| Revision as of 10:20, 10 February 2008 view sourceNYScholar (talk | contribs)41,511 edits thank you← Previous edit |
Revision as of 10:24, 10 February 2008 view source NYScholar (talk | contribs)41,511 edits attempting to archive/clean up this page now that this is resolved; all archived in archive 18Next edit → |
| Line 48: |
Line 48: |
|
<small><b>{{See|#N.B.|WP:UP|WP:TPG|WP:CIVIL}}</b></small> |
|
<small><b>{{See|#N.B.|WP:UP|WP:TPG|WP:CIVIL}}</b></small> |
|
<small>{{skiptotoctalk}}</b></small>''' |
|
<small>{{skiptotoctalk}}</b></small>''' |
|
|
|
|
{{-}} |
|
|
== Please explain == |
|
|
Where are the personal attacks? It's a completely false accusation and should be retracted immediately. —] 11:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please respond to this. You have posted apparently unfounded accusations that an administrator has engaged in personal attacks on that talk page. Please either retract them or justify your accusation with provision of diffs. Unfounded and untrue accusations of personal attacks may in itself be considered a personal attack, so please do respond to Moondyne's query at your earliest possible convenience. ] 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''''I posted my response in detail below, with links to "diffs." If it is not there anymore, it is because someone else is editing this page. Material that I have posted on it and intended to leave on it has been deleted from it. See bold bracketed comment about that below. --] (]) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)]''''' |
|
|
:Please see sec. ] (I typed it incorrectly below, and I have to fix it so that the link works; and I did use "show preview," but you can't get to sections in a section of talk page in the same talk page in "show preview" mode.) --] (]) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Warning re: disruption== |
|
|
]. Thank you. --] (]) 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
NYScholar, your behaviour at this user talk page has become disruptive. It is not really ''your'' talk page; it is everyone's, for use in talking to you. Your constant removal of legitimate messages, along with your request that people not post here, amount to a refusal to communicate with your peers. Unfortunately, there are plenty of reasons why people need to, and have every right to, talk to you, so long as you intend to remain a part of this community. For example, I notice that you accused Moondyne of a personal attack, and when he posted here to ask you to substantiate or withdraw that accusation, you simply removed the message unreplied. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm now giving you a formal warning that your management of this talk page is disruptive, because it is likely to cause anger and frustration amongst your collaborators. If it continues, I may act to prevent this disruption by blocking you from editing, for a time. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have restored Moondyne's message above. It requires a considered response. |
|
|
|
|
|
Feel free to archive ''this'' message once you've read it. ] 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: This "user talk page" is "my" "user talk page" in the sense that I am the "user" identified on it. In that sense, it is "my user talk page"; in Misplaced Pages one refers to "Hesperian's talk page", "NYScholar's talk page" and so on. One knows what I mean when I say "my talk page": it is pointing to ''which'' talk page one is referring to. Misplaced Pages provides "leaway" for user talk pages: it says so right in descriptions of "user space." --] (]) 21:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have repeatedly asked this person not to keep posting these misleading messages on my talk page. The person will not stop. I responded cordially to a request for a "favour" (see archive 18), thanked the person on that person's own talk page and received nothing but grief since then. I have had it with this person. There is no further response that I can make. I will archive this discussion tomorrow. After spending an enormous amount of my time correcting errors and trying to improve an article, I am tired, and I do not want to deal with this other person. I suggest that you read the comments on the person's own talk page and at ] and get a fuller and fairer picture of what is going on here. I will archive all of this tomorrow. But I will spend no more of my time responding to that other user, who does not recognize cordiality or courteous behavior and, in my view, is violating ]. (I spent over a half hour responding to the requested "favour" and changed both my user page and my talk page presentation in doing so. Those changes are the only ones that I want to take my time to make (and they were considerable changes). I am turning back to my other non-Misplaced Pages work for the rest of the weekend (at least). Good day! --] (]) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:As far as what user talk pages are for, I've linked in two places above already to ]; I've read them, and I know what they are. Talk pages are not for harrassing other users, and that is what that other user has been using my talk page for lately: see Archive 18, where at first I excepted that user from such behavior; right after I did that, the user started harrassing me on my current talk page. If the user keeps doing it, I will keep deleting the comments and/or archiving them, or moving them to the user's own talk page. I've given fair warning in "N.B." above (which has been there for months in one form or another.) Good day! I'm logging out. --] (]) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I don't post warnings lightly; I had already reviewed the situation thoroughly. It is entirely reasonable that you be required to substantiate or withdraw your accusation, even if it does take a few minutes for you to do so. My position remains that Moondyne's message requires a considered response. ] 12:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:''What'' "accusation"? The person is upsetting me; I'm entitled to say that and to ask the person to stop doing it. I consider continually posting on a talk page when one has been asked not to do so "harrassment." I've made myself very clear. I also explained that I had other work to do that I would rather be doing, so I will turn to it. Against my own better judgment relating to my own time constraints, I spent the entire night working on correcting errors and trying to improve the article ]; I have run out of time or energy or desire to (1) work on it anymore and (2) to deal with others who mostly must engage in talk page discussion and don't spend as much time actually working to improve the articles. There is a difference. I'll look at the link later. This is my own response to what the person is generally asking me: I made my complaint clear on the person's own talk page: the complaint is: I've asked you not to keep upsetting me on my talk page, and yet you keep doing it. That should be clear enough. The person's editing summaries about my work breach ] and the person cited an early version of a passage that I later revised as if it had not been revised, describing it in negative terms, which breaches other WP. I've already also made that clear. What the person is doing is uncivil and a form of taunting. User space is user space, and user talk pages give users some leaway in how they present them. I have explained how I prefer to use mine, and that I do not want to discuss how to improve articles on my talk page. Those discussions are for the talk pages of articles. --] (]) 12:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You have stated on ]: "I would appreciate it if the above user (Moondyne) (and some others) would stop these ridiculous personal attacks". That is clearly and unambiguously an accusation against Moondyne. My position remains the same: it is disruptive for you to make such an accusation, then ignore a request to either prove it or withdraw it. ] 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I wrote an explanation just now and lost it. The beginning of the focus on me instead of on the edit (violating ]: focus on the content not the contributor) began with the labeling of a subsequently-revised sentence as a "rant" and "fluff" etc. and moved toward a further breach of ] with the user's focusing back on the same earlier version of the sentence and even linking to it (to have the descriptions show up again) rather than to focus on the fact that the sentence had already been revised (by me) and quoted on ] for further discussion. Then the user came to my talk page asked me to do him/her a "favour," involving changing the layout of my talk page, which I spent a half hour or so doing, after which I ''thanked'' the user on his/her own talk page. Without any acknowledgment that I had even complied with the requested "favour," the user then started posting still more stuff on my talk page even though I had courteously asked the user ''not'' to do so and s/he continued to do so above, despite my continuing requests on his/her talk page not to do so. Completely disregarding another user's request for desisting from this is in my view an implicit personal attack, a clear sign of total disrespect for another's clearly-expressed wishes. I also had to delete some harrassment from another user. Focusing on me, the contributor, instead of on the actual nature of the edits themselves (without negatively labeling them as a "rant" or "fluff" when they are actually good-faith edits) is, in my view, a violation of ], ], and ] (the admonition to focus on the content not on the contributor). Going to someone's talk page to ask a "favour" and then not acknowledging compliance with such a requested favour and going back to complain further, despite being asked several times not to do so, is, in my view, a veiled personal attack, harrassment, and a violation of ]. --21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::See the clearcut knowledge that the user had that the "diffs." link s/he gave to rehash an already-revised matter was to an obsolete version of a sentence: ] and .. To me there seems to be a personal animus involved in that maneuver, and I took it as a personal attack on me, which was totally unnecessary, gratuitous, and not in any way related to the then-current editing of the article in a manner to improve it, as the sentence had already been revised (improved), whether or not the user liked the more recent version any better than the earlier version; the rehashing violated ] (as well).] --] (]) 21:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 21:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
I must say that I've been very concerned about NYScholar's use of this page for a couple of months now and have kept his/her page on my watchlist as a result. I had to contact NYScholar because the foundation was contacted by the brother of a man NYScholar claimed had died but in reality was still alive. The brother hadn't had recent contact and was distressed to learn of his brother's "death" via a google search of his name. He wished to talk to NYScholar to find out the details of his brother's "death". Only NYScholar declined email contact saying s/he prefers all contact to be on site (fair enough, I suppose). This forced the brother to register for an account specifically to to talk to NYScholar but a couple of hours after responding, NYScholar archived his/her talk page. It seemed rather rude to me that NYScholar would claim a man had died, causing his family great distress only to immediately archive the thead. Do you think someone who has never used Misplaced Pages before and who came here to address such a matter would have seen NYScholar's reply in the couple of hours it was posted? Would he have known where to find the archived reply or would he have thought his message had simply been deleted without response and then given up in disgust? Makes you wonder what kind of message people unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages must get. I had to apologise to the poor man several times. ] 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an unnecessary discussion. It was already discussed. I apologized for the error (more than once), which was an error that I found in one of the sources that I had consulted. I have actually spoken the the MLA about this matter (I am a lifetime member of that organization). The person in question was a former editor of the MLA Bibliography whose departure from the MLA is not explained on its site. See the archived talk page discussions about this matter, with all the relevant links: '''I corrected the problem in the article citations and text and any others relating to it, including talk pages and apologized as soon as I learned of it.''' (Seldom does one encounter a family member who has been in such infrequent contact with a relative that he or she does not know whether or not the person is alive or dead. I guessed at the problem without being in contact via e-mail, and I guessed correctly and made the changes to the article and talk page without even being asked to do so.) |
|
|
:]: I do not use personal e-mail in Misplaced Pages for good reason. I cannot and have no wish to deal with the types of incivility and harrassment that I encounter on talk pages of Misplaced Pages in my professional (personal) e-mail account from people who apparently have nothing better to do than to vandalize Misplaced Pages or to attack others in talk pages. "Preferences" in Misplaced Pages exist for the use and protection of Misplaced Pages users who select them from clearly designed options. I have with good reason and entirely appropriately selected the option of ''not'' using e-mail with Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. No one should be pressuring me to do so. ''No one'' should be suggesting that my choice of not using e-mail is in any way in conflict with ]. It is not. I will be archiving the entire discussion from this point above shortly. One can find it in my archive 18 easily enough. --] (]) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Er, I think comparing a man distressed about your (false) report of his brother's death, attempting to find out details of said death to "vandals" and people engaging in "incivility and harrassment" is rather offensive and insensitive. I don't really care if you choose to make yourself unavailable by email, however, I do care when I have to deal with distressed people who are forced to create an account specifically to talk to you, come to this page and reveal personal information about themselves and their families in order to communicate such concerns to you, only to have you archive the conversation unreasonably quickly, expecting such a person to root around your userspace trying to work out your very eccentric behaviour. ] 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:For the residual material relating to this matter, please see my Archived talk page: ]. There reason that there are ellipses relates to ]. See ] for the related discussion. The error itself is excised pursuant to ]. I provided the necessary ellipses after learning of the problem via the post. To rehash it here is not useful. I dealt with it as appropriately as I could. Errors sometimes exist in sources; I edited in good faith and I responded in good faith. This rehashing of a matter that has ellipses in it for reasons of ] is not helpful. --] (]) 22:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think it is helpful because, despite what you suggest, it was never addressed at the time and it seems an appropriate time to raise it now that other administrators above (Hesperian and Moondyne) have raised their own concerns about your talk page practices. Yes, your false report and inability to cite a source for the material was discussed between you and Mr Achtert, but it certainly wasn't addressed internally and nor was the eccentric way you handled it. ] 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I really do not think that you are familiar with the fact that the comment that he referred to was only in my user talk space and that I deleted it immediately after guessing what the problem was (using ellipsis dots): I've already explained that to you months ago now and even reiterated the explanation (see above and archived disc. links there. Even before being asked to refer to the now ellided brief phrase (something like "now deceased"--which had been indicated in my sources for ]), I had already revised the talk page of the article itself just in case. Instead of continuing to make these absolutely-insulting claims, you need to consult the ''full'' record. ''I'' am not responsible for errors in sources; I am only responsible for correcting those that I learn of. I did so immediately (in my talk page). At the time, given the message that you left, there would have been no way for me to know what you were talking about, as you had been so cryptic; but I went out of my way to be cautious, and I object to this characterization of the whole situation belatedly. At this point, I am sure that if the person who had contacted you realized that you are extending the discussion of a private concern in this public manner, he would be all the more greatly distressed. As you absolutely know, the error was totally inadvertent, was apologized for at the time (but the material had to be deleted due to the nature of the concern). To drag it up again publicly is to a disservice to the person who initially requested privacy. I don't think that you should ever have posted about it on my talk page. I think that you should have made the correction yourself quietly and explained the matter in general terms. It was also not my responsibility to do "original research" for that man's family member, from whom he was apparently estranged. I was only depending on published material. I was using MLA publications in my possession, MLA sources publicly available on the internet, and even afterward, I spoke with a high-up MLA official this past December at the MLA convention, who actually thanked me for the work that I have done on those articles pertaining to its publications. Enough said in my view. And I ''will'' be archiving this discussion in due course. --] (]) 01:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Also, I had to keep in mind that there was a possibility that the e-mail message being referred to was bogus or that the post from you (whom I had and have no knowledge of otherwise) was bogus; it seemed very odd at first. Again, it is not Misplaced Pages policy to require its editors and other users to communicate with Misplaced Pages or one another via their private e-mail accounts. I have chosen not to do so to avoid spam, to protect my identity from identity theft, and for other personal reasons. I am entitled to my own privacy. --] (]) 01:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Furthermore, as Sarah's own link to a previous version of my talk page clearly indicates , I said that I was "sorry" (apologized) and acted entirely appropriately to correct the erroreous mention of the man's death (which I had encountered in a source; it was not my invention). (See also: There was quite an extensive series of responses that I made to the poster (red: Achtert) after he stated that he was referring only to a comment in a talk page archive (16) and not in a current talk page of an article or an article mentioning Walter S. Achtert. Moreover, in a moment I will post the message that Sarah left originally in my talk page, which I found extremely cryptic and odd and had no way of verifying the authenticity of the sender of the e-mail that she was asking me to respond to via e-mail, which I don't use in Misplaced Pages. To do so would compromise my privacy. (will be back to post additional link in a moment). --] (]) 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
. My practice in using e-mail (since 1985) is ''not'' to reply to unsolicited messages that I receive from people whom I do not know (strangers); every other Wikipedian or Misplaced Pages user/reader is a stranger to me (I know no one who edits or reads Misplaced Pages personally). It was not safe for me to engage in e-mail correspondence with anyone involved in that request; I did not know Sarah (and still do not know her) personally; I did not know for certain that the person claiming to be "a family member" of Walter S. Achtert was indeed a family member; there was no way for me to verify that, and, since I also did not and do not know Sarah, her posting this request in my talk page did not give me any confidence in its verifiability. I was not familiar at all (and still am not) with the process of e-mailing Misplaced Pages (since I do not do that), and the request seemed to come out of left field to me. I was understandably cautious, and I am still understandably cautious. I still find it very odd that a close family member of someone would not have an independent means of determining whether or not the person was alive or dead. So that discrepancy screeched out, "Proceed with caution." In view of the cryptic nature of the message and my inability to ascertain its veracity, I did the best I could, and I was courteous. But it is not my job to do "original research" about Walter S. Achtert or anyone else; I simply relied on sources and their uses of language and they gave me the impression that the man was no longer alive. I learned later only from this exchange with ] what the nature of his concern was; until then I tried to remove anything possibly questionable about a living person from the account of ]; one must keep in mind that, believing that the person was no longer alive based on the way the sources cited subsequent editions of the Style Manual and the Research Guide, I did not have any sense that ] applied to that person. When I learned differently, I acted accordingly and in good faith. I am certain that the full record (not just one "diffs" link but the full exchange as it developed bears out my good faith editing. --] (]) 04:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
People had assumed that because a new editor took over the MLA publications and the first editor was no longer being credited as being involved in them, that he had died. Usually, the previous work of the editor of a first ed. receives named credit in a second ed., etc. This attempt at Sarah to make more of this matter than occurred is very insulting. It was an inadvertent error and corrected immediately. However, the manner in which it was brought to my attention by Sarah seemed very peculiar to me, and I had never seen any such message from any administrator or anyone else about being asked to engage in e-mail correspondence with a stranger, who there is no way I would have of knowing the authenticity of. I have seen attempts to sleuth out the real identities of Misplaced Pages editors, and I am cautious of being conned into using my real-name based e-mail accounts in any such correspondence, due to fear of subsequent spam, harrassment, identity theft and/or other unpleasant grievous situations. If someone wants to know whether or not his brother is alive or dead, one would expect that person to be able to contact another relative to find out, or simply to call his brother. In e-mail there is no way to know for sure whether the sender is legitimate. I could not help the person anyway, because I could find no other information about the person in question (Walter S. Achtert, who is mostly credited online and in my MLA publications simply as an editor, with no further accessible biographical information. It is not my job to do "original research" in Misplaced Pages; in fact, it is prohibited. --] (]) 04:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Given the very brief reply that I got from Sarah at the time (see Archive 16, Diffs. already posted), I had no idea (until today) that she was making such a huge matter out of this and also am disturbed to learn that as a result of my good faith replies to ]--Also all in Archive 16 section called "Fact checking"--she has been "watching" me for months and just jumped on this opportunity to dredge this up; to me that is not in keeping with ] and it is entirely unfair. I did my best to deal with the situation (given the cryptic nature of her "E-mail?" post, the fact that I will not use e-mail in Misplaced Pages, and the confusion about what ] was actually referring to (my talk page 16 and not the article or the talk page of the article). The idea that someone is using Misplaced Pages to learn information about his or her own family member and has no other way of learning information about that person is highly unusual, and, in my view, seemed suspicious. I responded the best way that I could do under those very odd circumstances. --] (]) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Please stop archiving this page while people are still posting to this discussion. Your behaviour is disruptive, please stop it now.''' ] 00:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''''Please indicate that you have seen my replies of 01:34 , 10 February 2008 (UTC); after you do so or post here again, I will know that you read it, I will consider this discussion closed, and I will archive this page, as is my prerogative, according to ] and ]. I am following the policies and guidelines. But I do not want to discuss this any further. Please agree to end this discussion. I do not want to participate in it anymore. For what I said before about it, you need to review my talk page archive already linked and ] and related linked articles to it.''''' --] (]) 01:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
]. (Point of information: I am a "life member" of the MLA because I have been a member of that organization for over forty years, as both a university and college professor and an academic scholar in its disciplines.) --] (]) 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
********************************************************************************************* |
|
|
|
|
|
==Disrupting my talk page== |
|
|
I have asked people to stop posting about these matters on my talk page; the posts are disrupting more than my talk page; they are disrupting my work schedule and my life. I am very tired and I want to rest. I recovered from a recent month-long illness early in January, and I have no desire to fall ill again because of what ''I'' am regarding as disruptive activity by others (not I) on my (yes, my) Misplaced Pages talk page. '''Please stop disrupting my talk page, my work schedule, and my life.''' Please demonstrate some compassion. Thank you. --] (]) 22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC) ] (]) 22:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
:For those who need such guidance, before posting anything on my current talk page, please see: ] and ] (sec. on User talk pages), particularly ], and the other links at top of page, as well as my "N.B." sec. Thank you. (Updated. This will all be archived shortly.) ---] (]) 23:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
NYScholar, this page is provided for other users to communicate with you. The way you are currently conducting, telling good faith editors and administrators to buzz off and stop disturbing you is not acceptable. I think if you have 'real life' work you need to do and you find other editors on Misplaced Pages an annoying distraction, you really ought to stop logging onto the site until you've finished your work and have time to respond to people's questions and concerns. Frankly, you shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages if you're not prepared to respond to your fellow editors. Also, please consider using the 'preview' button and ensuring your post is complete and correct before posting it instead of making half-a-dozen minor edits to every post you make, catching people in multiple edit conflicts. ] 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 00:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: for how such deletions from my talk page may have occurred; administrators and others should not be deleting my responses and then claim that I am not responding or archiving prematurely. They should not be deleting such content from my talk page. I replied and the reply seems to have been deleted. I restored it below, as I had to do other comments that were deleted from this talk page by others without authorization. --] (]) 03:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
When one edits in sections, the notes citations texts do not show up; "show preview" does not show them; many of my edits have been corrections to notes citations, and they have been done in stages when I have been in editing sections; I have had to return to the page in full article mode in show preview to see the results of the edits. That's just a Misplaced Pages glitch. Many people encounter that problem. It has nothing to do with "show preview" if one is in sections; one has to be in full article editing mode to see notes citations. Given the vast number of changes needed to the citation templates, editing that article has resulted in having to return from section to full many times. One does not always know how things will post in citations in "show preview" in sections. That leads to having to return multiple times. I have already said in the talk pages of articles that I do not like using citation templates; I have deferred to their use in that article, but it is hard to work with them (as many will attest); there are puncutation problems that often need correction: the problem with the citation templates as some people were creating them is already discussed fully in ]. Please see that discussion. --] (]) 00:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''I am '''''also''''' a "good faith editor": ]. Everyone makes typographical errors; not every bothers to take the time to correct them. I do so in an attempt to have accuracy in articles in Misplaced Pages. (Updated.) --] (]) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
********************************************************************************************** |
|
|
] (]) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Warning== |
|
|
I am following ] re: talk pages. I can delete and/or archive comments after I read them. |
|
|
'''DO NOT DELETE MY OWN COMMENTS FROM THIS TALK PAGE. THAT IS VANDALISM.''' Please stop micromanaging my talk page. --] (]) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Block warning== |
|
|
If you continue archiving this page while administrators are still trying to converse with you about your behaviour, I will consider it ongoing disruption after being warned and protect this page/block you as appropriate. Please stop. ] 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
People are not supposed to be blocked for respectful requests that others stop talking about old matters already handled in the past and already archived on their own current talk page. I don't know why you will not let this go. I've read what you've said, I don't want to discuss it any further, I've made that clear (several times, to no avail), ''I want to move on (with my work and my life), and I want to archive these discussions''. The exchange (above) and this reply to it) will continue to be accessible in archive 18, which is clearly identified. Please see the link to civility below and please read what I've already replied and follow the links given to the previous discussion of this very old matter. I archive discussions when I think they are over. I think that this discussion is over. I will be archiving this discussion tomorrow (Sunday, New York ). That gives you plenty of time to read what I have responded. But I will have no further responses to make on this subject. I've covered it completely and have no more to say about it. --] (]) 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''''] (]) 06:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Misplaced Pages policy governing removal of comments, warnings from user's own talk pages== |
|
|
For Misplaced Pages's own policy governing removal of warnings on talk pages (the preference is for archiving them; but they can be deleted as a sign that they have been read as well), please consult the direct link about ]: :{{quote|Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.}} --] (]) 03:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
********************************************************************************************** |
|
|
|
|
|
==Blocked== |
|
|
NYScholar, I told you, very clearly, that your management of this talk page was disruptive. I see in the history that you responded to me, then archived the discussion before I saw it, was reverted, archived it again, was reverted, etc. I wouldn't have even seen your response had Sarah not taken up this issue in my absensce. And so others have been dragged in, and we have a dispute that has wasted the time and emotional energy of numerous editors, not least yourself. This is the precisely the disruption I was talking about. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have therefore blocked you for 24 hours, in the hope that this will prevent further disruption. I suggest you use some of that time to figure out a way of managing this talk page that is in line with community expectations. You might like to use the remaining time to meet some of the real-life priorities that you keep telling us are so pressing that you have time to edit ] but not to respond to anyone about anything. |
|
|
] 04:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have been responding on this current page and did not archive after the warning. --] (]) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ] above; I have archived nothing since then. --] (]) 06:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
'''''Sarah refactored my talk page and lost some of your comments, as far as I can tell; I left them there. --] (]) 05:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)''''' |
|
|
:] (]) 06:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
::I have looked at the edits where this occurred and it seems this was an accident, caused in part by your multiple waves of small edits. The edit conflict detector doesn't always work perfectly, I've seen this kind of problem in the same situation before. ] 08:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Moreover, I have not "reverted" or used "undo"; Sarah has gone into my archive page and taken material out of it and placed it back on my current page, creating errors in the course of doing so, cutting off some comments, omitting whole comments of mine, and that activity was not mine. I came here (briefly) to look at one thing, and got involved in trying to restore the cut-off and deleted comments and trying to put them back where they had originally been prior to the refactoring by Sarah. The archive page clearly says that it is not to be edited by others; all archived material could be read as it was (it was simply moved there; it was not hidden; my "N.B." clearly says look in the archives, and there is a clear archive box of 18 pages of archived pages.) |
|
|
*For new discussions one is supposed to start a new section on a talk page, not go into an archived talk page and change it. Sarah's activities on my talk page and in my talk page archive are overstepping any administrative boundaries and she is engaging in administrative abuses of Misplaced Pages's own ], which allow me to archive discussions and to remove both warnings and other comments from my own user talk page. |
|
|
*Generally (''except for the harrassment by Pairadox of clearly-already answered and redundant and false charges that I do not use "show preview", which I do use''), I archived comments and did not remove them. My prerogative is to end discussion when it has become as unfair as this has become and when I am clearly being ganged up on, despite my own attempts at editing in good faith. These people abuse ] and continue to do so. --] (]) 06:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{unblock|1=I have fully responded to the requests for responses: see beg. of req. at ; it has taken me all day to do this. This block is unfair and based on others' deleting my comments from my talk page. See the editing history for Sarah's refactoring and deletions of my comments. I have returned to respond to your requests in detail, taking hours to do so, and the block is unwarranted. }} --] (]) 05:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*See all my responses to your request in ] sec. --] (]) 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*How can you possibly state that I haven't been taking the time "to respond to anyone about anything"; even though I didn't feel I had the time, I did so; in between I did some minor edits for the most part and added some sources to ] as a respite from this grief. I have fully responded to every question asked about (that made any sense to me), and more than that. I have provided links to "Diffs" in the cases of the main issues (from top of page): you have to read the responses (some of which were deleted by Sarah and that I later restored); the editing history will bear that out. As far as my archiving your commment, you gave me permission to archive your warning (which I did not need, since I am entitled by ] to archive comments on my own user talk page. They are all preserved in the archive. Since I have been responding to Sarah, she has not acknowledged the responses. I have stated (above) that I would wait until tomorrow to archive this discussion. I will do so as I stated. Also, I have no urge to edit any article in Misplaced Pages anyway, given the efforts made to respond to Sarah and you on this talk page. But you should lift the block anyway, because it is entirely unfair (this current talk page and its editing history (my edits, not Sarah's) bears that out. I have not archived anything here for many, many hours. I know because I've been typing during them. --] (]) 05:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As already quoted from ] above: |
|
|
{{quote|Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.}} --] (]) 05:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**Is it really that upsetting to leave threads for a day or two? You can always hide large finished discussions using {{tl|hat}} and {{tl|hab}} or you can get a bot to automatically archive everything after two days. So much moving things around really does make it extremely hard to follow the history to try to evaluate your request. --] (]) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have said that I'll be leaving them. But I do archive completed discussions. Sarah moved my page around re-factoring it, removing my comments; I had to dig through the editing history to find some of them and to restore them; she took archived material and put it back into the current page, losing my comments in some cases in the process. Other users (including administrators) are not supposed to refactor another user's talk page. All the material that she wanted back on the current page was restored to it; I did not even (at any time) archive Hesperian's comment (which that person said I could archive): I had left it there; at one point Sarah cut part of it off in re-factoring; but that was her work, not mine. --] (]) 05:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That user (Pairadox) is the one who has been continually harrassing me on this talk page. See the editing history. Sarah placed her ]" (Scroll up) ''after'' those two edits, and I archived nothing after I read that warning. I will be deleting Pairadox's comment; I have asked Pairadox to stop harrassing me; and I can see now what is happening here. This is clearly a concerted effort to cause trouble and it is a violation of ]. It was Pairadox (not initially Moon) to whom I was generally referring in complaining of harrassment on my talk page. See the editing history. The user came over here to harrass me as a result of editing warring in which s/he was engaging in ] and nasty editing summaries placed there, along with those by Moon.... Have these people nothing better to do? --] (]) 05:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've added the link to Sarah's block warning: I archived nothing after that warning. However, she changed my comments by adding her block warning <s>above my earlier posted comment</s>--as a part of my section on "Warning" and deleted some of my comments throughout the page; I added my own heading to clarify where my comment was ; she deleted some of my comments; I restored them. (That is the ''opposite'' of archiving.) --] (]) 05:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ] matter is extremely disturbing, since her reply to me was only 2 lines long and I had no idea that the matter was not ended. I have documented the whole thing above and it is also in archive 16 and also accessible in part via ]. Eventually, I will be archiving this entire discussion. It should be over, but because of this block, it has been even further extended. --05:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:; it is just an attempt to upset me further; those edits predate the "block warning" and they were clearcut archiving of discussions that I thought were over. They remained fully accessible in my talk page archives. The only remarks that I have actually been deleting are Pairadox's redundant requests for me to use "show preview" even after I said that I use "show preview" and also after considerable previous discussion of my use of it in my own talk archives, where I respond in the same way. I work very, very quickly (type very fast) and I am able to make changes, use show preview, and post more quickly than people who are slower. --] (]) 06:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
::Please stop misrepresenting my actions. I did not revert anything; I left an additional comment informing you that striking out my comments is against talk page guidelines. ] (]) 07:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
See Misplaced Pages policy on allowing users to delete comments from their talk pages; I will not tolerate this harrassment by Pairadox. Pairadox (not I) should be blocked for continually doing this. The links posted do not refer to the "Block warning" issued long prior to the block; and I was blocked for "archiving" when I had actually stopped archiving upon reading the block warning by Sarah. Pairadox should stay out of this. It does not concern him/her. I deleted comments by him/her that claim that I do not use "show preview" when I do; s/he should concentrate on correcting his own typographical errors in articles and stop harrassing me. Administrators can check editing histories themselves. They do not need Pairadox to post links to my edits for them. Two days ago I asked him/her to stop posting these redundant and useless comments on my talk page. "Physician, heal thyself." --] (]) 06:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I further suggest that these other users (like Pairadox) stop "ganging up on" (harrassing) me. I am sure that the blocking and unblocking administrators can deal with these matters on their own. (Now that I have fully responded to Sarah, it is interesting that she has had no responses to the comments. I thought she was insisting on continuing the discussion, yet, I did so, and she never came back. To me that would mean a discussion was "over" (had ended). How long is one to leave comments on a talk page for discussion? It's been a whole day by now. I encounter talk pages of administrators who archive every few hours, even every hour; at least one administrator archives all comments immediately and the entire current talk page consists of quotations and images (at least it did the last time I checked). I had no idea even how to find her archive. My archive box is prominently displayed and clearly referred too and all archived comments (except for those moved by Sarah) are in those archive pages, with bracketed notes making them easy to follow. How one archives one's talk page is entirely up to one's discretion according to ] and many people don't even archive, they just delete. At least, I archive. --] (]) 06:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Unblock request review == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please stand by as I contact the blocking admin. ] (]) 07:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
: The warning process appeared to have been appropriately exhausted. The user has been disruptive in one way, then became disruptive in a different way following warnings, and launched into a series of unfounded personal attacks on a range of people (ironically, such an attack even exists within the user's unblock template - not the best way for getting neutral observers onside). Such behaviour, per ], ] and ] is completely unacceptable and I support this block. ] 08:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::The "warning process" referred to is the "block warning" and as soon as I saw it I complied. I really don't see that you are all referring to the same "warning." As far as archiving one's own talk page: I do so when I have exhausted any possibility of continuing a discussion with a person generally; I just don't want to participate in talking with Sarah anymore about something that was settled months ago and that she is currently misrepresenting due to not have reviewed the full record and just relying on memory: see archive 16 and ] and my already-extensive commments to her (which she has made no responses to since I made that effort). Something very wrong is happening here. --] (]) 08:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have been attempting to respond to the request for responses to comments. To call that "disruptive" is not only unfair but given the demand that I do so (respond to comments), it completely disregards what I was asked to do. I have been defending myself against harrassment of comments deleted from my talk page due to the harrassment: see above. The harrassing comments were all violations of ], ], and, in my view, ]; my pointing out that I have been harrassed is not a personal attack; it is a complaint in defense of myself. There were two hours that passed between the posting of a "block warning" for archiving material that the administrator Sarah said I had not responded to, and my taking all that time (and more to respond). Instead of anyone recognizing that I had complied, Hesperian came back (two hours later) and, not recognizing that it was actually Sarah who had deleted my replies to his (and her request) in copying and paste archived material from my talk page, blamed me for not responding and for archiving. Actually, I stopped archiving as soon as I saw Sarah's ]; that is borne out both by the time date stamps on my comments and by the editing history. In mentioning Pairadox I was trying to note that I had to delete only that user's comments (due to my sense of being harrassed; they were a series of links to my edits claiming that I do not use "show preview" and I responded to that above in detail (part of my comment deleted by Sarah). I restored the comment after wondering what had happened to it and finding how it had happened in her editing history of my talk page archive and talk page. Any administrator can check these things. If anyone has been "disrupting" my talk page, it has actually other people, not me. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Re: Pairadox: I simply had deleted irrelevant and harrassing remarks by Pairadox (after reading and also responding to them) and also archived everything else after I was finished discussing those things. I kept saying I don't want to take more time to do this, and people have been pushing me into responding further. That is both unfair and even, I think, mean-spirited. If someone wants to be left alone to do other things, just be respectful enough to leave the person alone. The talk pages of articles are for discussing editing them. Not my talk page. |
|
|
:Moreover, my archive pages have the previous discussions; it's not going anywhere. If someone wants to continue something important (not just anything that they fancy), one can start a new subject. But if I have no interest in continuing the discussion and say so, one should respect that. It violates ] otherwise. No one should be forcing Wikipedian editors into discussing matters that occurred (in Sarah's case) months ago or in Moondyne's case were already responded to in view view adequately. I responded further when Hesperian demanded that I do. Sarah deleted my response (however). But I did respond, and I did so entirely courteously and respectfully. I have asked Pairadox to stop posting comments on my talk page because I find they have already been dealt with, directly, and s/he is just ignoring the answers. I should not have to keep pointing that out. Read the record; it's all here (now that I restored comments deleted by Sarah (however it happened). --] (]) 08:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As far as Moondyne's asking a "favour": I complied, spending a half hour doing so; thanked the user, and then got no response for having done so, other than time-wasting comments on my talk page. See: ]. Some of the other users (administrators) are the ones who should be blocked from doing this to an editor. I suggest you look at Moondyke's talk page, where I thanked the person and received no acknowlegment but more grief on my talk page. My compliance with a time-consuming request was generous in view of what I was doing then otherwise (working on my non-Misplaced Pages work). I stopped to comply and change my current talk page, user page, and to create a subuser page: that was my response (archived after I did it). What is at top is pure harrassment as far as I'm concerned and totally unnecessary. Nevertheless, I responded as Hesperian demanded (I'm not even sure an administrator is allowed to demand a response from someone to such questions). No one is acknowledging that I complied with Hesperian's demands; instead of even noticing that I had done so (the material Sarah had deleted and that I had to restore from editing history), he (or she) blocked my account. --] (]) 08:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After I respectfully and courteously asked Moondyne to stop posting these requests on my talk page because I didn't have time to deal with them further, Moondyne immediately posted more of the same on my talk page (scroll up; and see archive 18). To me that is disrespectful, uncivil, and amounts to harrassment, even though s/he claims it is not. Is it respectful, civil, or kind? I think not. I'm going to bed; logging out. --] (]) 08:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Hesperian says that s/he restored that message that I removed from my talk page (with justification) and moved to Moondyne's talk page, where the discussion had originated (my response above). That is where the trouble for me then began with Hesperian deciding that ''I'' had breached ], when I think if anyone would look at what I was thanking Moondyne for (archive 18) and how I had complied with being asked to do a very time-consuming "favour", it was Moondyne who breached ] by not even acknowledging that I had done so and by ignoring my pleas to for him/her to desist in asking me to do time-consuming things that I did not want to do. --] (]) 09:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry: I just realized that Hesperian is referring to yet another comment that Moondyne posted on my talk page after I explained that I wished the person would not do so; it is at top of this current talk page, where Hesperian put it back. I did not want to deal with that matter; I had dealt with it already on the talk page of the article; it did not belong discussed in my talk page at all. See ] for the whole development. I fully responded to Moondyne in detail about many things; the harrassment was initially referring to another user (see above discussion of that), but then Moondyne started copying and pasting my comments from where I posted them to my talk page, which I explicitly requested ''not'' be done; Moondyne could have responded on his/her own talk page. I moved the material there accordingly. That kind of behavior is what I consider "harrassment": when someone says "please don't ..." and another person does exactly what one has been requested not to do, it is not respectful. The archiving is different; it is permitted by ], it is transparent, and it is wholly above board. Anyone can easily access archived talk pages from this page. When the pages get too long, I also archive them. This one will be archived as soon as the block is lifted and/or Sunday night (ET), whichever comes first. --] (]) 09:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | ] |
|
|
| style="padding: 0.1em" | |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): |
|
|
<br><br>I see no valid reason for this block. To the extent the block is for deleting or archiving user talk page content, that is permitted by ]. The block is by its nature also not effective in preventing such conduct, since the blocked user can still edit his user talk page. Unblocking unilaterally as the blocking admin seems to be offline. |
|
|
|
|
|
''Request handled by:'' ] (]) 09:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Orderinchaos above, I am not addressing any issues of alleged incivility, etc., because this is not what NYScholar was blocked for, as far as I can tell. ] (]) 09:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much. --] (]) 09:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the block still has not been taken off my account. Please doublecheck and fix this problem. Thanks. --] (]) 10:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 10:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] |
|
|
|
|
|
ATTN: Sandstein or other helpful administrator: |
|
|
|
|
|
{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | ] |
|
|
| style="padding: 0.1em" | |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): |
|
|
<br><br>Original blockee was unblocked |
|
|
|
|
|
''Request handled by:'' ] ] 10:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah. Thank you. --] (]) 10:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<small><b>{{See|#N.B.|WP:UP|WP:TPG|WP:CIVIL}}</b></small> |
|
|
<small>{{skiptotoctalk}}</b></small> |
|
