| Revision as of 21:52, 6 September 2015 editSignedzzz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,559 editsm →GA reassessment: stay off my page with your imbecilic trolling, I told you already← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:56, 6 September 2015 edit undoCurly Turkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users103,777 edits →GA reassessmentNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| ::::::::: When your edits are designed to bait a response or to derail a discussion, that's trolling—and you've trolled successfully, driving away a productive contributor. Now you have one less barrier to mucking up the article. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | ::::::::: When your edits are designed to bait a response or to derail a discussion, that's trolling—and you've trolled successfully, driving away a productive contributor. Now you have one less barrier to mucking up the article. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::Replying when you cast aspersions at me and others is not "trolling". Calling "a transparent attempt to bait me" is just bizarre. Think again about your definitions of trolling and baiting, please. ] (]) 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | ::::::::::Replying when you cast aspersions at me and others is not "trolling". Calling "a transparent attempt to bait me" is just bizarre. Think again about your definitions of trolling and baiting, please. ] (]) 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::: Not in the least bizarre—there are two entirely unnecessary changes in there that you targeted because you knew they were disputed and were hoping I'd revert and start and edit war. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 21:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I assume you would claim that "'''Political Horseshit not designed to improve the article"''' with the sdit summary "'''Fuck this shit'''" is not "casting aspersions" (or, indeed, "trolling"!) - which is where the problems all began. You'd be wrong. ] (]) 21:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | :::::::::::I assume you would claim that "'''Political Horseshit not designed to improve the article"''' with the sdit summary "'''Fuck this shit'''" is not "casting aspersions" (or, indeed, "trolling"!) - which is where the problems all began. You'd be wrong. ] (]) 21:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::: None your responses to me was aimed at improving the article. That's where all the problems began. Until you and Nishidani started up I had no conflict with anybody on the article, and all my contributions were unambiguous improvements, either to the article itself or to furnishing discussion to find ways to best improve it. ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ] 21:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:56, 6 September 2015
Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agora (online marketplace), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Trolling
If you're going to keep this up, you'll be reported. The talk page is for discussions on how to improve the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- You accuse me of "wasting everybodys time". Please do read WP:POTKETTLEBLACK, which is the only logical response to that trolling - in view of your complete lack of useful or valid contributions combined with your continuous stream of attacks directed at those who do contribute usefully - as it is to the above message on this page. And stop fiddling with my messages! zzz (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
GA reassessment
The article needs to be taken off the GA list as soon as possible.
CurtisNaito has started not only using the article's GA status to revert edits he doesn't agree with, but has now started openly accusing others of not engaging in constructive discussion and using the "fact" that "I brought the article to GA status and you are just trolling me" as an excuse.
You want to do it? I can't do it (look at my contribs to see why), so if you're not game for initiating the discussion, I'll ask Sturmgewehr88 or Phoenix7777.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not up for being told I'm trolling, disruptive, tendentious etc all over again for daring to add content to the encyclopaedia. It would be imperative to
- get someone whose account is older than CurtisNaito's. Good example: The current AN/I summoning from CurlyTurkey, if the roles were reversed, would be a %100 certain "BOOMERANG BLOCK!", with all-around general approval. As it is, it will be ignored (which I don't mind at all, it's just a good example of how things work here)
- Someone who hasn't been working on the article. Or it will be POINTy, OWNership, etc, etc.
- I think you should think very seriously about not proceeding at all, as in any case, a lot of GAs are terrible. It was long enough, covered all periods, and had no grammar problems (and done by an experienced editor, see above) - that makes it a GA in many eyes. Plus the odd circumstances, that you would be asking the reviewer to consider a previous version, and ignore the present improved one. The consequences of the review reaching the wrong conclusion - for whatever reason - would be (obviously) worse than just leaving it.
Having said all that, I'm right behind any effort that is made to remove the disgraceful award. Best of luck, whatever you decide zzz (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC) PS In case I sound bitter or anything like that, I'm not, just trying to be realistic. zzz (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- FYI, I don't think our recent collective edits have improved the article all that much, and certainly not brought it up to anywhere near GA standard. I checked all the Henshall citations I could, and all of them contained misrepresentations of what the source said. About 25 of the ones I checked remain, and some probably still contain a bit of OR that slipped through my check. There are about 56 citations of Henshall left in the article that I am at present unable to check -- that means there are likely close to 56 instances in the article where Henshall is still being misquoted. The main problem with the article was never (even before CN's 0815 edit) a lack of proof-reading, copyediting or any of that -- it's always been about the sources. I'll wait till the present ANI thread closes or archives before pursuing any of the other options I mentioned above. User:Phoenix7777 is a good user with generally high standards for sourcing, and would almost certainly approve of reassessing the article's GA status, despite having had very limited involvement with the present dispute, so no one will be able to call him a POINTy OWNer anyway. :P
- Cheers!
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, I don't agree that "experience" is what prevents CT from getting blocked for complaining about you and calling you a troll. For one thing, he didn't use the word "troll" on ANI, and didn't link to any instance of himself doing so. Most ANI junkies who determine the outcomes of those threads don't actually look at the articles or talk pages: they read the ANI posts, and (often based on which users they have previous experience with, positive or negative) assume one is telling the whole truth and the other is lying. If you had done the same to Curly Turkey, a whole bunch of users who don't like him would have shown up to support you, and a whole bunch of users who do like him would have opposed you. The fact that you have not been here as long as CT has only means you have fewer ANI junkies who either like or dislike you. Of course, sometimes an inexperienced user can have a very, very experienced and powerful ANI junkie for a friend, and trying to bring any sanctions against those users, even if they are inexperienced and have not made many friends in their short Misplaced Pages career, is almost impossible. For historical reasons (e.g.: I post long, detailed descriptions of disputes, and to careless ANI junkies they can look like simple content disputes that I am forum-shopping) ANI hates me, even though my account is older than almost anyone else involved in any of these disputes, so even if I report on ANI about a newly-created vandalism-only account or a POV-pushing SPA, I can be (read: I have been) made the subject of a boomerang. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok then... wow. Nice work going through all the cites! I've only seen how bad the first sections were, I didn't know the problem was that extreme. It's terrible, particularly the total unapologetic front of being completely unfairly attacked. Unbelievable. I see he's there piling in at ANI now. Words fail... zzz (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've learned from extensive experience (see the archives of Talk:Emperor Jimmu and Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture) that the user responsible for all of the Henshall cites misquotes (accidentally and carelessly misinterprets) scholarly sources at an incredibly high rate. Given that the same user had a hand in almost every sentence of the present article, we need to be skeptical... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm very clear that putting OR in an article with a book ref that no one has is the worst thing you can do on Wp bar none. I think you probably agree. The strange thing is, I got blocked and then TBanned once, from ISIL. You know why? I made an edit correcting a blatant bit of OR with refs that said something different. I was reverted. I argued for the change on talk. I was told "it's all been agreed by consensus". I changed it again, and went to bed. I woke up to find I'd been reported for breaking 1RR, and blocked in my absence (ie no chance to comment) for 48 hrs with no talk page access. I went back a couple of weeks later and made an edit that corrected a few things including the same one, in the lead section. I was reverted of course. I argued for the change again - not at length, just made the argument. Again, "It's been agreed", blah blah. I was reported again to 3RR (no reverts this time, just that one single edit). For making the argument that a claim should be supported by its source when it's already been agreed that it doesn't have to be I was Topic banned for 3 months. For "disruption". Now, this admin got his bit by writing 2 or 3 pop culture articles, and is clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But the point is, not everyone agrees that the encyclopaedia is worth a fuck. To many, its just an inconvenient sideshow to the online therapy/WpMMRPG. Anyhow, to finish the story, a couple of weeks later, the correction was quietly made by the same couple of editors. True story. zzz (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC) ... and one of these, an Experienced Editor, soon after followed me to an article I'd done and got me blocked again, same reason again (sources don't matter, and arguing that they do is WP:disruptive). Another passive-aggressive civility exponent like your 'friend', above. This was all in the last 12 months. So, I have my doubts about Wp procedures, like I said. The fact is, some admins get a kick out of enabling these users at the expense of the project. zzz (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- When your edits are designed to bait a response or to derail a discussion, that's trolling—and you've trolled successfully, driving away a productive contributor. Now you have one less barrier to mucking up the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Replying when you cast aspersions at me and others is not "trolling". Calling this edit "a transparent attempt to bait me" is just bizarre. Think again about your definitions of trolling and baiting, please. zzz (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not in the least bizarre—there are two entirely unnecessary changes in there that you targeted because you knew they were disputed and were hoping I'd revert and start and edit war. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I assume you would claim that "Political Horseshit not designed to improve the article" with the sdit summary "Fuck this shit" is not "casting aspersions" (or, indeed, "trolling"!) - which is where the problems all began. You'd be wrong. zzz (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- None your responses to me was aimed at improving the article. That's where all the problems began. Until you and Nishidani started up I had no conflict with anybody on the article, and all my contributions were unambiguous improvements, either to the article itself or to furnishing discussion to find ways to best improve it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Replying when you cast aspersions at me and others is not "trolling". Calling this edit "a transparent attempt to bait me" is just bizarre. Think again about your definitions of trolling and baiting, please. zzz (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- When your edits are designed to bait a response or to derail a discussion, that's trolling—and you've trolled successfully, driving away a productive contributor. Now you have one less barrier to mucking up the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm very clear that putting OR in an article with a book ref that no one has is the worst thing you can do on Wp bar none. I think you probably agree. The strange thing is, I got blocked and then TBanned once, from ISIL. You know why? I made an edit correcting a blatant bit of OR with refs that said something different. I was reverted. I argued for the change on talk. I was told "it's all been agreed by consensus". I changed it again, and went to bed. I woke up to find I'd been reported for breaking 1RR, and blocked in my absence (ie no chance to comment) for 48 hrs with no talk page access. I went back a couple of weeks later and made an edit that corrected a few things including the same one, in the lead section. I was reverted of course. I argued for the change again - not at length, just made the argument. Again, "It's been agreed", blah blah. I was reported again to 3RR (no reverts this time, just that one single edit). For making the argument that a claim should be supported by its source when it's already been agreed that it doesn't have to be I was Topic banned for 3 months. For "disruption". Now, this admin got his bit by writing 2 or 3 pop culture articles, and is clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But the point is, not everyone agrees that the encyclopaedia is worth a fuck. To many, its just an inconvenient sideshow to the online therapy/WpMMRPG. Anyhow, to finish the story, a couple of weeks later, the correction was quietly made by the same couple of editors. True story. zzz (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC) ... and one of these, an Experienced Editor, soon after followed me to an article I'd done and got me blocked again, same reason again (sources don't matter, and arguing that they do is WP:disruptive). Another passive-aggressive civility exponent like your 'friend', above. This was all in the last 12 months. So, I have my doubts about Wp procedures, like I said. The fact is, some admins get a kick out of enabling these users at the expense of the project. zzz (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've learned from extensive experience (see the archives of Talk:Emperor Jimmu and Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture) that the user responsible for all of the Henshall cites misquotes (accidentally and carelessly misinterprets) scholarly sources at an incredibly high rate. Given that the same user had a hand in almost every sentence of the present article, we need to be skeptical... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok then... wow. Nice work going through all the cites! I've only seen how bad the first sections were, I didn't know the problem was that extreme. It's terrible, particularly the total unapologetic front of being completely unfairly attacked. Unbelievable. I see he's there piling in at ANI now. Words fail... zzz (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, I don't agree that "experience" is what prevents CT from getting blocked for complaining about you and calling you a troll. For one thing, he didn't use the word "troll" on ANI, and didn't link to any instance of himself doing so. Most ANI junkies who determine the outcomes of those threads don't actually look at the articles or talk pages: they read the ANI posts, and (often based on which users they have previous experience with, positive or negative) assume one is telling the whole truth and the other is lying. If you had done the same to Curly Turkey, a whole bunch of users who don't like him would have shown up to support you, and a whole bunch of users who do like him would have opposed you. The fact that you have not been here as long as CT has only means you have fewer ANI junkies who either like or dislike you. Of course, sometimes an inexperienced user can have a very, very experienced and powerful ANI junkie for a friend, and trying to bring any sanctions against those users, even if they are inexperienced and have not made many friends in their short Misplaced Pages career, is almost impossible. For historical reasons (e.g.: I post long, detailed descriptions of disputes, and to careless ANI junkies they can look like simple content disputes that I am forum-shopping) ANI hates me, even though my account is older than almost anyone else involved in any of these disputes, so even if I report on ANI about a newly-created vandalism-only account or a POV-pushing SPA, I can be (read: I have been) made the subject of a boomerang. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)