User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Difference between revisions
Drajay1976 (talk | contribs) |
→Please Explain: new section |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::Thanks. I am not saying that the offline sources are not acceptable. In the early versions of the text, the statement "India has been '''accused of''' supporting terrorism by Pakistan" with online references was there. The editor SheriffIsInTown added two offline sources and changed the text to "'''India has been supporting terrorism in Bangladesh and Pakistan'''"!!! That edit was done with a lot of other stuff, clearly violating [[WP:NPOV]] among other policies. So just asked. Will try to sort it out in the talk page. --[[User:Drajay1976|Drajay1976]] ([[User talk:Drajay1976|talk]]) 10:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |
::Thanks. I am not saying that the offline sources are not acceptable. In the early versions of the text, the statement "India has been '''accused of''' supporting terrorism by Pakistan" with online references was there. The editor SheriffIsInTown added two offline sources and changed the text to "'''India has been supporting terrorism in Bangladesh and Pakistan'''"!!! That edit was done with a lot of other stuff, clearly violating [[WP:NPOV]] among other policies. So just asked. Will try to sort it out in the talk page. --[[User:Drajay1976|Drajay1976]] ([[User talk:Drajay1976|talk]]) 10:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Please Explain == |
|||
Hi, |
|||
Can you please explain why you have allowed the Assyrian People Page to regress back to original state of displaying nothing other than Assyrian political propaganda? |
|||
[[User:Sr 76|Sr 76]] ([[User talk:Sr 76|talk]]) 23:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:23, 6 October 2016
 | Note: I like to keep discussion threads together, so if you leave a message here I will usually respond here. If I have begun a discussion on your page, I'll see it if you respond there.
A {{ping}} would be appreciated if you reply at a later date. {{Talkback}} notes here will generally not be needed. Note to new and non-logged-in editors: Due to a long-term issue with vandalism, this talkpage has unfortunately had to be semi-protected. If you need to contact me and can't post here, please just post your message on your own talkpage or the talkpage of the relevant article and add the code "{{ping|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}" to it, then I'll be sure to see it. |
 Archives |
|---|
Not so urgent
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
- Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
- A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Problematic IP returns after your block
Hello FPaS. I wanted to let you know that this IP 203.220.30.241 (talk · contribs) that you blocked sixth months ago has returned and created a batch of redirects that are problematic (at best) redirects. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
State-sponsored terrorism
In this revert you gave the edit summary that "because the previous editor was obviously a sock; not endorsing the content". S/he was endorsing my view expressed in the talk page, but let me assure you, I dont use socks!! If you have a suspicion that I used a sock puppet, please ask for a WP:SPI check.
The matter is being discussed here. The edit you reinstated is most likely to be disruptive editing by User:SheriffIsInTown where he has used non-online sources (may be fake ones) to drastically change the language. I would strongly to urge you to reinstate the last version before User:SheriffIsInTown's first contentious edit. --Drajay1976 (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I didn't say (or imply) anything about you being a sockmaster; what I said was merely that that throwaway account Towns Ambassador (talk · contribs) was a sock (I have no idea whose sock exactly it is, given there are several notorious sockfarms active in the area), and that I wasn't endorsing the content the sock forced me to reinstate. As I said on the talkpage, I do think the content in question is problematic. At the very least it's hugely overlong and needs to be radically reduced. I'm not going to take an active role in editing this material myself (apart from technical admin actions like cleaning up this instance of socking), but I'd wish you regular editors could find a way of reducing and rewording it that would not leave the editors on the "other" side of the debate with the suspicion you were trying to whitewash it, and that this editing could be achieved through actions other than blanket reverts. Incidentally, as for the issue you mentioned above, the fact that sources are offline does not automatically invalidate them, so that in itself wouldn't be grounds for removal (while for instance tendentiousness, undue weight and overall volume of coverage may well be.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am not saying that the offline sources are not acceptable. In the early versions of the text, the statement "India has been accused of supporting terrorism by Pakistan" with online references was there. The editor SheriffIsInTown added two offline sources and changed the text to "India has been supporting terrorism in Bangladesh and Pakistan"!!! That edit was done with a lot of other stuff, clearly violating WP:NPOV among other policies. So just asked. Will try to sort it out in the talk page. --Drajay1976 (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Please Explain
Hi,
Can you please explain why you have allowed the Assyrian People Page to regress back to original state of displaying nothing other than Assyrian political propaganda? Sr 76 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)