| Revision as of 08:01, 25 July 2005 editUser2004 (talk | contribs)23,415 edits Negative personal comments← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:28, 15 November 2023 edit undoDonner60 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers235,873 edits not around since Dec 2005 | ||
| (172 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=19 December 2005}} | |||
| == Republic of Texas == | |||
| ==AfD nomination of Roderick T. Long== | |||
| ]An editor has nominated ], an article on which you have worked or that you created, for ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "]"). | |||
| Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at {{#if:Roderick T. Long | ] | ] }} and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
| Hello. I think adding a sidebar to ] was a very good thing. Howver, I removed the map of ] as ], since the borders of the present day had nothing to do with the borders of the Republic, which as you know were larger. The other map in the article (which I created) are the historical boundaries (showing the difference between what was claimed by the RoT and was disputed by ] during that time). -- ] 07:09, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC) | |||
| You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.<!-- Template:AFDNote --> ] (]) 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tom DeLay== | |||
| ==AfD nomination of MD4Bush Incident== | |||
| Your points on the talk page sound pretty good to me, but why not post them and then make the corrections yourself? Best way to ensure it gets done... | |||
| I have nominated ], an article you created, for ]. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:AFDWarning --> <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] 23:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Jim Robinson/Free Republic == | |||
| ==Proposed deletion of ]== | |||
| hey, | |||
| ] | |||
| A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ]] ] 17:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed you've been expanding the ] page. There is currently a minor dispute over whether the guy deserves his own page, or whether the infomation should go on the ] page. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please comment on the ] page. Thanks! --] 07:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unreferenced BLPs== | |||
| :The only apparent participant in that "dispute," JC, seems to be you. The majority of others who have weighed in on the ] talk page have favored keeping it separate, but rather than engage in a civilized, mature discussion there you have opted to ignore the comments there, focus on your personal disputes with another user, and tag the article for a VfD dispute when in fact doing so was inappropriate per wikipedia VfD policy. You need to grow up and learn how to work with other people before undertaking edits here. ] 17:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello Rangerdude! Thank you for your contributions. I am a ] alerting you that '''3''' of the articles that you created are tagged as]. The ] policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure ], all biographies should be based on ]. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current '']'' article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list: | |||
| # ] - <small>{{findsources|Shirley DeLibero}}</small> | |||
| It's a shame that the tides are against you. I agree with your argument Ranger Dude, but at this point, there is no way to turn the votes around on the votes for undeletion page, which is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it merged. It is a waste of time to vote otherwise. I just wanted to say that you aren't alone in your argument. I run into a lot of people that don't make sense, are delete-happy, and merge-happy. Good luck with your situation. I'm sorry tis doesn't seem to be able to be won, but if you think I can help somehow, shout at me on my talk page. ] 01:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| # ] - <small>{{findsources|Leon Hale}}</small> | |||
| :P.S. I moved your comment to my talk page. ] 02:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| # ] - <small>{{findsources|William Murchison (journalist)}}</small> | |||
| Thanks!--] (]) 19:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| == A Question == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi, I was just wondering if you had a Free Republic account. I'd really like to read what you have to say there if you do. You could post it on your user page, reply here, or post it on my talk page. --] 19:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
| A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please ]. | |||
| If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{tlc|hang on}} to '''the top of ]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on ''']''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact ] to request that the administrator ] the page or email a copy to you. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 03:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry - don't have one. And you can tell that to your buddy ] who tagged you here as well. ] 21:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tagged me here? I just happened to watch the debate and took a look at the Free Republic site where there are many passionate people with interesting ideas and I was wondering if I could get some background on yours. FYI, I'm halidecyphon over there. ] 13:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure you did. A self-admitted close friend of another user who was engaged in an editing dispute with me and who happens to agree with that other user's position against me just happens to stumble upon my talk page out of curiosity and, in further pursuing that curious drive, finds the need to inquire whether I am a user of ]...presumably so we can all meet up over there and be freeper "friends," right? It's called trolling for information. ] 16:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're absolutely correct that I am a friend of JCs, and that I found out about you and about Free Republic through the Jim Robinson edit debate (as stated above). I just wanted to learn more about the situation, and hopefully to understand your point of view. Thus my question. I'm very sorry if I've violated your talk space. Feel free to delete this discussion if you're so inclined. ] 15:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please see this: a discussion about reducing the length of Slrubenstein's block for breaking the 3RR on Jesus.--] 23:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Jesus == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691988767 --> | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| Good work on the Jesus page. The only way to counter stuffing the ballot box is to be organized in like manner. Keep me in mind ] 05:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| :Yep it's a wikiclique at work. They're gonna be in for a shock if they think 2 dozen athiests are gonna rewrite 2000 years of human experience. ] 05:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ] (]) 20:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| No, actually I don't like the fact that you called one vote "ballot box stuffing", or that you claim I "expressed my surprise that the tide of the vote had turned", or any of the many other false claims you have made. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 06:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| he was sus :( | |||
| :Fib, distort, and backtrack all you want but your ballot recruitment record speaks for itself, Jayjg. That's the great thing about wikipedia - it keeps a record of EVERYTHING including the evidence of your act found ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. ] 15:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. | |||
| I have seen your involvement with the AD/BC dispute and want to tell you that you're absolutely right on this one. I won't get involved myself, having my hands full of other flaming stuff, but just one additional information on a similar thing in Germany: | |||
| <!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 21:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| The traditional dating is "vor Christus (v. Chr.) " and "nach Christus (n. Chr.)", meaning "before" and "after Christ" (AD is used as a very archaic form), but of course after 1949 that wasn't well thought of in Eastern Germany, so they invented "vor unserer Zeitrechnung (v.u.Z.)" and "nach unserer Zeitrechnung", meaning "before" and "after our time reckoning". By that you can immediately tell whether a book comes from the East. I guess BCE/CE also stems from the same "attitude" (=POV), also there was no central comitee in the US or the UK. | |||
| Regards, ] 15:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Houston Chronicle == | |||
| Katefan indicated she'd be willing to discuss the issues you mentioned once mediation was established. Would you be willing to accept mediation, so we can start to look at the real issues in the article and attempt to resolve them? There's obviously been much going on between you and I think a neutral 3rd party would help you guys (or girls) in reaching an agreement. -- ]|] 17:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Would you object to this mediation to be done public on a subpage of ]? | |||
| First of all, I'd like both of you to promise the follow these rules. | |||
| # You won't edit the article while mediation is ongoing. Suspected sockpuppeting should be reported to me personally for investigation. | |||
| # No comments aimed at the other party or their edits should contain loaded language that can be construed as offensive or otherwise hurtful. | |||
| # Mediation should be done in good faith without regard for previous editing behavior. | |||
| # Comments should be made about the other person's edits and not them as a person. If possible you should try to bring sources to the table which I can review. | |||
| # If, somewhere along the way, you think there's a possibility to reach an agreement on any of the disputed points, let it be known as soon as you can. | |||
| Please respond to let me know if you agree to follow these rules and whether you object to public mediation. -- ]|] 18:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *''"I would prefer that it focus primarily upon the differences between myself and Katefan0 regarding the section in question."'' <br> | |||
| Yes, I was planning on giving those editors a seperate section to comment in. - ]|] 06:45, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I've started a page for the mediation on ]. Note that I've changed the first rule of the mediation (on editing), to accomodate your complaint on my talk page. Please provide a detailed account of your views on the article and which sections or sentences you consider disputed and provide alternatives you think are better. Wherever possible, please provide sources and diff edits to support your view. If you expressed your views elsewhere, please copy them, rather than providing links. - ]|] 21:44, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Rangerdude: perhaps you may wanna call the attention to the mediator that the tag team technique in mediation including a disinterested party may lack good faith, and is just an attempt to wear you down. It is a distraction from the issues under consideration and has no real basis pertaining to this article. Good luck. ] 01:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :No question of a pattern. Please note the administrator in question I do not beleive is an ]; I beleive he resides in ]. His politics are ideologically motivated and his understanding of American society, politics, and ] is second hand. He appears very much affected by the export of ]'s ideas on ], but has never had to deal with the diversity in everyday life of American thought and experience. Hence, he can come across as ideolistic and intollerent. Just my own dime store diagnosis. Keep me posted. ] 05:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal comments == | |||
| Please stop using the term "stalker" to refer to my efforts in this project. Your use of the term has the appearance of a personal attack. Thank you. -] 08:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Then please stop engaging in behavior that strongly resembles wiki-stalking. Following other editors around wikipedia to intentionally challenge, disrupt, and deconstruct every edit they make on virtually every article regardless of the content is extremely poor etiquette, especially when most of the said edits are petty changes or challenges made without merit or proper background. You have demonstrably engaged in behavior of this type towards me for a long time and have, of recent, increased its intensity in a manner that is deconstructive and disruptive to the general purpose of wikipedia. An occasional encounter on common topics of interest is one thing, but nobody made you policeman or gave you the right to unilaterally screen and deconstruct the work of all editors you disagree with politically. ] 09:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no policy against constructive, NPOV edits on Misplaced Pages. Labelling edits with a term that you apparently believe is a perjorative is a personal attack, regardless of its truth or inaccuracy, and there is a policy against that. We are here to write an encyclopedia, and personal comments in no way help that effort. Thank you, -] 09:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are, however, extensive policies and guidelines requiring etiquette and civility. Stalking other editors around wikipedia for no other purpose than to deconstruct, disrupt, annoy, and unnecessarily complicate valid and sound additions to the articles on this forum expresses neither, thus I will continue to object to your behavior and call it exactly what it is so long as you persist in your etiquette violations. I will also note that internet stalking is generally considered a form of trolling. It thus pertinent information to any arbitration proceeding involving harassment behavior that is deconstructive to wikipedia & precedents abound establishing this. ] 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Rangerdude: yes I am familiar with the administrator in question. Actually I may owe him a debt of gratitude since after my blog site & e-mail account were hacked I decided to just do all my work in the wiki community. Given his analytical skills he should perhaps stick with hacking since thats seems to be where his real talents lie (incidentlaly, my original ] password was stolen about a week ago when I was still learning Firefox). And as to the rhetorical arts, the subjects parsing of facts really aren't worthy of the ].] 18:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let me amend the above "sometimes aren't worthy of the ]". ] 21:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC == | |||
| Since you have been repeatedly using personal attacks I have filed an RrC to gain other user input about that conduct. ]. I have nothing personal against you and don't understand why you choose to make personal comments and why you refuse to participate in mediation with me. Regretfully, -] 04:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Your assertion that by vocally stating my objections to your behavior of following me around the forum with overly harassing and deconstructive edits to my work, or wiki-stalking as I have described it, somehow constitutes a "personal attack" is a patent falsehood, Will. I have REPEATEDLY voiced my objection to your behavior and the general lack of etiquette it entails to no avail, thus directly confronting you on it with multiple requests not to wiki-stalk me was both accurate and necessary. To assert that I refuse to participate in mediation with you is another falsehood as well. I indicated that I did not desire for you to participate in the closed mediation between myself and katefan for reason of your pattern of disruptive and harassing behavior towards me. I did not state that you couldn't participate in the open mediation found on the second half of the page, nor have I ever attempted to prevent you from posting there. Given our differences, I think it is best that we should seek to avoid each other on wikipedia wherever possible and in all cases of articles except those where we both have an immediate and strong editing interest. I would hope that you would feel the same way, yet I also know that you have intentionally sought me out over the course of several months in virtually every corner of wikipedia, hence the rub. Sadly it seems to have come to seeking outside intervention. Since at this point, quite frankly, I want nothing more to do with you I am content to seek out the aforementioned solution. Whether you will or whether you'll continue more of the same however remains in doubt. ] 09:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I welcome mediation with you. Thanks for being open to the prospect. I'd be happy to withdraw my RfC if we can engage in mediation instead. My only complaint is with your personal comments. Thanks, -] 09:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I indicated, you are free to participate in the designated section of the mediation page (though not the closed one). If you do so I will consider your comments as any other. I will further note that standing issues remain as to your editing practices though, and I anticipate that you will find a means of addressing those practices that I have stated to be objectionable, of poor etiquette, and generally deconstructive to wikipedia. Asserting an objection with your editing practices is a criticism, and as I have emphatically stated it is a criticism I sincerely make and would like to see you resolve. That does not mean it's a personal attack though. ] 09:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Rangerdude: I'm still a relative newbie and learning the process, so I may need your assitance in following the process. Please keep me apprised. Thanx. ] 14:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Query== | |||
| Rangerdude, did you make this edit or is someone playing games? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, it's addressed to you, not signed by you. My apologies. I can guess who's behind it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your dispute== | |||
| I wish you would re-consider some of your issues with Willmcw. He's a good editor who sticks closely to policy, and it's beginning to look as though you're following him around the board trying to make trouble for him, which is only succeeding in making you look bad; for example, with your support today of Poetatoe, who was clearly a troublemaker and a sockpuppet. Perhaps if you were to give yourself a break from interacting with him, you might see things differently in a week or so. Situations have a tendency to look distorted to us when we're in the thick of them, as I know from my own experience. I hope you'll give that some consideration. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Please see my response here. Far from "following" willmcw around the board, this latest dispute arose after he followed me (yet again!) to another article I was editing this morning. Nothing would please me more than if I could go a day at wikipedia without willmcw "coincidentally" showing up at the same article that I'm working on only moments after I've made an edit. The unfortunate reality, however, is that willmcw likes to follow me through my editor contributions page and has been doing so for several months. Thus whenever I make an edit on just about any topic, be it history, politics, or even an obscure scientific theory of astronomy, willmcw magically appears to instigate a content dispute. ] 06:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the example you gave at ]: you didn't originally write the disputed passage, but you restored it here and you edited it here , so you're clearly defending it. Will disputes it because it's unsourced and the critics are not named, which they ought to be according to ] and ]. Therefore, he asked you for a source on the talk page, and you ought to supply one if you want the passage to stay (or anyone else who wants it to stay ought to supply one), but it's up to the editor defending the edit to find the source, not up to the editor who's challenging it. Will has this article on his watchlist, and checks when someone's made an edit, which is why watchlists exist. Also, I'd say that if you genuinely wanted to avoid interacting with him, then you wouldn't edit a passage in an article that has already been the subject of a query by him. If you want to avoid him for a week or so, then don't edit articles you've already had a dispute with him over. A short break from the tension will likely help you to see things differently, and then you can proceed more calmly with mediation; or better still, you may decide you don't need it after all. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Since we're looking back to February, Slim, to justify edit disputes in June why don't you take a look at WHY willmcw has Eric Foner on his watchlist? The answer, of course, is he followed me there on February 15th after digging for articles I had edited through my editor contributions page. This, of course, was the same week he followed me to about a dozen different articles all over wikipedia for the explicit purpose of instigating disputes on each, many of them for deconstructive and bad faith reasons. I defended the original wording for the reason that I defend most original wordings - if material is factually valid but said to be in need of a source, the responsible editor making that charge will first seek out a source before hitting the delete button. In all of my encounters with him, Willmcw seldom if ever adds any new material to any of the articles i've seen him on. Instead he seeks out reasons to justify deletions - deletions that normally coincide with political beliefs, and a great many of them ones made without any real cause or even a true want of sources. Furthermore, expecting me to avoid edits to every article where Willmcw has been involved is an unreasonable demand given that, per his habit of following me around wikipedia, he has happened to involve himself in virtually every article where I've made a significant contribution and almost all of the articles that I have an interest in developing. Given his pattern of behavior, avoiding him by the means you suggest would effectively mean avoiding wikipedia. There's only one way to end the tension and that is for him to quit stalking my edits. But that is a choice only he can make. ] 06:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You say you "defended the original wording for the reason that defend most original wordings", namely that if the material is correct, but needs a source, the editor wanting to delete it should find a source. But you have that exactly the wrong way round: it's the editor defending the material who has to find the source. And how do you know whether something's factually correct if you don't have a source? If Foner has been accused of being un-American, there must be a reputable source for that somewhere, and if none can be produced, it has to be deleted. We're not allowed to insert our own opinions, or defend another editor's personal views. Will is acting in accordance with our policies, as he always does in my experience. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:58, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Much to the contrary, SlimVirgin. A critique of Foner's well known liberal politics very reasonably falls under ] which does indeed _encourage_ the finding of sources yet explicitly states "However, there are some claims that many Wikipedians find acceptable to report as fact, without citing any outside sources." IOW, sometimes it is indeed okay to say "the sky is blue" without linking to a page stating the sky is blue. The article further continues in asserting what types of common knowledge fall outside of this category, specifically items lacking consensus and falling under specific criteria. The remainder are left to the "forces of inertia, consensus, and moral suasion." Willmcw never contested that any such category applied. He did not seek consensus or seek to demonstrate the lack thereof. Nor did he even attempt to justify his deletion on any other principle than his belief of it to be unsourced. ] 17:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rangerdude, I'm not going to answer every one of your many accusations. But with the ] article, like most of these articles, I went there because it was under discussion elsewhere, or because of an eidt that you or others made. In this instance, we were editing ], which contained a criticism of Foner. (Which you again attributed to "Common knowledge"). That includes this edit, where you inaccurately accuse me of adding some text about Foner: "What on earth are you ranting at me for, Jim? Your buddy Willmcw's the one who added that line! I have no problem with changing it back though" . It was natural that I would go look at ] as a result. Please be more careful in your accusations. Thanks, -] 20:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nice try Will, except that (1) you did indeed add that line , thus making my comment accurate, and (2) far from simply travelling between similar articles under immediate discussion on pages of a mutual editing interest, you spent that same week conciously following me to the far reaches of wikipedia for entirely unrelated articles on astronomy , obscure trade legislation , political thinktanks , historians , and history terminology , among other things. By the time you arrived at Eric Foner, you were in full fledged wiki-stalker mode and indisputably operating off of my editor contributions page. ] 06:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you look at the diff you provided you'll see that I edited the line about Foner in the McPherson article rather than adding it wholesale. In any case, it was our editing of that line which led me to Foner, not an Ahab-like obsession with you. Chill out. -] 06:54, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And if you look at JimWae's comment, you will see that it is directed at the line you edited in the version you changed it to, just as I indicated when I noted that I would change it back to the previous version. As to an "Ahab-like obsession," your behavior as documented above speaks for itself. Jumping from McPherson to astronomy to trade law to political think tanks to historical terminology, all of which I happened to be editing just before you showed up on each, is more than coincidence and serves as conclusive evidence that you have been following me through my editor contribution page. ] 07:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's 'cause you edit interesting articles. ;) -] 07:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Are you still interested in mediation? ] (]) 20:01, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Rangerdude, could you please respond to ] so that we can start mediation? Thanks, -] July 2, 2005 01:35 (UTC) | |||
| ====Evidence Log Copy==== | |||
| ] | |||
| ==writing of history on Misplaced Pages== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital, peer-produced works of history, including history articles in Misplaced Pages. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Misplaced Pages, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish. | |||
| Thanks for your consideration. | |||
| Joan Fragaszy | |||
| jfragasz at gmu dot edu | |||
| ==Willmwc nomination== | |||
| Rangerdude: This is a political decision. You're not gonna stop his re-election. You may even isolate yourself. This could be an opportunity to wipe the slate clean and show good faith. Ultimately, he will be beholden to his supporters who elected him.] 17:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :All true & valid; however one should consider the ] arrayed in support. Senator ] voted against ] for ] Chairman in 1986, only to give evidence of his "mindless partisanship" when he ran for President in 2000 and everyone credited Greenspan (not Clinton) with the ongoing recovery. ] 17:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Admin== | |||
| RD: If you have a moment I hope you would seriously consider this nomination ]. Thanks. ] 30 June 2005 17:11 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation == | |||
| I'm ready and willing to mediate, so let me know when you'd like to get started. ] (]) July 2, 2005 20:22 (UTC) | |||
| :We don't need to wait for mediation to start resolving this issue. Volunteer mediationn must be the least pleasant job in Misplaced Pages. I don't think we've given sufficient effort to working this out between ourselves. | |||
| :Misplaced Pages is not a good place to edit for one who does not want to have others looking over their shoulder. I freely admit that I look over your shoulder and fix what I think needs fixing. We all look over each other's shoulders' and that is how editing gets done around here. Anyone who does not like having their writing "edited mercilessly" should not submit it. I believe you are saying that I am harassing you, but I think that I have always been polite and correct. Our editing collaboration has ultimately been positive for the encyclopedia. I am glad to be accused of adding content to articles, and I think that is the wonder of Misplaced Pages. We all add our little bit. I'm also glad to serve as an editor, questioning unnamed critics and excessive attention to vague controversy. If we can keep away from making personal remarks then I think that we can continue to work together productively. I'd be happy to stay on track for mediation, but ultimately we need to work this out between ourselves. ], -] July 5, 2005 09:02 (UTC) | |||
| :: | |||
| There's a difference, will, between simply "looking over one's shoulder" and actively stalking. If you were checking my work on two, three, or four articles of common interest, and myself vice versa, it would be "looking over one's shoulder." Unfortunately your activity extends well beyond the simple checks and balances that entails and includes actively following me around wikipedia to in excess of 50 different articles on topics of all sort and nature. A great many of your attempts to edit my additions are plainly made in bad faith and aimed directly at frustrating, deconstructing, and/or removing them even when they are more than sufficiently sourced per wikipedia guidelines. It is this breach of Misplaced Pages's good faith assumption that makes stalking problematic, and the hostile environment it produces is why so many editors frown upon the practice. It should also be noted that there is ample precedent on Misplaced Pages that stalking behavior constitutes "disruptive editing" due to its breach of the good faith assumption including at least one case where an editor was personally blocked by Jimbo Wales for stalking another user with edits that were primarily minor and inconsequential yet exhibited a consistent pattern of specifically following that editor. Per Wales' decision, the stalker &amp;amp;amp;quot;was making a pest of himself by harassing" the other editor. I have addressed these concerns to you directly many times, will. I have explained and documented them in detail, and now I am seeking outside mediation to resolve them. It is unfortunate that we've come this far, but you've been completely unresponsive to my concerns and only intensified your problematic behavior as a response. Thus outside intervention has become the only alternative at this point. ] 5 July 2005 18:05 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm responding to your concerns by addressing the issue with you here. From the tone of your discussion it seems that you do not assume good faith on my part, either. Do you think that mediation will be able to restore our good faith in each other's efforts? That'd be swell if it could happen. Cheers, -] July 5, 2005 19:49 (UTC) | |||
| Alright, how would you guys like to do this? E-mail, IRC...? ] (]) July 5, 2005 22:08 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure if that's standard practice, but I have no problem with it, if that's what you two would prefer. ] (]) July 5, 2005 22:32 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm having a little trouble following this conversation. I would prefer to conduct the mediation according to standard practice. Email would be most convenient. Thanks, -] July 5, 2005 22:39 (UTC) | |||
| :::I strongly oppose email in this mediation for the reason of privacy, given that the complaint involves stalking. Misplaced Pages would be the best location to conduct the mediation in these circumstances. Thank you. ] 6 July 2005 00:16 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Private accounts through free services like Hotmail or Yahoo are easy to arrange. Due to the nature of this dispute we should proceed confidentially with private discussion. That is the usual way of conducting mediation and I think it is necessary in this matter. Cheers, -] July 6, 2005 00:48 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks but no thanks. The stalking involved in this dispute, and the aforementioned concerns regarding behavior and name speculation by the other editor, have led me to conclude that a mediation by email is neither viable nor in the interest of my personal privacy and safety. ] 6 July 2005 00:52 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Your safety?! -] July 6, 2005 03:04 (UTC) | |||
| Email's an excellent way to spread bugs, viruses, and all sorts of other nasty programs, to say nothing of its insecurities. So yes, since this is a stalker case my safety. ] 6 July 2005 03:34 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't care what mechanism we use, but mediation in public is not likely to succeed. Whatever confidential communication technique you prefer is ok. Thanks, -] July 6, 2005 04:40 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would like for there to be an accessible and permanent record of all proceedings, at least to the parties involved. I am doubtful that the mediation, if done on a technically "public" section of wikipedia, would even attract the attention of any readers beyond the three of us. Thus it would be little different than what could occur privately by email minus the email security threat and aforementioned issues. ] 6 July 2005 04:54 (UTC) | |||
| :::What purpose is served by having a public discussion since it will be limited to the three of us? I think that discussion needs to remain confidential so that we don't have to worry about our comments being used again subsequently. IRC is another option, or Andrevan may be able to suggest something so you won't have to fear me hurting you. -] | |||
| ::::Given comments of that sort, I must question exactly what it is you are intending to say that you fear receiving a public eye. You "hurting" me is not my fear, but you stalking me further and you "hurting" my computer are events I would rather not take the chance of encountering. ] 6 July 2005 06:48 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Whatever. Any confidential communications arrangement is fine with me. I see no reason to hold our mediation in public or to keep a permanent record to show to others. The mediation committee has standard methods and we should follow them. -] July 6, 2005 21:32 (UTC) | |||
| == Notes on mediation == | |||
| It may be worthwhile to mention a few points about mediation mechanisms and philosophy. There are several sound reasons for a confidential mediation process versus a public one listed at ]. Confidential mediation reduces the need to 'keep up appearances'—there's no need to 'play to the audience' or worry about losing face by 'winning' or 'losing'. There's also the benefit that well-meaning but nosy individuals (hello!)–or worse, editors who wish to fuel the conflict–will stumble in and make unhelpful or unwelcome remarks. Remember, it's mediation, not a cage match. | |||
| Your mediator will keep a record of the mediation process, and is empowered to break confidentiality if the other party breaks the terms of the mediation. If you don't feel you can trust the mediator to that extent, you should find another one. | |||
| As a technical note, the major webmail providers provide protection from nasty things sent by email. As long as you turn off inline images and don't download any attachments, you should be fine. Your mediator might also suggest alternate communication strategies. Cheers, ](]) 6 July 2005 12:45 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for that note, however my concerns remain. If this dispute did not involve ] I would be more openly inclined to the type of mediation you describe, however since this case does involve stalking and harassment in which I have been the target, I must insist upon certain reasonable precautions to protect my privacy and security. Even with standard anti-virus safeguards etc. by email, it is inherently open to more sophisticated security problems as well as leaving an email tagline with each message documenting extensive personal information. Since - again - this case involves a stalker, I am simply not willing to take those risks. As to the confidentiality, the problem of outside participation by a "nosy" editor can be easily contained in the mediation page's terms, restricting participation to the two editors and mediator (all other edits to be reverted and removed). Again, given the case's circumstances, having an independently sustained record of the proceedings is also of added importance. I do not share a concern about "winning" or "losing" since this mediation is not about any article content that could be decided one way or another by mediation outcome, but rather the behavior of a specific editor against me, its purpose being to resolve those behavioral issues. Anything that can be said on that subject may be done openly. ] 6 July 2005 18:45 (UTC) | |||
| ==Comment from a Mediator== | |||
| Since you have refused Mediation, there is only one choice left to make. Either one of you must be blocked for personal attacks now, or perhaps the matter should go to arbitration. ], co-chair, the ]. ] 02:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Nobody's refused mediation, Ed. I simply refuse any mediation channel that would unduly inhibit my privacy as an editor to another individual in a case where the subject of the mediation itself is a lengthy allegation of stalking behavior by that individual against myself. So long as mediation can be conducted in a manner that satisfies this concern, I'm open to it. As to "gaming the system," wikipedia has extensive precedents indicating that stalking behavior is inherently disruptive. I have no problem with others making edits to my work, but I do have a problem when another editor singles me out for harassment and deconstructs my work on a repeatedly groundless basis due to his personal political beliefs and fixations. ] 05:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Negative personal comments == | |||
| Please stop making negative personal comments about me on article talk pages. If you have a specific comment about a specific edit, then that's fine. But if you want to editorialize on my behavior I'm asking you to please move that to the mediation process. Thank you. -] 08:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:28, 15 November 2023
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Rangerdude has not edited Misplaced Pages since 19 December 2005. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
AfD nomination of Roderick T. Long
An editor has nominated Roderick T. Long, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roderick T. Long and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of MD4Bush Incident
I have nominated MD4Bush Incident, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MD4Bush Incident. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Texans for True Mobility
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Texans for True Mobility, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Rangerdude! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Shirley DeLibero - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Leon Hale - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- William Murchison (journalist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of William Murchison (journalist)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on William Murchison (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Ray Neff for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ray Neff is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ray Neff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Libertybison (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
he was sus :(
Nomination of Roderick T. Long for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roderick T. Long is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roderick T. Long (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Categories: