Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 23 February 2017

Hi Darouet, welcome to Misplaced Pages! -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Failure to attribute statements in article

In October Darouet stated: I've been working to properly attribute statements made about López Rivera's criminal activities in the article: many statements and assertions that derive from police or prosecutors have not been attributed to them, and have instead been presented as simple facts...A good, simple example is this: The New York Times wrote that "Mr. Lopez-Rivera was apprehended a few months ago, when, the authorities said, he made an illegal turn after running a stop sign in Glenview, a Chicago suburb, then gave the police a phony Oregon driver's license." After a POV butchery by editors here, this was translated to "It was a few years later that López Rivera was fortuitously apprehended, when he made an illegal turn after running a stop sign in a Chicago suburb, then gave the police a phony Oregon driver's license."

So, attribution is dropped, and the event is described as "fortuitous" (not in the source).

If you see other mistakes like this please correct them. -Darouet (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The example above is strange: OLR was not arrested because he was under surveillance or because he was committing a crime, but just because he made an illegal right turn. That happened by chance, not by design, certainly not by any design of the authorities that prosecuted him. That is the definition of fortuitous. Sorry if I was being bold in relaying facts by adding this explicit fact. Timothy McVeigh was fortuitously stopped because of a bad tail light. I suspect the editor may be confusing the words fortuitously and fortunately. The latter would be POV, the former is not, specifically in reference to these facts.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rococo1700: thanks for note. Sorry I don't have more time at the moment, but I looked it up in the OED, and you're right: I assumed "fortuitous" implied a positive or beneficial event, when it does not. The only correction required is that the fact requires attribution to the police. WP:TROUT. -Darouet (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

House, not Senate

If you click on Devin Nunes, you will see he is not a Senator.

On the other hand, the real Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr has said he will work with Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain to investigate the intelligence operation. Sagecandor (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. -Darouet (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem, just be a little more careful please. Sagecandor (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In general the article could use more attribution of claims or statements, especially given the gravity of the allegations. -Darouet (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

We should avoid Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Sagecandor (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, "accusations," per your NPR source. Darouet (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS:ACCUSED is also not the most neutral language to use. Sagecandor (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I'm just quoting NPR verbatim. -Darouet (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing merge tag mid discussion by community

Please don't change merge tags mid discussion by community, as you did here: .

There is no consensus to do this, and it is disruptive in the middle of the ongoing discussion.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: That is the proposal on the talk page. Referring people to the discussion with a different proposal is misleading. Why did you flip the proposal at the top of the articles? -Darouet (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That is NOT the original proposal. Several editors have also said the reverse is a no-go. Sagecandor (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I totally misread the proposal. I think it would be even worse to merge the material into Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election, given the egregious POVTITLE violation. -Darouet (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving articles in mid-discussion

Please don't rename an article while the article's title is being discussed. I see you did this with 2016 United States election interference by Russia, which is still n mid-discusssion at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia#Requested move 13 December 2016. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: Thanks for your note. The page has endless problems and the title is the first one, but it was a mistake for me to just change it. -Darouet (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding new info to the intro at 2016 United States election interference by Russia

Can we please avoid adding new info to the intro at 2016 United States election interference by Russia, and instead add new information not previously in the article first to the article body text, and then summarize back in the intro ?

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Look at my edit and talk page post. The source was cherry-picked. Don't partially quote from sources in a way that misrepresents them. -Darouet (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but can you also agree to above ? Sagecandor (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

In general I agree, but if there is an egregious misrepresentation of a source, I'll fix it. I'll of course refrain from violating policy while doing so. Sagecandor can you please check to make sure there aren't other problems of this kind? I shouldn't be the only one doing so, and you're active enough I think you should be curating the lead carefully. It's important that the lead accurately reflect sources. -Darouet (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. I just also don't want the intro to become a quotefarm, from any perspective. I want it to be nice and concise. Sagecandor (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: understood. I quoted instead of paraphrasing out of defensiveness, assuming my effort to accurately reflect the source would be reverted. I appreciate your supporting an accurate paraphrase. -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, but can you also in the future first add that kind of new additions and new sources first to the article body? Sagecandor (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought we covered that above. -Darouet (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Sagecandor (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andy Murray

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Murray. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thank you @Iryna Harpy: that is very kind! I wish you a happy winter solstice as well :) Cheers! -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

We had summer solstice last Wednesday. The world is upside-down here in Orstraylia! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Oooh... and congrats! When are we officially obliged to start calling you Doctor? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna :) You will never be obliged, but as of the 19th of this month, I'm allowed to accept that designation! Not in a medical emergency, of course... -Darouet (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll bear in mind that it's DrD as of the 19th... and not to call you the next time I tweak my back. Mind you, I doubt that you'd be any worse than other doctor I've seen about it. The only difference seems to be that you couldn't legally write out a script for painkillers. Pity! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

DS Violation

You have violated DS at "Russian Interference" by reinstating content that I challenged by reversion. I welcome your views on this and we can discuss this among ourselves and other editors on talk, but you must not violate the DS restriction that is described in the template at the top of the talk page. Please undo your reinsertion of the content I disputed and we can work through any disagreement on talk. SPECIFICO talk 12:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey @SPECIFICO:: that doesn't strike me as a DS reversion: I haven't edited the SZ content previously, and kept some of the content you added (though it seems highly dubious to me), while modifying portions of it. I understand that, in general, the SZ topic is contested. But can you explain to me why you're allowed to edit it (e.g. why this edit is OK) but why I can't (e.g. why this edit is a violation)? The issue was just as contested when you edited as when I did. If you can explain this I'll gladly self-revert. -Darouet (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm tied up in meetings today and can't respond. Ask a friendly Admin if you don't believe me. I'm not going to have time to report you today, but your action, which as I said on talk, I presume to be inadvertent, is a clear violation and is unacceptable. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to be bullied so that you think you can edit the article, but I can't. Nevertheless, I'll see if an admin wants to comment. -Darouet (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, no bullying intended. I assume it was an error. I also see that you have a relatively short edit history here. I replied further on my talk page. SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Upshot? SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I am traveling and without (easy, affordable) Internet. I did go back through the edit history earlier and see that my edit introduced text almost identical to text you also added sometime between the 2nd and 4th. I still maintain I have not reinstated text you removed by reversion. I made a post at Bishonen's talk page and they never replied. -Darouet (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

7th Floor Group

Why did you accuse me of being a sockpuppet? Additionally, if you can clear it up for me, two of the reasons for deletion of the article are completely false reasons, "Unwarranted promotion of fringe" and "Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper". The source email is https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-04-of-05/view page 56, first full paragraph, and is unclassified/declassified, and has NOTHING to do with Wikileaks, and it has NOTHING to do with the "fringe" - it appears to be written by an FBI investigator (I am not sufficiently familiar with FBI documents to understand what is probably behind redactions).

The notability criticism seems correct.

I expect Misplaced Pages to become irrelevant if it fails to deal with the problem of "notability" effectively meaning "the main topic of enough mainstream articles". The reason is that the mainstream media is expected to undergo continued loss of staff, expanding use of secret sources (which, obviously, makes them, in some cases, less reliable than Wikileaks, since Wikileaks at times can provide cryptographic verification). It's pretty trivial to disprove the criteria of "notability" by simply perusing newspapers from the 70s. Very little is notable, though many papers had unique articles on the same topics. In other words, too much notability and there will be no importance to Misplaced Pages, though I must say that seems the very goal of not a few.

I'm not asking or expecting Misplaced Pages to change. I'm simply curious about those items: the lies about the source and the quality of the article (why not use Google?), and then, of course, the accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SevenTowers (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@SevenTowers: Can you please send me the diff of my accusation? I have no recollection of what you're writing about. Thank you, Darouet (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. It was a while ago. Here's the conversation (maybe I don't have email updates turned on or something, so I didn't notice): https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/7th_Floor_Group SevenTowers (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Viral Acharya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Viral Acharya. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to figure out--

What text of mine do you think I am repeatedly editing into the article at Russian Interference? I don't edit that one very much. If you have links of me reinserting the same stuff, I'd like to see how I erred? Thx. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Will reply shortly - have a meeting. I read the case you asked me to. It's my impression we'll need mediation to arrive at consensus and healthier editing environment. -Darouet (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There can't be mediation when we are infested with ideologues, meatpuppets and socks. You take everything from an adverserial stance rather than collegial. Just for example, when I tell folks that they've violated DS -- most rational collaborators would check and realize that they hadn't understood and they'd correct their error. That's not what we see from editors such as yourself who act as if they're in a tug of war or worse. I have no opinions about politics or any of the personalities. I do care about facts and neutral reporting, which is what drew me to some of these articles. At any rate, thanks for your interim reply and I look forward to seeing what diffs you think justify your attacks on me. I hope you understand that removing text can never be undoing a revert without consensus, because text must first be inserted. The first revert that challenges article text is -- as explained on many policy pages and guidelines -- normal editing. The reinsertion is what violates DS. (As I tried to explain to you and you never acknowledged.) Now rational collaborative editors would be expected to study these policy, guideline, and sanction matters to become even better collaborators. In the absence of that, we do occasionally see some real jerks who have to be taken to Arbcom or AE to free the community of their disruption. That's not a threat, just the way we keep things humming along here. Anyway I look forward to your diffs when you have time. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I've replied on the article talk. I'm not trying to give you a hard time and am certainly not trying to attack you. My view is that repeatedly invoking DS/AE when simultaneously contesting content strikes others as hypocritical, and even an effort to bully others from editing. I understand if that is not your intention. Part of the reason it's aggravating is that you need to demonstrate with diffs that the version you're reverting to is some kind of stable or consensus version. If you remove material that was not recently added, or to a version that has been contested for a long time (which given the volume of edits on this topic could be a week), it is not clear that you are not the one who's technically violating DS.

More broadly speaking, I think you may not realize how combative you come across on this topic. I don't mean that as an insult. Repeated editing in this area tends to darken the lenses of engaged editors because, as TJW pointed out, the environment is so toxic, it affects us too. I am also guilty of this.

The reason I think that DR-mediation is ideal is that it can allow heavily involved editors to work with a neutral party to flesh out content and policy. I've had good experience with it in the past and it's easy to see, in that context, if someone (like a meatpuppet or sock) is not editing in good faith. I'll propose it on the talk page because we have enough experienced editors, it should work - and I think it would improve the whole tone of discussion there. That would be good for all of us. -Darouet (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your user page says that you're a scientist, so I am assuming that's true and giving you more attention than I would give to the other disruptive ideologues, many of whom are now blocked or banned for their stupid and obstinate advocacy. I'm doing that in the hope you are dedicated to truth and understanding, which would place you head and shoulders above many of those now departed editors. You're coming off like the Trump spokesperson who recently offered "alternative facts" on Meet the Press TV show in the States. You have misunderstood the letter and intent of the DS. I'm only saying that because in my judgment you, unlike most of the others on that article, actually care to pursue what's true and logical. Ironically, the editors who are increasingly vocal at the Russia article were inspired by an editor who got a swift TBAN for his personal refusal to accept the core WP policy concerning NPOV and mainstream sources. You'd think they would have reflected as to what fueled his spectacular self-immolation. You, being logical, realize that it's unacceptable to deny the validity of mainstream sources and DUE weight on a site where those are core principles. It's also pretty much black and white when a DS warning says "don't reinsert disputed content" and then you do it, well... What do you expect, that the community will just ignore the DS that was enacted only after years of disruption by political ideologues such as the clueless banned and blocked? I am not here to harangue you. I warned one of your fellow editors on the Russia thing to cut out his nonsense before he got banned. I told him nobody wanted to see him banned. He ignored me. Do as you choose. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to wrap this up: You do still need to undo your edit that reinstated text deleted by @Volunteer Marek: -- not by me as you falsely claimed in your edit comment -- because your edit was a bright-line violation of the Discretionary Sanctions and is block-worthy on its face. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've deleted the text I had re-inserted that, based on my investigation of the article's editing history, had been challenged. To re-instate VM's edit would be to reinforce his violation of the DS you have repeatedly invoked. I won't do that. I'm also asking that you to defend your removal of Carr and the Harper's Magazine source. While it's true you reverted the addition of this text, you have not yet provided a rationale for its removal. Stating your reasons will help promote discussion on the talk page and will improve the atmosphere there. You're not responsible alone: others (like myself) will need to participate in a content-based discussion to move the article forward and make editing a productive, even pleasurable experience.

I have clashed with TheTimesAreAChanging in the past, but in this case, I did not agree with their TBAN because I found their behavior exactly commensurate with yours. I wish I'd seen that discussion when it happened because the result was unjust. It's not that their editing behavior was ideal. Rather, calling someone out for poor behavior requires clean hands.

Also, I don't like disclosing my personal opinions, but just to be clear: I hate literally everything about Trump as a president, as a person, and as a manifestation of all that is wrong with the United States. But the world is a lot bigger than Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin. And that's a good thing. -Darouet (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

If you think there's any similarity between my policy-based civil editing and that banned editor's behavior, you have not paid close enough attention. But I think you might in the future You just haven't yet. Incidentally, I have never seen VM violate policy or DS. He's too disciplined and knowledgeable to waste his time on disrupting the Project that way. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Specifico what is the point of these comments? Provide diffs, talk about content, or suggest some avenue for resolving content disputes. You write, "you have not paid close enough attention. But I think you might in the future You just haven't yet." What am I supposed to take away from all this? -Darouet (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm done here. My words are clear and they're available for your reference. It's your choice. Happy editing. SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, fine. Stop threatening other editors, and don't make silly, passive aggressive comments on my talk page. -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of Talk Pages

You seem to be confusing statements you or I made on this personal page with statements made on the article talk page. There should be no personal remarks, let alone attacks, on article talk pages. I don't recall having mentioned your DS violations in that article talk page thread about "marginal commentary" and you should not have made your last two comments there. Please review talk page policies if you don't understand this point. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have only ever seen hatting used in very specific circumstances: in AE discussions where a contribution is off topic, or against obvious trolls. It's very offensive to hat my comments, especially since they're in response to your claim that my edits violate DS.

In this talk page comment you state that reverting VM (as I did) amounts to a DS violation. You've brought the discussion to my talk page and made the same explicit statement here, and then again on the article talk page defended your interpretation of DS violations. For you to bring this accusation both here and on article talk, but then hat my reply to you on the article talk, is again offensive. Do not do that. -Darouet (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Swiss UMEF University

Could you please provide the link where the UN Global Compact refers to UMEF as "Delisted... Expelled due to failure to communicate progress"? I've already added a "verification failed" tag to the Global Contact claim since I can find no evidence that it is part of Global Contacts, but I never found the delisting info either. If this article survives your PROD (without a miraculous appearance of reliable sources) I will take it to AFD if you don't. Meters (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: agree completely. If you go to ref 15, https://www.unglobalcompact.org/, and search for "Swiss UMEF," you get one hit. Clicking on it takes you here: "Global Compact Status: Delisted. Reason for Delisting: Expelled due to failure to communicate progress." It shows they were expelled in October 2016. -Darouet (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know how I managed to mess that search up the first time. Meters (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries Meters. None of those "references" are conventional or concern the university. -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I have yet to find a reliable one that actually says anything useful about the school. I'm glad Bizetshine mentioned this at the Teahouse. Meters (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom Enforcement

Hello. Just a bit of unsolicited advice: evidence-based AE is not ANI (which is a free-for-all of back-scratching and spin.) At AE, your subjective endorsement of Thucydides is apt to be discarded, and if you'll have a gander at his talk page over the past 6 weeks, you'll see that it tells quite a different tale to anyone who fact-checks your view. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey @SPECIFICO: I had already read Thucydides411's talk page, where discussion has certainly not been so friendly. While it's true the tenor there has been abysmal, my impression has been that Thucydides411 was defending themselves against accusations and very aggressive comments. On one's own talk page, I think it is reasonable for someone to defend themselves. I have seen this in many contexts and never held it against others - even when I was upset about their editing behavior and tone elsewhere - when they were in their own space.

I don't have time right now to link a lot of Talk comments from the page we've been editing together. But you'll notice my comment did use diffs and reference, cite, and link to policy. Furthermore, Sandstein appears to have agreed with those policy comments.

I have to go now but I'm going to make one suggestion. I mean it sincerely and in a friendly way. I think you should be more circumspect in comments on the talk pages of other editors. I have a feeling that, if you proceeded exactly as you do in every other regard, people who disagreed with you would be still be more friendly towards you. Sorry I can't explain more now, and thanks for your note. -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't talking about Thucydides' tone, which is unremarkable. I was talking about his obstinate refusal to learn and observe WP site policy. Actually, for my part, I go to user talk pages because policy tells us not to clutter article talk with personal remarks or anything except content and article improvement. It's obvious that many diverse editors see the problems with Thucydides' behavior. I suspect that many editors are eager kids still working through childhood authority issues and they seem to think that community policies and guidelines are personal restrictions rather than a framework for freedom. A lot like Trump attacking the court of appeals come to think of it :). Also, I think that several editors on these politics articles are making a false inference that their behavior is ok because they haven't been blocked yet. Witness TTAAC who came crashing to earth or below, sockpuppetry and all. Induction is a complicated process. The most accurate assessment would be not that their conduct is OK but rather the more probable explanation that normal folks don't have enough interest, patience, or time, to formulate AE complaints that would get them blocked or banned. And note, I have never launched such a complaint and I'm not likely to invest that amount of attention in anonymous characters on the internet. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You've falsely disparaged me at AE by omitting to state that the removal of the Clapper smear at diff relates to the BLP violation. At this stage, I'll assume that this omission was not intentional per AGF. Please remove this from your list or make clear this was a BLP edit not a violation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I am amazed nobody presented these diffs previously. I will look at the sequence stack in a moment and see if what you're saying makes sense. I am not a priori opposed to mentioning it in the sequence. However I have also linked all the diffs, and they can be read by admins interested.-Darouet (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have included a note in the diff stack that you made BLP claims. I think they were spurious, but I don't believe you knew them to be so. I was away for a few days. Have you made a post at WP:BLPN yet? -Darouet (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The majority of editors endorsed the need to remove this BLP violation. It's not spurious, it's disputed. I hope you didn't use the word "spurious" which itself would be casting aspersions. Please have a look at WP:ASPERSION - I do appreciate your response, however and please know that I consider you a collaborative, if sometimes partisan, editor on WP. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I checked the AE thanks for the note about BLP, although "claim" is a POV word and "cite" is a more neutral word in English. But you add the (snarky sounding) comment "still no comment on talk. False. Comment giving rationale in initial edit summary and then comment on talk that same day 11 Feb in which I pointed out that the text I removed did not refer to the alleged misrepresentation as an opinion -- which was clearly a BLP violation and had already been amply discussed by others. The reason for my short comment was that the issue had already been put on the table and I had nothing lengthier to add that would have convinced the edit-warriors to stand back. Please get your "no comment on talk" bit off the AE. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: the timing of the edits to article/talk as I've presented them () appears correct - I checked these after your complaint here - and I consider the talk comment and (absence of) BLPN posts relevant to any evaluation of the legitimacy of the BLP concern. When I have a legitimate BLP concern I always run to WP:BLPN immediately because editors there take the issue very seriously (I do too), and I know they'll help me if I'm correct. I agree with Guy that in this case, there was not a legitimate BLP concern. I further believe this is why nobody ever took the issue to BLPN. -Darouet (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

How dare you? Shame. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? I can't tell if you're joking or not, but you usually don't come to my talk page with humor. -Darouet (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You're free to jump to BLPN immediately. That doesn't mean others must do it, and the individual choice of an editor as to whether or when it's needed has nothing to do with the underlying merits. Any editor can take it to BLPN. Generally, it's best to give the talk page a chance and since there was active discussion there, BLPN would not have added anything until the views were laid out and considered. What is outrageous -- and I mean really IMO a horrendous and mindless personal attack I.M.O. -- is for you to insinuate that because I didn't behave according to the script you have in your mind that my good faith and the veracity or correctness of my concern is in doubt. And that, in plain English, is what I mean by "How dare you?" And if that's not clear enough for you, you can ask others to check what it means. I'm done with this thread. Shame on you. (in my opinon) SPECIFICO talk 01:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Well I accept your earnestness that you really felt it was a BLP vio, and am sorry for offending you. I was not only referring to you, above, when I stated that someone claiming a BLP vio should go to BLPN (if not you, then one of the others claiming the same). I had considered going to BLPN and may still, though these AE cases have occupied so much free time, it's been impossible so far. -Darouet (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

When you're in a hole, stop digging. Each post of yours only demonstrates to me that you do not understand the issues, the editing policies, or the behavioral norms here. Any of the Clapper-bashing editors could have taken this to BLPN at any time. But for the twentieth time, nothing gives any of them the right to edit war. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That goes both ways, SPECIFICO. -Darouet (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I find it highly offensive and outright misogynist that you call me "unappealing" and it goes without saying I do not think you would use that language about a male editor or even a woman closer to your own age. This is shameful. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)