| Revision as of 19:10, 29 December 2008 editSmashville (talk | contribs)10,619 edits →Damiens.rf: protected for your own protection← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:20, 6 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <!-- |
<!-- From NE ENT's page... great idea ! --> | ||
| {{Banned user|time=indefinitely|by=the community|link=See the ]}} | |||
| </noinclude>{| align="center" style="width: {{{width|65%}}}; margin-top: 0.5em; padding-top: 1em; padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em; background-color: #FFFFFF; transparent; border: solid medium #ADD8E6; -moz-border-radius: 15px; -webkit-border-radius: 15px;" | |||
| | <span style="font-size: 90%;"><span style="color:#000000;">'''Enshrined so I won't forget it ...'''</span></span> | |||
| <br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| Hey Kosh. There are so many issue with that statement that I felt it important to drop by. | |||
| *{{xt|policy '''should ''' be enforced '''as written'''}} - from a high level ] is a guideline and ] is policy. The principle is what matters, not exact wording of the rules. Disputes are solved by discussion, not strict adherence to the rules. Does that make sense? The "rules" are just a description of what's happened before and likely will happen again... generally the right thing to do, but not be followed blindly. No matter whether you're right or wrong on the underlying issue, not understanding this fundamental principle is the reason you are blocked. | |||
| *So, on to the underlying issue. Is the content on page in violation of POLEMIC? Honestly, I'd say no. POLEMIC '''in bold''' refers to '''Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing'''. Is what he's saying offensive? Barely. Very divisive? Not really. ''AND'' it's related to encyclopedic editing. It just doesn't fit in that section. It's not targeted at individuals or a specific group, let alone attacking or vilifying them. It's not a pre-meditated nasty attack, it's a person ranting on their way out the door. I don't agree with a word of it, but it's important to let people express themselves in situations like that. | |||
| This way of thinking is fundamental to Misplaced Pages, it's why IAR exists. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 11:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| {{archivebox|auto=yes}} | |||
| <!-- </includeonly> --> | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| <!-- In place since 1/28/2013 --> | |||
| |algo = old(3d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:KoshVorlon/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| {{NOINDEX|visible=no}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| {{User:SuggestBot/config | |||
| |frequency = once a month | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:KoshVorlon/header}} | |||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| {| width="95%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="background-color:#D9F4FF;margin-b: 3px;" | |||
| |align=right| | |||
| {{User wikipedia/WikiGnome}}'''GFL - GNOME FOR LIFE ''' | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 10K | |||
| |counter = 88 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(31d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:KoshVorlon/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| {{Archivebox|1=<div style="text-align:center;"><div class="hlist"> | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| </div><inputbox> | |||
| bgcolor= | |||
| type=fulltext | |||
| prefix=User_talk:KoshVorlon | |||
| break=yes | |||
| width=20% | |||
| searchbuttonlabel=Search | |||
| </inputbox></div>}} | |||
| {| width="95%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 4px solid blue; background-color: #D9F4FF; margin-b: 3px;" | {| width="95%" align="center" cellspacing="3" style="border: 4px solid blue; background-color: #D9F4FF; margin-b: 3px;" | ||
| |align=left| | |align=left| | ||
| <br /> | <br /> | ||
| <br /> | <br /> | ||
| <!-- The New Message link has been borrowed from Treasury_Tag --> | |||
| == Archive List === <br /><br /> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| {| class="messagebox current" style="width: auto;" | {| class="messagebox current" style="width: auto;" | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 27: | Line 103: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == |
== Reply from the Cap'n == | ||
| Hello, I'm writing because you were at one time a significant contributor to ]. Some issues have come up regarding the article's contents, and I'm at an impasse with a possibly-] affected editor. I would greatly appreciate your participation at ]. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 02:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Alright, then- thanks for disclosing that; the editor in question made at least 4 replies in which he only demanded my backing off because I had previously played the game. TBH, considering the info you'd introduced to that page, I had wondered what your connection was. Incidentally that very website might end up being a good source for corroborating some of the info in the article; it's still mirrored by the ]. At any rate, thanks for your reply! —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 17:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cool, thanks for keeping an eye on things. As to concern about outing, I'm confident there's sufficient behavioral evidence on-wiki to establish the identity of the editor in question without violating policy- should it become necessary. In any event, it does look like things have died down to the point where we can assume he's either accepting things or preparing a counterstrike. Thanks again! —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 01:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == December 2008 == | |||
| ] Please ] other editors{{#if:Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|, which you did here: ]}}. If you continue, you '''will''' be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Stop with the abusive name calling and personal attacks '''now'''. Personal attacks are unjustifiable. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 17:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::] does not apply, and does not supersede civility. Your motion is not what I templated for, it was your condescending tone and juvenile name-calling that got me here. Try to act in a more appropriate way. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 17:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, thanks for using my signature as a template for your new one (looks splendid by the way)! Glad to see someone else actually likes it and doesn't think of it as bland... :D <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 17:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Could you please quote verbatim the respective reference? <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 18:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I say, could you please quote the relevant passage verbatim? <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 18:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The quoted passage only quotes someone as saying it, thus it is not an appropriate reference to use for that particular bit. I have readded the {{tl|by whom}} template. Regards, <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Dwight Lauderdale == | |||
| I appreciate your edits to ], but the material you keep adding to the article is written in an ] and ventures off into ] land. Furthermore, the reference you provided is from a report written by a high schooler, which clearly does not meet our ] policy. Call it a gut feeling, but I don't think a neutral Misplaced Pages article should have a feel-good ending to it. :-) <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The notability of the publisher does not guarantee the reliability of the author. It might be published by a noteworthy organization, but the article is written by a teenager. Let's consider the article on its merits alone: would you actually use a high school journalism report as a source in a Misplaced Pages article? Hopefully, you would say no, based on thee principal tenet of ]: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Furthermore, per ] and ], primary sources (such as interviews) are not considered "reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion". In that case, we would need ]. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The sentence taken from the source, "Lauderdale considers reaching out to the community, like telling aspiring students about the work it takes to get to where he is and the endurance it takes to get there, to be a big part of his career." falls into the realm of "interpretation, analysis or conclusion". Per policy, primary sources aren't considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion. Also, how does the second sentence add anything to the encyclopedia? It seems like a highly trivial detail, which reads like ]. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 22:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You misunderstood me. The policy refers to statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion from the source itself. That's exactly what the sentence is. The author of the paper is not stating fact (Lauderdale was born in XX place), she's offering her own personal commentary in claiming that Lauderdale's community outreach to be a big part of his career. If his service to the community is so profound, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a ] to back up the claim. That will satisfy my concerns. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 23:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Err, no, you're still not understanding my points. From ], "Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction)." As I mentioned above, the sentence in question "Lauderdale considers reaching out to the community, like telling aspiring students about the work it takes to get to where he is and the endurance it takes to get there, to be a big part of his career." falls into the realm of "interpretation, analysis or conclusion". The article by Angelique Gayle is by definition a ] (it's an interview and then some). Including the sentence in the article does not meet policy because the Gayle article is a primary source and the line which you cited from the article is not fact, but opinion/analysis of the writer (if it had been fact, why couldn't she have just quoted Dwight Lauderdale to begin with?). In addition, my point regarding ] was in reference to this line: "Sometimes, it is just for the fun of it, like when he judged a Jamaican Jerk Festival at Markham Park Sunrise, Florida on September 24, 2008." It's quite clearly personal commentary, and it's unencyclopedic. So far, my arguments fit well within policy, and I have yet to find any solid ground in your rebuttals. I'm going to ask others who have edited the article to also participate in this discussion. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 01:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I endorse this explanation. Interviews are considered ] which are not very useful for writing encyclopedic articles. In addition, the constant ] of this article, exemplified by reverting other editors, calling them trolls or vandals, and refusing to listen to their comments is getting a little tiresome. ] 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{Talkback|Captain Screebo}} | |||
| == Little context in ] == | |||
| == Talkback == | |||
| ]Hello, this is a message from ]. A tag has been placed on ], by {{#ifeq:{{{nom}}}|1|] (] '''·''' ]),}} another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because ] is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see ] for our minimum information standards for short articles. <br><br>To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting ], please affix the template <nowiki>{{hangon}}</nowiki> to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at ]. Feel free to contact the ] if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click ''' ] (]) 23:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{Talkback|Skamecrazy123}} | |||
| == Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice == | |||
| == From your user page == | |||
| Thanks for the heads-up. I was a little unsure about the purpose of the page and took a chance that someone would get back to me if I made a mistake. Thanks again... ] (]) 01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Considering that my edit spoke of the fact that Tullian has publicly debated other with regards to his views, and the links I referenced go DIRECTLY to those debates, there should not be an issue. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:51, 13 May 2013</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| == Dwight Lauderdale/Editnotice == | |||
| == Support request with team editing experiment project == | |||
| I have deleted ], a page you created. User-created editnotices only work on user pages and user talk pages; editnotices for mainspace articles need to be created in the MediaWiki space and are an admin-only action. Only such as ] have their own editnotices. If you think ] needs one, go to ] and follow the instructions there; however, the level of vandalism does not appear to be high enough to warrant it. | |||
| Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Misplaced Pages about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: ), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Misplaced Pages community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Misplaced Pages everywhere) Regards from on meta. | |||
| Hope this helps! – '']'' 01:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Micru@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Tech_ambassadors&oldid=12060169 --> | |||
| == let me spit in the face of that filthy bastard.. he deserves it! == | |||
| == Damiens.rf == | |||
| read the title. | |||
| Continuing to template a user's page who you disagree with (especially when you template him twice in 24 hours when he hasn't edited in 24 hours), reverting his edits with uncivil comments and referring to his edits as vandalism is tantamount to harassment. Please stop. --]] 01:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, you have broken ]. --]] 01:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::KoshVorlon, your warnings are inappropriate. If multiple editors consider your edits to be in violation of policy, I suggest you take it under serious consideration, instead of dismissing it outright. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 01:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Talkback == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:31 hours|a period of '''31 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for violating the ]{{#if:Dwight Lauderdale| at ]}}. Please be more careful to ] or seek ] rather than engaging in an ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:true|] (]) 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | |||
| {{Talkback|Jersey92}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=I'm currently discussing this issue (The changes in Dwight Lauderdale) with Nishkid64. I will not be able to continue with this block. Also, reverting vandalism is exempt from 3rr|decline=Edit warring block endorsed. Content disagreements are not vandalism; sourced content can be removed for legitimate reasons such as those described in ]. No indication of punitive intent of this block. — <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| ==Splits== | |||
| :You weren't reverting vandalism. As for your discussion with Nishkid - you can discuss anything you want with him here. I would have been more sympathetic if you had stopped reverting and were just discussing the article, but you continued to revert to your preferred version even after starting to discuss it. --] (]) 15:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Master KoshVarlon, I didn't think that my splittings would become such a big deal. I made such splits on ], ], ], just to name a few, and didn't imagine that I would be bullied and shouted around, because there aren't that many users who patrol the talk pages, so I decided to be bold and split them. The user who has reported me is not a bad person, but I think this is just diminiutive and disparaging, concerning my lengthy experience, working here on Misplaced Pages, and also it is delay for the work on these articles. I beg you not to block me, because in fact, I intend to continue such work and splits of lengthy bibliographies and in fact to be more uncompromising with the user who reported me, because I kind of look at the whole matter more as a "cavil retail" than a serious Misplaced Pages matter. | |||
| ::Yeah...I don't appreciate my edits being referred to as "vandalism". And I already told him once that referring to edits that are not vandalism as vandalism constitutes a personal attack. --]] 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Kindest regards:] (]) | |||
| == Sorry about that == | |||
| :: Reverting sourced edits as OR '''IS''' vandalism, and that's just what happened | |||
| Per WP:VANDAL it constitutes Sneaky Vandalism and Abuse of tags, both on your part and Damiens.rf. | |||
| (Again, the information was sourced. Sourced info '''never''' equals OR) | |||
| Also, this block is punative and not preventative, thus making this block against policy. | |||
| <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 17:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :My removal of your unencyclopedic content is not vandalism and I consider your reference to me as a "sneaky vandal" a personal attack. And considering I added no tags, I highly object to your accusation of my "abuse of tags". It ''is'' original research. There is no source in existence that can tell you someone's motive for doing charity work. In fact, the only reason I reverted them in the first place was because I felt it would be a better alternative than blocking you for violating 3RR...which is why I told you that you had violated 3RR. And why I told you already that his edits were not vandalism. This is your final warning about continued personal attacks, including . --]] 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Sorry About The Edit on ]''' | |||
| ::: Once again, removing sourced information, or Calling it "OR" which you did is not appropriate behavior. (Per policy ). Sourced information is NOT OR, no way, no how. I reverted that change because it was false. (it's not OR). Bottom line, '''I ''' created that damn article to begin with, I made '''sure''' any claim had a reliable source behind it (not a blog, a forum, some youtube link, not a tabliod) there is not one iota of OR in that article. If you belive it, then prove it, by all means. Hey, right now I can't do anything about it anyway, in fact, I won't even look at that article for 31 hours, so go for it, prove it's OR (I've already proven , by a reference ) that it isn't. | |||
| I'm sorry, my friend trolled me by editing that page. I promise it won't happen again... | |||
| If you can't do it, then it can't be called OR. Simple, right ? | |||
| <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 17:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If there is no imaginable way to source it, then it is original research. --]] 17:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == inapropriate sentence == | |||
| :: But it '''IS''' sourced, per the article, in fact, it's a direct quote from the article. Therefore it's not original research. Again, I've proven it isn't OR by having a reference that backs that up, word for word. It's not OR, it's not proven as OR, therefor it isnt. | |||
| <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see what part of this you don't comprehend. Just tacking a source onto the end of a sentence doesn't make it "sourced". You will not find one single reliable source that can back up this sentence, "Sometimes, it is just for the fun of it, like when he judged a Jamaican Jerk Festival at Markham Park ] on September 24, 2008." You can find a source that says he judged the competition, but you cannot find a source to give you his motives. In addition, there is no way this sentence is appropriate in any Misplaced Pages article: "His father in particular taught him the importance of being himself." Let me put this as simply as possible. Your reverts were not reverting vandalism. This has been backed up by not one, not two, not three, but four admins. Your continued ] and personal attacks are becoming continually disruptive. --]] 17:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| the sentence used there is the penis is inserted to the wagena. so it seems so, inapropriate for some users | |||
| ::: Adding a source on to any claim shows that this claim is referenced to a reliable publication and not a product of the editor's research, and that's just what I did. I quoted word-for-word the source. | |||
| The source ''itself'' ascribed his motives. The source can do that, I '''cannot'''. Attempting to find out what his motives are would be OR on my behalf and it would be reverted. However, an article which states word-for-word a motive is different. It's simple. If I have a reliable source, it's not OR. If I have no source, or I researched it, it's OR and can be reverted at will and I have ground to stand on. | |||
| <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— ]</b><sup><i>]</i></sup></font> 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which is your opinion, but it doesn't excuse a) personal attacks, b) harassment, c) edit warring, d) the continuous addition of poorly written unencyclopedic content or e) ignoring 4 admins who have told you that you are wrong and to stop. --]] 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Due to the fact that this conversation is proving utterly unproducctive and that you seem to be on the verge of saying something you really shouldn't, I am going to protect your talk page so you don't do anything to extend your block duration. --]] 19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:20, 6 March 2023
 | This user has been banned indefinitely from editing the English Misplaced Pages by the community. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking. (block log · contributions · See the discussion at ANI) |
| Enshrined so I won't forget it ...
This way of thinking is fundamental to Misplaced Pages, it's why IAR exists. Worm(talk) 11:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC) |
- VorlonHomeWorld
- BabCom (Talk )
- The Book of Vorlon
- JumpGate
- My Userboxen
- Atlas of the Planets
- My Barnstars
- Awards I've recieved
- The Grey Council (Chat )
|
