Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 00:31, 5 February 2010 (→User:Collect - Time to back up your words: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

If I left a post on your talk page please answer there, I'll see it, no worries. If you leave a post here, I'll answer here. Now and then I don't think an answer from me is needed. If you wanted one anyway, I'll be happy to get a wee nudge.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

User:Collect - Time to back up your words

You said :

"If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close."

And deja vu:

Collect got blocked again: and usual Wiki lawyering. See: User_talk:Collect#January_2010 Phoenix of9 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me more about why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words." Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So that you can start that thread at ANI. Have you? Phoenix of9 22:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are my contribs , you tell me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh it seems he had already broken his restrictions: /index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&oldid=304050219#0rr. Interesting...Phoenix of9 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That was six months ago and I blocked him for it. Why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words"? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded a bit above. Phoenix of9 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me more. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had no interactions with Pof9 at all in aeons. Note that he used his animus at an RfA per . Seems if anyone can not let go, it is he. Collect (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing's straightforward, I won't be badgered into taking any admin action. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As usual, half the story: Phoenix of9 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your answer. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, similarly, I've closed this for forum shopping and warned him to knock it off. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm involved in this whole mess somehow. Since there's some issue with your admin discretion, review Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problematic_User_Keeps_Being_Problematic_After_RFC.2C_Breaks_Restrictions if you can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting for Phoenix_of9 to answer my question. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I answered it. After your passive aggressive answer (asking me to go through your entire edit history instead of answering a simple question) and refusal to bring this to ANI (like you said you would in RFC), I moved it to ANI myself. I'm not surprised though. You were never neutral. Phoenix of9 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

GG you say you have been waiting for Phoenix to answer your question. If the question you refer to is 'Please tell me more about why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words"' Phoenix already answered it with 'So that you can start that thread at ANI.' In which case it's unhelpful to badger the editor for a reply that you have, in fact, already received. But if you have another question in mind, surely it would help to tell Phoenix which one. I hope this helps. Writegeist (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix did not answer the question. However, I was able to glean the answer (see below). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"...did not answer the question?" Please. Your question to Phoenix Please tell me more about why you have titled this thread "Time to back up your words" brought this direct answer from Phoenix: So that you can start that thread at ANI. In ignoring this response, which could not be more clearly a direct answer, and instead substituting Phoenix's separate remark that "you were never neutral", for no better reason, apparently, than that's what you thought was the reason for the thread's title--again, regardless of what Phoenix very explicitly told you was the reason--you really only feed Phoenix's belief about your neutrality. Which is a pity if you really are neutral. It's disappointing. Oh well, I'll duck out of this discussion now and go for a nice peaceful bike ride by the ocean :~) .Writegeist (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about that (but not about the bike ride). Gwen Gale (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You were never neutral. That's what I thought you meant, Phoenix, when you titled this thread with the rather badgering "Time to back up your words": You don't think I'm neutral. This is why I asked, then waited for your answer.

Phoenix, do you think Collect's single flight of carelessness in straying from the standing 1rr restriction at Mass killings under Communist regimes means he has been editing "tendentiously or disruptively again" as in the meaning of how I put it when closing his RfC 8 months ago? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"single flight of carelessness"? The article has a huge red warning sign. Hard to miss. Especially if it wasnt the first time you were editing it. Phoenix of9 03:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As another admin and myself have both told Collect, there are two warnings, one over the edit window and one heading up the talk page. If you think he saw either of them, why do you think he made the edit, knowing he would be blocked straight off? Do you believe he might have been thinking something like, "I'll make the edit anyway and if I get caught and blocked, I'll say I didn't see the warnings and get unblocked."? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To be accurate, the second warning was placed by Tiptoety after the question was raised . It was placed there as a result of my suggestion that the warning be placed there. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So there was only one warning at the time, beginning with big red letters, over the edit window. Phoenix, did you know, that when an admin sees the edit window of a protected page, the whole background of the edit window is pink? This was done because too many admins were editing protected articles for content (which they're mostly not allowed to do) without seeing the protection notice over the edit window. It's hard to miss a pink editing window, but it's widely understood here that a warning over over an editing window can indeed be missed, moreover with all the wiki-wide banners and stuff which can show up at the top of a page and which most editors learn to "go blind" to. I think it was careless of you, Collect, not to see it, but one can understand how this could happen.

Phoenix, if you think he saw that warning, why do you think he made the edit, knowing he would be blocked straight off? Do you believe he might have been thinking something like, "I'll make the edit anyway and if I get caught and blocked, I'll say I didn't see the warning and get unblocked."? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to go thru his edit history to see if the rest of his problematic behaviour has ceased but I dont have the time right now. Phoenix of9 05:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if you find a string of diffs showing disruption and/or tendentious editing in the last month or two, you're welcome to post them here for me to look at. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack? He implies I have something to do with harassing emails (ie: "One of his friends") he was talking about here . Harassing emails are a serious (and possibly criminal) offense. Phoenix of9 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall Collect telling me anything meaningful about harassing emails, did I miss or forget something, Collect? I would say that claiming someone, who has sent what he calls "harassing" emails, is your "friend" could be taken as a personal attack, since friend has sundry meanings online. What can either of you tell me about all this? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I sent you the emails a while back. I believe you have sufficient information thereon. The parties have a number of intersections online, and unless you now wish me to make an open charge of harassment against that other editor, with all that entails, I think that my comment to a third party was as neutral as humanly possible. Be assured that I did not intend to indicate that the two are "personal friends" in any other manner at all. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

When did you send me the emails? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

November. Collect (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess that rings a bell. Can you please give me the date in November? Also, why are you posting about those emails now? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You asked me not to post details at the time. The mention Pof9 found in his search was in an aside, and was not anything for Pof9 to reasonably take umbrage at. I am not naming the other party in the belief that he has been more-or-less quiet for two months now. You will note, however, that Buster7 and I are at peace, and Ikip made as much an apology as he has ever made. To every thing there is a season, and this is the season to lay all this "stuff" to rest. Collect (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, wonderful, so stop trying to link Phoenix_of9 with old harassing emails, for starters. Meanwhile, I didn't ask you to post details this time either, I asked you for the date you told me about them. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not link him to the emails at all, and the dates were from 5 November through 21 November. You did not appear to react to them at all. Collect (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

One of his friends kept sending me emails links him to the emails. I got four emails from you, on 11, 19 and 21 November. Only one copied an email, from User:SluggoOne, sent to you through the en.Misplaced Pages email system. It's a very mild taunt and as a one-off, could hardly be taken as harassment. Another email carried only this diff. Another said he had made "four contacts" with you (not "four harassing emails" or even "four emails"). I replied to three of the four emails you sent me. Has anything having to do with those contacts happened since late November? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Copies of emails were sent on 12 Nov and 21 November. I fear you mislaid the second? I had basically zero edit conflicts with him - ever. Why he is this tenacious, I know not. Collect (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please answer my question: Why are you bringing these up again after three months? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not "bring these up again" - the aside was after another comment by the other editor. I did not mention who the person sending the emails was, only that I had brought them to your atention. Period. I accused Pof9 of nothing whatsoever, and if he thinks I accused him, I willingly apologize for that perception. It was, moreover, not intended as anything more than an aside. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Sheldon - Correcting a deletion

I clearly now see why you deleted this page. I rewrote the article sticking with the letter of the land; I hope it may supplant the deleted one which is what comes up in a google search: jonathan sheldon movie producer. I would like to have it corrected and all the information is accurate. Please let me know and thank you. --Jonno888888 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, it doesn't look like a speedy anymore. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gwen. Is there a way to remove the deleted page of "Jonathan Sheldon", or have it replaced with the new proper page of "Jonathan Sheldon" on Wiki? The deleted page comes up in searches and gives a misimpression. Thanks again. --Jonno888888 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Jonathan Sheldon is now an article, which you created. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Misplaced Pages, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Misplaced Pages on CDs, BBC uses Misplaced Pages content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard

There is a need for consistency here. The children are named in the current version of the article and elsewhere on the talk page. There has been an ongoing WP:BLPNAME debate about this, but the names are easily available on the Internet, including the Daily Telegraph source given.--♦IanMacM♦ 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that the names of her kids are in the article but unsourced. Moreover, the spelling of one of those names is not the same as given in the DT source you gave. If you fix and source the article text, please feel free to undo my redaction on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the names on the birth certificates, but most of the argument seems to be about the spelling of Starlit/Starlite/Starlet. The real issue is whether the names should be in the article at all, and the consensus of the US media is not to give the names. It seems that the children have been given new identities anyway, since anyone with access to the Internet can find the names very quickly. Personally I would favour giving the names with some reliable sourcing, since the information is in the public domain.--♦IanMacM♦ 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm neutral. However, I agree that if the names do wind up in the text, they should be very thoroughly sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I live in the UK, and do not like going against the wishes of the US media. However, the names are easy to find on the Internet (eg here in the Daily Mail). Since Misplaced Pages is read in a range of countries, attempts to redact the names on a permanent basis are likely to fail. This is why I would (somewhat reluctantly) support naming the children.--♦IanMacM♦ 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's more or less why I'm neutral. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

The talk section you closed has been reopened which I suspect is detrimental. I do not see the point in it. Collect (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow reopened the thread and he also reverted an edit again without consensus. .Malke2010 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've re-closed the thread, but if you want to tell me about a revert, I need a diff (or diffs) which straightforwardly show a revert. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

.Malke2010 00:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not a revert (this diff combines the two you gave). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to go back and do it again. The point is, it doesn't have consensus, the whole thing is disruptive and is having a WP:CHILL on moving forward. As I explained several days ago in another post here, basically he's not working with anybody here. He's just doing what he wants. He's not working within the process at all and this makes it difficult for everybody else to have input. Why bother getting consensus and taking the time to write an edit, post it, etc., if he can just come along and change it, abuse the talk page with postings about an editor and not the article, etc. Not an expert, just saying.Malke2010 00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was only saying, it's not a revert. I understand the worry about consensus, it might be helpful to wait for other editors to say what they think. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

On the edit war/reverting 3RR thing. If an editor has made 5 reverts in 24 hours over two pages that are on the same subject and in fact are just a split of one article, and if that editor also visited other talk pages to solicit support, is that edit warring. Also, he didn't use the talk page. Just reverted.Malke2010 00:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't be WP:3rr. Not using the talk page, in itself, doesn't mean much of anything. If an article or topic area is under probation and/or this kind of reverting keeps up for some time, it might be taken as edit warring or tendentious/disruptive and then, a lack of talk page posts could have something to do with it, but without seeing the edits, I can't say whether what you're asking about is worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, don't know the details of these rules through and through, so I'm not sure when I see something. Better to ask than act first. Appreciate your taking the time.Malke2010 02:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)