I trust that he will have enough sense to not change it again. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" (MOS:LEAD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Jugdev (talk • contribs) 06:13, 31 January 2015

I don't think any of us wants to get into an edit war here! ;-) I've asked for administrators to chime in: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#User_talk:Jugdev.23Manual_of_Style -- Narsil (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been told that there hasn't been enough discussion to merit admin intervention yet. So... I've restored Gabriel's last version, and added my comments to the Big Data talk page (in Talk:Big data#Tone of article). Jugdev, if you want to discuss this further, please do so there I stead of here--and please don't just restore your version without discussing it!

Gabriel, if you're tired of the matter, that's cool--I can request a third opinion via WP:3O. But I'd be very glad of your further help here... ;-) Thanks! -- Narsil (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big data. 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:

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

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. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Kuru (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Narsil, for your input. The user has since reverted your most recent change, despite:

1a. being asked to leave as it and discuss,
1b. just like before with the removal of tags on tone, despite requests to not remove until the matter had been settled.
2. Recieving a warning that his

I've since had one more go at explaining to the user the issues with: 1. Intro 2. Editorialising, peacock and weasel words. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaving it to Administrators

Hi User:Narsil, now I am stepping out. User has given us all the necessary evidence that he either does not know how or is not willing to play ball. I leave it to User:Kuru and/ or any other editor/s to decide on how to proceed. Thanks to you both, see you elsewhere on this wide WP universe. Um abraço, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you your contribution. Please see my comments on the talk page regarding the revert.-JG (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've posted a Request for Comment on the matter. It looks like JG is blocked for now, but I figure this will let other people chime in (and, if that's the consensus, restore the old version). Narsil (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I look forward to working with you. -JG (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Big data (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Practitioner

Internet of Things (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Practitioner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you have at least joined the discussion; repeated reverts to your preferred material when it is clear that it is disputed by multiple editors is unacceptable. In the future, please gain a consensus for your edits before making future changes to that article. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I believe that the edits that I have made on Wikimedia Foundation's behalf are valid, referenced and relevant. My edits have been reverted by two editors who have not shown an in depth understanding of the subject matter. My edits have been deleted as many times as I have reverted despite the fact that I have tried to justify the edits. I have persisted in reverting because I have not received a satisfactory justification for the deletions - I assumed that this is something that should be expected on any project conducted on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I do not feel that a block is justified due to the reasons made above. -JG (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural close of this request because your 24-hour block has expired. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Continued reverts

Jugdev, I've read through the discussion on the Big data talk page, and there is clear consensus against your version of the lede. You still seem to be reverting back to your preferred version - please note that this is simple edit warring, and that any future reverts are very likely to lead to blocks of increasing duration. You will need to limit yourself to the discussion and gain a clear consensus for your version. Kuru (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution Kuru. Misplaced Pages is a place that shares knowledge, which I believe the editors in question are lacking. Happy to leave the primitive first sentence despite the fact that my version was indeed a quotation from a publication that focuses on the subject of the article. I will not revert again, but would ask you to rephrase the following guidelines due to their deceiving connotations:

"Misplaced Pages articles, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable"

I believe that my version of this article is in line with the standards noted above. The sources are reliable and the content is clear and easily digested.

"Normally, the opening paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows."

-JG (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev, you are repeating the same edit warring behavior against multiple editors at Internet, another high visibility article. Stop reverting to your preferred version and start a discussion on the article's talk page to gain consensus for your edits; they are clearly contested. Please consider this a final warning. Kuru (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I contest your change. You have not given enough justification for your revert - I will continue to escalate. -JG (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made no change to the article; you seem to be confused. Kuru (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." -JG (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

When you say you're going to "escalate", what do you mean? If you mean you're going to follow the processes listed in WP:DISPUTE--for example, trying to get other editors involved who might back your proposed changes--that's great! That's how WP works. Or alternatively, if you feel like we're behaving inappropriately or treating you unfairly, you can request administrator intervention (per the guidelines in Resolving user conduct disputes)--though since an admin (User:Kuru) is already involved, that may not change anything. (Of course, if you feel like his behavior is inappropriate, you can use these steps to call attention to that.) All of this is part of the normal way of doing the job here on Misplaced Pages.

But if, by "escalate", you mean "keep restoring your preferred version of the article even though every other editor who is currently involved disagrees with your changes"--I think it's highly likely you'll just find yourself blocked for disruptive editing.

If you honestly want to find out why other editors disagree with your edits, the thing to do would be to start a new section on Talk:Internet, describe your proposed changes, and ask why other editors disagree. But if you go there to just say "this is why I'm right, this is why my edits are better", and make your changes again regardless of what other editors think... it's not likely to work well. Narsil (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rocket Girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mojo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits that add references are never "minor"

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Internet, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". (In particular, adding a reference--as you did with Internet--is never considered "minor". When in doubt, it's always okay to mark a change as "major".) Thanks! — Narsil (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Advertising inventory

Hello Jugdev,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Advertising inventory for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Rberchie (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Media inventory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Media inventory is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Media inventory until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ― Padenton |☎ 16:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your contribution. Both media inventory and advertising inventory were simultaneously created. I have linked the two pages as I now feel that both pages described the same process, but I prefer the term media inventory. Linking of the two (i.e. advertising inventory and media inventory) should not affect the conversation about whether or not the ultimate process (i.e. the transaction of media space) should be included on Misplaced Pages. I am happy to discuss this further at your convenience. I look forward to working on this page with you. -JG (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

List of media agencies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to PHD, AKA, OMD, Kinetic, MNC, UM, Carat and MEC

Media buying (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WPP

Programmatic media (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Practitioner

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Internet of Things, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Analytic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conversion tracking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KPI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Interacting on Programmatic media

Hi, you have blanket-reverted my edits on programmatic media with no explanation. As Misplaced Pages:Revert only when necessary says, "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit." Moreover, since you haven't explained your reversion, there's no way for other editors to respond intelligently to your edits. I see that you have been responsible for almost all of the edits to this article (thanks!), but on Misplaced Pages, no individual editor "owns" an article. Please try to edit more collaboratively. --Macrakis (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please review WP:REFERS. Articles should never start "X is a term for Y", but rather "X is Y". --Macrakis (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Macrakis The article begins with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: What is programmatic media and Why it is notable - as per the guidelines. Your original edit omitted a few important facts hence its revert. (--Jugdev)

Thanks for your reply. By the way, if you write --~~~~ at the end of your comments, they will be signed with your user name and a date stamp.

It's generally more productive to selectively improve on other editors' contributions, rather than remove them entirely (except of course in the case of vandalism). In any case, I've opened the discussion on the style and content of the article at Talk:Programmatic media and invite you to engage there. --Macrakis (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of request for intervention

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. direct link Thank you. Macrakis (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remember that the talk page of an article is meant to be a record of discussion related to an article. Editors should not remove other editors' comments from the talk page. (It's also bad form to remove one's own comments from an article talk page if somebody has replied to them, since it distorts the flow of the conversation.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments C.Fred The user appears to be vandalising the page despite being informed that the changes omit important information. The commentary on the talk page appears to completely disregard the commentary noted when the changes were reverted.

I don't see where the other party is acting in bad faith or has otherwise vandalized the article. It looks like there is just a content dispute, and that needs resolved through discussion. Also, edit summaries do not substitute for discussion. You need to discuss the changes at the article's talk page. Also, remember that discussion involves dialogue; you need to listen to the other party's comments (or other parties', since there appear to be other editors active in the article now) and respond. That's the only way to move toward a consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

More directly, you need a better rationale for this edit than "reverted vandalism", especially since other editors have pointed out how your edits break Misplaced Pages guidelines. If you label another good-faith edit as vandalism in your revert, you are at risk of being blocked for bad-faith editing and disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Jugdev, you are at three reverts within a 24 hour period. Do not revert on this article again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Diffs of his reverts: #1, #2, #3, #4. Can we get a short block for disruption and edit warring, please? It's obvious he's not going to stop, and there's no hope of ever getting in a single copy edit if he believes every change is vandalism. It seems a bit bureaucratic to go to WP:ANEW when this is already being discussed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The above are continually engaging in removing key facts from programmatic media despite being informed that the facts are crucial to the subject area. The protocol (assess, revert, warn, watch ...) is being adhered to at present. (unsigned contribution by User:Jugdev ‎ 2015-10-01T15:50:00)

I'm not going to be drawn into an extended edit war with you. However, you have violated 3RR on this article, so you're clearly not adhering to policy. Consensus is clearly against you. You have refused to discuss your issues on the talk page and stubbornly label every edit as vandalism, when they are clearly not vandalism. If you would simply discuss your reasons for being opposed to every edit, maybe we could improve the page. If you see nothing at all wrong with your behavior, I don't think you're going to last very long before being indefinitely blocked for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like I didn't look at the dates carefully enough, as the earliest revert I mentioned was actually from two days ago, not yesterday. But you're still at 4RR on the article thanks to your latest revert. And I don't really think it's very funny to put a vandalism warning on my talk page. This is first time I've ever been templated in 8 years, so I guess you get that honor. Note that WP:NOTVAND has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and it is disruptive to call good-faith edits "vandalism". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's very funny that you, Jugdev, put a vandalism warning on my talk page. It's not the first time I've gotten one from an edit-warrior. It just makes it clearer that you're not engaging in constructive discussion and dispute resolution. But it's not too late! Many productive editors started out with similar misunderstandings of the way Misplaced Pages works. I hope you'll join us as a productive and cooperative editor. --Macrakis (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Programmatic media shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JohnInDC (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

An edit warning has been left on your talk page.

-JG (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Kuru (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

The page contains key industry and academic facts that are all interrelated. Multiple users have been engaging in reverting some of the key facts within the article. I believe that my initial commentary was not taken on board and the removal of key facts has continued. I have followed the Assess, Revert, Warn, and Watch and Report protocol. I have left edit warnings on all user talk pages concerned and noted that some have been deleted. I have not made any reverts since warning the users. My last revert was made as the user added the warning on my page. -JG (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't get to continue edit warring until someone places the edit warring template on your talk page. Having been blocked in the past for edit warring, you should already be well aware of the site policy - and you were well beyond the 3RR bright-line rule. Additionally, you blanked the article talk page of attempts to discuss the content, at least once with an edit summary claiming that discussion to be vandalism - which it clearly was not. The article talk page is the most appropriate location to discuss article content when there is a content dispute. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

re:Email

Yes, per WP:OWNTALK, users are allowed to remove and/or archive comments, information notices and warnings from their own talkpage, at their won discretion. One exceptions to keep in mind for future reference, is declined unblock requests while the relevant block is still in place. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)