Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:22, 10 November 2010

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is SW3 5DL's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 days

When Vandals care enough to say it best. . .

• Gun Powder .

• The Troubles

Landon Donovan

You know you're on Misplaced Pages when. . .

• The Care Bears article has a criticism section. .

"Tag" section at TPM. Request for Expertise

Hi. I'm requesting your opinion and perhaps assistance with something on the TPM talk page because you're already a participant and because I like the way you've disagreed with me in the past. You're professional and knowledgeable about policy.

I'm concerned about this section, not because because it violates policy (I'd go to an Admin) but because it's disruptive to the mission of the page. Creating a section for the debate of certain tags invites the discussions about the tags' objects to migrate away from their own distinct sections and into that one. I'm also distressed because the tags should remain in the article for as long as their objects are contested and there isn't consensus. A section in which the participants decide to remove a certain tag from the article can subvert the consensus processes in which other editors are engaged in the corresponding discussion sections.

If you have time I'd appreciate if you would take a peek at it and let me know what you think. At this time I'm convinced it's bad business and prepared to stand against it, but there are already two editors holding trials over tags in the section. If you don't think it's that egregious then I won't spend all that energy against it. However, if you think it stinks and if you have the time, it'd be nice to have another voice there. I might ask one other editor for input also. Let me know. -Digiphi (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching the page and I thought opening a separate section to discuss all the tags was not at all helpful. There seems to be a problem with ownership right now. And the talk page discussions are being turned into circular arguments. It's time the other editors came together to discuss what needs to be done to restore neutrality to the article so that the tags can be removed and the article improved. Consensus can help to alleviate the stresses one or two editors can cause.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholly. That's a very good assessment of what's going on. I'm in the same conversation on my talk page and somewhat on the TPM discussion. The first order of business ought to be stopping the "Tags" section and its subsections. It drags the rest of the page into it. The problem is—and I'm guilty of this myself—being unable to resist jumping into the discussion now happening in that section, even though its dangerous to the page. There has to be a way out, or back, whatever. That section is bad business. -Digiphi (Talk) 18:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page post

Malke, I'm going to give you the opportunity to remove your false accusation of 3RR violation without further comment. I will not object if you delete the entire section. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in the fight over Malke deleting that post, but I can't help noticing this discussion going on. I'll submit that

1.) Dylan, perhaps you should address the accusations on the talk page where they appear, in the fashion of "this is not 3RR because..." and "my actions are acceptable because..." Know what I mean? Refute the accusations.

2.)Malke, perhaps Dylan's talk page is a better place to make that post. I think the way you posted it is usually seen either on user's talk pages or when editors bring the complaint to the noticeboards. I haven't seen an entire section made on a talk page about an editor's behavior very often. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Digiphi, if you're going to get involved, it would be better if you first got up to speed. By the time I made the request above, I had already refuted the 3RR accusation. And, to be frank, I didn't actually have to do that. If he'd reported the alleged violation, any admin would have shot him down. I was doing him a courtesy by saving him the embarrassment and loss of credibility. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it Malke, you seem to have missed that some of the edits are in a block and so count only as one edit as far as 3RR goes. So there is left nothing close to a violation. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, nice to see you. I haven't made any false accusations. Another editor mentioned in an edit summary that Dylan Flaherty had violated 3RR, so I posted the edits. I know the block edits count as one. Dylan then refactored my talk page comments and he's here now claiming an accusation has been made. There's been no accusation made. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You repeated a false accusation made by Rubin, without bothering to see if it was true. You created a section labeled "3RR", listing supposed evidence of a 3RR violation. When I tried to rename it to, you edit-warred.

If you admit that there was no 3RR violation, then please remove the section so we can move on. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone here going to teach Malke how not to launch false 3RR accusations? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, Malke has never filed a 3RR report. The purpose of the mentorship is not to teach Malke how to do things on Misplaced Pages, but how to handle conflicts with others. At this point, I would prefer to see Malke respond to the notes above. --Moonriddengirl 20:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, he did not file a report, but instead made a false accusation on the article talk page. He has handled this conflict chiefly by edit-warring to keep a defamatory topic heading in place. Not good. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi MRG, Dylan Flaherty is continuing to revert/refactor my talk page edit. He seems to be edit warring over this.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object to a topic that claims there's a 3RR violation, when I've already demonstrated that no such violation occurred. However, what I'm editing is not your talk page, but the article discussion page.

The right move at this point is not to edit war over the topic but to retract the false accusation by removing the entire section. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Dylan, can you point us to this accusation that you are describing?....I can't even find it. Or, alternatively, we could just move on. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(added later) That just goes to the top of the article's talk page, and the text in the link points to a non-existent section.North8000 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that didn't work for you, but try looking at the section that the following edit is in: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Tea_Party_movement&action=historysubmit&diff=395412205&oldid=395411984 Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I figured it out. Malke edit-warred to change the topic, which broke the link. Sorry about that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are the one refactoring the diffs into accusations. I've not made any accusations. You're the one who is making something out of it. As I said, I posted it in response to Arthur Rubin's edit summary. There's no accusation. And continuing to refactor my comments is edit warring. You seem to believe that you enjoy some special privilege that frees you from respecting the comments of others. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The only refactoring I did was to sign it for you and then to add numbers so that I could address them line by line. Naturally, you've edit-warred to revert both. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep refactoring the section heading, you signed my name to it, to you've been numbering the diffs as if I'd done that to show a 3RR violation. You do not enjoy special privileges on Misplaced Pages. I don't know what you mean by "naturally you've edit-warred to revert both." I'm not edit warring when I restore my own comments that you've refactored into something that was never intended. Editors are not allowed to alter another editor's comments. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely did sign your name to your edit. Is that a problem? If I hadn't done it, a bot would have done it for me.

I also added numbers so that I could address your accusation, and I clearly took credit for that addition in the body of the text. Again, entirely reasonable.

I objected, and still object, to my edit links being placed under a "3RR" heading, and have tried repeatedly to qualify it, yet you have edit-warred over all of my changes.

This is not reasonable behavior on your part. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the refactoring to which Malke is referring. I agree. Changing the heading under which Malke impartially posted links to the edit history relevant to Arthur Rubin's 3RR claim from simply "3RR" to "Demonstrably False 3RR Accusation" is inappropriate. It would have been better to request its complete removal (which Dylan did in turn), address Arthur's accusations and the relevant edit history there on the page, or move the entire affair to his talk page. I still believe that it shouldn't be hashed out within the article discussion page, regardless of the merit of the accusations. -Digiphi (Talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did all of those. I requested its removal after I addressed the accusation, and then I took the conversation to his talk page. There is no merit to the accusation, but I'm glad you admit it was an accusation, not merely "impartially posted links". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't admit anything. I did clearly state that Malke added "impartially posted links" to the edit history relevant to Arthur Rubin's accusation. Those are the events that took place earlier today. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line

Malke, are you going to remove that "3RR" section? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement

Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Hamtechperson 00:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no accusation, there never was an accusation. It's just a posting of diffs. Suggest you drop it. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that a no? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also Dylan, you're not allowed to sign for another editor. That's what the bot is for.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I take that, and your edit-warring, as a no. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. You're the one who has created this crisis. Please stop removing my talk page posts. You've done it before, with no explanation, and then a denial when called on it. You're the one creating the accusation against yourself. My posting of the diffs was meant to show the opposite. Arthur Rubin thought you'd violated 3RR. I posted the diffs to show otherwise. I don't know why you've become so exercised over it and refactored the post to make it appear as an accusation, and then edit warred each time I've attempted to restore my original post. You even signed my name to it after you refactored it.

I don't think you'll find any admins sympathetic to your behavior. As I said on the talk page, I will hat the discussion, but I won't allow you to refactor or remove my posts. You have to learn to respect others. If you'd come to my page and said it bothered you, and been open to discussion, that would be one thing. But your posts here are offensive. I'm not edit warring, yet you don't seem to miss a chance to claim that in every reply you make to editors here. The other editors don't see a problem.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's move on and have some fun turning this mess-of-an-article into a good one. North8000 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Let's. -Digiphi (Talk) 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

About what happened today

I was just thinking about what you went through today and I feel bad about it, for you, because I asked you to become involved in that discussion. That you ended up on the noticeboards is ridiculous, and it's important to me that you know (if you didn't) that it had nothing to do with your behavior, and everything to do with other editors. I noticed that throughout the affair—in the discussion section and during the noticeboard process—that you never fumbled civility, even when baited. What's more, your patience and cheerfulness were epic, where my posts would have been terse and livid. Your handling of the discussion and the scandal is an example for others to study and I'm very impressed. Therefore you deserve this PUA. -Digiphi (Talk) 04:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		In recognition of remarkable patience, civility and indomitable good cheer in a sad situation. Congratuations, You rock! -Digiphi Nov. 2010

Wow, Digiphi, that's very kind and most thoughtful of you. That just makes my day now.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, don't feel bad in any way. I'd been watching the talk page discussions and I was also concerned about the tags being made an issue instead of the edits they were meant to address. Thanks again for the barnstar. That was so thoughtful and sweet. :D Malke 2010 (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)