Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:30, 19 July 2006

1. To discuss articles, please use the appropriate Discussion page of that article.
2. To contact me click on this link

• Archive Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:46:29 +0000

Admin advice

Even when you're right, don't edit war. -Will Beback 09:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

noted. Ste4k 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize

I have tried to talk with you about the ] merge. You have reverted my edits as well as my comments here. I am ready to apologize for the revert war we just had on this page and put it all behind me if you will just discuss this reasonably. But, if you simply remove my comments without a reply I'm going to have to take additional measures. Let's avoid that distraction and have a rational conversation. -Nscheffey 09:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there is a difference of emphasis here; I'm not clear what it is but I don't mind trying to help people work out their differences if I can. Mind you, recent events in my Wikilife indicate maybe not, but who knows? I congratulate Nathan again for a big-hearted gesture. Ste4k, I strongly urge you to accept this at face value. Where the two of you disagree, perhaps try asking what the problem is before even presenting your point of view? You both seem to be committed to the encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree that there is a difference in emphasis. The sub-topic is entitled "I apologize" but the content appears only to be an ultimatum. There is a gesture of "readiness" to apologize for an relatively insignificant degree of disruption, however. There doesn't appear to be anything forthcoming regarding prior disruptive activity nor any indication that sincere consideration has been applied regarding the future. Disagreements require two contrary opinions. My only disagreement with Nscheffey is regarding continuous irritation, unbalanced in regard to the number of other editors on WP, biased in regard to his selection criteria for articles being me rather than the article, his consistency to remark about me in a demeaning fashion, and an unwillingness to understand the simple word "shoo" with the persistence of a gnat. He reminds me of the little boy that used to try and peek up my dress in grammar school, who when told to stop would spread gossip among the boys that I had flashed him. I disagree that any of those traits have anything to do with the betterment of the encyclopedia. I appreciate your acting in an administrative capacity to resolve that difference between him and me. Ste4k 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, take a helping of WP:AGF here, no? It's best not to remove comments from Talk pages, it really pisses people off. It's also best not to take things personally, and, Nathan, it's best not to sit with your finger over the nuclear button. Stick rigidly to issues of content, ignore personalites. It's obvious the two of you don't get along, but even I manage to work with people I don't get along with some of the time :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed merge

Hi, well done for doing all the merges the you did - it really helps wikipedia, so thanks! As you may have guessed from the title, I'm writing about ] to tell you that it's been updated. I think it is best to do the merge from Statue to Sculpture, for all the reasons noted in the discussion, and I really do tihnk that Nscheffey's request for a 3rd Opinion was justified, what with edit warring and a lack of agreement. Thanks Martinp23 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, however it is unclear to me what edit warring you are referring to. Ste4k 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome - I was referring to edits from 0305, 14th July to 0729, 17th July ()in which there was a "war" between yourself and Nscheffey, about an issue which is hopefuly on the road to resolution via 3rd Opinion. All the best Martinp23 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only been on WP for about three weeks. If you consider three reverts performed for the maintenance of connectivity made over a period of three days an edit war, then that's okay with me, however, I was under the original impression that you were referring to this. Ste4k 20:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done for getting used to wikipedia so quickly. I was referring to the edits I did in the context of the article (to be honest I didn't want to research too much by going through your talk page history), but I think your comment above does underline the fact that third opinion was the only real way forward. As of just now, I've merged the pages in the direction of the consensus, so I hope this is OK. Thanks Martinp23 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the re-merge. It might be helpful to explain the significant difference between the work you have just performed and how it differs from the incomplete efforts regarding connectivity and orphaning of articles to Nscheffey. I have doubts that he has a complete understanding of my half of the disagreement you have just resolved. Thanks. Ste4k 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies. It appears that I spoke to soon. Your efforts have deleted major portions of the other article. This was probably unintentional, but it does underscore the reasons that I had mentioned earlier in discussion regarding a split and POV fork. Ste4k 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on ]

I have left a comment on the merge per your request. I agree with what Martin, Guy and Will have told you and hope you will take Nscheffy's apology seriously. You truly deserve to be commended for all the hard work you are doing on the merge requests. If I may say, editorial choices I have made have been changed, questioned, reverted, etc. hundreds of times. Sometimes I agreed with the decision arrived at after consensus, sometimes I did not. But on the whole, the changes/challenges to my work improved it. Resist the temptation to get sucked into personal conflicts on the wiki. JChap (talk • contribs) 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your centered perspective, as always, JChap. Perhaps in the future if Nscheffey is able to distinguish the difference between ultimatum and apology, I'll have an opportunity to take up your advice. I haven't impeded any attempts of his to revert the merge in question. He hasn't been able to muster up enough energy over the past three days to actually revert the merge in question, though, but only to orphan a redirect that is associated with the combined concept. Functionally speaking, my reversion of inept article pointer management is logically justified, and hasn't anything to do with his bias one way or the other concerning how an article is named. Ste4k 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything's there

• My apologies. It appears that I spoke to soon. Your efforts have deleted major portions of the other article. This was probably unintentional, but it does underscore the reasons that I had mentioned earlier in discussion regarding a split and POV fork. Ste4k 20:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, I've looked over the articles, and can't see anything that's missing apart from a bit of information (about 1 sentence) in the first paragraph of "Greek statue", which I believe is included elsewhere in the article. All of the other information from the original "Greek Statue", before all of the merges, was put into the relevant sections of ]. Have I missed anything else? If so, please tell me. Thanks Martinp23 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Take your time, and read again. I am trying to finish the disambiguation pages that I am working on. I have applied the disputed merge templates and suggest using the discussion area for the article rather than my talk page. Thanks. Ste4k 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

Please stop deleting so much material from ACIM while the discussion is ongoing. You can discuss the material without deleting it. -Will Beback 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:VER in a nutshell. There is no discussion going on, only bickering over petty tags. Removing each section to discussion is a standard procedure for such articles that are controversial. As an admin you should be aware of that. Ste4k 00:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
3. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

If you'd like to change the policy, please be my guest. In the interim, I am acting according to policy. Ste4k 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove so much material at once. Much of that material is perfecty sourced, etc. This disruptive behavior is not helpful. If you do not restore the information then I will revert it and ask for page protection. -Will Beback 03:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please revert it and ask for page protection.--Who123 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a community project that operates on consensus. We can discuss the material, but don't destroy the articles just because you have questions about the sourcing. I've reverted your changes again - don't make major changes unless there is a consensus. -Will Beback 04:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Destroying? That is only your opinion. This IS a community project and I am acting on behalf of policy as well as have improved the article. No tags, all sourced, all cited, etc. Where do you get the idea of "destroying"? Good faith? Ste4k 04:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, for an editor with less than a month editing this project, you may want to slow it down a bit and learn the ropes before teaching them. Some friendly advise: You could be an excellent editor, but you need to learn to work with others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please fuck off and die

Yes, I was just inquiring into the likelihood that you would consider fucking off and dying. It would brighten the day of ever so many people. Thanks, hun.