Revision as of 04:22, 7 November 2014 editDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits GamerGate general sanctions notice← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:30, 7 November 2014 edit undoSaintonge235 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users540 editsm →Haymarket affair: Repllied to message.Next edit → | ||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
Please stop adding books to "Further reading" that are already mentioned above in the "Works cited" section. Continuing to edit-war may result in your being ]ed from editing. Thank you. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC) | Please stop adding books to "Further reading" that are already mentioned above in the "Works cited" section. Continuing to edit-war may result in your being ]ed from editing. Thank you. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
Ah, I didn't see those books in the "works cited" list. I'll refrain from adding them, then.] (]) 12:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
==November 2014== | ==November 2014== |
Revision as of 12:30, 7 November 2014
Welcome!
Hello, Saintonge235, 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! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
37th Congress article has to show men there.
Some would count Texas seceded at the popular referendum, February 23. Nevertheless, in an Article about the 37th Congress, an account should be made of the men certified, seated and attending.
The detail is further down in the article, Texas Senators, Louis T. Wigfall (D), served until March 23, 1861, vacant thereafter. But John Hemphill (senator) (D), served to July 11, 1861, until expelled by Congress. His seat went vacant thereafter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Reply
The portion of the article I corrected didn't say 'There was no one from Texas participating in 37th Congress when Ft. Sumter was fired upon.' It said that five states, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas were drawn "into the confederacy with their more Southern sisters". That's quite true of VA, NC, TN, and AR, but Texas had formally joined the Confederate States of America on March 2nd, 1861. It was over a month later that Sumter was fired upon. The attack on Ft. Sumter didn't draw Texas into anything.
Possibly the original author meant something like 'The attack on Ft. Sumter caused Senators and Representatives from five Southern states to withdraw from participation in the 37th Congress.' But regardless of what was meant, what was actually written was just wrong about Texas.Saintonge235 (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The cite was from the History of the Senate webpage, quoting the retired Secretary of the Senate memoirs. Sumter is fired on in April, Texas' most esteemed jurist, John Hemphill, withdraws only on expulsion in July. Makes me want to find out his rationale. He, at least, apparently believed he was representing Texas in some way. While you are addressing the facts on the ground in Texas at the time, my guess is there was a mindset in the Senate and with its Secretary, that as long as Mr. Hemphill was present in the US Senate each morning, Texas was present in the US in some way. I would speculate there was an "inside the beltway" mentality in the Congress before there was a beltway. Towards concensus, I agree to your expunging reference to Texas in the narrative. It is well enough to have the dates of service in the Senate roll. Thanks for the good eye to chronology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
2nd Reply
And thank you for the complement.
I agree, the Texans that stayed in Washington after March 2nd probably felt that they were representing Texas in some way. By staying they could look after the interests of Texas and its people, even if they personally believed that Texas was no longer part of the United States. If they agreed with the North that secession was unconstitutional, then they were doing the job they were elected to do. And there are other points of view they may have had.
I just felt that the article as originally written conveyed the impression, in that paragraph, that Texas hadn't seceded yet, but decided to secede after Ft. Sumter was fired upon, when Lincoln called for militia to suppress the rebellion.
Of course, the article was clearer down below, but not everyone reads everything. I think it's better to avoid creating possibilities for misunderstanding for those just skimming, or only reading part of an article.
In short, a minor correction, but one I think worth making.Saintonge235 (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Compromise of 1850
The discussion that you started has gotten rolling. Care to come back and add more? 98.82.193.135 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Hatcher Scale.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page
- Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! tausif 13:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Saintonge235. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk.Message added 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nolelover 23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Need a hand?
Hello, Saintonge235! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Misplaced Pages where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sarah (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
November 2012
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about living persons, as you did to Watch on the Rhine (novel). Thank you. Sandstein 18:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- You've been reverted by two editors now--this last edit summary is correct. Please don't continue and edit-war. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Watch on the Rhine (novel). 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, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sandstein 16:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Watch on the Rhine (novel)
If you do not self-revert your edit here and take your concern to the article talk page I will have to ask for sanctions at the edit warring notice board. Tiderolls 16:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Editing War
I have attempted to work towards a consensus. When "Sanderstein" said that Misplaced Pages was not a good enough source for the fact that Dietmar Dath is a Marxist, I set about finding references to establish that fact. When "Sanderstein" said that Dath's Marxism was of dubious relevance, I replied that he the quotations concentrated on the novel's politics, and that in turn made the political opinions of the reviewers relevant.
Misplaced Pages claims that content must be neutral and verifiable. I believe it is neutral and relvant to describe Dath as a Marxist when he writes about politics, just as it would be neutral to describe him as an sf author when he writes the obituary of another sf author. If "Sanderstein" thinks he that I'm wrong, he could try putting forth an argument. Instead, he deletes material he doesn't like. Saintonge235 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. There is a discussion on the article talk page regarding your edits. You are the one that is reverting without discussion. Tiderolls 18:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Notification
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. Tiderolls 18:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit-warring
Saintonge, you have been edit-warring in Watch on the Rhine (novel) since November 16, on and off. Technically, it's not a violation of WP:3RR as you have not reverted more than three times in a 24-hour period. Yet, you can still be blocked for edit-warring, irrespective of whether you have violated 3RR itself. It appears that you wish to insert content into the article, even though more than one editor has disagreed with your additions. It is gratifying to see that you have finally commented on the article talk page, but I believe that Tide rolls's request that you self-revert your last edit as a sign of good faith and then continue to discuss the content issues on the talk page is a reasonable one. If you fail to do that, you run the risk of being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Watch on the Rhine (novel). 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 below this notice the text{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but 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. Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hampton Roads Conference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William C. Harris (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) 14:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Hatcher Scale concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Hatcher Scale, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Your article submission Hatcher Scale
Hello Saintonge235. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Hatcher Scale.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Hatcher Scale}}
, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Misplaced Pages, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Haymarket affair
Please stop adding books to "Further reading" that are already mentioned above in the "Works cited" section. Continuing to edit-war may result in your being blocked from editing. Thank you. — MShabazz /Stalk 04:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see those books in the "works cited" list. I'll refrain from adding them, then.Saintonge235 (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Dreadstar ☥ 04:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)