Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:32, 6 July 2016

Welcome!

Hello, Kamel Tebaast! 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! Sro23 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Misplaced Pages The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page 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 Simplified Manual of Style • 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 Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) 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

Thomas Solomon's Garage

If you want such page, you have to write it quoting reliable sources, which confirm notability of the gallery. Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Louis Danziger has a new comment

• I have reorganized, transferred, and deleted all of the old references and citations. It should take you 10 seconds to review and approve a deserving article. Thank you. Kamel Tebaast (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse Question

Hello! Unfortunately, you posted your question to the talk page for the Teahouse, Misplaced Pages talk:Teahouse, where we discuss things specifically related to the Teahouse page. I've moved your question to the proper page, Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions, the correct page for your question. Please remember to ask your Teahouse questions there in the future so we can respond as quickly as possible. When your question is answered (I'm not a coding guy, either.), you will receive a notification here on your talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

re USA

Is there a reason you have thus far refused to engage in discussion over this table on the talk page? --Golbez (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• 1) Why did you delete this from the article, twice?
• 2) What is the purpose of the discussion in the Talk regarding this particular addition (below) to the Misplaced Pages article about The United States?:
• 3) What specific discussion do you want me to see that Talk page?

U.S. territorial acquisitions and costs

KamelTebaast 05:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

All questions are answered on the talk page. As for which section, it's easy to find, it's right there at the end of the page, "Table of acquisitions". --Golbez (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in entering a group think tribunal. If you find problems, don't delete, make it better. That table gives more information quickly than most of what is in the "overly large article".KamelTebaast 07:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A "group think tribunal?" Oooookay, so apparently everything you make is perfect and you can't possibly deal with criticism of it. I gave some very legitimate, specific issues with the table there. If you don't want to engage, that's fine, but be warned that continuing to place the table when multiple people have issues with it will be seen as edit warring. And yes, I will delete if I see no way to make it better. --Golbez (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism is fine, but you deleted first only using reasons of "overly simplistic" and "sourcing is...unusual". The Four Deuces followed with a deletion based on his/her opinion that the "Chart is not a good idea." In regard to sources, you questioned Rand McNally as a source without any specifics, but you only wrote "mildly, curious" and "unusual". That is not "specific". In terms of your other criticisms, it seems more about what's not in the Table rather than what is. This is Misplaced Pages. Things are fluid. So, if you want to add another column for inflation, that's your prerogative. However, you should not delete a solid table because you feel it needs inflation (which I don't agree with, but that is another discussion). Lastly, from what I know, there are no assigned arbiters to each Misplaced Pages article to determine what goes in and what does not. In this case, you have started what appears to be edit warring.KamelTebaast 08:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would deign to join the 'group think tribunal' you would notice specific concerns and be able to address them. And no, I don't think it should be "inflated," I think it's far too complex a subject to be addressed in a tidy little table; I think it should be gone. The subject is much better handled in other venues. You're right, there are no assigned arbiters - that includes you. --Golbez (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

References

1. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
2. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
3. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
4. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
5. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
6. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
7. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
8. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
9. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
10. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
11. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
12. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
13. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
14. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
15. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.
16. World Atlas. Chicago / New York / San Francisco: Rand McNally. 1972. p. 90.

July 2016

Your recent editing history at United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Thomas.W 02:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to get clarity and understanding:

1) How is it edit war if I did not revert any edits more than three times in a 24 hour period?

2) How is it edit war if I took suggestions from the Talk page, and completely changed my edit?

3) How come others who deleted my edits several times (for benign reasoning) were not warned about edit war?

4) Is there a Misplaced Pages policy about editors on a Talk page having total control over everything that gets placed on the Misplaced Pages page? Please give me the link.

5) Are you an administrator and are you giving me an official warning?

Thank you...KamelTebaast 04:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

While I'm not involved on the page mentioned, I can give you some general answers to some of your questions.

1. That's actually one of the definitions of edit warring. See WP:3RR.

3. Others may not have violated the Three-Revert Rule (or 3RR for short). Again, not on that page, so I can't say for sure.

4. We have a policy of WP: CONSENSUS.

5. Just because someone isn't an administrator doesn't mean they can't request a block for violation of 3RR, which isn't taken lightly. (Read WP:3RR for specifics on blocks as a result of a violation.) When any warning is received, consider it official, even if it's not from an administrator. For example, I could send a warning about vandalism (if you had done so) and it would be completely legitimate even though I'm not an administrator. For example, if a user us warned multiple times about something (like vandalism), those warnings are considered when an administrator decides on what to do. (For the record, blocks are considered by WP:CONSENSUS, too. A lot of things are decided that way here.)

As I said, I'm not involved on the page at all, so I can't answer #2 at all. I hope my answers help some. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

1) This is what is written in WP:3RR:

This is exactly what happened:

1. I placed a new table (first edit) in a 24-hour period.

2. I placed the same table in the Talk page and asked for additional assistance.

3. An editor deleted it.

4. I undid the editor's edit.

5. Another user editor undid my edit.

6. You left me a message that I'm edit warring WP:3RR

Again, for clarity, I had TWO edits (one new and one revert) in a 24-hour period. How is that edit warring based on what is written?

5) You gave me a great explanation about warnings, but you didn't exactly answer my question, which was: Are you an administrator?

6) If you were not a part of that page, how is it that you knew about this and came to warn me? Obviously an editor connected to the page informed you to give me a warning. Is this the procedure for giving warnings? (Again, I'm trying to get clarity how Misplaced Pages works.)

6.1) And this leads to another question: Can an editor involved in the edits warn another editor about edit warring?

7) What is it called when an editor seems to be follow you (kind of like stalking) and reverts your edits on other pages?

Thank you for the clarity...KamelTebaast 15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The only reason I know about the warning (Notice that I'm not the one who posted it.) is because I watch this page because I posted a message on this page a few days ago regarding yourquestion at the Teahouse. I watch all new editors' pages (Well, the ones I run into.) in case they have any questions. (Because I watch this page, I got an email when the warning was posted, and another when you replied with questions.) As I said, one does not have to be an administrator to leave a warning. I'm not sure if Thomas.W is an admin or not. An editor involved in the edits on the page can warn you. However, I believe only uninvolved administrators can block people. (It's generally frowned upon, otherwise, and non-admins cannot block people. The can only submit requests, and they must have concrete evidence.) So, if Thomas.W was an administrator, he could warn you. However, only an administrator who hasn't had any involvement in the dispute could block someone, and only after a consensus has been reached at the appropriate administrator noticeboard. Note that there are a few other ways to get blocked, but the most common is someone submitting (and getting consensus at) a request at a noticeboard. As far as someone following you, I don't know what to say because I'm not the one doing it. There's no official term for it, as far as I know. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Gestrid:! I'm very sorry. I put the question directly to User:Thomas.W and assumed he/she would answer. I did not pay attention that it was someone else (you). Thank you for your in depth reply. Why do you think that Thomas.W would place a warning and then not answer my questions? My biggest question is, does consensus on a Misplaced Pages article trump right or wrong, fact or fiction? Thank you... KamelTebaast 04:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't answer the question about Thomas.W. I don't know him. (I've used the {{User}} template, which should've notified him of this discussion via email. It's noted on his talk page that "this user is active only now and then on Misplaced Pages," so it's likely that he won't see the notification for a while.)

As for your other question, my understanding is that fact does take immediate precedence when editing an article as long as that fact can be proven by notable independent sources. (Independent means that the source cannot be connected to the article subject in any way. Example: Don't use a movie review of Frozen done by ABC, as they're connected to Disney. Instead, use a review done by a company not owned by Disney.) If those kinds of sources aren't used, the content is likely to get removed. (Even if a source can be easily found, it's unfortunately easier to undo an edit than to find a source.)

However, in the long run, consensus can overrule sources. For example, the content may be thought to not be notable enough. Someone would then bring it up for discussion on the relevant talk page or administrator noticeboard or wherever and Misplaced Pages users would form a consensus and !vote (read as "not-vote"). Consensus is mainly used when something is up for debate, to avoid an edit war, or several numerous reasons. It's also used when something requires a bit more discussion than normal everyday editing. (I mention one reason for that, Good Article status, below.)

The answer to your question isn't very simple. The short answer, I believe, would be that the two are equally important, but they are used in different circumstances. It should also be noted that a lot of consensus is based off of Misplaced Pages policies (which are fact). For example, something in an article could be removed or changed based on some policy somewhere (like the notability of the something). As I said it's not a simple answer.

The best thing you can do right now, I think, is to continue talking on the talk page, as it appears you have been doing. If you haven't you should take a look at the feedback you got on your chart there two days ago. Take the feedback to heart and continue trying to make improvements. The thing about Misplaced Pages is that an article is never "finished." It's always changing. Whichever chart they end up using, their choice doesn't mean they will continue using that chart forever. If you make one they agree is better than the one they choose, they'll use that one. If someone makes a better chart than yours after yours is used, they'll use that one.

I should warn you that, if you do make any changes on the United States page pertaining to this chart thing at this point, it might be seen negatively by other editors (even if you mean well), especially since you've been reverted a couple times already. That might mean a short-term (maybe 24-72 hours or so) block.

Probably the main reason why your chart is being debated so much is because the United States article is at Good Article status, a step below Featured Article status, the status of the articles you see on the homepage. As a result, all edits are considered carefully so Good Article status (something that less than 1% of English Misplaced Pages articles have) isn't lost. Another reason for the warning you got would possibly be because one of the criteria for a Good Article is that it doesn't have any edit warring. Your good faith edits may have unintentionally endangered its status.

I do believe that you are trying to edit in good faith, but others may not see it that way. As a side note, if you do get notified of a discussion about you on an administrator noticeboard (or elsewhere) as a result of all this, let me know. I'll stick up for you.

Sorry for the lengthy (and possibly rambling) reply. It's about 1am here. (Also, you may have noticed that I finally took a look at the US article edit history and the its talk page, though not in detail.)

Side note: If you want to notify someone that you mentioned them or something, you can use the {{user}} template. That sends me a notification, and, on the page where it's posted, it'll say "Gestrid" instead of "@Gestrid:". {{User}} does basically the same thing as the {{ping}} template, but it can be used in sentences.

-- Gestrid (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Gestrid!!! You have no idea how meaningful your message is. And, it makes my response to you even more special, because this is offically my 30th day and 500th edit!!! Thank you, again... KamelTebaast 06:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)