Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:07, 10 August 2008

I am a Victim Services Provider from the State's Attorney's Office in Winnebago County. Murder is a devastating crime and there is no murder that is "worse" than another; however, when a young man delivering newspapers, that was stalked unknowingly by the murderer is grabbed off of a city street and brutally raped and murdered, it is "noteable". This is a significant case, I remember the fear in the community at the time this happened. Joey Didier is not the only "victim" of Robert Lower, he was watching and waiting for other paper boys..........today as the Didier family fights to keep this murderer in prison this community stands up and helps them in their fight, remembering the terror Robert Lower placed on this community. If someone has made a good & well written article on the case, I feel the topic would be a valuable addition to your encyclopedia. Families continue to be destroyed by predators such as Robert Lower........children are kidnapped and found murdered - the significance that our children are still at risk even 35 years later should say something for this article remaining on Misplaced Pages.

Barb Stone, Rockford, IL

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneb (talk • contribs) 13:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughful comments. I just googled "Joseph Didier" and my user talk page is #3. Actually, most Misplaced Pages pages are #1. Because of the high ranking, this page may become a small repository for Joey Didier comments. I doubt it will be more than 1 or 2. While I don't request comments, feel free to do so and if there is a common theme, this may be a pulse of internet feelings on the matter. Thanks, Ms. Stone. Presumptive (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murder of Joseph Didier

I have nominated Murder of Joseph Didier, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joseph Didier. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Joseph Didier

Presumptive, it appears that you have copied this article word for word from various sentences located here. That is massive violation of Misplaced Pages's rules about copyrights. You should probably address this here or on the AfD page. AniMate 07:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know I decided to ask for broader input from the community at Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Presumptive. AniMate 07:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes navigating Misplaced Pages can be hard for new users. You've made some mistakes, but I do want you to continue to feel welcome. A good way to get advice about the workings of this place is to get adopted. Might I recommend WP:ADOPT? It's a great place to find experienced users willing to mentor newer contributors. AniMate 09:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your comment on my talkpage, it seems that copyvio defeated this one. There is no rule saying that an article can't be recreated after deletion. If you decide to do so, I recommend spending time first to make sure content and sources meet Misplaced Pages standards and policy and material considered copyvio is not included. 23skidoo (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, you can re-create an article after speedy deletion, but not after a formal AfD process. The reason is that a speedy deletion is not debated by the Misplaced Pages community but an AfD is, and hence carries more authority. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the onus is on the person creating and championing an article. I've learned that if you can't easily find sources -- or if those sources are exclusively print and hard to find via the Internet -- then it's better to not bother, otherwise it's just upsetting when an article gets AFD'd. 23skidoo (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murder of Joseph Didier

I have nominated Murder of Joseph Didier, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joseph Didier (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Debate 木 06:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following you around, but it's just that you posted the Sam Swope article during the time that I was on new-page patrol to get rid of vandalism articles. I marked your article for speedy deletion, then you posted it again after speedy deletion. When an author does that, I (and other editors) put the offending author on a watchlist for a while, which means that any action that author takes is flagged for attention. That's why several editors and administrators, myself included, have stayed on your case — you've been attracting unwanted attention to yourself.

You keep making all these claims about Swope being an award-winning author, and thousands of people signing petitions and such, but you continue to offer no proof of these claims.

WRONG: THE AWARDS WERE MENTIONED IN THE WEBSITE. Therefore, we cannot verify these claims and cannot consider them to be accurate. Please read this page to see what we consider to be reliable sources. Please note that references do not have to be available online — that's impossible for many older references — but they do have to be legitimate references that at least someone can look up at a library. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The proof is in the references. The reference said 51,700 + 2,100, not me. I'm shocked that over 50,000 signatures from a town of 150,000 and something that was 35 years ago but then there was a lot of fear at the time it happenend.Presumptive (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder: Erasing warning messages from your talk page does not make them go away. Editors and admins can easily retrieve them at will to see the record of warnings you have been issued. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping is allowed. Furthermore, rather than dispute certain warnings which can cause hurt feelings, housekeeping is sometimes the best way. I have read the messages and improved in some ways where the suggestion was, in my opinion, helpful. Please be helpful, not critical. Presumptive (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, housekeeping is allowed, but it is commonplace for new users who have had several warnings issued to them to erase them, thinking the problem will go away. It will not, and furthermore, if an admin is about to post a warning here and sees a record of previous higher-level warnings in your talk-page history, he or she is not likely to treat you as favorably, and may be more likely to block you. Just sayin'. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is also not kosher to delete another user's comment, then mischaracterize them with a so-called "summary." You're wearing out your Misplaced Pages welcome. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You can tell your e-mail buddies...

...to lay off the rude comments on my talk page. If they wish to comment on the AfD (even if you've recruited them), they can sign up for a user name here and post their comments themselves, instead of having you act as a go-between. Until that time, their comments carry no credibility. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I have never asked anyone to place any comments, rude or otherwise, on your page. On the contrary, I am a polite and restrained person. There is a difference between my asking people for ideas on how to explain notability and what you are accusing me of. There are so many thousands of bad articles (press random articles on the left) that I am at a loss why you keep hounding me. Let's try to be polite and keep a bit of distance, at least for a week or two. Presumptive (talk) 02:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sam Swope

I created a version that stands up to scrutiny. I believe that you're trying to do good work for Misplaced Pages, but you're shooting yourself in the foot by being so combative. Please cool down, and discontinue (if you haven't already) the canvassing efforts. Realkyhick (talk · contribs) is a very knowledgeable editor who can be an excellent resource...there's no need to be adversarial. — Scientizzle 23:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

adoption

Let's go for it.:)

This user has been adopted by Sticky Parkin.

This is a box you can put on your user page. Now you will have to be good and not bring shame upon our family name (joke.) "Presumptive Parkin" sounds quite good actually.:) So, there's a lot of issues people seem to be going on about, perhaps we could move to email just so we can discuss things in more depth. I haven't read through all the ins and outs of what you've supposedly done yet:) But I can see you want to create articles and I think you will lead to some good ones being created, or other articles being improved. Sticky Parkin 13:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"To improve the article, I named the section something like "Station owner controversy and criticism". That is a more fair summary and establishes the extent of notability, i.e. a station dispute."

The thing is it's not just a station dispute because he got in the papers etc. If he'd just got in the local paper or written a blog of his own about it, then that wouldn't really be notable, but he got national press for his antics/death. (I use google news a lot to see if something has references in WP:RS- it's very useful.) It's not entirely biased, because it includes the fact that the station owner lost the case. Also- this is an encyclopedia and not many people would know what zone pricing is etc.

The C+C heading may be there so that more could be added in future. Perhaps you could add more so it's not just this single, lesser criticism? Then it would justify its heading, and there'd no longer be an argument about the heading. As you say, it's unlikely to be the only criticism. Or you could include a sentence or so about the response from Shell explaining why they charged him what they did or whatever, so their viewpoint is explained. Add sources, then it's much harder for people to justify simply undoing your edit.

"Is following someone you don't like and changing edits appropriate?"

No but what you can get away with on wiki depends on your own status or your opponent's status.:) I don't think Seattle94 will keep it up for long. With your current position, the best response would probably be to use it as an excuse to make your edit cast-iron. Make yourself impeccable- add sources to your edits, and mention and discuss changes you make to an article on the talk page. I'm not saying your edits are bad, but that at this point you would do best if they were ultra-good and your conduct ultra-perfect. It's like the editor equivalent of having the moral high ground. Some of those 'following' you then won't be able to compete, and it'd be difficult for anyone to get you into trouble. Don't revert at the moment- rather than revert someone, discuss the disagreement on the talk page of the article or their talk page, and come to a compromise. Particularly with these 'enemies'- if they suggest they have a problem with an edit of yours, go to their talk page and be wonderfully polite in discussion with them, then your actions are there for all to see. (Sometimes keeping your hed down and not interacting too much with those people is good too, though.) After a while this will show your edits and conduct to be of an irreprachable standard and then you can approach people about any problems you have with other users, or others will take action for you. At the moment, righhtly or wrongly, you're in a position of having to prove or justify yourself to avoid block, and that's what you should focus on a bit- through your edits and actions, rather than through trying to get the other in trouble. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong about some of these people :) - I've not looked at all the details. Ignore the person as a person, (concentrate on encyclopedia content, not editors' actions/personalities) improve your own edits to the article etc in response. None of this is to criticise you or say you are wrong. Hope this gives you some inspiration as to how to deal with the situation. Sticky Parkin 10:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As another user said you need to add references for what you put, especially if it involves real people. If you add good refs with your comments (from newspapers etc) it's not as easy for others to revert them and your work doesn't end up undone, and you have 'proof' for what you add. Hope this helps. Sticky Parkin 14:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

I saw that you copied the Murder of Joseph Didier article to your user page. That is completely appropriate, as I don't doubt that you intend to work on it and try and find more references. However, Wikipedians generally don't use their user pages for this, but rather they create a sandbox. You can do this by copying the text into something like User:Presumptive/sandbox or User:Presumptive/Garage working area. Here's a link you might find helpful. Just a suggestion to help keep your user page tidy. AniMate 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Murder_of_Joseph_Didier

Please do not add additional comments with bolded words at the start of them to the deletion review. You have already made clear (by listing the review request) that you would like the page restored. Adding additional bolded comments makes it appear, incorrectly, that your position has more support than it does. You can feel free to discuss issues there but you may not add bolded words at the start. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Misplaced Pages, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Please also remember that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

welcome back, presumptive

Welcome back! I'm glad to see you making edits to Mauritius and Goa. I saw that you used a reference here and was very pleased. If you use references, your work is far more likely to 'stick' and not be undone by other editors. However, make sure that facts you add flow a little smoother from the previous sentence, for instance in your edit I quoted above explain why it is relevant to the paragraph. But in general, statements with references from WP:RS will last longer in articles than those that don't.

Try not to give the impression that you're engaged in a dispute/ critical of one editor in particular. Don't interpret other's comments in a DRV or AfD, if someone comments they may later decide to say that they suggest overturning the AfD, but let them decide to say that for themselves Try not to remove your comment or others from a DRV or AfD as it confuses others about what's happening. If you want to change your comments you can use <s> and </s> which will look like this and. You can also use the "show preview" button - next to "save page" in the edit window, to help you see if what you've put seems ok. Of course you can change your comments too, if no-one has already replied to them, these are just some other suggestions for you to try. In general, just try to relax a little about the AfD/ DRV, but I know how difficult that is for everyone. Let the other editors get on with it and try not to chip in too much, especially as said above by Stifle, don't bold your comments ] in a way that might give an appearance of another vote as it's confusing- though you're not the first I've seen do that and I may have done it myself when I first was involved in an AfD I felt passionate about. Maybe go offline and do something else for a while and come back? Anyway, welcome back.:) Sticky Parkin 15:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about...

making a subbie page for those didier things? just make a page called this:

User:Presumptive/Didier. Just a suggestion! ;)--Editor510 19:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits on UA 93

If you're going to edit an article that's up for review as a Featured Article, learn how to cite properly and how to use footnotes clearly. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

9/11 ArbCom sanction warning

Consider this the notice, not that you're being disruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I hereby acknowledge that I have seen this notice but that I have been notified that I am NOT disruptive. (see Arthur's note). I am removing the warning because admins who are not reading carefully may think that there was disruption. Presumptive (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would consider this edit to be a thinly veiled wording to raise doubt as to whether McClatchey was actually harassed or not. Also, read WP:CIT. I told you about it above, but apparently you ignored it. Flight 93 is up for review as a Featured Article and needs to exemplify the best quality work on Misplaced Pages and this includes properly cited references. -- Veggy (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment to Veggy- a lot of users find it difficult to do the more intricate style of refs. You can always alter how they format the references yourself, rather than wholesale reverting someone's good-faith edits in a confrontational way without full discussion. As Presumptive's adopter, I ask you to treat her kindly per WP:BITE as she's quite a new user. Hey, I treat all users kindly but that's just me. Sticky Parkin 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of WP:OWN issues surrounding this article as soon as any editor attempts to make any changes that goes against what is in it already they are hit with warnings of sanctions, I too was on the end of one of the said warnings, for what I have no clue. BigDunc 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

tone in edits/ edit summaries

Hi Presumptive, just to advise you not to refer to something as the 'bad version' and NOT to use capitals in any of your words in discussion. :) You could maybe use italics if you want to emphasize something. In general, try to keep a friendly tone most of the time with other editors. Sticky Parkin 21:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Septeber 11, 2001 attacks

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on September 11, 2001 attacks. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive, please try not to be blocked, lest you bring shame on our adoptive family. :) You may not be wrong about this article but it's not worth risking a block. Sticky Parkin 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I promise not to bring shame to our family. I will back down for now. If I re-engage, I will rephrase and not use the original research idea because it touches a raw nerve. Maybe the improved prose idea. Presumptive (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know all the details, but can't see anything wrong with your prose idea, though someone I think also suggested a small rename of the page would deal with the problem you identified (obviously this would need some discussion.) I don't know anything, never mind sufficient, about the woman and harassment you were discussing in the article, to have a view on that. I don't know all the ins and outs of the debate. I just wanted to say, not all your suggestions for that article seem "wrong" or anything like that.:)Sticky Parkin 00:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did to September 11, 2001 attacks, you will be blocked from editing. Stop screwing around with the lead sentence. Veggy (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My change was consensus. 13 days of listing in the talk page, no objections. The non-consensus version you used has objections from other people. Presumptive (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked how these revisions trumped WP:LEAD and there was no response. There is no consensus! -- Veggy (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The version that you favor violates LEAD because the highlight words is NOT the title (almost but not). If you aren't going to use the title (not a requirement), then the best prose wins, not an awkward combination of "similar to the title" and "odd wording using attack as the definition of attacks". This issue can be discussed and compromises made. I have made 7 suggestions. Please make a few yourself and don't insist on a non-consensus version. Presumptive (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: post on my talk page

I'll look into it tomorrow. It's 2:45 am for me right now, so I really don't have time to do something in-depth. J.delanoy_adds 06:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Friendly notice

You've been reported to WP:AN3RR by another editor for breaking 3RR on the 9/11 article. While we're on the subject, it would be best if you didn't refer to a non-vandalism edit as vandalism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Was just about to notify him. See here. -- Veggy (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a friendly warning. It is aggressive to me. You already won as I let you have your way with a version that has opposition. The version that I used was discussed for 13 days and incorporated the concerns of another user.

You are editing together in lockstep which some call meatpuppetry. I call it nothing. I simply ask that you compromise and discuss. One of you said you will not compromise. Such behavior is unbecoming of a US Airman, which one of you says he is. Or maybe that is becoming because that's like a bombing run by a B-52...listen, you we bomb you. Presumptive (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AIV noticeboard

I declined to block the vandalism report regarding you. Useight (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really want to take a look at the 3RR report at the moment. I'm too tired to give it justice (it's 1:04am). Hopefully another admin can take a close look. Useight (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedians adopted in Adopt-a-user