Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 30 September 2012

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Festermunk, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Naksa Day

Hi Festermunk, just a note in case you don't have Naksa Day watchlisted: I undid your most recent edit to the article. First of all, there's no blanket ban on linking to YouTube. As long as the entity uploading the video is a copyright owner – and that is the case here – it's fine. Secondly, the video is raw footage with no editorial commentary or anything else. So the funding by the Russian government is immaterial. Let me know if you feel otherwise, though.—Biosketch (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

AUV

I admittedly seemed angry when I undid the Texas IP's revision who was basically justifying the shooter. But we certainly can't go to the point of removing everything that's "politicized", otherwise we wouldn't understand much of it! It's an article about a left-wing youth movement, so it would be preposterous not to say that when its meeting was attacked, the shooter was motivated by far-right purposes. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding edit

There is a discussion at Talk:2011_Russian_protests#Cites_do_not_say_this regarding this edit which you recently made. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Misplaced Pages guidelines. Misplaced Pages has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Misplaced Pages:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. diff — Jeraphine Gryphon  08:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Megaupload

Regarding your work that I undid here, please read WP:SYNTH before you restore your "state-run" claim. I believe you're running afoul of the SYNTH policy because you seem to be making a comment about the reliability of RT even though such a comment isn't specifically connected to Megaupload. CityOfSilver 20:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Lin

No, actually when you remove something already existed for awhile without objection (meaning that it is accepted by consensus), the burden is on you to convince others why what you did is correct. Not the other way around. Also now you are in violation of Misplaced Pages's three-revert rule which could lead to a block. Since you stubbornly refuse to start discussion, I've start a thread there about this.—Chris!_c/t 05:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"when you remove something already existed for awhile with objection (meaning that it is accepted by consensus)" Surely you jest when you write that.Festermunk (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a typo.—Chris!_c/t 06:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think what I said is bs, then go read WP:Consensus yourself. Under Reaching consensus through editing, it says "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Misplaced Pages. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."—Chris!_c/t 06:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. Please don't think that you win just because I temporarily stop reverting. It is just that I don't want to edit war. If you don't have any meaningful reply any time soon, your edit will be reverted. —Chris!_c/t 06:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

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. Salvio 18:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I know I'm filing this request for an unblock, but it's really more of a request for clarification. I don't dispute that I made more than three of the same reverts on the Jeremy Lin page so as a matter of technicality, I understand the block. But can an exemption be granted in my case? Four of my reverts , , and were for disruptive editing, as the users failed to engage in consensus building by disregarding calls for explanation of their edits. As I understand the section on dealing with disruptive editors, there is nothing wrong with reverting disruptive edits, but the problem is that the exemptions to 3RR policy makes no attempt to accommodate reverts as a result of disruptive editing. In light of this, is it at all possible that the administrators can waive my 3RR violation on the grounds that I was trying to revert disruptive editing?

Decline reason:

WP:3RR is very clear: vandalism and BLP violations are pretty much the only excuses. You are always supposed to take the high road and follow WP:DR. You yourself need to model WP:BRD, even when others don't. The WP:TRUTH or being right is never considered an excuse to edit-war - you'll see that if you read clearly (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:15, 8 March 2012 (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.

World Tourism rankings

Please add a reference for your change to the tourism numbers for the US. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

revert

Hi Festermunk, I reverted the changes you made to the Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident page, though I recognise that you made these changes in good faith and were trying to be constructive. Your edits messed up reference tags, you added some material already covered in other sections, and in some cases, you removed important findings (for instance, that Philip Pan found that two of the victims were not known by neighbours to practice Falungong). You're of course welcome to edit, but you might want to consider making suggestions on the talk page first. Sorry for the inconvenience, —Zujine|talk 05:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I partially reverted again. I think part of the confusion is that there are two or three sections where third-party views and findings are discussed. One, called 'Third-party findings,' is dedicated to presenting factual information. The other two (including 'dispute') contains opinions and speculation. The quotes you added from Schechter and Turpin belong in the latter section (they are both there now). I hope that clarifies things. —Zujine|talk 06:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a heads up. I reviewed your edits, and think that there are still ways the section could be improved. First, you said in the edit summary "Pan doesn't conclude that she doesn't practice Falun Gong, but rather the people who he is interviewing who do." But that's not really the case. Pan's article literally concludes with him saying, in his own words, that no one ever saw her practice Falungong. This is not a quote. It is not credited to someone he interviewed. It is his own conclusion, based on his interviews. You also edited to read that Pan's article presented a number of reasons the two may have self-immolated, including the possibility that it was 'black propaganda.' That's implied, but not actually stated in the article. Similarly, people didn't suggest that she might have self-immolate because she was desperate. This is bordering on original synthesis. I hope you don't mind if I tweak it further. Finally, you cited the CNN producer finding to Schechter's book, which is fine, but also introduced some original synthesis. Namely, you drew a direct connection between the fact that the CNN producer saw no child, to the government's claim that the victim received a tracheotomy. Schechter's book listed these things next to each other, but there is no connection, implied or otherwise. You seem like you're pretty new to Misplaced Pages, and it's great to see new editors collaborating and trying to improve. —Zujine|talk 16:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at RT article

I have commented on problems with your edits today, both deletions of WP:RS info and WP:Undue additional info, all of them made without Edit summary - at least until you complained about someone else not doing an edit summary. I've been waiting for your reply. Meanwhile you have been edit warring with an Anon IP without discussion on the talk page at all. Please do so and do not revert any sensible changes to your edits I may make soon or I will report you for Edit warring. CarolMooreDC 03:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you work out your changes in a sandbox and not constantly revert yourself over numerous edits? It makes it difficult to follow your changes and evaluate them for either other editors on the article or editors who might later come in through RfCs or WP:NPOVN. A comment on my new section on Criticisms section also would be welcome. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 17:01, 28 September 2012 (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. CarolMooreDC 21:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Template:Z10