User talk:NE Ent - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE Ent (talk | contribs) at 18:35, 18 January 2015 (→Advice, please: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:35, 18 January 2015 by NE Ent (talk | contribs) (→Advice, please: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Last word: NE Ent (talk).

Seriously?

??? --AmaryllisGardener 02:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's far more respectful to a prospective article creator to give them a straight up "this article is good enough to stay," or "sorry it doesn't make the grade" deletion than subjecting them to the bureaucratic monstrosity of AFC. NE Ent 02:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but you have another question to answer now. --AmaryllisGardener 20:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Statue of limitation

That's the one! Perhaps we should use a smaller version as the official logo of WP:CESSPIT? NE Ent 12:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Doubly so

In light of this as a result of this , it would seem I am damned if I do as well as damned if I don't. Of course, there was nothing snide in what I said. My comments were directed only at you and quite sincere. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If a may offer a bit of advice, at this point it would be best to ignore the personal comments on both the article talk and ANI. In fact, I wouldn't contribute at all to the thread unless a new contributor asks you a specific question. NE Ent 03:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent advice. Glad to say that was already my plan. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing, though. Core has just told a whopper of a lie at the AN/I thread. "We still have WV opposing the passage concerning Myerson's experiences with anti-Semitism, partly because we don't know that the "No Jews" signs she saw were directed at her! I'm serious." That's patently untrue. That issue was dealt with days ago when I rewrote the poorly written content regarding "No Jews" signs, expanded it to be more specific, and added a relevant reference (which was missing previously). These types of claims from my detractors at the thread that have been consistent misrepresentations or just plain untrue are being left unchallenged. I won't respond to the comment because, frankly, I've seen baiting happening with this all day. But it does rankle me that they are getting away with complete falsehoods that continue to drag my name and reputation in the mud. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion acknowleged NE Ent 02:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have brought this on yourself. You edit war. You ignore of the sources that other editors provide. And you ignore what other editors say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC) This is the discussion. Where is the resolution? There was none. Your initial post was preposterous, and every single piddling or erroneous point you have pushed on that talk page has required exhausting discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC) The resolution was with this edit . As the content was written previously, there was no context and no reference to provide context. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC) It wasn't conjured up out of thin air; it was reliably sourced, but you didn't care. You didn't add that material until after you wasted people's time, coming to the talk page with a completely off-the-wall post questioning whether the "No Jews" signs were aimed specifically at Myerson. That was just trolling, pure and simple, and disruptive. If you don't want people to react to your disruptions, don't disrupt. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Only one of the sources mentioned the "No Jews" signs and it did not give any context. The NPR source says, "While touring the country after winning the crown, she encountered "No Jews" signs...". That was it. The content without context before I worked on it read, "Myerson encountered "No Jews" signs when touring the country as Miss America". No context was precisely my point when I opened discussion on the content. Nothing was resolved with the discussion, so I took care of it myself. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC) There was nothing to resolve. You didn't want that passage in there. You attacked it by raising inane questions, though I'll admit that raising inane questions is better than raising none at all, and edit-warring over something and then posting a vague note on the talk page as you did at . Your pattern, in that discussion and in the one just completed, has been to take an absolutist position and then drag editors into immense, time-wasting discussions to deal with your unreasonableness and obstinacy, failure to read and understand reliable sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC) If I didn't want the passage in there, I wouldn't have taken the time to look for a better source along with content to expand the passage and I wouldn't have said at the talk page, "The content deserves expansion and clarification". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC) NPR is not the only source: . (and no doubt there are more) It is that kind of incompetence and ignorance of the topic and readiness on your part, WV, to make accusations, and demands, that places you in the position you are in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC) If that source had been attached to the "No Jews" content to support it AND give context, then I wouldn't have needed to look for more. When I asked the question at the talk page, that source was not pointed to. I asked the question because there was no source attached to the newly placed content to give context. In response to my query on the article talk page I was told, "There is no need whatsoever to state exactly where the signs appeared, who put them up, or what grade of nail was used to hammer them into place" and "more details will be added as they become available". But now I'm being told the source was already in the article, and others as well, that gave context. I'm seeing mixed and conflicting messages here. No matter. It was stated that the "No Jews" content issue had never been resolved, and I've shown that it was. I see no reason for this discussion to continue here, on the talk page of another editor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC) You need to hear this. It appears to go back to your "planned ignorance" approach to editing this topic, as set forth in your first talk page post. Read the sources first and in depth before you edit-spree and demand and accuse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC) I have no idea what you mean by "planned ignorance approach" other than you are accusing me of playing dumb, which I wasn't and would never do. I will say that your advice to read sources first is good advice and I will do my best to remember to do so every time from here on out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Not "playing" - at least, this does not feel like play to the rest of us - it is "editing" dumb, if that gets through to you any better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC) WV, you are playing dumb. There were two sources at the end of the "no Jews" sentence at the time you posted your note on the talk page, and the second one, from the encyclopedia, provided ample context. Sure there can be more, there always is. As for your intent to remove the material, it was plain. You were challenging inclusion, and in a manner that strained WP:AGF to the breaking point. Then at the end, after raising absurd questions as to whether the "KKK" was involved and whether the signs were aimed at Myerson alone - issues that would have been resolved if you had read the existing sources' - finally you made believe that you were just trying to make the material better and just wanted to improve it. But if you genuinely wanted to improve it, you could have and would done just that without wasting everybody's time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC) No, there weren't two sources at the end of the No Jews sentence. Look again. I genuinely wanted to improve it, and did. I went to the talk page because that's what we're supposed to do. I was shot down every time I did it. Why are you continuing this discussion here? Why are you continuing to misstate the chain of events? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC) OK, but they were in the same paragraph, at the end of the following sentence. They were right there. Let's go through this slowly. Your post to the talk page titled "No Jews" was date=stamped 17:32, 7 January 2015. This version of the article, which I just linked to, is dated 17:28, 7 January 2015. It was on your screen when you posted that rubbish. Take a look at the sentence after the one with "No Jews" in it. There are two footnotes, 15 and 9. Fifteen is the NPR article. Nine is the encyclopedia article. Are you seriously suggesting you didn't notice these two sources, that they slipped past your line of vision? Coretheapple (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC) You keep backtracking and changing your story. You continue to make rude comments to and about me. Your interactions with me have never been civil. I'm finished trying to talk to ypu regarding this cornucopia of accusations and misstatements regarding me and my editing and my alleged motivations. Frankly, I'm tired of answering editors who just keep answering with more accusations and perceived dirt to use against me. Further, it's not right to keep clogging up this user talk page. For now, I'm done trying to communicate with you, ASW, and anyone else whose only interest is in piling on and seeing me blocked, sanctioned. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Uh, you commenced this discussion by attacking me on a third party's talk page. "Changing your story" is funny coming from you, because that is your primary tactic. I'd still like to know how you can claim you didn't see sources that were in the same paragraph. I guess the answer is "Either I did and ignored them, or I didn't, but that's the way I roll." Coretheapple (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion acknowleged NE Ent 02:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You have brought this on yourself. You edit war. You ignore of the sources that other editors provide. And you ignore what other editors say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the discussion. Where is the resolution? There was none. Your initial post was preposterous, and every single piddling or erroneous point you have pushed on that talk page has required exhausting discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The resolution was with this edit . As the content was written previously, there was no context and no reference to provide context. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't conjured up out of thin air; it was reliably sourced, but you didn't care. You didn't add that material until after you wasted people's time, coming to the talk page with a completely off-the-wall post questioning whether the "No Jews" signs were aimed specifically at Myerson. That was just trolling, pure and simple, and disruptive. If you don't want people to react to your disruptions, don't disrupt. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Only one of the sources mentioned the "No Jews" signs and it did not give any context. The NPR source says, "While touring the country after winning the crown, she encountered "No Jews" signs...". That was it. The content without context before I worked on it read, "Myerson encountered "No Jews" signs when touring the country as Miss America". No context was precisely my point when I opened discussion on the content. Nothing was resolved with the discussion, so I took care of it myself. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing to resolve. You didn't want that passage in there. You attacked it by raising inane questions, though I'll admit that raising inane questions is better than raising none at all, and edit-warring over something and then posting a vague note on the talk page as you did at . Your pattern, in that discussion and in the one just completed, has been to take an absolutist position and then drag editors into immense, time-wasting discussions to deal with your unreasonableness and obstinacy, failure to read and understand reliable sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If I didn't want the passage in there, I wouldn't have taken the time to look for a better source along with content to expand the passage and I wouldn't have said at the talk page, "The content deserves expansion and clarification". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

NPR is not the only source: . (and no doubt there are more) It is that kind of incompetence and ignorance of the topic and readiness on your part, WV, to make accusations, and demands, that places you in the position you are in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If that source had been attached to the "No Jews" content to support it AND give context, then I wouldn't have needed to look for more. When I asked the question at the talk page, that source was not pointed to. I asked the question because there was no source attached to the newly placed content to give context. In response to my query on the article talk page I was told, "There is no need whatsoever to state exactly where the signs appeared, who put them up, or what grade of nail was used to hammer them into place" and "more details will be added as they become available". But now I'm being told the source was already in the article, and others as well, that gave context. I'm seeing mixed and conflicting messages here. No matter. It was stated that the "No Jews" content issue had never been resolved, and I've shown that it was. I see no reason for this discussion to continue here, on the talk page of another editor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to hear this. It appears to go back to your "planned ignorance" approach to editing this topic, as set forth in your first talk page post. Read the sources first and in depth before you edit-spree and demand and accuse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "planned ignorance approach" other than you are accusing me of playing dumb, which I wasn't and would never do. I will say that your advice to read sources first is good advice and I will do my best to remember to do so every time from here on out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Not "playing" - at least, this does not feel like play to the rest of us - it is "editing" dumb, if that gets through to you any better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WV, you are playing dumb. There were two sources at the end of the "no Jews" sentence at the time you posted your note on the talk page, and the second one, from the encyclopedia, provided ample context. Sure there can be more, there always is. As for your intent to remove the material, it was plain. You were challenging inclusion, and in a manner that strained WP:AGF to the breaking point. Then at the end, after raising absurd questions as to whether the "KKK" was involved and whether the signs were aimed at Myerson alone - issues that would have been resolved if you had read the existing sources' - finally you made believe that you were just trying to make the material better and just wanted to improve it. But if you genuinely wanted to improve it, you could have and would done just that without wasting everybody's time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there weren't two sources at the end of the No Jews sentence. Look again. I genuinely wanted to improve it, and did. I went to the talk page because that's what we're supposed to do. I was shot down every time I did it. Why are you continuing this discussion here? Why are you continuing to misstate the chain of events? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, but they were in the same paragraph, at the end of the following sentence. They were right there. Let's go through this slowly. Your post to the talk page titled "No Jews" was date=stamped 17:32, 7 January 2015. This version of the article, which I just linked to, is dated 17:28, 7 January 2015. It was on your screen when you posted that rubbish. Take a look at the sentence after the one with "No Jews" in it. There are two footnotes, 15 and 9. Fifteen is the NPR article. Nine is the encyclopedia article. Are you seriously suggesting you didn't notice these two sources, that they slipped past your line of vision? Coretheapple (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep backtracking and changing your story. You continue to make rude comments to and about me. Your interactions with me have never been civil. I'm finished trying to talk to ypu regarding this cornucopia of accusations and misstatements regarding me and my editing and my alleged motivations. Frankly, I'm tired of answering editors who just keep answering with more accusations and perceived dirt to use against me. Further, it's not right to keep clogging up this user talk page. For now, I'm done trying to communicate with you, ASW, and anyone else whose only interest is in piling on and seeing me blocked, sanctioned. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, you commenced this discussion by attacking me on a third party's talk page. "Changing your story" is funny coming from you, because that is your primary tactic. I'd still like to know how you can claim you didn't see sources that were in the same paragraph. I guess the answer is "Either I did and ignored them, or I didn't, but that's the way I roll." Coretheapple (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A couple things: first of all, be very reluctant to use "lie" to describe another editors' statement. Per Wiktionary lie is an intentional falsehood, which requires knowing the mind of another. Simply because someone is mistaken or wrong doesn't mean they're lying. Secondly, the primary goal of anyone named in an ANI thread should be to get out as quickly and painlessly as possible. Lacking a clear consensus, the way that usually happens is the archivebot. "Defending" yourself just resets the archive clock and gives other editors another opportunity to repeat their statement in rebuttal. Don't worry about stuff folks are saying there: no veteran volunteer believes anything not backed by diffs. If no sanctions have come forth after a five day ANI thread, they're unlikely to unless the editor provides justification for them by behaving poorly. Let the others have the last word and go about your business.

For all who have commented here today, I'll note the "old school" wiki rule for article pages is documented at WP:FOC: Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. If you find yourself commenting about another editor on an article talk page, you're doing the wrong thing and not helping reach consensus. If you simply must comment about another editor, start with their talk page. Note also that if you have the numbers (consensus) on your side you're not required to continue discussion until everyone agrees with you; sometimes the answer is simply to agree to disagree and go with the majority viewpoint. (Naturally soliciting wider participation via WP:RFC or an appropriate noticeboard is always a valid option). Finally, try to keep the big picture; Ms. Myerson, while obviously notable, had faded from the public eye long ago, there wasn't any particular urgency to get the article perfect instantly. NE Ent 02:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Advice, please

I'm at a loss as to how I should proceed in regard to an escalating matter.

Both users, Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan, are increasingly exhibiting ownership behavior, are intent on continuing to engage in edit warring behavior (even if they don't get to 3RR), and have been alternating and escalating harassment at my talk page.

All of the articles associated with the article subject Meghan Trainor that I have been editing are where this has been happening for days. I edit at any of the articles, they find reasons to revert - whether they are valid reasons or not.

You've seen and are aware of what they've been saying about me at AN/I, so I won't rehash it here, but coupled with the talk page harassment I've been receiving from them, it's a lot of personal attacks directed at me. The talk pages of each say about the same thing and the theme is generally how to get rid of me with hopes of a block or topic ban.

Absent of the topic ban they so desperately seem to want, it seems that their strategy has now turned to harassing me at my talk page by leaving bogus and inappropriate warnings there. The userspace harassment bothers me the most because it's more personal. And it's been going on for days.

Editing the Trainor related articles is a frustrating nightmare because of them continually reverting out what I've done at those articles. Mind you, they don't revert what other editors put in or remove, indeed, they are now making of point of going to those editors' talk pages and giving them barnstars with comments added to them designed to irritate me.

Their latest "tune" that they are singing to anyone who will listen is for me to be indefinitely topic banned. See this as the latest in a string of many times they have said the same thing: .

All of this together is the kind of crap that makes Misplaced Pages suck, and it really doesn't have to be that way, does it? It would seem so, since no one is taking notice, and if they are taking notice, they are ignoring it. Yes, I could go to other articles to edit, but why should they be allowed to chase off someone -- anyone -- who is truly working to improve those articles?

Like I said, I'm at a loss and really don't know which way to go at this point. It seems to me that reporting them will do little to nothing in dissuading them and they've become pros at looking for loopholes in policy and wikilawyering until those trying to discuss with them give up and walk away due to the IDHT brickwall they inevitably build. As in the past, I respect your opinion, and would really appreciate getting one in this case. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Note I decided to reopen the 3RR report that was recently closed by Ed Johnston here . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Why are you recepting us as against you? You are a great contributor, your barnstars say so. We like you and it would be horrible to lose you. It is just that you need to be more neutral. Also, I can give barnstars to whoever I want. Marano 08:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages-the-encyclopedia is pretty awesome and Misplaced Pages:: the namespace does, in fact, pretty much suck. See WP:CGTW, number 19, and WP:OWB#16 and WP:OWB#23. Specific recommendations:

The ANI thread is running out of stream. Anything meaningful on ANI usually happens in the first day or two. 11 days in, nothing is likely to happen unless you provide a reason for it to. Avoiding it is good.
Best not to worry about what others are doing with their talk pages. What you don't read can't bother you. See WP:Other duck.
Unless you can bring additional editors in somehow, it's hard to deal with a group of mildly POVing pushing editors. Unfortunately I don't have wikitime to help very much. Probably easiest to walk away and find more productive use of your time. The most important thing to remember about Misplaced Pages is it's a hobby, and you should be having fun. If you're not having fun, it's not worth it. NE Ent 18:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)