Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 11 December 2008

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Archives

Archive 1 - Aug 2007 to Dec 2007 Archive 2 - Dec 2007 to Present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Disruptive editors - Part 2

SMASHVILLE, VASCO again,

I'll complete my reasoning with the following: I am under the assumption that if you thought the fact i remarked the disruptive editor (i warned you about)'s poor English ironic, it was possibly due to the fact you believe my English is also subpar, therefore leaving me with no right to judge others? If my idea is correct, i'll only it this: yes, it is subpar, compared to yours, as you are English-speaking, and i am Portuguese, therefore will make mistakes in your language (and occasionally in mine too).

If you intended nothing of the sorts with your "ironic" statement in WP/ANI, i'll reiterate: sorry 4 the inconvenience and keep up the good work.

Greetings from Southern Portugal,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

You wrote: Resolved. Malcolm very clearly edited contrary to a guideline. He has been warned that his continous pursuit of the matter is disruptive and that any further mention of it will lead to a block. --Smashvilletalk 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have more problem with your summery than with your closing, although I am not too happy about that. The main problem is that you (and, of course, others) have said that I edited contrary to guideline, but you (nor the others) have pointed given a link to the guideline I acted contrary to. I think my requesting that is a minimal request. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking a little further, It seems that you are saying I broke a rule listed here :

===Behavior that is unacceptable===

Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Misplaced Pages policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being blocked or banned from editing Misplaced Pages.

• No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
  • No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
  • Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you.
  • Do not make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Misplaced Pages, for reasons given at the linked page.
  • Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely.
• Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:
  • Be precise in quoting others.
  • When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed.
  • As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section.
  • DO NOT ask for another's personal details.

I really do not see anything here as describing what I did, and would appreciate a further explanation. NB: referring to next section allows removing off topic discussion (which I did not do intentionally anyhow). Also, since I was blocked for disruption, that actually requires an RfC, or equivalent, before the block. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to Mr Schosha's request on his talk page.

—David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDHT

I broke my own rule, so to speak, by correcting a typo of yours, to put the second left bracket into the above. I just wanted to see what it was. :) Baseball Bugs 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh...you are so going to Dave Chappelle's Block Party... ;) --Smashville 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I drop my shields, and throw myself before your tender moicy. :) Baseball Bugs 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a recurring phenomenon on WP:ANI where someone files a complaint and ends up getting blocked themselves. It could be called "hoist by one's own petard", or something to do with boomarangs, or the old axiom "never sue, because they might prove it." Seems to me we need a special term for that kind of thing on wikipedia, but I'm not sufficiently right-brained to come up with one. :'( Baseball Bugs 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Moisten ones own retard"? I...don't get it. Just a sec; lemme get a Q-tip. I'm sure I must have misheard that. HalfShadow 19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea: "Plaxicoed". Baseball Bugs 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Plaxicoed sounds good. Or Don Kinged..."Officer, I had to kill him, he stole money from my illegal gambling ring." --Smashville 20:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly a more extreme analogy: "Hamaned". Baseball Bugs 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Or torpedoed onself on[REDACTED] - a "wikipedo". Or, in the word(s) of Homer Simpson when he messes up, "Wikipe-D'oh!" Baseball Bugs 20:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Malcolm Schosha

As much fun as it must be to josh around about having blocked a good-faith contributor, doesn't it seem inappropriate to block someone for pursuing a complaint that they feel is justified? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just let him tire himself out? The fact that you told him to stop talking about it and he didn’t does not empower you to block him.

Please overturn your block forthwith. Or are you going to block me too for complaining about it? HiDrNick! 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

He was shown numerous times where the guideline was and told numerous times that editing other people's comments or removing them outright was against the rules. He was blocked for that, it should have been the end of the discussion. But he continued to harp about it coming off the block and refused to listen to people who told him that he had in fact broken the rules and it was getting to the point of being extremely disruptive. --Smashville 21:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As the administrator reviewing the unblock request of Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs), I too ask you to undo the block, which appears unfounded to me. It appears that you blocked him solely for this edit to your talk page. This messsage (even if possibly wrong or bothersome to you) was not disruptive, at any rate certainly not to a degree deserving a week-long block. Too, it is unclear to me on what basis (such as a properly imposed community sanction) you purported to prohibit Malcolm Schosha from contacting you about this matter. The Arbitration Committee has repeatedly held that administrators must respond in a professional manner to concerns about their conduct. I don't think that such a response is meant to include blocks. Thank you for your consideration.  Sandstein  22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I lifted the block despite the fact that his "question" was the same as the one that was repeatedly answered at ANI and I specifically asked him to drop the matter. Considering how many times it had been explained to him and the fact that he had been specifically pointed to the portion of the guideline he violated and that he continued to question it, I felt that asking the same question again after it had been answered umpteen times was fairly mocking and trollish. But apparently I'm the only one that saw that. --Smashville 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

He was engaging in the classic trolling "endless loop". The solution, if he continues to ask that question at ANI, is to not respond. Then he'll either give up or he'll accelerate his behavior and garner another block. Baseball Bugs 22:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A look here finds this statement: Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Misplaced Pages. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling.

The accusation of "trolling" has been placed on my talk page by Smashville; and, since is is an unfair accusation, it would be nice if he would refactor it. (I do consider his strong defense of the nice Gwen Gale, against the mean accusations of Malcolm Schosha, to be essentially goodhearted in intent.) I probably will leave the subject for now, but may return to it later. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that you back off because your edits could be construed as trolling is not an accusation of trolling. You seem to have some issues with basic reading comprehension, which leads me to ask - in all sincerity, I promise - is English a second language for you? --Smashville 16:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The one is just a slightly nicer way of saying the other.

To answer your question: English is my first language, but, I have very little formal education (outside professional training in the visual arts), and regard myself as just a simple worker.

By the way, if in the course of this discussion, I said anything personally offensive to you, I regret that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa Baby edit war

I've left a couple of messages on User:JohnDoe0007's talk page ( & here) as well as comments on my own talk page and in edit summaries. They have added unsourced material about a non-notable cover version of the song to the article seven or eight times over the past few days. Now they've started removing existing unsourced material instead of adding {{fact}} tags. I've tried to explain WP:BURDEN to them, but somehow it's not sinking in. I don't want to violate 3rr so I'm leaving it as is, but would you mind having a word with them? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't have much to worry about with that one. The person he kept trying to add in was deleted as non-notable. Obviously, we don't list singles of non-notable artists. Just be careful not to violate 3RR. I'll have a word. --Smashville 07:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

reverting my talk page

A user has reverted material that I deleted from my talk page . Since I explained my reason -- it belongs on the article talk page -- this revert of another user's talk page seems beyond obnoxious. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Handled. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Smashville, I came back to leave a note, because it seems you are not present today, but Gwen Gale was here first. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw your note and lost my internet connection almost immediately. You are absolutely allowed to remove discussions from your own talkpage - especially when they are occurring in the wrong forum. --Smashville 17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz

if you check the section of Haaretz you will see that they (Malik Shabazz,Malcolm Schosha ) break[REDACTED] law. The keep calamining that you must not mention "Political allegiance" in the infobox of newspaper's article unless it is own by party but they have yet to show any[REDACTED] guideline article that say so.On the other hand I have shown them four important article that contradict their claim.Guardian,Times,Telegraph,The Independent in all of this article there is "Political allegiance" in the of newspaper's article.They know this and other pointing that as well.

As for Boodlesthecat he discussed this issue before as you may see in http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Haaretz/Archive_1#BBC_overwhelmingly_characterizes_Haaretz_as_.22liberal.22 They issue was brought up noticeboard and eventually even Malik Shabazz admitted that the sources are good. The fact is that I Bring reliable sources in order to solve the issue and Boodlesthecat ignore from them and continue to claim that it is only according to self description even though there is no[REDACTED] law that say so.Oren.tal (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they are trying to keep a neutral point of view is not breaking "Misplaced Pages law". The fact of the matter is that you added 19 sources to one word on an infobox. Not only is it disruptive, it messes up the format of the infobox. --Smashville 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you lied twice doesn't mean that they have tried to keep[REDACTED] neutral.I have NEVER put 19 sources in the infobox.Please stop LYING.Even for administrator it is not allowed.I will talk with other about this issue.It is NOT about POV but about facts and[REDACTED] policy.Oren.tal (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. --Smashville 18:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a big different between 9 and 19.You have falsely accused me and you need to apologize for this.Oren.tal (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)The fact that you are administrator don't give you the right to falsely accuse users.Oren.tal (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)