| Revision as of 00:47, 5 April 2009 editJ.delanoy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers310,263 edits You have been indefinitely blocked. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:17, 8 April 2009 edit undoTonywalton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,910 edits redir talk page to userpage of banned user's sockpuppetNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| Pleae leave a message. | |||
| {{#if:|__TOC__|}} | |||
| {{#if:|<div style="background:white; border:2px Blue solid; padding:12px;">|}} | |||
| {{#ifeq:|true|==|'''}}Welcome...{{#ifeq:|true|==|'''}} | |||
| {{#switch:{{{cookies}}}|true=]|}} | |||
| <p>Hello, Buttermilk1950, and ] Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. {{#switch:{{{npov}}}|true=Unfortunately, one or more of your edits {{#if:|to the page ]|}} have not conformed to ''']''', and have been reverted. Misplaced Pages articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.There's a page about the ] that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole.</p><p>|}} Here are some {{#if:|other||}} pages that you might find helpful:</p> | |||
| {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:] '''|*}}]{{#if:|'''|}} | |||
| {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:] '''|*}}]{{#if:|'''|}} | |||
| {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:] '''|*}}]{{#if:|'''|}} | |||
| {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:] '''|*}}]{{#if:|'''|}} | |||
| {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:] '''|*}}]{{#if:|'''|}} | |||
| {{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:] '''|*}}]{{#if:|'''|}} | |||
| {{#switch:|true=<p>I would recommend that you get a username by clicking '''<span class="plainlinksneverexpand"></span>'''. You don't have to ] to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and has many ]. As a registered user, you gain the use of an ] ] of your choice, a personal ] to which you can add articles that interest you, the ability to ], and much more. Also, your ], Buttermilk1950, will no longer be visible to other users.</p>|}} | |||
| <p>Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and ask your question there.{{#if:|</p><p>{{{1}}}</p><p>| }}{{#if:||Again, welcome! ] (]) 21:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)}}</p>{{#if:|</div>|}} | |||
| == Rodeo == | |||
| Buttermilk, as the lead editor on ], I am absolutely appalled that I took a five day wikibreak to find a carefully crafted article to be almost completely destroyed. You made massive edits without consensus to an article that I have been working on for over two years. You removed footnotes and sought no comments or input. The content there was a carefully crafted compromise between pro-and anti-rodeo forces and your total lack of collaboration was extremely poor wikiquette. I have restored the former version and will be carefully reviewing your work to see if there is some material that can be placed into the existing article. However, I am not opposed to improving the article, as the old version certainly was not perfect, but you need to work with other editors in a collaborative fashion and be willing to consider all viewpoints. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Buttermilk, you keep cutting material from this without explanation and seem to be in a dispute over this article which was stable. While there are some posts on the talk page, they're not getting to the heart of the issue.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 11:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You both feel the other is ruining the article, Buttermilk you claim she's "DESTROYED" it. That's hardly the case. What I do see is a content dispute where you both disagree and in your case you're removed large sections of referenced material. If the two of you can't work this out, I'll protect the article. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't want anything to do with the article. It's a mess and as long as she's sitting on it, it will never improve. Ta! ] (]) 12:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Buttermilk, I am always open to discussion. However, you have got to understand that there is more than one point of view on rodeo, plus there is a manual of style for Misplaced Pages. Content aside, you were quoting your sources almost verbatim, you gave undue weight to fringe topics (like Gay Rodeo) and your source material was not particularly good quality. I went through this whole thing about a year ago and arrived at a delicate consensus between some rabid animal rights sorts and at the same time, some people who accused me of being a fuzzy bunny-hugger. I prefer cooperation, but I also am very tired of this particular fight on this particular article, seems like it comes around about once a year like clockwork and after two or three weeks of fighting about it, we keep coming back to about the same place. I'm sorry you are mad at me, but that's the way it is. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] needs to be merged. Please work cooperatively with me. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Your article is a world view article sourced principally from cowboy blogs and industry websites. Mine is a spinoff article sourced from university press publications, respected publishers with a reputation for fact checking, and mainstream journals and newspapers – just the kind of sourcing WP likes. It's just as if someone did a "Rodeo in New Zealand" article. Same difference. My article focuses on the United States alone where your article focuses on a rodeo worldwide. ] (]) 02:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Excuse me, but Rodeo IS a quintessentially American sport and your new article is a ] that attempts to avoid real discussion or consensus. It appears you have an agenda to paint rodeo as a cruel and inhumane sport that should be banned. Am I mistaken?? To the extent that there are rodeos elsewhere in the world, we can add a small, properly weighted section to the main rodeo article and then participants in other rodeos worldwide can write their own articles, as already exist for Mexican and South American rodeos. Your sources happen to be, by and large, wrong, outdated, or, in the case of the anthropologist's book, just plain weird. The PRCA is hardly a "cowboy blog," it is the leading sanctioning organization for professional rodeo. As such, it is a perfectly acceptable and verifiable source. It appears to me that you have never attended a rodeo yourself, nor have you any idea what really goes on. (If you did, you'd know what actual abuses DO occur, none of which you mention in your article, other than a passing reference to one state that bans wire tiedowns...) ]<sup>]</sup> 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == File:IGRA 1.jpg == | |||
| The problem with ] is that it is a ] and there is not a valid rationale for why the image should be used. The image is not of a historic event, which is how it is tagged, nor do I think it can be argued that the image cannot be replaced with a free one. Since there is no rationale for its fair use, it was removed from the article. —''']''' (]) 03:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see where it meets any of the categories of allowed use per ]. —''']''' (]) 03:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Buttermilk1950, have you tried asking IRGA (or the copyright holder if it is not IRGA) to license the image so it can be deposited on Wikimedia Commons? That is the way to go. --] (]) 06:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Pending that happening the best thing to do is delete it, as it is an orphan. If they should grant you a good license, it can easily be restored. ] gives good guidance on how to effectively ask for permission., you want them to grant a good, usable license following certain forms, not just a "it's OK to use this image on Misplaced Pages" which does no good at all. Meanwhile, I suggest you tag it for a speedy deletion. ++]: ]/] 05:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == So you know == | |||
| Hi Buttermilk1950. You are doing a good job keeping your temper in check. Others before you have had less success. An example is this year-old content dispute between Montanabw and ] over ]. After dealing with HatAct as I see she is dealing with you now, Montanabw asked ] to watch the article. Montanabw told Dreadstar to ''brace for impact, me laddie''. When HatAct made a remark about the article using the phrase ''Yee Haw'', Montanabw directed Dreadstar's attention to the phrase and Dreadstar protected the article. The dispute continued on the talk page. HatAct again used ''Yee Haw'', referring to Montanabw's POV. That was on February 10, 2008 and since then HatAct has not contributed to Misplaced Pages. 2 days later, after many intervening contributions, Montanabw called HatAct's remark a personal attack; the day after that she again appealed to Dreadstar, who blocked HatAct. I mention this because it appears Montanabw has called ] to play Dreadstar to your HatAct. Misplaced Pages has procedures for resolving content disputes. Calling on friendly admins to control an opponent is not an approved procedure. | |||
| Looking at ], I must say it is a rare pleasure to see a horse-related article with such fine sourcing. So you know, for books you should not use accessdate unless you provide an URL to an online version of it. --] (]) 06:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for the information. I truly appreciate it. I am puzzled as to what to do. She is quite possessive of the Rodeo article which doesn't strike me as the Misplaced Pages way. I can't accept her sense of scholarship -- sourcing industry related websites which cannot help but be biased. It doesn't strike me as the way to write a balanced article on the controversial aspects of rodeo. Thank you for the much needed support! I hope I can come to you for advice or suggestions if need be! ] (]) 06:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope you don't mind my returning your comment here, to keep the discussion thread intact. ] is not the Misplaced Pages way; nonetheless, many editors do try to own articles. You can ask me for help but I think usually you would get more help on the relevant noticeboards. That way, you get the benefit of collective wisdom. ] requires 3rd party sources; industry sources are not 3rd party. Most websites also are not reliable sources. Re what to do, you have a couple of options. You can disengage (leave the article). You can ignore provocations. You can ask for help, several ways, to deal with a disruptive editor. You can ask for help with a content dispute. I recommend addressing content dispute such as this via ]. That is skipping a few steps, but with this editor and this subject area we already have a long history of content disputes. I used formal mediation to deal with her on ]. So you know, on ] ''you'' are the primary editor and she is 3rd. --] (]) 07:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Wow! Thanks for the tips! It's people like you that make WP such a great place to be! I'll see tight for a bit and see what transpires. Thanks again! ] (]) 08:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Una, this entire thread is amazing. It reads like a large assumption of bad faith on your part. I'd strongly advise against you continuing this sort of distortion of what transpired when dealing with (apparently) new editors as it's disruptive and not collegial. ++]: ]/] 04:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :In light of the fact that Montanabw referred to (apparently) this incident in the context of this new user, I think it is appropriate that the new user know what is being referred to. I have tried to let the diffs speak for themselves. --] (]) 14:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::In my view you have failed. Further, it is very possible that by saying what you have, in the manner you have said it, you have led this editor astray, as their participation in the ] page after the POV issue was raised has not been helpful or collegial. Buttermilk1950, if you take primary behavioural guidance from Una, it will end badly. You need to re-read the entire talk page and then rethink your approach. Significantly. ++]: ]/] 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps I have guided well and Buttermilk1950's reaction to the POV tag is more restrained than it would have been otherwise. --] (]) 15:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Buttermilk1950, to me Lar's tone seems very negative and overbearing, but that is Lar's problem, not ours. I know it can be hard, but try to ignore the tone. The discussion on ] is a good thing! Value it. Use it to pinpoint weaknesses of the article and ways to make the article stronger. --] (]) 15:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree. Lar's tone is not positive. For me, it is threatening ("if you take primary behavioural guidance from Una, it will end badly"), and very un-WP. The discussion is helpful. Thanks for your insight and concern! It is invaluable! ] (]) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ** You are free to take or leave my (or anyone's) advice as you like, but you are not free to avoid the consequences of the choices you make. ++]: ]/] 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Buttermilk, I have to point out that HatAct was ultimately blocked for disruptive editing. When you are warned by people with admin credentials, it's a good idea to pay attention. Lar is an admin and long time respected editor and Rlevse is even higher up in the food chain. I suggest that you listen to them. Conversely, Una has twice tried to get me banned from[REDACTED] and has failed both times, coming close to a block herself. I no longer waste my time arguing with her because she appears to exist on[REDACTED] only to disrupt it. (That is not a personal attack, that is a factual observation. So report me, I have diffs too.) ]<sup>]</sup> 21:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Rodeo in the United States == | |||
| FYI, the POV tag usage notes (see {{tl|POV}}) direct the editor who tagged the article to discuss how the article is POV. The usage notes also say the tag should not be used unless there is an ongoing ]; at present there is none. --] (]) 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :That is not true, there is a content dispute, the article has serious point of view issues and needs drastic change. ++]: ]/] 04:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was none before, but I agree now there is. --] (]) 15:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Previous history, warning == | |||
| Do you have a previous edit history here under a different ID? Just curious about that as your contributions seem to be quite focused on one topic and start fairly abruptly... changing identities to evade controversy is not a good approach. | |||
| Also, do not remove templates merely because you disagree with them, as you did here . To do so is disruptive. ++]: ]/] 05:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *You have misused the template. As nominator of the POV tag, it is your job to specifically investigate the high quality sources used in the article and to indicate exactly where and in what way they have been used to misrepresent the topic. You haven't done this. You have had a "knee-jerk reaction" to material that inflames you and have seen fit to slap a POV tag on a well research and well-sourced article in retaliation. Prove that the sources have been used to misrepresent the topic. Get your freinds and fellow adminstrators to help you. You cannot prove the sources have been used to misrepresnet the topic. ] (]) 05:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ** You are assigning motive without basis. Don't do that. Further, reread Prodego's answer to you, it has nothing to do with sources per se... you miss the point of the tag and misunderstand the process of resolving POV issues. Sparring isn't going to get this article fixed. If it's fixable. ++]: ]/] 06:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR warning == | |||
| This revert () is, I believe, your fourth removal of the same material from the same article within 24 hours. That's edit warring (see ] for more information) and if brought to the attention of an uninvolved administrator, might result in a block to prevent disruptive editing. Please don't edit war, I would not want to see you blocked, even briefly, while there is work you should be doing to correct the POV issues in the articles you have been working on. Please also remember that 3 reversions is a bright line, not an entitlement. I myself usually try to adhere to ] voluntarily, and while it is difficult to do 100% of the time, I commend it to you as a goal. ++]: ]/] 05:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you. I'll keep the 3RR in mind! ] (]) 05:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == March 2009 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:24 hours|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for engaging in an ]{{#if:Animal treatment in rodeo| 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|]] 11:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| :Please also read ] as a matter of top priority. ]] 11:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Re: Block=== | |||
| Hello Buttermilk, just a quick note to see how you're getting on after the block. As Lars mentions above, following the principles of ] can be very advantageous when editing on the Wiki. Where ever you go in life you're going to meet opposition and it's the same for Misplaced Pages. A calmer approach would be sufficient in practically all situations as it can give you a better perspective. It can also save you the trouble of stress, worry, and anxiety! I see Larry has decided to give you a bit help editing Misplaced Pages and you're going to have a great mentor; he's a fantastic guy. Thanks for your edits so far and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks and regards, Pat. ]] 19:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I don't understand...? No one is going to have you banned! :-) - You were briefly blocked for edit warring; it's not a big deal. People have to be real "naughty" to be ]. Please don't leave Misplaced Pages through a misunderstanding. Please re-read through what I've written above. I don't see how you could have misinterpreted that though... has someone else said something to you? Because I can assure you, you're not going to be banned! :-) ]] 01:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Buttermilk1950, you are doing much better. The edit summaries help a lot; just be sure an edit summary is a summary of the edit, not something else. You are doing a good job keeping your focus on the content issues and ignoring the noise. And the fact that the AfDs failed so swiftly and the merge proposal looks to end the same way, the articles you created are holding up well. Congratulations. --] (]) 02:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I for one do not think you need to be banned, even though I have been pretty critical of your attitude and content edits. Your behavior seems to be moderately better since your block, it has a ways to go. If you want to see a proper example of how a young person collaborates with other[REDACTED] editors, including myself, see ], which was recently given FA status after about six months of very hard work. You may even want to ask the lead editor there for advice. She worked very, very hard on the article. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Please stop removing controversial content without discussion == | |||
| Buttermilk - an editor has quite rightly come to me to ask for assistance with some of your edits. and with respect the edit summary of ''"dated material superceded by more recent survey material elsewhere in the article. No need to cite every survey."'' is not an appropriate way to deal these deletions. I should also add that I had witnessed the discussion you had regarding this type of editing with my fellow admin Scarian. I would now sincerely ask that you remain a part of the team - and more importantly do not remove material where it is controversial to do so, before coming to a consensus on the article talk page. Please come to my talk page if you want to discuss further.--] <sup>]</sup> 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Steve, just a point about that source. It's clearly rubbish. It's a cowboy website claiming that unnamed vets said 15 years ago that only one animal in 2,000 is injured, when anyone who has ever attended a rodeo can see otherwise. If studies or surveys are to be cited, we should use the originals or reliable secondary sources. Buttermilk was right to remove it. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 05:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks SV - appreciate your feedback, although Buttermilk I would suggest that discussing or notating removal along the lines of what SlimVirgin is referring to would be helpful to get others on side. I hope you see the point I am making. Best wishes.--] <sup>]</sup> 06:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Doesn't all of this discussion belong on the article talk page? And shouldn't the focus of this discussion remain on the content, not on this editor's actions? For what it's worth, Buttermilk1950 is a very new editor who I think is modeling edit summaries on those of other editors with whom Buttermilk1950 has interacted. The edit summary quoted above sounds just like many of Montanabw's edit summaries. --] (]) 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Buttermilk's tone is all her own, and her refusal to listen to several people old enough to be her parents and understand that she has found "sources," but not good ones, is at the heart of why she was blocked for 24 hours. And Una, your reference to me is a personal attack and you know it. Remember that YOU were the one who egged on Buttermilk and then she got blocked. Pat yourself on the back for a great job of mentoring. And don't bring your eternal vendetta against me into these articles. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Montanabw, please stop accusing me of "egging on" anyone, of "personal attacks", and of having a "vendetta". --] (]) 04:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Una did not "egg" me on to anything. The block was my own responsibility and my own fault. ] (]) 04:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Slim, there have been some references from the American Association of Equine Practitioners added to one of the rodeo articles that clearly demonstrate that injuries to animals in modern, sanctioned rodeos are far less than claimed by the animal rights crowd. "Anyone who has ever attended a rodeo can see otherwise" is not at all true. Yes, I have seen some injuries at rodeos. One time I saw a bucking horse run into a fence and break its neck. That was about 20 years ago, it was tragic and sad. I also saw on the TV how ] broke both legs at last year's Kentucky Derby. That's also tragic and sad. Does that mean all horse racing is also cruel? (PETA says it is, actually, but PETA also says fishing should be banned because it hurts the fish. Consider the source) A couple of ] horses died in competition last year, also. Should we ban Eventing? The injury statistics are accurate, not many animals are actually injured in sanctioned competition. Frankly, there are probably more problems with horses in timed events developing the injuries typical of horses in high-stress events (such as show jumping or horse racing) than injuries to cattle or the rough stock. But those don't seem to be part of the animal rights crowd's concerns. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hi Montana, the point is this: You think animals are injured rarely. I think they're injured all the time. But what we think doesn't matter. What we do is find reliable sources who say X and Y, and we present all those reliable, published views. The cowboy website on which that study is referred to is not a reliable source, and it noticeably gives no details about the study — no names, nothing that would help us to find it for ourselves. That is clearly suspect. It should therefore be removed from the article until we can either find the original primary source or a reliable secondary one, preferably something very mainstream and trustworthy. Also, please note that it's not just animal rights advocates who oppose rodeo. Animal welfare groups almost always oppose it too, even the very conservative ones. So far as I know, it's opposed by every single animal welfare group in Canada, in part because of the high injury rate. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 04:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == DYK for Women in rodeo == | |||
| {| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:|yes|small|standard}}-talk" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |On ], ''']''' was updated with {{#if:|facts|a fact}} from the article{{#if:|s|}} ''''']'''''{{#if:|{{#if:|, |, and}} ''''']''''' | |||
| }}{{#if:|{{#if:|, |, and}} ''''']''''' | |||
| }}{{#if:|, and ''''']'''''}}, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
| |} <!-- {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} --> | |||
| --] (]) 18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{*mp}}... that a rules dispute during the first ''']''', in 1948 in ], led to the formation of the first ]? | |||
| :Nice. Glad that hook got used after all. --] (]) 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==commentaries== | |||
| I feel the commentaries which you have chosen to add in many articles are misplaced. Please remember we are contributing to an encyclopedia article not an essay. I invite you to read other controversial, well written articles to get a better perspective on what is appropriate to add and what an article should look like. Please see ], ], or ]. (All articles found on the Animal Rights Template). I think you will see there really is no place for the type of commentaries you have chosen to add. By working together we have an opportunity to present very well written and informative encyclopedic articles on subjects we care about, but they must be written in an appropriate way. I would be very happy to discuss this more with you. - ] (]) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Please! The article is under construction. It's too early for such major revisions as removing whole sections. I've returned the material to its original place. The article presents viewpoints about rodeo from various cultural experts and an "Analysis" (Commentaries) section is, I believe, appropriate here. As "lead editor" of this article, may I ask you to discuss your concerns on the Talk Page first? Thank you. ] (]) 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are accusing me of doing what you have already done to the Rodeo article? - ] (]) 04:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please read some other well written articles - you will see that there are other, more appropriate ways to get your point across. - ] (]) 04:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is my point? ] (]) 12:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The onus to explain your ] is on you per ] — I gather that the ]ness and ]ing has occurred and it is now appropriate for you to engage in ] ] regarding this matter. | |||
| ::::: nb: I commented to you yesterday on Josette's talk page, as did the ]. ] 02:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| My wife is a pretty experienced article writer and you should seriously heed her advice rather than asserting ownership and blindly reverting her. She is offering to work with you, don't spurn that. Further, the tone you take on her talk page is completely out of line. You need to dial down the invective, stop with the accusations, and collaborate collegially, or I will seek further action. Which will not be hard to justify, you've been getting a pass so far and a review of your contributions shows significant disruptive and noncordial behaviour. Snap out of it. ++]: ]/] 15:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've read the comments at Jossette's page and must say I agree with Giano and Jack rather strongly. Buttermilk, I strongly urge you to stop the ], Misplaced Pages takes personal attacks very seriously because of the environment required for collaborative editing. If I see comments like this again, it is highly likely I will ] you, so this is the only warning you will receive. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Buttermilk, the actual article was stable until your arrival on March 14. I made at least two good faith attempts to merge in the best of your edits to the best of what was there, only to have you hijack the entire topic and refuse to work collaboratively with any previous editors or anyone who has demonstrated knowledge or expertise in the field. Your behavior is no longer about being angry at me personally for reverting some (though not all) of your early work. It is now about showing incredible levels of disrespect to many very experienced, long-time editors including Dana Boomer, Lar, Josette, and CGoodwin. You have been blocked once for edit warring. I think you need to take a good long look at your behavior and learn to collaborate and listen to others. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Montana, I have cordially invited you many times to participate in contributing. You have refused. Read the threads. In one edit summary you told me to grow up, and on a talk page you told me to go play in a sandbox. ''I have invited you to participate and you have refused.'' I have shown you no disrespect. Mention one time when my behavior toward you has been as offensive as yours toward me and others. ] (]) 08:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You say you have "invited us to participate", but... Montana and others have given you tons of advice which you refuse to take. Any attempts by others to improve these articles is quickly reverted by you, and in my case, you left me bullying messages on my talk page. All any one has to do is look at the contributions of these articles to know where the problem lies. - ] (]) 16:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == April 2009 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with ] for {{#if:sockpuppetry|'''sockpuppetry'''|repeated ]}}. 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 "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. {{#if:true|]]] 00:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3 -->] | |||
Revision as of 17:17, 8 April 2009
Redirect to: