Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Girth Summit (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 23 October 2020 (→Assuming good faith: Replying to Pasdecomplot (using reply-link)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Pasdecomplot! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! O3000 (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Misplaced Pages's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Pasdecomplot, you are invited to the Teahouse!

So sweet, and I'll rsvp as yes. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:--11th Panchen Lama controversy--.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:--11th Panchen Lama controversy--.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Misplaced Pages can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot 01:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"aligning left for easier reading again"

Hi. FYI: {{outdent}} or {{od}} will create an out-dented reply, that looks this:

A message

Also, typing four hyphens "----" will create a horizontal rule, like this:

And that lets you separate off one section from another. It's somewhere in between outdenting and starting a new subheader.

There's a script called WP:REPLYLINK that makes all this much easier. If you haven't already, go to preference->gadgets and check the box for "Install scripts without having to edit JavaScript files", which will activate the script installer button. Then go to WP:REPLYLINK and click "install". You'll then see a "reply" button after talk page comments, and you can click "reply" and write your message in the box, and it takes care of all the indenting for you so yo don't have to worry about it. Reply link was written by a volunteer editor and isn't perfect; in some threads it doesn't work; but most of the time it does work and makes communicating much, much easier. (There are lots of other scripts you also might find useful, listed at WP:USL.)

Oh and if you're wondering why we're using 1980s technology to communicate, see WP:FLOW and the links therein. HTH Levivich  17:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

So cool. Really challenged by using a mobile system - makes looking for proper editing code while editing tough, especially w/o PC perks. Thanks Levivich! Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh I didn't even notice you are editing on mobile. Bless your heart, that makes everything significantly more difficult! Levivich  17:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I hate editing by smartphone, especially when it decides all by itself to switch on predictive text (ugh) and I haven't noticed. You might find this an interesting read. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks GirthSummit and Levivich. Must always remember to disable auto-correct! I'll read the piece. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Le quagmire

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

wish to protect account from hijacking while gone. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Make sure you have a strong password and enable Meta:2fa Praxidicae (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Praxidicae. Worried about it due to recent login bizzarities, assuming from the internet connection. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

mobile editing

Hey, Pasdecomplot, I know you're taking a sabbatical but, for when you get back: an editor who edits often on his device recommends not using the mobile site or the app but instead the desktop site, which you can get to by scrolling down to the bottom of any article. He has an essay about smartphone editing at User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. I think it's possible using the mobile site or the app, combined with unfamiliarity with the desktop site, might have caused issues that then caused a communications disconnect between you and other editors, including me, and if that's true I apologize. Best to you. —valereee (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If your apology —valereee is for repeatedly redirecting George Floyd talk page discussions of important content edits which needlessly harassed a new editor, then for continuing by pushing for a BLP ban, for three months, for format issues such as tabbing but not based on content issues, then I accept. But I hesitate to even respond since a response could illicit further harassment.

Your help desk question

You did not get a response to this question. If you have a problem like that again, report it at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Vchimpanzee • talk

Thank you for your diligence

Hi Pasdecomplot,

Thank you for your edit expanding the section "20th century" on the Tibetan Buddhism page. It's important those of us familiar with Tibetan Buddhism and Maoist China work together. Time is precious, and so we need to support each other... There is a very real and current danger to our teachings and methods, and that is Chinese manipulation. You should know both OTD and TTD want the same thing - that is to unite the Karma Kagyu lineage. Let it unfold with time, and it will. Skillfully. Have confidence. You don't need to rush. Understand that there are and were very real dangers to the lives of both OTD and TTD and their families. China would have its way and kill both of them. Many high lamas have been killed. For this reason a lot of information has to be kept in secrecy. This means you and I don't know the full story regarding, and don't need to. Dharma is intact. Each of us needs to work together, and not create unnecessary work for each other. We have busy lives, and editing on[REDACTED] is noble work. All best wishes, Badabara (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Badabara Thanks for the positive wishes! Working in unison is always easier than working in conflict, but Mr Floyd went way overboard... Regards. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 Tibetan unrest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aba.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

repaired. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 Tibetan unrest, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tibetan Uprising and Chori.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Hi Pasdecomplot - you may remember that you and I had some interactions earlier in the year, and that I am aware of some of your history with Valereee. They came to my talk page earlier today because they were concerned about your accusations of bad faith towards other editors, and the fact that you didn't seem to be taking their warnings seriously. I've taken time to go through your recent contribs, and I have to tell you that I agree that some of your recent edits, particularly the accusations of bad faith in edit summaries, have been troubling. While I do not say that there have been no faults from anyone you have been in conflict with, I do see a willingness on your part to assume bad faith, to accuse others of inappropriate behaviour in edit summaries, and to reinstate your edits without discussion when they have been reverted on grounds that are, at least on the face of it, reasonable. I hope that you remember our past interactions positively, and that you will be willing to listen to me when I say that this has to stop. I want to make this as clear as I can; I genuinely don't want to be patronising, but I'm going to put this in bullet points:

• If you genuinely believe that another editor is acting in bad faith, and have convincing evidence to back it up, bring the evidence to an administrator you trust for advice, or raise a report at ANI.
• If you genuinely believe that another editor is acting in bad faith, but do not have convincing evidence to back it up, stay silent on the matter. Feel free to make a note of diffs offline in preparation of an ANI report, but do not make unsupported accusations at inappropriate venues.
• If you accuse an editor again in an edit summary of bad faith editing, your account may be temporarily blocked from editing.
• If you continue doing it, the blocks may get longer, and may eventually lead to an indefinite block.

I hope that this is clear; please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. With all respect @Girth Summit, I didn't use the words "bad faith". So, the accusation I accused an editor of "bad faith" when those words weren't used is troubling. The doubling down on the accusation is additionally troubling. There seems to be a definite misunderstanding.

Instead, I asked on several talk pages for that editor

• to retract a mischaracterization on Chen Quanguo, to which they didn't respond
• to explain their reverts on Ngawa Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture, to which they didn't respond
• to stop reverting single and multiple RS on Chen Quanguo and Self-immolation protests by Tibetans in China, to which they didn't respond .

So, to add the accusation I reverted without discussion is also troubling. Maybe, the edits were reviewed but not the discussion requests on talks of the pages?

WP states refusal to reply can also be considered a sign of "bad faith", but I did not use those words, it's policy: Also WP:TEND includes "Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors" "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors."

I didn't bring those issues to ANI, but you brought an issue to the noticeboard which also could have been discussed, without argument, on Chen Quanguo. I'm curious as to why that was done after the note here. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pasdecomplot. You don't need to use the words 'bad faith' to accuse someone of bad faith editing. If you accuse someone, for example, of hounding you, that is an accusation of bad faith. The same goes for accusations of misrepresenting the sources - the latter less so, because it might be meant in the sense of unintentionally doing so, but if you imply that someone is doing it purposefully then it is an accusation of bad faith.

Look, I don't think for a moment that you are here in bad faith - I am certain that you believe that you are improving the articles that you are working on. My concern is that you are so convinced that your view is right that you are too willing to assume that people who disagree with you are acting in bad faith. For my part, I am certain that I am not - but my concerns about that Chen Quanguo article are real, and I formed them (in good faith) the moment I took a look at what you had been doing there, without any collusion with anybody else.

That was raised at BLPN after my note here because I wanted to take time to think about it, and decide what to do. After sleeping on it, I decided that I needed to get more eyes on the matter. I haven't proposed any particular course of action - if I was personally convinced that your edits were actionable per BLP discretionary sanctions, I would have done it myself - I want the community's view on the edits you've made, and on the best way forward. If the community is fine with them, then I will be too. I hope that addresses your concerns. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand @Girth Summit. Where are the responses to the talk pages diffs I provided?

For those diffs: Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, I'm sure you've read it already, but WP:WIAPA covers what is considered to be a personal attack; amongst the things listed is an accusation about personal behaviour that lacks evidence. If you think that someone is behaving improperly, report it via the proper channels with evidence; putting stuff about hounding in edit summaries is not appropriate. I'm not here to talk about the other editor's conduct (or about the edit warring that you've both been engaged in) - this is purely about those accusations. I'm not asking you to stop editing those pages, and I'm not making any kind of determination about who is 'right' in the edit warring (although, as you know, I have specific concerns about one BLP, which we are discussing elsewhere). I'm just asking you to cut out the accusations unless you're going to make a proper, evidenced, report. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Likewise, it should apply to accusations about me - accusations that I've recently accused another editor, without evidence.

Again, I'm not accusing anyone, so it's unclear to what you're referring. In the past, I accused with copious evidence, but it went nowhere. Today, I've only provided diffs in defence of the current accusations about myself. I trust they weren't misinterpreted. Thanks @Girth Summit, and I look forward to the BLPN response. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, it applies to everyone equally, yes. Sorry if I wasn't clear what I was referring to, I thought I had been - it is the implication that someone is hounding you, such as here, in an edit summary, and here, on an article talk page. There's also this, which is again suggestive that the other editor isn't acting in good faith.

The long and the short of it is that edit summaries should describe what you are doing in the edit, and only that, and that article talk pages should used to discuss content, not discussing other editors and their conduct. It doesn't really matter whether you say 'This editor needs to read WP:HOUND' rather than 'This editor is hounding me' - it's still bringing their conduct into question, not focussing on content and sourcing. I hope that's clear enough now? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)