Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 20 September 2007

Archives

Archive 1: Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007.

Archive 2: 14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007.

Archive 3: 14 May 2007 to 15 June 2007.

Archive 4: 15 June 2007 to 11 September 2007.

Freddie

Thanks for the invite, but I believe you misunderstood what I had said. The wrong version refers to an essay on meta, found at m:The Wrong Version. When there are sides in a debate, you are bound to protect the "wrong version" from one side's perspective. It's a lose, lose situation. No matter what, when a sysop protects a page during a content dispute, it is the "wrong version". My comment was thus referring to this idea, and I was not expressing my opinion that the version was in fact, wrong. But thanks again for bringing it up, and I might just chime in when I get some time.-Andrew c  04:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos

I imagine it has something to do with Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Loads_of_images_.28particularly_flag_images.29_not_showing. There is a bug where some images from commons are not showing, and the developers know about it and are working on it. Hopefully, it will be cleared up soon enough. Hope this helps.-Andrew c  17:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just found out purging the image pages over on commons (WP:PURGE) gets them to show (at least on my computer). Not sure if it's necessary to do this though if another solution is already under works.-Andrew c  17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy

Sorry, our revs got crossed. ... Kenosis 18:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That talk page history is awfully long for today - Ferrylodge, do you have a dif or preferably several of Photo modifying and/or deleting posts? That's completely unacceptable. Thanks - leave here, I have your page on watch, or leave on my talk page. KillerChihuahua 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He deleted my post here. After I put it back, he changed my section title.Ferrylodge 18:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, renaming the section is acceptable, if not being done in an insulting, disruptive manner - for brevity or clarity or easier navigation. But deleting someone else's posts (except on one's own talk page) is a complete no-no in almost all cases. Your edit was not a blatant personal attack nor was it silly vandalism, which are the usual exceptions. I've left a warning on Photo's talk page. Thanks much for the diff, that history was daunting to look at and I had no idea where to start. KillerChihuahua 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Article in the Washington Post

It was interesting to read about you in the Washington Post this morning. It sounds much like the person I now know to be Ferrylodge. However, you might like to ask them to clarify if you're a man or a woman. As in, the statement currently reads, "and another editor who goes only by Ferrylodge, a Republican and a Thompson supporter. (He recently gave the former Tennessee senator a $100 donation.)... She is, though she's not yet sure who she will support." . Keep up the good work. The Evil Spartan 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we talk about the "health" effects of abortion on the fetus???

???LCP 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your accusation of wikistalking

Ferrylodge, your accusation here is way out of line, and unacceptable. You don't own Mother or any other article, nor do you have the market cornered on interest in the subject. Perhaps you should read the section on Wikistalking that you pointed me to - and then tell me just how I had harassed you or disrupted anything by making one comment on the talk page in support of what I believe to be another editor's correct criticism of a section of the article. And please don't tell me how long that wording has been in the article - that doesn't mean it is right. I think you owe me an apology - but if you think you're right, I suggest you make your accusation in a more formal way, because innuendo is not going to cut it. Tvoz |talk 05:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not making accusations. Some users are unaware that it is bad form to follow other users around. If you are following me around (from Fred Thompson to abortion to mother), then I would kindly ask you to please stop. However, if it is merely a bizarre coincidence, then we can leave it at that. If you want to continue this discussion, please do it at the article talk pages. Thanks.Ferrylodge 13:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's only bad form if one is doing it to harass. It's perfectly OK, for instance, to check a vandal's contribs and go around correcting them. Or similar cases where one suspects that a particular user's edits are suspect and need another eye. And one way one might get that suspicion is by tangling with them on one page. So long as the edits one makes after following them around are valid, it's not wikistalking. -- Zsero 16:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Zsero - that is correct. And Ferrylodge, I think you know that I am a very experienced editor with over 7500 edits, and I know Misplaced Pages policy, so don't be disingenuous. I'm continuing this conversation here because it isn't germane to the article talk page. Pointing someone to a policy page and suggesting they read it is certainly implying an accusation. I'll continue to edit whatever pages I please, and having seen what I and several other editors have identified as appearing to be POV-pushing, it's possible that you'll see me editing other pages that you also edit, and commenting on their talk pages, to try to rein it in. There's been no disruption or harassment on my part - disagreeing with someone's POV is not harassment. There's policy on that too - you might look at it. Tvoz |talk 18:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As might you.Ferrylodge 12:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Reverts: , , , . MastCell 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The last two reverts are very different from the first two. The last two edited the lede to INCLUDE the word "uterus" in the lede. The first two edits edited the lede to EXCLUDE the word "uterus" from the lede. That is what the controversy was all about: whether the lede should include the word "uterus". The lede has included the word "womb" for years.

Decline reason:

Please reread WP:3RR. The reverts do not have to involve the same material each time. Your four edits serve to reintroduce "womb" each time in any case. — Yamla 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I would also like to add that KillerChihuahua has been attacking me personally and harassing me all day today. At the abortion article today, she asserted that my words are "bullshit". At the pregnancy article today, she suggested that I am "naive and disingenuous." At the Stillbirth article today, she said that I was trying to insert a "vulgar" word into the article. It astounds me that an admin can get away with such incivility, and I find it very difficult to respond in a constructive way to her personal attacks. More recently, at the Stillbirth article, she said that I am a "spammer". Actually, the "spam" to which she referred was a list of definitions of the word "womb" from reliable sources, and I had not previously listed those definitions (or any of them) anywhere else, prior to listing them in the Stillbirth article.

Instead of responding intelligently and civilly to those definitions, she ignored them, disparaged them as "spamming", continued her edit-war against the word "womb" in all pregnancy-related articles.

I did not violate 3RR here. The third and fourth cited edits were reverting to a lede that included KillerChihuahua's preferred term "uterus". The first and second edits reverted to a version of the article that did not include KillerChihuahua's preferred term "uterus."Ferrylodge 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies. I thought 3RR meant reverting three times to a previous version, which of course I did not do.

However, I do not offer any apologies to KC. She is an uncivil edit warrior who has repeatedly and personally attacked me today.Ferrylodge 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks the other way around to me; like you're attacking her. If you're really the aggrieved party here and not interested in scoring hits against KillerChihuahua you'd be following WP:NPA instead of violating it I think. And I see that you were blocked for 24 hours in May for "Repeated harassment posting on User talk:KillerChihuahua after warning." Clearly you've got a grudge against KillerChihuahua, I suggest steering clear of her and ceasing the personal attacks. If not you're simply making yourself look worse and digging your hole deeper. Odd nature 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated incivility towards KillerChihuahua is tempting me to extend your block. A sincere apology would be a VERY good idea. ⇒ SWATJester 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards, Swatjester. If you would look at the previous section above, you would see that the incivility has been toward me. Calling my words "bullshit", suggesting that I am "naive and disingenuous", falsely accusing me of "spamming", saying that my words are "vulgar" --- this is the kind of incivility that has been directed towards me.

Want more examples? Here KC says that my words are "inane." Here she suggests that my words indicate I am "congenitally dense".

I will not apologize to KC, so block me for as long as you please.Ferrylodge 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. A forced apology is not going to solve anything anyway. Ferrylodge and KillerChihuahua obviously don't get along. There's been incivility on both sides, as is common when 2 editors don't get along. The best approach at this juncture is probably just for everyone to simmer down, sit out the 3RR block, and try disengagement or dispute resolution when you come back. MastCell 22:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. Swatjester, when a user is blocked, it's natural that he feels aggrieved, and the kindest and fairest approach is to ignore comments that you find problematic, unless they cross a certain threshold. For example, if someone is blocked for vandalism, or severe BLP problems, and, during his block, he fills his talk page with " has sex with little boys", then I wouldn't hesitate to extend the block to indefinite. But to call someone an uncivil edit warrior is hardly the kind of thing we block people for, even though I completely disagree that KillerChihuahua is anything of the kind. If we did extend blocks for that, then you'd have to start handing out an awful lot of blocks to people who have been in dispute with Ferrylodge. I'm quite sure KC is able to put up with a blocked user writing such things during a block. It's part of being an admin. She's had worse things said about her; I've had worse things said about me; I'm quite sure you've had worse things said about you. Ferrylodge is blocked for 48 hours. He hasn't told people to fuck off or called them assholes. Some people do that with impunity on Misplaced Pages. Why on earth would we extend his block for expressing his frustration inappropriately but not aggressively? It would completely send the wrong message.

And Ferrylodge, KillerChihuahua has already pointed out that "vulgar" has more than one meaning. Nor did she imply that you were "congenitally dense". She said that your behaviour served no purpose, "unless your purpose to convice others you are congenitally dense." That's quite different. ElinorD (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)