Misplaced Pages

Streetsville Derbys

Hi, I noticed you changed the logo for the team, do you happen to know if they just use one logo or 2... because at last year's Royal Bank Cup they wore two different logos during the tourny. DMighton 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Per my understanding from the representative of the team that contacted us about changing the logo, they are now completely transitioned to the new logo. Shell 00:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Contacted... wow!! I'm actually impressed... I built that page... it's nice to see they noticed... I just wanted to know... I noticed you changed it... and I wasn't sure what the deal was. Thank you! DMighton 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyway you could forward me the e-mail of the representative that contacted you? I would like to ask for an official team history from their organization. DMighton 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't forward emails from WP:OTRS, but I can tell you they have this contact page on their website and the public relations person might be the best person to help you. Shell 12:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Well thank you for your contribution to the article. It was much appreciated. DMighton 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on the "Personnal attack report page"

Thank you for your time in reading my report on the PA report page. You commented:

rm Mikkalai, no personal attacks shown, other problems must go through dispute resolution

I am a relatively new user, and have previously editted irregularly without a username. I never engaged in any edit wars. My contributions were to gather sourses on some subject, write a summary of the respective information, and put it on Misplaced Pages, in the idea that good-faith users would check through, and improve it. I never started an article before september 2006, but have expanded, sometimes substantially, existing stubs.

Once every 4-6 months I would randomly check the pages I previously editted. In about 60-80% of cases I was very pleased to discover that someone took pain to read through and correct grammar, double check the sourses, and add more very useful stuff. I felt proud to be part of such a community. In about 10-30% the edits were itchy, i.e. piecies of information were erased, sometimes in quite a biased way. But the core of my original contribution was still present. 5-10% of my edits were vandalized, but there was nothing I could do about it.

In September I thought about starting articles myself, and uploading pictures, files. I engaged in some discussions about some subjects with several users. Most of them are neutral. A good 1/4 are strongly biased, but agree to compromises if presented in a way more acceptable to them. And none of them ever, before user:Mikkalai, engaded in personl attacks.

From reading the history of the last 48 hours I understand that this user was in some edit wars with some other user Bonaparte, who was banned. Apparently Mikkalai thought I am his arch enemy Bonaparte. He targetted all the pages I contributted to in the last days, and revertted everything, including substantial contributions by other users. I asked him kindly several times to explain his actions. There was no answer on any page. I was in the imposibility to edit anything because of Makkalai. He also threatened me to ban me from Misplaced Pages. He does not motivate his actions, and he does not discuss anything. He just reverts my pages. Mine, not someone's else, regardless of their content. He reverted even spelling mistakes!

He was targetting me personally.So I asked for administrators' protection from personal attacks from Mikkalai.

I would have expected Mikkalai to appologize and become constructive, but obviously it is not the case. From your answer, I understand that I should revert the vandalism done by Mikkalai. What if this infuriates Mikkalai more? What should I do if he continues to revert all my edits? Should I become more agressive too, is that what you are suggesting?

Of course, if Mikkalai will not revert again, the issue would be closed. But how far can I go if he continues to target pages editted by me? I hope you will not suggest me to engage in all-out war with Mikkalai, I hate wars! I would appreciate if you would answer :Dc76 17:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was in no way suggesting you simply revert other users, what I suggested is that you review our page on dispute resolution and use the methods listed there to resolve your dispute. Shell 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the main issue, the fact that fact that he targets me? Is it possible to ask him not to do this anymore? He does not listen to me, he just erases all my comments and questions. Can you kindly ask him not to target me? I would really appreciate if you could do so.

As for the articles, he did not revert my work only, but other people's as well, only that other users are affected on one article only, while me - on all I edit. I do not ask for support in reverting other people's work. That would be vandalism from my side to do and from your side to support me. And I am talking about the set os users composed of only one user: Mikkalai. I have tried steps 1, 2, 3. Still in 3, and looking for help from someone who can guide me through 4: 1 Avoidance 2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved 3 Second step: Disengage for a while 4 Further dispute resolution 4.1 Informal mediation 4.2 Discuss with third parties 4.3 Conduct a survey 4.4 Mediation 5 Last resort: Arbitration 6 Requesting an Advocate (at any time) thank you.:Dc76 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Are administrators treated differently?

I have found it odd that when an administrator disagrees with another editor such as myself, the administrator is able to get very rapid service in blocking the poor editor who disagreed with the administrator. Is this proper under the web site rules?

It seems to happen when I go to one particular group of related articles which are quite controversial. In these related articles, blocking seems to be used as a tactical debating approach. I am sure that this is disallowed under this web site. Am I right?

Please remember the following.

Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Misplaced Pages and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures.

Blocks for gross incivility are controversial; "cool-down" blocks are very controversial.

The discussions I put on the talk pages about wrongful deletions is not uncivil. It merely points out that some of the editors, including the one administrator, are wrongfully deleting information with which they personally disagree. Now, I got another block by you for reasons that were quite vague. Even if my language disagreeing with them were uncivil, blocking for it is “very controversial.” Do you agree?

However, my language wasn't uncivil and you didn't specifiy what language to which you referred. I would like to go over the reasons you gave for the block because either I am missing something or you are. Please let me know you will review it with me. RPJ 09:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I have more information

Above, I mentioned, that you blocked me for very vague reasons. You appeared to do so because another administrator believed he was criticized by me in an uncivil manner.

Now, I look above on your page and see you do have a reason but not one that was given to me. Here, is what you consider a good example of my bad behavior, told to some one else but not to me.

“hen an anon edit removed a link from one of "his" articles, he not only attacked the anon but then went on to try to pin the anon actions on another editor he was having a (different) disagreement with.”

Your statement is incorrect. An anonymous edit did not remove a link. The editor that removed the link in question was signed in as "Jimwae" and for some reason unknown removed a link to "Spartacus" the English encyclopedia published by a society of English school teachers and educators.

Then, on the talk page someone put in an anonymous comment that "Spartacus" is a "crappy" source of information and is "slanted." This of course is very unprofessional, and detracts from this encyclopedia.

The editor that removed the the link did come back and admit that it was him that made put in the anonymous comment and said he forgot to sign it. Ok. He was man enough to come forward and admit it.

But, still, calling another encyclopedia, a "crappy" source doesn't reflect well on us. At least it is not anonymous any more.

So you had your facts all wrong. I didn't try to "pin it on another editor" that I was having another disagreement with. You need to read these yourself and get your facts straight before you block and scold people about their alleged bad behavior.

Also, please note that it is highly unprofessional to invent quotes. Above, when you are referring to me you state that a link was removed from one of "his" articles as though I have lost touch with reality and now thought an article was something I owned. I never have said or implied that at all. You are way out of line with that type comment and quote.

But, I would like to straighten this out with you if you are willing to take the time to do so. RPJ 10:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely not going to debate this with you. I gave you my reasons and two other admins denied your unblock and agreed with me - selectively removing their comments from your talk page doesn't make them go away. Your history of blocks and warnings for the same problems indicates that you either don't get it or have no interest - my block was your fifth block. I suggest you re-read WP:NPA and consider how not to violate it in the future. Another thought - you'll also want to look at the harassment policy. Shell 16:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid you don't understand

I pointed out that you had your facts completely wrong when you blocked me for a week. Now you "absolutely won't debate it." Is there a way to appeal your ruling?

I also find it just as odd that you take the position that you can block and inaccurately criticize other editors on their talk pages but now raise "harrassment' if one calls it to your attention on your talk page the clear inaccuracies in your "facts."

The past blocks and warnings you allude to are all prompted by one of your fellow administrators who is on you "buddy list." He lobbied you behind the scene for the blocks. The computer record is clear on this.

This problem only happens to me on this one group of controversial articles where any attempt to introduce additional points of view are deleted by your fellow administrator.

RPJ 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You claim my facts were completely wrong. You claim without giving any diffs that one of the many incidents I cited for blocking you was a mistake. You already had your appeal by using the {{unblock}} tag - two other admins declined to lift your block and one even commented to further explain why your behavior is a problem. , You are currently skirting the border of personal attacks and being generally uncivil on my talk page, which is not a good sign.

By the way, contrary to the statment you made above, you were blocked for persistent personal attacks - not for gross incivility or as a cool-down. This is one of the reasons specifically stated on the blocking page and since we do have agreement from several uninvolved admins, blocking you for the continued disruption via your harassment and incivility would likely not have been challenged either.

I did not point you to the harassment policy because you came to my talk page. I pointed it out as one of the policies you are violating by following a certain group of editors and attacking their work. Please take a look at some of your talk page contributions and think about how you could write about your concerns without ever mentioning another editor - this will ensure that you no longer have to worry about others feeling attacked by your statements.

The past blocks came from five different admins. I'm not sure whom you allude to as being on a "buddy list" - my block was in reponse to a report made to the personal attack intervention noticeboard. Please show me any evidence that someone has "lobbied" to have you blocked.

The problem is your refusal to use Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process to resolve your editing conflict and instead violating our various policies about behavior in an attempt to get your way. There are proper ways to handle your concerns over the content of articles - writing diatribes about other editors is not one of those ways. I would suggest that you try approaching the wider editing community by using our dispute resolution processes. Shell 00:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the additonal information you asked re Gamaliel on your "buddy list"

February 27 2004

If you need to contact a Wikipedian right now, just add a few of these people to your roster (AKA "buddy list") Thus Gamaliel goes on your “buddy list” You were reminded ”You should contact your selected new "buddy" before adding them to your contact list”

October 13, 2006

An urgent call goes out from your “buddy” Gamaliel and his friend Ramsquire to stop “RPJ” from discussing editing changes on the talk pages.

The two ask you ban me from discussing matters on the web. The urgency of their prayer to you is clear and stark: “Please do something quickly.” Doing “something” means you blocking me from contributing.

According to Gamaliel and Ramsquire my offenses consists of the following :

1— RPJ has “difficulty assuming good faith” 2— RPJ has difficulty using “reliable sources” 3— RPJ “does not play well with other editors” 4— “But more important than that . . . continues … implying that myself and Gamliel are . . . trying to suppress voice.”

User:Ramsquire|Ramsquire]] 23:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire 17:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (emphasis supplied)

Unfortunately you didn’t seem to recognize either the humor or great irony of their request to stop me from contributing. Instead, you immediately jumped into action and blocked me for a week with a stinging attack on me for three contributions to the talk page on editing matters.

It is true that another Administrator named Glen come in to consider my request to unblock my account. But he was immediately another Administrator by the name of “Mangojuice” preempted administrator Glen who was reviewing the matter and surprise: Mangojuice didn’t unblock. Here is what happened:

User:RPJ You left a message on this guy's talk page about looking into his block, and asked Shell about it. I read your question and Shell's comment, and declined his unblock request; I think Shell has it right, and you seem to have moved on to other things. Hope I didn't step on your toes. Mangojuicetalk 17:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Now as far as the three items you claim are personal attacks, you never did quote to me the language that perceive is the wrongful “personal attack.” How can I improve if you don’t point out what you perceive is improper.

Moreover, Mangojuice read my material said:

My language is civil and that I don’t make any direct personal attacks. The only thing he seems worried about is that I often name the editors who are engaging in what I perceive to be improper deletions. The editors get very upset when their names appear in print discussing the deletions they keep making in this group of highly controversial articles. I don’t have any problems with editors in other articles. Just these ones.

I tell these same editors repeatedly, that their personal opinion that another viewpoint “debunks” a viewpoint they don’t agree with is not a reason to delete properly sourced information. Neither editors (nor administrators) possess the right to delete properly sourced information. Every significant view point should be included.

Do me a favor and go over the three cites you blocked me on and high or bold the language that disturbs you. I pointed on the one article about the anonymous edit that you had you facts backward. If you want me to go over that again I will,.

RPJ 07:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given you my concerns, you've had your say. You're now making ridiculous accusations about being in collusion with Gamliel when I wasn't even on Misplaced Pages in 2004. Move on and try to avoid the problems that got you here. Shell 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ernham (talk · contribs)

Hello again. The last time we discussed this user you wrote (now archived) "if this doesn't stop his incivility, you can file a request to the ArbCom, who may put the editor on personal attack parole or something similar." Well he's been blocked again since then (for 3 days) for personal attacks and legal threats. However on returning from his block he wrote in response to the blocking admin "Thanks, btw. Another chapter in the book, I guess. Not sure where *I* specifically threatened anyone with legal action, but your strange interpretation of reality are all that apparently matter.". Then when reverting an edit of mine at Michael Schumacher he wrote "again you vandalize and are unable to read a cite. The poll is on the same page as that article.Learn to read, for the fourth time" . Since the RFC and countless warnings have has no effect do you think a request to the ArbCom is advisable/justified? Mark83 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If he's still refusing to work with others and attacking them, it may be your only option. I'll take a look through his recent contribs and see what I can do, but further dispute resolution wouldn't be a bad idea. Shell 20:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Admin coaching - October 29 - Pending

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Pending' section of the coaching box.

• If the coaching has started and is ongoing please move the entry to the 'active' section of the box'.
• If the coaching has finished/never going to start please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
• You can fill in information about your former students, at the main archive.
• If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
• If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Highway 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Parratt reposted

An article on Kevin Parratt has been recreated; I noticed that you had deleted it with the summary "unsourced biography of living person, OTRS 2006101910001282". As I don't have access to OTRS, can you check to make sure the new article doesn't have the same issues that the deleted one did? Zetawoof 19:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, same problem as before unfortunately - the subjects website contains no information and per the OTRS ticket, the information being included by User:Naturalhomes is false. Since we're unable to verify the information without references, I've taken it down again and suggested Deletion Review to the author. Shell 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that the article Kevin Parratt has been deleted after about a year of it's posting and that you do this without any reference to me as its author. I assumed someone had blanked the article. I referred the deletion to one of your colleagues, Bottesini, who advised me to re-instate the article. Bottesini made checks on the notability of the person and agreed they were notable. So why do you remove the article? naturalhomes

While I agree that the subject may meet our notability requirements, that's not why the article in its current form was deleted. Almost all statements in the article are unsourced, which is a definate problem on biographies of living people. The subject of the article contacted us through WP:OTRS concerned that much of the information in the article was incorrect and has proven to our satisfaction that the information is, in fact, incorrect. Perhaps if you would provide citations for the entire text of your article we could resolve these concerns.

Its also important to note that if you disagree with the deletion of an article, the correct and GFDL compliant way to handle it is to ask for the article to be re-instated. I'm rather surprised someone advised you to simply recreate the article and not discuss the deletion with me or report it for deletion review - those are typically the avenues used. Its also interesting to note that while Bottesini advised you about our notability guidelines, the editor did not, as you claim, make any reference to the subject's notability. Shell 10:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)