Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:38, 17 February 2008

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you for your support about the opening sentence for the Franco-Mongol alliance page. I think you are perfectly correct in your evaluation, and your help is much appreciated. Best regards. PHG (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And a thanks from me too, for trying to help sort things out. It's much appreciated! Ealdgyth | Talk 20:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's rather selfish actually... I see so many great editors wasting so much energy on this debate and that's just no fun to watch. I'm hoping to find enough common ground that everyone can go back to writing FA's :). Justin 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting, Justin, that you're accusing me of things, even though I'm not the one doing the reverts. Is there some other dispute that we had in the past that I'm not aware of? --Elonka 08:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

None at all. I'm trying to be objective (and I can assure you, I don't think User:PHG is in any way innocent of wrong-doing here), but the constant reverts back and forth, accusations on the talk pages, et al, is getting way out of hand. My goal is to get this revert war under control, and allow consensus to form. Ideally, that means working on sub pages so a broader audience can read both versions and determine which they like better. As a casual reader, I think there are some POV problems with both versions (although, the longer long versions User:PHG recently "reverted to" are probably the worst case), and I think eventually a compromised version of the article will be found.

To be honest, I will likely join the majority consensus once the various POV problems are sorted out, since I prefer concise articles. In the mean time, I just think everyone who is overly involved should take a step back, work on their own versions of the articles, and make there cases on the talk page. I think you are both frustrated to the point that willingness to compromise has gone out the window. I certainly understand that given how long this has been going on. But I think, given some time to work individual on sub pages, you are both more likely to keep objective. I think you are very close to a very good article, but the revert war is really overriding that fact. Justin 08:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The problem, as I see it, is that though I've done what you suggest, meaning going away for awhile (2-6 weeks), working on a subpage, etc., that PHG never has. He's been camped on this article on a pretty much daily basis for several months now, and is showing no signs of letting go. He has ignored an article RfC, posted deceptive messages at ANI, and stonewalled a mediation. It is honestly my opinion now that we have sufficient editors at the talkpage to prove a consensus, and that PHG is just continuing to oppose, because, well, that's what he has done from the beginning. Also, if you haven't yet, I strongly recommend reading the "getting longer" thread on the article talkpage, where there is proof that not only is PHG continuing to edit-war, but that when he's saying "revert", he's actually inserting even more biased information into the article that wasn't there in the first place. Over 50K of material! In other words, though I've tried really hard to assume good faith on his actions over the last few months, I just can't anymore. He's not operating in good faith, and I think he's really just arguing to be arguing at this point.  :/ --Elonka 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that PHG is practicing some ownership. My hope, was that the subpage editing would result in a cool down time in which you could work on your version of the article without interruption, to the point that there is a wide consensus for it. I primarily work in biology-related articles, so I know what it's like to only get opinions from a handful of editors on controversial issues (you think history is bad, you should see Taxonomy articles :P). I was hoping a page protection would help avoid getting PHG blocked, but unfortunately it came too late.

I did read the some 40+ paragraphs he added to the long version, and I have no doubt that he was doing it solely to make a point. His behavior on this one was unquestionably getting out of hand, hence the page protection request. While I agree that blocks are often necessary for disruptive editors, I would hate to see PHG stop editing Misplaced Pages altogether. I doubt there's a solution where both of you are going to be happy, but I do think once cool heads prevail and the present version is fixed, that PHG won't have a choice but to accept a consensus. Hopefully that comes sooner than latter. Justin 18:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean about Taxonomy, I was working on the Nelumbo article recently, and got a definite education in the difficulty of sorting things.  :) As for the Alliance article though, speaking from my point of view, I just don't think that the problem is as you describe it. I don't see the situation as a "multi-editor chaos" as you do. I see it as a situation that was being caused pretty much by one editor, PHG, over a long period of time. With him removed from the equation, I think the talkpage is a lot calmer, and that the article will stabilize very rapidly. Also, I'm not really angry with PHG. More, I'm really disappointed at the tactics that he used, and sad at the amount of time that has been wasted on the part of other good editors, by PHG's complete unwillingness to compromise. I have personally tried on multiple occasions, in a variety of ways, to tell him, "Please, can we just work together towards a compromise?" I even posted a nice message to his talkpage in French.  :) But each time, he'd reject overtures. He usually does his rejection in a civil way, but it's still a rejection. For example, see his comment here from a September thread, where he basically says that his idea of a "compromise" is to do things his way. In short, this is not a two-sided dispute, it's a case where one editor (PHG) was systematically disrupting Misplaced Pages to push his own POV. If you have any proof otherwise, such as any diffs that show that I or any other editor on the talkpage has been reluctant to work with other editors towards compromise, I'd be very interested in seeing it, but I just don't think you're going to find such a thing. The entire dispute really boils down to a case of WP:OWN. PHG didn't want anyone changing "his" article. --Elonka 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

portal:animals HELLO Justin

Hello Justin can you tell me why delete the portal:animals —Preceding unsigned comment added by G.merkviladze (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG

The accusations I have made are substantiated by the evident facts visible through the links at the top of the case called past dispute resolution efforts. During the evidence phase, specific diffs will be provided by me or others. The arbitration page is watched by may administrators, clerks and arbitrators. Unfortunately, I must present the case without sugar coating so that everyone understands the seriousness, and so the arbitrators can make a proper decision whether to accept, or not. Jehochman 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much Justin for your support. I do appreciate tremendously. I am very serene about my own editing, as everything I contribute is from proper published sources. Since I started writing about the Franco-Mongol alliance, I have been under nearly constant attack from people who wanted to demonstrate that there was no alliance at all. As a matter of fact, both views are significant among scholars, and I believe firmly that both should be properly presented. Thanks again, and best regards. PHG (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Justin. Your comments that the Franco-Mongol alliance should be reinstated to its full version are being disregarded. Could you kindly confirm your opinion on the Franco-Mongol alliance Talk page? Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Consensus poll. Best regards PHG (talk) 11:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarificiation

Are you referring specifically to ME in your note on the ArbCom case? Because you replied under MY comment, I feel like you are specifically addressing me, and would like to know what you think I did to obscure the main point of the case. My concerns with PHG's behavior stem from his use of sources, which is a valid behavioral issue. *I* did not choose to file an arbcom, and frankly would rather it went away. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologize, I was specifically talking to everyone above you :P... didn't realize I put it under your comment. To be honest, I think you've been a breath of fresh air in all of this. I think most are unable to see the trees for the forest, and I'm glad you've stuck around to keep it sane. Justin 18:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't THINK it was addressed to me, but one thing I've learned in life is to not assume, but to ask to make sure there are no misunderstandings. Now, I'm off to tractor shop, a fun and exciting way for a gal to spend her Valentine's day weekend. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy Prohibition

Please be aware that articles on Homeopathy, as well as articles suffering disruption due to this topic are currently on probation. Following this discussion, editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. I'm not stating that your edits have thus far been disruptive, merely making you aware of the probation. Thank you. _TalkIslander 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)