User:FloNight/Sandbox
I. Sally Ann's Experience
[edit]II. The New Organ
[edit]III. Aunt Jane's Album
[edit]Aunt Jane's Album, ...
IV. "Sweet Day of Rest"
[edit]"Sweet Day of Rest" ...
V. Milly Baker's Boy
[edit]Milly Baker's Boy ...
VI. The Baptizing at Kittle Creek
[edit]The Baptizing at Kittle Creek ...
VII. How Sam Amos Rode in the Tournament
[edit]How Sam Amos Rode in the Tournament
VIII. Mary Andrews' Dinner Party
[edit]Mary Andrews' Dinner Party
WMC
[edit]Uncollabartive editing and ownership problems including harsh and aggressive comments about other editors good faith contributions.
- Trying to derail independent and uninvolved editors from comments on the article by calling an editor attempt to gather more opinions about an issue at BLPN "forums shopping" [1];
- snide remarks and commentary about other editors contributions [2] "As G says, this is deeply ironic coming from you.", "Forum-shopping to BLPN is unacceptable", labeling other editors edits as "whitewashing"- [3], [4], labeling other editors edits as "dishonest spin", [5] derogatory edit summary and comment to sanctioning admin "waste of time"; [6] add comments to the wrong section of a page and when remove he reverted with a uncivil edit summary "don't be lazy"; "malice" and "trolling" [7] removed Further Reading section of article and called it "spam", [8] edit summary that reverted content during a group collaborative rewrite of an article "this is rubbish.",
- A constant flow of criticism injected into discussions that escalates the tension between contributors. Taken in isolation any one comment would not necessarily be problematic but high volume of WMC's contributions to these discussions sets up a negative tone that makes collaborative editing impossible. - [9] with edit summary "don't derail the discussion please",
- Selective removal of good faith comments from long established user who are attempting to have dialog with him or notify him per usual protocol. [10] with edit summary "its OK, someone else attacking me just isn't news", [11] (no edit summary),
Recommendation:
- Because of the long standing nature of the problem, I recommend a lengthy full topic ban from all CC articles. Until consensus for this restriction can be formed, an immediate full topic ban of the Fred Singer article and talk page discussions needs to be in place.
- I notice you've removed any ref to Singer as a GWS from the first sentence. That seems very odd to me. Do you really believe that aspect of his career is so non-notable? Personally, I think he is far more notable for GWS - all the argument here bears that out, no-one bothers argue over atmospheric phyicists - and that should come first. But even if you disagree about the order, it seems very odd to whitewash GWS entirely from the first sentence. Try googling Singer. Note the tagline of SEPP William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Forum-shopping to BLPN is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- It would be appreciated if points could be raised on talk instead of... As G says, this is deeply ironic coming from you. But anyway: Singer is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology <full stop> is wrong. Singer is (currently) know for his GW denialism; you can argue perhaps that he is, or was, also known for other things; but not even to *mention* it in the known-for sentence is unacceptable. And: who says he is currently an atmospheric physicist? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd like an interesting example of dishonest spin from Cla, then [44] is a nice diff William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a load of junk, to be frank. You seem to think that supporting a brazenly unjust enforcement request is OK, as long as it fits your idea of what's best for me. *If* you actually believe that the first sentence is no big deal, then you are logically obliged to also believe that my edit to it was no big problem. You're weaselling out of answering questions, (you still haven't answered whether you think FS being a skeptic can be netioned in the first sentence, which is cowardly). So perhaps we can try something easier: which (if any) of my recent edits there do you find problematic? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be suffering a severe case of logic failure. Let me try to piece this together: you want me banned. You think none of my edits are problematic. You think my edits are no worse than aggressively wrong. You are incoherent. Please form a rational and conssitent position William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla, your malice is showing Bozmo: do let me know if you find anything of relevance in Cla's diffs, in which case I'll answer. But to me it looks like he is just trolling. Do let me know if you disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)