User talk:LadyofShalott: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:15, 25 April 2010 editMiszaBot III (talk \| contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 10d) to User talk:LadyofShalott/Archive 12.← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:10, 10 May 2010 edit undoGeo Swan (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,843 edits →Could you please explain...: new sectionNext edit →
Line 158:		Line 158:

	Oh, look at , too. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>]</font> 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)		Oh, look at , too. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>]</font> 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

			== Could you please explain... ==

			I possible ] in ].

			If you can find the time I would be very grateful if you could explain that synth concern, more fully, here, or perhaps the article's talk page. I do my best to comply with all our policies, but I am only human, and I may have overlooked a lapse.
			If I really did lapse, and you can explain that lapse, I will do my best to make sure I don't make a similar lapse in future.

			Cheers! ] (]) 19:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:10, 10 May 2010

I will generally reply to posts here on this page unless you request otherwise.Please watch this page if you comment. If I post on your talkpage, I will watch it. I prefer to keep threads continuous.

Congrats for "your" day!

Hello LadyofShalott. Congratulations for having now your day. It must feel good! Well, since you have been so nice and kind, I couldn´t refrain myself from not asking you for advice. I have been involved in a hard discussion regarding an historical issue. It has to do with the monopolization of a serious of related articles by one editor. basicaly, this editor User:DIREKTOR insists in considering an resistance monarchic movement (Chetniks) and its leader (Draža Mihailović) a Nazy collaborator. The movement fought the Germans, but also the Tito´s Partisans (another resistance group). Since the second ones won the war, Tito condemned and executed Mihailovic, charging him on treason. USA organised an post-mortum trial and freed the movement of the charges, and condecorated Mihailovic. France too. Since the movement fought both, the Germans and the Partisans, some detachments ocasionally collaborated, but it was maynly a three side war. Anyway, this user, Direktor, manipulating and exageratins sources that talk about that ocasional collaboration, wants to impose that the entire movement and Mihailovic are to be considered "notable collaborators", and its role as resistance efforts ignored. Well, despite WP:AGF, this user as a Croat and assumed Titoist, Tito was the leader of the Partisans, a communist guerilla, obviously has no nice feelings towards a Serb monarchic movement, and edited the article having in mind only his POV. The worst is that when other editors want to edit the articles, he is very agressive and reverts all that doesn´t fit his ideology. He was blocked several times for breaking the 3r role. I demanded that the article includes more NPOV, so a discussion started. Another editor that also agrees with me already asked for mediation, so wi will see what will happend. A nazy collaboration accusation is a too serious accusation to be left unsourced. Anyway, my problem is regarding this users attitude towards me. He constantly manipulates my words (same way as he does with the sources) and does all the possible and impossible so his version will prevail. He unfairlly accused me of many things, but when talking about me or my edits he used the following expressions: Lack of knolledge/info (7times), Nonsence (5 times), Horrible/faulty grammar (5 times), Me having no idea whatsoever (3 times), childish (2 times), Lying (2 times), Me being nationalist (2 times), unnencyclopedic (2 times), Absurd (2 times), Stupid (1 time), Clumsy (1 time), Silly (1 time), Ridiculous (2 times), Slauderous (1 time), My opinion irrelevant (1 time), me joking (1 time), Missinformed (1 time), Utterly flawed ideas (1 time) and many more indirectly tageting me. When I asked him please to be polite and avoid using this expressions, he accused me of imagining provocation. He also constantly speaks as he is a "community". The discussion is found here: Talk:Draža Mihailović. Should I report him for this behaviour? P.S.:I am really sorry for my long comment, and for involving youm but since you are an admin, and a excellent wikipedian, I needed to ask you if I am obligated to tolerate this kind of language? FkpCascais (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Now to your question: at this point, having only read what you've written above, and not the other relevant pages, I would say just participate fully in the mediation. A mediator is not likely to put up with abusive comments from any parties to the mediation, and the mediator should help you all work out the content disputes so that the article accurately reflects what sources say rather than the point of view of any individual editor. Has Direktor agreed to a mediation? LadyofShalott 14:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. No, he hasn´t. FkpCascais (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I ended up receving more of this behaviour so I have ended making a report on ANI , but I wasn´t inspired when doing it, I did it in a hurry, and I quite expressed myself awfully (I had never donne any report before). Its my fault. Anyway, he didn´t signed the mediation request , the discussion on the talk page continues , but what shall I do now. Is there any possibility of having mediation anyway? FkpCascais (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

After just I have finished writting you this, an involved used AlasdairGreen27 (taking other users side), has just told me that the mediation is "under way" (???). There is no reference about it anywhere, the "alleged" mediator has never claimed that, and there is nothing about it on the request. Can you please see what is really going on? I am thinking about the possibility that I´m being missinformed on purpose... FkpCascais (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lack of comment on the request for mediation page shows that the mediation committee has not yet either accepted or rejected the case. LadyofShalott 01:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the fact that a "senior wikipedian" intentionally missinformed me about it? Now they are clearly covering up each other (saying it was "simple mistake"). As one of them exageratedly said when another editor stood by my side:"I refuse being "ganged up"; that is exactly how I feel here. Talk:Draža Mihailović see bottom (last comments). If I am not being correct by adressing this issue to you, please feel free to tell me so and I shall try to seek some other solution. I would feel bad if I am making you loose time with this. :) FkpCascais (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not assume s/he intentionally misinformed you. The mediation has been requested and not as yet declined; it may have been a simple misunderstanding. WP:AGF. LadyofShalott 17:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am trying to have just someone to call them for reason, and advise them to stop attacking me, be carefull about this sort of missunderstanding and those kind of things, because they are pretty much acting with impunity. Nobody said even a word about that user starting to be carefull, or the other to stop desrespecting me constantly (as they just did ). I am very much being constantly attacked with this rude language and tricks just because I want to discuss... See how far goes this (both arguments and politeness: here. btw, the offer of collaboration was recused, so what sence the statemnt the user does makes? So, see what kind of discussion I have been having for 2 moths now... allways WP:AGF from my side. FkpCascais (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To LadyofShalott

I have been meaning to write a note to you for some time.

A long time back, December?, you had a comment about my necessarily being old since I was a WWII veteran. But you also had some more favorable comments.

I wanted to note that I am still unretired (i.e. non-Emeritus) and still as active as ever. Thus sometimes chronological age doesn't correlate with "operational" age.

Also, I've appreciated your help on occasion relative to the Birch Reduction (Detailed) article I submitted. The old Birch Reduction article was limited and a mess. Since this was one of my reseach areas, I wanted a good article for Misplaced Pages. I did not anticipate the resistance I would encounter.

Thus Misplaced Pages is really great for non-scientific articles. But the predilection for Texts as sources and the dislike of refereed journal references led that original Birch article into its difficulties. Having a Misplaced Pages article as Readable and Wrong rather than more Detailed and Right reminded me of the Lewis Carroll "Through the Looking Glass". I guess I felt as if I had been through that Looking Glass myself in Misplaced Pages.

I have now given up on the Birch article since it seems that the same authors responsible for the old inaccurate Birch article are not modifying the one I wrote. At least my name will not be associated with the article.

I am impressed with a number of the Misplaced Pages Editors and Administrators but not with all.

My writing finally was some explanation of the situation.

Very best wishes,

Howard Z Howard E. Zimmerman 21:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

Well first, just to clear the air since you seem somewhat put out by the comment about your age, I had to hunt back to find it, and I was not the one who said that. Anyway, I'm always glad to help when I can. I do not think you should "give up" on the article. You have done a tremendous amount of work on it, and Misplaced Pages is the better for it. You should know that it is always possible to see who contributed what to an article by clicking the history tab at the top of the article - that is why the history merge that we talked about was important. Thus, anyone intersted can see exacly what parts of the article you wrote. If you see errors being (re)introduced to the article, you can and should correct them and point out why they are wrong on the talk page of the article. You recently made a comment about not pointing out errors because when you did so before someone just used your comments just to fix them - well, yes, that's a lot of how Misplaced Pages works. If something is wrong, it needs to be corrected. LadyofShalott 04:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

To: LadyofShalott From: Howard Z

Thanks for the resply and comments. The comment about age was not that critical but it is interesting that it was not from you.

Regarding the Birch article, I did list the errors in that old article. Some were fixed up, I think by others than the originators or the article. In contrast, I did encounter considerable resistance (e.g. from V8rik). One comment was that on checking with Jerry March's text revealed no errors. This comment revealed the lack of expertise by that Misplaced Pages editor. Jerry March has a very useful text which superficially covers all kinds of reactions, but only a page or two with the highlights of the Birch Reduction. Somewhere along the line I got remarks about Textbook references being good and preferred while refereed journal articles were not desired. But most of the material in my Birch article would not be found in textbooks but it detailed in journal articles.

LadyofShalott, I do plan to go over the merged article and correct errors. But I don't plan on submitting more articles. Originally I had an extensive list of items already in Misplaced Pages but not appreciably covered and not properly referenced. Also the list has similar items missing from Misplaced Pages.

I now am trying to find a way to get my "User space" deleted since I don't plan to use that material.

With best wishes and regards,

Howard Z Howard E. Zimmerman 15:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

I've made a couple of comments on your userpage that I hope you'll find useful. I am specifically staying out of the content discussion of Birch reduction because I am not qualified to have an intelligent opinion on the contents of that article. I hope you'll reconsider your position about contributing more to Misplaced Pages. We need more, not fewer, experts who can add and improve our coverage of specialized topics. :) LadyofShalott 21:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and correction

To: LadyofShalott From: Howard Z

Thanks for that comment. It was not something I knew and I must have done that incorrectly more than 20 (50?) times.

I hope now that I'm putting this on your Talk page. Thus I'll try the (Howard E. Zimmerman 23:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)) here.

I've been correcting one item on the Birch article. There had been one numbering for the cyclohexadienyl anion and the Table giving the details was for the simpler Pentadienyl numbering. But that had confused someone who then wanted a reference for the second item which really was the same. Now I've used the Cyclohexadienyl numbering in the Table (with the risk of making an error. I'll proof-read this again to make certain I have the numbering correct.

Best wishes, But let me know if I've made that 4Tilde error again. Howard Z

Howard E. Zimmerman 23:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

LadyofShalott, it seems that I've erred again. I seem not to have been on the correct page when I thanked you for your help.

Somehow I've been slow in learning to navigate around Misplaced Pages.

I hope you can remove my message from that nice page you have.

Howard Z. Howard E. Zimmerman 23:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talk • contribs)

No worries, I've moved it! It can take a little while to get used to navigating Misplaced Pages. I know a fair amount here - if you have questions I can answer, feel free to ask anytime. LadyofShalott 03:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for deleted article

I recently had the article Allie Brosh speedy deleted before I could respond to the tag. I spent quite a bit of time on it, and I'd hate to loose the work I put in. Would it be possible to get a copy of it? Thanks so much! Alataristarion (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Done User:Alataristarion/Allie Brosh -LadyofShalott 03:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I made you something...

Eric Litwin. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I just made the redirect James Dean (painter). Artist is better, I guess. There seems to be a bit of coverage on him, so go ahead and write it! His wife is an artist also; look at the last source I added to the article. Thanks for helping out! Oh, did you look at the YouTube clip? Cute! Drmies (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, that's great! I may have to try to work up something - or maybe we could collaborate! - on James Dean (artist). He's been painting Pete a long time among other works, esp. local scenes around these parts. LadyofShalott 04:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, Lady! But now I have to go to bed, with my textbook for class tomorrow as my companion. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Good night! I need to do the same thing myself soon. LadyofShalott 04:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No! Don't sleep with your textbooks! Drmies (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah, no, it wasn't a textbook that I took to bed with me - Dewey (book). OK, I've (only barely) started User:LadyofShalott/James Dean (artist) (just a few links at this point). I'll add as I can. Take a look at this picture. LadyofShalott 16:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, look at this one, too. LadyofShalott 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

I saw your concern over possible WP:SYNTH in Uyghur_guest_houses_suspected_of_ties_to_islamist_militancy.

If you can find the time I would be very grateful if you could explain that synth concern, more fully, here, or perhaps the article's talk page. I do my best to comply with all our policies, but I am only human, and I may have overlooked a lapse. If I really did lapse, and you can explain that lapse, I will do my best to make sure I don't make a similar lapse in future.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)