Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:23, 14 November 2013

Your recent edit to Danica McKellar

Here you deleted a reference, making the reference name "autogenerated1" undefined although it was still used elsewhere in the article. That was fixed by AnomieBOT; just watch out for that easily made mistake next time. Also, most of your edit comments may well be considered condescending. -- UKoch (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to avoid doing that again. Can't help being a bit condescending when general standards, never very good, have sunk to such abysmal levels, I'm afraid. Any random article I chance across will almost inevitably contain really basic errors, a direct result of many poorly thought out policies which fail to provide a framework for the production of actual quality articles. 200.104.245.226 (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, other people are more likely to respond favourably to your remarks if you phrase them more nicely. Your choice. -- UKoch (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right of course, but I'm not here to make friends. And people respond unfavourably to IP edits no matter how pleasant their edit summaries are. 200.104.245.226 (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You might have to (or want to) collaborate with other people on some article; that will probably be easier if they haven't been put off by your remarks. And it's true that IPs are often treated unfairly. Have you ever thought about registering? -- UKoch (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't thought about registering. When the community that exists here stops being so viciously hateful of the outsiders that they claim to welcome, I'll consider not being an outsider. In the meantime there is a very, very small number of editors who it would be possible for me to collaborate with. 200.104.245.226 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Civility

You may not be here to make friends, but hopefully you are here to help build an encyclopedia. Aggressive edit summaries create an unpleasant working environment, which is detrimental to the goals of the project. Please remember that WP:CIVIL is not a suggestion, but a policy. Also consider that putting other editors on the defensive will, I suspect, make them more likely to revert your edits, so your attitude may prove counterproductive. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If my pointing out the generally shocking level of quality in most wikipedia articles puts people on the defensive, that's not my fault but the fault of years of neglect and the complete failure of the structure of wikipedia to actually produce quality articles. Besides, lenty of people revert edits simply because they are made by an IP, eg . The edit summaries are neither here nor there. 200.104.245.226 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Foveon X3 sensor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""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:

• '''Foveon X3 sensor''' is a ] ] for digital cameras, designed by ] (now part of ]) and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Your recent editing history at Ian Gow shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:18, 13 November 2013 (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. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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.  Drmies (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• As an editor, I agree that the make of the car is irrelevant. As an admin, I think you're going about it completely the wrong way; edit warring is edit warring even if you're right, and the various abuse flung around in edit summaries isn't helping your case either. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Jolly good, see you on the next IP then. I'm sure you've had a chat with "Wee curry monster" about his false claim that there was a consensus that the make of the car he was blown up in was useful in the article, and his false claim that I had never explained why it was absurd to include it, and the fundamental incorrectness of his edit. I'm sure you'll be concerned if a dishonest and inept editor faces no incentive at all to realise that he's not contributing anything useful. 200.104.245.226 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I did, yes. You could have too, in which case I wouldn't have had to block you. That you'll have a new IP next is irrelevant: you're still a person behind the keyboard, and it's the person I'm talking to. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any public message to him saying that dishonesty like that is not acceptable. I trust you sent a private message of some sort.

It's not that I deliberately change my IP by the way - it changes by itself, and if I spot horrible mistakes in articles, I'm actually not going to ignore them, regardless of who got upset when about something I said. My interest, you see, is in making a quality encyclopaedia. "Wee Curry Monster" quite plainly does not share that interest. I really don't know what his reason for editing is, but it's not about improving anything. See for example:

• reverting edits simply because they were made anonymously: "rv IP edits"
• claiming that he was "swayed by Isabella's comment that the modest nature of the car and his home conveyed some measure of the man" when he was already edit warring to include this meaningless information two years ago
• claiming that "as an argument is something have never responded to", which is simply a lie, a realy despicable lie intended to justify his own behaviour of reverting for absolutely no reason whatsoever. See eg ,

Note also that Isabela84 did not even know the actual brand of car, though it is supposedly vital for conveying information about his lifestyle:

Now personally, I think that someone who reverts someone else's work and then falsely claims to have a consensus and falsely claims that no arguments have been presented by the people he is attacking is highly damaging to a project which is supposed to be about building an encyclopaedia. And yet the most anyone can bring themselves to say to him publically is "I don't see consensus on the talk page". This is not good enough. It's no wonder that most articles are in a desperate state of poor quality when useless editors contributing nothing are not only tolerated but encouraged. 200.104.245.226 (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)