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)
Impostor
Hello I see you've been hit by my impersonator. Sounds just like me, No? Anyways (as you know) just saying that wasn't me, that was... probably Redwolf24isgay, Mickey654, and/or MR LOL. With respect, Redwolf24 02:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, nice talk page :) Redwolf24 02:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
User Page - Inappropriate?
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?
Gabrielsimon 05:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
just
i cant stand being lied about...
Gabrielsimon 05:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Otherkin
Hi; just for your information, the old medical section is archived at User:Vashti/Otherkin/Medical perspectives, if you want to refer to it quickly. Vashti 11:02, 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 Sidaway 18:00, 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. --LouieS 01:12, 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.--CltFn 04:43, 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.
best wishes, LeFlyman 06:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
previous response archived to User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive17#Israeli_terrorism
- 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?
- regards, LeFlyman 10:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
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. Friday 06:33, 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.--Evmore 11:08, 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)
This is a nicer heading
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)
- Speaking of backing off... How in your mind do you think it makes sense to ask me not to post on your talk page when this was prompted by you rudely posting on my talk page? Don;t think you have to follow the same rules you make for other people or what's the problem there? And as far as your claim that mentioning a medical diagnosis specifically created for the exact condition being discussed is prohibitted on an article because of no original research, perhaps you need to read the policy. Your claim makes no sense. Changing the name of something and claiming it's some new thing that needs new research in order to comment on it is completely nuts. The description is the description, the research already exists, and it's the experts in the field who already said it. It's not only not original research it's long-running standard noncontroversial research. The only thing that becomes controversial about it at all is that some people want to ignore the research. DreamGuy 08:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- all i can think of is perhaps that ws going too far.... telling a mod what to do doesnt usually go over well on any part of the net...
Gabrielsimon 03:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- would you give it a rest, DreamGuy, its clear that it is origional research, even Nikpter said so ( checek my archive 4 to find where this was) as ive siad before, telling moderators and admins how to act can not go well for you. holding onto such negativity cant bode well either, now im not trying to get in the middle ofthis, but if this keeps going slimvirgin here might stop taking your efforts to improove the quality of this project very seriously... Gabrielsimon 08:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Could both of you please refrain from having this argument on my sockpuppet's talk page? El_C 09:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Your sockpuppet would appreciate that too, insofar as she's permitted to appreciate things independently. SlimVirgin 09:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Wishful thinking is a harsh mistress! El_C 09:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- I spend many a waking hour thinking wishfully of the harshness of that mistress. SlimVirgin 09:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- You and me both. Now where did I put that whip? El_C 09:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
how about "darkness or light, the choice doesnt matter, what matters is the choosing itself" as a pretty little thoughtcrime?
Gabrielsimon 09:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Your Offer
You proposed aiding peace. What I need, is for people to not gang upon individuals who happen to edit whatever may be on the persecutors' watchlist. I must be specific here, for this is too broad. The group in question is Jewish(largely Zionist) and/or sympathetic to their causes, however wide and far ranging that may be. I don't like how they lynched User:Witkacy, just because he is Polish and they think they can bully him. I know that this conflict was rooted in the Jewish ghettoes of Poland in historic times, but it doesn't belong in the Misplaced Pages. I initially got involved in it, because User:Jayjg and his friends(largely Jewish) would join eachother in trying to control various articles to their POV. This is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point and blatantly partial, without any such neutrality called for. Their lynching is what Misplaced Pages considers personal attacks and by automatically enjoining into a revert war simply because of the editor's differing orientation on the same articles, is not assuming good faith. User:TShilo12 vandalised a namespace page by Polish User:Halibutt(now possessed by Witkacy) and I returned the favour in commenting on his "dirt-gathering" namespace page against me. He accuses me of patent nonsense and original research, but these are the very things I was attempting to filter out of the Aryan invasion theory because of the Nazi craze with it. I wouldn't have any problem with these people if they stopped acting like they were desperate to censor or distort everything that comes under their noses, with clear POV. I was an innocent bystander until I just so happened to edit on pages that make it to Jayjg's watchlist, when he bullied me to keep in line with his POV or break the 3RR. Later on when it came to discussion of the merits for an article about Jewish persecution of others, I made a point in referencing Jayjg's name and he as an administrator blocked me personally, despite this being against better judgement and standards of the Misplaced Pages. Every article edited by me in which I was lynchmobbed, has been on the periphery of my interests and not in the least central to my ideological orientation. I usually focus on other things that my persecutors barely consider purveying, as I aim to ignore their interests. TheUnforgiven 09:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Editor bias
SlimVirgin. I noticed that in attempting to solicit another editor's input on the Horowitz section I composed for the Chip Berlet article, you stated "RD is, of course, complaining that I'm biased, while he, naturally, is the epitome of disinterested scholarship." Your characterization of me is false, as nowhere have I asserted that I am "the epitome of disinterested scholarship" or anything even remotely suggesting that. In fact I'm the first to admit that my politics lean libertarian and an inescapable result, as with ANY point of view, is that this sometimes shows through in my work. I attempt to neutralize it where possible, and rely on other countering viewpoints to check my edits where necessary, but nowhere have I purported myself to be free from bias as you say. You, by contrast, have essentially asserted as much for yourself in your statement here after I questioned your neutrality in dealing with material pertaining to editors with whom you have a personal allegiance or friendship (and Cberlet is one of those) based upon my previous experience with you in several other cases.
Neutrality is not a one way street, Slim, and you are not exempt from its confines nor always in compliance with its provisions. That in itself is not a terrible fault - nobody is perfectly neutral all of the time no matter how hard he or she tries to be. But being unable to recognize that fact is a fault, and I hope that you will take this criticism constructively and seek to raise your self-awareness on issues of personal bias in your relationships with other editors. That doesn't mean you have to give a cold shoulder to your friends on wikipedia either, nor does it mean you have to avoid assisting them in their edits. Just don't let your personal allegiances with other editors get in the way of how you handle article content and how you evaluate their edits as well as the edits of others. Content should be judged on whether it is accurate and fitting to the article - not on who added it or who the article is about. Disputes should be judged on which WP policies and guidelines apply - not on whether one of the parties to it is a "friend" who you personally believe to be a high quality editor based upon unrelated editing experiences. The alternative is very counterproductive as it fosters editor cliques, exacerbates disputes through persomality-driven allegiences even in clear cases of wrong, and tends to alienate the editor or editors who do not fall within the circle of friends you side with. Again this does not mean you should avoid making friends and quite to the contrary - it's great if you know other editors who you can collaborate with well. Just don't let allegiances and personalities overshadow the real object of participating here, and that is developing article content. Thanks for understanding. Rangerdude 09:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Please review behavior/editing
I see you temporarily blocked FestivalOfSouls and then unblocked him with instructions for behavior. Please review discussion on his talk page and continued edits. He continues with indescriminate and inaccurate labling of everything Jewish- or Christian-related as being Mythology, with no attempt at consensus when called on it for a specific article.
Jim Ellis 19:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Please review my reasoning. jim Ellis has apparently ignored all my comments, insisting on repeatedly removing valid contributions, and is not even attempting to be neutral. If you look over the course of today, you will see that I have conceeded minor edits, such as trinity in an attempt to compromise. He is ignoring the definition of myth entirely in order to push his POV.FestivalOfSouls 19:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Beautiful
I know this isn't an important message, but I think you have a fabulous user page. I tried to make mine nice, so I guess your competition (and you've won at that). Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your supportive words. Jayjg 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
You DEFINITELY need to back off
OK, you have gone too far here... You apparently feel perfectly OK with leaving messages on my talk page that are rude and obnoxious, but then you also asked me to not post to yours. You feel perfectly alright changing text that I wrote on your talk page so it says something other than what I said, and a friend of yours threatened to block me when I restored it to the original, yet you come along and undo my archiving of my own talk page to put your comments back as you had them. You simply do not follow the same rules that you expect other people to follow, and your actions appear to have gone from simply unthinking and rude into knowing harassment. You need to back off, and at this point I will not accept any further communication from you until you apologize for your hypocritical behavior as it's clear you are not acting in good faith. If you think some message from an admin needs to get to me, send an admin who actually follows the rules to come do it, because that sure isn't you at this point. DreamGuy 00:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
snow-coat.jpg)
