Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::Per your recent comments on my talk page: I'm sorry, but you were far more rude to me by your comments and complete disregard for charges you had to know were false because you were already involved in the discussion about the pages on the 3RR noticeboard. I was only blocked for 3RR once a long time ago under circumstances that were quite unclear (and for which the admin involved admitted making some mistakes), so the claim that I would violate it because of that incident is also quite condescending. I am finding your insistence on giving a completely unneccessary warning based upon clearly false and bad faith charges to be completely out of line. ] 22:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:::Per your recent comments on my talk page: I'm sorry, but you were far more rude to me by your comments and complete disregard for charges you had to know were false because you were already involved in the discussion about the pages on the 3RR noticeboard. I was only blocked for 3RR once a long time ago under circumstances that were quite unclear (and for which the admin involved admitted making some mistakes), so the claim that I would violate it because of that incident is also quite condescending. I am finding your insistence on giving a completely unneccessary warning based upon clearly false and bad faith charges to be completely out of line. ] 22:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
==You should probably back off here==
Your recent comments on ]'s page are really crossing the line here. Coming to you with a concern is one thing, coming to you with outright false accusations is quite another. I reverted the article a lot because this editor was in an edit war, and then some sockpuppets and someone undergoing RfC for bad behavior jumped in to cause fights. I am perfectly fine coming to a compromise, if that were necessary (see the concensus formed on the actual articles) and if this editor showed any attempt to do so whatesoever. He reverted back every single last change including copyright violation images that don't even fit in the article and admitted straight out that he would undo everything I did. He caused the problem, the rest of us solved it, and your defense of him here because I pointed out your errors elsewhere (this page and your coments about the Otherkin article allegedly having original research) is really out of line. Please take the time to actually look into what happened and do not chastise me for giving helpful advice to someone breaking the rules when you seem to be OK with the idea that he made severe accusations that were absolutely false. ] 01:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Revision as of 01:47, 3 August 2005
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimbo Wales
Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost
I found that no joy in the world could relieve me of my sorrows, but him. I wanted to tell him so many things but when he appeared I could not utter a word. — Rumi
I am requesting you revert yourself. You are not supposed to pick a version when you are protecting articles. user:66.69.128.146
It would be nice if you listed the article on WP:PP. I don't see the picking a version thing as such a big issue in this case, since otherwise there'd have been duplicate content. Pakaran23:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Whatever "meritocracy" argument you're trying to push, I repeat: the same goes for you.
Some of your arguments I can understand (for instance the topic being delicate) others I can't (don't see where my contribution was "contradicting"?). I completely agree to continue this talk on the policy's talk page, so, see you there! --] 23:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I have a bit of a problem. I found someone with a somewhat inappropriate user page. It's not gruesome or anything, but eh... I don't know. I came to you because I know you are an admin, and I know you are currently on. The user is Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme. It's probably meant to be a joke, but some people may be offended. I hope I did the correct thing by coming to you. Ryan 05:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Grutness left a note about it on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents, so we might be all set. Again, sorry to bother you. Ryan 05:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
why
why revert and re add what dreamGuy lies about? havnt enough people been hanging off my every word looking for a mistake lately?
Gabrielsimon05:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
As one of a number of administrators whom I respect I would appreciate your honest and forthright comments on this. I'm considering taking the issue of my practice as VfD closer to arbitration committee with a view to having myself de-opped (don't worry, I'd be quite happy as an editor so I'm not about to leave Misplaced Pages). Before I do that, though, I want to have some input on whether my approach to closing a VfD is really so unorthodox as to be beyond the reach of human understanding. --Tony Sidaway18:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
TelAvivKid
Thanks for clarifying the situation; I indeed wasn't around for this guy's former sockpuppet rain of terror. I didn't mean to gouge your credibility either, I just honestly had no idea what this guy's history was. --LouieS01:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Stop deleting the chapter summaries of sword of the prophet
I do not know what is your agenda is, but have the integrity to read the book first before taking further actions on that page. If you have a valid point to make then I am open to it. Thank you.--CltFn04:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Re: Israeli Terrorism VfD
Hi Leflyman, it's best not to move people's comments during a VfD, especially one where the sock puppetry of the nominator may be directly relevant to the way people vote. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
If you will look back-- the comments were smack in the middle of the voting, unrelated to the VfD itself and disruptive of the process. While I understand Jayjg wished to point out his belief that the nominator is a sockpuppet/troll, the discussion was getting out-of-hand. It was announced by Jayjg prominently in two places: both at the top and inexplicably (initially), at the bottom of the page. Thus, I moved the intrusive section below all the votes (as it had been), as a second level heading, where it would not further interfere with the vote tabulation, and could be more easily edited. No comments were moved from actual votes themselves.
I would suggest your revert, returning the long section to the middle of the votes was not helpful.
Meta-discussions about the qualifications (or lack) of the nominator are not germane to the vote, itself, and would be more appropriately taken up elsewhere. Likewise, I believe that the "cheerleading/insulting" (as one person put it) by TelAvivKid were out-of-order -- but other than to suggest he be muzzled, there's nothing to be done.
It isn't a talk page and anyway "efactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion." Why can't you just leave it alone? SlimVirgin 09:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
That's absolutely right. The VfD discussion shouldn't be turned into a talk page or a chat room, yet that is what Jayjg inadvertently created by introducing an off-topic discussion about sock-puppetry into the middle of the vote. Please note that the sentence you quote is incomplete: "if improperly applied..." makes clear that there is a proper way to refactor a discussion-- as stated in the subordinate clause that follows the quoted section: "...however, proper application should enhance the clarity of the discussion and therefore lessen the risk of confusion."
The clearest policy statements about what refactoring not to do in regards to VfD discussions are: "Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process. " (Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_Votes_for_Deletion); and, "Please do not refactor a discussion thread in a way that makes reviewing the edit history more complicated." (Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Maintenance#Refactoring_the_discussion_thread) -- neither of which are applicable to my moving the off-topic, non-vote discussion section to the bottom. In fact, that Maintenance Policy page lists some examples of appropriate ways to refactor VfD discussions to improve them-- including moving comments to make them more logical-- and naturally, that's not an all-inclusive list.
As to why I can't leave it alone -- simple: because I am correct. Why can't you admit that?
Thanks for helping out with no original research on Otherkin. It looks to me like you've been around a while and understand this well. Lately I've concluded that sifting through various conflicting sources of equal reliability and picking one view to present as "fact" is original research. Would you say this is true? I think this is basically what's going on in Otherkin, not just in the medical section, but in the whole article. There are very few sources on this other than what otherkin themselves write on their web sites. I'm not sure that any of these sources should be used. I'm trying to interpret the guidelines as well as I can, but I can't claim to be well versed in the rules, I haven't been here that long. To me it looks like many of the sources are blatantly ridiculous, and some of them contradict each other. It doesn't look like there's much way to get any good facts on this topic. If you had any opinions to give this issue, I'd love to hear them. Friday06:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
3RR
There has been an edit war on the article Vampires. You have listed rules of "Try to avoid revert wars. Never violate 3RR." But I have seen DreamGuy violate the 3RR six or seven times. But it seems like you ignores his reverts and punish others. You also have listed, "Try to get consensus on talk before reverting. If you do revert without prior discussion, explain why on talk." DreamGuy made drastic changes, against the wishes of at least four people not including myself and again you seem fine with this. I am a new user and when the "edit wars" started another user suggested everyone take a week off. I followed his advice only to see that DreamGuy bullied his way about. The article is about vampire and he doesn't want anything in the last 200 years referenced, notable Bram Stoker's Dracula. I am new user but I am disappointed in the way the whole thing has been handled since I tried take a step back. Users who agreed Evmore (me), Pablo D. Flores, Existentializer (banned but he was in the right, DreamGuy made the changes and wouldn't listen to anyone), Ni-ju-Ichi (I think a sockpuppet of Existentializer though), and Gabrielsimon (banned too but I don't know why). Like I said I have been gone for a week. Just dop me a favor and look at DreamGuys homepage, other articles he has touched and tell me that he isn't violating these rules. I appreciate it. The only thing I can suggest is an article Vampires (folklore) for those who want to know the history on how the mythos evolved and the regular Vampire section to cover what an everyday user might want to find out about, vampires they have heard about, seen and read about, what are they, just like any other topic like Frankenstein or Superman.--Evmore11:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The accusation that I have violated 3RR on that article at all, let alone "six or seven times" is absolutely false. The articles were already listed at the 3RR notice page recently and admins saw that nobody had violated the policy on those articles (though with some of the names this was likely just due to the use of sockpuppets, now banned after they were identified as definitely being the same person). Evmore's claims that I am violating consensus are also absolutely false, as he straight out insulted me and declared his intention to undo every edit I made to the article to preserve edits he made, at which point another editor suggested he take a week off. The claim that I don't want "anything in the last 200 years referenced" is also completely false, as that was not my stance (I simply pointed out that excessive dependence almost completely only on fictional references for a huge section of the main article, when there is an article specifically about Vampire fiction was completely unacceptable, a stance others have agreed upon, reaching consensus). This editor's history shows clear evidence of simple overreaching blind reverts of articles back to his version, even if it wipes out new additions. His false accusations here are just the latest in his inability to work with others and his emotional belief that others are violating policy when they are just enforcing policy. DreamGuy 20:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Also, I would highly suggest just as a general rule that you take a little effort to research these claims before posting a warning on editor's talk pages. Trying to tell me what the punishment would be for violating a policy I am in fact following and already know well about comes off as rather condescending. This is especially distressing as you had already seen and posted in the appropriate section of the 3rr noticeboard where this was discussed and should know that these claims are false if you had read the section you were an active participant in. A warning in these circumstances seems to me to go beyond simply not having researched it yet and making an inappropriate comment out of ignorance straight to totally inappropriate and reckless. Please try to think about these kinds of actions ahead of time. DreamGuy 20:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Per your recent comments on my talk page: I'm sorry, but you were far more rude to me by your comments and complete disregard for charges you had to know were false because you were already involved in the discussion about the pages on the 3RR noticeboard. I was only blocked for 3RR once a long time ago under circumstances that were quite unclear (and for which the admin involved admitted making some mistakes), so the claim that I would violate it because of that incident is also quite condescending. I am finding your insistence on giving a completely unneccessary warning based upon clearly false and bad faith charges to be completely out of line. DreamGuy 22:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
You should probably back off here
Your recent comments on User talk:Evmore's page are really crossing the line here. Coming to you with a concern is one thing, coming to you with outright false accusations is quite another. I reverted the article a lot because this editor was in an edit war, and then some sockpuppets and someone undergoing RfC for bad behavior jumped in to cause fights. I am perfectly fine coming to a compromise, if that were necessary (see the concensus formed on the actual articles) and if this editor showed any attempt to do so whatesoever. He reverted back every single last change including copyright violation images that don't even fit in the article and admitted straight out that he would undo everything I did. He caused the problem, the rest of us solved it, and your defense of him here because I pointed out your errors elsewhere (this page and your coments about the Otherkin article allegedly having original research) is really out of line. Please take the time to actually look into what happened and do not chastise me for giving helpful advice to someone breaking the rules when you seem to be OK with the idea that he made severe accusations that were absolutely false. DreamGuy 01:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
snow-coat.jpg)
