Misplaced Pages

Reply

I agree. Remember the same user has worked from User talk:90.194.100.16, User talk:194.80.49.252, User talk:155.136.80.35, User talk:90.197.236.12,User talk:90.207.105.117, User talk:90.197.224.58. Similar problems with edits to BLP articles across wikipedia, With official warnings here and here. With previous block here. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, multiple violations at multiple articles with multiple IP addresses. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have had enough of this editor, making reports to ANI without letting me know is simply not cool. I understand he might be annoyed at not getting his way with adding the same material onto that article, but it is exactly the same dubious, potentially personally damaging material that has already been rejected across wikipedia.Monkeymanman (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the page has been protected now so that option is not open for me. Thanks for the advice anyway. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for the advice. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Quoting a source that says "f***"

Hi mate, got a minute? Before I get meself into too much trouble, I wanted you to sanity check something... is my edit here the right thing to do? It's a revert, my second, and I think I'm right here (I've posted on the talkpage, but that doesn't make me right, obviously). Anyhoo... am I right? Does it matter? Incidentally, I am not asking you to pile in and start reverting - if it looks like there's an edit war shaping up I'll protect it (on The Wrong Fucking Version) and argue the toss on the talkpage. TFOWR 18:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, interesting indeed, we could say something like...and the cabin staff responded with a string of expletives... I will have a look at the talkpage, imo although we are not censored adding verbal insults with no encyclopedic value is not of any true educational value. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry for dragging you into editing the article - still, it's a BLP so I guess it's right up your street?! I gather I distracted you from Chelsea Clinton - sorry! TFOWR 20:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it was worth a look..Well, if I had my way I would delete that flight attendant article immediately, and I am taking it of my watchlist as we speak..Chelsea Clinton is of course another matter.. Beast. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

:-o What, you mean than an article about an individual famous for exactly one event should be deleted?! Deletionist! Deletionist! I've avoided the AfD - I only got involved because I protected the page yesterday. In the grand scheme of things the "****" really isn't as important as some of the BLP issues - I saw someone delete something well dodgy just now, and was ashamed I'd missed it... TFOWR 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about that. Very ill-disciplined of me I'm afraid. New page patrol is an interesting place indeed! Freakshownerd (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it.

So, are you a Christian or wut? ☘HappyDude The Mad Tim☘ craic 02:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? HappyDude, I suggest that you keep your religious agenda to yourself from now on! – PeeJay 07:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Response

I'm barely disposed to edit wikipedia at all after this. I would like to draw to your attention the articles under dispute which I created, and I ask you to take a look at whether I've improved them or not (and whether recent edits have improved them or not). Regarding your question, no, I will not be editing ancient Chinese history any time soon; if I edit at all I will be editing perhaps the modern Chinese economy or libertarianism-related articles, 2 other areas I have contributed to. Also, thanks for your support on ANI.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I though as an independent it was helpful to comment, anyways. The issue is not so much about content now as your interactions with other users and there seems to be a fair few that are on the other side to your position. This is the issue you need to deal with at this time imo not so much specific content issues. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I always regarded content issues as first (after all why are we here?), I've meet some great editors along the way who've helped me a lot. I won't say anything, but the drop in article quality in the involved articles since I left is astounding 12 3. As to personal issues, I believe I am not at fault. I won't go into detail, but I outlined the case here. I appreciate your advice, however; perhaps we should continue this conversation via email?Teeninvestor (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Mr IP editor has raised an issue at BLP noticeboard and said he would like me to inform you about it. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

ridiculous

This has simply gotten ridiculous. I'm drafting a user conduct RfC at User:Yworo/draft. I've never done one of these before, have you? Could you collaborate on getting it properly filled out? Yworo (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest taking a step back ( am also trying to), we should try to bring this user in and work with him or let other experience users form independent opinions. I know this is not easy when users come in a disruptive way and don't help themselves but as experienced users we need to try to work with them somehow...its hard but I think you would be better taking the article off your watch list and standing back, new editors will move in and if the user is again noticed and reported for the same issues its the old, give them a length of rope issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I've tried to engage the user at length for some time when other editors were not, giving detailed explanations of the correct way to proceed back when it was claiming to be Leopold's attorney. This has been going on for years and I think an RfC is the next step. The editor needs to be convinced that the community, and not just a few individual editors, object to what they are doing. At least, that's what I think.... Once the RfC is active, a new set of editors will be looking at this and I'll be more content to de-watchlist the article then... I do understand your suggestion, though.... Yworo (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)