Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:31, 29 October 2013

As I've made very few edits to the article, I can hardly be accused of WP:OWN, and might I suggest you read WP:CIVIL before your next posting. guidelines. A trivia section can contain other information, apart from references in popular culture, and tends to be a magnet for factoids that people want to insert, but can't be bothered to find somewhere in the main body of the text. I think both you and Doctor need to chill out. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You are talking in circles. "In Popular Culture" contains the same trivia and Trivia. Synanyms. Same content, different name. You can't have it both ways and be honest with yourself.

Now, I'll tell you this: I can stop changing "In Popular Culture" to the more accurate "Trivia", but I certainly will not stop adding the "trivia" info box tag. It's trivia. Think it through.

And, yet again, "trivia" is "discuraged" in one or two "policy" discussions. But NOWHERE is trivia banned, dissallowed, officially verboten, or otherwise defined as persona non grata. Therefore it is allowed. But, it must be properly titled if we are to be honest and accurate about the true nature of the content.

By the way, when issuing "3R" nastygrams, keep in mind "it takes two to tango". Thus, such counciling should be ballanced and not lopsided. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Check my edit history, and you'll see that I did. Now, in the light of that, do you want to re-examine your posting on my talk page? Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. It's a general comment to those who abuse the "3R" issue and turn it into an uncivilized threat, which is used WAY too often (with all the "stop sign" graphics and everything else that scream "I know better than you, so stop doing what I don't like!!!") by cabals of "editors" who like to throw "power" around to achieve their personal views. Such "editors" often resort to what is known as "Wikilawyering" to smother alternative views in an avalanche of arcane rules and "commentaries" (not unlike Torah commentaries) to smother out views that they disagree with. Interestingly, most of the time these "warnings" are dished out without consensus or discussion. Many people get fed up with the "social cliques" of the "high powered" Wiki editors that "shout down" alternative views, and so they simply leave. This is a disservice to Misplaced Pages.

Significantly, along these same lines, I see you have decided not to comment on the actual subject, but instead become "offended" at an unrelated side issue. Please consider that actual subject, which is "trivia". Again, "In Popular Culture" is a synonym for "Trivia", exactly by common definition - and indeed by actual content - they are the same thing. Are you willing to think about this idea with an open mind and discuss it? Good day.

=//= Johnny Squeaky 20:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

My question actually referred to the final comments you left on my talk page re the so-called "nastygram", but never mind. The template you complained about isn't uncivil, but really a heads up to say "do you know you're edit warring?" and "if not, then check out these links". Edit warring catches out the best of us. I once got blocked for it, so I wouldn't want to see it happen to someone else who didn't know about it. Now chill out and stop getting stressed about this. It all happened several hours ago now, and life really is too short to expend unnecessary energy on such things. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverting inaccurate and / or vandalist ( the "politically correct" term is "edits in good faith" ) edits is not a matter of the "3R" rule. =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Joni James edits

Johnny, I see this is now the third person's changes you've reverted on this page. I'm going to leave it as it is, but I strongly suggest that you refrain from altering it again if someone else changes it. I see you've recently been in trouble and blocked for edit warring, and despite your claims to the contrary, this looks like classic edit warring behaviour to me. Of course you are entitled to make changes (that is the whole idea of Misplaced Pages after all), but what you shouldn't do is engage in an edit war with someone if they do not agree with your changes, and/or attempt to cherrypick from phrases in the guidelines that you believe support your point of view. You were not correcting vandalism the other day, you were merely reverting something because you didn't happen to like it. I seriously urge you to think about what you're doing in future. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)