Misplaced Pages

User talk:Frei Hans: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:34, 6 July 2009 editFrei Hans (talk | contribs)743 edits →ASIO File← Previous edit Revision as of 13:00, 6 July 2009 edit undoLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,613 edits →ASIO File: commentNext edit →
Line 57: Line 57:


:Hi Papa November. The article existed for quite some time before you began following me from page to page. It is factual, informative and written in a neutral style. You seem to have decided to redirect it in an attempt to edit war related to another article decision. The fact that you felt this particular article needed to be taken to some sort of "debate" or forum shows you know that your intent was controversial and biased and that you could not remove the article on your own with neutrality. In addition, the article was poorly redirected. In fact the article it was redirected to still linked back to the original article and contained quite different content. The article could not be deleted and so you tried to have it removed some other way. You seem to have begun following me from page to page, trying to remove content. You seem to be wiki-stalking me. Please stop being disruptive. Thank you. ] (]) 11:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC) :Hi Papa November. The article existed for quite some time before you began following me from page to page. It is factual, informative and written in a neutral style. You seem to have decided to redirect it in an attempt to edit war related to another article decision. The fact that you felt this particular article needed to be taken to some sort of "debate" or forum shows you know that your intent was controversial and biased and that you could not remove the article on your own with neutrality. In addition, the article was poorly redirected. In fact the article it was redirected to still linked back to the original article and contained quite different content. The article could not be deleted and so you tried to have it removed some other way. You seem to have begun following me from page to page, trying to remove content. You seem to be wiki-stalking me. Please stop being disruptive. Thank you. ] (]) 11:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
::The place to contest the AfD is ], and not by reverting the redirect. I would note that you are in violation of policy in your actions, and that your comments to Papa November in bringing it to your attention are inappropriate. ] (]) 13:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:00, 6 July 2009

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Frei Hans! I am Call me Bubba and have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Call me Bubba (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Theodore Kowal

I have restored the former article to User:Frei Hans/Theodore Kowal for your improvement.--Aervanath (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Within an hour or so of moving the material back to Theodore Kowal it was deleted again. Is it usual to restore content to a user page? It might have been better to restore it to the main page with an admin note to avoid such a speedy second deletion. Frei Hans (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is quite normal to move material that is not yet suitable for use as an encyclopaedia article to user space so that a user can improve it. See Misplaced Pages:Userfication for details. The article in its previous form was deleted after a week long discussion. It cannot simply be moved back into the main encyclopaedia until all the issues have been resolved. See the speedy deletion criteria for an explanation of why it was deleted again. Papa November (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok but I was not the user who created the article - I only questioned the article's deletion. Now the article has been deleted again, after I moved it from my user space back to Theodore Kowal where I thought more users would be able to access and improve it. If the person exists or existed, and if he did not create the article about himself, then in my opinion the article is valid. Also, why are you and Verbal hanging around every time I login? Frei Hans (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not how it works, I'm afraid. Once an article has been deleted, then recreation isn't permitted until the issues have been addressed. Any user (not just the original author) can request a copy of the deleted content and work on it in their own user space. After the improvements have been made, then it can be moved back into the main encyclopaedia. Admins are allowed to delete recreated articles on sight unless the improvements have already been made. Papa November (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

Userfying pages

Hans Frei, I am happy to userfy the page for you for further work if you like. You can then show someone that substantial improvements have been made before returning to mainspace. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Frei Hans (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A Bit of Advice

From some of the concerns of other users, and a quick review of some of your edits, I would like to give some advice ... otherwise, I expect an WP:RFC/U will be filed against you shortly by a number of editors.

  • Assume good faith is the most important tenet of Misplaced Pages. Failure do AGF is considered disruptive
  • An approved definition of vandalism has been accepted by the community. Only edits/actions that specifically meet the meanings provided in that definition can ever be called vandalism. You should note that content disputes do not fall in this category. Calling something vandalism that is not vandalism is considered disruptive.
  • Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is a violation of the no public attacks policy. The general rule is to either put up or shut up
  • Misplaced Pages has a clear dispute resolution process. Acting in a one-sided manner is not working collaboratively, which is contrary to the goals of this project.

If you believe that you have a failure to be able to work within these guidelines, then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not for you...all of the above violations could result in blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello BWilkins. To address some of your bullet points:
  • Yes indeed, assuming good faith is important. I wish more good faith had been assumed before your comment was posted on my user page.
  • An approved definition of Misplaced Pages vandalism:
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."
The users that I think you refer to, have been discussing an article from which large blocks of content were removed a number of times in various ways by users Verbal and Papa November. The article was page blanked. That is vandalism.
  • Accusing someone of sock puppetry is not a violation of the no public attacks policy. A user was independently found in an arbitration case to be a sock puppet by other users. Please stop posting threatening messages on my user page just because I pointed out that the user who was found to be disruptively operating sock puppets also deleted an article that I contributed in good faith to Misplaced Pages.
  • I agree, acting in a one sided manner is not working collaboratively. Please, in the interests of neutrality, point this out to the users who one-sidedly have been attempting to remove valid, well referenced and encyclopedic by constantly deleting content and nominating articles for deletion. Frei Hans (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ASIO File

Hi Frei Hans,

The article was redirected after the deletion debate. You can't revert it without overturning the consensus. Papa November (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Papa November. The article existed for quite some time before you began following me from page to page. It is factual, informative and written in a neutral style. You seem to have decided to redirect it in an attempt to edit war related to another article decision. The fact that you felt this particular article needed to be taken to some sort of "debate" or forum shows you know that your intent was controversial and biased and that you could not remove the article on your own with neutrality. In addition, the article was poorly redirected. In fact the article it was redirected to still linked back to the original article and contained quite different content. The article could not be deleted and so you tried to have it removed some other way. You seem to have begun following me from page to page, trying to remove content. You seem to be wiki-stalking me. Please stop being disruptive. Thank you. Frei Hans (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The place to contest the AfD is WP:DRV, and not by reverting the redirect. I would note that you are in violation of policy in your actions, and that your comments to Papa November in bringing it to your attention are inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)