Misplaced Pages

User talk:Lithistman: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:02, 1 October 2014 editLithistman (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,072 edits →Barnstar for you: you're welcome!← Previous edit Revision as of 23:44, 1 October 2014 edit undoNE Ent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors20,717 edits →Please request deletion of subpages: new sectionNext edit →
Line 144: Line 144:
|} |}
*You're very welcome, Frank! If you run into any further questions you don't know how to answer, feel free to drop by my talkpage. If I don't know the answer, lots of times I'll know people who ''do''. It's been a pleasure helping you thus far! ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 15:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC) *You're very welcome, Frank! If you run into any further questions you don't know how to answer, feel free to drop by my talkpage. If I don't know the answer, lots of times I'll know people who ''do''. It's been a pleasure helping you thus far! ''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 15:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

== Please request deletion of subpages ==

Please ] using criteria U1 the pages ] and ]. You can do this by placing <nowiki>{{Db-u1}}</nowiki> on the pages. As noted at ], ''keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate''. <small>]</small> 23:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:44, 1 October 2014

“ The problem of admin overreach needs to be dealt with. And ANI is a (very large) part of the problem, and will never be part of any real solution. It's a drama-filled HQ where admins seem to relish flexing their WikiMuscles and admin-wannabes go to offer attaboys and burnish their credentials for RFA. It's really nothing more than another forum for editors to shop at when attempting to get people they disagree with blocked. Nothing more, and nothing less. (For a fine example of this overreach, see this page, which was, ironically enough, compiled only because an admin who was edit-warring against talkpage consensus forum-shopped and got me blocked for enforcing talkpage consensus. ”

See archiving a talk page for more information.
Archives

September 2014

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, and perpetuating an edit war by repeatedly re-adding content you know to be disputed, as you did at John Barrowman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock|There is clear consensus for the material in question at the talkpage. It's not even close. Ask any of the other editors involved. You should have looked much deeper into this before blocking.LHM 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)}}

Note

Any of the following editors can give you the context at that page. You should have checked before blocking an established contributor. 22:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) @Viriditas:; @Ritchie333:; @Jusdafax:; @Mark Miller:; @Peter Gulutzan:; @Loriendrew: @A Quest For Knowledge:

@HJ Mitchell:Perhaps you missed it, but this has been discussed and the overwhelming consensus (if not unanimity) of editors is that this source is a reliable source in this context. Please see the following diff. Can you please self-revert this block? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Drmies started a thread at ANI about me, that I refused to participate in because he was just being vindictive. This block seems to be a direct result of that thread. LHM 22:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Lithistman, I am happy to start an arbcom case, however the arbs will have to approve it, which is not always the case. I am at work right now, but I will consider writing the arbcom proposal when I get home. I'm very sorry you were blocked. There was a clear consensus on the talk page to include the material, and discussion had occurred multiple times already. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Have you self-reverted this block? I can accept on good faith that you made an honest mistake, but I don't understand what's taking you so long to undo this mistake. Please respond. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: 9 editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
John has been the definition of contentious throughout the process, as has Drmies, employing little other than the WP:IDHT "argument", and then fishing for a forum to get me blocked when I enforced the talkpage consensus. It's really quite a shabby state of affairs for admins to act this way.LHM 12:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to comment here because, in my experience, it rarely makes the situation better and blocked editors almost invariably (and understandably) vent their frustrations at the blocking admin, so it's usually best for them to stay out of the way and let a second admin deal with the unblock request. But since I was pinged. Multiple times. Here are my thoughts:

  • I'm not going to self-revert the block, unless LHM gives sufficient assurances that he will cease edit-warring.
  • Drmies had very little to do with this; he made a request at RfPP for full protection. I was clearing the backlog at RfPP, as I have regularly done for several years, so I certainly wasn't looking for an excuse to block LHM.
  • I deemed that full protection would not solve the problem, because the edit war would only continue as soon as the protection expired, as it did last time.
  • I don't block established editors on a whim (AQFK, we may not always agree, but I thought you knew me better than that), nor is it something I take any pleasure from. And I did evaluate the circumstances. While it takes at least two people to edit war, LHM was the one repeatedly restoring content that was in dispute, and being reverted by more than one person; had he ceased, the edit war would have stopped. It's as simple as that. Even if there was a consensus, and even if other editors were behaving disruptively, it still doesn't excuse the edit-warring.

For the reasons I've stated above, I'm loathe to get into further discussion (especially with third parties, much as I recognise that they're asking questions in good faith). If any editor feels the need to escalate the underlying dispute to ArbCom, I would have no objection to my actions being scrutinised as part of that, and I would suggest that that is the proper venue to make allegations of a long-term pattern of misconduct by another editor (admin or otherwise). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @HJ Mitchell: I'm not going to edit war. But you should know something else. That request at RFPP was not, in my opinion, done in good faith. The editor who made the request knew full well that consensus had been established, and by the time the request was made, had even acceded to that on the talkpage. He had been trying to get me blocked at ANI, and when that didn't work, he went to RFPP. But yes, you can consider this my assurance that I won't be edit-warring. I would suggest you look deeper into that situation, and examine the conduct of those falsely claiming a BLP exemption for their reverts as well, if you have the time to do so. Best regards, LHM 14:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
That's as may be, but let's stick to this block for a moment. If you were to be unblocked, would you agree not to re-add this source or make related edits to John Barrowman until such time as the BLP/N discussion is closed by a non-involved admin following the usual timeframe for such discussions? Put another way, will you back off and let consensus be firmly and unambiguously settled? UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
While I (and nearly every other editor of the Barrowman page) feel that consensus had been "firmly and unambiguously settled", I won't be readding the source. I will likely simply remove that page (as well as the Landmark Worldwide article) from my watchlist, as both of those articles (and dealing with the personalities associated with them) have sapped a lot of the fun from the project for me. Thanks for taking the time to consider my unblock request, Ultra. LHM 15:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To EDBF & others

The experience of editing Misplaced Pages that I've had since making my first edit to the Landmark article, combined with how Drmies, John, and now HJ Mitchell have misused their administrator tools, has removed almost all pleasure I took in editing this project. One of the only really enjoyable aspects of the project for me the last little while has been my recent interaction with @EastDimeBoxFrank:. It's been fun seeing you grow as an editor over the last week or two, EDBF, but I'm taking my leave now. I may return at some point, but until I do, maybe @Astynax: might be willing to step into the role I'd been playing in helping you out. One piece of advice I'd give you is this: as much as possible, just try to stay out of the way of administrators. Dealing with people who can get you blocked from editing, or protect non-consensus versions of articles using their extra tools, is no fun at all. If you cross them, just let them have their way, and find another article you are interested in to edit. Best regards, LHM 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Justice delayed is justice denied. The more editors that leave and fail to tackle the problem directly, the more it will continue. Please consider staying so that we can address this unpopular problem with admins in the appropriate venue. You were unfairly blocked by admins protecting other admins, and I think arbcom will take that into consideration when they see that John has a history of this kind of disruption. Retiring now, before I propose the case, is not helpful. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Section reserved" section

Lithistman, you asked me to take a look at this brouhaha. It's a sprawling mess, and I have little time, so I'll pick the low-hanging fruit first: this section was a very bad idea. No opinion should be implied on relative guilt/innocence of anyone on anything else. If it seems valuable I'll look more later, but it will be when I have a few spare minutes here and there. In the mean time, I'd appreciate it if everyone involved who is actually interested in encyclopedia writing could start de-escalating a little. Well, no, a lot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll respect your removal of the section, but given my experience of administrator behavior on this project recently, I think my feelings that there has been some "coordination" going on behind the scenes is not wholly without merit. LHM 19:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lithistman...

I just figured out what your name means: Literature/History/Man! I'm a little slow sometimes. (I'd thought it was some kind of Eastern European name that I couldn't pronounce. Ha.) Anyway, I just want to thank you again... for helping me with everything - and lately for introducing me to Astynax (who is wonderful). I'm moving ahead (as you have noted), and pretty soon I believe that last flag will come down from the Heinze article. When that happens, I'm looking forward to working on a new and different article. It will be fun to find one. Well, back to my citations. (I'm getting a huge kick out of doing these citations for some reason.) DimeBoxFrank (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I somehow missed this note until Viriditas posted his message below (thanks, BTW, Viriditas). I'm really glad you're enjoying your time on Misplaced Pages, EDBF--particularly with the rough way it started out for you, with the tags being put on the top of the page and all. Keep up the good work! LHM 14:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just in case I haven't told you already, it's an awesome user name! :) Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jesse James father

I'm confident that we can resolve the question as to where Jesse James father (Robert) was born.
To me it seems there is lots of good evidence pointing to the fact that Robert was born in the US.
It looks to me as if a bar in Ireland is telling tall tales to tourists for cheap publicity claiming Robert was a Kerryman.
I invite you to contribute to the discussion on the Jesse James' talk-page: Talk:Jesse_James#Jesse.27s_father_from_County_Kerry.2C_Ireland
Thanks Aberdeen01 (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hi, Lithistman! How come you no longer want to participant in the GA Cup (there's nothing wrong with it, I just want to know because if it has something to do with how the competition works, we can consider a last minute change!)--Dom497 (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I just found out that I transfer I wanted at work has gone through. The job is a lot more interesting, but also a lot more time-intensive, and I just don't think I'll have the time to do it this time around. LHM 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


Far too technical

I don't think that thing works properly; I bet I've edited Mount Vernon lots more times than he has. I can't make it work a all, it keeps saying invalid date. Giano (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I didn't put any dates into it. I just typed usernames into the given blanks and submitted. It seems to be right about the articles I've edited, so I'm not sure how to help you use it in this case. If you're interested, there are a lot of neat little gadgets at the WP:Tools page that do all sorts of things. LHM 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Retcon edit

My edit on Retroactive continuity was not a test. I removed that part about retcons being common in leading manga publishers, as it is completely untrue. Manga magazines in Japan works in a different format compared to their American counterparts, as the characters are not owned by the company/publisher but the author themselves, therefore retcons in manga aren't common at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioliogiz (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Nicely done! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

St. Croix

You can have it. St Croix, has/had one hospital which recently was decertified as a medicare/medicaid facility. This will dramatically effect the budget of this hospital and thus the local economy. It will also effect the level of medical care available to locals and tourists....which is a reflection of the economy....and will negatively impact it as well. The AED devices that are in place around the island are potential life saving devices which are necessary in the absence more medical facilities. Not to mention the fact that the lady who has been installing these devices has been doing so with her own money and donations from interested parties. The blog which I referenced is the only blog discussing the implications and providing a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdubs8 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The information above is interesting, and I'm thankful that there's someone doing it. However, Misplaced Pages is not the place to distribute such information, unless it has been covered in reliable secondary sources. LHM 17:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

The Anti-Flame Barnstar
For keeping calm in spite of all the nasty words you may have faced at WP:BLPN, keep up the good work! Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Particularly interesting to me was being accused of lying, dishonest editing, and some other nefariousness which escapes me as I type this. LHM 05:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you, Lithistman, for taking me under your wing... and for showing me (with patience and kindness) how to improve. DimeBoxFrank (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You're very welcome, Frank! If you run into any further questions you don't know how to answer, feel free to drop by my talkpage. If I don't know the answer, lots of times I'll know people who do. It's been a pleasure helping you thus far! LHM 15:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please request deletion of subpages

Please WP:CSD using criteria U1 the pages User:Lithistman/Evidence and User:Lithistman/WCM diffs. You can do this by placing {{Db-u1}} on the pages. As noted at Misplaced Pages:Attack page, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. NE Ent 23:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Lithistman: Difference between revisions Add topic