| Revision as of 13:34, 23 November 2011 editNmate (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,033 edits →Sorry to bother you← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:54, 23 November 2011 edit undoTParis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators30,347 edits →Sorry to bother you: ReNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| :::::Who did I accuse of wikistalking? It was me who was blocked for wikistalking. Apart from that, I would like to accuse anybody of anyting. However, my block entry may be exploited against me as spear-head saying that once already I was blocked for wikistalking, which is true, only that the block rationale is all gammon and spinach. I accused nobody of wikistalking, nor did I blame anybody for anything. I just did let you know what was going on at WP ANI that I do not think is disruptive. Here my aim was trying to give you a more detailed insight on the case before a possible forthcoming appealing rather than blackmouthing anybody. | :::::Who did I accuse of wikistalking? It was me who was blocked for wikistalking. Apart from that, I would like to accuse anybody of anyting. However, my block entry may be exploited against me as spear-head saying that once already I was blocked for wikistalking, which is true, only that the block rationale is all gammon and spinach. I accused nobody of wikistalking, nor did I blame anybody for anything. I just did let you know what was going on at WP ANI that I do not think is disruptive. Here my aim was trying to give you a more detailed insight on the case before a possible forthcoming appealing rather than blackmouthing anybody. | ||
| ::::::That is why I can't drop the stick to avert the spear-head spiked against me. So if I happened to appeal the block rationale, would you consider unfolding your opinion therein? And you also told that what I did was not wikistalking... You also recognised that there was perhaps some kind of POV pushing going on there for which I might have thought that my reverts were justified there, and if that was the case, my reverts hardly fell under ]. ''Wikistalking means that a user does cull an another one to lead her/him to drive away from Misplaced Pages, and not that when they wage edit-wars over POV-edits ,even if they follow each other around....which is inevitable if their interesting fields overlap that of each other...'' --] (]) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC) | ::::::That is why I can't drop the stick to avert the spear-head spiked against me. So if I happened to appeal the block rationale, would you consider unfolding your opinion therein? And you also told that what I did was not wikistalking... You also recognised that there was perhaps some kind of POV pushing going on there for which I might have thought that my reverts were justified there, and if that was the case, my reverts hardly fell under ]. ''Wikistalking means that a user does cull an another one to lead her/him to drive away from Misplaced Pages, and not that when they wage edit-wars over POV-edits ,even if they follow each other around....which is inevitable if their interesting fields overlap that of each other...'' --] (]) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::What I meant was: you blamed others actions for your behavior that led to the Wikistalking. I can go back and get the diffs, but I think you're already aware of them. There is no need to appeal a past block, generally the community forgives after 6 months or so. But if you decide to go to Arbcom to appeal your sanctions, then my participation will likely be requested if not required.--v/r - ]] 13:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Your revert at ] == | == Your revert at ] == | ||
Revision as of 13:54, 23 November 2011
| This is TParis's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
| USER PAGE | TALK PAGE | CONTRIBUTIONS | AWARDS | DASHBOARD | RECALL | MOTIVES | POLITICS | RTRC |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Auburn Alumni Association
While cleaning up orphan talk pages, I ran across Talk:Auburn Alumni Association. It ended up orphaned because I think you got a little mixed up with the redirect/deletion per the results of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Auburn Alumni Association. You deleted the talk page, but then recreated it as a redirect to List of Auburn University people. You then deleted the article. I restored Auburn Alumni Association, set the redirect, and deleted the redirect's talk page for you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh thanks. I don't know how that happened.--v/r - TP 14:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
talkpage malf.
Hi TParis, apparently you were the one who helped me with my talk page design, User:Η-θ/l. Well now my talkpage is kind-of malfunctioning by having the text go outside the green box. Would you please care to fix it? vr, Eta-theta (14:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC))
Excuse me??
Hello, TParis - Would you care to explain why you removed (without even a word of explanation) Category:Police brutality in California from the article Occupy Cal? I hope you will refrain from removing other valid categories in the future. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a source that says specifically "police brutality"? If not, than the category violates WP:NPOV.--v/r - TP 15:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you
Hello TParis,
It looks to me that User:Omen1229 also have some problems with agressive users who treat Misplaced Pages as battleground here while at the same time he has also engaged in edit warring over multiple articles triggered by his POV pushing as can been from his edit history just with an idle click . Does his report remind you of anything ?
- Natch, I remember that you told me that you were tried of it , however, I received a highly controversial one long month ArbCom block for wikistaling and editwarring issued by User:Ironholds who I have never ever encountered on Misplaced Pages; it is likely that Ironholds is a talk page stalker of yours. Please note that the diffs could be as old as 5 days within the block entry at that time when I received the ArbCom block. Furthermore, it is not possible to issue a digwurren block for edit warring unless I am subject to a revert restriction as per WP: digwurren ,nor is it possible to corroborate wikistalking with 3 diffs without formal proceeding. It is a serious claim, and it requires very serious proofs. And in case there is no formal proceeding, a block still requieres some kind of interaction between the blocking administrator and blocked user and that did not happen. So I am obliged to appeal this poppycock here unless I want to leave Misplaced Pages.--Nmate (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- As your block happened on 5 October, you were placed on notice based on the old restrictions at WP:DIGWUREN. You were notified of the editing restriction on 17 April 2008. WP:BLOCK nor WP:DIGWUREN require you to have interacted with the blocking administrator prior to being blocked. In fact, the opposite is true. It is more appropriate for the blocking administrator to be uninvolved. I cannot see how this new dispute Omen1229 has with these other editors relates to you other than that he has a dispute, but trust me that the folks who respond on WP:ANI will take full inspection of Omen1229's behavior in addition to the user's he has reported and if they find any problems, the WP:BOOMERANG effect will likely happen. I'd suggest you drop the stick and let it go before you find yourself under more restrictions or blocks relating to this issue. I'd rather not see you quit editing over this, but you should know that this behavior is disruptive. You need to quit blaming others for the wikistalking and just forget about him. Edit your own area of interest and just avoid contact and editing overlap with him.--v/r - TP 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- There, you see, WP:BOOMERANG has come into full effect. He's been topic banned here for six months. Now let it go.--v/r - TP 14:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- As your block happened on 5 October, you were placed on notice based on the old restrictions at WP:DIGWUREN. You were notified of the editing restriction on 17 April 2008. WP:BLOCK nor WP:DIGWUREN require you to have interacted with the blocking administrator prior to being blocked. In fact, the opposite is true. It is more appropriate for the blocking administrator to be uninvolved. I cannot see how this new dispute Omen1229 has with these other editors relates to you other than that he has a dispute, but trust me that the folks who respond on WP:ANI will take full inspection of Omen1229's behavior in addition to the user's he has reported and if they find any problems, the WP:BOOMERANG effect will likely happen. I'd suggest you drop the stick and let it go before you find yourself under more restrictions or blocks relating to this issue. I'd rather not see you quit editing over this, but you should know that this behavior is disruptive. You need to quit blaming others for the wikistalking and just forget about him. Edit your own area of interest and just avoid contact and editing overlap with him.--v/r - TP 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Who did I accuse of wikistalking? It was me who was blocked for wikistalking. Apart from that, I would like to accuse anybody of anyting. However, my block entry may be exploited against me as spear-head saying that once already I was blocked for wikistalking, which is true, only that the block rationale is all gammon and spinach. I accused nobody of wikistalking, nor did I blame anybody for anything. I just did let you know what was going on at WP ANI that I do not think is disruptive. Here my aim was trying to give you a more detailed insight on the case before a possible forthcoming appealing rather than blackmouthing anybody.
- That is why I can't drop the stick to avert the spear-head spiked against me. So if I happened to appeal the block rationale, would you consider unfolding your opinion therein? And you also told that what I did was not wikistalking... You also recognised that there was perhaps some kind of POV pushing going on there for which I might have thought that my reverts were justified there, and if that was the case, my reverts hardly fell under WP:Stalk. Wikistalking means that a user does cull an another one to lead her/him to drive away from Misplaced Pages, and not that when they wage edit-wars over POV-edits ,even if they follow each other around....which is inevitable if their interesting fields overlap that of each other... --Nmate (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- What I meant was: you blamed others actions for your behavior that led to the Wikistalking. I can go back and get the diffs, but I think you're already aware of them. There is no need to appeal a past block, generally the community forgives after 6 months or so. But if you decide to go to Arbcom to appeal your sanctions, then my participation will likely be requested if not required.--v/r - TP 13:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is why I can't drop the stick to avert the spear-head spiked against me. So if I happened to appeal the block rationale, would you consider unfolding your opinion therein? And you also told that what I did was not wikistalking... You also recognised that there was perhaps some kind of POV pushing going on there for which I might have thought that my reverts were justified there, and if that was the case, my reverts hardly fell under WP:Stalk. Wikistalking means that a user does cull an another one to lead her/him to drive away from Misplaced Pages, and not that when they wage edit-wars over POV-edits ,even if they follow each other around....which is inevitable if their interesting fields overlap that of each other... --Nmate (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Who did I accuse of wikistalking? It was me who was blocked for wikistalking. Apart from that, I would like to accuse anybody of anyting. However, my block entry may be exploited against me as spear-head saying that once already I was blocked for wikistalking, which is true, only that the block rationale is all gammon and spinach. I accused nobody of wikistalking, nor did I blame anybody for anything. I just did let you know what was going on at WP ANI that I do not think is disruptive. Here my aim was trying to give you a more detailed insight on the case before a possible forthcoming appealing rather than blackmouthing anybody.
Your revert at Omen1229's talk page
Hi, please try not to revert edits which I make to correct my own spelling mistakes. Thanks -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- My bad. I intended to remove what we call "grave dancing". Anything else was an oversight.--v/r - TP 18:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- I know. It wasn't meant to be a schadenfreude, even though it seems so. -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Assuming good faith
I'm going to have to ask that you carefully reread the pledge that I wrote. Please note that it does not refer to the status of the image - it does not require that the image stay the same, change, or be removed. It is a pledge not to engage in futile discussion.
Now that you've read and internalize that, I'd like you to read WP:AGF. Please do not, ever, accuse people of acting in bad faith after they have contributed all of four comments. Your behavior is unbecoming a Wikipedian - even worse, an admin. Hipocrite (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the opportunity for self-reflection.--v/r - TP 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Self-reflection is always a good thing. So is shutting up when you realize that everything that could be said in a discussion has been said many times over. :-) I don't see Hipocrite's pledge as likely to get any traction, but neither is it a bad thing, or something to assume bad faith over. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Sarek! You're of course always welcome here, you should visit more often. ;) I might agree with you had Hipocrite's proposal not used the word "Shun" or involved ignoring others as a "pledge". I can't imagine a scenario where that would be considered a "good intention." Has the issue fallen to beating a dead horse? Yeah. That doesn't mean there isnt a chance that a new idea, criticism, or proposal might spring up within 6 months. The difference between Hipocrit's proposal and Olive's proposal is that Olive's involved restricting oneself, Hipocrite's involves restricting others.--v/r - TP 23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- While I had the same reaction as you to the word "shun", I think we might be taking it too seriously. Either way, I'm not sure how you can say that Olive's involved restricting oneself, rather than others, when the basis of the proposal was to not let anyone put an image at the top for 6 months (or whatever). Gotta run, bye. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't considered that perspective. Having considered it now, though, I still have to disagree. Olive's may involve removing the image for six months, but it doesnt have to do with silencing others. If, and this is a long if because I'll admit that discussion hasn't gone anywhere, someone were to come along with a radical new proposal that changes everyone's perspective and the community can come to a unanimous consensus than the image could be restored prior to six months. Self imposed restrictions can be self-unimposed. Hipocrit's proposal would silence anyone with any idea whether new or old for six months with no opportunity for a change in consensus. I'll await your response.--v/r - TP 23:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- While I had the same reaction as you to the word "shun", I think we might be taking it too seriously. Either way, I'm not sure how you can say that Olive's involved restricting oneself, rather than others, when the basis of the proposal was to not let anyone put an image at the top for 6 months (or whatever). Gotta run, bye. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Sarek! You're of course always welcome here, you should visit more often. ;) I might agree with you had Hipocrite's proposal not used the word "Shun" or involved ignoring others as a "pledge". I can't imagine a scenario where that would be considered a "good intention." Has the issue fallen to beating a dead horse? Yeah. That doesn't mean there isnt a chance that a new idea, criticism, or proposal might spring up within 6 months. The difference between Hipocrit's proposal and Olive's proposal is that Olive's involved restricting oneself, Hipocrite's involves restricting others.--v/r - TP 23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Self-reflection is always a good thing. So is shutting up when you realize that everything that could be said in a discussion has been said many times over. :-) I don't see Hipocrite's pledge as likely to get any traction, but neither is it a bad thing, or something to assume bad faith over. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Protecting article talk pages
Hi, TParis. Earlier today I unprotected an article talk page that you had semiprotected for one month, apparently to prevent IPs from posting non-editing-related comments.
I recall that somewhere around here there is a guideline against protecting article talk pages except in extreme circumstances.
This particular instance, involving Talk:Northcentral University, pretty well illustrates why that "rule" would have been adopted. A different user had shown up and deleted some reliably sourced content from the article, claiming it wasn't true. I reverted, and left a message on the user's talk page suggesting they bring their concern to the article talk page, since that's the place where these kinds of things are supposed to be discussed. But this user isn't autoconfirmed yet, so the discussion got started on my user talk page (a totally inappropriate place to start a content discussion, but the appropriate place wasn't available). One thing leads to another, and that another leads to some other thing... To avoid these kinds of unintended consequences, let's try to keep article talk pages available for article talk -- OK? --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. Before protecting, I consulted WP:SEMI where it says "In addition, administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are...Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions." I took the latter part into consideration but considered the libeous edits worth a month of semi protection. If you disagree, that's fine, I'm not going to run back and reapply it; but then let's both keep an eye on it, ok?--v/r - TP 02:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe several years of editing articles about educational institutions with bad reputations has given me a thick skin, but I have to say that I find nothing particularly unusual about the content that was posted on that talk page. Similar stuff -- and worse -- gets added to article pages on a rather frequent basis. Defamatory content is more damaging in articles than on talk pages, so when that kind of content is added to articles, it gets removed pretty quickly. Additionally, if it's added repeatedly the articles do get protected, but 10 edits by ~8 different IPs over a 3-week period is not, as a general rule, enough "persistent vandalism" to get an article page semi-protected at WP:RFPP. --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Meh, well like I said, I'm not running back to restore the protection and I dont generally hang out at WP:RFPP. Your concern is noted though, I'll keep it in mind in the future.--v/r - TP 04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe several years of editing articles about educational institutions with bad reputations has given me a thick skin, but I have to say that I find nothing particularly unusual about the content that was posted on that talk page. Similar stuff -- and worse -- gets added to article pages on a rather frequent basis. Defamatory content is more damaging in articles than on talk pages, so when that kind of content is added to articles, it gets removed pretty quickly. Additionally, if it's added repeatedly the articles do get protected, but 10 edits by ~8 different IPs over a 3-week period is not, as a general rule, enough "persistent vandalism" to get an article page semi-protected at WP:RFPP. --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
rfa
Discussion moved to User_talk:Latish_redone#Your_RFA--v/r - TP 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)