→Sarah Palin: cmt |
Phoenix of9 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
:::Phoenix, if you think he saw that warning, why do you think he made the edit, knowing he would be blocked straight off? Do you believe he might have been thinking something like, "I'll make the edit anyway and if I get caught and blocked, I'll say I didn't see the warning and get unblocked."? [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::Phoenix, if you think he saw that warning, why do you think he made the edit, knowing he would be blocked straight off? Do you believe he might have been thinking something like, "I'll make the edit anyway and if I get caught and blocked, I'll say I didn't see the warning and get unblocked."? [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale#top|talk]]) 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::I have to go thru his edit history to see if the rest of his problematic behaviour has ceased but I dont have the time right now. '''[[User:Phoenix_of9|<font color="Red">Phoenix</font>]][[User talk:Phoenix_of9|<font color="Black"> of9</font>]]''' 05:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Jonathan Sheldon]] - Correcting a deletion == |
== [[Jonathan Sheldon]] - Correcting a deletion == |
Revision as of 05:36, 3 February 2010
Talk archives![]() | |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 |
The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
- BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar
- Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century
- News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more
- In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?
- WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
User page query
How did you get your user page sectioned off with the barnstars all in rows. I'd like to get the photos on my user page arranged in sections so I can write comments, but I can't figure it out.Malke2010 14:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's easy to grab the code for yourself, hit the edit button and look at everything beginning with
<br clear="all" />
, but before the category stuff at the very bottom. You can plug in whatever images and text you like. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks.Malke2010 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Sarah Palin Talk Page
Hello,
Today Jimmuldrow posted this on the Sarah Palin talk page: [1]
I did not understand what the issue was especially since he has already posted his change: [2]
So far no editors have objected.
Previously, the matter seemed resolved but he brought it up again: 00:58, 29 January 2010
Another editor Fcreid replied
I responded:
Later, I thought it might be better to revisit it too, because Jimmuldrow seemed so intent and it appeared to really bother him. It seemed like his view should be taken into account and the matter would best be resolved with what he proposed so I asked him this:
he responded:
I responded:
he responded, but I didn’t think he was actually responding to me, I thought he was still carrying on with his thought, which is fine:
So I said: [8]
He didn’t respond again, so I posted on his talk page:
The post he put on the Talk page today, I responded to:
This seems to be an unusual way to go about things, and reads more like a personal attack than an explanation for his edit on Sarah Palin's position. I have not objected to his new edit political positions edit, and I don't see right now where anybody else has either. Please advise, thank you. Malke2010 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- That last thread may not have been a personal attack, but it was on the edge of one and either way, it was not about sources and content so much as it was a long complaint about another editor. I've closed and hatted the thread.
- This is mostly a content dispute. It does seem to me, as though Jimmuldrow may be doing a bit of cite spanning/synthesis. If a politician cites someone else, this doesn't mean the politician was "inspired" by them. Anything near to such an assertion would need to be straightforwardly cited to a source and likely quoted (rather than being carried by the article narrative).
- Ongoing input from other editors will likely be needed for a little while longer. The sister article may be more fit for most of this.
I don't watch Sarah Palin. If Jimmuldrow carries on with any back and forth about this in the article itself, please let me (or another uninvolved admin) know. One diff will be enough. Likewise, if Jimmuldrow comments on the talk page about another editor, rather than about sources and content, let me know. Again, one diff should be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time. I presented the diffs and the explanations because it is difficult to explain things out of context. I wanted to give you an idea of the process editors were attempting to use versus the disruption we've been dealing with from this editor. Also, I wanted you to see that I was attempting to satisfy his demands within process. This is a difficult enough page to edit without this sort of thing happening. Thanks again for your help in this.Malke2010 12:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
72.228.150.44
Just wanted to let you know, Special:Contributions/32.142.238.113 is the same person, and so is Special:Contributions/32.142.150.77 and Special:Contributions/32.137.74.146. And that's just the IP-addresses I have seen him use since yesterday... --OpenFuture (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Collect - Time to back up your words
You said [11]:
"If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close."
And deja vu:
Collect got blocked again: [12] and usual Wiki lawyering. See: User_talk:Collect#January_2010 Phoenix of9 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please tell me more about why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words." Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh it seems he had already broken his restrictions: [13]. Interesting...Phoenix of9 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I have had no interactions with Pof9 at all in aeons. Note that he used his animus at an RfA per [14]. Seems if anyone can not let go, it is he. Collect (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- One thing's straightforward, I won't be badgered into taking any admin action. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, similarly, I've closed this for forum shopping and warned him to knock it off. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I'm involved in this whole mess somehow. Since there's some issue with your admin discretion, review Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic_User_Keeps_Being_Problematic_After_RFC.2C_Breaks_Restrictions if you can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I answered it. After your passive aggressive answer (asking me to go through your entire edit history instead of answering a simple question) and refusal to bring this to ANI (like you said you would in RFC), I moved it to ANI myself. I'm not surprised though. You were never neutral. Phoenix of9 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- GG you say you have been waiting for Phoenix to answer your question. If the question you refer to is 'Please tell me more about why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words"' Phoenix already answered it with 'So that you can start that thread at ANI.' In which case it's unhelpful to badger the editor for a reply that you have, in fact, already received. But if you have another question in mind, surely it would help to tell Phoenix which one. I hope this helps. Writegeist (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Phoenix did not answer the question. However, I was able to glean the answer (see below). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- "...did not answer the question?" Please. Your question to Phoenix Please tell me more about why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words" brought this direct answer from Phoenix: So that you can start that thread at ANI. In ignoring this response, which could not be more clearly a direct answer, and instead substituting Phoenix's separate remark that "you were never neutral", for no better reason, apparently, than that's what you thought was the reason for the thread's title--again, regardless of what Phoenix very explicitly told you was the reason--you really only feed Phoenix's belief about your neutrality. Which is a pity if you really are neutral. It's disappointing. Oh well, I'll duck out of this discussion now and go for a nice peaceful bike ride by the ocean :~) .Writegeist (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Phoenix did not answer the question. However, I was able to glean the answer (see below). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- GG you say you have been waiting for Phoenix to answer your question. If the question you refer to is 'Please tell me more about why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words"' Phoenix already answered it with 'So that you can start that thread at ANI.' In which case it's unhelpful to badger the editor for a reply that you have, in fact, already received. But if you have another question in mind, surely it would help to tell Phoenix which one. I hope this helps. Writegeist (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You were never neutral. That's what I thought you meant, Phoenix, when you titled this thread with the rather badgering "Time to back up your words": You don't think I'm neutral. This is why I asked, then waited for your answer.
Phoenix, do you think Collect's single flight of carelessness in straying from the standing 1rr restriction at Mass killings under Communist regimes means he has been editing "tendentiously or disruptively again" as in the meaning of how I put it when closing his RfC 8 months ago? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- "single flight of carelessness"? The article has a huge red warning sign. Hard to miss. Especially if it wasnt the first time you were editing it. Phoenix of9 03:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- As another admin and myself have both told Collect, there are two warnings, one over the edit window and one heading up the talk page. If you think he saw either of them, why do you think he made the edit, knowing he would be blocked straight off? Do you believe he might have been thinking something like, "I'll make the edit anyway and if I get caught and blocked, I'll say I didn't see the warnings and get unblocked."? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- To be accurate, the second warning was placed by Tiptoety after the question was raised [16]. It was placed there as a result of my suggestion that the warning be placed there. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- So there was only one warning at the time, beginning with big red letters, over the edit window. Phoenix, did you know, that when an admin sees the edit window of a protected page, the whole background of the edit window is pink? This was done because too many admins were editing protected articles for content (which they're mostly not allowed to do) without seeing the protection notice over the edit window. It's hard to miss a pink editing window, but it's widely understood here that a warning over over an editing window can indeed be missed, moreover with all the wiki-wide banners and stuff which can show up at the top of a page and which most editors learn to "go blind" to. I think it was careless of you, Collect, not to see it, but one can understand how this could happen.
- Phoenix, if you think he saw that warning, why do you think he made the edit, knowing he would be blocked straight off? Do you believe he might have been thinking something like, "I'll make the edit anyway and if I get caught and blocked, I'll say I didn't see the warning and get unblocked."? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Jonathan Sheldon - Correcting a deletion
I clearly now see why you deleted this page. I rewrote the article sticking with the letter of the land; I hope it may supplant the deleted one which is what comes up in a google search: jonathan sheldon movie producer. I would like to have it corrected and all the information is accurate. Please let me know and thank you. --Jonno888888 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, it doesn't look like a speedy anymore. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
- From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy
- Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs
- Sister projects: Sister project roundup
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
There is a need for consistency here. The children are named in the current version of the article and elsewhere on the talk page. There has been an ongoing WP:BLPNAME debate about this, but the names are easily available on the Internet, including the Daily Telegraph source given.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I see that the names of her kids are in the article but unsourced. Moreover, the spelling of one of those names is not the same as given in the DT source you gave. If you fix and source the article text, please feel free to undo my redaction on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know the names on the birth certificates, but most of the argument seems to be about the spelling of Starlit/Starlite/Starlet. The real issue is whether the names should be in the article at all, and the consensus of the US media is not to give the names. It seems that the children have been given new identities anyway, since anyone with access to the Internet can find the names very quickly. Personally I would favour giving the names with some reliable sourcing, since the information is in the public domain.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I live in the UK, and do not like going against the wishes of the US media. However, the names are easy to find on the Internet (eg here in the Daily Mail). Since Wikipedia is read in a range of countries, attempts to redact the names on a permanent basis are likely to fail. This is why I would (somewhat reluctantly) support naming the children.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Sarah Palin
The talk section you closed has been reopened [17] which I suspect is detrimental. I do not see the point in it. Collect (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Jimmuldrow reopened the thread and he also reverted an edit again without consensus. [18].Malke2010 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a revert (this diff combines the two you gave). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll have to go back and do it again. The point is, it doesn't have consensus, the whole thing is disruptive and is having a WP:CHILL on moving forward. As I explained several days ago in another post here, basically he's not working with anybody here. He's just doing what he wants. He's not working within the process at all and this makes it difficult for everybody else to have input. Why bother getting consensus and taking the time to write an edit, post it, etc., if he can just come along and change it, abuse the talk page with postings about an editor and not the article, etc. Not an expert, just saying.Malke2010 00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)