User talk:SW3 5DL - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluejay Young (talk | contribs) at 07:54, 5 December 2010 (→Curious: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:54, 5 December 2010 by Bluejay Young (talk | contribs) (→Curious: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

18:12, January 9, 2025

This is SW3 5DL's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Finally, some good news for Frequent Flyers:

When Vandals care enough to say it best. . .

Gun Powder .

The Troubles

Landon Donovan

You know you're on Misplaced Pages when. . .

The Care Bears article has a criticism section. .

Charles Barkley still has game

Status of mentorship

Effective immediately, due to disagreements about its administration, Malke 2010’s mentorship is suspended. It will be resumed if the parties reach agreement about how best to handle it. In the meantime, Malke 2010 is as fully responsible for ensuring her actions comply with policy as other editors are. --Moonriddengirl 16:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Per above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Any editors having questions, please feel free to email me. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Malke, this means that any admin can block you at any time for disruption, without much warning. It is not happy news. Please heed this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Gwen, as you might recall, two admins did block me during the mentorship. Granted, they didn't have legitimate reasons for their blocks, but they did it and despite Moonriddengirl's input to the contrary. And it took several admins to get the last block lifted. What changed was that LessHeard came onboard and I think that has prevented further abuse. Right now, there's a problem in how things are to be managed, and that needs to be resolved before going forward. Feel free to offer input on any edit, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying Malke, is that the next block could be indef and without a mentor, it will most likely stick. Please take to heart what folks have been saying to you and find ways to edit peacefully here. If you can't do this, someone will block you. If need be, you can take this as a warning, because I don't want to see you blocked in the aftermath of having lost your mentors. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment and the concern. Let me assure you, I do understand my responsibility on Misplaced Pages. As far as my mentors, my understanding of the situation right now is that there are management issues that need to be worked out before going forward. I have not had any communication that suggests my mentors are 'lost,' or that the mentorship is terminated. I do trust those issues will be resolved and the mentorship will continue. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You are no longer under mentorship. The only reason you were unblocked was because you agreed to mentorship. Since that has failed, any admin can reblock you now, without warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Admins were always free to do that anyway. The mentorship has never been a shield against blocking. Any disruptive behaviour would be treated as with any other editor.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You're very much mistaken about that, Malke. The only thing between you and an indef block were your mentors. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I can only share what my understanding has always been. The possibility of an indef block has always been part of the conversation. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your understanding has been mistaken, which I guess is why the mentorship failed. They have stuck up for you and tried to help you, getting you unblocked time and again and together spending hours of their volunteer time to keep you in the fold. if you make another edit like this, an admin will most likely block you from editing indefinitely and there will be no mentor to bail you out. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Template:Bottom statement I am happy to answer any and all questions from editors on my talk page, however I want to say that if you have anger and would like to vent, you may post what you will, but I will not engage with you while you are angry. I respect the views and opinions of all editors, and I ask that you respect that my talk page is not an attack page. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Marian articles As you and I rightly noted, there were process problems on the deletion of the "Catholic views......." article. But I also noted some other things. One is a consensus (at least amongst the folks present) that there were too many closely related Marian articles. I also noted that I believe that you have both expertise and interest in coverage in this area. I lack expertise in this area, so please feel free to tell me to go pound sand, but is there any chance that you could suggest something to move the Marian article(s) as a whole onward an upward, even if that meant leaving the "Catholic views...." article behind? Just a thought, please ignore if I am out of line. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Catholic views is gone for six, but what I'd like to see is the articles get out of the editing isolation they seem to be in. A good way to do that might be to put up an RfC on the Wikiproject Catholicism page and send notices out to everybody who has ever edited those articles and tell them their input would be welcome. I don't think that would be seen as canvassing, but who knows. And then at some point someone, I think Paul Nyugen and Johnbod would be best, who could be moderators, like the mediation cabal editors. And then look at the list and decide on merge/delete, etc. The problem of course is getting the cooperation so that things go smoothly and it doesn't start to become one editor making all the decisions again. The more editors willing to participate, the more likely will be success. I was thinking of withdrawing the AfD's and making that suggestion. What do you think?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Curious I've worked on a number of the Marian articles you propose for deletion/merging, and I'm curious as to your motivation. You made references to editors' over-reliance on St. Louis de Montfort and "trivial citations using Google book previews". I don't cite de Montfort because he doesn't belong in the articles I have worked on, besides the fact that I don't like him; but he made a substantial contribution to Catholic culture and folklore, and appropriate references to his work should be retained. As for Google book previews, there is (yet) no rule saying they can't be used, and I'm not sure what a "trivial citation" is. However, if you've noticed things you think could stand improvement, the thing to do is go ahead and improve them, not just request that they all be zilched. I'm not sure of your rationale for wanting to delete these articles. It seems that you think any article on Mary is POV. It is possible, you know, to write an NPOV article on a subjective experience. This is what I strive to do in all my edits on Mary. Are you also planning to request the deletion of articles on, say, the Greek Gods, or other entities, real or not, who receive respect and devotion from believers? Are they POV too? --Bluejay Young (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Your understanding has been mistaken, which I guess is why the mentorship failed. They have stuck up for you and tried to help you, getting you unblocked time and again and together spending hours of their volunteer time to keep you in the fold. if you make another edit like this, an admin will most likely block you from editing indefinitely and there will be no mentor to bail you out. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bottom

statement

I am happy to answer any and all questions from editors on my talk page, however I want to say that if you have anger and would like to vent, you may post what you will, but I will not engage with you while you are angry. I respect the views and opinions of all editors, and I ask that you respect that my talk page is not an attack page. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Marian articles

As you and I rightly noted, there were process problems on the deletion of the "Catholic views......." article. But I also noted some other things. One is a consensus (at least amongst the folks present) that there were too many closely related Marian articles. I also noted that I believe that you have both expertise and interest in coverage in this area. I lack expertise in this area, so please feel free to tell me to go pound sand, but is there any chance that you could suggest something to move the Marian article(s) as a whole onward an upward, even if that meant leaving the "Catholic views...." article behind? Just a thought, please ignore if I am out of line. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Catholic views is gone for six, but what I'd like to see is the articles get out of the editing isolation they seem to be in. A good way to do that might be to put up an RfC on the Wikiproject Catholicism page and send notices out to everybody who has ever edited those articles and tell them their input would be welcome. I don't think that would be seen as canvassing, but who knows. And then at some point someone, I think Paul Nyugen and Johnbod would be best, who could be moderators, like the mediation cabal editors. And then look at the list and decide on merge/delete, etc. The problem of course is getting the cooperation so that things go smoothly and it doesn't start to become one editor making all the decisions again. The more editors willing to participate, the more likely will be success. I was thinking of withdrawing the AfD's and making that suggestion. What do you think?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Curious

I've worked on a number of the Marian articles you propose for deletion/merging, and I'm curious as to your motivation. You made references to editors' over-reliance on St. Louis de Montfort and "trivial citations using Google book previews". I don't cite de Montfort because he doesn't belong in the articles I have worked on, besides the fact that I don't like him; but he made a substantial contribution to Catholic culture and folklore, and appropriate references to his work should be retained. As for Google book previews, there is (yet) no rule saying they can't be used, and I'm not sure what a "trivial citation" is. However, if you've noticed things you think could stand improvement, the thing to do is go ahead and improve them, not just request that they all be zilched.

I'm not sure of your rationale for wanting to delete these articles. It seems that you think any article on Mary is POV. It is possible, you know, to write an NPOV article on a subjective experience. This is what I strive to do in all my edits on Mary. Are you also planning to request the deletion of articles on, say, the Greek Gods, or other entities, real or not, who receive respect and devotion from believers? Are they POV too? --Bluejay Young (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)