Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 5 October 2011

Archives

Index • edit List of archives by month December 2006 to March 2007 March 2007 to early May 2007 Early May 2007 to mid-June 2007 End of June 2007 All archives beyond this point are done automatically by bot. Any threads that are five days old will be archived to the appropriate one of the following exciting subpages, for your enjoyment: July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 Threads only need be two days old from this point on to be archived. November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March (and end of Feb.) 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 + the end of May July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May and the end of April 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011

My pontificality of prelates

Mentoring status

I checked the archived thread on the mentoring proposal but it seems to have ended inconclusively. If you care to comment... Did you have private followups, or is it still open? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dweller offered mentorship. I asked what this would involve, and haven't yet received a response. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 07:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm suggesting that I restrict you to certain kinds of editing, while you engage with me regarding some of the issues that have emerged surrounding your editing. As you progress, the restrictions will gradually be lifted. The idea of the restrictions is to enable us to concentrate on the issues without the distraction of new complaints about you, here or at noticeboards. If I feel it's going nowhere because of my shortcomings or because you're not responding suitably, I'll go back to AN and say I failed. --Dweller (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can propose some specific restrictions then I'd be able to comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we'd need to start with very wide-ranging ones. Don't edit anything in projectspace. Don't nominate anything for deletion by any means of doing so. Don't edit anything reasonably connected to Dr Who. Don't write any whole words in edit summaries. Basically trying to remove you from potential conflicts - we've a lot of work to do. I wouldn't expect the restrictions to be in place long. Feel free to discuss this with User:Bus stop, whom I mentored similarly. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, my memory is faulty. It was you I mentored like this. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't edit anything in projectspace. Absolutely not agreed. Don't nominate anything for deletion by any means of doing so. Absolutely not agreed. Don't edit anything reasonably connected to Dr Who. Absolutely not agreed. Don't write any whole words in edit summaries. How is that even conducive to collabroative editing?!
I'm sorry – those restrictions would basically remove my ability to edit Misplaced Pages at all, since those are my normal areas of interest/activity. So I think this proposed mentorship won't work. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 09:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you've not read my proposal very carefully. And I think that your tone is entirely wrong, which has seriously damaged my faith in my ability to help you. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not only have I read your proposal, but I've quoted what I consider to be the salient parts of it. You proposed four restrictions: Don't edit anything in projectspace. Don't nominate anything for deletion by any means of doing so. Don't edit anything reasonably connected to Dr Who. Don't write any whole words in edit summaries. That is what you wrote. I read it carefully. And I said that I am not prepared to accept any of those restrictions. Perhaps you could clarify to me which passage of your proposal you think I've misinterpreted? ╟─TreasuryTag►contemnor─╢ 10:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"I wouldn't expect the restrictions to be in place long".

I also think you should reflect on the fact that the entire purpose of this mentoring is to ensure you are able to continue editing Misplaced Pages. Comments like "How is that even conducive to collabroative editing?! I'm sorry – those restrictions would basically remove my ability to edit Misplaced Pages at all" are not only sardonically biting the hand that's trying very hard to feed you, they also demonstrate that you don't understand that a) a significant number of editors feel you don't edit collaboratively and b) you shouldn't be allowed to edit part or whole of Misplaced Pages ever again. I'd very much like to tackle a and b so that they are no longer issues, but it seems you don't perceive them to be issues... which, as I say, makes me feel like I'm wating my time. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you said they wouldn't be in place long ('probably') – I don't see how my initial reply suggested I hadn't read that passage. My point was, and is, that those restrictions would prevent me from editing any Misplaced Pages page I would edit in an average week, and frankly, the whole-words-in-edit-summaries thing is just bizarre. I'm afraid that I simply will not accept those restrictions. If you feel able to suggest a compromise, I'm happy to consider it. If not, I guess I'll just have to 'take my chances' without a mentor. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 10:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Bizarre"?!? Seven different editors (seven!) mentioned your problematic use of edit summaries at your editor review. Your attitude (I absolutely refuse, I absolutely refuse and while I'm absolutely refusing I'll insult your a couple of your suggestions) is not of one who is looking to compromise. I refuse to waste any more time on this. I'll post at AN that I've failed. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, using no whole words in edit-summaries is bizarre. So I guess that re movi ng unccptbl mtrl fr om thi s p a ge would be OK on that basis...? I have repeatedly pointed out that your proposals would effectively prevent me from editing Misplaced Pages at all. Making such a proposal is not the attitude of someone interested in compromising. I am sorry that you feel you are wasting your time; you've always been helpful to me in the past and I hope we can work together amicably in the future. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that senseless aggressive pedantry of the first two sentences of your reply just really sadden me. I wish you'd put your undoubted intelligence to more sensible and collegiate use - like the last sentence. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

OK; if you want less senseless pedantry then how about this: do you really think it is better for me to go around Misplaced Pages editing, making changes etc. and not including any explanation whatsoever in the edit-summary? Because it would undoubtedly be easier for me not to bother typing, "original research," or, "unreferenced," or whatever. I do it as a courtesy, as per WP:ES, but if you're saying it would be advisable not to do that then I may as well not bother. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 10:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See this and replace "talk page edits" with "edit summaries". --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's quite different to "no whole words in edit-summaries" – ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Apologies for jumping in uninvited again. I haven't been following this closely, so this suggestion might be at best redundant and at worst a very bad comment. I take full responsibility for this comment and for any repercussions about it. In my opinion:

* TT's problems are about Dr Who related articles

* TT is otherwise a very fine editor indeed

* Rather than focusing on the problem, lets look for a solution

* I suggest that if TT is un-indef'd, like the processes for problematic AfD-ers or similar in my jurisdiction, TT must ask for the opinion of an Admin or a trusted user before making any Dr Who related article edits whatsoever.

And, hey, TT: Articles you might like to edit, from Shirt58Bot - Lawyers bodkin - --Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, Doctor Who is my main field of editing, so it would be a serious and almost absolute impediment for me to have to ask and wait for permission before each individual edit. So I will not accept such a restriction; sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 12:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Hi TreasuryTag, I've seen that wherever you've signed your username, the contributions link text changes to something different each time. Can you tell me how this is done? Rcsprinter (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now discovered User:TreasuryTag/sig, so you can ignore me if you want. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On the edit restriction discussion...

The administrators who close community proposals understand the closure policy, including the higher weight given to coherent arguments rather than just counting heads for/against. While you are currently correctly stating policy, you're also badgering those who are supporting the proposal. That type of badgering behavior has a very short tolerance limit, particularly on AN discussions, and also is certainly not helping your case. If you can avoid shooting your own cause in the foot, I would appreciate it. My interpretation of the situation is that either an admin or the community are going to indef you if you don't cooperate with something here that keeps you out of trouble. If that's not a mentorship situation, this topic ban is the only thing I can think of that will work. If you want to force the issue and get indef blocked, it would be easier for you to just stop editing, rather than cause a blowup and be forced out. I believe that would be a waste of your ability and interest, and I hope you chose not to go down that road. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was 'badgering' (as you call it) more for the education of the editors who were engaging in WP:VOTE-violating behaviour, since I charitably assumed that they were not aware of that policy and were not deliberately flouting it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 07:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Shutting Out the Italians?

Are you that sure that as a non-admin, and considering that you're up for yet another topic ban on AN, that you should be closing a thread that could potentially affect millions of Italian WP editors? Why not let an admin in good standing close it? Are you in a position right now to be closing unresolved threads on AN/I - I, as a non-admin in good standing, wouldn't think of closing that thread. Doc talk 08:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not an incident, it doesn't affect millions of Italian WP editors because we don't have millions of Italian WP editors, and it's not an incident. Bye. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 09:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I liked the way the other guy closed it better though - jus' sayin'. Good luck with your other issues: I am truly neutral when it comes to you and will have no part in any vote for or against any topic ban. Cheers, and sorry if I came off a little "gruff" :> Doc talk 09:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

POV-motivated editing?

Your edits to The New Yorker, where you have repeatedly deleted a paragraph from the 2-paragraph lead section, appear to be some sort of POV-pushing against this magazine. The information you deleted is well-supported by the body of the article, where it is rather well sourced. It's presence in the lead is consistent with WP:Lead section.

Trashing the work of other contributors in that fashion is not improving the encyclopedia; it is vandalism. --Orlady (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)