Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:42, 5 January 2008

Welcome!Last edited: Last edited by:01:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 129.133.124.199 (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages? Create an account! Your IP address, 129.133.124.199, is registered to Wesleyan University and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Please see WP:V, WP:CITE, as different from WP:EL ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete requests for sources from articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Middletown, Connecticut

To the user who continues to edit out information on Middletown: Please register as a regular user of Misplaced Pages and engage the discussion on the talk page, as is Misplaced Pages custom in the handling of disputes. Do not engage in reckless deleting. Personally, in response to accusations about additions to the Middletown article being political, that simply isn't true, but it seems I touched on a nerve. That is not my intent; my intent was to add balanced material about the town history. "Whitewashing" town history to suit personal viewpoints isn't very historic. All references were drawn from sources directly attached to the Middletown city website; you can check it yourself. If you have quarrel with those sources, it should be taken up with the university whose computers you are now using, as Wesleyan is the source of the material paraphrased in the article.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted material. Please do not remove properly referenced material, 129.133.124.199. If you disagree with another editor, talk with them instead of reverting. If there are further improper deletions your editing privileges may be temporarily removed. Thank you. Jehochman 00:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing referenced material, and discuss the matter at the aricle's talk page. And please be carefull not to post unsubstantiated accusations of "personal threats" as you did here. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 02:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your link claiming to show me making personal threats doesn't show anything of the kind.

I did not say you made a personal threat; you were accusing Pgagnon999 of making a personal threat. — Edokter • Talk • 03:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Block

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

The block reason is blanking sourced material, bad faith accusations against fellow editors, and WP:POINT violation. You may create an account and continue editing if you choose to work cooperatively. Jehochman 03:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I made no bad faith accusations against any editors. You are on the wrong side here. Pgagnon999 has engaged in threats and intimidation here. I have not.

His first aggression is on the User talk page for 159.247.3.210 20:07, 31 December 2007 Pgagnon999 (Talk | contribs) m (4,859 bytes) (→Conflict of interest editing) (undo) His threat then was to alert sys admins for that ISP number.

That was assuming bad faith, using intimidation, it was also pushing POV. And just general hostility.

I have been responding to the bullying tactics of an unscrupulous and aggressive POV pusher.

I did blank his sourced material, because the sources were spurious. It was also after Pgagnon999 deleted sourced material that had been there for close to a year.

I am not asking for this to be block to be removed. You have already posted that you, Jehochman, do not intend to be neutral in this dispute.

You wre wrong, you live with it.

No sourced material was deleted from the article, as is evident from the revision history of the article (Middletown, Connecticut, plain and available for anyone to see for themselves; the article had no citations whatsoever before they were added by myself. No threats were made; revision history of talk pages reveal as much. Intense over-reaction on part of user.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Quoted material is sourced material. Your citations are to mediocre tertiary sources and distort and confuse---if not just get material just outright wrong. Your behavior was entirely threatening. Your first threat was to a sysadmin, your second was to "will contact admin for site block". ---The mere fact that your first resort is to check out everyone's IP address is YOUR hostility. Your behavior was extremely hostile and aggressive. You're little more than a thug. The history of the talk pages shows that ---despite the fact that you've tried to hide them by deleting them, (they're still there).

I could have investigated your ISP, I could have tried to talk an admin into banning you for your deletions, your aggression and the rest. I didn't because I have enough self-respect to not act like that.

I know it galls your sanctimonious self-image to have to face your own hostility, but that isn't my problem.

I'm not galled at all; no worries. Here are a few points that you may find helpful in alleviating some of your confusion and unnecessary frustration.

• I did not check your IP, nor did I, as you can see for yourself, even mention the word system administrator. The IP you are using is plainly visible by your edits to anyone using Misplaced Pages. When you use Misplaced Pages via a government or university computer as an anonymous user, you're logging in as an IP, not a registered user. Misplaced Pages automatically displays a huge bulletin at the top of the talk page for that IP which states that the IP belongs to such and such univeristy or government IP. So, when a user attempts to contact you via the talk page associated with edits belonging to that user, or goes to look at the edit history of an article, the information is there for them to see. Don't take my word on it; check it out for yourself; its sitting at the top of this very page. You'd have to be blind to miss it. The reason Misplaced Pages does this is because it's important that sources of edits be apparent. That way, if someone behaves combatively, they can be easily identified and blocked. It also keeps people honest. In this case, I warned you that editing (at that point) from a Connecticut government IP (I guessed Middletown based on your negative reaction, but don't really know) to an article about that same town constitues Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, something generally frowned upon. Edits of that sort have made the news recently and have proved embarassing to the companies/government offices engaging in them.

• Second, no material in the original article was "quoted". To quote, according to Misplaced Pages and most academic standards, you put "quotation marks" around what you are quoting. Essentially, the article had no "quoted" material. Three sources were listed at the bottom of the (long) article; however, none of the material in the article was attributed via citations. Furthermore, all of the sources listed were "dated"; i.e., they were published 150 years after the founding of Middletown (which excludes them as primary sources) and 100 years from the present (which means they can't take into account current research or the discovery of any new primary sources that may have turned up since).

• Third, anyone can edit Misplaced Pages. I began, in this case, by adding a neutrality tag as is common practice when part of an article is disputed. In this case, it was one sentence. The proper response to a tag (any tag) appearing in an article is to respond via the talk page and work it out, regardless of any suspicions your might have RE: the motives of the one who put the tag there. Generally, if the tag was put there maliciously, other Wikipedians will be pretty quick to jump to your side and the tag will ultimately come down via group concensus. Repetitive deletes of the tag aren't necessary to resolve the problem. However, of course, if the tag wasn't put there maliciously, it is possible that other people may disagree with your objection--regardlessly of how rightious it may be (or you may think it to be). But that's life.

• Finally, I reserve the right, as does every Wikipedian, to request administration intervention when necessary to resolve a dispute. I also reserve the right to tell another Wikipedian that I intend to use that route.

That's about it--if you would like to speak with me further, please create an account for yourself, login as a registered user (which, by the way, will hide your IP), and begin your conversation on a lighter note, with less inflamitory language. Until that shining day, Adieu--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments below belong to user 129.133.124.199--Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are even still making veiled threats in the paragraph above. Why are you doing that unless you're trying to get at someone in a personal manner? WHY? Everyone here would be put off to have someone trying to track them. Why are you aggressively attacking people that way? Hypocrite AND liar.

Living in a town does not preclude writing about it. It's hardly a conflict of interest. You don't even make sense.

Nice to see you admit to having made one of the threats I said you made, though. Perhaps you'll admit the others.

The article at one time quoted the Connecticut General Assembly stating that "Mattabeseck shall be a town" at one point in your mess it got deleted, it's also referred that way in nearly every other contemporaneous account. Your citations are bogus, as was noted, one is to a civic group that rebuilds homes. All anyone has to do is google the word.

I could correct the errors you have introduced into the article---especially the political biases you have now introduced....except, oh, I can't.

But the spelling is not the point. What is the point is that one party changed the article and accompanied it with threats all around. Those threats have been posted here. You are an aggressor. You are not some person interested in either the truth or wikipedia protocols. if you wanted to challenge something, you should have brought it up in discussion pages. You were not following wikipedian policies.

Look, you clearly have been antagonistic and threatening. I caught you at it. You've strung along administrators. And you look ridiculous. I don't give a damn what the article says anymore. Having exposed your abuse of others and of the system so that you have to face your own lies, that's reward enough.

This is irrelevant.

(Material inserted in between another user's text removed and segregated; those wishing to see it in the original please review page history)

• Please feel free to make your comments after--not between-- mine, and sign them by whatever identifying mark you choose, that way people can tell who is saying what. Thank you. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How you like to insist on delicate points of protocol now! Look, you you acted like a thug, you know it, I know it, and anyone who has read this knows it. When you were first furstrated, you -1. made personal threats, -2. you then made ranting demands to have the page blocked, and then -3. went to administrator Elipongo and tried to interest him in your cause. He didn't believe you and just put up a general tag. Frustrated (and probably raging all the more), you came back the next day and posted garbage with laughable footnotes. You then went to to some more gullible admins and bellyached and ranted to them. You now have admins Edoktor, Rlevse, and Jehochman, stuck defending you when clearly you've been acting like a petulant child the whole time.

Live with it. You're the problem, you only push your a naive political agenda with visible anger, and you're hostile to people. I don't expect you to take the ethical path now, (i.e. admitting your mistakes). I'll just be happy knowing I have been able to present to you a clearer picture of yourself.

Oh, and Jehochman, I'd be happy to address you directly, but, alas, I cannot. But you do really need to have a better understanding of a given situation before you start behaving in a Draconian manner. It just makes you look ridiculous.