User talk:Fences and windows

Wikipedia ads	file info – #198

Jack Lord#Filmography

Hi. Care to review this? There are threads related to it on the article talk page, User talk:Viriditas, User talk:Maile66, and User talk:Wildhartlivie. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK and the sorting works, and the previous table was a mess. Why are you asking me, and why are you monitoring Wildhartlivie's editing? And re: their comments about you being a sock: "I told you so." Stop going on about it and "ArbCom commending you". Fences&Windows 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My issue is that she's continuing to call her preferred approach the "standard". She's advocating the removal of the sorting, and it was Maile66 and Wildhartlivie who brought up my history, not I. I noticed this because the Jack Lord article perked-up on my watchlist. And I pinged you because you're reasonably familiar with this.

I'm about to go out; will check-back laters. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You brought up your history with your "This user is a sockpuppet" notice. Everyone who looks at your userpage sees it. Wasn't there supposed to be an RfC on this? Fences&Windows 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I trimmed the sock aspects of my user page back some months ago. I do see at as a part of my history and about transparency. There is a stub of a colour RfC at User talk:Moonriddengirl/RfC and I need to get focused on that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is that Jack shows up at many articles where he has never edited before, just as he did the Jack Lord one for the first time, less than an hour after I posted my reassessment comments at the article talk page. This goes on constantly and it's a real issue. His conduct regarding me tremendously inhibits my enjoyment of the site and is factually wikistalking. That Jack wants to change the standard to his preferred version does not take away from the fact that the use of that template had consensus at the first RfC on WT:ACTOR and he tends to fill his time with appearing at various articles soon after I edit there to "police" me or simply to announce that his eyes are on me. Whether he has 5000, 8000 or 100,000 articles on his watchlist where he has never previously edited, he invariably shows up at articles within a short time of my editing them. This needs to stop, really. Please. He's also well aware that this conduct is incredibly stressful to me and that my health is effected by it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jack Merridew, a neutral message: "This user previously edited as Davenbelle ([click for details])" would do, no? Oh, the RfC is only on colour, and nowt else? Would be good to get sortability and rowspan resolved too. Wildhartlivie: your concern about Jack Merridew apparently following you is noted and I am inclined to agree that he needs to stop interacting with you (and probably vice versa). I'll read all this again, and see if I have any intelligent comments to make. Fences&Windows 18:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

briefly, I see her as attempting to run me off from 'her' articles because she does not want anyone with differing views editing her articles; see my interactions with Rossrs, who's adopted a lot of what I'm advocating. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fences and windows. If Jack would stop following, demeaning me and picking issues like this one today, I'd have nothing to say, either to or about him. Also note who magically appeared here to post yet another disparaging comment above this. He always shows up and posts something disparaging about me, wherever he can and he tends to show up when Jack is involved. At one point he said he was waiting for me to burn out and get permanently banned. I'd be glad to put together diffs on him too. He's another not as frequent harasser, who makes it a habit of going around post comments like this. And Jack, please don't drag Rossrs into this, you have no clue. My health is only an issue when I am wikistalked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, please stay out of this and stop baiting Wildhartlivie. Do you have nothing better to do? I've removed your comment. Please only post on my talk page if you have something factual to say to me, rather than giving your unhelpful opinions. Jack Merridew, if this issue of table markup and standardisation is as important as you claim then others will surely pick up the baton, and you should be able to reach a consensus. There's no need for you to follow Wildhartlivie around. Besides, I don't really see anyone besides you who considers this matter to be urgent or important. Rossrs seems happy with blue headers and non-sortable tables. Wildhartlivie, your responses to every slight, real or perceived, often don't help matters. Fences&Windows 20:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I know they probably don't, but it makes me crazy when it happens. That is exactly what I think is intended. Thanks alot for taking me seriously. You don't know how much I appreciate it. I imagine it's much like sending the kids to separate corners. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A fair number of folks who commented in the ACTOR:RFC understand these issues and support what I've been saying. And there's the whole mess from last year that I was not involved in where this all went against WHL's positions and she just discarded all outside input and proceeded to make more of a mess. The people who see these issues with markup and colour tend to be people with a technical background because the core concern is a technical one; this is an inappropriate way to build web pages. That's not just my say-so; it's the consensus of most professional developers on teh interwebs, including the devs at WMF. Rossrs's edit includes a lot of code tweaks that are suggestions of mine. See our current dialogue on my talk page. As best I can tell, Rossrs is a friend of WHL's who is open-minded and sees a lot of what I'm saying, too. As to urgency and importance, I've been patient; this began in February (for me) and in May '08 for her, and it is important because we need to stop digging the hole in the wrong place so we can get on-track. Jack Merridew 23:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And a fair number of folks, who apparently without a "seriouz-clue" according to you, are the reason why there was not consensus on many of these things. Just as many other people are opposed to what Jack is touting. And Jack, I asked you nicely to leave Rossrs out of this, you have no clue of what he thinks and thus bringing him up multiple times is yet another way of digging at me and despite your contention, he is doing nothing he has not done many times in the past, only now he is inserting the filmography table heading. As Fences & Windows pointed out, Rossrs seems happy with blue headings and non-sortable tables. You have no clue of what he thinks. The hole that needs to stop being dug is the Jack Merridew stalking around after me. That's the issue here and once again, you've tried to divert the discussion away from the basic issue. Please leave me alone, stop following me around and doing what amounts to harassment. I'm asking you nicely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the thrust of this. Wildhartlivie might be doing some owning of this content matter, but that is not going to be resolved by following them around, reverting them, and commenting about them to everyone who interacts with them on filmography formatting. What you need to do is to keep discussing this issue in centralised places, preferably a well-advertised RfC, and to stop interacting with Wildhartlivie outside of these centralised discussions. It's ridiculous that this keeps flaring up in skirmishes on talk pages, it reminds me of the lame nationalist edit wars over Danzig/Gdansk, British Isles/Britain and Ireland, or Derry/Londonderry. I think you have the best of intentions - to standardise Wikipedia's formatting to help readers and editors - but your approach is problematic and you're not seeing this. By focussing only your perception that Wildhartlivie is breaching consensus, you're not seeing how your attempts to resolve this are turning a simple content/format issue into a full-scale behavioural dispute, especially as you have an tendency to make disparaging comments about people you disagree with. You have objected to others who agree with Wildhartlivie as being 'meatpuppets' (which is unfair, Wikipedians agreeing with each other are not 'meatpuppets'), but you never object when Chowbok snipes from the sidelines. You're making this a "them vs us" issue. Your comments about Rossrs have the ring of trying to 'recruit' someone who has previously edited with Wildhartlivie to 'your side'. If you don't voluntarily refrain from commenting on article talk pages and to individual editors about Wildhartlivie's editing of filmographies (including when this appears on your watchlist, as we cannot check that), I'll seek a formal interaction ban. Fences&Windows 12:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly surprised that my name pops up throughout this discussion, and if not for that, I probably wouldn't feel the need to comment. I assume good faith that Jack's comments are not intended to "recruit" me. I would hope that we can have civilised discussions in the future as I would like to be able to work with anyone. I generally agree with the comments made about me. Jack, you're right in saying that I support some of things you advocate. Some of them are uncontroversial, and some of them, specifically the markup and font size in the tables, were discussed at length at WP:ACTOR. I had my say on that page and although not everything went the way I would have liked, my attitude is to support the recommendations of such discussions, even if it's against my preferred option. My editing history over about 5 years will bear this out - every time some change is made to the way certain articles are presented, I try to take it on board and go through editing numerous articles to bring them in line, and before I get anywhere near finished, the prevailing attitudes change again and I go back over the same articles. So in that regard Wildhartlivie is correct. It's my standard approach, but it's true to say that I do agree with a good deal of what you say. In a nutshell, yes I am happy with the blue headers and the non-sortable tables as Fences&Windows observed, though I have not actually discussed my like or dislike for the sortable format. I haven't added any, nor removed any. If the header colour is discussed I'll support the blue over the bog-standard. If consensus is to switch to the bog standard, I'll be disappointed, but I'll also be there helping to change them over. As I've mentioned before to you, I don't always appreciate the manner in which you present your views, but I don't take that to heart, and I don't let it stop me from contributing. I have felt that I'm part of the group of editors you've dismissed with "meatpuppet" comments and when you first started commenting at the actor discussion, I wasn't much interested in your opinion because it was peppered with that type of negative, dismissive comment. However, I stuck with it long enough to try to see your point and in some areas I came to understand and agree with you.

You're also right in saying that I am a friend of Wildhartlivie. I like her, value her and respect her. I don't necessarily agree with her all the time, but for the most part I can see her point of view. I've also edited with her long enough and frequently enough to know that she is someone who doesn't accept change for change's sake and is fairly firm in her opinions. Some see that solely as an ownership issue, but I do not think it's as straight-forward as that, simply because I've also seen enough situations where she has changed her opinion after discussion. I'm glad that you describe me as someone "who is open-minded and sees a lot of what I'm saying, too." I honestly try to see all points. There are still things that need to be discussed regarding filmographies and other aspects of the articles we seem to all edit. It's probably too much to hope for, but maybe if it could be discussed along the lines of "just the facts", without any nuances that may cause a reaction, it may actually be possible to make some progress. I think everyone needs to understand and respect that if Wildhartlivie says she feels stalked, we have to accept that she is expressing a genuine concern, and that the correct approach is to keep a courteous distance. Jack, you seem to appear at a lot of articles that Wildhartlivie has recently visited, and considering how many articles fall under just the broad "actor" heading, it should be possible to keep the contact to a minimum. If everyone agrees to keep future conversations neutral and focussed on the discussion rather than the participants, is it possible we can move forward and make some progress? I have to say this - "Chowbok snipes from the sidelines" is an absolutely perfect way to describe his behaviour. It's been going on for too long, and I long ago stopped caring about how justified he feels he is. If Wildhartlivie bothers him so much, he needs to avert his gaze. Not exactly rocket science. Rossrs (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm?

You might want to change need to needed? O Fenian (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Um. Yeah. Ironic, eh? Fences&Windows 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly an inopportune moment to do that yes. O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you come back to the Johann Hari discussion if you have a moment?

Your contributions have been really balanced and helpful in the past. An editor is inserting material that seems to be breaching BLP rules pretty clearly to me, but she thinks I have misunderstood. A third party would be really helpful.David r from meth productions (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but you may not like it. Also, please always log in when editing or commenting. Fences&Windows 23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pagemonster18

Hello, if you remember me, I reported Pagemonster18 to the Administrators' noticeboard Incident on June 18, 2010 for the continuation of adding unsourced materials. You commented that an indefinite block would follow if Pagemonster18 did it again. Today the editor made a contribution to an unreleased film. The unsourced contribution was reverted by an editor. I believe the Pagemonster18 edits in good faith but causes disruptive edits. Thanks,  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)