| Revision as of 04:06, 5 August 2017 editLimpscash (talk | contribs)280 edits →Advice← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:43, 5 August 2017 edit undoAmaryllisGardener (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,508 edits →Advice: ReNext edit → | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| :{{ping|Limpscash}} Hey there Limpscash. I would try to help the situation, I really would, but I don't know where to start. Seeing that there's an ] on the topic you're talking about, I don't know if I'm the right person to give advice, as I try my absolute best to stay out of that bureaucratic mess. My best advice is for you to seek the advice of others on the article talk page. Sorry I couldn't be of much help, I hate that pandemonium as much as you do. Regards, --] <sup>]</sup> 06:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC) | :{{ping|Limpscash}} Hey there Limpscash. I would try to help the situation, I really would, but I don't know where to start. Seeing that there's an ] on the topic you're talking about, I don't know if I'm the right person to give advice, as I try my absolute best to stay out of that bureaucratic mess. My best advice is for you to seek the advice of others on the article talk page. Sorry I couldn't be of much help, I hate that pandemonium as much as you do. Regards, --] <sup>]</sup> 06:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| So, what your telling me is that one bad editor can dominate a dozen good editors, and there's very little that the good editors can do about it, without suffering the consequences. That explains a lot. Thank you.--] (]) 04:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC) | So, what your telling me is that one bad editor can dominate a dozen good editors, and there's very little that the good editors can do about it, without suffering the consequences. That explains a lot. Thank you.--] (]) 04:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :{{ping|Limpscash}} When there's an ArbCom case about something, the situation isn't cut and dry. If it was, there wouldn't be an ArbCom case about it. See the warning on the article talk page that says "'''''The Arbitration Committee has permitted Misplaced Pages administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages.'''''"? That's not to be taken lightly. ArbCom cases are evidence of a very complicated dispute. Please go ask someone more educated on the situation specifically than I. Consensus among a small group of editors often fades in comparison to the findings of the larger community. Asking around before you edit any more won't hurt anything. Trust me, you don't want to cross the line into ]. It's not worth it. If you're really having it out with that editor, you can go to ] to have it (hopefully) sorted out. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:43, 5 August 2017
 Archives | |||||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
|
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
ikat saree
i have added 'Pasapalli Ikat' in types of ikat section. and also provide citation.
and i have reviewed whole page and there is 404 page link of first link (http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/satextiles/indoindex.html) on 'external links' section. i suggest it is a good resource of history and everything about ikat saree on https://www.saree.com/about-ikkat-sarees
please have look on this and provide me your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuvirrathod (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Asilah
Sorry, but one of the references you added is a self-published work of fiction ("AuthorHouse"). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Thanks for catching that. I'll watch out for those in the future. --AmaryllisGardener 16:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Simon Mark Smith
Hi, I have recently added an autobiographical entry which has been proposed for deletion, are there any suggestions you could make that might avoid that happening please! The article is titled Simon Mark Smith Thank you
SimonSimon1a (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Simon1a: I must concur with the editor that proposed the deletion of the article. It seems that the subject doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines, and we also strongly advise against making articles about yourself or a person closely associated with you per WP:COI. --AmaryllisGardener 23:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
WikiCup 2017 July newsletter
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.
Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.
As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Misplaced Pages. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
First article left alone and then proposed for deletion
Hi there, how do I best respond? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsypark (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hsypark: Hello. I think the editors that nominated your creation for deletion are right. The article unfortunately fails Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. --AmaryllisGardener 20:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- @AmaryllisGardener: Hi, I have since responded and found more reliable sources. The nominator did not locate all other reliable sources and merely did a google news search.
Advice
I believe that User:CuriousMind01 is ignoring consensus and edit warring on the Bushmaster XM15 article, with these edits . He is Wikilawyering with these edits , where he basically claims that his fellow editors cannot make changes to the Bushmaster XM15 article. In essence, that he is right and everybody else is wrong. He has launched personal attack with this edit . If you review his edit history, he seems obsessed with adding "Criminal use" sections to Firearms, Automotive, and other articles. As other editors have noted, he is a very aggressive editor and will endlessly argue his position against overwhelming consensus. So, I believe that any attempt to have a discussion with him would be pointless. My question is, does this behavior justify an ANI or am I just wasting my time?--Limpscash (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Limpscash: Hey there Limpscash. I would try to help the situation, I really would, but I don't know where to start. Seeing that there's an ArbCom case on the topic you're talking about, I don't know if I'm the right person to give advice, as I try my absolute best to stay out of that bureaucratic mess. My best advice is for you to seek the advice of others on the article talk page. Sorry I couldn't be of much help, I hate that pandemonium as much as you do. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener 06:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
So, what your telling me is that one bad editor can dominate a dozen good editors, and there's very little that the good editors can do about it, without suffering the consequences. That explains a lot. Thank you.--Limpscash (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Limpscash: When there's an ArbCom case about something, the situation isn't cut and dry. If it was, there wouldn't be an ArbCom case about it. See the warning on the article talk page that says "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Misplaced Pages administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages."? That's not to be taken lightly. ArbCom cases are evidence of a very complicated dispute. Please go ask someone more educated on the situation specifically than I. Consensus among a small group of editors often fades in comparison to the findings of the larger community. Asking around before you edit any more won't hurt anything. Trust me, you don't want to cross the line into edit warring. It's not worth it. If you're really having it out with that editor, you can go to WP:AN/I to have it (hopefully) sorted out. --AmaryllisGardener 04:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)