Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:58, 2 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Cindery, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 21:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Archives
July 2006 – September 2006

Mumblio Speaks!

I've kept up with the abortion page, Cindery. If things were this rough on the boxing page, there would be blood in the streets! I may be young in the ways of Wiki - before two days ago, the only sock puppets I'd heard of were in WHAT ABOUT BOB - but I am sadly experienced in the ways of the world ('for he who increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.'). However, it looks like things are moving in a good direction. I think I'll go back to the page and do some proofing and a bit of copy-editing post-consensus.

3RR at Barrington Hall

I just wanted to point out that you've reverted the article three times, if you revert again, you may be blocked per WP:3RR. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for one week . -- Steel 18:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I appeal that on the grounds that your stated reasons aren't accurate, I think. Can you explain in more detail? Perhaps it was confusing because immediately after Milo, Localzuk reverted the graffiti, J.Smith and David D. began to convert the ref format without consensus, and refused to observe the WP:CITE guideline. Thanks,-Cindery 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, there was a general consensus to change the ref format. -- Steel 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the first major contributor, and in a dispute WP:CITE states that the format used should be that established by first major contributor (also, I clearly outlined the good reasons for using a full citations in a ref list/with embedded links for quotes rather than footnotes for whole article on the talkpage).-Cindery 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with J.Smith. The WP:CITE guideline does not give you the ability to overrule the rest of the talk page. -- Steel 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE = Guideline, WP:OWN = Policy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."--WP:CITE is clear on how to handle disputes regarding format. It does not state: "this is overruled by policy in 'x' circumstance."

J.Smith, as I have pointed out, you need a WP:OWN argument. Just because I have source knowledge and background knowledge of the subject and you do not does not automatically mean I have "owned" the article. I have edited the article with an eye on the POV issues (depicting Barrington accurately but not too negatively, and trying to include decades other than the 80s, although that is when it got the most press.) In addition, I have been happy to agree to delete things like the word "classic" from the graffiti section title, etc. You participated in an edit war and protracted battle to delete the You Tube link from the article during your You Tube deletion project, however...-Cindery 18:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Please read the policies. A policy is something that in normal circumstances should be followed. A guideline is one which advises as to good practice. ie. Policy trumps guideline.

Now, onto the issue at hand. Please can you explain how having non-inline references helps to aid a reader in discovering the source of information? For an article to reach featured status it must contain inline references. This is a fairly good indicator that inlines are the norm and are expected across the site.

I will warn you again - assume good faith. Your persistent comments about the YouTube discussion are childish and irrelevant. The editors involved were involved for their own reasons (looking back at it, most were worried about copyright issues and some were worried about reliability issues) so comments regarding their stance in that discussion just weaken any arguments you come up with and make people dismiss you as a troll quickly (rightly or wrongly, I have no opinion, this is just what will happen - I have seen it happen with dozens of editors who won't assume good faith).-Localzuk 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• In additon, Steele, 1) you have blocked without warning 2) I did not violate 3RR 3) you haven't clarified what you mean by "misreprenting" or "lying" 4) WP:CITE is relevant (and no "own" argument has been offered).-Cindery 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Also: I requested page protection, twice, in good faith, because there is not consensus at the article (and those opposed refused to continue discussion.)-Cindery 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Six people agreeing and one person resisting that agreement do not a lack of consensus make. Per our policy on consensus It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Misplaced Pages's consensus practice. Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • • The numbers aren't 6 to 1; it's unclear what you are referring to; and you have not answered my direct questions. I have just emailed you. -Cindery 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (this was meant for Steel, not Steve--my mistake).

discussion with Steel

Cindery,

1. You continually reinserted the blog link which several people object to on WP:RS grounds and, later on, continually converted the references back to the old style when several people tried to change them into inline citations. That is disruptive, hence the block. I have not mentioned the 3RR anywhere, but since you bring it up, by my count you made three clear reverts and a couple of semi-reverts.
2. At the time of writing this, there have been 97 edits to the talk page today . Please stop claiming that people are refusing to discuss this with you, because that's simply false.
3. Like with the 3RR, I have not mentioned WP:OWN anywhere either. Again, claims that we "need a WP:OWN argument" are false. We don't. As I said before, the first contributor thing in WP:CITE does not give you the ability to overrule an entire talk page worth of consensus.
4. You have a nasty habit of saying things like "other editors are edit warring" and "other editors are not respecting consensus". The simple fact is that it's you that's edit warring and you that's not respecting consensus. I don't know whether this just hasn't occurred to you, or whether you deliberately say things like this to make others look bad, hence the "at best... at worst..." in the block summary.
5. You said in your email that you gave good reasons to keep the old style of reference them. Perhaps you could repeat them here, because I can't find them.
6. Please stop making a separation between "regular editors of the article" and "editors who were ... only involved in this article during a previous dispute about the You Tube link".

-- Steel 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re refs: the first mention is in a conversation between me and J. Smith (after he fact-tagged and templated almost every section in the article...): "I think it's more elegant and useful to leave the Green Book as a general ref, instead of citing it 30 times in the article.-Cindery 20:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"-Cindery 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• And again today: 1) There hasn't been consensus for inline cites--I like the refs better as a list due to the to Green Book; many articles have lists of refs instead of innline cites. See every other USCA article, for example.-Cindery 17:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 2)"They don't all have to be cited inline (particularly if they would be cited a lot, or are not available online). Per policy the original editor to use ref format gets to choose--as I have cited as links not footnotes, that would be me."-Cindery 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 2) There are two objections 1) the format for inline cites of quotes will be links, not footnotes, per me. 3) not everything needs an inline cite, esp. as the Green Book would have to be cited so many times, is not paginated in its online form, and many of the sources are newspaper sources which aren't online, so inline cites for them wouldn't be to links."-Cindery-Cindery 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) And I quoted WP:CITE: "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor."
• You have stated that you "agree" with J. Smith, who quoted OWN to my citation of cite (even though he acknowledged CITE on the talkpage.) Perhaps that was ambiguous, and you did not mean OWN--so, on what policy basis do you believe that cite is not relevant? (CITE, unlike many guidelines does have a clear stiplulation about how disputes are resolved--the format is that of the orignal major contributor).-Cindery 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Re ref format and "an entire talkpage of consensus"--there was not consensus, there was some acknowledgement per CITE we should use the original method. Per WP:CON:"the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues" it is often difficult for all members , and "Misplaced Pages is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." So I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus" here.-Cindery 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re: "Several people object on RS grounds": according to J. smith: "Actually, we simply don't accept the source as reliable. It has been discussed in length. We looked at it under the suspicious circumstances is showed up in and judged it invalid. "---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) "Suspicious circumstances" are not an element of RS, but of opinion, which was deemed "beside the point" at ANI yesterday (with a very uncivil, admitted un-AGF title): -Cindery 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re: Discussion v. number of talkpage posts--they don't correlate. Most of the posts from last night and today are arguments for and against continuing discussion, not discussion of the source on its merits, or RS. Note that I pointed out to you that Milo rejected discussion with doesn't "dignify a response": He also stated that "engaging in discussion to gain consensus" "takes the cake"...but that is precisely how consensus is supposed to be determined. This is from discussion yesterday (note that he did not reply with a summary of pro/con):

I have repeatedly asked who besides Cindery and Astanhope thinks the list should remain, and have received no response. I think consensus is clear, any idea when the article may be unlocked? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC) No, there is not consensus, and the three regular editors of the article agree that the graffiti list should stay. Perhaps it would help if you summarized what you believe are the pro/con arguments (or at least the con argument(s). There hasn't even been consensus from the "objectors," but moves to objection under different grounds: "well if it's a reliable source, then the author is not the author," "if the author is the author, then the list is trivial" etc, which evinces an overall IDONTLIKEIT objection, which is not a valid objection.-Cindery 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The post in question, in context: . --Milo H Minderbinder 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re "nasty habit"--can you please point out to me where in the graffiti discussions I had a "nasty habit" of accusing anyone of edit warring or not respecting consensus? (I have pointed out that there was disagreement/two groups and hence not consensus). And this was my response when there was esclation from fact-tagging the section to blanking it, before I made an ANI complaint and the page was protected: "Hmm. I don't understand why a section was blanked without discussion? As the same person affixed fact tags to each item in the section, agreed with someone else to wait for sources, agreed that one of the items was not disputed at all, and there is both a new reference and an ongoing discussion about it, it doesn't seem helpful or constructive to me.-Cindery 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)-Cindery 21:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you specifically state what you mean by "lying"?-Cindery 21:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

unblock request

Cindery (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no warning, no policy basis, admin doesn't reply to email

Decline reason:

Block is justifiable -- Ryan Delaney 20:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

RFCU

I have opened another checkuser on you here. --Spartaz 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your current block

Please read this thread on ANI and respond here. MartinDK 12:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Every word Nick says is a lie, including "and" and "the." He's just vindictive because I filed an RfC against him last month: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington

I have never followed any of Samir's edits or edited any article Samir edits, but I did recently discover what looks like his little sockpuppet army at this page (because I follow Blnguyen's admin log somewhat ever since he protected Barrington Hall without a request for page protection):http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:National_Research_Council_of_Canada

sockpuppets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Roytoubassi

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jack_Stanley

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:J.Stanley

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Barry_Zuckerkorn

-Cindery 14:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that this IP was also a sockpuppet, on the same page, unless it was a login failure: 205.211.160.1 (5 sockpuppets in one short discussion...)-Cindery 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And here's an interesting little interaction: User:Roytoubassi changes another editor's comments:, and a real editor explains to him that he can't do that/must revert:. The reversion is made...and then Samir undoes it sometime later:.-Cindery 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)