| Revision as of 02:14, 9 October 2009 editAlison (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators47,249 edits →John Vincent Atanasoff protect decline: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:20, 9 October 2009 edit undoMonshuai (talk | contribs)987 edits →John Vincent Atanasoff protect declineNext edit → | ||
| Line 217: | Line 217: | ||
| :: Since you accused me of doing something I didn't do you should apologize.--] (]) 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | :: Since you accused me of doing something I didn't do you should apologize.--] (]) 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::: Where did I accuse you of censorship? It is a stated fact that you removed my comment. It's a ''possibility'' that MediaWiki didn't warn you about the edit-conflict - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | ::: Where did I accuse you of censorship? It is a stated fact that you removed my comment. It's a ''possibility'' that MediaWiki didn't warn you about the edit-conflict - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::So I take you won't apologize?--] (]) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI-notice == | == ANI-notice == | ||
Revision as of 02:20, 9 October 2009
| Archives | |||||||||||||
| 2004 | Entire year | .svg)
| |||||||||||
| 2005 | Jan • Jun | Jul • Dec | |||||||||||
| 2006 | Jan • Jun | Jul • Dec | |||||||||||
| 2007 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
| 2008 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
| 2009 | Jan • Jun | Jul • Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | ||||||||
| 2010 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
| 2011 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
| 2012 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
| 2013 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
| 2014 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep • Dec | ||||
| 2015 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
| 2016 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
| 2017 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
| 2018 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
| 2019 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
| 2020 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
| 2021 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
| 2022 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
| 2023 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
| 2024 | Entire year | ||||||||||||
|
|
No more WikiDon?
Was WikiDon kicked off Misplaced Pages? I was going to send him a message re: his edits to East Germany at the Olympics. He added 16 sources to a single sentence! I think we can safely say that's going too far -- even for Misplaced Pages! He's obviously misinterpreted the purpose of this site's sourcing policies. Someone should tell him, if he's still out there... Cheers, ask123 (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Retired Barnstar
|
The Retired Barnstar | |
| A posthumous acknowledgment of your tireless efforts after you offically "retired" - so would it really be post-tired?!?! For your contributions to wikipedia and for your help, thank you! Tiggerjay (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC) |
User:NawlinRoss block summary
rofl!! Glad you haven't disappeared completely. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Good to see you back.
Good to see you back to editing. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Joshua :) - Alison 08:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Allie :) —Dark 07:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"Speculation from an alleged leaked document"
Not allegededly leaked, actually leaked. The results of the tests were leaked. Critics all over the press are angry that it was leaked, but do not deny that those were actually the results of the tests. Unless you can cite something that cites someone connected with the case, Semenya, her family, the IAAF, anyone, who says that the actual results were not leaked, or that the information in the leak is false. I can find many citations that they were not properly made public, but none that they were not the actual test results. Chrisrus (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well yes, it was actually leaked. However, the contents of the original tests are, and remain, speculation at this time. Absence of denial of the contents of that leaked report do not indicate acceptance and really make no statement as to the veracity of their claims. It's not the place of Misplaced Pages to interpret those speculations as posted in the Telegraph and nor do I have to cite a denial from Ms. Semenya or her representatives to indicate that it may be false. Innocent until proven guilty, an' all that. This is a person's life and a fundamental facet of her identity that we're playing about with her and it behoove us to bear that in mind when we edit. We're not in the game of promulgating speculation re. leaked documents when it comes to a serious BLP issue. Leave that to the tabloids and wait for confirmation of some sort from the IAAF or some other reputable body - Alison 07:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Caster Semenya
Thanks for your knowledgeable additions to the talk page. I was operating almost entirely from a "gut feel" that most of what was appearing in the press was not appropriate for a BLP. Somehow, slavering over the details of a person's anatomy, internal or external, has always stuck me as akin to pornography. Yours was by far the better rationale. // BL \\ (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bielle. It's pretty-much common-sense, really. I've tried to stay out of the whole matter but couldn't hold back any longer against what I saw was rapidly becoming a serious BLP issue. I've only just read the pronoun nonsense on that page, also promulgated by Chrisrus, and am simply shocked by it. It's disgraceful - Alison 18:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think I have run out of shock with respect to the positions taken by various editors on a whole range of Misplaced Pages topics. (I did stutter a bit over the "it" suggestion on that page.) Fortunately, most ignorance is shown up for the silliness or nastiness that it is before being enshrined in an article. Most, but not all. // BL \\ (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For putting up with constant nonsense and continuing your tireless efforts on BLP-related subjects. Keep up the good work! –Juliancolton | 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Julian :) - Alison 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Whoa!
So, how's that wikibreak going? ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Very well, thanks, Fv ^_^ It's been six months and I dunno quite why I'm here right now - Alison 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Great to see you around again! :) NW (Talk) 00:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks :) I'm taking it easy but we'll see how things go. I'm really only just here for BLP stuff and for playing about with articles I like. Nothing big at all. I'm not really back as an admin - Alison 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed...
That you are "back"... I guess I'm a little late to the party, but welcome back anyways! --Jayron32 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- heh - thanks :) - Alison 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Likewise. Welcome back, even if it's only the shadow of the former presence. -Jeremy 02:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yaaaay! \o/ -- Luk 10:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Little late to the welcome back party, but... yeah! =D -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You are a disgusting hermaphroditic freak.
Nice to see that I'm welcomed back with open arms, Jeremy David Hanson. Yeah, I checked /b/. I seriously think it's time to get over your pervy obsession with me, though, and go fap to something else - Alison 01:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Geez, Allie, with the amount of fapping he does to you, you think that his tallywhacker would have fallen off by now? *grins*. SirFozzie (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- BWAHAHAHA!!! ^_^ - Alison 02:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Funny, the first time I read the thread title, I thought he said this, which made me think "What a rude thing to say about such a serious disease." Then I read it again. Anyhoo, he's nothing if not funny. --Jayron32 03:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's pretty rude anyways, given it's a term no longer used. But whatev. I think he secretly gets off on it, y'know ... only it's not so secretly now. I lol'd ^_^ - Alison 03:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I not only lol'd... I lulzed. I always wondered what happened to those kids after their 15 minutes of fame ended. Guess now we know. (and knowing's half the battle!) SirFozzie (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- zOMG - one of them's called Zac Hanson. I know that name from somewheres ... - Alison 08:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Way to violate rules one and two there Alison, glad to see another /b/-tard among the ranks of the wikipedians though.--SKATER 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- zOMG - one of them's called Zac Hanson. I know that name from somewheres ... - Alison 08:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I not only lol'd... I lulzed. I always wondered what happened to those kids after their 15 minutes of fame ended. Guess now we know. (and knowing's half the battle!) SirFozzie (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's pretty rude anyways, given it's a term no longer used. But whatev. I think he secretly gets off on it, y'know ... only it's not so secretly now. I lol'd ^_^ - Alison 03:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Funny, the first time I read the thread title, I thought he said this, which made me think "What a rude thing to say about such a serious disease." Then I read it again. Anyhoo, he's nothing if not funny. --Jayron32 03:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Whoa! Hey...
Alison, it's great to see you back! I saw some edits on your talk page and whoa, it was you... Happy to see you.Tiggerjay (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
AN/I
Hello, Alison. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stealth_canvassing_on_Wikipedia_Review_in_AfD_discussion_:_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FMiriam_Sakewitz. Thank you. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Apology
Guess I'm not the one to be talking about lack of sense of humor. Sorry for the uncivil edit summary here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd not even noticed it, to be honest. The whole AfD is already overheated (and is now at ANI) and people are concerned at the contempt already shown for the subject, y'know? - Alison 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- grumbles* Eh. What can ya do? SirFozzie (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Bunnies
Well, I'm glad you unretired (). Although you must have been gone awhile if you're hoping to find some daylight between "BLP issues" and "petty WikiPolitics". :) MastCell 19:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- She must be hopping mad. – iridescent 19:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I'll get my coat...
- I'd be Angory too. MastCell 19:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- LOL - you guys! :) - Alison 06:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- O how I miss the humor. Please stick around or you're simply dangling the...uhh...uhhh...I can't do it! :/ Law type! snype? 06:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- The Carrot (Top) or the Stick (Around?) *grin, duck, RUN!* SirFozzie (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- cheering madly* KillerChihuahuaAdvice 14:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, and welcome back! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
YAY!! But I can't find the tilde on my neat new tiny computer! Oh here it is..... Tvoz/talk 15:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- So good to see you at RfPP! Maybe you can even remove that "wikibreak time" thing that appears above the edit window. ;) Enigma 01:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh hey there!! Good to see you still on here. And yeah, I should probably change that :) - Alison 01:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Olga Rutterschmidt
Hello there. I am leaving this message to you because you voted in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Olga Rutterschmidt. The AfD was closed early because the article had been renamed to Black Widow murders during the discussion, and both Olga Rutterschmidt and its sister article Helen Golay have been merged into it. If you wish, please feel free to nominate this new article for deletion if you feel that the article does not merit a place on Misplaced Pages. Regards, NW (Talk) 15:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, NW. I'm okay with this result - Alison 00:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppets
Hazaraboys (talk · contribs) and Hazaraboyz (talk · contribs) are both the same person, both accounts are being used at the same time, both accounts are adding nationalist and unencyclopedic POV (see this comment by another user). In the past weeks and days, this user has progressively destroyed the articles Hazara people and Hazaragi, adding masses of unsourced and partially ethno-nationalistic POV, totally ignoring the excellent reference works in the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica. And for this, he gives himself an award. For the time being, I am not reverting his POV. But I have tagged the respective articles. Your help is needed. Tajik (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- By the way: he may also be identical with Time Buddha (talk · contribs). Tajik (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Tajik. I'm no longer checkuser on this project so there's not much I can do to verify, sorry. Maybe ask User:YellowMonkey and he could possibly help? - Alison 00:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Filing an SPI case will also get the help of a checkuser eventually. NW (Talk) 00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Tajik (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just a small note: now he is even threatening me and telling me that I "should not edit" that article because I am not a "pure Hazara" as he is. Great ... Tajik (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Filing an SPI case will also get the help of a checkuser eventually. NW (Talk) 00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
You
I like you, is that OK? An Irish lady in California with common sense who loves Misplaced Pages? How charming. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- lol - not sure what to say to that ^_^ - Alison 05:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Request..
Hey Allie, I'd like to invite your comment on an essay/discussion I just posted about the whole Law/Undertow etcetera thing User:SirFozzie/Alternate. I'd appreciate any input you have. SirFozzie (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back
"Ya outta be in pictures, ya beautiful to see". Welcome back to the land of Wikia, Alison. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, GoodDay :) - Alison 08:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Alison, I've sent you mail! Looking forward to your response. --Whoosit (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Replied - Alison 08:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes! Welcome Back!
Glad to see your back, and will be contributing and helping wikipedia for the better. Once again Welcome Back! House1090 (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Awww - thanks, House! Glad to see you're around too (and not banned again! :) ) - Alison 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Haha yea I doing a lot better now, thanks, and I'm really glad to see you back! House1090 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Ablazev continuing on cadmium telluride photovoltaics
Hi, three days ago you temporarily blocked Ablazev (talk · contribs) for repeatedly inserting a rant into cadmium telluride photovoltaics. Since the block ended, he or she has re-inserted the rant twice more, and . Maybe another block is called for? Thanks! --Steve (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: 3 days (talk · contribs). - *sigh* - yes, it's the exact same again, without a shred of dialog. Can you post something to their talk page and try to get them into discussion? - Alison 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis
I noticed you put a template on and forgot to subst, depsite the BIG RED WARNING telling you so. Could you please fix? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Done - thanks for letting me know. BTW - last year, when that template was added, it didn't have the BIG RED WARNING on it when it wasn't subst'd. Jes' sayin' ... :) - Alison 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
John Vincent Atanasoff protect decline
Really? Four intentional disruptions is insufficient? Basically, we have a small cadre of editors who only work on Bulgaria-related topics who have declared that they're out to edit war on this one point. I think it's deserving of the temp lock. Either that or there ought to be some sort of admin warning to the editors' talk pages. Robert K S (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Commented on WP:RPP - Alison 06:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm not satisfied that you've understood the issue involved and the problem at hand. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that it's obvious you're not satisfied. However, your behaviour with the rollback button and your resolve to simply revert all edits is not the way to go about resolving this. I've commented on the talk page, but I've no desire to get involved in content disputes such as this - Alison 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm not satisfied that you've understood the issue involved and the problem at hand. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the use of rollback, frankly, Alison, I disagree. This is not a dispute between two reasonable minds. This is a vandalistic alteration of an article by a party seeking to promote an agenda. If this isn't clear to you, I'd like you to take the time to examine the talk thread I pointed you to, and the edit contributions of Monshuai, and the edit history of the article. Would you mind inviting a couple of other administrators to take a look at this as well? This is not a content dispute--would you mind justifying that conclusion? Robert K S (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- One could argue over who the 'reasonable minds' applies to above. I'll reiterate; don't use rollback for anything other than blatant vandalism and never use it in a content dispute (or even a disputed-dispute :) ). Do so and I'll remove the privilege - Alison 00:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- And as for the issue you refer to above, I'm seeing reasoned debate on the talk page (yes, I read it) on both sides of the dispute here. As I said before, WP:DR should be your first port of call. I'm not going to agree to fully protect the article for a number of reasons; 1) it's largely a content dispute, 2) there's nowhere near enough disruption to warrant full-prot (tho' you're getting there with your rollback use) and 3) I refuse to lock out other editors on account of a dispute between one or two editors while dialog is still ongoing on the talk page - Alison 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I'm disappointed. Your response is neglectful of the problem and, frankly, disconcerting, since you haven't evinced any analysis of the issue. That is to say, you haven't addressed the guideline I referred you to, and how the two positions relate to that guideline. Instead, you've slapped one of the parties on the wrist and called it a day. I'm not the only editor who has reverted Monshuai on this issue in the last day or two. Even if I left the article alone, the reverts would persist--Monshuai is admittedly motivated by national pride rather than article improvement and is expressly intent on forcing this edit by brute force. I would have thought that the least you could do is take the steps I've asked you to take as an admin to resolve the dispute. (I've never heard an admin say that DR should be the first port of call--it's usually the last resort.) Robert K S (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I find your lack of good faith in me ... disconcerting. Firstly, you are the only one in this dispute (yes, dispute) who's being abusive with the rollback button. Secondly, I see all editors in dialog here. I don't care what the other guy's motivations are (I cannot know everyone's on the project) but all I can judge on is whether the edits are NPOV and are within the guidelines. Which, IMO, they are. You disagree, however. The steps you've asked me to take to 'resolve' this is to apply full protection to the article, so you can largely walk away. I refused as I see that to be inappropriate here - Alison 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in walking away, and I fully expect that that once the temp block is lifted, Monshuai's edits will resume. I was merely taking what I believed to be the proper course of action given the edit war. If you don't think I was taking the proper course of action, then I ask that you tell me what to do. Telling Monshuai and I to resolve the problem amongst ourselves, like a kindergarten teacher pulling two toddlers aside, is not a solution--it should already be evident that Monshuai has one position, which is, if not supported, is at least not opposed by one other editor, whereas I and several other editors are on the other side of the issue. When an editor in good faith takes steps to bring administration into a problem, it's unhelpful when administration ignores the problem but lashes out at the editors involved. Most of the steps in DR do not apply here. The two parties already find themselves in intractable positions. A third opinion is unnecessary since there are third and fourth and fifth opinions already. So, if you're unwilling to mediate the problem, what should I do next? Finally, your continuing administrative warnings to me, in absence of continuing edits on my part, are misplaced, as is the angry tone. I used rollback once here, in a manner that I believed to be totally consistent with the appropriate use of that function as an expedient against vandalism. You gave me a warning. I haven't used it again, nor have I even edited the article again. And yet you've seen fit to issue two further warnings against me, as if I am presenting an irrepressible problem or as if I am functioning as an irresponsible editor. Why? You do my reputation an injustice. Robert K S (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I find your lack of good faith in me ... disconcerting. Firstly, you are the only one in this dispute (yes, dispute) who's being abusive with the rollback button. Secondly, I see all editors in dialog here. I don't care what the other guy's motivations are (I cannot know everyone's on the project) but all I can judge on is whether the edits are NPOV and are within the guidelines. Which, IMO, they are. You disagree, however. The steps you've asked me to take to 'resolve' this is to apply full protection to the article, so you can largely walk away. I refused as I see that to be inappropriate here - Alison 01:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I'm disappointed. Your response is neglectful of the problem and, frankly, disconcerting, since you haven't evinced any analysis of the issue. That is to say, you haven't addressed the guideline I referred you to, and how the two positions relate to that guideline. Instead, you've slapped one of the parties on the wrist and called it a day. I'm not the only editor who has reverted Monshuai on this issue in the last day or two. Even if I left the article alone, the reverts would persist--Monshuai is admittedly motivated by national pride rather than article improvement and is expressly intent on forcing this edit by brute force. I would have thought that the least you could do is take the steps I've asked you to take as an admin to resolve the dispute. (I've never heard an admin say that DR should be the first port of call--it's usually the last resort.) Robert K S (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Firstly, you've abused Rollback twice now on the Atanasoff article. Not once. Also, as you now admit, full-protect is inappropriate here. Now what is appropriate is that edit-warriors be warned that they'll be blocked for disruption. You'll not that Monshuai has now been final-warned by myself and is at the traditional 3RR limit. If s/he reverts one more time, I'll block their account. You'll note that you've not been similarly warned (yet). Note also that there is at least one other editor who disagrees with the position you're taking on this, although User:Bielle seems to concur with your perspective. In short; it's a content dispute and there are numerous editors involved. You all need to resolve this on the talk page and come to some consensus on the issue. If then, Monshuai decides to edit-war against consensus, they'll be blocked, or if they exceed 3RR. Fully protecting the article (esp. to 'your' revision) is not going to work. If I fully protect an article in the case of an intense dispute, I protect on an arbitrary revision - Alison 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just as a point of procedure, I've already said that I disagree with your assessment that my rollback use constituted abuse, and I'll ask that you refrain from making that judgment unless and until there is an administrative decision to strip me of rollback. If I engaged in abuse, then my rollback should have been removed. Instead, I used rollback, you stated that my use was inappropriate, and I respectfully disagreed and made no further edits. Now then. If the "at least one other editor who disagrees with position" that you're referring to is Apcbg, you're not breaking news. This editor's name appeared in my original request, and, as I pointed out, this editor is not exactly a disinterested party when it comes to Bulgarian-related topics. While I wouldn't characterize this editor as a hard-line booster, yes, he appears to be in the same camp as Monshuai on this issue--in favor of listing Atanasoff as a Bulgarian-American in the first sentence of the article but unable to justify the position with any facts in light of the prevailing guideline. (The only fact that Monshuai has presented, that Bulgaria somehow helped Atanasoff "win his patent case" is fabricated bunk.) On the other hand, LMB and Blainster take the same position I have elaborated--that the attempts to "claim" Atanasoff with unduly-weighted references to his paternal ethnicity in the lead of the article constitute boosterism and shouldn't appear. (User:Bielle doesn't "seem to concur" with us--Bielle concurs completely.) Monshuai doesn't seem to need to violate 3RR as his position currently prevails. He'll happily take the win, and, for my troubles of bringing this to administrative attention, have some negative remarks against me on a few talk pages. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Firstly, you've abused Rollback twice now on the Atanasoff article. Not once. Also, as you now admit, full-protect is inappropriate here. Now what is appropriate is that edit-warriors be warned that they'll be blocked for disruption. You'll not that Monshuai has now been final-warned by myself and is at the traditional 3RR limit. If s/he reverts one more time, I'll block their account. You'll note that you've not been similarly warned (yet). Note also that there is at least one other editor who disagrees with the position you're taking on this, although User:Bielle seems to concur with your perspective. In short; it's a content dispute and there are numerous editors involved. You all need to resolve this on the talk page and come to some consensus on the issue. If then, Monshuai decides to edit-war against consensus, they'll be blocked, or if they exceed 3RR. Fully protecting the article (esp. to 'your' revision) is not going to work. If I fully protect an article in the case of an intense dispute, I protect on an arbitrary revision - Alison 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Alyson, I understand your concerns and I appreciate your effort to resolve this dispute. As you have seen, this has been an ongoing problem for approximately 2 years. At its earlier stages of escalation, I decided to follow Misplaced Pages rules and take time off from this article hoping that Robert K S will mature over a period of one year and therefore find the strength, intellectual resolve and maturity to neutralize his prejudices. Unfortunately as the weeks turned to months and the months to years, it became apparent that he was not willing to accept the valid arguments presented by other editors. Thus I decided that I would once more attempt to reason with him and therefore made sure to always share my perspectives in the discussion page before proceeding to change anything in the Atanasoff article. This too failed. That said, I thank you for taking the time to look into this matter. I appreciate your objective analysis of the situation and I am sure that both Robert K S and I will do our utmost to be productive members of the Wikipedian community. He is articulate and intelligent. If he becomes impartial and compassionate, he will be a truly remarkable editor. Have a great day and I hope we will talk again in more delightful circumstances. You're what every administrator should be: neutral, polite and conscientious.--Monshuai (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- My name is being bandied above, but my palette is low on the violet end, so I can't compete in this thread. I've done some checking on similar articles, and added another comment to the talk page. I believe this not to be a content dispute, but a style dispute, and thus even less a reason for an edit war. I hope I haven't made things worse. Bielle (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have also responded to Bielle's latest comment on the talk page. I gave her/him examples of XXX-Americans who are born in the USA as she/he wasn't aware of how many other articles are written. Two articles that I have provided as evidence are those of Michael Chang and Anna May Wong both born in the USA yet clearly called Chinese-Americans in the lead. It should also be noted that the List of Chinese Americans states these are "original immigrants who obtained American citizenship and their American descendants." Clearly the word "descendents" is clarifying in our content dispute. Kind regards.--Monshuai (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alison, you are essentially telling me to stop defending ethnic groups against racism. If I have to I will take this issue to the highest authorities and to administrators of various ethnic and racial backgrounds, because it seems to me that in such a way they will be analyze the situation at hand and whether or not I am deserving of being threatened by you. I will not capitulate in the face of racism and double standards. If anything should happen to my account because I have been fighting prejudice and racism then I will formally write letters to the fouders of Misplaced Pages and I will point them to this discussion. I will approach this from every moral and ethical avenue possible and I will do for as long as I must to neutralize the unfair treatment of some ethnic groups.--Monshuai (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not "essentially telling" you that. I'm telling you to stop the goading of Robert K S, and stop the ad-hominem attacks. That's all. Feel free to take the issue elsewhere, by all means, but I'm not going to stand by watching you mock and goad another editor. No way. And put the racism card back away, please. My comments had absolutely nothing to do with the content of that page and everything to do with your attitude towards others - Alison 00:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not blank my comments here. If you wish to refer this to Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation, then you are quite free to do so, though you may be better off trying OTRS first - Alison 00:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alison, you are essentially telling me to stop defending ethnic groups against racism. If I have to I will take this issue to the highest authorities and to administrators of various ethnic and racial backgrounds, because it seems to me that in such a way they will be analyze the situation at hand and whether or not I am deserving of being threatened by you. I will not capitulate in the face of racism and double standards. If anything should happen to my account because I have been fighting prejudice and racism then I will formally write letters to the fouders of Misplaced Pages and I will point them to this discussion. I will approach this from every moral and ethical avenue possible and I will do for as long as I must to neutralize the unfair treatment of some ethnic groups.--Monshuai (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about "blanking statements"? I really don't know what this even means and as far as I know I haven't done anything but edit some grammar mistakes in my reply to you.--Monshuai (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I replied to your comment. You removed it here. Go check - Alison 00:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did not remove your comment! I do not know what you are implying but I very well know that comments are saved into histories and therefore even an attempt to remove a comment would be futile. Therefore if there was some glitch or text was deleted temporarily while I was editing MY comment then I apologize. I hope this isn't some trick that you are using to make me feel guilty about something I didn't do. I may not be familiar with the various Misplaced Pages tools, but that doesn't mean I will not take the effort to familiarize myself with them. I am now going to look into what you're talking about.--Monshuai (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good grief! It's not some trick. You had an edit conflict and you chose to ignore it and overwrite my interim changes. Am I seeing agreement now that people cannot 'censor' your comments due to their being an edit history? This is not what you were saying to Bielle earlier - Alison 00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did not remove your comment! I do not know what you are implying but I very well know that comments are saved into histories and therefore even an attempt to remove a comment would be futile. Therefore if there was some glitch or text was deleted temporarily while I was editing MY comment then I apologize. I hope this isn't some trick that you are using to make me feel guilty about something I didn't do. I may not be familiar with the various Misplaced Pages tools, but that doesn't mean I will not take the effort to familiarize myself with them. I am now going to look into what you're talking about.--Monshuai (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alison, I am not familiar with the so-called "edit conflict". I have not experienced this problem before. I don't know what agreement you may or may not be seeing, but it seems to me that you are using my unfamiliarity with some Misplaced Pages tools or automated occurrences against me. Tell me, is it possible for a person to override a statement by accident? BTW I'm happy that your comment is now showing, because it gave me a chance to reply to it and it gives the opportunity to continue this discussion. And yes, I want all comments (which means yours, Bielle's, Robert K S's, Apcbg's, my own etc) showing everywhere (including your talk page and my talk page) so that the public, Misplaced Pages editors and other administrators can easily look through them. This is the most efficient way of creating a maximally effective discussion.--Monshuai (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
← It's actually creating a distributed discussion, which is even harder for people to follow. As you post the same comment to multiple places, people feel obliged to followup in all places, lest it be construed as silence - Alison 01:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
(sticking my nose in, hopefully in a helpful way) Alison, the edit conflict detector appears to be on the fritz for the last few days, it is quite likely that Monshuai didn't know he overwrote your comment. There's a thread about it on WP:VPT somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- In light of Misplaced Pages's recent conflict detector problems, I expect an apology from you for accusing me of removing your comments Alison.--Monshuai (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why? You did remove my comment & I manually re-added it - Alison 01:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Some Facts:
- --1) I did not remove your comment.
- --2) Misplaced Pages glitch removed your comment.
- --3) You re-added comment.
- --4) You accused me of removing and censoring your comment.
- Since you accused me of doing something I didn't do you should apologize.--Monshuai (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Where did I accuse you of censorship? It is a stated fact that you removed my comment. It's a possibility that MediaWiki didn't warn you about the edit-conflict - Alison 02:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since you accused me of doing something I didn't do you should apologize.--Monshuai (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- So I take you won't apologize?--Monshuai (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI-notice
Hello, Alison. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert K S (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Bump
You've got email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Got it - it's in my wiki email. I didn't get the first one, though. Can you resend? Emailing you now with my 'official' email address (that everyone seems to know anyways :/ ) - Alison 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)