Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:38, 28 January 2008

No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Happyme22. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. This was this IP's second attack on that userpage that I'm aware of. Tvoz |talk 22:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so

And this edit by your IP? If you have legitimate concerns, then provide evidence. Your sarcastic comments to another editor will not get you anywhere. Tvoz |talk 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence has now been supplied. Happyme22 is still resisting the necessary changes to create further Neutrality to the article. Now what?207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see comments to your talk page as well as discussion on Nancy Reagan article for my evidence and concerns. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I said that it appears to me that the same person made all of the comments in question, under both IPs, as the timing, targets and similarities in tone and content, are far too great to be coincidence. I still believe that. If you've apologized to the person they were directed toward, and the apology was accepted, and you don't use that kind of approach any more, then we're done. I believe that people can learn from their mistakes, but let's not pursue the issue of whether or not it all was the same person, ok? Tvoz |talk 08:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should move forward and leave any misgivings in the past, and I appreciate your cooperation.

It is my sincerest hope that with all this behind us we can now move forward and address the MANY Non NPOV items that I have pointed out in the Nancy Reagan article.
Is this now possible? 207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Hi randomIPAddress :) I skimmed the talk page of the Nancy Reagan article, and I don't think that the other editors are being out of line. That article reached featured article status, the highest Misplaced Pages offers, and so we have to make sure that any edits to the article meet WP policies and guidelines carefully. I did have minor disagreements with the state of the article (the fact that her first name is used bothers me), but consenus overruled me, and overall it is a fine article. I have a great deal of respect for the editors that you cited, as I have seen their work on many other articles and I know that they understand policy in great detail. I think part of your problem might be that you are new, very eager, and a little unfamiliar with how things work. I'd recommend that you first create an account (because IP address edits are usually assumed to be vandalism at first sight), and then, if you're willing, get a mentor to help you understand policy, figure out which edits are good and which aren't, and argue your points better. I can do a little mentoring, or you can ask any other editor who appears to know what they are doing to help out on an article-by-article basis. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly consider the advice you have given me regarding my status as a newie and possibly creating an account, however, it does need to me mentioned that the consensus that overruled you are the same 3 to 4 editors that are blocking any changes or considering even the possibility that there remains any Non NPOV information in this article. Isn't there something in Misplaced Pages about "Being Bold" with changes that come from reliable sources and are due weight?

Thanks again for the quick reply. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

IP, you also might want to review WP:CANVASS; I'm not particularly happy about the inaccurate message you've been spreading across multiple pages. I don't recall the last time I edited Reagan, the talk page and article history show appropriate editing and no issues, and by the way, Tvoz is an Obama supporter. Please stop canvassing against the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a few points before I review WP:CANVASS:

A brief review of the history of the promotion of the article to FA status has significant comments by four main editors: yourself, Happyme22, Tvoz, and Wasted_Time_R. Unfortunately, these are the same 4 editors who seem to be opposed to the changes that I have suggested would bring the article into a more NPOV. This seems...coincidental, at best. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I participate in almost *every* FAC, and there were far more participants than four on that FAC. And I've said nothing about opposing your proposed changes. Please stop spreading inaccuracies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how the candidate whom Tvoz is supporting in this election is relevant to the fairness of the Nancy Reagan article on Misplaced Pages, especially given the detailed amount of reliable sources I have posted. Even more so, I do not know how you would know whom Tvoz is supporting or why you would post that information here. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You have clearly implied that she and the rest of us have a certain POV; I doubt that Tvoz does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, and most important, there are multiple items that I have pointed out in this article that must be addressed. Misplaced Pages, as I understand it, is an encyclopedia that "anyone" can write, regardless if they have a username or not, so long as the points and information included stand within the guidlelines. I am adhering to these guidelines but there seems to be no mediation on the part of the editors involved.207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want things addressed, propose wording or gain consensus, but please stop spreading inaccurate rumors across multiple editors' talk pages. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to have to become more aggressive with the valid changes I am politely requesting but will not hesitate to do so. Valid information on the discussion page of the article has received little more than a "No I don't think so" attitude from the editors involved without tangible reasons why these changes should not be included in the article. I suggest you review the promotion history of the article and you will see that some of the very changes I am suggesting be included (i.e. violations of Ethics Act, tone of fashion issues...) were made by other editors during the promotion process and marked as "Done" by Happyme22 but are no longer included in the article as it reads.

I will gladly read WP:CANVASS. I will also anticipate some "wiggle room" and a modicum of respect by yourself, Happyme22, Tvoz, and Wasted_Time_R that the possibility exists that parts of this article reads with a Non NPOV. Again, thank you for your input. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)