| Revision as of 06:55, 17 August 2015 editTamsier (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,433 edits →August 2015← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:40, 17 August 2015 edit undoTamsier (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,433 edits →Warning: Irrelevant. Question not answered. Cleaning up.Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ] Please do not ] other editors, as you did at ]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> ] (]) 13:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | ] Please do not ] other editors, as you did at ]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> ] (]) 13:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::He and his chums have attacked my character numerous times see the Serer related talk pages. I have not even bothered to respond to their silly attacks because I have a life. I came back after couple of years when they hounded me from the project. Because I've created some portal before, I was asked to help create others. That's the reason why I came back. Whilst working on those, I went through some of the articles and talks pages and couldn't believe the attacks they directed at me trying to destroy my character and damage my credibility. My contribution to Wiki on Sub-Saharan African related articles speak for themselves whether they like it or not. I do not need their approval. I am not perfect. No one is perfect, and every article can be improved. If you see an issue with an article, fix it and move on rather than making false accusation trying to discredit an editor as they did three years ago. I tagged those articles for the reasons I have given at RSN. I made my case succinctly regarding the unreliability of the sources cited and for which they were cited. Galvan, may be reliable but only in the context of Serer customary land law and lamanic system (which is what his book was about) because that is his remit. But he is not qualified to go outside that remit by making expansive claims without first sourcing them from reliable sources. That is the reason why I tagged Galvan's citation. Not only is Étienne not qualified on the subject and went against mainstream sources, but he confused two facts and prescribed his unsubstantiated opinion. First, the Guelowars arrived in Sine in the 14th century, see Sarr (as stated in RSN). Second, there were already Serers in Sine, so for Étienne to come up with that ridiculous notion is unscholarly. Last but not least, Étienne quoted Gravrand for his dubious claims, but only gave the surname of Gravrand and the year of publication of his book (according to the editor's insertion). Even scholars have to quote sources in full when making such claims. I have never seen a scholar quote like Étienne. Never in my life. For that reason I tagged him too. I tagged them for different reasons which are justified. I have stated my point at RSN. Notice that the editor who opened that discussion provided nothing in return that rebukes my argument. For someone who once claimed to be very good at selecting sources, I'm surprised he didn't picked that up. As such, I am surprised why RSN didn't ask him to revert his edit or at the very least provided reliable sources that substantiate his claims. I have scoured the internet and the books in my possession trying to find reliable sources that backs up his claim but found absolutely nothing other than the sources he inserted, which means he was cherry picking, and as someone who have a long history with this editor, I know exactly why. ] (]) 14:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | ::He and his chums have attacked my character numerous times see the Serer related talk pages. I have not even bothered to respond to their silly attacks because I have a life. I came back after couple of years when they hounded me from the project. Because I've created some portal before, I was asked to help create others. That's the reason why I came back. Whilst working on those, I went through some of the articles and talks pages and couldn't believe the attacks they directed at me trying to destroy my character and damage my credibility. My contribution to Wiki on Sub-Saharan African related articles speak for themselves whether they like it or not. I do not need their approval. I am not perfect. No one is perfect, and every article can be improved. If you see an issue with an article, fix it and move on rather than making false accusation trying to discredit an editor as they did three years ago. I tagged those articles for the reasons I have given at RSN. I made my case succinctly regarding the unreliability of the sources cited and for which they were cited. Galvan, may be reliable but only in the context of Serer customary land law and lamanic system (which is what his book was about) because that is his remit. But he is not qualified to go outside that remit by making expansive claims without first sourcing them from reliable sources. That is the reason why I tagged Galvan's citation. Not only is Étienne not qualified on the subject and went against mainstream sources, but he confused two facts and prescribed his unsubstantiated opinion. First, the Guelowars arrived in Sine in the 14th century, see Sarr (as stated in RSN). Second, there were already Serers in Sine, so for Étienne to come up with that ridiculous notion is unscholarly. Last but not least, Étienne quoted Gravrand for his dubious claims, but only gave the surname of Gravrand and the year of publication of his book (according to the editor's insertion). Even scholars have to quote sources in full when making such claims. I have never seen a scholar quote like Étienne. Never in my life. For that reason I tagged him too. I tagged them for different reasons which are justified. I have stated my point at RSN. Notice that the editor who opened that discussion provided nothing in return that rebukes my argument. For someone who once claimed to be very good at selecting sources, I'm surprised he didn't picked that up. As such, I am surprised why RSN didn't ask him to revert his edit or at the very least provided reliable sources that substantiate his claims. I have scoured the internet and the books in my possession trying to find reliable sources that backs up his claim but found absolutely nothing other than the sources he inserted, which means he was cherry picking, and as someone who have a long history with this editor, I know exactly why. ] (]) 14:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::I didn't insert anything into the quotation, that would be wrong. I'm not going to get into the other arguments now, except to say that you don't understand our sourcing guidelines/policy. ] (]) 14:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Tamsier all I have to say is that I was really surprised to see what you wrote at RSN - what ''you'' wrote there is not appropriate. I hope to not see that kind of discussion from you in the future. Please focus on the discussion of the source and content based on policies and guidelines. Discuss content, not contribitor. Please read ] and ] if you are not familiar with them. Thanks. ] (]) 15:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2015 == | == August 2015 == | ||
Revision as of 10:40, 17 August 2015
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.
 Archives |
Warning
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- He and his chums have attacked my character numerous times see the Serer related talk pages. I have not even bothered to respond to their silly attacks because I have a life. I came back after couple of years when they hounded me from the project. Because I've created some portal before, I was asked to help create others. That's the reason why I came back. Whilst working on those, I went through some of the articles and talks pages and couldn't believe the attacks they directed at me trying to destroy my character and damage my credibility. My contribution to Wiki on Sub-Saharan African related articles speak for themselves whether they like it or not. I do not need their approval. I am not perfect. No one is perfect, and every article can be improved. If you see an issue with an article, fix it and move on rather than making false accusation trying to discredit an editor as they did three years ago. I tagged those articles for the reasons I have given at RSN. I made my case succinctly regarding the unreliability of the sources cited and for which they were cited. Galvan, may be reliable but only in the context of Serer customary land law and lamanic system (which is what his book was about) because that is his remit. But he is not qualified to go outside that remit by making expansive claims without first sourcing them from reliable sources. That is the reason why I tagged Galvan's citation. Not only is Étienne not qualified on the subject and went against mainstream sources, but he confused two facts and prescribed his unsubstantiated opinion. First, the Guelowars arrived in Sine in the 14th century, see Sarr (as stated in RSN). Second, there were already Serers in Sine, so for Étienne to come up with that ridiculous notion is unscholarly. Last but not least, Étienne quoted Gravrand for his dubious claims, but only gave the surname of Gravrand and the year of publication of his book (according to the editor's insertion). Even scholars have to quote sources in full when making such claims. I have never seen a scholar quote like Étienne. Never in my life. For that reason I tagged him too. I tagged them for different reasons which are justified. I have stated my point at RSN. Notice that the editor who opened that discussion provided nothing in return that rebukes my argument. For someone who once claimed to be very good at selecting sources, I'm surprised he didn't picked that up. As such, I am surprised why RSN didn't ask him to revert his edit or at the very least provided reliable sources that substantiate his claims. I have scoured the internet and the books in my possession trying to find reliable sources that backs up his claim but found absolutely nothing other than the sources he inserted, which means he was cherry picking, and as someone who have a long history with this editor, I know exactly why. Tamsier (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- You are blocked for persistent and widespread disruptive editing (such as on Talk:Serer history, Talk:Saloum, Talk:Kingdom of Sine) where you combine forumshopping with personal attacks in a highly disruptive manner. It is a mystery to me why you cannot phrase your disagreements in a more collegial (and acceptable) way. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha! This doesn't look good for Doug Weller does it? I think you were too hasty Drmies. In a day or two I would have saved you the trouble. I was on my way out of Misplaced Pages. For posterity, Drmies along with Doug were two of the main administrators that hounded me from the project three years ago along with personal attacks and character assassinations directed at me on several Serer related talk pages. See Serer talk pages. Drmies is highly involved and if he was smart he would have left it to another administrator to do the blocking. See my archives from 2012. Drmies, you were too hasty. I could have redeemed you within a day or two. And lets get this straight. Doug Weller cited some unreliable sources for the quotes stated (see relevant talk pages referred to above by Drmies). I tagged his edits. He took it to RSN and those articles became the subject of discussion. I there posted my comments, sources and reasons why those sources cited by Doug were unreliable so that future editors are aware and can deal with the issue as they see fit. Maybe I am loosing my mind, but is Drmies telling me that he wanted me to conceal from future editors why does sources are unreliable for what they were cited for? Those articles were affected by the RSN discussion that's why they were added there and rightly so. What Drmies is actually telling me is to break one of the fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages, i.e. discussing things on talk pages and reaching a consensus. Not that I care either way blocked or not, but Drmies wanted the privilege to block me however he used his admin tools too hastily and blocked on the wrong thing, especially after I've posted my references on the relevant talk pages and clearly stated that I am done with this issue someone else can deal with it. Forget about me for a moment because I was going anyway, but other editors interested in contributing to Misplaced Pages may lose all confidence on admins when some behave this way. If this is what it means to be an admin i.e abusing your power for your friends I think its pathetic. Drmies has tarnished his reputation and that of Doug.
- Then again, Drmies has never acted with consensus. He once deleted the Koox article because another editor who took a personal dislike of me asked him and he did inspite of the notability of the article, which was well sourced. There was no discussion other than the other editor and I.
- Drmies had a grudge because I once opposed one of her candidates at an admin vote. Excuse typos I'm on mobile . Tamsier (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2015 (