Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:15, 12 April 2007

Archive

Question

Hey! Got a question about an issue with another editor who actually edited one of my posts, claiming that WP:TALK gave him that right, since I made a minor change after he responded to it. I know I shouldn't really edit my own posts after they've been responded to, but this edit was very minor and did not affect either the post or his response - and it isn't prohibited by WP:TALK.

So, I took it to ANI, but I wanted to see what you thought (they're not responding very quickly, busy page!). This is the notice on the ANI board, and when I asked the other editor what context had been changed, this was his response - I mean, there was obviously no context change that affected his answer... I don't want an editor to think he can run around changing other's posts, unless it's for truly egregious and violates WP:BLP or WP:NPA (even npa can be problematic.) What do you think? Dreadlocke ☥ 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah just has a quick look at it, it seams you edited you comment after you originally posted it, and Minderbinder changed it back. The changes you made were only very minor, more grmatical than anything so I don't think there's an issue here with regards to you, changing is frowned upon, but it's not against policy. With regards to Minderbinder, I think he felt he was doing the right thing, even though again, it's frowned upon to edit other peoples comments. Can I suggest just leaving it? It's not like there were any personal attacks or other serious issues in the edits he made to your comments, if tht was the case, I'd go and have a talk to the user, but I think it would just erupt the situation Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good advice. Minderbinder definitely felt he did the right thing, which is where I think the problem is - he wasn't right and shouldn't be doing it again.

So, editing other's comments is just "frowned upon"? Man I thought it was a totally outrageous and forbidden thing to do! Well, thanks for the advice. Guess I'll just drop it. Maybe with all the static I caused him, he'll think twice before doing it again.

Wonder what would happen if I edited a comment of his? Bet I'd be blocked so fast it would make your head swim... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 18:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to totally drop it, I'll leave it up on ANI for the time being. I really think he should know that what he did wasn't right. Doesn't look like it gets much response, just the one to chastise me! Hah! Dreadlocke ☥ 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, leave it up on ANI and someone may differ from my opinion, if not, I'll go and have a friendly word, any chance you can let me know what happened? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Which part? :) Dreadlocke ☥ 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean on ANI? Sure thing! Man, I really appreciate your help! Dreadlocke ☥ 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just fyi, the user still feels he can edit my posts to "correct my violations" after I've changed them. He just now copied an old version of an edited post by another user, but I'm not sure if there's anything wrong with that. (same link as above) ANI is intersting, they keep addressing the BLP stuff, which is irrelevant to my issue. One editor even thought I made the attack...sheesh... Sorry to bug you with all this crap...I should probably just ignore it... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I've got as much from ANI as I'll get. If you want to drop a friendly note about not editing others posts that would be great. I'll just drop it from here and see if he does it again I guess. I guess I'm making a big deal out of nothing? Dang, I hate it when I do that... :) Dreadlocke ☥ 22:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

JohnHistory time and again

Ryan, could you take yet another look at this. JohnHistory keeps turning up every few days, changing the article against consensus. I'm not so much interested in or concentrated on that article, so I noticed only today . On the talk page, he is attacking me as conspiring against him and destroying the article once again . To be honest, I think the article is as good as it gets for now, and I'm tired of cleaning up behind JohnHistory, I've got better things to do, as do we all. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it with me and I'll take a look at it, but have you considered either a user Rfc, or article Rfc? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never filed an RfC before, but it's an idea. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly the expert Rfc filer either! I'll go out on a limb and say article Rfc, it seams to be Johns only concern. Get a load of diffs together as part of a neutral explanation of events (in your userspace) and I'll help you put the request in Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

On it. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Kncyu38/soapbox. Feel free to comment/edit there. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:3 - fine by me, thanks for the suggestion. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Y —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job

		The Original Barnstar
		This is for taking the initiative at RFCN to improve the process. It's been a bit of a mess for the last week; hopefully we can take this improvement and steer RFCN in the right direction. Leebo /C 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Great work on the new method of RFCN. Well done! G Donato (talk to me...) 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that the new process could people to actually think about some of the names they report and not be so trigger-happy, but it seems like a good number of people would rather do away with it than make it better. Some make good points, but I dislike the attitude that RFCN visitors are wasting their time and "should make themselves useful by editing the encyclopedia". Editors who focus solely on RFCN are fairly rare -- most contribute in a variety of other ways to the encyclopedia. Leebo /C 13:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN

Certainly. Please see the thread you started on the admin board, where several people were objecting to the complexity. I suspect my version may be overly short, at any rate. >Radiant< 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for implementing the change I suggested on WT:RFCN regarding the subpage link. Perhaps it would be better to change the 'View RFCN' to 'RFCN' so it looks more appropriate when viewing the subpage. Just my thought. (the necessary pages are fprotected otherwise I would have done it myself) G Donato (talk to me...) 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it makes more sense to put view RFCN, so it's clear what the button does, let me know if you desperate to make the change Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sprot

Hiyya. I took the liberty and semi'd your userpage this morning as you were taking a hammering. Hope you don't mind! - Alison 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(BTW - thanks for keeping a level head during the recent WP:RFCN hell which spilled over into a page of its own. Well done!)

"Consensus"

Where is the consensus for this change to WP:RFCN? As far as I can tell, you implemented this change less than 24 hours after proposing it on the talk page. That's not consensus. If you had happened to propose it on some other date, because of the short period of time it would have been roundly rejected, just because different people are online or notice a page on different days. If you wish to make a major change to something, you need to allow sufficient time for others to consider and discuss the proposal. It is not necessarily bad to implement it right away if there is a favorable response, it is false to say that you are following "consensus", when no such thing can be formed after so brief a time between proposal and implementation. —Centrx→talk • 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Majorly's RfB

Hey Ryan, thanks a lot for your kind support on my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate your support and I do intend to run again eventually. I hope you've been enjoying your admin tools, and once again it was a pleasure to nominate you. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My Canberra friend

... is now requesting unblock. Hehe. – Riana 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Netsnipe took care of it. Cheers :) – Riana 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Improved CaseForm display

Ryan, would you please move or cut-and-paste the text now in User_talk:Ryanpostlethwaite/_CaseForm over to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_names/_Docs/_CaseForm ?

It not only looks nicer, it keeps the header format compatible with the pre-subpage header format.

You'll notice Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names/Jesusfreak10 is a test case. -- Ben /_HIST 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, looks far better - you don't stop impressing me! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

ready?

Xiner's getting mighty impatient for my RFA and Physicq210 is trying to make me an offer I can't refuse. Would you be ready to do the nom soon? — coelacan — 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan RfA

It doesn't matter, just as long as we get this thing done. —physicq (c) 02:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bril then, well if you get time write the nom and I'll co-nom when I get up so I ca have a think about it, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Coelacan and give your opinions on the nom statement (this is actually my first RfA nomination). Thanks! —physicq (c) 03:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you can add the co-nom, notify Coelacan, and transclude it on the main page, as I'm going to sleep now and won't be back online until around 00:00 UTC April 8 (16:00 PDT April 7) (argh...these time zone discrepancies...). —physicq (c) 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• ooooh! :) - Alison 06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan! — coelacan — 00:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology student, eh?

Have you seen WP:PHARM? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

JH

Hey Ryan. Well, bibliomaniac15 responded to the request here. As the latest bit of the discussion revolved around the exact wording and JH offered another lenghty reply, I asked bm15 to specify and he replied in agreement with my version. Since then, everything has remained silent. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:RfA

Thank you very much for the nomination, (I hope you didnt mind the momination here and not emailed!). I am honoured by this but I very recently had a second nomination which I withdrew at 17/16/1, this was mainly due to the fact that I had once voted on 6 AfD's in 8 minutes and that caused many people to oppose, therefore I'd like to give it time to fix that and get my edits up to about 20K 'ish. I thank you very much for this and I would love for you to nominate me in the future months (possibly July??) but I'm going to have to decline for the minute to work on some of the issues raised and not come over as too eager, again - I am thrilled by the proposed nom. Thank you very much - Tellyaddict 12:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope your not offended by me declining the nomination, also the Semi Protection tag on your Userpage can just go into the corner by adding |small=yes}} to the end. Just incase you wanted it like that. Tellyaddict 17:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You asked for the link to my previous RfA, here it is, that was a month ago, Thanks and please do nominate me in approxiately July. Cheers - Tellyaddict 10:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:172.133.56.51

Appears to be a sock of a user you blocked for vandalism on this page. This user is now doing the same- and IPs are in same range. GDonato (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah got it, now blocked!! (Just left you a message on your talk page about it!) Cheers for the reverts Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I'm not in violation of WP:3RR because I'm editing different versions of the page.--Ed 16:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1st revision, 2nd revision, 3rd revision, 4th revision. Thats breaking 3RR to me Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The 4th revision is different than the other 3--Ed 16:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From 3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Moreschi 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

He just reverted again as an IP . he admits it's his here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And again as himself.... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, would you mind reverting Ed's last revert of Moreschi's version? I don't want to fall foul of 3RR. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all I wanted. Hopefully this dispute will now cease. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just changed the redirect at WP:EA and removed a notice from the esperanza page accordingly. Is this breaking 3RR? Should I revert myself? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, just seen you do it, I was thinking oh god, whats he doing? But I think the disambig link removal is uncontroversial, and you explained in your edit summary. If someone else re-adds it, will you just leave it and I'll sort it out tomorrow? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility

After I got this ? — Indon (reply) — 20:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My head was just a bit boiled up. Thanks for the advice. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got my Mr Cool hat on today so I'm sorted! All the best Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection at WP:BIO

I noticed that you protected the music notability page. You might consider the same for WP:BIO. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Holly James

Hello. I was wondering why you deleted Holly James. There wasn't a lot there yet, but the Spanish page was developed quite a bit.--Kidd Loris 12:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Teledildonic Man

I swear while looking at User:Teledildonic Man's contributions that he reported himself to AIV as his first act, and then was reported again for exactly the same reason (using exactly the same text)... odd SGGH 13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when he self reported himself, I removed it as trolling - it's a bit strange to be honest! I think I'll keep an eye on the account, but at the minute, he's not doing anything too disruptive. By all means block though if you disagree Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He changed jazz fusion to cold fusion in an article - at least he's funny. – Riana 13:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, so he did! Looks like definate future admin material! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Teledildonics." A Train 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sethdoe92 (talk · contribs)

Yes, I will. I dont actually think how close he is coming to being blocked. I was looking at his edits and I noticed he often said Ass cream, even when voting on RfA's? I will tell him and if he continues I'll leave you a note, I think he means well just doesn't know quite what he is doing and the results which could be blocked. Thanks for telling me - Tellyaddict 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I will, cheers! Tellyaddict 16:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

TA clearly means well but I'm running out of good faith for Sethdoe. We should consider popping over to the community noticeboard next time he makes an inappropriate edit. A Train 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good call Atrain, and it's coming from mr AGF himself! I'll keep an eye on his contribs and CN it if needs be Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of him too, I've left a long and boring warning on his User talk page and told him in kinder words that if he makes one more wrong move he will be blocked, most probably idefinitely. I am removing the Userbox from his Page saying I'm his adopter, I just cant adopt a Vandal, his intentions here clearly aent good. I've also provided loads of diffs to his bad edits. Cheers - Tellyaddict 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just read it through! It was quite very well researched, loving the diffs. To be honest with you, I think it would be a waste of time trying to help him and your doing the right things by knocking him off your adoption list. He's out to disrupt and I really doubt he'll be here for much longer. Next bad move and I'm proposing a community ban Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, their he goes! Cold you please just block him as he warned me at my Sandbox (which I aksed him to yesterday for training on User warnigs) but guess what edit summar he used? (Ass cream) and totally removed loads of comments from my long and boring warning. If you would you mind if I add the blocked tag but say in my edit summary I'm not a sysop. I'll blank his Userpage and add it their, assuming this is OK with you? Cheers! - Tellyaddict 19:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thats one problem sorted for the minute. Thanks for what you've done! Tellyaddict 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA accident

Do you think i should leave the rfa-nomination template on Radiant!'s page? I know i removed it and replaced it with "what the...?"....... :) Simply south 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah do! Just put it above the rest of the comments, its funny! :) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Erm.... Simply south 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He'll think it's funny! There's no harm in it anyway! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Maybe i should set up a second nom page or is that going too far? Simply south 18:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be going too far ;-) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll see. I think i left the wrong edit summary on radiant's page. Simply south 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Ryan I just wanted to know if this user has gone through WP:RFCN Because as you know I just came back after nearly 3 weeks and Iam not sure>>(User:Jesusinmysock)....--Cometstyles 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No but leave a {{UsernameConcern}} message on their talk page or you'll get shot! (Take a look at WT:RFCN, it's all kicked off whilst you've been away!). Leave the concern there a few days, and if the user continues to edit, or requests a discussion, take it to RFCN. Does that sound ok? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

yes its ok and I did just that and he 'kindly' replied>>"Man get over it It's just a name. You may be concerned but thats your problem. I refuse to change my username. I'm trying to be as nice as I can. I can kind of understand your concern then agin I cant. Oh I get It my Middle Name is Jesus."People seem 2 like me a lot nowdays..I'll just leave it at that..bye..--Cometstyles 20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd take it to RFCN then, I'm not sure if it is against policy, but it's worth a shout Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RebeccaC21.

You were quick with that one; I went to search for Project For Pride in Living and found it was already gone. Thanks for that. Acalamari 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

64.251.53.130

I'm curious why you indefinitely blocked this IP. Could you explain further what the situation is with this IP to warrant such a block? Thanks. --Geniac 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Project for Pride in Living

I can't log into my old account because I had to change my name to RebeccaC21 because they said before it was blatant advertising to have my organization name. Is there any way I can still delete this? My boss is very upset. It's a;ready sorted now Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anagrams

Radiant probably got the anagram from a server like this one: http://wordsmith.org/anagram/ ... personally, I much prefer "Satan pee holy writ." Obviously, you have some strange religious views... ;) Mangojuice 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, that's a brilliant one! I see my true religion has come through! As if I'm going to be editing wikipedia for a bit - I've got anagrams of all my friends names to find now! Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

protection of EA?

IMHO, we weren't edit warring this time. In fact, I really think that we're making good progress here. Since the middle of February, my edits were continuously reverted by Dev for no good reasons. However, she began to accept two of my edits! I don't see how reverting grammatical changes constitutes a major enough situation to make an edit war.--Ed 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you were edit warring over spellings. I'll unprotect the article for now, but if this reoccurs, I'm going to protect it again, and for considerably longer becuase it's not helping the encylopedia in any way Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted a message on Dev's talk page. I'll see what's up with her.--Ed 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, just remember to discuss before acting...... Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You think I haven't tried that yet? So far, I reached the second step of WP:DR...Ed 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 :( Ed 23:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that discussion will help: all previous attempts have failed. Requests for input at the VP and HD have returned no helpful remarks. Dev has removed about half of the messages I sent to her. Right now, IMHO the only way to get my point across is by going up the dispute process--Ed 00:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What stage of DR are you on at the minute? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Second step. Also, I managed to compile a conflict log here: User:Ed/Dev920 v. Ed Ed 01:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

By second step what do you mean? Mediation? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah. If you look at my conflict log, you'll see that the main dispute is over a few sentences on the essay. The stage I'm in right now is a combination of disengagement by moving on to a different issue in the essay (ie spelling, grammar) and by attempting to discuss more often.--Ed 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, might I suggest a RfC? I think in this case it might be a good idea. Or maybe mediation? I'd be happy to start mediation at Misplaced Pages:Esperanza/mediation if you and Dev decide to accept (if you agree will you ask her?). Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to attempt mediation. I'll contact Dev right now--Ed 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed

I came to the the conclusion round about February that Ed isn't trying to make constructive edits to the page, he is pursuing some weird agenda of his own that is apparently based on making Esperanza look as good as possible. I say this because the versions he has trying to insert always soften criticisms and somehow phrase like "nice idea" get turned into "excellent idea". He has wanted to replace the essay with at least three different versions with varying reasons, from "It looks better!" to "It needs to be neutral!" to "It doesn't fulfil the closing MfD comments!" Evry time you talk to him he moves the goalposts, and frankly, I'm removing his comments from my talkpage because I'm sick of talking to him and it getting nowhere. I'm sick of taking the time to write him a half hour message and it just sliding off his back , sick of my every message apparently giving him attention that spurs him on to another excitable attempt to get more people involved that just don't care. Look at the number of compromises in Ed's subpage (btw, the name Dev920 v. Ed hardly exhibits the put-upon-oh-why-is-she-reverting-me-I-only-want-to-help attitude he is currently displaying to you, is it?)

Where Ed's documents starts is only where it resumed after a month of Ed's apparent acquiescence to the version that everyone supported. It was only Quadzilla's edit that spurred him onto the the revert war he got into. This actually goes badck to January 2, the day Esperanza was deactivated, when Ed added a extremely biased section about fostering the goals of Esperanza, which I removed. One may note that the version in that edit is the exact same one I have been trying so hard to maintain against Ed's onslaught. It is version accepted by virtually every editor to the main page, the version not in any way disputed whenever Ed goes over the Village Pump to drum up support, it is the most accurate and most accepted version. Ed's attempts to change it have only ever been met with "OMG, are you still arguing over this? Leave it alone." But Ed won't leave it alone, and I was not prepared to let him trample all over the consensus of the community.

No, I'm not assuming good faith, how can someone assume good faith of a little boy who is edit warring over spellings? The additions I made was the only changes I made to Moreschi's version, and Ed seems incapable of accepting any edit I make (and I don't mean the reverts, I mean the edits to compromise suggestions by Steve Block, and by Moreschi. Ed inserted a semi-colon instead of a full stop, even though I had specifically made it a separate a) because it flows better and b) it emphasises on the fact that they did very little. This is important because it was a major factor is their being deleted, the first MfD had closed as no consensus only because they promised to reform themselves, and what they actually did was delete the most disapproved of pages and then get bogged down in proposals over governance. "nice" is similarly important, not only because it is a direct quotation from my nomination statement at the MfD, but because it carries a cutesy value that one applies to soft cuddly objects, which is the epitome of everything Esperanza stood for. That and a change in the common term for a member of Esperanza was what I changed about Ed's edit, for very good reasons as I have just explained to you. I left the rest. But I guess one has to ask why Ed did it, and why Ed wished to draw me into a discussion to discuss spellings. If he is as keen to end this dispute as he so oft claims, why is he still haggling?

I acceptd Moreschi's version, as I did Steve Block's compromise, with a few small, but vital, changes in each case to ensure the meaning was not lost. One may notice this is exactly what I have done with all changes to the essay. When EWS23 added a paragraph I removed the proselytising, which I find important because the essay mustn't forget that Esperanza was shut down for a reason. I have tried to pursue that policy for a long time. Ed's first real attempt to change the essay was to remove the criticism section entirely, claiming it was giving undue weight to criticisms, which I think says much about his motivations. He appears to have forgotten that Esperanza was deactivated because of those very arguments. Unsurprisingly, I reverted him. It went back and forth for a few and the article got protected. Afterward Steve Block tried to write a compromise version that I accepted witha few changes and Ed wanted a few as well - we were thrashing it out on our talkpages when Elaragirl made her edit, and the compromise died. This is when Ed made his second attempt to fundamentally change the essay,which was exceptionally badly written, removed the criticism section again, and was generally awful, which was why I removed it. Ed claimed it was "a 2nd compromise" - compromise between what and what exactly? A compromise between my desire to keep the original version agreed upon by the community and his desire to remove all criticisms? The article was protected again. Convenient how Ed's compromises always change after article protections, because it changed again after that time. Again he called it a compromise, again I have to ask who he was compromising between. Note his arguments thus far have been "undue weight" and "compromise", up to about the end of March. Then he changed tack and started claiming the text was "biased" and shortly after that that it violated the MfD closure. It was protected again.

At this point Ed suggested a truce, and the main terms we agreed on was that the article would be unprotected, neither of us would edit it and I would provide proof that my version was supported by the community. But I was under a lot of pressure at the time, and as I have explained already, I am loathe to give Ed any more attention that I absolutely have to because it is a complete waste of my time. His constant version changing and excuse changing as well had convinced he really wan't interested in any kind of reasoned argument. I think the best example of this is the Village Pump where he tried to drum up support for his version, and both I and Steve Block took the time to respond, as well as several others editors, but it became obvious Ed wasn't actually listening to any of what we were saying, instead, ludicrously, comparing the whole thing to a murder inquiry. You can read the entire discussion here. My reasoning for reverting him was thus:

"Yes, we are. Why? Because these changes you suggest do not improve the essay. They attempt to skew it to talk about how marvellous Esperanza was and what a pity it was shut down. That you said "The essay would give the impression that helping the Wikipedian community is a bad thing." is very telling, as it says no such thing. It says that Esperanza is a bad thing: surely you have learnt by now that Esperanza != community? The community made it very clear where it stands on Esperanza, and the essay reflects that. It is you who insists that the essay needs to be unbiased - unbias does not equal equal weighting. Due weight is given to the feelings of the community, the community which DELETED Esperanza. They didn't say "Oh look, what a spiffing idea Esperanza is, I know, let's close it for fun.", they made strong and valid criticisms that are listed. Read your comments, you are chafing against the reverts themselves, not your edits that have been reverted. You don't have anything to say about WHAT changes you would like to introduce, just that we won't let you. And that, I think more than anything, demonstrated that you are just replyng now to wind everyone up than because you actually want to make meaningful, constructive edits. You just want to whitewash."

So, you can see, I did explain to Ed exactly why I didn't like his version, but he didn't heed it. I announced I wasn't going to engage him anymore - this was the point when I stopped replying to his messages and removed them from my talkpage, as it became utterly clear to me that Ed just wasn't interested in dialogue. Steve also couldn't be bothered to talk to him anymore.

After the truce broke down, which Ed laughably put down to cowardice rather than sheer mind numbing apathy, Moreschi proposed the version we see today. Ed didn't like it, edit warred over it and got blocked. I made a few small but vital changes, but left it at that. Ed made some changes, some of which I disagreed with, and have explained above, and reverted, and Ed is now making himself to be some kind of martyr.

It has been a wildly frustrating three months, as Ed appears to have only one aim in mind and that it to change the essay for the sake of changing it, and then revert warring whenever I point out that what he changed had been there for a very good reason. I have thus become convinced that he is doing it for base motives, whatever they are, and WP:AGF says I don't have to assume good faith where it would obviously be stupid to do so. I am sick of talking to him, and if he really wants to cease this dispute, he shouldn't be edit warring over three fucking spellings. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)