Analogy: Green light. You drive through an intersection. You get hit by cross traffic. Nobody witnesses it. The person who hit you says YOU ran the red light. What do you do? You Fight To Defend Your Rights, and The Truth. Thats what I've been forced to do because I value my efforts here ~ and I believe in the truth [[User:Dijcks|Dijcks<font color="green" size="2px"></font>]] [[User talk:Dijcks|HotTub<font color="blue" size="2px"></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dijcks|Pool<font color="red" size="2px"></font>]] 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Analogy: Green light. You drive through an intersection. You get hit by cross traffic. Nobody witnesses it. The person who hit you says YOU ran the red light. What do you do? You Fight To Defend Your Rights, and The Truth. Thats what I've been forced to do because I value my efforts here ~ and I believe in the truth [[User:Dijcks|Dijcks<font color="green" size="2px"></font>]] [[User talk:Dijcks|HotTub<font color="blue" size="2px"></font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Dijcks|Pool<font color="red" size="2px"></font>]] 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
:Thank you. :) I hope that we'll be able to reach agreement.
:With respect to the protection of the article, I have full confidence in [[User:Philippe]]'s judgment. If all goes well, I hope that the article will not need to remain protected for two weeks, but removing editing from the equation can help reduce some of the urgency people are experiencing to fix or improve problems in an article, which can fuel disputes. There are two concerns here: (1) that Wikipedia have a neutral and well-sourced article on this subject, and (2) that Wikipedia not lose either one or both of two involved and passionate contributors because of conflicts over achieving (1).
:You should not worry that this will prevent your obtaining adminship. Most of us have had interactions with other editors which have tested our patience. One of the questions usually asked at RfA is for candidates to identify the greatest frustration that they've had on Wikipedia; this is an opportunity to show what you've ''learned''. Admins are actually supposed to hold to a higher standard of behavior than other editors; we may be [[WP:NOTPERFECT]], but "Most especially, administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." We're expected to do this even in the face of some pretty egregious abuse. :)
:The only civility concerns that I have seen on your end are in edit summaries: the absence of edit summary I noted in one and the imputation of motivation in others. Too, when you tell a contributor at his talk page that "Furthermore, you INSIST on erasing other good information OUT OF SPITE, some of which I didn't author", you are essentially accusing him of vandalizing an article (as Wikipedia defines it), which is quite a serious charge. I understand from your tone that you were feeling very frustrated at that time, but hope you will be able to see in retrospect how provocative a statement such as that might seem to the recipient. The impact of our approach on the editing environemnt really can't be overemphasized, I'm afraid. :/ We have almost as many behavioral policies as we do content: [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:NPA]], to name a few.
:What I would recommend that you do here is let go of your prior concerns about this person's behavior; drop all old issues and focus solely on coming to consensus on the content of the article. If you think you are being reasonable, aim to be doubly so. Bend over backwards to communicate cordially. Even if the person you are talking to persists in being rude, you may be able to bring the conversation in line by pointedly ignoring the rudeness and focusing yourself on the issue. If this does not downshift the antagonism from the other side, it may be time to politely and directly ask them to focus on the content and, if they still do not, to involve others. If you are calm and reasonable and somebody else is haranguing you, it'll become clear who has the problem.
:I would never, ever take a contributor for behavioral-based community assistance in the heat of the moment. If I were angry, ruffled or hurt, I would first go do something else for as long as necessary to calm down. You need to be able to analyze your evidence rationally and coolly and to compose your note in the same mindset. If you feel like typing an "!", you may still be too involved. Too, if at all possible, I would deal with the content issue first and then address behavioral concerns. All too often, people try to resolve heated disputes over content by claiming the other editor has behavioral issues, and even if that's not what you're doing, people may mistake your motivation.
:Honestly, with an approach like this, I do not believe that this incident should derail your hope of achieving adminship. If anything, it proves that you are capable of self-reflection and taking on board recommendations from others. Those are ''good'' qualities in an admin. :)
:In terms of this article, we need time for the other party to weigh in and to discuss content issues. I imagine it will become apparent to Philippe if the tone changes enough that he feels confident that protection is no longer needed. If not, we can certainly request it of him when we feel it reaches that point. I don't think we're there yet. We need to see what his response is and whether we will be able to push aside older grievances to focus on collaborative content building. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 11:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time, less frequently between 19:00 and 22:00. When you loaded this page, it was 14:46, 12 September 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
For the third year in a row
Happy Birthday MoonRiddenGirl
I lack words in English to express how important you are for this project, and how much you have encouraged me in working hard and good, so i`ll keep it simple: Happy Wikibirthday to our beloved Girl. Zidane tribal (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy wiki-bday MRG! You continue to be one of the awesomest Wikipedians around here =) Here's to another four years! –xenotalk18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoot! It's a proper party! Thank you all very much. :D I had no idea when I registered four years ago how much of my free time this hobby was going to consume! --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there seems to a commonly used interpretation of WP:QUOTEFARM (in turn reliant on WP:NPS) that quotations in citations are a copyright problem and the QUOTE essay is used to justify deletion of quotations from citations. I have come across this before but the current case in point is this instance of multiple quote deletions by Acroterion with the rationale "...please don't quote within refs - there are copyright issues we needn't get into". Admittedly the quotations are extensive but these were added in the light of the article being up for deletion on the basis of a lack of independent reliable sources and with the likely prospect of the quotations being integrated into the article in the future, at which point they would be naturally trimmed down. Without quotations many of the citations would lack sufficient context to understand why they are relevant (the article titles would not be obvious) and many have no free online version for the layman reader to check and understand the context for themselves. There is some earlier discussion at User talk:Fæ#Quotes in refs.
If you would like to give an opinion this might help future similar discussion where this approach might be used for an article rescue with multiple citations. As I see it the key questions are:
Is the QUOTEFARM essay a copyright related rationale to mass delete quotations from footnotes and can it apply in the context of third party sources?
Where brief quotes are added to citations on the basis of context is there an established consensus that we should always prefer to remove all quotes (or integrate the material) and is this a basis for immediate deletion or an ongoing improvement recommendation?
Okay, there is no established consensus that I know of that we prefer to remove all quotes or integrate the material from citations. If there is, I need to know about it, because I have (sparingly) used quotations in refs myself. That said, we typically do truncate extensive quotations in them and remove quotations for which there is not a very strong fair use defense. Basically, the quote parameter in citations may serve to quote content that would not fit stylistically in the article, but it does not have any stronger fair use claim than the rest of the article. If the quote would be too extensive in substantiality in context of the article or in proportion to the original, it's too extensive in footnote. And it still must be transformative.
When asked to review such situations (and they come up occasionally at WP:C), I imagine the content as blockquotes within the article. In terms of the article under discussion, I'm afraid that I also have concerns about the substantiality of copyrighted content in relation to the length of commentary it is being used to support. Several of those quotes are a bit lengthy, clocking in at over 100 words. In terms of its body, the article itself is only 99. If this had come through WP:C, I would have removed the quotes, too, and asked the contributor to summarize the key points, using more limited quotation where necessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, I'll try being rather more sparing for quotes to give context or add them as suggested sources on the talk page in a similar rescue situation. It sounds like another area where we will probably pin down some better guidelines at a future point rather than leaving it to a debatable essay. Cheers Fæ (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Archery Association of India
Hello Moonriddengirl, you removed content for 11 revisions as article had copyright issues, but why didn't you care of my two edits - one for tagging the article for wikification and other of language temp of Hindi; you should at least exempt the lang-hi temp. Bill william comptonTalk23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not sure what you mean by "exempt", so please forgive me if I misunderstand. When doing revision deletion, we have to delete every version of the article that constitutes a copyright problem. I cannot selectively delete part of the page. It is not meant as any kind of slur against the content you edited, but the copyrighted material was a substantial part of each page after its introduction. Ideally, when such situations happen, we'll come in to find that interested contributors have proposed a rewrite in the temporary space that will incorporate any positive changes, but unfortunately this does not often happen. If you would like me to resurrect the lang-hi temp, I can do that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing if you ever find any such copyright problem with any article related to any sport governing body, feel free to contact me; i'd be happy to give my service in rewriting the article.
I don't see them until they're due for (or even overdue for!) admin closure. :/ We have attemped to get copyright problems added to Wikipedia:Article alerts, but I see that it's still in the "not now" priority. That would be very helpful not only in letting you see sports articles, but in letting other contributors keep an eye on articles of concern to them. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
interview request
Hello,
My name is Natalia Ioana Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of user motivation to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals.
I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 1st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too.
Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel.
Hi, I would be willing to help you, but I'm afraid that I do not use Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I would be willing to communicate with you through google chat. If under those circumstances you would like to talk to me, please use the "e-mail this user" function in the toolbox at the side of my page (you will have to have enabled your own e-mail under your user preferences to do so). After I receive your e-mail, I'll reply, and we can set up a time that works for both us. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to sort it out. This was just a vanity bio. The subject/author has been copying versions back and forth, left and right all over town, thus creating a closed-circuit of copyvios and reverse copyvios. I couldn't work out which version he had copied and from where. I just hate that sort of stuff, so I prodded it. --Ohconfucius¡digame!14:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you didn't actually PROD it, but tagged it for copyright investigation, or I'd have probably never seen it. :D He could very likely have granted permission for the content, but he hasn't, and it's not really appropriate anyway. A relatively fresh canvas should allow a new article to be built without COI or copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the answer to this anywhere, so I've come to the Copyright Oracle. Free software is normally provided under a variety of licenses very different from the documentation type licenses used for Wikipedia text. CC-BY-SA can perhaps cover software, especially for new contributions. But what about using free software libraries provided by others under licenses such as the LGPL or the standard GPL? I write a lot of user scripts used in the management of Wikipedia. They aren't part of the encyclopedia, but they are loaded on the site and executed by many others. Can I incorporate software licensed under the LGPL into my scripts if I retain the original author attribution? Technically, the edit window doesn't permit such a license. In some cases, I have seen scripts marked as copyrighted by the author, while also being provided under one of the free licenses. Note that the LGPL permits use in proprietary products while the GPL does not. Others sometimes use a free MIT license, the only restriction on which is a disclaimer of all warranties. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No big hurry. The reason I'm asking currently is for a new smart watchlist gadget that I'm developing at User talk:UncleDouggie/smart watchlist.js. However, I've run into the same question several times before. When it comes to software, it can be terribly difficult to "rephrase" to avoid a copyright problem. Computers generally don't like that. Thanks again. —UncleDouggie (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yes, I can imagine. :D I've already started the ball with an initial query. I'll keep poking until I find an answer or run out of places to poke, and I'll let you know either way. Please feel free to ping me. If something Big And Dreadful happens, I may get distracted. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UncleDouggie, the short answer is that all content on Wikipedia, even user Javascript and CSS, must be released under CC-BY-SA according to current policy. You can put any code you wrote yourself on Wikipedia, regardless of what software license you release it under, since you can multilicense under both the software license and CC-BY-SA. You cannot, as a rule, put other people's code on Wikipedia, particularly not copyleft code like LGPL or GPL, since (despite superficial similarities) these licenses impose restrictions that CC-BY-SA by itself does not, and so are incompatible. You can seek permission from the original authors to multilicense their code under CC-BY-SA, or you could propose a revision to policy at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) that would allow code licensed under these licenses in user script/CSS space. Even non-copyleft licenses such as the MIT license are incompatible due to specific requirements (the inclusion of the license text) that are incompatible with CC-BY-SA. The only software license that would be compatible is one that releases all rights and imposes no requirements, and no such license has yet been OSI approved, as far as I know. Dcoetzee19:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I suspected this might be the case. I think it would be useful to update our copyright policies to make all this clear. Based on this guidance, I regret to inform you that all Wikipedia operations, both editing and browsing, must cease immediately. This is because the "free" jQuery library has recently been integrated throughout all JavaScript code on the site, especially since the release of MediaWiki 1.17. However, jQuery is only GPL/MIT licensed. So sorry, I guess we can have our lives back now. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no! What would I do without Wikipedia! :O Seriously, though, is this something we need to ask our attorneys about? I'm barely computer literate, but I'll be watching this one with great interest. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a quick look at this article for me if you have a moment. To me it's a clear copyvio of [1] (it's not word for word but pretty close) and so a G12. However an IP has now twice removed my speedy tag. Rather than continue to add the tag and then have it removed before an admin has a chance to look at it I thought I'd see if the friendly copyright admin had a little bit of spare time. Thanks. Dpmuk (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirection and abbreviation of "Joe Fab" page (redirected to "Joseph Fabiszewski"
Hi! I'm Joe Fab. Could you tell me why you changed the page about me? I see a notation "blatant copyright violation" -- can you please tell me what items on the page caused you to think that was being done? Thanks in advance!
Hi. :) The article was listed for copyright evaluation on April 1st, Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 April 1, and remained blanked for a week to permit time for interested contributor to verify license of the source or to rewrite content. Material was duplicated from a variety of sources, probably originally written by you or your employees, including [2] and [3]. Some content had already been removed before the contributor who noted the issue listed the article for evaluation; according to his edit summary, it seems to have been published at [4]. We cannot use previously published content until permission is verified (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials), but beyond the verification of license, the content has other issues that make its usage problematic on Wikipedia. The bulk of information in Wikipedia articles should be based on second-hand sources that are not affiliated with a subject. For example, given its awards, I don't doubt it's true that "Fab has received wide acclaim for his recent work as producer, writer and co-director of the feature documentary Paper Clips", but we need to source it to those who have provided the acclaim. WP:COI and Wikipedia:Autobiography discuss some of the challenges with working on an article about yourself on Wikipedia. If you follow the licensing process, the content can be restored, but given the other issues is unlikely to remain as it was.
Hi MRG and stalkers. Would anybody so kind to link me the article/website comparison tool presented here a while ago? I seem to have lost the link to it and it would be quite useful now. Yoenit (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my page 'Be The Bear' was recently deleted, the band has done music for two TV commercials so I thought they meritted inclusion here, I didn't have time to add this on the talk page as rationale before it was speedily deleted. Can you help?
Bunnyman78 (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have to delete so much as copyright problems that I'm always happy to find out when copying isn't our fault. :) I appreciate you raising your concerns so that they could be evaluated; always important to verify! --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The en page says, "If a source does not declare a pre-existing free license, yet allows use of its content under terms commonly instituted by them, the source must explicitly declare that commercial use and modification is permitted. If it is not the case, it is to be assumed that it is not unless verification or permission from the copyright holder is obtained", which is what is true, but the Commons page does not. I'm just afraid that the quote you cited is too vague. /ƒETCHCOMMS/15:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If this were an issue on en Wiki, it would be easy. :/ WP:C says, "If the material, text or media, has been previously published and you wish to donate it to Wikipedia under appropriate license, you will need to verify copyright permission through one of our established procedures." Let me poke about and see what I can find. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My first search having not been that productive, I'm asking at the OTRS mailing list. OTRS has been around much longer than I've been involved in it, and I trust that somebody there will be able to clarify for me. I'll pass along any feedback I receive. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) There's commons:COM:L which says, "The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status." and there's commons:COM:SCOPE#Evidence which states, "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and that any required consent has been obtained." VernoWhitney (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's excellent. I note, too, that Commons:Deletion policy says, "Images missing source or licensing information should be tagged {{subst:nsd}} (no/missing source, tagged by date) or {{subst:nld}} (no/incomplete licensing information, tagged by date) or {{subst:npd}} (no/missing permission, tagged by date). Please notify the uploaders that you have tagged the image as well (see notes on the templates after tagging a file with them). After this they will have 7 days to fix the information. If it is not fixed after a week, the file is then eligible for speedy deletion. If sufficient license and source information is provided, the tag should be removed." (Bolding lazily removed.) There is clear evidence that permission must be verified, per policy, and that images lacking verification of permission may be deleted, although frankly I think that the language of the policy needs clarification. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all (and thanks for thinking of the OTRS list, MRG). I agree that the policy is not really as organized/clear as it could be, but I never thought it would be disputed. Thanks again, /ƒETCHCOMMS/02:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the current mess with the Puerto Rican images, I think we need to clarify this one. Another agent snagged it during the night and approved it, but I am following up with the senator. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, leave it unlocked for one night and someone takes it. I suppose it's better than it sitting around for months, though. BTW, the "related ticket" you linked to in the note is the Skyscraperman mentioned below - maybe that's the wrong one? ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, in case you haven't seen them, I have requested your opinion on some misinformation that Dijcks is placing in the vasectomy and post-vasectomy pain syndrome articles. For one issue in the vasectomy article, he wrote a combative edit summary, and the sources he is providing for his claims on the preferred method of vasectomy do not support his point-of-view claims. Please assist when you have the chance. Best wishes. Giancoli (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly, the uploader did not answer a request for further information from the OTRS agent. I say weirdly, because he obviously got it, or he wouldn't have had the ticket number to release. :/ It's more technically "OTRS pending", but may go through swiftly at this point. I'm not tagging it myself because I'm not entirely sure the extent of the correspondent's rights to the image. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with the correspondent previously, so I went ahead and approved it. Thanks both of you for pointing out that they had actually uploaded it. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had no doubt you would handle it properly. :) And, btw, I e-mailed the OTRS agent with the correction to the above, since he would not receive the internal note, now that I own the ticket. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could tell/e-mail me the OTRS ticket(s) in question? I was involved in some Puerto Rico image releases, so I'm wondering if I'm involved (or if there are other releases I approved which could also be a problem). VernoWhitney (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm flattered that you think I'm omniscient, but sadly I do miss things from time to time. I've weighed in there with some questions/comments. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> I'm going to make a point of ignoring this until later today or tomorrow - I had enough stress yesterday and I wan't today to be a good day. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the administrative action you took in this matter. Thank you very much for all the work you do here. It is appreciated. Cullen328 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thank you. :) Seriously, though, all I did was read a pretty clear consensus. If anybody deserves that barnstar, you do, for taking an article that was blatantly not an A7 candidate and polishing it up so beautifully. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(butting in) I've just ignored it. It appears to be a poorly worded, hosted offsite questionnaire and I've treated it as such. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I want to personally thank you for what will have been several hours of your time regarding the debate over at "vasectomy".
I do, however have some questions, sentiments, and concerns and I am, asking for your help (or insights) here..
As well, I'm not sure now what is next. Do we now wait for 2 weeks?
I'm offering this award with the sincerest of thanks and appreciation because I know how hard it is to come in cold on a subject. I know because I recently offered a WP:3O at "scar" (however not nearly in the same detail). It can take a lot of time to dig in and understand what is going on. These editors however, in the same exact situation of debate on content are being left alone to work it out after WP:3O, meanwhile an admin who did nothing to really look into the case, protected Vasectomy, which I think is so unfair. Even though you were not there in an administrative capacity, you ARE an administrator fully aware of the situation.
The article is in no danger of vandalism, edit-warring or any other danger. Note: there have been very few true reversion edits to this article currently, or over time, that didn't incorporate several inclusions of new or corrected content to support the changes.
In general, I feel very unappreciated for the efforts I've made to the article, but who would pat me on the butt anyways? It is true that when first starting to edit here, I felt a certain "ownership" (or responsibility for) of the article, but I know that it can be worked on by anyone, and I am completely fine with it. What I wish for is a surgeon to come in and help. My personal goal is to bring it to GA. That's all this is for me. I want to be a part of raising the quality there.
I'm not even sure what I am looking for, but I feel that the copious amounts of hours researching and then copious amounts of time writing original content should be given a bit of weight vs lead-footed wikignomism. Especially when it comes as a blunt-force effort on the other side. (I'm somewhat confident that you might not agree with that statement, but I am tired, and not having tools to put it to an end is frustrating)
I feel I am the victim of "squeaky-wheel" syndrome. (Scream louder and someone WILL see your side of it all).. Yet, over time, I've ASKED so many times to move on, and work together. This sentiment has gotten ZERO consideration or exposure by anyone.
You mentioned that I've also crossed the line of civility. I don't want to cross that line with anyone. I'm not even sure where I've crossed that line. Unless administrators really are held to a higher level (as to what they can say or do), my exchanges with the other editor have been civil and to the point.
Vasectomy is in the top 5,000 of most-read articles. It needs to be right. By now, you may have a good understanding of what the procedure is, but I've perused 100's of articles and some of the content is simply, "common knowledge".
What it's all come down to basically is, I should NOT have to work this hard to "qualify the word "sometimes" or use the word "traditionally", which now your are aware of in dispute. Or deal with resistance regarding insertion of what is well-known acceptance of certain methods. Yes, you can always find an article that refutes anything I suppose. There is substantial support for my edits in question, and yet hours, days have now been lost by all.
My Deeper Disappointment:
If I were an administrator, my exchanges with this person would have been acceptable, based on the assumed "authority" that administrators are given. I've aspired to be an administrator ( I know I have the logic and reasoning ability ). But all this will have done is make it impossible for me to achieve it now, and it will have come at the cost of trying to make an article the best it can be. How is that fair to someone who wants to make a difference here?
Analogy: Green light. You drive through an intersection. You get hit by cross traffic. Nobody witnesses it. The person who hit you says YOU ran the red light. What do you do? You Fight To Defend Your Rights, and The Truth. Thats what I've been forced to do because I value my efforts here ~ and I believe in the truth DijcksHotTubPool19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) I hope that we'll be able to reach agreement.
With respect to the protection of the article, I have full confidence in User:Philippe's judgment. If all goes well, I hope that the article will not need to remain protected for two weeks, but removing editing from the equation can help reduce some of the urgency people are experiencing to fix or improve problems in an article, which can fuel disputes. There are two concerns here: (1) that Wikipedia have a neutral and well-sourced article on this subject, and (2) that Wikipedia not lose either one or both of two involved and passionate contributors because of conflicts over achieving (1).
You should not worry that this will prevent your obtaining adminship. Most of us have had interactions with other editors which have tested our patience. One of the questions usually asked at RfA is for candidates to identify the greatest frustration that they've had on Wikipedia; this is an opportunity to show what you've learned. Admins are actually supposed to hold to a higher standard of behavior than other editors; we may be WP:NOTPERFECT, but "Most especially, administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." We're expected to do this even in the face of some pretty egregious abuse. :)
The only civility concerns that I have seen on your end are in edit summaries: the absence of edit summary I noted in one and the imputation of motivation in others. Too, when you tell a contributor at his talk page that "Furthermore, you INSIST on erasing other good information OUT OF SPITE, some of which I didn't author", you are essentially accusing him of vandalizing an article (as Wikipedia defines it), which is quite a serious charge. I understand from your tone that you were feeling very frustrated at that time, but hope you will be able to see in retrospect how provocative a statement such as that might seem to the recipient. The impact of our approach on the editing environemnt really can't be overemphasized, I'm afraid. :/ We have almost as many behavioral policies as we do content: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, to name a few.
What I would recommend that you do here is let go of your prior concerns about this person's behavior; drop all old issues and focus solely on coming to consensus on the content of the article. If you think you are being reasonable, aim to be doubly so. Bend over backwards to communicate cordially. Even if the person you are talking to persists in being rude, you may be able to bring the conversation in line by pointedly ignoring the rudeness and focusing yourself on the issue. If this does not downshift the antagonism from the other side, it may be time to politely and directly ask them to focus on the content and, if they still do not, to involve others. If you are calm and reasonable and somebody else is haranguing you, it'll become clear who has the problem.
I would never, ever take a contributor for behavioral-based community assistance in the heat of the moment. If I were angry, ruffled or hurt, I would first go do something else for as long as necessary to calm down. You need to be able to analyze your evidence rationally and coolly and to compose your note in the same mindset. If you feel like typing an "!", you may still be too involved. Too, if at all possible, I would deal with the content issue first and then address behavioral concerns. All too often, people try to resolve heated disputes over content by claiming the other editor has behavioral issues, and even if that's not what you're doing, people may mistake your motivation.
Honestly, with an approach like this, I do not believe that this incident should derail your hope of achieving adminship. If anything, it proves that you are capable of self-reflection and taking on board recommendations from others. Those are good qualities in an admin. :)
In terms of this article, we need time for the other party to weigh in and to discuss content issues. I imagine it will become apparent to Philippe if the tone changes enough that he feels confident that protection is no longer needed. If not, we can certainly request it of him when we feel it reaches that point. I don't think we're there yet. We need to see what his response is and whether we will be able to push aside older grievances to focus on collaborative content building. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
