Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:31, 1 October 2006

Older stuff: /archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4 /archive5

Put new stuff at the bottom. Use this link if you wish.

Thank you and help please

Thank you for commenting that I need not leave Misplaced Pages, but this is what happened, and I am intimidated and frustrated:

I had truly planned to stop editing Misplaced Pages. Yet due to some kind words and encouragement from Wikipedians like you, I tried, timidly, to return.

This is what transpired: I always sign in, even when reading articles. I had been reading articles on the Riemann hypothesis and the zeta function, when I was alerted that there were messages on my talk page. There were several messages advising me not to stop editing and an offer to discuss the content of proposed new articles with other editors. Therefore, I decided to attempt to contribute again.

The response was that User: Chris53516 vandalized my discussion/talk page and sent me at least two messages (and I quote) that I was guilty of "dishonesty" (this was posted on a vandalized version of my discussion/talk page) and was a "liar" (posted on User: Chris53516's own page), simply because I had decided to contribute to Misplaced Pages again.

Moreover, I am not a "sockpuppet" nor a "sockpuppet master". I always sign in, and I always use the same user name. I do not at all appreciate this nomenclature on my user page; it is an insult, implying that I am using underhanded, sneaky means of editing via aliases. I do not do so. I share a computer and a network. Strangely, I have been accused of being the "sockpuppet" of people who have different IP addresses, whom I have never met. On Misplaced Pages, is it standard to be assumed guilty without proof? to be assumed guilty until proven innocent? to be assumed guilty without an attempt to be proven innocent?

Hence, it seems, that I am truly disliked on Misplaced Pages and that the way to settle disputes, for me at least, is to leave. If you think otherwise, look at what happened to my discussion/talk page, due to User: Chris53516 who was aided by User: Chan-Ho Suh in restoring my talk/discussion page. This is ironic since User: Chris53516 urges Wikipedians to "be nice". Hence, in my attempt to contribute to Misplaced Pages again, I have confirmation that it is indeed an unpleasant and frustrating experience, and ruled by those who have a different concept of "being nice".

However, I would like answers to my questions above, so I truly understand how Misplaced Pages operates.

To review and summarize, the questions I would like answered are these:

1. Should I not sign in when reading other articles, so that I do not see alerts that I have messages?

2. If it is acceptable for me to sign in when reading other articles, is it all right for me to re-join Misplaced Pages, even after I thought I would stop editing, after having been encouraged to do so by other Wikipedians?

3. If it is indeed acceptable for me to decide to edit again, am I really "dishonest" and a "liar" as per User: Chris53516?

4. Is it appropriate for Wikipedians such as User: Chris53516 and User: Chan-Ho Suh and others (anonymous) to vandalize my discussion/talk page by deleting favorable comments while adding their own verbiage including terms that, in my opinion, are insulting and, moreover, false?

5. Why am I being accused of "sockpuppetry" when it is not true, and cannot be proven simply because it is not true?

6. Why is the accusation of "sockpuppetry" displayed on my User page? I really do not appreciate this, especially since it is a false accusation.

7. What does "be nice" mean on Misplaced Pages, as User: Chris53516 recommends ? Does it include calling another Wikipedian "dishonest", someone who intends to "deceive", and a "liar" if that Wikipedian decides to return to Misplaced Pages and attempt to communicate with others via talk, or to edit an article?

8. Why had so many of my articles been deleted? So many of my edits reverted? Even when I supplied citations? (Some of the articles I started became quite lengthy, although they were intended to be concise, simply because of so many requests to establish importance of the subject, noteability, to provide more and more citations even after having supplied many, etc.)

9. If you do indeed answer my questions, and if I should respond to your answering me, shall I anticipate being called "liar", "dishonest", "sockpuppet" that I "deceive", etc (by other Wikipedians, of course, not by you!) Again, thank you.

But now you might have an idea why (a) I had decided to leave Misplaced Pages, and (b) was concerned about trying to re-join and edit again.

I suspect that this experience that I have had on Misplaced Pages has affected other Wikipedians, probably who are people with valuable information to contribute, but who have decided to stop creating articles or to edit because of similar experiences. This would lead to an incomplete and inconsistent encyclopedia, which is not what Misplaced Pages should be.

Sorry for the long message, but Misplaced Pages is an internet phenomenon, and these issues are important, to me and to others, including students in university, grade school, and high school.

Moreover, I had wanted to use my time to contribute actual content and learning more about the markup language: articles about topics in maths and stats, bios of persons, and other topics that interest me; i.e., spend my time on useful endeavors for Misplaced Pages, not being involved with disagreements nor wasting time on matters such as these.

Thank you again. MathStatWoman 09:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Argh. For one thing, wanting to know how wikipedia really operates is kind of like asking how the weather works. Even those who've been observing for a long time are still sometimes surprised by freak storms. If you're looking for justice, well, sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree. We do encyclopedia articles here, and justice isn't a required ingredient, so we don't worry about it much. However, letting editors get on with editing the encyclopedia without being harassed is something we're concerned with. I see someone else has already answeeed your specific questions while I'm still in rambling generalities. I'm sorry you'd have such a rough experience here so far. If someone leaves you a rude or harassing message, you may want to just remove it rather than responding. However, use caution- if you're seen as removing legitimate messages, people won't like that much. Not sure what else I can say right now, but I'll help out however I can. Friday (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

musings

hey friday

while blocked the past two days i read through your subpages. things like /admin etc. they are great!

i'm burning out on this project -- editing can be a lot of fun but in the recent past i've received so many hassles from editors following me around and admins interpreting policies liberally in order to block me. i also saw that i'm not the only one who's been on the receiving end of this. i've seen it all but its too long to go into here. i'm not sure if these are new trends or just something i haven't spent the time to look into before.

"mere editors" really have little recourse in this. filing arbitration proved exhausting for me in the past. it required a huge amount of diff hunting and discussion for what seemed to me was a pretty obvious case of an out-of-line editor. filing against an admin would, i assume, be much, much worse. admins seem to behave like inner-city police with their wall of silence.

a lot of your comments show that you've noticed the same happenings. in an ideal world i think you are right -- people would behave reasonably...but i am pessimistic that will happen. i have come to the conclusion that the only solution is to firm up wikis policies. we need to define what something like "disruption" is. when someone is blocked for a personal attack, the diff should be included. that a requirement for including evidence is controversial is evidence that it time for change; we've tried the "trust admins to do what is right". it has failed.

Justforasecond 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't think that trying to make the policies more specific would help, but I could be wrong. Policies describe what gets done more than they dictate what should be done. We cannot get by without human judgment. I see the problem (well, part of it) as trusting the wrong admins, and continuing to trust them even when they repeatedly demonstrate poor behavior. But you're exactly right- the culture of putting admins in a different class than "mere editors" is very wrong. I'd love it if the project could get by without such distinctions, but that may be unrealistic. Friday (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what would you think of some simple things like creating a template (or something more sophisticated) for submitting "incidents" and for filing blocks. I think a personal attack template that required a diff would be great. It would be very easy to for others to review. Six months down the line no one would wonder what caused the block. It could be developed further but this would be a first step in preventing illegitimate blocks. Justforasecond 02:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD oddity

Hey there,

I was voting on this AfD from today's log and when I submitted the vote, the whole nomination vanished from the log, although the AfD nom is still present and open. I don't know what happened. I didn't receive an edit conflict warning, nor did I notice anything unusual when I voted on the AfD. The AfD notice remains on the article as well. It's unusual, to put it mildly. Any ideas? Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about what happened, but instead of looking into that, I reviewed the Afd and closed it as a delete. Hope this helps, thanks for the note. Friday (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. :) Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Help for Undeletion

Sorry to bother you, Friday but I'm trying to find out the procedures for undeletion and it's not clear at all. The only thing I've found is a list of users willing to help with this issue (), and that includes you.

My issue is with a page I created (Non-oficial regions of Spain) that was deleted but doesn't even figure in the Deletion log list () - at least I haven't found it.

I created the page starting from Lists of informal regions and thinking that Spain needed one. Some have seen it as POV (apparently, nobody told me) but I think it was correct. Basically I listed the nationalities that go beyond official regions and Castile (can't say for sure because I can't read my own creation to check). Maybe I included others like La Mancha or the historical extension of Murcia.

In any case I find no space to discuss the deletion or appeal it. So that's why I'm asking you for help.

Anticipated thanks, --Sugaar 10:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted following Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Non-oficial regions of Spain. I don't see anything abnormal here, but sometimes mistakes do happen. You could take it up at deletion review if you wanted, but that's mostly for if you want to argue with how/why it was deleted. Maybe Talk:Spain is a good place for discussion of whether whether it's good to split out non-official regions? Friday (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting an one month community ban for Mccready on all pseudoscience articles

I'm suggesting a one month community ban of Mccready from all pseudoscience articles. He could edit the talk pages but not the article. Please make your thoughts known on AN/I. FloNight 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Trio Mocoto

I've temporarily moved it to User:Guaka/Trio Mocoto. If you expand it, feel free to move it back. I'm just kind of tired of people (i.e., User:Guaka) insisting that their article be kept and yet refusing to do the work to bring it up to speed. Thanks for jumping in. NawlinWiki 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No biggie, no problem. I usually check AMG before speedying bands- if they have a bio there, it's a good indicator they've gotten real media coverage. Friday (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply from User talk:Sdr

You wrote:

The edit you made here was reverted as it removed some newer stuff from the talk page. Looks like the thread you were trying to reply to was already archived. Not sure why people like to archive so agressively, but people do it. If you have a comment to make, you may wish to consider posting it again under a new heading. Friday (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. I'll do that, assuming I can find the original text again. Sdr 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The text of what you wrote? Just use the "my contributions" link in at upper right corner of the screen, and find the edit in question. Friday (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry, I figured that out after I bothered to open the link ;) Thanks again. Sdr 20:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Find something better to do

Find something better to do than wikistalking admins you disagree with and questioning their every move. I've already warned you about this before, but you've just been doing more of the same. It's certainly not productive. --Cyde Weys 04:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What every move? I disagree with you on one thing in particular- you were quick on the block button there. You escalated the dispute needlessly and then blocked the person you were in a dispute with, and such actions are harmful to the project. Friday (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that it's a troll. So blocking it is not only not harmful to the project, it's a good thing. --Cyde Weys 05:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? I read User_talk:Cyde#Robotic_deletions and to me it looks like you let annoyance get the better of you. Are you sure this might not be coloring your perception here? Friday (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What it looks like here is your prior disagreements with admins getting the better of you. You never miss an opportunity to question or revert any admin action of a certain subset of admins you seem to have grudges with. I bet you login multiple times a day just to check our logs and see if there's something you can complain about. Trust me, it's not going unnoticed. And as for this account in question; how is it anything but a troll account? That's all it's been used for. If it was a valid user they wouldn't need to use a non-established "alternate" account to ask me a simple bot question. This is a sock account of a banned user, plain and simple, and it's really sad that you let your disagreements with me cloud your judgement so much that you would unblock a troll account just to try to get one over on me. --Cyde Weys 05:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this isn't actually about you. I just saw a block that I couldn't find a good reason for, that's all. Friday (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a bit more. First off, Cyde, whatever I have done to offend you in the past, I apologize. It's not my intent to offend other editors. Second, I'm fairly amazed at your attitude here. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you launched into a tirade against me as an editor, complete with veiled threats about me being watched by some unknown watchers. Third, you have yet to demonstrate where and how this user was trolling, despite my asking. You've just asserted that it's obvious. Is this really how you treat other editors? Maybe you need a break or something, I don't know, but you have to find a way to change the way you interact with other editors. Friday (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Stalking is as stalking does. BTW I always watch this page. Just for the hell of it. Hamster Sandwich 21:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Drama aside

Thanks for the unblock. (Except that that scans poorly. "Thanks for lifting the block," does that sound better?) - CygnetSaIad 06:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance in removing CSD

Once again I have, I believe, someone that knows nothing about a subject in question marking an article for CSD. Any help you can provide in removing it would be apprciated.

DMP Digital Music Products

Thank you. Tvccs 18:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply - If you can remove same labels from the User Talk page at DMP Digital Music Products, I would also be much obliged - thank you. Tvccs 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: about the case..

Hey, thanks for taking a look at my case. You mentioned that "Any editor can and should make their opinions heard, in project space", but are you really saying that editors should change guideline to reflect their views? Just curious, thanks for the input. Fresheneesz 05:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a tricky one. Guidelines and policies are a slippery thing here. Many editors assert (and I'm usually inclined to agree with them) that the true policies are what actually happens, not what's written on a particular page somewhere. Of course, this can go both ways- some editors have an almost religious belief that whatever happens is consensus, by definition, and that's usually wrong too. Sorry for the probably useless generalities here- I'll have an more specific opinion relevant to the case at hand in time. (Disclaimer: I am in no way involved in arbitration- I'm just giving you one editor's opinion.) Friday (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome to add your opinion or comments at the arbitration page. I would really appreciate it. Fresheneesz 05:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles