Wtmitchell (talk | contribs) →115ash and Asian American article: Response |
RightCowLeftCoast (talk | contribs) →115ash and Asian American article: please see |
||
Line 447: | Line 447: | ||
The editor that I had requested assistance with, has again made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_American&diff=632534126&oldid=632519071 changes] to the article [[Asian American]] without achieving consensus or responding on the talk page. Assistance is requested in returning the article to its previous state before the article was disrupted, and assistance is requested in talking to the editor.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
The editor that I had requested assistance with, has again made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_American&diff=632534126&oldid=632519071 changes] to the article [[Asian American]] without achieving consensus or responding on the talk page. Assistance is requested in returning the article to its previous state before the article was disrupted, and assistance is requested in talking to the editor.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I am not going to attempt to arbitrate or to mediate here, even though I am put off by the apparent unwillingness on the part of {{reply to|115ash}} to engage in discussion on the article talk page to build consensus for his desired changes. Even though he has a substantial edit count, he appears to be fairly inexperienced (see [https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=115ash&project=en.wikipedia.org&toplimit=10 this]), and not comfortable with [[WP:EQ|Wikietiquette]]. If he won't engage on the article talk page, and if it is importante enough to you to make the effort, I would suggest looking at [[WP:CONTENTDISPUTE]] and [[WP:RDD]]. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 23:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
:I am not going to attempt to arbitrate or to mediate here, even though I am put off by the apparent unwillingness on the part of {{reply to|115ash}} to engage in discussion on the article talk page to build consensus for his desired changes. Even though he has a substantial edit count, he appears to be fairly inexperienced (see [https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=115ash&project=en.wikipedia.org&toplimit=10 this]), and not comfortable with [[WP:EQ|Wikietiquette]]. If he won't engage on the article talk page, and if it is importante enough to you to make the effort, I would suggest looking at [[WP:CONTENTDISPUTE]] and [[WP:RDD]]. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 23:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Please join the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Asian American]].--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:40, 6 November 2014
Archive 1 (2007) |
This page has [[/Archive 8 (2014)|archives]]. |
Hi.
One way to contact me is to edit this page and add a section at the bottom (click to do that). If your topic concerns a particular Wilipedia article, please mention the article name. To cause your edit to be signed and timestamped when you save it, please sign it with four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). If you don't do any of this I'll probably be able to figure it out anyhow, but I would appreciate your trying to avoid making responding to you difficult for me.
I will generally respond on this page inside the section which has been added unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you leave me a message.
Human rights in the United States, adding new section
Hello, and thanks for your attention. But please refrain from making "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" per WP:CIVIL. A discussion about this edit has been going on for an entire week on the talk page, and the other parties have ceased to actively participate. And per WP:REMOVAL, "it is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus", Please join the discussion if you like and make constructive comments. Thanks. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Roamingcuriosity, I don't really care what REMOVAL says (which is an essay anyway): you seem to be edit warring. Discussion is over, you didn't get consensus: move on. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Justify your accusation of edit warring. I bet you also don't care what WP:EW says. If you thinks it is edit waring, it is edit waring, right? Roamingcuriosity (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't think my warning was ill-considered or that it transgressed WP:CIVIL. It was selected from WP:WARN, and is the softer of two edit war warnings available there.
- WP:REMOVAL is an essay which contains opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Opinions on that vary; it's a judgement call which tends to be decided case by case. Judgement calls are generally decided by WP:consensus. So far, I think the consensus on retention during discussion in this particular case is running against you.
- The discussion seems to be doing fine without my two cents worth (too many cooks, spoiled broth). FWIW, I think the topical relevance is marginal -- very marginal if considered in light of the article's opening paragraph. I think the material you are trying to add arguably does deserve a mention but that, if it is mentioned, the details should be presented in a separate summary style detail article.
- Re my definition of edit warring, the initial sentence of EW works as a description of what is going on between yourself and other editors of the article. It is open to question whether all of the editors involved are edit warriors. Procedurally, I tend to go with WP:BRD on that most of the time even though BRD is just an essay. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a bad essay. What we have here is someone clearly going against consensus. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was not referring to you when I wrote "There are those". But now it seems that you are a good fit for that category. Btw, I know what a policy is, and your actions are not justified by the policies (neither is what I am doing here now. But you started it). Roamingcuriosity (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Wtmitchell, thanks for the considerate input. Sorry I was a little rash when I mentioned ill-considered accusations. My edits had just been BOLDLY reverted without any reason, although it was my effort in terms of reaching consensus by suggesting "alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns", just as I have been doing for the entire week. Btw, the new section was intended as an edit summary, but I expanded it in an attempt to meet other editor's standards. Overall, I believe I have been making good faith effort and far from leading to an edit war. Unfortunately, given the current situation, especially the unfriendly atmosphere, anyone in my position would have withdrawn. Nobody in the right mind is here to seek trouble. So I will cease my activities on that article all together. But anyway, thanks for your input. Hope to collaborate with you in the future on technical articles. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a bad essay. What we have here is someone clearly going against consensus. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Armed forces of the Philippine Commonwealth
I see you are in an excellent position to perhaps winkle out local sources on the seemingly nearly forgotten events in the Philippines 1935—1946 among the population in the U.S. Of course I saw some college students here confused Lee and Ike and Normandy and Gettysburg! Of all the sad collapses 1939 until allies went on the offensive the collapse of the Malay Barrier and Philippines is one of the most dramatic. Small boats fleeing Singapore "made it" only for the survivors to do it all over or die or be captured down in Java or further south. I reread Reeman's The Pride and the Anguish a year or so ago and finished looking on Google Earth at the "escape" strait, calculated days and realized they'd just "escaped" into a new hell as the whole island arc to Australia fell. Same with so many trying to escape Luzon in small craft only to be caught after weeks of hiding along the coast in daylight. There are some of those I might like to see if you can dig up local sources to add to what I have. Anyway, perhaps I will get back to that area after getting diverted by another project. Palmeira (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is likely some material on that in the National Historical Institute and the National Library, which are within walking distance of one another in Rizal Park in Manila. I rarely get to Manila, though. I live part time on Boracay island and part time on Romblon island, neither of which have any research facilities whatever. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds nice. Then there are those downsides of typhoons and quakes. I'm dreading wet snow here. I see you have gotten into shipping companies there so I was thinking of help with the Philippine commercial history of some ships I did a while back: USAT Don Esteban, Don Isidro (1939), Dona Nati (1939), SS Mactan (1898) and Tugboat Trabajador (1931). All had their notable moment in the war, but information on civilian service is sparse. Several were De la Rama ships and that line's history is interesting but I do not have enough good information to become interested in developing that further. De la Rama was involved in Philippine family/island political issues seem to be interesting. If you run across anything that could fill those gaps it would help get those articles fleshed out beyond the wartime period. Palmeira (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't sound like anything I would stumble over by happenstance, but I'll keep it in mind. Some quick googling which you must have already done turned up this, which let to this and other thingss. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, I've "Googled" those to death and dug into my terrabyte or so of .pdf official and other documents. Those are truly interesting ships in that valiant but failed effort to resupply the Philippines. There are hints of people in the Manila area being very fond of some that ran inter-island service and not many now know of German built, U.S. flagged, Philippine vessels engaged in rather high end Pacific international trade as was Dona Nati and others. From your page you are a wee bit younger than I so I am a bit envious of your opportunity to warm old bones in tropical sun as out time change, dark days, wind, cold and snow are showing fangs! My years at sea in the tropics (and howling NORPAC/NORLANT gales) and relatives in the tropics sometimes gets to me this time of year! Go bask for me! Regards. Palmeira (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't sound like anything I would stumble over by happenstance, but I'll keep it in mind. Some quick googling which you must have already done turned up this, which let to this and other thingss. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds nice. Then there are those downsides of typhoons and quakes. I'm dreading wet snow here. I see you have gotten into shipping companies there so I was thinking of help with the Philippine commercial history of some ships I did a while back: USAT Don Esteban, Don Isidro (1939), Dona Nati (1939), SS Mactan (1898) and Tugboat Trabajador (1931). All had their notable moment in the war, but information on civilian service is sparse. Several were De la Rama ships and that line's history is interesting but I do not have enough good information to become interested in developing that further. De la Rama was involved in Philippine family/island political issues seem to be interesting. If you run across anything that could fill those gaps it would help get those articles fleshed out beyond the wartime period. Palmeira (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Request for assistance
May I please receive some assistance regarding a potentially disruptive editor at the article Asian American, the subject has engaged in multiple attempts to change the infobox to be preferential towards Asian American ethnicities from the Indian sub-continent. I have requested that the subject rather than continue to edit the article, take the discussion to the talk page, but without a success in getting a reply.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- See my recent comment at User talk:115ash#Discussion at Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/5.81.198.219
It was MariaJaydHicky’s IP. Can you please block her? 183.171.180.126 (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea in the world what this relates to, but it sounds like it might need WP:SPI. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
115ash and Asian American article
The editor that I had requested assistance with, has again made changes to the article Asian American without achieving consensus or responding on the talk page. Assistance is requested in returning the article to its previous state before the article was disrupted, and assistance is requested in talking to the editor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am not going to attempt to arbitrate or to mediate here, even though I am put off by the apparent unwillingness on the part of @115ash: to engage in discussion on the article talk page to build consensus for his desired changes. Even though he has a substantial edit count, he appears to be fairly inexperienced (see this), and not comfortable with Wikietiquette. If he won't engage on the article talk page, and if it is importante enough to you to make the effort, I would suggest looking at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and WP:RDD. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Asian American.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)