User talk:Planetdust
Welcome[edit]
|
Nomination of Macro Recordings for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macro Recordings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The article Villa Kamogawa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Stub for non-notable artist residency
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Acousmana (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Villa Kamogawa for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villa Kamogawa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Acousmana (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Sweet. I see the headline "All three major German artist residencies, some of which have been around since 1910, wiped off of Wikipedia" coming to a German broadsheet soon.Planetdust (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Blocking and hounding[edit]
Hi El_C. Better here.. The only reason I ever mentioned JK over there is because another editor introduced him, without connection to the discussion, using the name of a deceased editor as leverage for his week-long personal attack on me. He did the same previously and has spread this bit and much worse over different discussions, some over AfD which he nominated himself. I have no intention insulting anybody's memories and have not edited anything regarding JK (although I was less than happy with the exchange I had with him). However, I feel everybody must be able to express views, point to double standards and distortions without being attacked personally. It's not normal that anything I say is labelled with some derogative term, even if it has a WP: in front. That you join what I believe can by now be described as hounding doesn't seem appropriate to me. I particularly think threats of immediate blocking are not warrantable, given the context. Thanks for your consideration. Planetdust (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Planetdust, you are not only facing imminent sanctions for that egregious misconduct ("troll"), but also for just badgering and WP:BLUDGEON-ing participants in that discussion. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS on myself and others regarding WP:HOUND —which are totally without basis, with obviously no shred of proof— is also cause for sanctions. You can take this as a final warning. El_C 15:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- El_C Did you read anything of what I just wrote? How is it ok to receive escalated threats as a response? Not you but Acousmana is hounding me across multiple discussions and nominating my articles for deletion[1] [2] [3], then repeating the same attacks over and over without a shred of evidence. Is he somehow not badgering and WP:BLUDGEONing? How come I'm "facing imminent sanctions" while that user is free to attack everything I say on personal grounds and without evidence? Planetdust (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Planetdust, one separate discussion and two related ones do not HOUNDING make. Maybe just give discussions a chance to evolve without the constant badgering replies....? And maybe stop assuming bad faith, while you're at it...? El_C 15:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- User:Planetdust - No one is attacking you. (You are attacking a former editor who cannot defend themselves, but that is another issue.) Being asked about a conflict of interest is not a personal attack, because neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia, and conflicts of interest must be declared. Your claims that you are being hounded are nonsense, to the point that they raise questions about whether you know what a collaborative environment is. If you think that you are being hounded, report it at WP:ANI. Or don't report it. But if you choose to argue with every editor in a Deletion Review, and that was your choice, you don't have a reason to complain when they respond. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- And if you do report the so-called hounding at WP:ANI, I will propose a one-week block on User:Planetdust for battleground editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon – I will take EL_C's advice & take a holiday. I already declared I have no COI. Anyone interested can check who made everything about contributors, not content, and at which point. If you wish look up who dragged a deceased editor's name, unrelated to the topic, into 2 discussions. With success in framing me and others to take the bait, I admit. I've stated above (to El_C) why I believe WP:HOUND describes perfectly what I'm experiencing: focused, selective treatment aimed at disrupting + discrediting anything I say or present – regularly inserted into conversations with others who explicitly invited me to provide specified info. Now that one editor has become the inevitable echo to my signature, not the other way around, should make you reconsider who's shutting down whom.
- I don't mind a week (or decade) off if the actions of others in the same environment receive the same level of examination and threat of sanction. I'm sure if you think about it, you did not mean what you wrote: a threat of unrelated sanction if I submit something for others to evaluate under a process explicitly provided by Wikipedia (funny though, since I haven't uttered any such threats, just as I'm not proposing deletion of anyone's efforts). If WP:PG apply only to me but not to others, I think I've seen enough of this collaborative environment. – Btw. if you check the actual discussion at [4] you might like to revise your characterisation of me as "hostile". Thanks. Planetdust (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Planetdust, one separate discussion and two related ones do not HOUNDING make. Maybe just give discussions a chance to evolve without the constant badgering replies....? And maybe stop assuming bad faith, while you're at it...? El_C 15:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- El_C Did you read anything of what I just wrote? How is it ok to receive escalated threats as a response? Not you but Acousmana is hounding me across multiple discussions and nominating my articles for deletion[1] [2] [3], then repeating the same attacks over and over without a shred of evidence. Is he somehow not badgering and WP:BLUDGEONing? How come I'm "facing imminent sanctions" while that user is free to attack everything I say on personal grounds and without evidence? Planetdust (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)