Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wjemather (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 19 January 2011 (→January 2011: yeah, but still). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

This user is busy in real life due to still having the burdens of full-time employment, which is also seriously impacting their time on the golf course, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

/Pre 2009 /Q1 Q2 2009 /Q3 Q4 2009 /Q1 Q2 2010 /Q3 Q4 2010

Thanks for tidying up behind me!

With this edit at Talk:The Chair (Aintree Racecourse) and your improvement to The Chair! Bigger digger (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche

Has this user been harassing you? I'm considering filing an RfC/U against this user due to talk page disruption concerning the labeling of living persons. Are you aware of any other BLP related issues involving this user? Yworo (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Harrassing is perhaps a bit strong. Let's just say there are obvious problems with their general editing relating more to WP:NPOV, but I'm sure that has inevitably crossed over into BLP problems. Normally I would say those things can be talked out, but any objection to their position is met with ad hominem arguments (attacks and accusations), wikilawyering, repetition of "its in the RS(es)" ad nauseam while disregarding the partizan nature of those sources, and bogus claims of consensus rather than contributing to a constructive discussion.

FYI I've followed the Geim discussion from afar, and am just bewildered as to why someone would be so hell-bent on labelling someone in that way. _wjemather 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that describes the behavior I've observed. There are only two reasons for that sort of labelling that I can think of, wanting to expand the ranks of notable Jewish people through whatever means possible (i.e. increasing the headcount on List of Jewish Nobel laureates); or feeling a need to make sure all Jews are tagged and identified. I suspect the latter and it simply seems unwholesome. Yworo (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they have probably crossed the line into harrassment now. _wjemather 20:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Bramlett

Give this page a once over, please!BLUE_DOG 00:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

re

Hi. I've replied to your message on my page. Thank you. Whitehorse1 22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You are award The Citation Barnstar

Thanks, I'm a little surprised that the neither of the dessenters have helped with the task of restoring the valid content. _wjemather 16:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not. I wish I could help you more, but I have another article to rescue from being deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Another issue in List of Microsoft codenames

Hello, Wjemather

Again, thank you for your efforts in this article. Your efforts are appreciated. However, I'm writing in to notify you of a very subtle matter. The issue is highlighted in WP:BRD. Fleet Command (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to Andy's restoration of the links I removed, I think I was quite right to revert. Primarily he mistakenly reinstated all the links including the rubbish, and the only one he seemingly wanted back was also of no value as explained on the talk page. _wjemather 13:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I think it is reasonable not to rigidly stick to some rules in Misplaced Pages, especially since it has no firm laws. But please be careful: I've seen people making a habit of ignoring BRD and ended up experiencing bad times that a helpful Wikipedian does not deserve. Anyway, I won't be bothering you with this issue anymore. Have fun. And merry Christmas. Fleet Command (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

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

Request reason:

I do not believe I have harassed Epeefleche anywhere, although Epeefleche clearly feels differently, and I absolutely contest their characterisation of my edits as hounding. Epeefleche's hostility seems to arise from numerous policy concerns I have previosuly raised with them regarding their contributions, which seems to have intensified following the opening of a recent CCI case, during which admin User:Mkativerata‎ advised Epeefleche that my "identification of clear problems with your edits as "wikihounding" will not be tolerated". Be assured that I have absolutely not seen this as an excuse to jump all over Epeefleche at every opportunity. On the contrary, I have sought to avoid any further confrontation as is demonstated by my posts to various admins regarding the CCI cleanup (Mkativerata, Moonriddengirl, VernoWhitney). As far as this list goes, I did not anticipate such a minor and easily resolvable issue illiciting such a response. I simply raised concerns I had with the inclusion criteria and notifed Epeefleche. I did not think there was anything to get upset about in my messgae and assumed it could be resolved quickly and cordially, but instead I was subjected to a torrent of accusations, which other than removing allegations from the article talk page and requesting they stop, I did not rise to. I also again advised Epeefleche that their input and opinion on the issue would be welcome. I did revert their changes to the lede of the article mostly because it introduced contradictions and partially because discussion regarding any proposed change had barely started. I appreciate that I should not have re-reverted twice and should have been more patient in the expectation that Epeefleche and/or others would contribute to the talk page discussion. There is no deadline here after all.

It is not the first time that Greg L has jumped in to support Epeefleche as can bee seen from the CCI background. My response to Greg L on Epeefleche's talk page may be marginally uncivil, but I don't see how advising him that I don't value his opinion constitutes a personal attack. wjematherbigissue 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's really not a good idea to fixate on another editor and get into a prolonged conflict with them, which you clearly have done. And if you can't see how a comment like this could be seen as a personal attack then you apparently don't understand what a personal attack is.Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(edit conflict)Your unblock request only makes me more convinced that this block is the only thing preventing you from carrying on whatever dispute you have with Epeefleche, much to the detriment of both of you and the project. This block has nothing to do with the CCI, to which you devote about three quarters of your statement, but your conduct on Epeefleche's talk page and the dispute which you then took to List of Jews in sport, an article to which Epeefleche is far and away the primary contributor and to which you made your first edit today—to revert somebody who thinks (whether rightly or not, I don't know and I don't really care) that you're hounding them, no less! That's before we get to the matter of the edit warring or the edit summary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

For what it's worth, my attention was drawn to the article in question by additions made by Epeefleche to several golfer biographies which are on my watchlist. My first action was to post a message on Epeefleche's talk page explaining the minor changes I had made to their additions to those articles to try and negate any potential for conflict. I also explained the obvious issue I had noticed with the inclusion criteria for the list article, before posting on the article talk page. I do not think either of those edits were disruptive or confrontational in any way, and I tried to respond in a reasonable manner to all Epeefleche's comments, but given their reaction that was always going to prove difficult and perhaps I should have just left it alone and I have no intention to revisit it. I repeat, I do not wish to engage in any dispute or conflict with Epeefleche or any other contributor now or in the future and that remains the case. I cannot be any clearer on that.

I have acknowledged that I should not have engaged in repeated reverting, and I see how that could potentially inflame things even more than usual in this instance. Obviously I shall refain from precipitating this kind of problem in future.

Yes, my response to Greg L was over the top and I should have done as I usually do – don't click the save page button and just ignore it, but it's too late now. wjematherbigissue 01:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your reply was not merely over the top, it was offensive (edit summary: "thanks for sharing your worthless opinion"). And you do not convince me that you won't repeat it.  Sandstein  20:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Greg, firstly thanks for fixing the paragraphs – clearly needed doing, so never going to be an issue. Secondly, it would appear that my comments towards you may have been mis-interpreted as a general sweeping statement about all of your opinions. My comments were an instant reaction and only ever intended to refer your repetition of accusations regarding my conduct, which to my mind are misconceptions based clear factual inaccuracies (such as my involvement and opinion on Jewish lists – I had zero prior involvement with any of them, nor expressed any opinion on the virtue of them; and I have never said Misplaced Pages’s criteria need revisiting). In any case, I should not have shot from the hip like I did and apologise for any offense caused. Finally, always feel free to post here should you so wish. _wjemather 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your above gesture. We seldom cross paths in our own editwars but we do seem to periodically cross paths when you and Epeefleche are bitch-slapping each other. Let’s, you and I, seize the moment to make a fresh start. I’m sure you’ve seen my past practice of linking “collaborative writing,” which is intended as a humorous stress reliever that acknowledges the conflict that occasionally arrises. But the link also implies that Rebecca can call Gary a “neanderthal” and—at the end of the day—you and Epee can amicably call it a day. Greg L (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You're most welcome, of course. I actually hadn't read that one, but I've seen a similar tale somewhere with the same message. Yes, I'm still hopeful Epeefleche and I will be able to interact constructively without friction in future, but I'm not sure what there is I can do at this point to change their interpretation of my every action. Until that happens, I'll just avoid interacting with them even more than I was doing before. I'm open to suggestions on how to resolve the situation, if you have any ideas. _wjemather 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
    • What you don’t see can’t annoy you. That’s seriously all I’ve got. Misplaced Pages is a big world so it should be a seldom occurrence that you two find yourself seated next to each other at the same bar at the same hotel in the same city wondering why the other guy’s got such a fat ass that it’s encroaching into your personal space. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, not exactly how I'd put it. However, given how long we've been on here, it's inevitable we will run into each other occasionally, especially on interest crossovers (as in this case with golfers), and when that happens I'd rather it did not degenerate in the manner it has recently. Still, if you do think of anything. _wjemather 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)