| Revision as of 00:57, 3 June 2007 editAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,258 editsm →Discussion of Possible Request for Comment Regarding a User: inserting quote marks← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:05, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,139,118 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Archives== | |||
| : Beginning of Time to 14 March 2007. | |||
| : | |||
| 14 March 2007 to 14 May 2007. | |||
| ⚖️ | |||
| ==Vandalism warnings== | |||
| When you revert vandalism, you might consider warning the editor with the ]; should the vandalism continue, editors are usually not blocked unless they have been warned. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Help with adding to Talk page == | |||
| :Thanks, I'll do that.] 04:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to add a sentence to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. I see that you have made edits to the page. The page is protected, so I went to the Talk page | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| ] | |||
| I would like to thank you Ferrylodge, for your support on the miscarriage discussion. Its great to see that there are people like yourself in wiki. --] 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| and clicked "Click here to start a new topic", then composed my suggestion. But when I click "Add topic", it just shows moving slanted lines for a second, and then gives up. I have tried this several times. What do I need to do to actually add the topic? ] (]) 03:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == "Mother" and ] == | |||
| ::I reported the glitch at ]. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you.] (]) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? ] (]) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Should work without logging in, but almost certainly will work when you’re logged in, ]. Good luck. The likely cause of your difficulty is that you were trying to add a topic with just one or two words in the header, and/or one or two words in your comment. Misplaced Pages requires more words from users who aren’t logged in, so as to filter out spam.] (]) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding ] == | |||
| Somehow I've managed to miss this aspect up until now. I'm not feeling particularly thoughtful tonight, but my immediate opinion would be that mother, while accurate, is a more ambiguous word and so is less precise. Looking at the Answers.com definition brings far more to the table than I had initially thought. "Mother" also may presume that a woman has the intention to be a "child raiser," something she might take issue with. Then you have terms such as "expectant mother"... while I do not know the etymology of such terms, and/or if they are/were politically motivated; it is clear motherhood does not start at the same point for everyone. In the end this curls back to debating the personhood of the fetus, and I don't see that being constructive. | |||
| First, thank you for restoring the text I mistakenly removed. I have restored directly from Carguychris' edit. If you believe your version is better, than just revert my last two edits. | |||
| As to its use in pro-life sections; I guess it should be mentioned, but that's something I'd like some consensus on. Would you like me to mention it on the Abortion talk page? - ]] <sup>]</sup> 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ], here is my perspective. You made a claim there are not reliable sources, which was refuted. You made a claim that it was the media that amplified the hoax, which has not been proven outside unreliable sources like Fox News. When you provide your list of sources, then we can see your perspective and discuss. Until then, it looks like the three of us don't agree with your perspective. Alternatively, if you want to suggest alternative wording, then go ahead and do so. I already made one such change when you didn't agree with the word 'they' and am willing to work together on wording. I just am opposed to the removal of details about what happened. --] (]) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The etiquette on talk pages seems to be dictated by personal preference. Some online savvy people have a distinct distaste for fragmented discussions because of bad experiences in other online forums making things hard to follow. In the realm of the talk page theres really isn't an issue since discussions are usually brief and between two people. If things get complicated, then one talk page and/or neutral discussion page is preferred. Heh, that's the low down on that. | |||
| :To explain why I didn't get your other ping and seemed to be ignoring your message, you put your signature on a newline. As noted at ], "he edit must be signed by adding <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> to the end of the message." The system acted as if you had made two messages and ignored the ping to me in the first message. Hope that clears things up a bit. --] (]) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As to mother, well 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d could be and/or. Regardless of which definition(s) are applicable to a woman, the very existence of four primary definitions makes the word "mother" less precise than other available terms. Sure 1a is accurate, but so are the others. (distracted by abortion edit) I'm guessing the concern by pro-choice advocates is that mother infers she wants/should be a mother 1d. While I firmly support death in the lead because its short, accurate and provides balance in tone; I'm unsure if "mother" accomplishes anything other than being short. Though I do like to avoid politically correct conventions (a systematic bias Misplaced Pages has) if it were to improve the article; I don't see that yet in this instance. - ]] <sup>]</sup> 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :], thanks for visiting my user talk. Regarding nazis, please see ], which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” You say above that you’re “opposed to the removal of details about what happened.” But I don’t object to putting nazi details in the article body, or even later in the lead if people feel strongly about it. Just not in the opening paragraph. As far as I know, nazis had no effect on what happened in Springfield, nor any effect on what GOP politicians did. What a horror show Misplaced Pages’s articles on political events would become if they all began with commentary from the nazis on the left, and the Marxists on the right.] (]) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sources say that neo-Nazi groups were spreading the message along with far-right groups. Given the prominence in reliable sources, we are following a ] by mentioning it in the lede. As for the order of stuff, the only thing I could see that has a shot would be splitting off everything after the first sentence of the first paragraph into a new second paragraph and moving all of the old second paragraph into the first paragraph following the first sentence. | |||
| ::{{Blockquote|text = Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.<br />The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered, then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. These claims were amplified by prominent figures in the American right, most notably Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.<br />The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.}} | |||
| ::I don't know if it could be considered an improvement or not as it waits until the second paragraph to explain what is debunked, though it does put more emphasis that the claims are false. Other than that, I don't have much of a suggestion outside of this other one: | |||
| ::{{Blockquote|text = Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered and rose to national prominence by Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, followed then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.<br />Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist and having been spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups in the area. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.<br />The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.}} | |||
| ::If either of the two work for you, then go ahead and try it. --] (]) 07:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh and I am ]d to this discussion, so feel free to ping or not as I will know either way. --] (]) 08:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen.] (]) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Understood. I did reply on the talk page about what they did in Springfield. As for lowering it in the lead, try it and see if it works. --] (]) 20:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| ::Sorry for the delay replying to you. I have been somewhat preoccupied with other things.] 08:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| ==Unblock request== | |||
| The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''. | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=<Moved below by reviewing admin>|decline=While a block was, in my opinion, not appropriate for the final message you left ''per se'', it is acceptable in the present circumstances for the purpose of disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua. I hope that it will not continue after your block expires. Please be careful in your editing of contentious topics such as abortion, and work constructively with other editors to attain consensus based on ] instead of edit warring. Since I don't know the circumstances of the dispute, I have to mention that this advice applies, of course, to all involved. — ] 08:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| I have communicated with the block administrator (Bishonen), and was unable to reach agreement that the block should be lifted. I feel that the block is extremely unfair. Although it is only a 24-hour block, I feel compelled to appeal. The block arose at the talk page of KillerChihuahua (KC). | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| Bishonen accused me of "harassment" toward KC, and then warned me to not say anything more or else I would be blocked. I posted a brief goodbye , and an hour later the following at KC's talk page: '''"I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. ''Please do not delete this comment''"''' (emphasis added). This was brief, polite, and cooperative. However, Bishonen tells me that this denial was "the last straw" that caused her to block me. It is true that I could have alternatively written a denial and put the denial in my back pocket, but most people in the world understand that a person accused of an offense has a right to deny the offense in the place where the accusation was made. Bishonen also says I had the "effrontery to tell her to not remove" my denial. But look at the bolded italicized words above: "Please do not delete this comment." That is a polite request, and there is no effrontery there. | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| Bishonen that I have committed "userspace harassment." This is untrue. is "placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space." I did nothing of this sort at KC's user space. KC never asked me to leave, and we were in the middle of a conversation, when out of the blue came Bishonen with a harassment accusation and a block threat. I would not be blocked right now but for politely and briefly denying Bishonen's harassment accusation. | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| Bishonen and KC are , and so I feel that a neutral administrator is needed here. Neither Bishonen's email nor any of her comments at Misplaced Pages indicate that she bothered to read between me and KC, at KC's talk page. KC was making accusations of edit-warring, disruptiveness, and bad faith that were completely unfounded, and which I believe were so obviously without foundation as to be malicious. Bishonen completely ignored this, and has never addressed it, even though I I am completely innocent of harassment, and I feel that the only reason I am in this situation is because two editors who are close friends have decided to misuse their power as administrators. | |||
| ] | |||
| P.S. The block message I received said that Bishonen is the "blocking administrator." I initially assumed that this meant Bishonen is the Misplaced Pages person in charge of blocks. This was a slight misunderstanding on my part, and I have acknowledged my mistake to Bishonen. I did so in my reply to her email, in which she warned me to "leave KC the hell alone" and told me "You were hell-bent on aggravating KC, that's the trouble. Shame on you." Of course, I am glad to leave KC alone if she will leave me alone. {{unsigned|Ferrylodge}} | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| :Regarding Sandstein's decision, please note this: before being blocked I had already said that "I am glad to be done posting on this page." Therefore, this block obviously was not necessary or appropriate for (as Sandstein wrote) "disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua." I appreciate Sandstein's attempt to be neutral here, but Sandstein's reason just does not make sense.] 10:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
| ::Your complaint conspicuously fails to mention my and my reasons for the block as given in my , as well as in my e-mail. See especially the ''links'' I provided. All of them. You wrote a message full of insults to KC on ''my'' page, and linked to it in the first of your ostensibly "brief and polite" messages on her page. So clever! Make sure you don't post on her page after the block expires. "Don't" doesn't mean "write a series of so-called good-byes", it means don't do it. And don't waste your time working out any further innovatively roundabout ways of attacking her, either. You have been warned ] | ] 11:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC). | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| :::You really are as irresponsible as KC, aren't you Bishonen? I deleted your warning at this user page because you . And as anyone can see, your material that I deleted from this talk page was completely redundant to for me at KC's talk page (which I of course would never delete). | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :::Regarding , Bishonen, I linked to that material in my block removal request, in which I said exactly what I said at your talk page: that KC's accusations against me have been "malicious". | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::You wrote a harassment accusation against me at KC's talk page, and all I have ever asked in response is that a brief and polite denial accompany your accusation. Your insinuation that I want to "write a series of so-called good-byes" is --- yet again --- irresponsible. And if you ever post again at my talk page in such a fashion, expect it to be deleted. I am leaving your most recent comment merely as an example of the sort of thing I have had to deal with from you and KC.] 14:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| (undent) I have sent a further unblock request via email: | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
| {{cquote|Sandstein has denied my unblock request, but he admits I should not have been blocked for the reasons given by Bishonen. Nevertheless, Sandstein says the block was appropriate for "disengaging you from your dispute with KillerChihuaua." This makes no sense whatsoever. | |||
| Before being blocked I had already said that "I am glad to be done posting on this page." | |||
| I am very upset about this, even though it is only a 24-hour block. '''''Please do not expect me to continue at Misplaced Pages if I can be arbitrarily blocked by irresponsible administrators for arbitrary reasons.''''' Thank you.}} | |||
| This block is unjustified.] 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In reply to your e-mail, your being upset is noted, and reconsideration politely declined for the reason that you need to calm down. Consider editing ] to your previous activities once the block expires; I find this to have a calming effect. It would now be appropriate for you to confirm that you are indeed done with your dispute with KillerChihuaua by refraining from perpetuating it through any further comments on this matter. You are free, of course, to leave Misplaced Pages at any time if you don't like the way this community operates. Thanks, ] 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sandstein, you should not limit reconsideration of your decisions to situations where the requester is not upset. Why would anyone request reconsideration unless they were upset? | |||
| ::As I said previously, your assertion that a block is "acceptable in the present circumstances for the purpose of disengaging you" makes no sense in view of the fact that, before being blocked, I had that "I am glad to be done posting on this page." | |||
| ::If that is how "this community operates" then there really is no reason for me to remain here.] 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I refrain from any further comment. ] 18:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not surprising. If this irresponsible block is allowed to run the full 24 hours, then I will have to make a decision about whether to stay at Misplaced Pages. If I stay, it will be with full knowledge that this is an extremely flawed enterprise. And if I leave it will be with great relief.] 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edit that Sparked Controversy== | |||
| There is no consensus for a that I made in the ] article (hereafter the “reverted edit”). Therefore, I have not changed that RCOG article unilaterally back to my previous version, because that would be against consensus. | |||
| This reverted edit was reverted by KillerChihuahua (KC) who not only disagreed with it, but also said (in her edit summary) that the edit was disruptive. I disagree with KC that the edit should have been reverted, for reasons already explained at the . I also disagree with KC that this edit was disruptive, and I will now fully and carefully explain why, for the record. This edit that KC reverted was clearly not redundant to any previous edits made anywhere else at Misplaced Pages, and thus this edit was not made by me in bad faith as part of any disruptive “edit war”. | |||
| This discussion of RCOG’s position on “choice” started at the article on ], and I moved it to the RCOG article for valid reasons. At the fetal pain article, KC wrote: "Please provide a source that this government institution is 'pro-choice' - abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice." I therefore investigated and learned that RCOG is ''not'' a government institution, that most of their members live outside the UK, that its governing documents do not specifically limit its activities, that many of its members do not have medical degrees, et cetera. So, I concluded that the best place to deal with all of this would be at the RCOG article. At the RCOG article, I added quite a bit of info, in addition to RCOG’s abortion stance. When I was at the fetal pain article and decided to move to the RCOG article, I repeatedly said so in the fetal pain discussion. I did not sneak over here to try to avoid objections at the fetal pain article. | |||
| KC has cited five diffs that she says prove was virtually the same as several contested assertions I had made previously. Here are KC’s five diffs: in the fetal pain article, in the fetal pain article, in the RCOG article, in the RCOG article, and in the RCOG article. | |||
| None of these five previous edits cited by KC is the same (or virtually the same) as the later that sparked this controversy. Both KC’s diff (1) and diff (2) show where I inserted a cite to support assertion that RCOG is a “pro-choice group”. KC pointed out very clearly at the fetal pain article that she did not think RCOG was a “pro-choice group” even though she thought RCOG could have a “pro-choice position” on particular issues: | |||
| {{cquote|The way you have it phrased, they are a "pro-choice group" - they're not. You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group.}} | |||
| There is no uncertainty or ambiguity that KC argued RCOG can have a pro-choice position on an issue, even while RCOG has a “pro-choice group.” KC’s contested diffs (1) and (2) were contested because they stated RCOG is a “pro-choice group” and not because they stated RCOG took a pro-choice position on a particular issue. Therefore, KC’s diffs (1) and (2) are not pertinent to the that sparked this controversy. The reverted edit deals specifically with RCOG’s position on a particular issue, and does not assert that RCOG is a “pro-choice group.” | |||
| Now let’s jump ahead and look at KC’s diff (5). KC’s diff (5) is none other than the that sparked this controversy. Obviously, then, KC’s diff (5) is not evidence that the reverted edit was the same or virtually the same as any previous edit. | |||
| That leaves KC’s diff (3) and diff (4). Both of those diffs show me editing the RCOG article to say that, “RCOG takes a ] position that ] ‘is an essential part of women's healthcare services and adequate investment and workforce is essential.’” KC argues that this is virtually the same as diff (5) which sparked this controversy and which said, “RCOG takes a ] position against ‘reduction in the time limits for abortion.’” In reality, diff (5) is radically different from diffs (3) and (4). | |||
| In diff (5), RCOG addresses what the governing law should be, and thus diff (5) is a statement of political conviction. Prior to diff (5), KC had argued that “abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice.” In other words, KC was arguing that RCOG was just following the law when it said abortion investment and workforce are essential. Severa made virtually the same argument: that RCOG's characterization of abortion as essential does not convey any “political conviction.” In stark contrast, diff (5) shows RCOG opposing a change in the law to reduce the time limits for abortion, and thus does indeed convey a political conviction about what should or should not be legal in the UK. | |||
| Thus, the is one and the same as KC’s diff (5), and is very different from KC’s diffs (1)-(4). I hope that this will clearly show to an objective person that the which sparked this controversy was not like any other edit I ever made, and thus was not an example of edit-warring or bad faith or disruption. | |||
| This is not splitting hairs. By analogy, suppose someone makes edits at an article on Venezuela, to say that Venezuelans have a pro-US position about American music and culture, an anti-US position about American politics, and a pro-US position on oil sales. Those are three different issues. If someone gets reverted on the first issue twice, it’s not any offense at all for someone to then make the last edit once. That’s basically what happened here at the RCOG article. And so I deny that I was being in any way disruptive, as KC alleged in her at the RCOG article. And I also deny . And I believe that all of these accusations (edit-warring, bad faith, disruption, and all the rest) have been .] 06:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion of Possible Request for Comment Regarding a User== | |||
| ] is an administrator who at the talk page of ] (KC). Bishonen told me at KC’s talk page to leave KC’s talk page immediately, even though KC had never requested that I leave, and Bishonen also threatened to block me if I so much as denied at KC’s talk page that I had harassed KC. I did deny it. The warning by Bishonen occurred at 02:16, 28 May 2007. Subsequently, I by ]. Sandstein that the block was “not appropriate for the that I left at KC’s talk page before the block. However, Sandstein also said that the block was appropriate “for the purpose of disengaging” me from the dispute I was having with KC. does not reflect that the block was a rather than a block for harassment (note that cool-down blocks are ). | |||
| '''''First''''', I would please like to acknowledge or somehow indicate that the harassment warning by Bishonen at 02:16, 28 May 2007 was unjustified, because (by that time) I had not done anything approaching “harassment” of KC. There are no diffs of anything like harassment on my part, leading up to the harassment warning at 02:16, 28 May 2007. This first request of mine involves nothing whatsoever that happened after 02:16, 28 May 2007. This first request of mine should be granted regardless of whether the following second request is granted, and vice versa. | |||
| '''''Second''''', I would please like my in order to reflect that the block was for purposes of disengagement, and not because my final message before the block amounted to harassment. Bishonen's is thus misleading. According to Misplaced Pages guidelines, I also request whatever additional or alternative action would be appropriate in response to Bishonen's unjustified warning of harassment at 02:16, 28 May 2007. | |||
| Regarding my first request, Misplaced Pages defines harassment , and it is a very serious charge. I did not come close to harassment at KC’s talk page, during the time period leading up to 02:16, 28 May 2007 when Bishonen’s warning occurred. KC and I were arguing at her talk page about whether I had made improper edits at a particular article (i.e. the ] article). I ended up not being very polite at KC’s talk page, and so did she. But this was not harassment on my part. The worst example that anyone has cited of my alleged “harassment” of KC prior to was when I said : “And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with ''your'' disruptive editing again.” KC had just accused me of being disruptive and worse (i.e. bad faith as well as edit-warring). So even assuming that I had made improper edits at the RCOG article, there was no harassment by me at KC’s talk page leading up to Bishonen’s warning at 02:16, 28 May 2007. And in fact all my edits at the RCOG article were proper ( is hereby incorporated by reference just in case the propriety of my edits at the RCOG article is deemed relevant, and I believe this linked comment also shows KC to have been malicious). | |||
| '''''Note''''': I have made attempts to find a resolution or compromise at the , and at the (ANI). that, | |||
| "before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." ] 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You were harassing KC. Why should your record be expunged? Because you were mistreated? From what I read, you were most certainly harassing KC. Your block was justified. ] 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Once again, you're requesting expunging of your record, when the evidence suggests that you are guilty of the harassment charge. The more mature approach would be to accept the block, move on to show that you are a valued member of this project. ] 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Harassment is a serious charge, and all indications are that you were pretty much guilty of it. But guilt or innocence is not the germane issue herein--Bishonen made a judgement call that is supported by the community. Your attacks on the admin is not going to get you far, especially since Bishonen is a respected member of the community and you seem to be in a long attack mode. Once again, I recommend you relax, take a time out, and come back in a mature manner. It's important to note that if you had respect of the community, your charges would be taken seriously. But your immature rantings (yes, they are immature) do you a big disservice. ] 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Orangemarlin, if you post here, please do not post in the middle of my comment. You can post between or after comments (assuming your posts are not rude or insulting). You do not address facts. As you so aptly put it, you and your friends think that "guilt or innocence is not the germane issue." | |||
| ::I probably won't be at WIkipedia much longer, so you can save yourself some time by not engaging in further "rants" here at my talk page. Thank you.] 00:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:05, 19 November 2024
⚖️
Help with adding to Talk page
I would like to add a sentence to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. I see that you have made edits to the page. The page is protected, so I went to the Talk page
Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy
and clicked "Click here to start a new topic", then composed my suggestion. But when I click "Add topic", it just shows moving slanted lines for a second, and then gives up. I have tried this several times. What do I need to do to actually add the topic? Swan2024 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I reported the glitch at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#IP_editor(s)_cannot_edit_talk_pages. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? Swan2024 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Should work without logging in, but almost certainly will work when you’re logged in, User:Swan2024. Good luck. The likely cause of your difficulty is that you were trying to add a topic with just one or two words in the header, and/or one or two words in your comment. Misplaced Pages requires more words from users who aren’t logged in, so as to filter out spam. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have a login, Swan2024, which I created several hours ago in case that was the reason I couldn't add the topic. Is that sufficient for "registered user"? Swan2024 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I reported the glitch at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#IP_editor(s)_cannot_edit_talk_pages. I assume you’re not a registered user, but if you become one then it will likely work for you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Springfield, Ohio, cat-eating hoax
First, thank you for restoring the text I mistakenly removed. I have restored directly from Carguychris' edit. If you believe your version is better, than just revert my last two edits.
Regarding the neo-Nazi debate, here is my perspective. You made a claim there are not reliable sources, which was refuted. You made a claim that it was the media that amplified the hoax, which has not been proven outside unreliable sources like Fox News. When you provide your list of sources, then we can see your perspective and discuss. Until then, it looks like the three of us don't agree with your perspective. Alternatively, if you want to suggest alternative wording, then go ahead and do so. I already made one such change when you didn't agree with the word 'they' and am willing to work together on wording. I just am opposed to the removal of details about what happened. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- To explain why I didn't get your other ping and seemed to be ignoring your message, you put your signature on a newline. As noted at Template:Reply to, "he edit must be signed by adding
~~~~to the end of the message." The system acted as if you had made two messages and ignored the ping to me in the first message. Hope that clears things up a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC) - User:Super Goku V, thanks for visiting my user talk. Regarding nazis, please see WP:OPEN, which says, “The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific.” You say above that you’re “opposed to the removal of details about what happened.” But I don’t object to putting nazi details in the article body, or even later in the lead if people feel strongly about it. Just not in the opening paragraph. As far as I know, nazis had no effect on what happened in Springfield, nor any effect on what GOP politicians did. What a horror show Misplaced Pages’s articles on political events would become if they all began with commentary from the nazis on the left, and the Marxists on the right. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sources say that neo-Nazi groups were spreading the message along with far-right groups. Given the prominence in reliable sources, we are following a Neutral point of view by mentioning it in the lede. As for the order of stuff, the only thing I could see that has a shot would be splitting off everything after the first sentence of the first paragraph into a new second paragraph and moving all of the old second paragraph into the first paragraph following the first sentence.
Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.
The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered, then spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups. These claims were amplified by prominent figures in the American right, most notably Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.
The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.- I don't know if it could be considered an improvement or not as it waits until the second paragraph to explain what is debunked, though it does put more emphasis that the claims are false. Other than that, I don't have much of a suggestion outside of this other one:
Starting in September 2024, baseless claims and rumors spread online that Haitian immigrants were stealing pets in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. The claims began with a local Facebook group post sharing a neighbor's story that her daughter's friend's cat had been butchered and rose to national prominence by Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance whose constituency includes Springfield, followed then by his running mate Donald Trump, along with allies such as Laura Loomer, and X owner Elon Musk. The person whose Facebook story started the controversy later admitted she never spoke to the cat owner and admitted the story lacked credibility.
Springfield and county law enforcement said that no credible reports or evidence support the claims, and the city's mayor, the city manager, and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine have all denounced them. The claims were widely described as racist and having been spread quickly among far-right and neo-Nazi groups in the area. Fact-checking website Snopes called the claims unfounded, while others characterized them as a hoax or a lie.
The pet-eating claims spread amid existing racial tensions in Springfield, where recent legal Haitian immigration reversed population decline, but strained some public resources. There had been previous incidents of hostility towards the local Haitian community and unfounded local rumors of Haitians stealing waterfowl and food. After the claims spread, dozens of bomb threats prompted Springfield officials to close public buildings, including the city hall and elementary schools, and DeWine deployed state police to conduct daily sweeps of the facilities.- If either of the two work for you, then go ahead and try it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh and I am Subscribed to this discussion, so feel free to ping or not as I will know either way. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. I did reply on the talk page about what they did in Springfield. As for lowering it in the lead, try it and see if it works. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I always prefer being chronological where possible, which helps people to comprehend what happened, one step at a time. That’s why I generally like the opening paragraph as it stands now: it summarizes the major developments one step at a time, in a clear manner. Except that I just think the nazi detail needs to be moved lower in the lead or removed from the lead. As I explained here at my talk page, I am not aware that any nazis affected what happened in Springfield, or affected how GOP politicians reacted to the whole thing. When nazis spread rumors, they typically do so on nazi websites and other places where nazis hang out, but AFAIK they’re not able to spread rumors into the mainstream, and the latter might be significant if it happened, but I’m not aware that it did happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)