User talk:WLU: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:28, 22 January 2007 editWLU (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 edits →Mystar diffs by category and chronological order: remove in order to add back← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:29, 22 January 2007 edit undoWLU (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 125:		Line 125:

	----		----

			== Mystar diffs by category and chronological order ==
			'''Editing other's comments on a talk page'''
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and


			'''Commenting on users, not content'''
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and

			'''Personal attack/incivility against me''' and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and

			'''Personal attack/incivility against other users''' and
			and
			and
			(corrects to annoys later) and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and

			'''Meatpuppeting'''

			'''Sockpuppeting''' , admits to it . The content I removed was completely irrelevant to the discussion and I originally removed it because the user had vandalised many previous . Also, since he was not logged in, in order for Mystar to have seen my reversion he would have to had checked my contributions, making this another example of wikistalking.

			'''Wikistalking''' and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and
			and

			'''Abuse of policy''' and
			for and

			'''Erroneous statement''' , and
			and

			Me correcting Mystar's assumption of my gender

			Uninvolved user commenting on Mystar's editing

			One of many edits which don't make sense or are just blatantly incorrect , changing a wikilink into a redirect that takes you back to the original wikilink...

			If is in reference to me, I don't think he's arrogant, I think incompetent and bellicose are more accurate.

			is in reference to . The sentence I added summarized the paragraph on treatment and contained no information that was not already discussed below.

			set of edits I just find condescending and irritating, but strictly speaking there is no unequivocal attacks or incivility here. Given our past history though, and my edit count being nearly four times his, I seriously doubt there is good intentions behind it.

Revision as of 01:29, 22 January 2007

Archives

/Archive 1

Archives

/Me-Mystar conflict

Please reply to my comments here, I will reply on your talk page.

Anyone want to discuss my edits? Do so on my discussion page. I'll justify why I do what I do.

WLU 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to Jance

If User:Jance still wishes to provide me with references for the Lupus article, please do so. Thanks, WLU 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Herpes simplex virus external links

I will grant you that some of these sites are OK as links. But the behavior of the editor is what led me to treat these contributions as spam. If you look at the speed of the edits, this is not a person reading our article, asking themselves "Will these links add to the information already there?", "Is there any content I can add to the article that will make adding this link unneccessary?". No, they're just spamming, the same conclusion that Kafziel came to looking at this editor's similar contributions on December 12.

Since you re-added them, let me ask you "What information is contained in these links that doesn't belong in the article itself? See WP:EL: "If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first" and "Links should be kept to a minimum."

Incidentally, I enjoyed your Five stages of Misplaced Pages. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the landed gentry bit is fine; I must admit that I didn't check out the enema link. And probably more people read your user page than you think-- I actually had a guy request a photo that I had removed from my page months before-- he'd seen it and came back looking for it.

Anyway, feel free to do as you like with these links-- as I said, I can see that they're potentially decent links, though I feel pretty sure that you'll find some whose contents are already well covered in the articles or in pre-existing external links. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mystar

Yeah but there is a difference between H.G. Wells and this not only that but this isn't the only penname he uses there are plenty of others he's got and we should use his real name like the H.G. Wells article. 216.174.135.175 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

And I quote... "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated". {{WP:VANDAL}} You my dear are not the sole arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable. Simply because you do not care for an opinion that is placed addressing the subject mater is not fodder for you to start another reverting binge. The fact that you may not like jamhaw’s wording or point is not relevant. What is relevant is that jamhaw posted where it was applicable, and gave an offering of opinion/thought, which is as stated in Wiki policy jamhaw’s right. It in no way falls into the category of vandalism. What does smack of vandalism is your removal of material aimed as improving Misplaced Pages. Now were that posted on the actual face page, bio page etc it would not be relevant and should be removed, but as you can see that was not the case. Mystar 05:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ALso, didn't realize I wasn't signed in at the time...silly lil ole me! puters are such fickle critters....Mystar 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

please stop your personal attacks

{{WP:RPA}} I would kindly (again) ask that you coment on a topic or issue and stop calling me or others names. It is both disruptive and offensive to others. Not to mention it gives Misplaced Pages a bad name. Of note are "Personal attacks are not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Although users can ignore such attacks, repeat offenders may be banned". Really the whole page will be of great help for you. You can see it can be helpful in helping you adjust your behaviour of repeaded personal tounts and attacks. Thank you Mystar 14:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And {WP:COOL}} are great rescorces to help

You mean taunts. Read up on arbtration.

WLU 18:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on User talk:Mystar: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mystar 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I am attempting to pursue arbitration, from what I can guess it appears that I'm adding information to the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration page directly, between the line saying:

<!-- // BEGIN TEMPLATE - copy text below (not this line) //

and the other line saying

// END TEMPLATE - copy text above (not this line) // -->.

Could I be corrected if I'm wrong please? Thanks. WLU 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks correct. Obviously, you won't paste over the example code. Xiner (talk, email) 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of arbitration case (to be continued)

Note to Mystar: Please don't modify this text, or at least only modify your own sections. If you would prefer, begin a similar one on your own talk page. WLU 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Case Name

Initiated by WLU at 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In process, will keep building over next several days - WLU

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages

Informal mediation Other users have tried to moderate between us (though also other editors), notably Paul Willocx, Runch, Figma.
Discussion with third parties I had an extensive e-mail discussion with User:Armedblowfish, I am in the process of confirming this.
Failed mediation request, also note Mystar's reply

I have also made it clear to Mystar my frustrations with his edits.

Myself and Mystar are acrimonious and disruptive to pages we are involved in. I feel he is harrassing me.

Statement by WLU

Since I first began regularly contributing to Misplaced Pages, Mystar has been a disruptive presence. As I moved away from the Terry Goodkind page, where I first started editing, he has been monitoring my edits and I believe his actions constitute harrassment. Actions include:

Wikistalking Eccentric contraction, and Uncaria tomentosa, and Barbara Hambly, and Westeros, and Wars of Light and Shadow, and Lupus Erythematosus. These diffs documents several pages where he followed my contributions, though other diffs could show edits where the material was more aggravating than this.

Incivility here, and other user,

Calling me a girl after I stated I was male here, and here (and he called me "a mad woman"

Use of policy in a punitive manner Uncaria tomentosa and Barbara Hambly

Sockpuppeting Here, proof here (would have to watch my contributions to be aware of my edit).

Meatpuppeting here, though I must take BM at his word.

Editing comments on a talk page here, and same page, and here - it's hard to see, but Mystar placed a comment in the middle of my reference to liana,

Commenting on user, not content, this has been a constant, infuriating part of interacting with Mystar here,

Incorrect facts liana had a wikipage, I found and added a reference.

Harrasment This is in regard to this edit, where I added an introductory sentence that summarized the treatment section.

Premature closure of debate here,

Reverted the page back to his version, after I explained why I originally reverted his change.

I am also guilty of incivility on many occassions (worst is here, sarcasm is here, other diffs are in one of my archives), and admit that I should not be. Mystar is the sole registered wikipedia editor who I am uncivil towards, though there is the occasional incivility to unregistered, repeat vandals. After months of this, I snapped and got sick the same thing without any change of his behaviour.

There is also a general editorializing that occurs within his commets and edit summaries, which I think are demonstrated above.

Statement by Mystar

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Mystar diffs by category and chronological order

Editing other's comments on a talk page first and second and third and fourth - he inserted a comment in the middle of my paragraph, also claims false consensus and incorrectly claims liana is unrelated to Cat's Claw and fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth and ninth and tenth, also personal attack

Commenting on users, not content first and second and third, also wikistalking and fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh, and incivility, and eighth and ninth and tenth and eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth and fourteenth and fifteenth and sixteenth and seventeenth and eighteenth and nineteenth and twentieth and twenty first and twenty second and twenty three, also histrionic (kill someone?) and incorrect (systemic lupus erythematosus and lupus in the context of the page are exactly the same thing) and twenty four, same comments as 23 and twenty five and twenty six and

Personal attack/incivility against me first and second and third and fourth and fifth, also vaguely threatening and sixth and seventh and eighth and ninth and tenth and eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth (in edit summary and fourteenth and fifteenth and sixteenth and seventeenth, at bottom and eighteenth, called me a girl and nineteenth, girl again and

Personal attack/incivility against other users first and second and third and fourth (corrects to annoys later) and fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth and ninth and tenth and eleventh and twelfth and thirteenth, also against me, and also calling me a girl after I've indicated I'm male and

Meatpuppeting first

Sockpuppeting first, admits to it here (skipping one edit he made). The content I removed was completely irrelevant to the discussion and I originally removed it because the user had vandalised many previous pages. Also, since he was not logged in, in order for Mystar to have seen my reversion he would have to had checked my contributions, making this another example of wikistalking.

Wikistalking first and second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth and

Abuse of policy First, policy is deletion - page created only 12 hours previously, also wikistalking and second, peer review for Cat's Claw and Barbara Hambly

Erroneous statement Liana was referenced, and had its own wikipage, and removing a paper reference from a scientific journal and

Me correcting Mystar's assumption of my gender Nov 17th

Uninvolved user commenting on Mystar's editing here

One of many edits which don't make sense or are just blatantly incorrect here, changing a wikilink into a redirect that takes you back to the original wikilink...

If this is in reference to me, I don't think he's arrogant, I think incompetent and bellicose are more accurate.

This comment by Mystar is in reference to this edit by me. The sentence I added summarized the paragraph on treatment and contained no information that was not already discussed below.

This set of edits I just find condescending and irritating, but strictly speaking there is no unequivocal attacks or incivility here. Given our past history though, and my edit count being nearly four times his, I seriously doubt there is good intentions behind it.