→RFC of RobJ1981: reply/comment |
|||
Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
::I was trying to say: Le Grand's link at the video game project doesn't work, as that dispute didn't fail. Also, the response section isn't for you. My undoing of your edit isn't uncivil. The response section clearly says this: '''''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''''' Next time, read the details instead of just adding the link to the uncivil list. Also, notifying me of other links to come wasn't needed one bit. I consider that bad faith. Add the links all you want, but leave me alone while you do it. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
::I was trying to say: Le Grand's link at the video game project doesn't work, as that dispute didn't fail. Also, the response section isn't for you. My undoing of your edit isn't uncivil. The response section clearly says this: '''''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''''' Next time, read the details instead of just adding the link to the uncivil list. Also, notifying me of other links to come wasn't needed one bit. I consider that bad faith. Add the links all you want, but leave me alone while you do it. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
'' |
'' |
||
:::You consider ''everything'' bad faith, Rob. You twist the most innocent remarks into personal attacks on you, and on the rare occasion someone says something that can't be interpreted as an attack in any way, shape or form, you ignore it. See also: the fact that you refuse to address the fact that I've apologized for one of my posts and that I've insisted I made it in good faith. [[User:McJeff|McJeff]] ([[User talk:McJeff#top|talk]]) 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:01, 15 April 2008
List of characters in Bully
You and Dan need to settle down and stop nitpicking many edits to the article. The section called: new people stopping by to edit (February 2008) was uncivil. In that section, you stated "I'm going to make it policy to delete all the tags put up by driveby editors", which is also uncivil. As I stated in that section: people can place tags and not discuss things, it's not a crime. Stop being overprotective over the article, just because tags are placed and the editor doesn't discuss. Discuss the tag on talk, then if it's not needed: remove AFTER discussion, not beforehand. Then there is the whole villain/nemesis nonsense. One word shouldn't be such a big deal. Just because a source uses that word, doesn't mean the article must have it listed the same way. Further article controlling will force me to make a discussion at an admin notice board about this. You and Dan watch the page/obsess with it a bit too much, and it certainly needs to stop. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rob you state that placing a tag and not discussing it isn't a crime, which is true. But just to play devils advocate with you, making sure an article and editing day in and day out to make sure the article is neat, tidy and up to standards is also not a crime.
- Deleting the tag and making a suggestion like McJeff did is not a crime and isn't against Wikipedia policy(not to my knowledge anyways). Article controlling like you claim me and McJeff do is also not a crime or against Wikipedia policy(Once again not to my knowledge).
- Infact I suggest bringing in an admin, because all this bickering is getting out of hand. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dan, why don't you try leaving a message on his talk page and see if he's more responsive to you? I don't think he will be, but Wikipedia policy is fairly clear on the fact that at least two people are required to have tried to deal with an editor's incivility before administrative action will be taken against him. McJeff (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is time to bring in an admin, Rob said he will bring in an admin so let him bring in one, get all this sorted out once and for all, I'll probably get the same reply from him like you did anyways, so it really is no point. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also the way this is going, It's gonna go back and forth and never gonna be resolved. So I think the best thing to do is bring in an administrator, let me, you and Rob state our cases and take it from there and see what the administrators says about it. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XIII — March 23, 2008 | |
---|---|
Project News
Current Events
Articles for Deletion
Collaboration of the Week
The article collaboration for March 16 through March 30 is Big Show. The featured article collaboration is Kurt Angle. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 30. Member Interview
This week's interviewees are FamicomJL (link) and Naha (link).
|
Member News
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue:
|
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XIV — April 6, 2008 | |
---|---|
Project News
Current Events
Articles for Deletion
Collaboration of the Week
The article collaborations for March 30 through April 13 are Bash at the Beach (1996) and Mae Young. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, April 13. Member Interview
This week's interviewees are Endlessdan (link) and S-pac54 (link).
|
Member News
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue:
|
Do NOT remove my comments from article talk
See: Template:Notyours. Removing my comment at the Bully list isn't acceptable, so knock it off. I have the right to my view, and you don't have the right to blank it off an article talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fed up with your attitude. I notified you of the notyours note, but you ignored it. Blanking my comments, and being uncivil needs to stop. Blanking warnings on user talk pages is perfectly fine, but blanking things others wrote on article talk isn't correct. I've started this: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:McJeff, to help with the problem. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- "I'm fed up with your attitude."
Hmmmm another uncivil comment Rob. If you don't like his attitude then fine, but keep opinions about other editors to yourself. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Just wanted to stop by and thank you for offering advice and someone to talk to about a recent issue with an editor. I'm over it at this point unless that editor continues their recent behavior. Thanks again. Angrymansr (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You might wanna start defending yourself now,
Since Rob has posted about you on the admins noticeboards. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is actually kinda funny. I barely need to defend myself though, it's not like I've done anything wrong. McJeff (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thats true. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Administrator Action
Hello. I just wanted to drop in to inform you that there is an active discussion about some of your recent editing activity on the Wikiquette forum found [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:McJeff]. Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
RFC.
If your gonna go through with this, I think you better take a look at this first [1]. If you do an RFC, It aint the first time it has been done on him. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Read the whole RFC. Several people agree it was retaliatory. Don't just throw out old things, if you havent even read it all. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't the point I was trying to prove. Just proving that the next isn't the first and knowing your history, It won't be the last neither, and I will throw old things out if I like, cause I am very ignorant when I want to be. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template without reasonable justification
Please cease and desist from removing the Notability templates from article Elemental (Dungeons & Dragons) which does not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template which was put there to address the problem of lack of secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the lack of explanation for removing the template are not supported by the notability guideline WP:BK and WP:RS which applies to this topic. Unless you adding reliable secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would refrain from removing the cleanup template, which was place there to alert other editors who may be able to add sources that they are needed. Note that since the depth of coverage is not substantial, multiple independent sources are needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I responded on your talk page, but I will continue to remove unreasonable templates. Out of all the dozens of articles you templated I removed... three. McJeff (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Jack Merridew
"With the deletionist having been banned, I see no reason not to undo his without-consensus mergism" - I agree with you there, unfortunatley some people (look up) will just revert your changes anyway. *shrug* BOZ (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Boz. It is time we undo some of the damage that these accounts have caused to our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I have notified Gavin on his talk page of his incivility towards McJeff, but he did not seem inclined to comment on his own behavior. BOZ (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Your message on RobJ1981's talkpage
I undid your message since it was pretty long on Rob's talk page. Please explain on my talk page what you said in your message that was for me. Versus22 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's ok, I'd rather not drag you into the middle of it. Personally I'd love to be done with it. McJeff (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not like him to tell you the truth... It drives me nuts when he keeps doing these unnecessary comments (ex: assume good faith, be civil, etc) so many times! Recently though I got upset at him on a AfD page when he didn't reply when I sent him one or two messages a couple months ago. So yeah what I think is that he should just leave wikipedia if he continues this. I can't take his action anymore... Versus22 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
RFC of RobJ1981
Where do I vote/discuss? Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since he's new at this, I'm giving him instructions on his talk page. McJeff (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remember, you need one other editor to certify that he or she tried and failed to resolve your dispute for the RFC/U to not be deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Angrymansr has that covered. McJeff (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- You still need one more beyond him. You need two total. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't mine count? McJeff (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, that section on users certifying needs at least two editors to sign there. So, anyone who attempted to resolve the dispute in even these discussions could be helpful: [2] or [3]. In that last one, it may even be worth posting there that the discussion has moved to the RfC/U. Use this request for comment as a model. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't mine count? McJeff (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- You still need one more beyond him. You need two total. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Angrymansr has that covered. McJeff (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Remember, you need one other editor to certify that he or she tried and failed to resolve your dispute for the RFC/U to not be deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since he's new at this, I'm giving him instructions on his talk page. McJeff (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unless I read wrong, the first link Le Grand gave doesn't apply (the video game project talk page). See this: [4]. According to the RFC note at the top: In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. That section isn't a failure, seeing as how I accepted the idea a person posted there. Also, I replied there before I was even told about the RFC. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say, Rob. McJeff (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was trying to say: Le Grand's link at the video game project doesn't work, as that dispute didn't fail. Also, the response section isn't for you. My undoing of your edit isn't uncivil. The response section clearly says this: This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section. Next time, read the details instead of just adding the link to the uncivil list. Also, notifying me of other links to come wasn't needed one bit. I consider that bad faith. Add the links all you want, but leave me alone while you do it. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- You consider everything bad faith, Rob. You twist the most innocent remarks into personal attacks on you, and on the rare occasion someone says something that can't be interpreted as an attack in any way, shape or form, you ignore it. See also: the fact that you refuse to address the fact that I've apologized for one of my posts and that I've insisted I made it in good faith. McJeff (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)