Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:55, 13 September 2014

This is Scottywong's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Wiki Loves Pride

search engines

Greetings all this harmful talk from administrators of wikipedia about deleting miss multiverse is appearing on search engines, would you kindly place the codes required so this does not happen thank you Jose Cuello (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, which objectionable pages are showing up on search engines? ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

you can find this by entering Miss Multiverse (2nd nomination) on google. Would you kindly provide the article so i can go ahead and put this on wikipedia alternative websites, i dont have access to the deleted information. thank you Jose Cuello (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Multiverse wikipedia delete salt on google. Please delete or place the necessary codes to remove this embarrassing situation because less important pageants appear on wikipedia and that makes this one appear as incompetent when in reality it is not, as i have learned rival pageant enthusiast take the steps to remove other pageants, and administrators confronting each other as if its a personal war and forgetting its all about the article, inconsistencies like this one are what give wikipedia a bad reputation. What will you do about the dozens of pageant articles that are not meeting the policies? Jose Cuello (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added a noindex keyword to the AfD page. This should prevent search engines from indexing this page and including it in search results. Since Google has already indexed it once, it may take them a long time (possibly weeks or months) before they remove that page from their search results, and there isn't much we can do to make them remove it more quickly. I'd be happy to email you a copy of the deleted article, but you don't have an email address registered to your account. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Cant this page be put for incubation instead of salted? there are many sources appearing every day, furthermore, please notice that this was all motivated by an administrator that made it his priority based on rivalry with me and not because of the nature of the article Jose Cuello (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I am having serious difficulties absorbing the inconsistency and real reasons for this decision, i mean look at this: page https://en.wikipedia.org/Miss_Black_Universe

How can this be in wikipedia and the other one not? Jose Cuello (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not really a valid question. Each article is judged on its own, not in comparison to other articles on Misplaced Pages. It may be that the Miss Black Universe article would also be deleted if it was nominated. It may be that the Miss Black Universe has better sources. Who knows. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for more on that. The page is salted because it has been deleted and recreated multiple times, and there is a strong consensus that it currently doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. If you are intent on getting an article on Misplaced Pages about it, I would suggest creating an article in your userspace (i.e. User:Jose Cuello/Miss Multiverse). Once the article is complete, and you are confident that there are enough sources that conform with WP:GNG, then start a request at WP:DRV to have the article unsalted, and point to your userspace draft. At that point, editors will look at the draft and judge whether or not the article should be unsalted and your draft article moved in its place. However, with four AfD's already ending with a "Delete" decision, your draft article will have to be significantly better than the previous articles to change anyone's mind. There's a good chance that you'll put a lot of work into creating a draft, only to have the request for unsalting be denied. It may just be that this competition is simply not notable by Misplaced Pages's standards, and no amount of work on your part will change that. That's not necessarily the case, but it might be. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 18:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok ‑Scottywong the following request is not intended to upset or question anyone, i mean it with good intentions... i will ask two favors from you, and that is a news link to an article (as an example) that has in-depth information or coverage about an event, preferably pageant the second is a link to a pageant wikipidia article (to see as example) that with your experience you believe that with no doubt qualifies by all means (excluding Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss Earth or Miss International) I am just not experienced enough to fully understand this and those examples can help me see the difference or what works. Thank you in advance Jose Cuello (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, please understand that when an admin closes an AfD, he/she doesn't inject their own opinion. My job as the closing admin was to read the discussion and decide if there was enough agreement among the participants to come to a consensus. That's it. Secondly, I am not an expert in beauty pageants. In fact, I have virtually no interest in them whatsoever. I took a quick look through some of the articles in Category:Beauty pageants, and found a lot of pretty terrible articles that would probably get deleted if they were ever nominated for deletion. I was unable to find any pageant articles (outside of the list you asked me to exclude) that are unequivocally notable, although I only looked for a minute or two.

Honestly, I think you would be best served by full reading and digesting the contents of WP:GNG, to get an idea of what is notable and what is not notable. WP:EVENT has additional information on the notability of events. If you're looking for advice from people who are well-versed and interested in beauty pageants, you might try asking at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 01:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How come administrators are not going to the page of Miss Supranational and Mrs. Universe to vote for delete or keep as they did with Multiverse, why was there such high interest for Multiverse? 83.80.248.242 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please remove that horrible huge red tag from the Multiverse deleted wikipedia page and make it that multiverse just does not appear at all, what is the point of wikipedia not wanting to have a page for it but then having a big banner that it is deleted and a list of multiple derogatory comments 83.80.248.242 (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why there is less interest in other pageant article deletion discussions. Although, I doubt it is a vast wiki-conspiracy against you. The red deletion notices cannot be removed. They are there so that if anyone tries to create that article in the future, they will be able to see the history of the article.

And just as an aside, you'd probably have more success here if you tried to be a little more polite, a little less accusatory, and if you actually made an effort to read some of the policies and guidelines that govern the way Misplaced Pages works. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I already read enough: So i am 100% clear of what happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Lack_of_verifiable_identities Your recommendations (be more polite etc..) Is another example of how its not about the article its about making allies to support it. I showed you the other pageant pages so you can see that there is no conspiracy against those pages, no motivation, no angry administrator calling his gang to come have it deleted. Scottywong, seriously, do you really not see something fishy in all of this? am i and so many others just paranoid or something?

This is the worst internet experience and community of people i have ever seen. how can you expect me to turn back in to the polite person i was?

Then wikipedia has the nerves to place a pop up asking me to donate money, as if i would be motivated to fund this. 83.80.248.242 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't see anything fishy, and you have not provided evidence of anything that is even remotely unusual with this AfD. A simple lack of participation at other AfD's is not evidence of a conspiracy on this AfD. If you look through the millions of past AfD's, you will find that some get a lot of attention, and others get very little attention. You continue to allege that an "angry administrator" has called his gang to get the article deleted, yet you provide no evidence of this happening, and you even provide no evidence of any kind of connection between DGG and any of the voters in the AfD to substantiate your claims that all of the delete voters in the AfD were DGG's friends. In my opinion, your attitude and actions here seem to be driven by a combination of your unfamiliarity with the way Misplaced Pages works, and an emotional reaction to the judgment that Miss Multiverse is not a notable beauty pageant.

Note that Misplaced Pages administrators are not the all-powerful overlords that you think they are. They are just regular editors, who have access to a couple of extra buttons that normal editors don't have. Their arguments are not given any additional weight over non-administrators, and an AfD started by an admin has no greater chance of deleting an article than an AfD started by a non-admin. It is true that, on average, most admins have been around at Misplaced Pages longer than most non-admins, and therefore it is likely that they have become friendly with other editors that share their opinions. There have been cases where groups of editors have "ganged up" at AfD's in an attempt to sway the discussion one way or another. However, these types of behaviors are usually easily visible to the trained eye, and are quickly shut down. There is no evidence of any foul play at this AfD, and to my knowledge, DGG has no history of attempting anything like that, nor does he have any kind of conflict of interest with respect to beauty pageants.

Generally, you won't win any friends here if all you can offer is constant complaining, casting allegations of wrongdoing with no evidence, irrational paranoia, walls of text, and continual misunderstandings of Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, and norms. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just giving you my honest appraisal. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 20:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about Thomas.W not about DGG, I surely don´t care if multiverse has notability or not, i am concerned about how this person pulled in his contacts to vote delete, acting as the wikipedia cartel of medellin, if you read carefully, others there exposed him, stating they did not appreciate his messages contacting them asking for a delete vote, he also posted on diverse pages of wikipedia encouraging that i get banned from wikipedia and pulled other strategies to succeed.

My point is that other pages related to pageant, that have less references etc.. are there and continue to be there, if removing articles with no notability is a serious work that wikipedia is engaged, then why are they not motivated to go there and do the same. The reality is no one gets paid, its not a job, this is just a fun tic tac toe sort of game for many.

its clear multiverse was sabotaged and you know with your experience that ¨notability¨ is not an exact science and can be tipped to both sides specially when you have enough experience and buddies to tip the balance to your advantage, other strategies such as puppeting are used to reach these goals, notability is not black or white with concrete parameter, in this case Thomas.W made it his primary goal and personal issue to retaliate.

If the case is that you are not one Thomas.W buddies, then you took an unfair action before reading all the arguments in the forum, it is unbelievable and practically impossible to not notice the persecution of Thomas.W

it is not reasonable, that an article can be deleted and salted based on such motivations, it is not collaboration when people decide to sabotage instead of collaborate and i mean sabotage because me and others believe with no doubt that we established enough articles from reliable news papers with complete coverage. so yes WE ARE OUTRAGED with a feeling of abused by unfair conduct from others.

I appreciate your advice regarding the friends politics or culture of wikipedia, but you are not corresponding with a child or an ignorant, i am well aware of basic rules of life such as, negative energy or attitude pulls negative energy in return, but this is an encyclopedia a place to post article not a personal relationship or dating board, i am here to write articles based and this should not be subject to friends politics, i am upset because of confronting a system that is unfair, with people that are anonymous and don´t face any penalties for the abuse they apply on new wikipedia users.

Again i tell you, that i am not the only one that feels this way, find on Google the very bad experience so many people have received from wikipedia administrators, wikipedia is gaining a worst reputation each day, creating a negative fan base, this is not me saying it, the CEO of wikipedia was on CNN just a few days ago admitting to this, and stated that they are working on solving this situation, so NO, i am not paranoid or fabricating this...

Now... how about you? what do i have to do? kiss your behind, put my tail down and humbly ask you to kindly look in to this? thats exactly it... because this is not a job for you... its not your responsibility to do something, its an unpaid job that requires the use of your time... For you to do something a person either has to motivate you by becoming pleasant and becoming a wiki friend or it could be motivated by a situation that strikes your emotion makes you angry enough to go and apply your powers to sabotage and get your ways, this is how wikipedia works Jose Cuello (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Thomas.W is not an administrator. Second of all, there is absolutely no evidence of improper canvassing related to this AfD, nor were there any editors who said that "...they did not appreciate messages contacting them asking for a delete vote". Finally, my opinion is that you need to find a new hobby. Misplaced Pages isn't for you. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 22:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No evidence? search for the following text within the AfD debate:

1) stop inserting messages in people's talk pages that mislead. This is a very annoying practice. I have been so long around that it won't matter for me, but if you do this to new Wikipedians you will chase them away.

2) "I don't like what's been said on my talk page" is not a reason for deletion.

"Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." In this case it was just people imposing their opinions motivated by emotions and with no professional background on the subject like pageants for example, if at the end an article remains based on consensus of opinions versus people that know the topic, wikipedia then should be called opinion-pedia.

If you did not see the two comments i found and pasted here for you, then my believe is that you took a quick fly above the information, counted the votes, made a quick conclusion then deleted and salted the article, i don´t believe you took the time to read and evaluate the references and news articles......... Since you gave your opinion about me, then here is mine... My opinion is that If you are going to do something, do it well; otherwise my friend, the one that has to find a new hobby is you Jose Cuello (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your "beliefs" are based on an absurd misinterpretation of the above quotes. Your accusation is that Thomas.W canvassed other editors to bring them to the AfD and get them to vote for the deletion of the article. The quotes that you've provided above, when read in context, have nothing to do with canvassing. Quote #1 is User:gidonb asking Thomas.W to stop posting messages on gidonb's talk page, nowhere else. If you look at the thread on gidonb's talk page (User talk:Gidonb#Miss Multiverse), you'll see that Thomas.W makes no mention of asking anyone to come to the AfD to vote for the deletion of the article. Quote #2 is User:Pigsonthewing commenting that he believes Thomas.W's deletion rationale to be based on an emotional reaction to your comments on Thomas.W's talk page. While Thomas.W does mention your comments on his talk page within his comments on the AfD, those comments only said that the only reason Thomas.W decided to vote at all in the AfD was because of your comments on his talk page. His actual rationale for wanting to delete the article is completely valid and policy-based. But again, none of this has anything to do with Thomas.W posting messages trying to get other editors to "gang up" and vote for the deletion of the article.

Your arguments are ridiculous, and it's clear that you have no evidence for any of the accusations you're making, nor do you even seem to have a basic understanding of the accusations you're trying to make, nor do you seem to have the ability to read and comprehend a discussion. I tire of this conversation, and will probably not contribute to it any further. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 02:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Feminist+Queer Art Misplaced Pages Edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 13, Portland, Oregon

			You are invited to the Feminist+Queer Art Misplaced Pages Edit-a-thon, to be held on Saturday, September 13, 2014 from noon–4pm at the Independent Publishing Resource Center (IPRC), located at 1001 SE Division (97202). Prior Misplaced Pages editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend, but all are welcome. Hope to see you there! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Your ANI closure(s)

I am puzzled by your comment on my talk page and by your apparent willingness to edit-war over your repeated ANI close. If an uninvolved editor challenges a close, it would seem that an admin who was truly uninvolved would step back and let another admin make the decision over whether to restore it. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not actually the way it works. If you had a problem with the closure, you could have come and discussed it with me rather than silently reverting it. Or, you could have simply respected my opinion and accepted the fact that a neutral observer can objectively judge the situation better than a non-neutral participant. ‑Scottywong| express _ 21:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "come and discuss it with you"? The discussion was on the talk page where *everyone* could see it. Did you not see that I planned to phrase the proposal within a specific time frame if no one else did? If you thought that was inappropriate, why did you not come and discuss it with me? Or better yet, voice your objections on the talk page, instead of doing a stealth closure. The closure specifically indicated the reason was that no concrete proposals had been made; making a concrete proposal kind of satisfies that objection, does it not?

If it is me you are calling a "non-neutral participant", and apparently accusing of some sort of COI, how about some diffs for that.

"Silently reverting" is a complete mischaracterization of my actions, which have been carried out in complete transparency and with full edit summaries, on the talk page where everyone can see them. And I know you saw my edit summary, since yours was a copypasta of mine.

There is absolutely no excuse for cutting off discussion after less than 24 37 hours. I'm not all that surprised that you couldn't get another admin to restore it.

This is appalling, a Wikiproject comes to the community for assistance, and they are told to STFU. —Neotarf (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, as a courtesy notification, although your name was not specifically mentioned, your close has been linked here. —Neotarf (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's clear to me that you're very emotionally involved with this situation, and that explains your somewhat irrational response. I don't much want to continue this conversation, but I will offer a few more final points:

• The reason the ANI discussion was closed was not because there were no concrete proposals, but because it was obvious that any proposal regarding the situation would not achieve a consensus. Any proposal would generate more heat than light, and increase the drama at a time when no further drama is needed.
• If someone closes a discussion thread that you were participating in, and you object to the closure, you generally don't just revert it. The preferred approach is to contact the editor that closed the thread, voice your objection and the reasoning behind it, and ask them to consider reverting it themselves.
• When reverting an administrative closure, a simple edit summary is generally not considered sufficient. Especially on a page as busy as ANI where an edit summary will almost certainly be overlooked, unless someone specifically hunts for it. If you insisted on reverting it, then at the very least you should have made a statement at the top or bottom of the thread saying that you reverted it and listing your reasons, and at the very least you should have notified the editor that made the initial closure. The only reason I found out about your revert was because someone emailed me about it.
• The ANI discussion was open for quite a bit longer than 24 hours, please don't exaggerate. The first time I closed the thread, it had been open for 36 hours, and your revert allowed it to be open for a while longer.
• When I call you a "non-neutral participant", it means that you have have contributed an opinion one way or the other in the thread. In other words, you have "taken a side" in the argument. Editors who have taken a side should not be doing unusual things (like reverting an admin's closure of the thread) in an attempt to help their side of the argument.

I'd suggest that you re-read the closing statement on the ANI thread, particularly the part about acting like an adult. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 16:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any actual evidence, or are you just going to make disparaging personal remarks and misrepresent my views. I repeat, I have asked for diffs. —Neotarf (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you believe requires evidence? I've already explained that merely participating in the discussion makes you a non-neutral participant. Do you dispute that you participated in the discussion at all before reverting the closure? ‑Scottywong| gab _ 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Doublechecking your assertions about the time frames, I see the ANI was opened at 04:43, 4 September 2014 and closed the next day at 16:58 , something less than 37 hours (I have stricken the original number). In that time, a proposal to ban the OP had already failed, as well as a query as to whether the named individuals would be willing to stay away from the project voluntarily. There were also several mentions that if someone does not like a particular Wikiproject, there are plenty of other places to make a contribution. I put this into a formal proposal at 05:58, 6 September 2014 UTC (about 2 AM in Washington DC time) and it was re-closed by you 14:41, 6 September 2014‎ UTC, about 8 hours later , time enough for comments on the Manchester area, but hardly enough time for the OP's time zone in the U.S., not to mention the Australians, especially on a weekend. Nonetheless, there were 5 supports and 7 opposes, hardly enough to predict an eventual outcome, and most definitely not a snow close.

But as you well know, it is the strength of the arguments, and not their numbers that are important, and the comments--about a topic that has long been looking for resolution -- were just starting. This is the real loss, that the consensus discussion should be cut off. —Neotarf (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "participating" -- summarizing and asking for clarifications, or presenting arguments and diffs. To me, one is neutral and the other not. Where do you see some "opinion" or some "taken a side in the argument"? And your "very emotionally involved", "irrational", and especially the "re-read... , particularly the part about acting like an adult" bits are way out of line. Is this the same Scottywong as in awesome toolserver? I am so disillusioned. —Neotarf (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. The only thing that is startling is your refusal to acknowledge the obvious: that absolutely no action would have taken place as a result of that ANI thread, even if it were allowed to continue for all eternity with an infinite variety of subtly different proposals. I just took a quick glance through your contributions, and out of your last 500 edits, about 10 of them were to article space. Considering that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a social media site or a virtual government, what would you say ya do here? I admit I don't know you at all, but it seems to me that your primary contribution here is to socialize with other editors, argue about how Misplaced Pages should be run, and comment on ANI threads and Arbcom cases. Do you believe that you are a useful member of Misplaced Pages?

The initial discussion went on for a day and a half, after which it was closed, because to any neutral observer, it was obvious that there would be no consensus for action to be taken. Your subsequent proposal was closed after 8 hours because it shouldn't have even been started in the first place, because the discussion was closed.

And as for "participating", your first comment in the thread clearly takes a side. You say that you "have not been able to believe the stuff I have seen" on the Wikiproject talk page, and that "most of the comments are really quite well informed, except for the three individuals mentioned", and you ask the three individuals to voluntarily stop contributing to the discussions. I'm not judging whether your comments are right or wrong, but you clearly taking the side that the three editors are being disruptive and action needs to be taken to stop them. You have expressed your opinion, you have taken a side, therefore you are non-neutral. Non-neutral participants should not be reverting administrative actions to help their side of the argument. You wouldn't revert the closure of an AFD that you voted in if you disagreed with the result, would you? I can hardly believe that this needs to be explained to you at such a fundamental level.

I am not sure why I am continuing to respond to your wikilawyering, but I am done doing so. If you need to respond, feel free, but rest assured your response will be the end of this conversation for the same reason that the ANI thread was closed: nothing will come of it, and it is a waste of everyone's time. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 21:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm still surprised whenever I find a rude admin, but I do find your comments rude in the extreme. As someone who is not a member of the group, but has observed it for a short time, why on earth does that not make me neutral. And why on earth not suggest a possible solution and see if some agreement can be made. Do you have a better idea? No, you do not. Your idea idea to insult everyone and be rude. You don't know if it would have wasted everyone's time because you didn't give the process a chance to work. —Neotarf (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the machines here are the only ones who still know how to be civil. —Neotarf (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Talk page stalker here, Scotty was dead right in his close when he said "no action will come of this discussion." I can't even recall an ANI entry before that looked so much like an RFC or arbitration request. ANI is at its best a way to resolve quick and dirty disputes, or allow some venting when needed, it can't solve complex problems. Pretty much anyone who posts in an ANI thread is going to be considered "involved" in terms of judging whether it should be closed. Scotty and I have had our battles in the past, but he always tries to be fair.--Milowent • 21:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, of course no action will come if an admin closes the discussion, repeatedly. You are the ones who are keeping these problems from being solved, if you keep closing down the discussion before everyone can have a chance to weigh in and figure out what the issues are. —Neotarf (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Continued disruption

Since your 6 September close of Disruption of Wikiproject ANI thread, the disruption has just continued. Revert of a number of closed disruptive threads with excuse "I didn't know how to revert my one thread." A new whole thread - Hold Wales and WMF accountable - mocking the project and WMF's foundation for supporting closing the gap; one male editor mocked back and they reverted him. Hostility towards one guy's new proposal which was seen as a mocking joke considering the pervasive attitude of mockery of the project on the talk page; it actually probably is sincere, if problematic in other regards. Continued demands for "evidence" for things said weeks ago that have been discussed repeatedly; mocking of requests they see the resource page filled with evidence and learn a bit about it themselves, if they really are interested in helping the project. Continued sniping at supporters of the project, who barely post any more, except mostly to denounce the fray. And finally spillover on to other talk pages and Jimbo Wales’ talk page. Perhaps a reminder from you on the talk page would help. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Two Kinds of Pork for 24 hours for disruptive editing. The disruption mostly took the form of unarchiving threads, and reverting Milowent's talk page comments repeatedly. However, please be aware that the vast majority of the things you complained about above are not disruption. You do not WP:OWN the Wikiproject. Other editors, even if they are not official members of the project, have the right to express their opinions on the talk page. Repeatedly asking for evidence of your assertions is not disruption. Disagreeing with you is not disruption. I cannot and will not bar editors from participating in discussions on the Wikiproject talk page, as long as they are not being overtly disruptive. Misplaced Pages has civility policies, but history has shown that generally only gross incivility is grounds for administrative action. Mild rudeness or hostility is not generally actionable, unless there is strong evidence of a long history of major problems associated with it, and I have not seen that in this case.

I would encourage you to engage these editors in discussion as cordially as you can. After all, if your ultimate goal is to propose changes to policies and guidelines to help close the gender gap, those policies and guidelines will need to be accepted by the majority of Wikipedians. If you can convince the editors that are hanging around the Wikiproject talk page of a proposal, then you have a very good chance of getting that proposal accepted by the rest of Misplaced Pages. But someone needs to be the "bigger person", brush away the bad attitudes, and be kind/polite in the face of hostility. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 19:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No grudges held

My first reaction was to tell you to remove the "semi" from in front of your name, or go step in front of one. But I'm over that now.look both ways when crossing the street pleaseTwo kinds of pork_Bacon 05:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The ongoing disruption

Yesterday I queried TKOP about the meaning of his edit summary "why don't you dine on the swine?"] and asked if s/he was soliciting me for something. Judging the answer given today, "Dine away", with an edit summary "the shoulder is tough, but the butt is better", apparently the answer is yes. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the disruptive effect of personalized remarks, indecent suggestions, and sexual harassment, especially in the context of the ongoing disruption at the gender gap project, ANI (again) and ArbCom. Are these the actions of someone who is here to build an encyclopedia? Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)