Hello Mamasanju. Thank you for your ping at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. I just wanted to raise a concern that, in your comments in the discussion, specifically this comment, there still seems to be a confusion between the notability of an event [what would be required for a separate article to persist and survive] and the criteria for its inclusion in another article [perhaps in a single sentence or a footnote]. The comment "The event itself is notable" is contradicted by the comment (in the same edit) that a separate article about the event would be deleted due to lack of notability. MPS1992 ( talk) 18:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to get consensus for adding something to Page A, you don't get it by going to the talk page of Page B. Not at all difficult.
Normally I would that suggest you go to Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown, but since you're likely to be blocked for evading your two indefinite blocks, that would be a waste of time. -- Calton | Talk 14:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Calton I'm not him but should I put an excerpt here to prove that a CONSENSUS has been made?
Mamasanju (
talk)
14:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Calton: Anything to raise yet? Mamasanju ( talk) 14:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I hear only crickets from your part so I raised the question to "Tea House" accordingly.
Mamasanju (
talk)
15:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I took the teahouse post down because I am quite repetitive but I put the concerning mention into draft mode once again pending discussion outcome there. I hope you'll respect the results even if you don't like it. Mamasanju ( talk) 11:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Calton: See this posting with implicit consensus from User:Stickee Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page? Mamasanju ( talk) 01:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Stickee: "If there was a possible consensus over there, then it would likely apply here to" Mamasanju ( talk) 01:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Calton Here's the excerpt. Shall you read?
This is a extract from
Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The comments contained were not made on this user talk page.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yesterday I found these articles that reported a hacking incident that arose from this airliner shootdown:
I briefly discussed with User:Martinevans123 and reached a basic consensus to add some skeptical tones into the edit since there's few sources. However, after both edit and my chat with Martinevans was removed altogether by User:Ahunt, a new question popped up. Is it relevant to include this edit as a footnote and put some skeptical tones into it per my consensus with Martinevans? The only problem here is we found the event way too late. This is a borderline case since the notability and even relevancy of this cybersecurity event is up for debate. IMO adding skeptical tone into the edit is more better than removing it altogether, at least we can avoid
WP:UNDUE or
WP:BIAS accusations.
I have an idea to add the skeptical tones into the edit per my consensus with Martin to maintain both
WP:NPOV and
WP:WEIGHT:
On User:Martinevans123 concerns that no mainstream/conventional media has covered the hacking, I googled and found that news.com.au has diffused the news report into some of the newspapers they own:
Keep in mind that news.com.au is actually owned by Australian media giant News Corp Australia, so in this way the news just went into mainstream/conventional media, albeit on a smaller scale and is more like "mirroring". Mamasanju ( talk) 05:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC) The knowledge of the event even spreaded far enough to the editors at
Politico and
Wired (magazine). Chinese security company
Qihoo 360 has picked up the news, an indication that the story has received a widespread attention in 2016:
News (Chinese Language)
|
Your recent editing history at International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown 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 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. Calton | Talk 21:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I don't work for you and am not at your beck and call.
Meantime, have a read of this: Wikipedia:BANREVERT -- Calton | Talk 21:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not him but let's take a minute to analyze the BANREVERT "rule".
See that?
Next, isn't "block" and "ban" are two whole different things? I checked Bugment123123's profile and he's only been blocked for undefined period, not (site) banned. There should be much leeway in allowing anybody to take up blocked (rather than banned) user's old work and turn it into a more contributive one instead. Mamasanju ( talk) 21:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
But don't worry, I will ping all the participants in the old discussion and start it over again, just expect that you'll be called out as an archaic user. Mamasanju ( talk) 21:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see you're in military at some point because of your usage of military slangs like "beck and call". However, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ARMY BASE!!! Mamasanju ( talk)
Hello Mamasanju. Thank you for your ping at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. I just wanted to raise a concern that, in your comments in the discussion, specifically this comment, there still seems to be a confusion between the notability of an event [what would be required for a separate article to persist and survive] and the criteria for its inclusion in another article [perhaps in a single sentence or a footnote]. The comment "The event itself is notable" is contradicted by the comment (in the same edit) that a separate article about the event would be deleted due to lack of notability. MPS1992 ( talk) 18:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to get consensus for adding something to Page A, you don't get it by going to the talk page of Page B. Not at all difficult.
Normally I would that suggest you go to Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown, but since you're likely to be blocked for evading your two indefinite blocks, that would be a waste of time. -- Calton | Talk 14:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Calton I'm not him but should I put an excerpt here to prove that a CONSENSUS has been made?
Mamasanju (
talk)
14:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Calton: Anything to raise yet? Mamasanju ( talk) 14:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I hear only crickets from your part so I raised the question to "Tea House" accordingly.
Mamasanju (
talk)
15:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I took the teahouse post down because I am quite repetitive but I put the concerning mention into draft mode once again pending discussion outcome there. I hope you'll respect the results even if you don't like it. Mamasanju ( talk) 11:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Calton: See this posting with implicit consensus from User:Stickee Talk:International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown#Does the consensus listed below which are formed from a discussion on the MH17 talk page apply to this International Reactions page? Mamasanju ( talk) 01:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Stickee: "If there was a possible consensus over there, then it would likely apply here to" Mamasanju ( talk) 01:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Calton Here's the excerpt. Shall you read?
This is a extract from
Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. The comments contained were not made on this user talk page.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yesterday I found these articles that reported a hacking incident that arose from this airliner shootdown:
I briefly discussed with User:Martinevans123 and reached a basic consensus to add some skeptical tones into the edit since there's few sources. However, after both edit and my chat with Martinevans was removed altogether by User:Ahunt, a new question popped up. Is it relevant to include this edit as a footnote and put some skeptical tones into it per my consensus with Martinevans? The only problem here is we found the event way too late. This is a borderline case since the notability and even relevancy of this cybersecurity event is up for debate. IMO adding skeptical tone into the edit is more better than removing it altogether, at least we can avoid
WP:UNDUE or
WP:BIAS accusations.
I have an idea to add the skeptical tones into the edit per my consensus with Martin to maintain both
WP:NPOV and
WP:WEIGHT:
On User:Martinevans123 concerns that no mainstream/conventional media has covered the hacking, I googled and found that news.com.au has diffused the news report into some of the newspapers they own:
Keep in mind that news.com.au is actually owned by Australian media giant News Corp Australia, so in this way the news just went into mainstream/conventional media, albeit on a smaller scale and is more like "mirroring". Mamasanju ( talk) 05:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC) The knowledge of the event even spreaded far enough to the editors at
Politico and
Wired (magazine). Chinese security company
Qihoo 360 has picked up the news, an indication that the story has received a widespread attention in 2016:
News (Chinese Language)
|
Your recent editing history at International reactions to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown 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 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. Calton | Talk 21:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Strangely enough, I don't work for you and am not at your beck and call.
Meantime, have a read of this: Wikipedia:BANREVERT -- Calton | Talk 21:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not him but let's take a minute to analyze the BANREVERT "rule".
See that?
Next, isn't "block" and "ban" are two whole different things? I checked Bugment123123's profile and he's only been blocked for undefined period, not (site) banned. There should be much leeway in allowing anybody to take up blocked (rather than banned) user's old work and turn it into a more contributive one instead. Mamasanju ( talk) 21:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
But don't worry, I will ping all the participants in the old discussion and start it over again, just expect that you'll be called out as an archaic user. Mamasanju ( talk) 21:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see you're in military at some point because of your usage of military slangs like "beck and call". However, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ARMY BASE!!! Mamasanju ( talk)