- .
- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This talk page is currently protected due to persistent trolling, apparently by a child. If you cannot edit this page but wish to leave me a message, you may post on this page instead, unless you are the person whose editing led to this protection, in which case you do not have permission to edit anywhere.
The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
- .
Archives |
---|
Contents
Madhu Kambikar
The mainspace page Madhu Kambikar is a copy/paste move of Draft:Madhu Kambikar which has been reviewed and declined at AFC. I was attempting to fix that, but you refused the speedy, thus leaving the situation that we have a Draft with problems and a mainspace copy of the draft which should not yet be in mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Dodger67: I agree. I think the article should be deleted, but I really don't see that it satisfies any of the speedy deletion criteria, so the only ways to do it would be either WP:PROD or WP:AfD. "There is already a declined draft for this article" is not a speedy deletion criterion. In some cases similar to this the fact that it's a copy-paste is a reason for merging or deletion because of copyright, but in this case there is only one author, who has a perfect right to create copies of his or her work. You may like to try a PROD or AfD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
"PBS Kids" Block Evaders
They're back again. 2601:806:C301:95B6:4872:5BBB:8518:F12E, 2601:806:C301:95B6:15A3:DDF9:1CF7:2B58, 68.38.81.129, 2601:806:c301:95b6:1179:9831:29ff:8bd0, 2601:806:c301:95b6:55df:ef81:f83e:eb19, 2601:806:c301:95b6:6861:553f:3ebd:3f8, etc. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Skywatcher68: I've put a range block on the 2601:806:C301:95B6:... IP addresses. As for 68.38.81.129, it looks likely that it's the same person, but it's not immediately obvious to me that it is, and considering that there have been no edits from that IP address for a couple of weeks, I don't see any grounds for blocking it. However, that view could change if the IP address (or others close to it) start up again now that the others are blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Walt DIsney
Good afternoon. When you have a moment, I wonder if I could ask you to have a look at recent editing activity on the above article, as well as its talk page, specifically the mini-drama that took place there recently. I attempted to restore some sourced content that had been removed from a section I added some time ago on allegations of racism and antisemitism, because I thought the information was important to that section's neutrality. The editor currently rewriting the article took it back out again. Okay, not my preference, but not worth an argument. I then tried something less ambitious: I restored a single word, "centaurette"—because that's the term that the studio (and the cited source) used to describe female centaur characters—which someone had changed to "female centaur" in the name of political correctness. No dice. I explained my rationale on the talk page, and even offered a compromise, but he didn't want to hear it. I received a bit of belated support on the talk page, but the discussion quickly flew off the track, so I abandoned that quest too. One last try: I fixed a colon, placing it after a complete grammatical sentence, rather than in its middle. Surely he couldn't object to a sixth-grade-level grammar correction, fully supported by MOS:COLON. Wrong again. It was right the way it was, "for fuck's sake"—supplemented, for good measure, with a hostile comment and a silly accusation of edit warring on my talk page. Okay, I get the message; now that he's on the case, the rest of us are way too stupid to modify even punctuation in that article. (He says as much, straight out, in a brief diatribe at the top of his own page.) I'm not sure what I'm requesting, other than an objective opinion, since I've moved on, and won't be returning, and I'm not the AN/I sort; I just don't like letting ownership and arrogance issues slide without at least registering a protest. Unless I'm just wrong—in which case, as always, I'll say so. But thanks for your time. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @DoctorJoeE: This is an example of a kind of dispute which I really don't like to be involved in. In a situation like this, even if I am convinced I am right and one or more other editors are being unreasonable, I tend to take the line "the exact wording of this small point is not a big enough there are hundreds of other things I could spend my time on more fruitfully", and go away and leave it. However, I have had a look at the discussions and editing history. I agree with you about "centaurette", but don't feel strongly enough to pursue the issue. As for the colon issue, I don't have any strong preference for either version: either seems acceptable to me. The discussions about this could certainly have been conducted in a more civil and cooperative spirit, but in the scale of things that happen in Wikipedia discussions, this is a fairly mild example. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Understood. It occurred to me last night that if I were an admin, and someone came to me with this scenario, I wouldn't want to intervene because he would just yell at me too, and nothing would come of it. As I mentioned, I have in fact "gone away and left it"; there are plenty of other articles on my to-do list. I just felt compelled to bring it up with a third party, without making a federal case out of it. When I was growing up, interrupting a sentence with a colon in that manner was considered a sign of basic illiteracy. My 7th grade English teacher, bless her heart, would have cringed, and would be proud that I challenged it; but one must choose one's battles, and while it bothers me that people like SchroCat get away with that sort of arrogance and flat refusal to even consider others' views -- and accuse others of edit warring even as they revert reasonable edits -- I'm enough of an adult to leave it be. Thanks again for your time. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
User:VeriKami's sandbox and copyright
Since the user is disputing that the text was a copyvio, may I suggest we restore his sandbox and hold a proper AfD or such? On my talk page he claimed it was just a translation of Polish Wikipedia text. I checked the pl wiki text and it does not seem to be a copuvio itself, so if his text is a translation of it, it should be fine. PS. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me, thanks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Thank you for reminding me about this. I had actually intended to come back to it a while ago, but had forgotten to. I have restored the page, and I don't see any need for it to be deleted again, now that I understand what was going on. Unfortunately, previously I read only the talk page section which I started, as I had no reason to guess that there was discussion about it in other places, and VeriKami didn't make things as clear to me as would have been ideal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for undeleting my sandboxed version of this article. I think that now it is possible to evaluate (using references) that the entry does not directly infringe copyrights of Culture.pl. And "if" (in some details) then it could be simply improved but not completely deleted. veriKami (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)