Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance and Harper's Island: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
→{{User|Firefly322}}: r to Ncmvocalist |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{future television|type=series}} |
|||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
|||
{{Infobox Television |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]] |
|||
| show_name = Harper's Island |
|||
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] |
|||
| image = [[Image:CBS HARPERS UPFRONT CLIP01 120x90.jpg|120px]] |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Beginning}} |
|||
| caption = |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
| format = [[Horror fiction|Horror]]<br /> [[Mystery fiction|Mystery]] |
|||
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts}} |
|||
| picture_format = |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|||
| audio_format = |
|||
|counter = 51 |
|||
| runtime = approx. 42 minutes |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|||
| creator = Ari Schlossberg |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
| starring = [[Jim Beaver]] <br> [[Adam Campbell (actor)|Adam Campbell]] <br> [[Elaine Cassidy]] <br> [[Katie Cassidy]] <br> [[Christopher Gorham]] <br> [[Samantha Noble]] |
|||
|algo = old(5d) |
|||
| narrated = |
|||
|archive = Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive%(counter)d |
|||
| opentheme = |
|||
}} |
|||
| country = [[United States]] |
|||
| network = [[CBS]] (2008-2009) |
|||
| first_aired = |
|||
| last_aired = |
|||
| num_seasons = 1 |
|||
| num_episodes = 13 ordered |
|||
| list_episodes = |
|||
| executive_producer = [[Jeffrey Jackson Bell|Jeffrey Bell]] <br> Ari Schlossberg <br> [[Jon Turteltaub]] |
|||
| website = |
|||
| imdb_id = 1232320 |
|||
| tv_com_id = 75276 |
|||
}}'''Harper's Island''' is an hour-long [[United States|American]] [[drama]] [[television pilot|pilot]] created by Ari Schlossberg, ordered to series for [[CBS]]'s 2008-2009 television season, planned as a [[midseason replacement]]. It will also air on [[Global Television Network|Global]] in [[Canada]];<ref name="Dose.ca">{{cite web|url=http://www.dose.ca/tv/story.html?id=d260c02b-27c1-490b-b420-699c9f9731e5|title=Global's Fall Schedule: Spies, Time-Travel and Spoiled Teens|work=Dose.ca|accessdate=2008-05-04}}</ref> the premiere dates in other parts of the world are not yet announced. |
|||
==Development== |
|||
<!-- NOTE: If the archive navbox needs a new row, update [[Template:Wikiquette alerts/Archive navbox]] . This must be done manually, but the process should be pretty self-explanatory once you open the template. --> |
|||
The show was first pitched by Ari Schlossberg, who wrote the pilot script.<ref>[http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch.aspx?id=harpers_island Shows A-Z - harper's island on cbs | TheFutonCritic.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> CBS ordered it to pilot in March 2008. In May 2008, the show was retooled, and [[Jeffrey Jackson Bell| Jeffrey Bell]] was named as [[showrunner]] and, with [[Jon Turteltaub]], executive producer. Schlossberg, Karim Zriek and Dan Shotz serve as co-executive producers <ref>[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i7c5c16b2d6b9258ef45e48c1363ad3c0 Jeffrey Bell is 'Harper's' showrunner<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
|||
Bell will rewrite the first episode, and further casting changes may occur.<ref>[http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-cbsoverhaulingharpersisland,0,314468.story CBS Begins Overhauling 'Harper's Island' - Elaine Cassidy may be the only actor kept from the original pilot | Zap2it<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><br /> |
|||
Scott Peters will direct the pilot. <ref>[http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117993725.html?categoryid=14&cs=1 Alien lizards set to invade ABC in 'V' | Variety.com]</ref> |
|||
==Plot== |
|||
= Active alerts = |
|||
The television show is a horror/drama, described as ''[[Scream]]'' meets ''[[And Then There Were None| 10 Little Indians]]''. The central plot is planned as a murder mystery. Friends and family attending a wedding celebration on a secluded island off the coast of Seattle begin dying one by one. The island was the scene of a famous murder 7 years prior.<ref>[http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20080514cbs01 Breaking News - CBS ANNOUNCES NEW 2008-2009 PRIMETIME SCHEDULE | TheFutonCritic.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
|||
==Trailer== |
|||
== [[User:Nosferamus]] == |
|||
A trailer for the pilot is available on the internet.<ref>[http://www.tv.com/video/14188/harpers-island?o=tv&tag=video;thumb;0 Harper's Island video: Harper's Island on TV.com<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
|||
==Original pilot cast== |
|||
{{NWQA|Not civility ... should be placed at <s>WP:SOCK</s>ANI or AIV}} |
|||
· [[Adam Campbell (actor)|Adam Campbell]] as Cal Vendeuson <br> |
|||
From the amount of information placed in the [[Marco Lupis]] page, it is clear that the user is Lupis itself. |
|||
· [[Elaine Cassidy]] as Abby Mills <br> |
|||
· [[Ryan Merriman]] as Henry Dunn <br> |
|||
· [[Samantha Noble]] as Trish Wellington <br> |
|||
· [[Bill Pullman]] as Uncle Marty <br> |
|||
''Cast may change significantly prior to airing'' |
|||
It should be pointed out also that Lupis has a [[:it:Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Mlupis/SP|long list of infinite-blocked sockpuppets on the Italian Wikipedia]] due to presenting his family as noble, without valid sources or with copyvio. [[Special:Contributions/89.96.108.150|89.96.108.150]] ([[User talk:89.96.108.150|talk]]) 09:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Sorry to say this doesn't look like a civility issue, and you should visit [[WP:SOCK]] and file a sockpuppet report. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: He does not have sockpuppets here; I was thinking more of rules against writing bios about yourself, and about the presence on en.wiki of the info that was found to be unsourced on it.wiki, leading to Lupis being blocked and to him creating an inordinate amount of sockpuppets. [[Special:Contributions/89.96.108.150|89.96.108.150]] ([[User talk:89.96.108.150|talk]]) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::So then it's content ...and still not civility. If the edits are vandalism, visit [[WP:AIV]], if it's more annoyance, try [[WP:ANI]]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 18:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==New cast== |
|||
== [[User:GabrielVelasquez]]'s conduct at [[Talk:Gliese 581 c]] and other articles. == |
|||
* [[Matt Barr]] <br> |
|||
{{Stuck|Taken to RFC on user conduct.}} |
|||
* [[Jim Beaver]] as Sheriff Mills <br> |
|||
{{discussiontop}} |
|||
* [[Richard Burgi]] <br> |
|||
[[User:GabrielVelasquez]] is persistently attacking other editors at [[Talk:Gliese 581 c]] who disagree with his viewpoint that there is no possible way the planet can be anything other than a runaway greenhouse Venus-analogue. He has accused editors (principally myself=[[User:Icalanise|Icalanise]], [[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] and [[User:J. Langton|J. Langton]]) of sockpuppetry [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gliese_581_c&diff=227523079&oldid=227522972] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gliese_581_c&diff=242289459&oldid=242289165], or of being "damage control" for various teams of scientists (who he seems to believe want to fool the public into thinking this planet is habitable for their own nefarious purposes) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gliese_581_c&diff=240125551&oldid=239975852]. Furthermore when users attempt to confront him about this he proceeds to accuse them of harassment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyclopia&diff=237531608&oldid=236546595]. His belligerent/paranoid attitude towards scientifically-literate editors is making the editing process on the article in question, and other articles about planets located close to the habitable zone (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:55_Cancri_f&diff=242324331&oldid=239855516]) needlessly unpleasant. [[User:Icalanise|Icalanise]] ([[User talk:Icalanise|talk]]) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Adam Campbell (actor)|Adam Campbell]] <br> |
|||
* [[Elaine Cassidy]] as Abby Mills <br> |
|||
* [[Katie Cassidy]] as Trish Wellington <br> |
|||
* Dean Cechvala <br> |
|||
* [[Christopher Gorham]] as Henry Dunn <br> |
|||
* [[Harry Hamlin]] as Uncle Marty <br> |
|||
* [[Cameron Richardson]] <br> |
|||
==Crew== |
|||
I can confirm the [[User:GabrielVelasquez|GabrielVelazquez]] behaviour has been difficult and often bordering with plain harassment. He in particular accused me of being a sockpuppet of [[User:J. Langton|J. Langton]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GabrielVelasquez&oldid=235807346#Sockpuppeting_accusations] . He also has a pattern of deleting/ignoring discussions that question his behaviour on his talk page -something which he is probably entitled to do but surely not collaborative [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGabrielVelasquez&diff=237515753&oldid=235807346] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGabrielVelasquez&diff=237532132&oldid=237519903][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGabrielVelasquez&diff=237559624&oldid=237558244]. He went as far as considering my requests for apologies of accusing me of being a sockpuppet as personal attacks... but adding violently personal attacks himself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACyclopia&diff=237531608&oldid=236546595]. As for his behaviour on the [[Talk:Gliese 581 c]] page and others, I think other editors are more entitled than me to describe it -however the talk page itself is a bit of a smoking gun. --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 22:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
· [[Jeffrey Jackson Bell|Jeffrey Bell]] as [[showrunner]]/[[executive producer]]<br> |
|||
· Ari Schlossberg as creator/co-executive producer<br> |
|||
· Dan Shotz as co-executive producer<br> |
|||
· [[Jon Turteltaub]] as director (Pilot), executive producer<br> |
|||
· Karim Zreik as co-executive producer<br> |
|||
· Robert Levine as Story Editor and writer <br> |
|||
· Robert Sizemore as Producer, Original Concept |
|||
==References== |
|||
(Discussion moved from Administrators noticeboard, where it has been ignored and archived probably because this is the right place) --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 08:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
: There is a degree of restrained incivility by the user, PLUS random accusations of sockpuppetry. Rather than template the heck out of the user, I have left a [[User_talk:GabrielVelasquez#A_Few_Issues|lengthy, polite discussion]] on the user's talk page. Further discussion regarding ''content'' should involve Project Astronomy. I hope this helps <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 12:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:2000s American television series]] |
|||
::Thanks. Hope it can help. --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 13:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:2009 television series debuts]] |
|||
[[Category:American drama television series]] |
|||
::There are symptoms it has not helped. [[User:GabrielVelasquez]] yesterday has deleted the polite alerts of this discussion from his talk page, dismissing it all as "cowing" by [[User:Icalanise|Icalanise]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGabrielVelasquez&diff=243034954&oldid=243034223] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGabrielVelasquez&diff=243034651&oldid=243034223]. He also accused another user [[User:BOZ]], of "distracting tactics" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGabrielVelasquez&diff=243035424&oldid=243034954] for apparent no reason. There are also suspicious anonymous edits on the [[Talk:Gliese 581 c]] page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGliese_581_c&diff=243106366&oldid=243047972]. For now, nothing seriously disruptive, but these are worrying symptoms. Let's see what happens. --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:CBS network shows]] |
|||
[[Category:Serial drama television series]] |
|||
:::I believe there is good evidence that both [[User:198.163.53.10]] and [[User:205.200.236.34]] are being used by [[User:GabrielVelasquez]] but for now I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he merely forgot to log in, rather than trying to use these anonymous addresses to try and give the impression of there being more support for his viewpoint. [[User:Icalanise|Icalanise]] ([[User talk:Icalanise|talk]]) 14:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Horror television series]] |
|||
:::I agree, the edit pattern seems to support that he just forgot to log in. --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Mystery television]] |
|||
[[Category:Television shows set in Washington]] |
|||
::I'm sorry to announce that the polite discussion by [[User:Bwilkins|Bwilkins]] didn't help, as evident per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGabrielVelasquez&diff=243235654&oldid=243076510] -in fact, he now attacked [[User:Bwilkins|Bwilkins]] himself. What is next step? --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Television series by CBS Paramount Television]] |
|||
:::Also yet another accusation of sockpuppetry (this time accusing me of being the same as [[User:J. Langton|J. Langton]]) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&diff=243244267&oldid=243236242], despite being asked to either use the actual Wikipedia process for sockpuppet reporting or to stop [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GabrielVelasquez&diff=242730846&oldid=242715566]. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Icalanise|Icalanise]] ([[User talk:Icalanise|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Icalanise|contribs]]) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::Ok, there are a dozen or so of edits demonstrating personal attacks by [[User:GabrielVelasquez]]. Me and [[User:Bwilkins]] have tried, unsuccessfully, to politely solicit [[User:GabrielVelasquez]] to a more civil behaviour. I think it's time for [[WP:RFC/USER]]. --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 11:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I myself would have no objection to that. [[User:Icalanise|Icalanise]] ([[User talk:Icalanise|talk]]) 12:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Ok, when I have five minutes I will try that. I'd like to hear [[User:Bwilkins]] opinion, since he seems to have experience in this kind of sad stuff. --[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Done. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GabrielVelasquez]]. Anyone who wants to join, on either side of the issue, is welcome. ---[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia]] ([[User talk:Cyclopia|talk]]) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{discussionbottom}} |
|||
== Olana North == |
|||
{{Resolved|Both parties advised. Subject blocked as sockpuppet of banned user.}} |
|||
{{Archivetop}} |
|||
{{vandal|Olana North}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Olana_North&diff=242707847&oldid=242707640 persists] in making [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains&diff=prev&oldid=242689229 personal attacks against me], despite having been asked not to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Olana_North&diff=242699057&oldid=242698411 by me and another editor]; and, after being asked, has started [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_crossings_of_the_River_Severn&diff=242715880&oldid=242598943 reverting my edits]. I am not aware of having previsouly interacted with this editor. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 10:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: (1) My edits do no constitute vandalism as claimed above with the template above. |
|||
:: Addendum to (1) in the posting above I am "lablelled" as a "vandal" by the use of a template <nowiki>{{vandal}}</nowiki>. The claim is that I am posting personal attacks (I vigorously deny this), NOT vandalism. This is a case of the "pot calling the kettle black". I demand to see the diffs where I have committed "vandalism". [[User:Olana North|Olana North]] ([[User talk:Olana North|talk]]) 12:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: (2) This [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Olana_North&diff=242707847&oldid=242707640] is hardly a personal attack. |
|||
: (3) This is irrelevant [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_crossings_of_the_River_Severn&diff=242715880&oldid=242598943] as The claimaint does not state that this is a personal attack in the edit summary. |
|||
: (4) I am entitled to revert any edits that I see fit. |
|||
: (5) It is not a personal attacked to revert an edit. |
|||
: (6) The initial posting that I made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains&diff=prev&oldid=242689229] was merely a statement of what I believe to be true and has sound basis as I show here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Olana_North&diff=prev&oldid=242707640] |
|||
:(7) The claim bought by this editor is libelous and defamatory and has no basis whatsoever. I demand an apology from this editor. [[User:Olana North|Olana North]] ([[User talk:Olana North|talk]]) 11:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I feel that I have no option but to contribute here, as the 'another editor' mentioned in the initial posting. |
|||
::My comment on Olana's talk page was intended as a peace-making initiative. In isolation, the comment ((6), first ref) seems to be unwarranted and against the spirit of WP:AGF. However, at the time of posting I was unaware of the Administrators' discussion that is alluded to in (6) (second ref). It is clearly evident from that discussion that Pigs~ has some 'issues' with editing at WP, and that unless the reported behaviour was modified, further action might be needed. In the light of that, the comment made by Olana, while not necessarily helpful, certainly contains more than a grain of truth about it. |
|||
::Regarding (2), this is a matter for Olana and myself to resolve -- I see it as a misunderstanding rather than an 'attack' -- and certainly NOT an indication that Olana is simply intent on making personal attacks against others. |
|||
::Regarding (3), I 'sit on the fence'. I agree with Olana that the addition is of questionable usefulness in the context of the article, but if I had been in his position I would have placed a comment on the talk page asking for other opinions rather than simply reverting the edit when this could have been misconstrued as stalking. |
|||
::My concern is that there are a few WP editors who have a tendency to not just hold strong opinions but to express them, without always considering the implications. My 'contribution' to this situation, where I was trying to avoid confrontation, has clearly back-fired big time this time round. |
|||
::[[User:EdJogg|EdJogg]] ([[User talk:EdJogg|talk]]) 12:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Alright then, we seem to have a spillover from AN/I and elsewhere. At this point, I'm not going to call "forum shopping", but we do seem to have 2 brick walls firmly planted between 2 editors. To address the diffs in the complaint: |
|||
:::* Editors have a right to remove things from their talk page. Now, removing an award given by a friend of someone you don't like may be childish (yes Olana), but is not uncivil towards anyone. |
|||
:::* "Knowing your background..." is a bit needling. Even sex offenders can be reformed, although agreeably, Pigsonthewing has shown themselves to be a bit difficult to work with, history does not necessarily determine the future. Again, it's not uncivil, but certainly inflammatory. |
|||
:::* The near-templating of Olana regarding NPA was therefore wrong, considering the above ([[WP:DTTR|Don't Template the Regulars]]). However, above that, that post by pigs on Olana's page (if there was indeed an attempt to get resolution/have a discussion) ''should'' have been more like "Your comment made me feel X because of Y" - that would have initiated proper discussion. Because of that, I would say the near-template post bordered on incivility in itself. |
|||
:::* I don't quite understand why the edit was reverted ... it seemed to be sensible to me. [[WP:AGF]] says that a) the original edit might have been fine, and b) so might have the reversion. |
|||
::: In regard to Olana's response: |
|||
:::* Can you please show me a diff where you were templated as a vandal, as I have not seen it. You were also not templated using the NPA (although it was close). |
|||
:::* You are '''not''' entitled to "revert any edits that you see fit", you are entitled to edit other edits that are uncited, revert vandalism, or remove entries that do not add to an article. The addition of a co-ord seems to fit much of the rest of the article and is hardly "confusing". I can understand that based on the previous "fight" between the two of you, this reversion of yours may have looked malicious to the other editor. I always suggest that when you're involved in an altercation, you try not to add gas to the fire by what might be construed as malicious reversions. |
|||
:::* Please AGF ... as noted above, even criminals can be reformed. |
|||
:::* I would ask you to strike you comment above about "defamatory" and "libelous" as they are rooted in law, and could be read as a threat. You yourself need to Assume Good Faith and stand down from requests for apologies - both of you have contributed to this escalation of an issue. |
|||
::: So, overall, I would say that the 2 editors are both at fault for escalating this situation. Both have been thrown fuel on this fire. Both of you need to always beware of the potential consequences of your own actions, and then don't act at all surprised when that consequance ''actually occurs''. Respect other's right to edit, and respect each other's feelings. Don't forget the [[Ethic of reciprocity|Golden Rule]] <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 14:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: As seems to be the case with Wikipedia, it would rather punish an editor with a clean record than take action against a known disruptive element. Issue me with a punitive block then and lets all move on. The saying about letting "prisoners have the keys" springs to mind. [[User:Olana North|Olana North]] ([[User talk:Olana North|talk]]) 10:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: I don't recall seeing any punishment: "Both of you need to always beware of the potential consequences of your own actions, and then don't act at all surprised when that consequance ''actually occurs''. Respect other's right to edit, and respect each other's feelings. Don't forget the [[Ethic of reciprocity|Golden Rule]]". Pretty sure that's ''pointe finale'' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Olana North is now indefinitely blocked, as a sockpuppet of a banned user. [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Olana North]] refers. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (User:Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Andy's talk]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Um, "nice work"?? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{Archivebottom}} |
|||
== [[User: Jaakobou]] == |
|||
When I reverted the large-scale, undiscussed edits of {{user| Jaakobou}} in [[I'm a PC]], he responded by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=242708340 attempting to derail] the DYK nomination that would have introduced the article to a wider audience of editors, by suggesting the DYK was NPOV. He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaakobou&diff=242830681&oldid=242829329 acknowledges] that he knew this would happen, and did so in an effort to force me to bargain with him in the article. Note that this was done without discussion, and he reverted his massive edits in yet again before being coaxed to the discussion page.<br> |
|||
I had asked him repeatedly to remove/strike through the comments, but he has either ignored them or made them conditional to getting what he wants. <br> |
|||
Trying to keep my cool here, but [[WP:POINT|pointy]], behavior to game the system is pretty uncool. Thoughts on how to address this beyond how I already have?- [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Comment by Jaakobou: |
|||
:'''Drama:''' I honestly don't know why Arcayne is so interested in drama. There were already comments from two external observers (one asked him to revert) which he ignored and now he insists that I revert a legitimate concern - "or else". |
|||
:'''DYK accolades:''' Considering the volume of my contributions to the discussed article, I believe we'll both be receiving some type of DYK banner but my concerns precede any silly accolades. |
|||
:'''Concerns:''' I've raised the concern that Microsoft is being made a fool out-of in a bloggish manner with words such as "lampooned" and the their official response being sandwiched between two bloggers who discuss the "irony" of their error. Arcayne contributed to my sentiments with a large revert that destroyed a couple hours' work as well as comments like "[Microsoft] ass-clowned themselves into a pickle". The concerns are still there and still need to be resolved by a community concensus. |
|||
:'''Responsive collaboration:''' We've already resolved a nice amount of my concerns and now that more external editors commented, we're compromising a bit further. I agreed to have him move my concerns from the DYK to WP:3O so I fail to understand why he'd refuse this and respond by starting a WQA. I invite anyone to the [[Talk:I'm_a_PC|talk page]] to help resolve the minor issues left. |
|||
:With respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 07:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC) invite. 07:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:p.s. I noticed Arcayne did take up on my suggestion and moved the concern to the 3O talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Third_opinion&oldid=242861743#As_per_the_request_of_another_user] I will ignore the "admits was meant to derail" rhetoric, but I'm not sure the DYK should pass while the article insists on ''hammering'' the "Microsoft sucks" point. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 08:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Quick note: Jaakobou, you DID try and derail an article going DYK by using extremely non-NPOV, and it's rather obvious by your statement above. You are not the determinor of DYK, your role as an editor is to help ''any'' article attain DYK, whether you 100% agree or not. If you don't like the topic, then stay away. Controvertial articles have achieved DYK on many occasions. Personally, although ironic, this "issue" proves my personal belief: Windows sucks for audio/video/graphics production, and Mac is the ''de facto'' standard for such, even in MS commercials. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 11:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Why would I derail receiving a DYK? I have absolutely no issues with the topic and did not hide any of the criticism. I do, however, see a number of issues -- mostly in the [[WP:UNDUE|'undue']] department -- in the lead as well as the body of the article. I'm not sure on procedure for resolving such matters before the article goes public so I've made a note for others to give this issue a look within the couple days left before the article is featured. You are invited as well. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 13:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::From my reading the links/diffs, your "tone" was certainly coming across as an attempt to derail. You were overly assertive about certain things, including your POV, and you did try and throw some "weight" around. I know this may not be what you meant, but that's what your style of writing said. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 16:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Let's assume that you are correct and my initial action was 'pushy'. I've raised a compromise suggestion and made a considerable attempt to try and work on the content from there. I'd appreciate external comments on the raised concerns - I'm willing to accept consensus against me, but as of this moment, editors have supported my perspective on the issues and it is my counterpart who is ignoring them and insisting on a WQA notice when he's already taken up on my compromise suggestion to move the DYK notice to 3O. It ''really'' feels like an unnecessary discussion now that he's moved the comment. You ''could say'' (just like the accusations pointed in my direction), that he's trying to derail the attempt to portray Microsoft in a reasonable light before the DYK date arrives. Anyways, I feel everything can be solved if external opinions arrive and we both align with the consensus view. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) m.fix 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Heh, don't get me into the content. My read on the article to begin with was to show that MS tried to lampoon the Mac ads, and failed miserably...partly because the ad was created on a Mac ...that's what makes the article AND the DYK interesting. Take that focus away, the article itself is no longer notable, and let's CSD or AfD it ASAP. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The 300 Million US Dollar campaign is notable regardless of it's content. The hook, that the campaign was revealed to have used Apple computers, is both funny and interesting. The note that Microsoft responded by deleting metadata and making an official statement that various computers were used, is somewhat undue for the lead in my opinion - and the "lampooned/compounded/embarrassment" type of language insisted upon just made me further believe that the metadata detail should remain in the body and not appear on the lead. It's not a matter of removing the embarrassment, rather putting it within reasonable, encyclopedic standards. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">[[User:Jaakobou|Jaakobou]]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>''[[User talk:Jaakobou|Chalk Talk]]''</sup></font></b> 12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::As had been pointed out to you at least twice, the Lead is not just a introduction to the article, but summary of such as well. It notes such bumps as they occur. Mistake 1 was to use Apple for commercials about how PC is better than Apple. Mistake 2 was to attempt to conceal that mistake ''after a press release about it made it a non-issue.'' If it wasn't a problem for MS to use Apples, why scrub the data in an effort to conceal it? |
|||
::::::::However, that's beside the point. Your behavior was inappropriate, because you attempted to derail the DYK. The DYK brings editors to the article of every stripe. By attempting to hostage the DYK until you got what you wanted, thereby framing a preferred-version of the article for newly-arriving editors, you gamed the system. |
|||
::::::::I thought that bringing the problem here, where you could be enlightened as to how that sort of shit doesn't play here (and specifically with me); the alternative was taking it to AN/I, where the disruptive behavior would have likely had you blocked or warned. That you asked me to remove the post for you put you within a rat whisker of me filing via ANI anyway. That you consider the pointing out of your error as drama underscores the need for the wikiquette alert. Unfortunately, the next time this sort of thing happens with you, I will bypass this venue and head right to AN/I. |
|||
::::::::You handled this situation extraordinarily poorly, Jaak. If you aren't willing to recognize how your behavior in these sorts of situations ius unacceptable, I am fairly certain that your block log will be getting ever longer. - [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Just to point out, the criticism section is longer than the rest of the article. If anything's going to derail a DYK it'd be that. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually, that would be ''more'' of a reason to list a well-written (if I may say so myself) new article at DYK - it attracts new editors, who can add in all those tender bits about the background, campaign, etc. The massive irony is what set off the notability magnet. |
|||
:However, that is neither here nor there; that isn't what Jaak pointedly said was his reason for interrupting the DYK process. As the DYK featured on 5 October, its something of a moot point now. The WQA was submitted as part of the DR process, as usertalk page communication was ineffective in resolving the problem. The underlying issue was the willingness to game the system to get leverage on another user in article editing. In the real world, that would usually end in a trip to the dentist for reconstructive surgery. Here in Wikipedia, it means bringing the problem to a larger audience for perusal. I am happy with the latter alternative. :) - [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== TharkunColl == |
|||
[[User:TharkunColl]] constantly wholesale reverts whatever recent edits I make without discussion, and usually with comments designed to incite a reaction. This has been going on for some time. He objects to my editting on topics involving the term "British Isles" and he is trying to make it appear political. He rarely (hardly ever) discusses the edits, and always leaves comments such as "Reverting wholesale vandalism" or "Removing politically driven POV", etc (see recent revert comments below). I've asked him to stop several times, and posted warnings on his Talk page. While I don't believe he sock-puppets, his actions are remarkably similar to LemonMonday and Blue Bugle. Here are a number of recent reverts from today: |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Green_Party&diff=prev&oldid=244142378 European Green Party] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cup_and_ring_mark&diff=prev&oldid=244141995 Cup and ring mark] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old-time_music&diff=prev&oldid=244141640 Old-time music] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drovers%27_road&diff=244142963&oldid=244035093 Drovers' Road] |
|||
There's numerous other examples going back in time (more than 6 months). Other recent reverts such as: |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derry&diff=prev&oldid=243934002 Derry] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derry&diff=prev&oldid=243909642 Derry] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_David&diff=prev&oldid=242214120 Saint David] |
|||
show the same pattern, but if you go back over his edit history, they're pretty obvious. |
|||
In a nutshell, Tharky believes I am incorrectly removing the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia and accuses me of having a political or anti-British motivation. I deny this, it is simply not true. While many of my edits involve removing the term British Isles where it is being used incorrectly, they are nearly always correct. I try to be a good editor - I'm always happy to discuss my edits if someone asks, and I always try to include references where possible. My editing is completely in line with the draft task force document at [[WP:BISLES]] - which shows that my edits are not extreme or fringe (or political). |
|||
But leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the content. My objection is that Tharky reverts without trying to provide an argument or reference. He removes good verifiable references where provided. And he leaves personal attacks accusing me of political POV, etc, as edit summaries. This behaviour needs to be addressed. I'm perfectly happy to address any of his questions or concerns on an edit-by-edit basis, using references and citations, etc. |
|||
--[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd recommend from this momment on, there should be ''no more'' restoring or removing of '''British Isles''' on any articles, 'until' the Taskforce (mentioned by HighKing) concludes. PS- I wish Tharky would participate in that Taskforce. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::GoodDay, that's probably a sensible suggestion, and I'm happy to abide with it. But it still doesn't solve the problem of Tharky's behaviour. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I did participate to start with, but the arguments are just endless - just as on the British Isles talk page. And, my I add, some of the accusations levelled against certain editors there make my rather mild comments seem as nothing by comparison. Terms like "imperialist" and "genocidal" spring to mind. <font color="006200">[[User:TharkunColl|<small>ðarkun</small>]]</font><small>[[User_talk:TharkunColl|coll]]</small> 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::But that's where those arguments can be held. That's where frustrations & emotions can be spilled. Compromises tend to follow exhaustion. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Every successive compromise breaks down when a new bunch of remarkably similar IP addresses all suddenly appear making ridiculous demands again. <font color="006200">[[User:TharkunColl|<small>ðarkun</small>]]</font><small>[[User_talk:TharkunColl|coll]]</small> 19:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Regardless of "demands", we're dealing with civility. Referring to editors as "trolls" and asserting "political reasons" in permanent edit summaries is well beyond the realm of civility. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 19:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::You've a point there Tharky, concerning IP acounts at [[British Isles]] & [[Republic of Ireland]] discussions. My participation at the Taskforce, is conditional. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::There's nothing more I can add folks. I hope things work out. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(outdent)Excuse me, but this is not about anon IP accounts at any article Talk page. Stick to the point here. Tharky reverts with personal comments and attacks, even to the point of removing research and references. His behaviour has gone on for long enough and to the point where a host of other editors, encouraged by his behaviour, [[User:LemonMonday]], [[User:Blue Bugle]] and the latest [[User:MidnightBlueMan]] all leave the same nasty remarks and all revert without discussion, tag teaming and cooperating. They refuse to provide reliable references, ignore policy at will, and refuse to discuss or compromise. It is this behaviour we are discussing, not commentary by anon IP's. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 20:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::If there's concerns of sock-puppetry? request checkusers. PS- I'm not very good at Wikiequette reports, sorry. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Where are the "nasty remarks" that I'm supposed to have made? [[User:MidnightBlueMan|<font color="DarkBlue">'''MidnightBlue'''</font>]] [[User talk:MidnightBlueMan|<font color="Red">'''(Talk)'''</font>]] 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In fairness to MidnightBlue, he has not left comments that I would call "nasty", but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_David&diff=prev&oldid=244184814 this edit summary] is still a personal comment and is done without discussion, and today you are tagteaming with [[User:TharkunColl]] on [[Scottish Blackface (sheep)]], [[Saint David]], ][[Glowworm]], and [[Doyle]]. Same general behaviour though. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 20:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Fine, but you've got to admit, that edit ''was'' designed to get rid of British Isles in that instance. However, there was no mention of getting rid of it in the edit summary. I notice GoodDay's suggestion, and your subsequent comment above, about refraining from restoring and removing British Isles. If you refrain from removing it I would certainly refrain from restoring it, or adding it for that matter. Will others do likewise? [[User:MidnightBlueMan|<font color="DarkBlue">'''MidnightBlue'''</font>]] [[User talk:MidnightBlueMan|<font color="Red">'''(Talk)'''</font>]] 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I am inclined to pick the editor with the worst behavior in this group of tag team editors and apply either a warning or sanctions. That may have the effect of convincing the others to behave more civilly. Civility is not just polite words. It also requires polite actions: refrain from making provocative edits; refrain from repeatedly reverting the same editor. If somebody misbehaves, report them here instead of mass reverting them. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:What are you talking about? Threats are unhelpful. There's no tag teaming here. Please look at what's going on under the cover to get an appreciation of the complex issues surrounding this matter. For example, have a look at the editing histories of those involved (apart from mine, there's nothing much there yet), and Talk page comments going back quite a while. [[User:MidnightBlueMan|<font color="DarkBlue">'''MidnightBlue'''</font>]] [[User talk:MidnightBlueMan|<font color="Red">'''(Talk)'''</font>]] 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: So, once again we have a '''content''' complaint that has turned uncivil, all over the use of the term "British Isles" (which is a ''political'' term, and not a ''geographic'' term - and this is the genesis of the entire issue). This is an issue that MUST be decided either by consensus on the article Talk Page, or via a project forum. Regardless, Tharkuncoll has, as I noted, been extremely uncivil in their edit summaries. This will not do on Wikipedia. We argue EDITS and not EDITORS. Unfortunately, MidnightBlueMan has joined the incivility, as much as they would like to claim to disagree (this edit [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:79.155.245.81&diff=prev&oldid=242550100]] is the first one I looked at, and lo and behold, it was uncivil. Right now, I do not believe that additional diff's are necessary). MidnightBlueMan, although you are not the subject of this WQA report, I would urge you to consider your own civility in the future. Every edit that anyone does, and every Edit summary are '''permanent records''' for the world to see. Accusations and incivility (and possible therefore defamation) are therefore also '''permanent'''. Passionate editing is a good thing, being uncivil is not. If someone templates you with a personal attacks template, you should take a quick look at your own activities and see why, rather than dismiss it as "spurious". As well, sometimes it's better to discuss the issue ''without'' templates, and try and resolve the editor-to-editor issue. I have replaced the level 2 personal attacks warning on Tharkuncoll's page, as it was indeed valid. I would suggest that future similar action (or other uncivil actions such as multiple reversions of the same editor), will likely be greeted with a block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: You also appear not to be looking at the underlying issues, and please look at the remarks that caused my incivility. [[User:MidnightBlueMan|<font color="DarkBlue">'''MidnightBlue'''</font>]] [[User talk:MidnightBlueMan|<font color="Red">'''(Talk)'''</font>]] 21:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I repeat, your incivility is not the thrust of the issue here, merely your FUTURE civility, as I am [[WP:AGF]]. If you'd like me to look further at your comments, I will ... <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::British Isles is ''not'' a political term, and predates the formation of the British state by some two millennia. The problem here is some editors trying to turn it into a political issue. I shall attempt to be more circumspect in my edit summaries from now on, but shall not refrain from reverting what I consider to be incorrect or wrong-headed deletions of the term. And since it was HighKing who brought up this dispute, I would like to ask him a simple question. How come almost ''all'' your edits to Wikipedia are to remove the term British Isles? If it's not political, what ''is'' your motivation? If it's just a simple desire for accuracy as you see it, why concentrate on that particular term? You've been doing it, under your previous account, long before the task force was thought of. <font color="006200">[[User:TharkunColl|<small>ðarkun</small>]]</font><small>[[User_talk:TharkunColl|coll]]</small> 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: (quick note that is not intended to be inflammable: the "British Isles" are historically very limited in scope. As one noted scholar recently noted (and I paraphrase) "neo-Imperialists are prone to expand that definition to mean all of the islands belonging to the UK, contrary to its proper usage. You do not hear the phrase 'Canadian Isles', you hear 'Islands of Canada' when it comes to geography, but you only hear 'British Isles' in political or neo-Imperialist terms") <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 22:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Whoever said that is simply wrong, I'm afraid. In my experience, the term is used ''precisely'' because it is neutral, and carries no implication of political ownership. <font color="006200">[[User:TharkunColl|<small>ðarkun</small>]]</font><small>[[User_talk:TharkunColl|coll]]</small> 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ah, woe. Diverted onto the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/british%20isles definitions] of a commonly used geographical term, which in certain contexts including its beginnings in English language usage is embroiled in politics. Also intruiging is the notion that some non-blackface sheep is the most common in the country with the confusing name which for the sake of clarity we're allowed to call the RoI. Trust evidence from references will be forthcoming. But I digress. It is a highly charged topic, and all concerned should minimise raising the temperature in edit summaries. In the past I've noticed some rather dodgy summaries from TharkunColl, and it is to be hoped that he'll make every effort to avoid treading on toes, as should everyone. Failure to keep snarkiness in check undermines rather than helps making a case. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: See dave, I ''did'' say that it was a content dispute :-) However, my reading of the "tone" of TharkunColl's reply (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that they are AWARE of the complaint, and of the issue ...and I anticipate <s>future</s> immediate improvements...am I correct in my reading? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'd certainly hope so. It is a prickly subject, and care is required to maintain a reasonable level of civility. When a source clearly says one thing but editors take issue with political implications and want to change it to something else, it's inmportant to try to avoid giving or taking offence in discussions. As you say, those concerned are clearly aware of the required standards of behaviour. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I would say it's a geographical term, for which there is no easy substitute, but lets' not get into the content dispute.:) If there are going to be sanctions for actual edits, rather than for wikiquette, which is what this board is about, I definitely don't think one person should be singled out over another for punishment, just to make an 'example' of them. That seems very wrong. If people's ''edits'' are problematical, they should be considered on an individual editor basis only but treated fairly and equally. But wikiquette is not really about that sort of stuff, this isn't really the place to impose anything on editors for their style of editing so much as their manner of editing or something- even then wikiquette board is rarely the place people go to decide on blocks or something, it is one of the first steps in [[WP:DR]]. As to 'tag teaming'- there's no evidence any of the editors are in particular off wiki communication and organization. If they just happen to share an opinion but are operating independently, that's not tag teaming an to say so is an unpleasant accusation. It's late here so I hope you all can understand vaguely what I mean.:) [[User:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Sticky</font></b>]] [[User talk:Sticky Parkin|<b><font color="#FF8C00">Parkin</font></b>]] 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::There is a long history of this type of behaviour. I lodged [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive414#Wikistalking this] complaint last May and you can see that older complaint could be a cut and paste for the current one. If you search the admin noticeboard, you'll see that Tharky is no stranger to this behaviour. I'll say again - the behaviour of reverting edits because, basically, [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] and his constant trying to attribute a political or underhanded motive to my edits has to stop. Even to the point of sanctions if the pattern doesn't change. I've reverted the current crop of articles that were reverted, and I'm happy to discuss these articles on their talk pages. Perhaps in the meantime a voluntary 1RR be imposed on all articles where editors object to the removal of the term British Isles? --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 12:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(outdent)You haven't answered my question above, as to your true motives. I suggest that it is you who should look at [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. I shall revert your arbitrary deletions. <font color="006200">[[User:TharkunColl|<small>ðarkun</small>]]</font><small>[[User_talk:TharkunColl|coll]]</small> 13:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Well this response pretty much sums up Tharky's attitude. He has just reverted 3 more articles, no discussion or attempt to provide any kind of verifiable references. And continuing to ask for "true motives" is nasty and underhanded, and a crude attempt to avoid examining my edits or providing references. He is in breach of editing policy, as well as several other policies such as [[WP:AGF]], etc. We've tried in the past, and he agreed to stop this behaviour, but he simply waits for a period of time and then continues to edit-war. He has also pretty much ignored this Wikiquette alert. What is the next step towards getting this editor blocked for disruption? --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::On the contrary. You will notice that my edit summaries make no mention of your motives at all. This is what you complained about, right? As for AGF, it works both ways you know. <font color="006200">[[User:TharkunColl|<small>ðarkun</small>]]</font><small>[[User_talk:TharkunColl|coll]]</small> 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Asking for "true motives" and calling my edits "arbitary deletions" here makes it clear that you are still attacking the editor and ignoring the edits. You have deleted my work and my references without regard for discussion and have offered absolutely no justification in terms of references or citations for this. You are wikistalking, and trying to disguise it by attempting to attribute a motive to my edits. To this point, you haven't even acknowledged that there is anything wrong with your behavior. You simple can't continue to revert my edits without an attempt to justify your version. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 13:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've restored the references you deleted. Don't revert my edits without a discussion on the Talk page to justify your version. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Agree totally Tharkun, your being accused of reverting, when some editors have their own agenda to remove the British Isles from Wikipedia, and constantly revert themselves then try to get others banned. very much pot calling the kettle --[[User:Rockybiggs|Rockybiggs]] ([[User talk:Rockybiggs|talk]]) 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Rocky, many editors on WP have an agenda. Some editors even have extreme views on things. I don't, and I've always stated that my interest is accuracy. This is an encyclopedia after all. But seeing as how you and others continually try to attribute a political motive to my editing - no doubt so that the reverts can all be justified as combating some sort of republican anti-British POV pushing edits - let's meet this head on for once. Your challenge now is to now put your money where your mouth is. Either back up, with facts and diffs, your insinuation on "agenda", or withdraw your comment. Failure to do so will prove my point. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I've returned - I'd recommend (starting today), a '''1RR''' on all related articles, concerning adding/removing or altering the term ''British Isles'' (this covers both Tharky & HK); any takers? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Oppose - it is ineffective at resolving the core issue that would result: slow edit-warring. They should continue to pursue dispute resolution, and discuss their differences (even if it's through article RFC or mediation). If they cannot stop edit-warring, then they both can be prevented from doing so. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 14:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Firstly i don`t have the time to lavish going through wikipedia looking for this and that. Secondly i have made a generalized comment and have not mentioned yourself in this edit, and nor any other editor for that matter, so i don`t have to back anything up. --[[User:Rockybiggs|Rockybiggs]] ([[User talk:Rockybiggs|talk]]) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::(Res to Ncmvocalist). Seeing as the adde/remove dispute is mainly between Tharky & HK? the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|Mediation Cmte]] would seem the correct route. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 14:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::From the brief look I took, it also involves MBM. It doesn't really matter whether mediation is formal (link you've given), or informal ([[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal]]) - whichever works, but regardless, all the involved editors need to agree to being subject to mediation. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::It involves more editors than that. There's also [[User:Blue Bugle]] (banned for sock puppetry) and [[User:LemonMonday]] (who was warned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Blue_Bugle here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LemonMonday&diff=next&oldid=243741117 here]. He has made three reverts so far today, two without an attempt at discussion - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cup_and_ring_mark&diff=prev&oldid=244372258 Cup and ring mark], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old-time_music&diff=prev&oldid=244371493 Old time music] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drovers%27_road&diff=prev&oldid=244370930 Drovers' road]. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The best solution to this problem is for all involved editors to agree '''not to add or remove the term "British Isles"''' from any Wikipedia article until this issue can be resolved. An exception can be made in cases where a clear consensus emerges, of course. Edit warring is disruptive, regardless of the rate of edits, and if the involved editors can't restrain themselves voluntarily then other methods can be looked into. <font color="006622">[[User:SheffieldSteel|S<small>HEFFIELD</small>S<small>TEEL</small>]]</font><sup><small><b>[[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]]</b></small></sup> 14:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I disagree. I believe the best solution is to adhere to existing policies for providing references, remaining civil, and discussing the edits. The problem here is that Tharky and other editors make no effort to follow these policies. Making this out to be solely a content dispute means you are condoning Tharky's (and other's) behaviour, and even giving weight to the unfounded allegations of an "agenda" on my part. That said, I'm very happy to go along with whatever the community decides *after* the issue of Tharky's behaviour has been dealt with properly. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree to this. I will not add, remove or otherwise modify references to the British Isles (unless obviously wrong and with agreement) provided HighKing and others also accept this proposal. [[User:LemonMonday|LemonMonday]] ([[User talk:LemonMonday|talk]]) 14:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::In response. You were warned about this previously, most recently by Alison [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_checkuser%2FCase%2FBlue_Bugle&diff=243755807&oldid=243754597 here], yet you've already reverted three times today - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cup_and_ring_mark&diff=prev&oldid=244372258 Cup and ring mark], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old-time_music&diff=prev&oldid=244371493 Old time music] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drovers%27_road&diff=prev&oldid=244370930 Drovers' road]. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 15:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Wallamoose]] == |
|||
This user deserves to be banned. These are just a few examples of his behavior; he's causing conflict all over Wikipedia as he makes nothing but partisan edits. [[User:RafaelRGarcia|RafaelRGarcia]] ([[User talk:RafaelRGarcia|talk]]) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Rehnquist |
|||
"So unless you are brain damaged you can't argue he didn't apply the 14th amendment to women. Are you brain damaged?" |
|||
"Your edit is worthless. It simply restates and requotes what is said and quoted directly above it. As usual you demonstrate your inability to read or reason." |
|||
"I find it difficult to believe you are a High School graduate... If I were your professor you would receive an F and I would recommend remedial GED classes." [note: Wallamoose is not a professor at all]. |
|||
"...because of your emotional problems and delusional mental state all of their efforts have been obstructed." |
|||
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now |
|||
"I don't have to hide behind anonymous edits like you do sicko. Sorry for this trash stalking me onto this board. Unfortunately the anonymity of the internet allows perverts to carry on with their fantasies." |
|||
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clarence_Thomas |
|||
"It gets old going round and round with this delusional liar." |
|||
"I don't have time to go round and round with you and to expose your never-ending lies." |
|||
"Do you ever get tired of lying?" |
|||
And to an administrator, Bearian, who is a lawyer and professor, Wallamoose said: "...you are not qualified to be a lawyer or professor." "All I can say is YIKES, to your ignorance." |
|||
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Calm_Down |
|||
"I'm sick of dealing with a crazy stalker and his (smallish) band of fools." |
|||
"You are obviously a sick and delusional individual." |
|||
You can also see other warnings Wallamoose has received on his talk page. {{unsigned|RafaelRGarcia}} |
|||
: I have advised the other party of this WQA entry (as the complainant should have done) and have requested their comment. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 21:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The other party has stalked my contributions page since last month, and knew of the complaint's being filed pretty much immediately. He's been going around to articles I've contributed to just to meddle, and he posted in response to the alert on two admins' pages soon after the complaint was posted here, so I knew he knew. Also, the other party has requested I not post on his talk page. [[User:RafaelRGarcia|RafaelRGarcia]] ([[User talk:RafaelRGarcia|talk]]) 22:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: You are supposed to advise the other party. Both your activities and theirs will be taken into account. I advised them on your behalf. Can you show the diff's of his "advising" the admins?<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I don't have a lot of time right now; I'm studying for finals. Look at Bearian and Ruslik0's talk pages; it happened today. |
|||
Anyway, more fuel to the fire! |
|||
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Might_I_suggest...: |
|||
"I think it's pretty clear that this user has serious emotional and mental issues and is taking them out on me."[[User:RafaelRGarcia|RafaelRGarcia]] ([[User talk:RafaelRGarcia|talk]]) 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Wallamoose has begun whitewashing his talk page so that he doesn't look as mean as he's been. Observe: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=244239621&oldid=244234380 [[User:RafaelRGarcia|RafaelRGarcia]] ([[User talk:RafaelRGarcia|talk]]) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruslik0#Wallamoose |
|||
"This guy is obviously nuts." [[User:RafaelRGarcia|RafaelRGarcia]] ([[User talk:RafaelRGarcia|talk]]) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The above comment quoted by RafaelRGarcia summarizes my opinion of him. I would only add the word delusional for further clarification. |
|||
RafaelRGarcia has admitted to stalking me (see my talk page) and has refused to stop. The problems with this individual predate the posting of the accurate headers you noted. Because of his activities I feel it's important that anyone viewing my talk page be made aware of the issues involved and the type of person I'm dealing with. |
|||
Since you've taken an interest I hope you'll put a stop to his abusive behavior. |
|||
This WikiAlert is just one of many many many examples. |
|||
As you've noted: |
|||
"If you file a WikiAlert, you have to: |
|||
Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here." |
|||
So once again we have an example of a user failing to obey the rules and harassing me. Then making excuses for it and blaming others. |
|||
I've given up on bringing his activites to the attention of Admins as I've been unsucessful in getting the situation resolved. It's been a waste of their time and mine, (though I posted some of his inappropriate statements to an admin board in the past). I go about my business as best I can while having to deal with this individual who displays serious emotional and mental problems. |
|||
You can also check out his post on the ACORN discussion page: Revision as of 21:41, 8 October 2008 and 22:35, 8 October 2008. Had he ever been on that page before stalking me and posting harassing comments? And also his posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop posting there. And his reverts of my good faith edits on Rehnquist. (Do you want details?) |
|||
Regarding the Clarence Thomas article, it's not appropriate to maintain a smear job on a Supreme Court Justice (who RafaelRGarcia has repeatedly referred to as a Perv), and I've been patient and worked through the appropriate channels to the best of my ability to address this. If an Admin. wants to resolve the problem that would be great. |
|||
A dispute resolution process has begun on the talk page there, and I hope it will be successful. I'm looking forward to working on other projects (as I did when I left that page alone after posting and RfC the last time we had this problem). In the interim nothing has changed so I'm trying again, despite the difficulty in dealing with RafaelRGarcia's stalking, harassing and inappropriate behavior. |
|||
I don't have the time to refute every allegation against me, but I think it's pretty clear that this user has serious emotional and mental issues, and is taking them out on me. His taking a bunch of my quotes out of context doesn't prove much, other than the difficulty of dealing with this person. If you look through his edit history you'll find countless personal attacks on me, abusive edits, and other evidence of his harassment. I suggest you compare that to my very reasonable efforts to make good faith edits.([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 22:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)) |
|||
I would add that many administrators have made suggestions and comments to RafaelRGarcia, but they've been ignored. If it would be helpful to cite more examples of his abuse I am willing to do so. Please let me know. ([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 23:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)) |
|||
:: Really Wallamoose, did you indeed call people "brain damaged", insult their education, etc? Your post above shows some serious anti-editor beliefs. No matter what you think about an editor, there is ''never'' a need to insult or be otherwise uncivil towards them. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Bwilkins|<font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">'''BMW'''</font>]][[User talk:Bwilkins#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;">(drive)</font>]]</span></small> 23:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Rest assured that I have never called anyone brain damaged, no matter how much their behavior and statements might indicate that to be the case. I don't think I've attacked anyone's education, since I can't possibly know any details about anyone's background, but I may have suggested that claims of advanced degrees aren't supported by an individual's arguments and approach to legal scholarship.([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)) |
|||
FYI: Wallamoose has a very loose definition of the word "many." [[User:RafaelRGarcia|RafaelRGarcia]] ([[User talk:RafaelRGarcia|talk]]) 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I would move to submit RafaelRGarcia's statement above this one as Exhibit A. This Exhibit clearly supports any statements I may have made addressing his mental health and competence.([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)) |
|||
I think Wallamoose's continued display of behaviors speaks for itself. Or rather, as I learned in law school, "res ipsa loquitur." [[User:RafaelRGarcia|RafaelRGarcia]] ([[User talk:RafaelRGarcia|talk]]) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== MarshalN20 and Bicycle Kick == |
|||
When I first came across the edit warring between [[user:MarshalN20]] and [[User:Selecciones de la Vida]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_kick&limit=500&action=history]) and heated dispute on the [[Talk:Bicycle kick|talkpage]] I did not get involved, I did not know much about the various claims and it takes me quite a long time to read in Spanish. I went to an admin who is proficient in Spanish and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarianocecowski&diff=237383964&oldid=237324652 asked him to get involved]. Mariano [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bicycle_kick#Interruption posted his view] on the talkpage and then after no response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_kick&diff=238116468&oldid=237547191 removed information] that makes no mention of "bicyce kick" in the Bicycle Kick article. MarsalN20 then responded claiming that he should be consulted on his talkpage before any changes are made to the section and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_kick&diff=239436143&oldid=239354782 reverted the edit] with the misleading edit summary that he was shortening the article when he was actually reinserting information. |
|||
I then became involved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_kick&diff=prev&oldid=240902152 removing the some of the same information] as I too failed to see the need for a large section which makes no mention of the Bicycle Kick. I explained my edit properly in the edit summary. MarshalN20 then restored all of the deleted information again, (possibly using an IP to do it the first time). |
|||
I then sought the opinion of [[user:Alexf]], who stated "I see a candidate for Dispute Resolution and I see gross incivility by User:MarshalN20". |
|||
I admit that my conduct in this situation has not been ideal, I should not have allowed myself to get drawn into defending myself against his allegations and abuse. I should not have presented a case that Marshal was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bicycle_kick#Ownership owning the Peru section], which in hindsight should have been approached more tactfully. And I should not have tried to defend myself against his allegations of offwiki collusion and bias by postulating the existence of a paranoid conspiracy theory. |
|||
This comment from Mariano sums up my position perfectly: |
|||
:There are several things that I believe should be removed and other things to improve, but I feel it would be useless to take any action if you are going to take it as a personal attack and revert it to your liking. Mariano |
|||
Throughout the whole discussion MarshalN20 has used personal attacks and made unsubstantiated allegations (diffs provided below). Myself and the other involved editors have tried to remain calm in the face of such provocation. I have repeatedly asked him not to be incivil or make personal attacks, unsubstantiated allegations and misrepresent other people’s words. I have implored him to read [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] on several occasions but his attacks and incivility have not stopped or lessened, showing a complete disregard for the official policies. I am going to take the content dispute to [[WP:FOOTBALL]], I hope someone here can succeed in explaining the importance of civility to this editor as I have tried my hardest and feel that the task would now be better undertaken by uninvolved editors. |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_kick&diff=235308609&oldid=235257078 comparing people to dictators] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_kick&diff=241343951&oldid=241264431 calling people imbeciles] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_kick&diff=235465414&oldid=235454808 calling people worse than dirt] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_kick&diff=241343951&oldid=241264431 unsubstantiated accusations of bias] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_kick&diff=233388276&oldid=233388007 False accusation of vandalism] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_kick&diff=239996979&oldid=239996135 False accusation of vandalism] |
|||
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_kick&diff=243083986&oldid=243081018 False allegation of personal attacks] |
|||
*After Selecciones defended himself against the allegation of collusion MarshalN20 insinuated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_kick&diff=243073501&oldid=243008479 that we had conspired against him] |
|||
*After I pointed out several of these incidences of incivility to him he began defending his right to make such insults. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_kick&diff=243180762&oldid=243125413 his response to my comment] he tries to claim that making a nationalistic jibe comparing a Chilean to [[Augusto Pinochet]] is OK because its funny. Claims that the use of the word imbecile to describe other editors is OK because it appears in the dictionary and calls Selecciones dirt again. |
|||
*He made unsubstantiated allegation that I am [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_kick&diff=243788238&oldid=243784311 aggressive and lying] after I tried to explain that nationalistic comparisons to dictators are not justifiable. This edit also shows that he holds the view that because people like Hitler and Saddam Hussain have supporters, it is justifiable to compare people to them. |
|||
*After I again asked him to read [[WP:NPA]] he [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABicycle_kick&diff=244021905&oldid=244009920 claimed that I deserve to have personal insults and allegations made against me] showing a fundamental disregard for the policy. [[User:English peasant|<font color="#FF0000">E</font>]][[User talk:English peasant|<font color="#66CCFF">P</font>]] 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I believe that this is the time where pleading my defense would come in handy. To begin with, I know that English Peasant (or "EP") uses very cute sentences and tries to fit everything together to make it seem as if I'm some sort of sadistic bad guy that just wants to grab a stick and smash it against everybody's head. Well, there's no denying from my part that at several times during the discussions I let my heart take over my brain, but then again if you carefully examine each of the things that "EP" presents you will notice that for every thing I said and every action I took there was a reason. Now, whether it was a good or bad reason, that is up to you to decide. |
|||
One of the first things I would like to clarify is that [[User:Alexf]] had already spoken to me about "civility" and I had already complied to his terms. You can see this in the discussion of his talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexf#Reply:_Civility]. Furthermore, you can take note that I kept on messaging "Alexf" about the incivility from "EP," and yet I got no reply back from "Alexf." After "Alexf" sent me his message concerning "Civility," you can see that I kept myself calm and responded to the inflamatory arguments of "EP" with a very calm nature. Yet, "EP" seems to be highly agitated and frustrated, to the point that he has even had to take his wife into the discussion, as you can see in this message he sent to user "Selecciones de la Vida": [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Selecciones_de_la_Vida]. In other words, it's not me that is angry or frustrated. "EP" even direcly states: "The guy is driving me up the wall" Therefore, it is him that has apparently gone crazy with all of this situation. |
|||
Next, he talks about how I called "people" dictators, dirt, and imbeciles. Yet, he is once again lying. The only person to whom I said those things was [[User: Selecciones de la Vida]]. As far as it concerns me, one user does not constitute a whole "people." As you can see in the talk page of the bicycle kick, "Selecciones" and I have been holding a very long discussion on the matter. During that discussion, eventually things heated up and '''both of us''' began to indirectly insult (either through jokes or simply angry comments) each other. I kept trying to seek for outside help from that point, includig messaging people such as [[User: Victor12]] and even requesting a review of the article in the FOOTY article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Assessment]. Basically, I cannot get accused of being some sort of crazy aggressor if I '''did seek third opinions''', but I never got any reply from any of the people or groups that I contacted. On the other hand, "Selecciones" did manage to get other people into the article but the only two people that came up, "EP" and a user named "Mariano," both did not understand the problem at hand and instead they began to edit the Peruvian section like "wild beasts" (without meaning to insult). |
|||
For example, look at this comparisson of the "Before and After" user "Mariano" edited the Peruvian section: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_kick&diff=238116468&oldid=237547191]. I mean, what was the point of that? As a serious Wikipedia editor, it seems quite apparent that "Mariano"'s edit made the "Peruvian Claim" section of the article "Jorge Barraza's Claim." How exactly is this good editing? |
|||
Then, I am accused of "false allegations" of vandalism and personal attacks. This is the problem I had with vandalism in the article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:96.242.82.74]. This IP address got temporarily banned after the 3-edit rule. How is this a "false allegation of vandalism"? Next, throughout the bicycle kick discussion page you can see that, just as others claim I have made personal attacks against them, I have also gotten personal attacks. The user that specially did those attacks, of course, was "Selecciones de la Vida." Yet, like I explained earlier, such results came about because of our heated discussion that found no solution because no third-person wanted to actually help in the article. User "EP" got involved in the discussion and, instead of looking for a compromise that would satisfy both "Selecciones" and me, he completely became one-sided in favor of "Selecciones" claims and attacks. I ask, isn't Wikipedia a place where people are supposed to come and help in order to find solutions? Yet, "EP" came in there and simply expanded the problem. |
|||
Going back to the problem of Pinochet, I still will back up my statement that I meant it as a joke. As you can see in the discussion, user "Selecciones de la Vida" did not take the thing as a horrible insult. He simply said it was "incredible how I lied and equated him to a dictator." That was the only time I ever said anything about Pinochet, and that was the last time the term was discussed until user "EP" once again sparked the conflict. I ask, yet again, why does "EP" keep seeking to make fire out of ashes? If the discussion on Pinochet was not even a big deal, and it had already died a plenty of time before "EP" got involved in the discussion, why does he have to once again bring that up and make it seem as if it where an actual big deal? |
|||
Lastly, '''I never said that "EP" deserved "to have personal insults and allegations made against" him.''' Such a thing is a lie, and you can read that yourselves in the link that he has provided for you. In other words, this is a complete lie that holds no foundation. |
|||
If you wish to ask me any direct questions about my actions or about this situation, feel free to send me messages on my talk page. I am not angry, and I am most certainly not seeking problems. If you want me to clarify anything, simply send me a question and I will answer it. Thank you for taking the time to read this.--[[User:MarshalN20|MarshalN20]] ([[User talk:MarshalN20|talk]]) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== {{User|Firefly322}} == |
|||
User FireFly has accused me on both my talk page and his of being a troll, seamy, sordid, mean, and of disrupting a page with pointy edits. The dispute seems to be centred over my addition of an orphan tag to the [[J. C. Massee]] page, which I justified on the talk page. When questioned he repeated the accusations, and when asked to justify them or remove them he responded by saying I was "a not fair and rational editor". I think this goes a bit far. When another editor warns FireFly for his behaviour, he removes the template with the edit summary "removing other unfair and irrational comment". I originally thanked him for removing the accusations from my talk page, but he then immediately repeated and extended the personal attack on his talk page. |
|||
* Discussion on my talk page (removed by FireFly332): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal&oldid=244373939#Please_stop Please stop] |
|||
* Discussion on FireFly332's talk page, including warning by 3rd party (removed by FireFly332): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Firefly322&oldid=244377020#Uncivil_accusations Uncivil accusations] |
|||
Yours, [[User:Verbal|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Verbal'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<font color="grey" face="Papyrus">chat</font>]]</small> 14:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Non-admin: You were perfectly justified in adding the tag, and he knows it. I suggest a short block, but I'm not an admin so my opinion doesn't count. =P [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#999FFF">Den</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:Gainsboro">dodge</em>''']]|<small>[[User talk:Dendodge|Talk]]</small><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Dendodge|Contribs]]</sup> 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Non-admin: In passing, [[User:Firefly322|Firefly322]] (mistakenly) bandied the [[WP:TROLL|troll]] word about at [[Talk:Taede A. Smedes]] after I asked for the subject's notability to be established. Like [[User: Dendodge|'''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:#999FFF">Den</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:Gainsboro">dodge</em>''']], I'm no admin so probably can't help, but I thought this might have some bearing here. Cheers, --[[User:Plumbago|P<small>LUMBAGO</small>]] 15:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I suggest moving this up to a [[WP:RFC/U]] if other editors have encountered problems in the past too. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Is it that serious? How does one go about that? It does seem there is a history of poor behaviour from his talk page (including a mediation cabal attempt) [[User:Verbal|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Verbal'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<font color="grey" face="Papyrus">chat</font>]]</small> 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::'''Update''': In response to the (polite) notification of this discussion, Firefly322 says "you are doing harm to wikipedia" along with those I "associate" with, and that "[my] behavior in terms of editing is not one to be modeled"(sic). Obviously the "doing harm" comment is a further attack. It seems Firefly has had a few civility problems, and this needs to be sorted out. [[User:Verbal|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Verbal'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<font color="grey" face="Papyrus">chat</font>]]</small> 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:46, 10 October 2008
| Harper's Island | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Created by | Ari Schlossberg |
| Starring | Jim Beaver Adam Campbell Elaine Cassidy Katie Cassidy Christopher Gorham Samantha Noble |
| Country of origin | United States |
| No. of seasons | 1 |
| No. of episodes | 13 ordered |
| Production | |
| Executive producers | Jeffrey Bell Ari Schlossberg Jon Turteltaub |
| Running time | approx. 42 minutes |
| Original release | |
| Network | CBS (2008-2009) |
Harper's Island is an hour-long American drama pilot created by Ari Schlossberg, ordered to series for CBS's 2008-2009 television season, planned as a midseason replacement. It will also air on Global in Canada;[1] the premiere dates in other parts of the world are not yet announced.
Development
The show was first pitched by Ari Schlossberg, who wrote the pilot script.[2] CBS ordered it to pilot in March 2008. In May 2008, the show was retooled, and Jeffrey Bell was named as showrunner and, with Jon Turteltaub, executive producer. Schlossberg, Karim Zriek and Dan Shotz serve as co-executive producers [3]
Bell will rewrite the first episode, and further casting changes may occur.[4]
Scott Peters will direct the pilot. [5]
Plot
The television show is a horror/drama, described as Scream meets 10 Little Indians. The central plot is planned as a murder mystery. Friends and family attending a wedding celebration on a secluded island off the coast of Seattle begin dying one by one. The island was the scene of a famous murder 7 years prior.[6]
Trailer
A trailer for the pilot is available on the internet.[7]
Original pilot cast
· Adam Campbell as Cal Vendeuson
· Elaine Cassidy as Abby Mills
· Ryan Merriman as Henry Dunn
· Samantha Noble as Trish Wellington
· Bill Pullman as Uncle Marty
Cast may change significantly prior to airing
New cast
- Matt Barr
- Jim Beaver as Sheriff Mills
- Richard Burgi
- Adam Campbell
- Elaine Cassidy as Abby Mills
- Katie Cassidy as Trish Wellington
- Dean Cechvala
- Christopher Gorham as Henry Dunn
- Harry Hamlin as Uncle Marty
- Cameron Richardson
Crew
· Jeffrey Bell as showrunner/executive producer
· Ari Schlossberg as creator/co-executive producer
· Dan Shotz as co-executive producer
· Jon Turteltaub as director (Pilot), executive producer
· Karim Zreik as co-executive producer
· Robert Levine as Story Editor and writer
· Robert Sizemore as Producer, Original Concept
References
- ^ "Global's Fall Schedule: Spies, Time-Travel and Spoiled Teens". Dose.ca. Retrieved 2008-05-04.
- ^ Shows A-Z - harper's island on cbs | TheFutonCritic.com
- ^ Jeffrey Bell is 'Harper's' showrunner
- ^ CBS Begins Overhauling 'Harper's Island' - Elaine Cassidy may be the only actor kept from the original pilot | Zap2it
- ^ Alien lizards set to invade ABC in 'V' | Variety.com
- ^ Breaking News - CBS ANNOUNCES NEW 2008-2009 PRIMETIME SCHEDULE | TheFutonCritic.com
- ^ Harper's Island video: Harper's Island on TV.com