Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Potguru (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 7 March 2016 (→Don't call other people suppressor, shills, etc..: now if I were to point out that you are a liar would this be the appropriate (correctly cited) place to do that?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Short version: block not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, I am doing neither of those things.

March 2016

In particular, I'm referring to your conduct in a number of places like ANI (e.g. , ) with specific editors () and on articles related to Donald Trump (as described in the ANI thread). I, JethroBT 05:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I would accept this argument if it were justified. I always assume editors are well meaning, but this editor is not. He is using his editor power to guide a conversation about a subject he must not like. This is evidenced by his unwillingness to actually follow consensus... choosing instead to universally blank and redirect one of the most popular pages in wikipedia which was in the middle of a merge/delete/keep discussion and he didn't follow consensus.

Note- the editors entire Merge consisted of copying 3 citations and moving a word. That was the only difference between the two article Jethro, 3 citations and a word? Where is the ACTUAL MERGE??? (suppression is running rampant because I cannot speak). --Potguru (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I recounted, the entire merge consisted of pasting one citation... Pft! --Potguru (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The content is still in the article history and hasn't been deleted, so if folks think there is more content to pull, it's still here and they are welcome to use it: . But much of the content was already migrated during the course of the discussion, so it didn't seem like there was much to merge. Many sources are the same too. Here are the substantive changes I made: , , . I, JethroBT 19:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

INCORRECT REDIRECT

I actually just tallied the votes... the editor was wrong and did not follow concensus PLEASE IMMEDIATELY REVERT AND UNLOCK ME SO I CAN FIX THIS --- EDITOR WAS WRONG!!!!

Vote is actually: 21 keep 27 merge 17 delete 19 redirect

Count the votes yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_J_Drumpf

Anyone concluding that blank and redirect is the only solution is, frankly, abusing their power.

Continued below:

Potguru (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1) the discussion of delete/merge/keep was not over, it needs to continue or be reviewed to come to an actual consensus... the norm around here I thought. 2) he unilaterally booted me for 72 hours even though my disruptive period was EXTREMELY SHORT and ended more than a day ago. Per the section I thought the norm was "But sanctions are meant to be preventative and not punitive, so we're not going to hand one out for an issue that's already closed--nor for PG being a purveyor of sour grapes." That is what Jethro read a full day before blocking me. The only edits I made between the heated period and the block were all HIGHLY CONSTRUCTIVE and well researched. (I was fighting to keep the image of drumpf on the page and 4 editors came in and removed it without first reading or contributing to the important section on the talk page. 3) he closed my complaint against Muboshgu after telling me "You have inappropriately opened a thread here because you felt you were being "slandered" by an assessment that your contributions were non-constructive." I refuse to listen to anyone who accepts the unreasonable statement that MOST of my contributions were non-constructive. If you don't see that as a personal attack you should probably head back to grade school because even on a playground such words are mean and unwarranted. Yes, I demand an apology.... or to be freed from the jail the user incorrectly single handedly put me in without doing necessary research to determine that MOST of my edits are EXTREMELY constructive, useful and well cited. Block Moboshgu or release me... don't punish me just because you don't like the article I wrote. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-drumpf-wikipedia-now-exists-after-john-olivers-trump-takedown-w166114. And allowing the drumpf article to stand, WITHOUT merging the superior multi-editor work from the article about Drumpf is just wrong and not consensus. Please undo the users unwarranted hasty actions.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Jethro single handedly decided that the personal attack on me by another editor where the other editor stated, in no uncertain terms, that '''MOST of my edits were non-constructive''' should be allowed to stand as I guess) an accurate description of my contributions. He did this in reaction to a long series of events that he did not review completely. He, wrongly, defended the other editor against me suggesting that my complaint that the editor stated '''MOST of my edits were non-constructive''' was insufficient to allow the continued discussion I brought up and he universally closed it (prematurely). Then he closed a heated discussion unilaterally suggesting that the only conclusion was to redirect my article to a poorly written article about the same subject, strange since the conclusion was to merge the articles,. Buy redirecting the better article into the lesser article he is attempting to cover up some of the most interesting work on wikipedia so far this year. The issue is drumpf. Major press picked up the article. The conclusion by the community was CLEARLy to merge the two articles yet he acted unilaterally and blanked and redirected instead. Then he archives the discussion, prematurely... without noting the actual vote conclusions which wa clearly to MERGE. Then he blocked me for 72 hours so I would be relegated to telling my story only on my talk page which they try to bury the important (and well cited )( information I presented in an article that is one of the most edited article in wikipedia today. 1) the discussion of delete/merge/keep was not over, it needs to continue or be reviewed to come to an actual consensus... the norm around here I thought. 2) he unilaterally booted me for 72 hours even though my disruptive period was EXTREMELY SHORT and ended more than a day ago. Per the section I thought the norm was "But sanctions are meant to be preventative and not punitive, so we're not going to hand one out for an issue that's already closed--nor for PG being a purveyor of sour grapes." That is what Jethro read a full day before blocking me. The only edits I made between the heated period and the block were all HIGHLY CONSTRUCTIVE and well researched. (I was fighting to keep the image of drumpf on the page and 4 editors came in and removed it without first reading or contributing to the important section on the talk page. 3) he closed my complaint against Muboshgu after telling me "You have inappropriately opened a thread here because you felt you were being "slandered" by an assessment that your contributions were non-constructive." I refuse to listen to anyone who accepts the unreasonable statement that MOST of my contributions were non-constructive. If you don't see that as a personal attack you should probably head back to grade school because even on a playground such words are mean and unwarranted. Yes, I demand an apology.... or to be freed from the jail the user incorrectly single handedly put me in without doing necessary research to determine that MOST of my edits are EXTREMELY constructive, useful and well cited. Block Moboshgu or release me... don't punish me just because you don't like the article I wrote. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-drumpf-wikipedia-now-exists-after-john-olivers-trump-takedown-w166114. And allowing the drumpf article to stand, WITHOUT merging the superior multi-editor work from the article about Drumpf is just '''wrong''' and not consensus. Please undo the users unwarranted hasty actions. I CANNOT believe a single user can do SO MUCH damage by blanking and redirecting... ALL the comments from 4 days of work by more than 60 editors is because of JethroBT's poorly considered actions. Not really a suprise that wikipedia has a hard time hkeeping good editors around with such powerfully misguided bully editors as Muboshgu & JethroBT running around. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Jethro single handedly decided that the personal attack on me by another editor where the other editor stated, in no uncertain terms, that '''MOST of my edits were non-constructive''' should be allowed to stand as I guess) an accurate description of my contributions. He did this in reaction to a long series of events that he did not review completely. He, wrongly, defended the other editor against me suggesting that my complaint that the editor stated '''MOST of my edits were non-constructive''' was insufficient to allow the continued discussion I brought up and he universally closed it (prematurely). Then he closed a heated discussion unilaterally suggesting that the only conclusion was to redirect my article to a poorly written article about the same subject, strange since the conclusion was to merge the articles,. Buy redirecting the better article into the lesser article he is attempting to cover up some of the most interesting work on wikipedia so far this year. The issue is drumpf. Major press picked up the article. The conclusion by the community was CLEARLy to merge the two articles yet he acted unilaterally and blanked and redirected instead. Then he archives the discussion, prematurely... without noting the actual vote conclusions which wa clearly to MERGE. Then he blocked me for 72 hours so I would be relegated to telling my story only on my talk page which they try to bury the important (and well cited )( information I presented in an article that is one of the most edited article in wikipedia today. 1) the discussion of delete/merge/keep was not over, it needs to continue or be reviewed to come to an actual consensus... the norm around here I thought. 2) he unilaterally booted me for 72 hours even though my disruptive period was EXTREMELY SHORT and ended more than a day ago. Per the section I thought the norm was "But sanctions are meant to be preventative and not punitive, so we're not going to hand one out for an issue that's already closed--nor for PG being a purveyor of sour grapes." That is what Jethro read a full day before blocking me. The only edits I made between the heated period and the block were all HIGHLY CONSTRUCTIVE and well researched. (I was fighting to keep the image of drumpf on the page and 4 editors came in and removed it without first reading or contributing to the important section on the talk page. 3) he closed my complaint against Muboshgu after telling me "You have inappropriately opened a thread here because you felt you were being "slandered" by an assessment that your contributions were non-constructive." I refuse to listen to anyone who accepts the unreasonable statement that MOST of my contributions were non-constructive. If you don't see that as a personal attack you should probably head back to grade school because even on a playground such words are mean and unwarranted. Yes, I demand an apology.... or to be freed from the jail the user incorrectly single handedly put me in without doing necessary research to determine that MOST of my edits are EXTREMELY constructive, useful and well cited. Block Moboshgu or release me... don't punish me just because you don't like the article I wrote. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-drumpf-wikipedia-now-exists-after-john-olivers-trump-takedown-w166114. And allowing the drumpf article to stand, WITHOUT merging the superior multi-editor work from the article about Drumpf is just '''wrong''' and not consensus. Please undo the users unwarranted hasty actions. I CANNOT believe a single user can do SO MUCH damage by blanking and redirecting... ALL the comments from 4 days of work by more than 60 editors is because of JethroBT's poorly considered actions. Not really a suprise that wikipedia has a hard time hkeeping good editors around with such powerfully misguided bully editors as Muboshgu & JethroBT running around. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Jethro single handedly decided that the personal attack on me by another editor where the other editor stated, in no uncertain terms, that '''MOST of my edits were non-constructive''' should be allowed to stand as I guess) an accurate description of my contributions. He did this in reaction to a long series of events that he did not review completely. He, wrongly, defended the other editor against me suggesting that my complaint that the editor stated '''MOST of my edits were non-constructive''' was insufficient to allow the continued discussion I brought up and he universally closed it (prematurely). Then he closed a heated discussion unilaterally suggesting that the only conclusion was to redirect my article to a poorly written article about the same subject, strange since the conclusion was to merge the articles,. Buy redirecting the better article into the lesser article he is attempting to cover up some of the most interesting work on wikipedia so far this year. The issue is drumpf. Major press picked up the article. The conclusion by the community was CLEARLy to merge the two articles yet he acted unilaterally and blanked and redirected instead. Then he archives the discussion, prematurely... without noting the actual vote conclusions which wa clearly to MERGE. Then he blocked me for 72 hours so I would be relegated to telling my story only on my talk page which they try to bury the important (and well cited )( information I presented in an article that is one of the most edited article in wikipedia today. 1) the discussion of delete/merge/keep was not over, it needs to continue or be reviewed to come to an actual consensus... the norm around here I thought. 2) he unilaterally booted me for 72 hours even though my disruptive period was EXTREMELY SHORT and ended more than a day ago. Per the section I thought the norm was "But sanctions are meant to be preventative and not punitive, so we're not going to hand one out for an issue that's already closed--nor for PG being a purveyor of sour grapes." That is what Jethro read a full day before blocking me. The only edits I made between the heated period and the block were all HIGHLY CONSTRUCTIVE and well researched. (I was fighting to keep the image of drumpf on the page and 4 editors came in and removed it without first reading or contributing to the important section on the talk page. 3) he closed my complaint against Muboshgu after telling me "You have inappropriately opened a thread here because you felt you were being "slandered" by an assessment that your contributions were non-constructive." I refuse to listen to anyone who accepts the unreasonable statement that MOST of my contributions were non-constructive. If you don't see that as a personal attack you should probably head back to grade school because even on a playground such words are mean and unwarranted. Yes, I demand an apology.... or to be freed from the jail the user incorrectly single handedly put me in without doing necessary research to determine that MOST of my edits are EXTREMELY constructive, useful and well cited. Block Moboshgu or release me... don't punish me just because you don't like the article I wrote. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-drumpf-wikipedia-now-exists-after-john-olivers-trump-takedown-w166114. And allowing the drumpf article to stand, WITHOUT merging the superior multi-editor work from the article about Drumpf is just '''wrong''' and not consensus. Please undo the users unwarranted hasty actions. I CANNOT believe a single user can do SO MUCH damage by blanking and redirecting... ALL the comments from 4 days of work by more than 60 editors is because of JethroBT's poorly considered actions. Not really a suprise that wikipedia has a hard time hkeeping good editors around with such powerfully misguided bully editors as Muboshgu & JethroBT running around. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

--Potguru (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• OK, just one comment from me. The choice is not merge OR redirect - if you're merging, then you have to merge AND redirect or else you'll still have two articles! Now that the discussion has been closed as "merge & redirect" (and it's not just a vote count, by the way - see WP:Consensus), it's then up to interested editors (for example you) to do the actual merging itself. The content to be merged is not lost, it is in the edit history of the redirected article and is easy to access (use the "View history" tab at the top of the page). Once you are unblocked, it should be no problem for you to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Potguru (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Negotiating redirects can be tricky (and yes, the rules here can seem arcane and impenetrable, so confusion is understandable), so here is the article before it was redirected. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that. Can you get me unblocked so I can start incorporating the merged info? All Jethro did was move a single citation, that was the sum of his "merge". --Potguru (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I also notice that the portrait of friedrich drumpf is missing... they are so clever these suppressors... --Potguru (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There's too much for my tired head to work through in all those discussions, sorry. But someone should come along soon and hopefully they'll see what I suspect, that there's just been a bit of frustration over a hot topic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And now a non-admin comment from me, and I don't think I am as nice as Boing! said Zebedee - If you want this blocked to be overturned early, chances are you will need to do a few things. Namely:

1. Stop SHOUTING words to EMPHASIZE THEM.
2. Don't do things like calling out specific users as being bullies in your unblock request
3. Don't call other people suppressor, shills, etc..
4. Take another WP:WALK
5. And come back ready to collaborate and listen, and work with people. You've shown lately that you have no strong interest in doing that.

I'm not an admin, but I feel comfortable saying you won't get unblocked until these are addressed. --allthefoxes 18:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

So you support the block after you explicitly questioned why I should be blocked since my edits (after a small fury) were reasonable and contributed? I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, you seem to have flip flopped. I am not sure what stop SHOUTING words to EMPHASIZE THEM is even supposed to mean in the context here when I was called out as contributing worthless edits. Clearly you saw my point, so why are you saying something else? I'm not allowed to be bold? --Potguru (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I created a whole section below that you can address this issue in to your hearts content. --Potguru (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Short version: block not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, I am doing neither of those things.

Short version: block not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, I am doing neither of those things.

hey male editors you may want to read this

Misplaced Pages is dying. And its treatment of volunteer editors is the culprit. The genius of Misplaced Pages has been its use of such editors, who do the grunt work that allows the site to maintain a consistent quality. Yet these very volunteers might be the undoing of the site. A new academic paper, flagged by economist Tyler Cowen, reveals that the number of volunteers peaked in March 2007 and has been in steady decline ever since. This problem is especially acute because Misplaced Pages editors are unrepresentative of the population. As the paper notes, “only 9 percent of edits are made by female editors,” and “articles of particular interest to women are shorter than articles of interest to men.”

So why is Misplaced Pages losing editors and failing to recruit female volunteers? The paper suggests the main reason is that, when it expanded rapidly between 2004 and 2007, Misplaced Pages responded by instituting restrictive policies that drove away eager new volunteers: “Over time, these changes resulted in a new Misplaced Pages, in which newcomers are rudely greeted by automated quality control systems and are overwhelmed by the complexity of the rule system.”

Medical Marijuana Centers

15:13:44, 2 March 2016 review of draft by Potguru

• Potguru (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:List of medical marijuana centers in Colorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Last time I created an article, three months back, I ended up starting a war about the terms cannabis vs marijuana. In an effort to avoid a war I am seeking guidance before I request my draft be converted to an article. --Potguru (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Potguru (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Potguru, What do you see the purpose of the list being? What value does it add? Misplaced Pages is not a mirror. It is not for simply hosting a copy of a list available online from another site. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: HI Worldbruce, I can't talk to you... editors have my tongue. So I'll talk to you here instead. I thing the value is that a number of these listed medical marijuana centers are notable on the whole because they are the first such in the world. There are a number of articles about these medical marijuana centers as a group. I wanted to build a comprehensive list of all known regulated marijuana centers in the world and I thought this would be a great way to start. thanks so much for taking the time to read my concerns before I create another article. As you can see above the last article I created made a bunch of noise. http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/donald-drumpf-wikipedia-now-exists-after-john-olivers-trump-takedown-w166114

How can I make the article on marijuana centers better? (other than replacing the large black rectangles which currently screw up the row heights). --Potguru (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Potguru (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a good source that talks about the effect of these centers http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1515009 --Potguru (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source cited by that article: http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/22/smallbusiness/marijuana-tourism-colorado/ --Potguru (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't call other people suppressor, shills, etc..

I didn't. I called a GROUP OF PEOPLE suppressors. "I also notice that the portrait of friedrich drumpf is missing... they are so clever these suppressors." I'd be bold an emphasize the quote but you'll yell at me for being bold again.

If you think my statement is (at all) inaccurate you should research this issue further. I feel I am being suppressed by a group of people, who, not in a related fashion or conspiracy, individually attempt to suppress a notable subject just because they don't like it. Please stop assuming the worst about me and do research before making baseless accusations against ME such as the one that was incorrectly (unilaterally without consensus) "resolved" where an editor chose to block me alone and redirect the page I had been editing after making merge claim upon "a single edit" per above. I'm not the one in the wrong here fellas. --Potguru (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to claim you haven't insulted people by saying, "Oh, I only did it to this non-specific group of people." Making it vague doesn't make it acceptable: It shuts people out of the discussion. You're also arguing that it's not wrong because you feel it's accurate. The thing is, I've evaluated the discussions, the articles, your conduct, and the conduct of other editors. It is your conduct that has been disruptive, and if you reject that, we can agree to disagree, but a block was required to prevent further disruption. If you can demonstrate how you will refrain from that behavior, it's fair to say you will be unblocked. Your current unblock request does not address that. I, JethroBT 19:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You insulted me quite directly. Do I need to pull up the diffs of those edits, because I can if I need to. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like you pull up those quotes, yes. And while you are doing that I'd like to take back your unwarranted attack on me and my editting.. .which (i can only assume) a friend of yours then closed without any consensus. Right around the same time the article I was working on got redirected to the one you were working on. Strange coincidence? me thinks not. --Potguru (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's apparent this user is not going to change their battleground mentality even after the block. I suggest, change the block to indef and revoke talk page access. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It is apparent that MLpearc targeted every single image I placed upon wikipedia under the subject of drumpf because he, specifically, questioned the fair use doctrine. Interestingly the ONLY image I placed on line that he did not challenge was the image placed on the page the (for lack of better term trump supporters) kept pushing to merge into.. the one that was merged into after consensus without actually performing any merge action. When I asked MLpearc for specific help in getting images up on line he refused and archived my request without an answer. Isn't that right MLpearc? --Potguru (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You just don't get it, all those files you mention were blatant copyright violations, as an editor it's my responsibility to tag them. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

here it is... tried to ask for help on your page. then your collapsed my request for help on your talk page, then you erased my request for help from your talk page. Then you insulted me suggesting that I didn't' know how wikipedia worked. Is this very helpful? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Mlpearc&diff=708185344&oldid=708171843 --Potguru (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=File:DRUMPF_trademark.jpg&diff=708617454&oldid=708617315 Why hacen't you blocked this mlpear, it is not allowed to be used on the page it's on per the copywrite owner statement (me, mine) it is not authorized to be used on the current article it's on. I could fiz that but you would have me perma blocked so I cannot. --Potguru (talk)

People have been trying to help you since you showed up, you don't want help or do you take suggestions in to account, you just want drama. You're wasting a lot of people's time. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be an editor who has attempted to help me in any way. There are good, helpful, editors and then there are editors like yourself who just like to abuse their power to tear down others work without providing any help. Perhaps (based on a long trend of wikipedia losing skilled editors) that it is you who needs to talk a walk and/or a permaban. YOU haven't helped me at all,NOR have you tried and NOW you suggest a perma ban??? If I had to guess I'd guess you are a white man. --Potguru (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll pull up this diff (edit summaries count for personal attacks for starters, and can find others later, but I am trying to work now. I have made no personal attacks against this user, only comments that address problematic edits. I also don't collude with anyone on Misplaced Pages, another baseless attack right there. I think Mlpearc may be right about a permanent block. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Your edits are mostly nonconstructive, which is why we're here.– Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)" For the THIRD TIME I MUST DEMAND you remove this baseless slanderous comment. Because words matter --Potguru (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

1. https://newrepublic.com/minutes/126871/wikipedia-dying
2. https://newrepublic.com/minutes/126871/wikipedia-dying

• Requests for unblock