| Revision as of 12:29, 18 December 2011 view sourceBob K31416 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,028 edits →Groundhog Day← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:46, 19 December 2011 view source TheOldJacobite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users95,152 edits →Huh?: ---Response.Next edit → | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Huh? == | |||
| '''If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, post ].''' | |||
| {{archive box collapsible| | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| ].<br /> | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| I just saw this page pop up on my watchlist. Is there a reason for your departure? ] ] 04:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism... == | |||
| So, in all fairness, and I know you know this better than I as you have much more WP experience than I do, could you stop calling calling the ] and ] IP editor a vandal? As incivil, argumentative, and in terms of article content often wrong that xe is, I don't think the edits count as ]. Xe's certainly edit warring, and the incivility and refusal to discuss on the article talk page are ], so perhaps using the term "disruptive editing" or, even better, just repeating the same actual reason (like you did ) is better. That way, when xe gets bitter and angry and starts cussing and still refuses to discuss the issue, then xe has no cause for complaint that we treated xyr inappropriately just because xe's an IP. Yes, I know that xe's called you and other editors far, far worse, but I figure that taking away any possible ammo xe might have to claim victimization is better. ] (]) 05:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :A lurker writes, he didn't initially call the guy a vandal, he provided an informative edit summary. To wit ''Not a sound reason for deleting sourced information.'', only later when the IP continued to edit war and had been abusive did he hit the Rollback Vandal button. The IP is selective in his diffs to claim persecution. ] <small>]</small> 12:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey Jacobite, I only looked at ], and want to chime in with Qwyrxian. Now, it seems like this is old news, and that would be great. Let me just briefly summarize: the IP has been dealt with in a rough and unfriendly manner, and has lashed out in equally unacceptable ways--only difference is, they got blocked. If they persist in this way there will be more blocks, but I wish to get to a point where they at least are dealt with fairly--that good-faith edits are not called vandalism, not simply reverted, that they're judged on their content, etc etc. I realize I'm not really talking to you: you gave an the first time in a series, and there are editors here who have done nothing to even validate their reverts, but I wish to win you for the cause: a more fair and even-handed treatment of IP editors. BTW, I agree with them on the placement of the note... Anyway, drop me a line if you think I'm being unfair to you: you know I have great respect for you as an editor, but I do think we can all do a better job here. Thanks, ] (]) 02:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::And I should confirm that I am aware that RJ started out properly, and I appreciate that. I've tried to ask the IP on my talk page what exactly xe wants...I'm not sure that we can give it xyr, but we need some clarification to find out if there's any chance of getting out of this with less "bloodshed". ] (]) 03:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Drmies, Jacobite reverted with a reasonable edit summary and was subjected to a stream of abuse. The same pattern of behaviour we've seen before and which he promised to stop at ANI. Its only after the abuse and edit warring he is labelled a vandal and reverted wholesale and that is a perfectly reasonable way to respond. See ]. He brings this on himself and you're again excusing his behaviour. You need to look deeper and not take his claims at face value. ] <small>]</small> 08:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry, Monster, but I asked Jacobite for ''his'' advice and cooperation. He is smart enough to see what the IP did and how that was unacceptable, but unlike others he may also appreciate the broader picture (that you claim I need to look deeper is meritless, and that you say I'm excusing his behavior is untrue and a smear). Qwyrxian, your point is well taken. It may well be that the situation is beyond repair here, but I hope not. It will depend on the IP, and it will depend on other editors ''not'' jumping on him. Wee Curry Monster, if your edits were consistently characterized as vandalism (it wasn't Jacobite who was doing that, of course), you'd be pissed too. In fact, you are pissed, and your work isn't even messed with, and that is not helping the situation. Jacobite, I'm going to make this my last comment on the matter on your talk page--my apologies if I (inadvertently) turned it into a forum. To show my good will, I made some copy edits in your honor to ]. Best, ] (]) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :Honestly, it's not something I want to discuss in this public forum. Thank you for your concern. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| This is really an interesting topic, and GA material (in the hands of someone other than me, of course). Searches such as prove it to be a very popular farewell song, but listing them and stating that fact is OR/synthesis, of course. ] (]) 17:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks! I don't recall ever having looked at that article before. Cheers! ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::It turns out to be quite interesting. I made a couple more stubs, and am about to create ]. Have a great week, ] (]) 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know if there is a "song" section in the Jacobitism article--perhaps you should write it! ] (]) 17:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll think about that! ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am sorry to see you go. Whatever the reason may be, I wish you the best in real life. ] ] 04:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Green Mile == | |||
| Well, as you archived our discussion without replying to my offer, I assume that means you are willing to concede, so I'll just go ahead and make the edits then shall I? --] (]) 04:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I made it clear that I had no further intention of carrying on the conversation here, and that you should start a discussion on the article talk page. I now make that suggestion again. My opinion on the matter has not changed, and you have still failed to make a case for your expansion of the plot. Please do not post here again on this matter. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 05:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you. But, to be honest, if Misplaced Pages cares about retaining experienced editors and contributors, it has to do more than offer lip service. Every day, it is an uphill battle against outright vandalism, utter nonsense, and POV-pushing. Experienced editors should get the benefit of the doubt in battles against anonymous users who do not know our policies and show no willingness to learn. In the last two months, I have fought battle after battle, too-often losing my temper due to frustration, against ill-tempered, rude, aggressive editors, and told again and again that I must "assume good faith." Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. I am not a perfect editor, and will not claim to be, but I have been here long enough to know how things work. It took time and experience to learn it, and I received a lot of help along the way. WP is a lot different than when I started, and editing here is now more a source of frustration than either joy or satisfaction. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == The Godfather/related character articles == | |||
| There are currently 70 articles for characters in ''The Godfather'' series. Most are unreferenced and/or stub articles. I am planning to combine most of them into a ] article, but before I began I wanted to get your input as to which characters should stay as stand-alone articles. Vito and Michael should probably remain, but do you have any input as to which other characters should retain the stand-alone articles? Any feedback is apprecaited—Thanks. <b><span style="background-color:#D3CD8B;color:#0083A9;">Sottolacqua</span></b> <small>(])</small> 16:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tis the season== | |||
| ===For something or other=== | |||
| A three month old grudge. Sheesh. | |||
| On a different note I was impressed with '']''. The recreations of Melies studio and filming technique were stunning and this is one of the few 3D films that I've seen that the extra cost of the ticket were worth it. Hope you have a fun holiday season. ] | ] 19:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :That is exactly what I was thinking! I could not even remember who he was. | |||
| :As for the film, I have heard wildly varying reviews, so I am not sure what to think. I rarely go to the theatre anymore, as the cost is too high and I am generally disappointed. | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| == Please explain... == | |||
| '''''' Why did you remove non-breaking spaces? What is the advantage of having a name wrap across two lines if it can be avoided? —]❤]☮]☺]☯ 16:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Just careless edits late at night. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 02:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ''Groundhog Day'' == | |||
| Hi. Regarding , I added IL because when I went to the article for the first time, I thought the "Woodstock" in the captions was referring to Woodstock, NY since that was the only Woodstock town that I had ever heard of because of the famous outdoor rock concert. I recognize that Illinois is mentioned in the text, but I was just making a quick look at the article for info, rather than studying it, and I came away with the misinformation that it was filmed in Woodstock, NY. Regards, --] (]) 15:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :If after reading the above you have no objections, I'd like to restore it. Thoughts? --] (]) 12:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Update: I restored it. Regards, --] (]) 12:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:46, 19 December 2011
Huh?
I just saw this page pop up on my watchlist. Is there a reason for your departure? Alpha_Quadrant 04:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, it's not something I want to discuss in this public forum. Thank you for your concern. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 04:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry to see you go. Whatever the reason may be, I wish you the best in real life. Alpha_Quadrant 04:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. But, to be honest, if Misplaced Pages cares about retaining experienced editors and contributors, it has to do more than offer lip service. Every day, it is an uphill battle against outright vandalism, utter nonsense, and POV-pushing. Experienced editors should get the benefit of the doubt in battles against anonymous users who do not know our policies and show no willingness to learn. In the last two months, I have fought battle after battle, too-often losing my temper due to frustration, against ill-tempered, rude, aggressive editors, and told again and again that I must "assume good faith." Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. I am not a perfect editor, and will not claim to be, but I have been here long enough to know how things work. It took time and experience to learn it, and I received a lot of help along the way. WP is a lot different than when I started, and editing here is now more a source of frustration than either joy or satisfaction. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 04:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)