User talk:Miss Mondegreen/Archive 1

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Miss_Mondegreen/Archive_1.

Wikimedia Foundation

Archive 1

Archive 2

24.162.50.47 in re RunedChozo on ANI

and the coverup is continuing...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.50.47 (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, but I am perfectly capable of checking pages where I have posted something for updates. I am also perfectly capable of calling people out of certain types of behavoir, if the behavoir is happening and if I think it wise and necessary. Please note, that I asked people in general, everyone from IP editors to Jimbo not to stray off point and continue squabbling and pointing fingers, but to respond to my actual concerns. I will reply about not receiving the kind of replies I was looking for, but I am pleased that for the most part, people have managed to avoid returning to the squabbling and finger pointing. I hope that if you continue to follow this issue you'll avoid this as well, especially since you also appear to want an answer from the administrators and therefore have a vested interest in being taken seriously. Also, I hope you don't mind, but I'm titling this discussion since a table of contents really keeps me organized. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 02:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The same admin who blocked PSPMario indefinitely has now locked and redirected his talk page to the user page, removing the unblock request in the process. How much more out-of-process adminpower abuse will there be in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.50.47 (talk)

Sign your posts. All it takes is four tildes (~~~~). Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And they just keep going and going, abusing their power more and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.50.40 (talk)

Sign your posts. All it takes is four tildes (~~~~). My talk page is not a place for you to rant, or voice your opinions. My talk page is a place to communicate something to me, and for me to communicate back to you. If you do not have anything of value to communicate to me, please do not post here. Informing me that users have been blocked for sockpuppetry without checkuser confirmation is helpful, ranting is not. Thank you. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As a minor note, CheckUser does confirm the sockpuppetry. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Any opinions on the Mondegreen article?

This may sound like an odd question, but do you have any viewpoints on the Mondegreen article? It's kind of a shot in the dark, but I figured I'd ask you (for obvious reasons) to see if you had any views or ideas on what (if anything) needs improvement. Thanks for any feedback! dr.ef.tymac 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong opinions. :)

Actually, it's not that odd of a question, though I'm a bit curious as to how you found me. I've actually done more than a bit of clean-up on Mondegreen and related articles before, under a different name. (You wouldn't happen to know where I could find related userboxes would you?) I haven't edited there since, and was actually wondering how I'd be taken.

What I've found to be most problematic with all of these articles is that these are words that have been created around something that naturally occurs in language. Which not only leads to an unbelievably wordy article, but these definitions get confusing, because since they arise naturally they often don't have specific boundaries. They are being used to refer to language, so these definitions overlap in some areas and not at all in others and you get instances and people wonder what it is, or if there is no word to refer to it. There is lapse of time between the coining of the word and the integration into society and the actual written definition, and how the word may be used currently may not fit any of those--the coining, how it was originally used, or the actual written definition.

So when not enough of the article focuses on being an encyclopedia article, but on a list, it's incredibly frustrating, but words that get to be encyclopedia articles by the virtue of being a word, have a very rich history, so when people focus on "how many cool mondegreens can I find", the article really suffers. This is true for all of these articles.

People come to Wikipedia for trivia information, and we provide it. If their Encylopedia Brittanica was magical and updated itself instantly and could hold an infinite number of entries, they wouldn't look there anyway, and they shouldn't look here.

The article, in my opinion, and following Wikipedia guidelines needs major cleanup. A large portion of the mondegreen list simple shouldn't be there. There should be a small list of a few famous mondegreens. The section "origins and occurances in popular culture" is also mainly a list. This section should talk about singers singing their songs in concert with famous mondegreens, and Mairzy Doats, but the list part of it is simply a list and unnecessary. The sad part is, is that there is exactly one paragraph about what a mondegreen is and its history, and the entire rest of the article is about popular culture. There should be a lot more about the mondegreen and a lot less about popular culture. This is also true for Malapropism, Eggcorn, most of these articles. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Truly excellent feedback. I'd say "thanks for not holding back," but I somehow get the feeling that despite all this, you actually did! :) To answer your questions: 1) I just clicked on your name after seeing it in an edit history or somewhere. I can try and retrace my steps if you'd like. I assumed your user name reflected personal familiarity (and perhaps even expertise) with a topic that I have some interest in, as well as cleverness, so the rest is history; 2) I'm not sure if Wp:userboxes is as helpful as it could be, but generally user boxes seem to require a bit of digging and serendipity. If there is anything specific you are looking for, I would be more than happy to try to help. I am definitely not an expert on this, though, and not an avid user of the userbox feature, so I will concede to the helpdesk or reference desk as probably superior places to ask about that. Nevertheless, the offer to help stands, (grammar? word-play? any specific keywords in the userbox?).

Perhaps my appreciation of your response is partially biased by my thorough agreement with you ... but then again, perhaps not. What do you think about "List" articles? Do you think it would be appropriate to let users add their "coolest favorites" into a subsidiary list article, and let the "main" article consist of the more formal and authoritative entry, pursuant to the requirements you indicated?

Anyway, your insights are *tremendously* appreciated. The remarks about self-referentiality, confusing content and "pop culture" intrusions were right on the mark. These are all issues that merit attention and have profound influence in many areas, as you clearly indicate. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 02:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop getting bent out of shape over talk pages for IP address

ref: Miss Mondegreen's warning (template) on 71.218.50.181'a talk page
... and if you do be sure you know what's going on before you do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to get worked up and get all nit-picky and pedantic about stuff. Take a chill pill, and get out of my grill. -- 71.218.50.181 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You received a template warning on your talk page because of your recent edits. It is unacceptable to call other users "poopie pants", and I don't have to know what's going on on the talk page in order to warn you about personally attacking other users. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it would be great if you'd like to contribute to it, however, and this was your first edit that was not blatant vandalism to another user's talk page, and neither vandalism nor personal attacks are tolerated here. I am pleased that you have moved from vandalism and calling editors poopy pants, but that being said, your comment on my talk page is also considered a personal attack; you've calling me "nit-picky" and "pedantic" and told me to "take a chill pill" and get out of your "grill". In the future, please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note! More information about this is available in an Issue Archive

Sorry

ref: Mondegreen's Comment on NMChico's talk page in ref to IP rollback
ref: Miss Mondegreen's Comment on NMChico's talk page in ref to edit summary "revert rant"
ref: Miss Mondegreen's warning (not template) on NMChico's talk page in ref to edit summary "archiving"
I am sorry for reverting you as an IP. Now please discontinue leaving me messages on my talk page. I have no further interest in discourse with you. Please do not reply to this post on my talk page as any further posts you make to me will be reverted on-sight. I'm not trying to be uncivil, but you are being very persistent in trying to get my attention when it's clear that I'm not interested. That is borderline trolling. Thank you, and have a pleasant day. --NMChico24 08:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I left one comment about reverting me as an IP. I didn't expect a reply. It was not a big deal. I didn't care about that. I cared about your subsequent behavoir toward me. Apologizing for that would be preferable to apologizing for a mistake that most editors would make.

Your subsequent behavoir has been a very big deal. You deleted the comment--I chose not to revert your edit or warn you with Uw-tpv because I wanted to assume good faith, and to prevent escalation, and also because I was confused by your extremely odd edit summary, which I wanted to give you a chance to explain and defend. Your edit summary could have been interpreted as an attack or just assuming bad faith, or there could have really been a major communication failure. I would then have needed an explanation anyway, because in that case there was a major difference between what I thought I was communicating and what you received.

You choose to ignore this comment, and this time, knowing that I was watching your page, you archived the page, and had your edit summary reflect that and not something that you weren't willing to discuss, but you didn't archive my comment, you deleted it. Which is a mistake or lazy summary writing at best, disingenuous at worst.

I left you a warning for that--not the template warning because I thought that would be rude and because I wanted to be both more specific and stress that I was assuming good faith, in case this was just all a major misunderstanding. You choose to delete this warning, and completely ignoring the warning, deleted it without writing a summary.

As you can see, now summarized here, my recent activity on your talk page hasn't been trolling. It has been a desperate attempt to assume good faith when you refused to discuss your actions and when instead of simply leaving a situation, you escalated.

• You could have not responded to my first comment, or simply, if you had to, and I don't know why, because it didn't reflect badly on you, deleted my first comment and I wouldn't have done anything, but you decide to attack me as well, and at the time I wasn't sure it was an attack and was assuming good faith, so left it open for you to explain whether you didn't understand my comment or were attacking me.
• You could have not responded to my second comment, or you could have deleted it with an accurate summary, and that would have been that. I was not looking for an argument--in fact, every time I left you a comment I went out of my way to assume good faith, even when it wasn't likely done "by accident" or a "communication failure" and there was a pattern of behavoir to go on, I assumed good faith.
• You could have cleared this up at any time by actually responding to any of my comments, or by leaving me a note here if you didn't want to respond on your talk page.
• After comments two or three if you really did want to clear things up, all you had to do was leave a comment here explaining that it was a misunderstanding after all and that you were going to delete the comments. As your comment here proves, your more than capable of communicating.

I assume that I won't have a reason to comment on your talk page again. I certainly hope I won't. But if I do, I'd appreciate if you also assumed good faith, and actually communicated this time. It also helps if you assume that people who comment on your talk page are there to communicate with you and work from that standpoint--instead of attacking them and reverting their comments. They may not phrase things nicely, they may reflect badly on you, and they may not do it well, but the majority of people who comment on your talk page--on anyone's talk page are trying to communicate something. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

Next time the two anons bother you or your page with vandalism, report right away to AIV. The incidents you cited were weeks old and another admin removed them from AIV. Rlevse 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The first comment didn't qualify as outright vandalism so I didn't report. The second comment did, and as you can see, I've been away. Also, that final comment was made on the fifth, which is yesterday. The incident started--(comments on another user's talk page) two weeks ago, and since there were no previous warnings, I warned instead of reporting right away. Doing it again, RECENTLY is what I went to AIV for. I'll repost now, explaining that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

reply to your comments

Ref: Miss Mondegreen's warning on Rebroad's page
Hi. Thanks for your feedback at User_talk:Rebroad#Warning_in_re_your_page_moves. I have left my response at my talk page. Would be happy to discuss further. Many thanks, --Rebroad 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, regarding Talk:Person#Do_not_rename_this_page, please be aware of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You seem to be working on the assumpion that I edited the disambiguation page, which is a false assumption. I do not understand why you wanted the page renamed back to the previous messy state. It seems obvious to be that Person needs to be a disambiguation page, directing users to the definition that they may want. To have listed the move as an uncontroversial one seems rather fraudulent IMHO. --Rebroad 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to you at your talk page, and I'll reply to this comment here.

First, assume good faith. Especially considering the nature of your edits, and the fact that they look POV pushing at best and outright vandalism at worst, and that users here, including me, have tried very hard to assume good faith with your numerous bad page moves--you might want to consider trying it in return. We already have a line of discourse open--all you have to do is ask why it was listed as an uncontroversial one, or you could have gone to the WP:RM history and looked yourself.

It's uncontroversial precisely because yours was controversial. If we had a discussion about the move back, it might very well have been no consensus, simply for the very reason that on articles like Person it's very difficult to achieve consensus. Which is why users are not supposed to move a page unilaterally--which every user who has been around for more than four days can, unless the page is protected. I could move the page to Person (hello, hello, hello), and while generally everyone would agree on moving it back--there are lots of places it could be moved to where we might not have gotten the consensus to move the page there, but we might not get the consensus to move it back either. If you move a controversial page, by yourself (which is against Wiki policy), moving it back is uncontroversial because it's restoring the page to the last agreed upon version, to the last time there was consensus, even though it might be impossible to get agreement to move it back. You might not get agreement to keep it there either. Controversial articles often just don't decide (no consensus), because they can't, and you can't force the community to come to agreement, but one user can't force this type of change on the community either. Moving back to the last time there was consensus, keeps some semblance of order and keeps people from going around consensus and discussion to get their way on controversial articles. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GFDL violation on article I am a major contributor of

I am a major contributor to the article University High School (Los Angeles), and when I went to University High's new website, I found that they had added a history page, and that large portions of the text there were identical to the Uni High article on Wikipedia.

Uni High's old website is still up and running. Uni has done this before--create an entirely new website but leave their old one online for forever. The old website stopped being updated in February of this year, and looking at the Uni High article history on Wikipedia, it's easy to see the article develop. Parts of the language that were copied was around in 2005, and I'm the author of parts of the copied text, but before I go ahead and send a GFDL violation letter, I'd like someone else to look at the page and give me advice. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   06:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, since WP:OWN comes to play. However, my suggestion would be to go ahead and send the article. Cheers! Real96 06:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact the your a major contributor isn't an issue. The fact that they are claiming copyright on it is. I'm tempted to send an e-mail to the webstaff, but I don't see a link or any indication of who that is. John Reaves (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would WP:OWN come into play? And the GFDL page says that I have to be a major contributer in terms of copyright or I don't hold certain legal standing--that's why I asked the question. And yes, but wouldn't any website that ignored GFDL be claiming copyright? Or no? Is it not just GFDL violation but a step further in that they are claiming their own copyright? Can I proceed, how would I, should I, is there anything I should be aware of? Would their claiming copyright mean that I'd have to modify one of the letters on the GFDL page?

Also, I'm guessing that the webmaster is one who's contact info is on the old website. Unless they had someone different updating that site through to Febraury from the person doing this site. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   06:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, you're right about the major contributor issue. The bottom of the page indicates that they are claiming copyright, so this needs to be addressed. I found that e-mail at the old site too. Do you know the e-mails of any principal or other staff? I'm looking for contacts at the Los Angeles Unified School District too. I'm going to send a letter too just so they get the point (I'll cc you too if you'd like when we get addresses together). John Reaves (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do, have the e-mails that is, but it might take me a day to find them. One of the things that does concern me is that this is handled properly. This school has a rich history, both good and sometimes controversial, but a lot of the information and media that I'm looking for I can't get online, and that includes my access to Lexus Nexis, JSTOR, etc. I need to be able to go to the school and go the library and take pictures and talk to people, and use not only first hand accounts, but use the first hand accounts to know where to look. If this is handled properly, people might look at the article and think it's good for the school. If it's not, my access, and others' access might be severely limited. Which is why I do think it would be good if the notice did not come from me (a BCC would be nice). The principal is going to be annoyed by this--and if students still design the uni website some student is getting suspended (this takes plagarism to new heights)--and since I know that I'm going to be going up to the school at least for this article, it would be great if it didn't spill onto me. I know that if the principal doesn't deal with this I'm one of a few people who actually can take further action and I'd be fine with that, but I think it would be best initially if I didn't get involved. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and sent the letter to an Asst. Principal, a tech guy, the webmaster, and a view District officials. E-mail me with any other addresses you have. Also, I'll go ahead forward it to you if you'll e-mail me. John Reaves (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some edits that I want to make to the article--some of which are changes to the text that is taken. Should I wait until this is resolved? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note! More information about this is available in an Issue Archive

POV or guideline? Please cite your sources.

Miss Mondegreen, many thanks for your recent comments on your talk page, my talk page, and in recent edits to article talk pages. However, you leave me rather confused as you state of profusion of things which are stated as fact, but it is not clear if these are your opinions or wikipedia guidelines as you have not cited any sources for the majority of them. You also often refer to "we" without making it clear for whom you are representing. It would be much appreciated if you could clarify in these areas. Many thanks, --Rebroad 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

warning regarding impersonating someone of authority

Please consider this a formal warning regarding your recent edits where you imply an air of authority. Such misrepresentation could cause significant disruption to wikipedia!.... Ok, I'll be honest, this warning is also to prove a few points. Firstly your "warning" to me on my talk page from yourself I consider to be of a similar ilk in that you don't cite any wikipedia policy to which the warning is part of a procedure. You also repeatedly state "you don't do this", "you do this". These phrases are vague for a number of reasons - are you 1) stating actions that you have seen me do? 2) stating actions that I must or must not do in future? 3) stating wikipedia policy? (if so, why don't you reference said policies?) 4) stating your opinion (in which case, a quick "IMHO" would help clarify this). Possibly theories for your manner of communication may be that you 1) are in fact a Jimbo Wales sockpuppet, 2) have a superiority complex 3) just new to wikipedia and not yet got the hang of citing sources and separating stating fact from stating opinion 4) something else that's so obvious I should be embarassed to have not have thought of it so far (in which case I apologise also). Best regards, --Rebroad 00:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to both of your recent comments here. I have also replied to the replies you left me on your talk page, so please note that I've covered some things twice and some things in only one place. You may want to read the comments there and then the comments here and then reply to wherever you may wish to reply.

I left you two comments recently:

ref: Miss Mondegreen's Comment on Rebroad's talk page: Stop removing content and pushing against expansion

ref: Miss Mondegreen's Comment on Rebroad's talk page: Your explanation

and I also left a series of replies to replies that you made to comments of mine, so I'm not sure entirely what you're referring to, but I'm going to try and respond to everything anyway.

First, I think that I make my opinions clear. I say things like "it's often a good idea", or "I think" should make it clear where something is my opinion.

In re: "warning regarding impersonating someone of authority"--I didn't "impersonate" someone of authority, I never have claimed to be someone "powerful" or to have access to things or anything.

All users can and should warn other users when there is a problem. Administrators block users after they receive multiple warnings and don't change their behavoir, but you don't need any special power or privalege or to have attained a certain level in order to warn someone. That's one of the reasons we have templates.

In fact, you've taken advantage of your ability to warn me--your comment said, "please consider this a formal warning". Unfortunately, I have no idea how I implied "an air of authority" or what you mean by that, especially as the rest of your comment focussed on something completely different and implied that I don't have an air of authority or competence at all as you clearly didn't undersand what I was trying to communicate.

I've been writing extensive comments for you because I do believe that your edits have been in good faith, and you clearly want to contribute to Wikipedia. I could have left template warnings for you, bumping them up to the next level practically every time you edited, but I didn't think it would help you as an editor. All if would have likely accomplished would be to get you blocked quickly.

Now, my recent comment I didn't wiki link. Here is the Assessment scale, and here is the Importance scale for WikiProject Meteorology. You can also just go the the talk page for Nephology and see it's ratings and the scale pages are linked from there. Also for that comment, here is WP:Notability, which explains what articles are and are not notable. You'll notice that size of the article is never mentioned as a criteria for non-notable. I'd also read Stub and Substub--Stub is a guideline and substubs don't exist anymore, but it's good reading, since Nephology is a very short stub and would have been considered a substub. Now you'll notice that Substub says that one of the things that it is possible to do is merge the article and redirect (as you did at one point), but you didn't incorporate all of the information in the Nephology article--you never merged the articles, you just added a redirect and you never bothered to look at all of the pages which link to Nephology.

Also--IMHO, I don't think that you know enough about the topic to make this decision, and I think that you'd be the wrong person to do this since you have been motivated by the length of the article not the non-notability. If you truely believe the article to be non-notable, then go to Wiki Meteorology and propose a merge, or put the article up for deletion, based on your belief that it's not notable. But if you just think it's too short, then work on it, or at the very least don't keep others from working on it.

"you don't do this", "you do this"

Yes, I am stating things you have done that shouldn't be done. I cite Wiki policy and guidelines and other things up the wazoo in my comments. And when you've asked for a citation in reply, I've provided it. Yes, they are my opinions to the extent that I believe in most of them, but they are also guidelines etc. As I said earlier, the difference between my opinion and Wikipinion should be clear. If it's not ask (as you've done so on your talk page.)

No, I'm not a Jimbo Wales sockpuppet

I hope I don't have a superiority complex

No, I'm not new to wikipedia--I have the hang of citing sources and separating stating fact from stating opinion.

"something else that's so obvious I should be embarassed to have not have thought of it so far (in which case I apologise also)."

IMO, this would be the one. Most of the things we're talking about are BLATANTLY obvious. You don't need a WP guideline or policy for them and I should be able to make a blanket statement without saying what it is.

You renamed Person based on an inaccurate disambiguation page description, and when I explained that disambiguation pages are based on articles (it's a list of the articles and descriptions of them) and that articles are not based on disambiguation pages, you thought that that was "blinkered" and wanted proof. It hadn't occured to me to link you to Wikipedia:Disambiguation because I thought it was self-evident that you don't base the article or the article name on a one-line description of it, you base the description on the article.

You moved Nephology to Nephology (to be deleted) with the edit summary "(precursor to renaming "Cloud" article to "Nephology" (the correct scientific term)" and then left a comment at Cloud trying to get them to move the article to Nephology. You've since denied ever trying to move Cloud to Nephology, and tried to keep Nephology as a redirect to Cloud. Your argument was that due to it's stub status it, "does not yet warrant it's own article. Please leave redirect or expand article, but argued against users expanding it at articles for expansion.

You moved Telphone jack to Telephone socket saying it was slang. I asked why you didn't provide a source, or at least edit the rest of the article to fix the "slang". Socket/jack turns out to be a British/American difference and you argued that you didn't edit the article because it's against wiki-policy to edit for British/American diffs, and that the article only needed merging (the article was subsequently merged to Telephone plug. I replied to that and you changed the story again. Your inability to remember recent major moves (moving nephology, moving telephone jack) when put on the spot is troubling. If you are lying--that's stupid I can read your comments and edit summaries. If you honestly can't remember, then IMO you are moving pages with too little thought. If you had been correct--if telephone jack was slang, and you had done the research and cited sources and brought up the move for discussion properly--you might remember why you moved the page a month later.

You've been told not to move pages without discussion, and have never moved a page (as far as I know) with discussion first. You didn't get the hint when your page moves were undone and undone and undone, and it never occured to you that you were coming to articles you had no experience with and you moved articles with ongoing move discussions, against consensus, where there were templates saying "this is a controversial article" etc. One of the things that makes Wikipedia work is communication and you don't seem interested in communicating--you get an idea and decide to do it, without looking to see if there is communication for others and without reaching out and communicating. It's not hard to figure out when something might be a bad idea, or when it might be a good idea to talk first, and you either ignore these queues or don't see them, and either is worrisome.

I've tried talking to you about these things, and you don't seem to realize the enormous gulf between what you percieve as obvious and what other users do--which makes communication even more important, and your lack of communication even more problematic.

You seem to want other users to AGF and other users to follow guidelines and policies that you link to, but seem to ignore or be unaware of how they affect you and your behavoir when editing. And when informed of how they do, you still don't seem to see it. Whether you wish to read my comments and do anything in regard to your own behavoir or not, I would appreciate not being lied to or called a Jimbo sockpuppet or anything demeaning. I have a mind of my own and whether you want to believe it or not, I have been genuinely trying to help you. It is up to you--if you have issues with my comments then I won't leave any, except to respond to any comments you leave me. If I have issue with an edit of yours in the future, I'll leave you the appropriate template warning, the way I do everyone else. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

no further comment

Hi. I doubt I will have time to read your response as it seems to be largely a reiteration of what you have already said. Might I suggest if you have anything new to say you stick to just saying that. Please also consider this your second warning for stating your opinions as fact. Further continuation of this may result in you getting blocked from editing wikipedia (according to your understanding of user-issued warnings!). --Rebroad 13:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read what I said, but are warning me based on what you assumed or guessed that I said? Also, in order for your warning to have any substance when you decide to go to WP:AIV, I would have needed to stated my opinions as fact, and that would have to be a blockable offense, and AFAIK, it isn't. Also, if you do intend to warn users, you might want to check out the templates, because generally users get two warnings before blocking--though the warnings are based on their edits. So a user might get a good faith warning, then a no faith warning, then a bad faith warning, then a next time your blocked warning. You apparantly started our with a bad faith warning.

Also, when leaving a user a comment, it's a little ironic to title it "no further comment". Miss Mondegreen | Talk   15:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

nephology

I have reverted your revert to nephology. It is too short to constitute as a stub article - did you actually read the stub guideline?! You seem to consistently quote wikipedia policy and guidelines without having digested them sufficiently beforehand. If you like, I can quote you other wikipedia policy regarding article size, notability, etc which will also confirm that it does not yet warrant it's own article. It has also not gone unnoticed that you appear to be stalking me, i.e. specifically targetting articles with which I have been involved to try to find issue with. This is also not tolerated behaviour on wikipedia and could result in you being blocked from editing if it continues. --Rebroad 14:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you??

A stub is an article that is too short to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. To qualify as a stub it must at least define the meaning of the article's title. Often that means three to ten short sentences...

There is no three sentence minimum. It provides useful enformation, though certainly not encyclopedic information, and it define's the meaning of the article's title.

I haven't been stalking you--I looked at your recent edits when first dealing with the bizarre renaming of Person to try and figure out if you were vandalising articles or if your edits were in good faith. I've since commented on the talk page of one, and worked with User:Arthur Rubin to clean up the disasterous moving mess of Nephology, and worked to get it expanded, something your ironically against. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   15:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on nephology. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebroad (talk • contribs)

accusation of removing content

You continue to accuse me of removing content regarding the nephology article, claiming that I did not merge the content into the cloud article. What do you call this then?! Please cease your irrelevant warnings on my talk page. This is your last warning. --Rebroad 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this, is your removing that language, because some of the information in the article was mentioned in the first line. Merging the article and then undoing it is not merging the article.

The page is currently listed at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, which you know as you've commented there trying to convince people not to expand the article.

Let me make a few things clear:

Nephology is not any sort of subset of Cloud, and the topic will not be discussed more in the Cloud article than it already is. Nephology has already been determined a notable topic and been assessed by WikiProject Meteorology.

Since you seem determined to through Wiki policies and guidelines at me and move on to something else when they don't support your actions, let's go with logic. Logic prescribes that you cannot dictate that an article cannot exist because it is too short but not let users expand it.

Feel free to persue whatever course of action you would like against me. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with removing duplicate content from articles, so I don't understand your issue with me removing a duplicated sentence.

I am all for expansaion of articles, but given no expansaion has occured since 2004, I am doubtful whether it can be expanded further. However, should it be possible this should happen within the Cloud article. How can you argue that the study of something is not a subset of that same something?! To me, your arguments defy logic.

Are you claiming to be able to see into the future? How can you say "the topic will not be discussed more in the Cloud article than it already is"? As usual, you are trying to dictate policy based on your own opinion. This is now your 3rd (at least) warning regarding your repeated practice of doing this.

I am not dictating anything, merely repeating what is already mentioned in the stub guideline which it seems we both interpret differently.

I have raised the issue of the edit war so that other editors may comment on it. So far, we appear to be the only two people involved.

--Rebroad 16:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't duplicate content.

The article can be expanded further--it hasn't been. There's a difference. Lots of stubs are created and abandoned and need work on them. Why don't you work on it?

Yes, I'm claiming to be able to see into the future. Take a look at the article and the talk page. This topic doesn't really fit in in the article, and I don't think it will ever be mentioned more than it is.

I can say that the topic won't be discussed there more because it won't--I don'e think it makes sense for the article. And that's an opinion--I have no idea how you could have possibly thought that I was stating policy. There is no policy for nephology not being discussed in cloud--I should be able to state facts, opinions and beliefs without having to point out to you that they are in fact, facts opinions and beliefs. If that's what you've been warning me about no wonder you thought I was stating my personal opinions as policy. In order to communicate with people you need to understand what they are saying--people can't be expected to preface every statment with an explanation or a disclaimer.

Please, quote me the section of the stub guideline that you're referring to, I have no idea what you're talking about. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an end in sight?

See here. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Or not. See Rebroad's return at ANI. Also this talk page diff for his complete inability to listen to others. He comes back from his break, and ignores Thuranx message completely. Btw, did you see my proposal in re attaching a link to the archived ANI discussion to his talk page? Any thoughts? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your barnstar

Miss Mondegreen, you have exercised extraordinary restraint and have stretched the limits of AGF beyond all reason. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Your patience is remarkable. I think you deserve a Purple Star Award [1] for enduring this abuse, and I'm going to give you one now! [2] -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Purple Star
		I, Fyslee, award you this purple barnstar for enduring unnecessary abuse and exercising extraordinary patience. Good job for keeping cool! [3] -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! My first barnstar! And, it's very pretty and did not crash my computer. All very good things to look for in a barnstar. :) Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. You can copy it to your user page if you wish. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be working on my userpage at this very moment :) Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mondegreen, no

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_High_School_%28Los_Angeles%29&curid=1986599&diff=117716530&oldid=117544858

No, Mondegreen. you said: If you want to put the statement back in unspecific to freemont and sourceless, that's fine with me, but I'm not ok with using the site for a source.

I will disregard the "unspecific for fremont" - But that should be okay anyway because I am not "using the site for a source" - as I did not cite it. Therefore, I am not using it :)

The whole "boycott the source" is okay so long as you do not interfere with other editors. WhisperToMe 22:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But by putting back in the statement with the specificity of Freemont you were using that website as a source, whether you cited them or not. My issue was with using this website as a source, when we know that whomever constructed the website violated serious copyright laws. We don't know therefore if some of that material is copyrighted elsewhere, as I suspect it may be. I've done websearches for suspect names, but we don't have access to the hundreds of fliers etc. that the school and district products, and have no way of checking against those. We have no way of knowing if the material elsewhere is incorrect--what we do know is that there is a problem with the way that website has been constructed, so much so that whoever was creating the website had to copy from us, when they should have had access to more than we did.

I have spent several hours seraching for a source (online) about Uni High and CAP students. And while I was able to find dozens of LAUSD documents that made specific mentions of other schools--I didn't find one that made a specific mention of Uni. We need a source for that statment. I'm more comfortable with make a generic mention of Uni accepting CAP students because I know for a fact that it's true, and because anyone who drives by the school and sees the buses lined up to take them knows it's true. But the statement would still need a source, something we don't have. We have no way of knowing (other than the website) that these students come from Freemont.

The fact that you found a website that you think could be true gives you this information doesn't mean it can go in the article, and if an editor says that they have issue with something and you ignore them and simply decide to not cite your source, that's not ok either. Uni High's website is still your source here, you just didn't cite it. I want this to be a great article, and there are two many unsourced statments, and I'm very tired of running around spending hours doing other people's research for them. I've done a partial revert as well as made the setence fit better, and I'm leaving it without a fact tag for now. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Transactional analysis

Hi Miss Mondegreen. Thank you for your comments on my talk page. Funny things us humans and the way we react to things. You're a good person, I can see that. Cheers, --Rebroad 10:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm replying to your last comment and then going to bed. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith regarding sockpuppetry assumption

Thanks for your recent comments on my talk page. In response to your reply here:-

• "Proposing a reduced block isn't proposing blocking a user, or even keeping a user blocked". Of course it is, the only proposal that equates to not keeping a user blocked is the proposal of an unblock. Proposing any sort of block, even a "reduced block", however long, is to propose that the user remain blocked for a period of time.
• Please could you refrain from repeating yourself and waffling so much. Many of your responses could be far more succinct. All of the text following your "I'll explain" seems to make no effort to explain your first sentence, but rather repeats what you have already said in previous recent edits.
• I look forward to any procedural proposals you may have that will help to improve the protection of newbies from bad faith assumptions, but I am hesitant as to your chances of success given that I see you have problems in assuming good faith, as your edits still continue to indicate, and your current apparent inability to see this.

--Rebroad 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

who's on first?

Regarding your reply here, feel free to let me know how you would have worded it! (Would also help to confirm you understood what I meant!). Cheers, --Rebroad 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. I did, eventually understand what you meant. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

re: another "very, very, very, very, very loooong response."

Regarding your reply here:-

• I do appreciate your effort to give a full response, but I have to admit that a more concise response (as per wikipedia guidelines) would be my preference. I think it's achieveable without being curt.
• I'm not sure if you misread me. I didn't say you were uncivil, I said that your communications seemed to incite others to becoming uncivil.
• Re: "I warned you once, a good faith warning" - Incorrect, your very first warning to me was this on 19th March 09:58. It was a uw-move3 warning with no prior uw-move1 or uw-move2 having been given. This is extremely bad practice, misuse of process (which as you know, has had at least one person consider your actions as trolling previously), and an abuse of the warning templates. It also assumes bad faith, which by doing so is uncivil. You need to ensure that uw-move1 and uw-move2 have been sent to the user previously before issueing a uw-move3.
  • Also, this warning included phrases such as "incredibly underhanded" and "your avoidance of the system", yet more evidence that this was in no way a good faith warning.
  • Also, you will notice that you warning failed to mention to which edits it was referring. This is also necessary in order to establish that the user had been warned correctly. To date, you have still not confirmed to which edits that warning was applicable. To date, I have yet to receive a correctly issued uw-move warning.
  • Your warning also was badly worded in that you deviated from the recommended wording, and added emotive phrases such as "you continually go off alone, half-cocked without a full understanding of the topic". The uw-move templates have gone through an approval process to ensure that they to not aggravate the situation, yet your choice of additional wording is quite condescending. As per the Transactional analysis article, it is not Adult to Adult communication, but parent to child.
  • You also assert that I had been warned previously, but if you check you will see that this is not the case. Prior to your uw-move3 template, I had never received any other warning templates to my talk page. (A previous informal comment from a user about page moves does not constitute a warning).
• Regarding the policy you wanted to see, I've not been able to locate it yet, will let you know when I find it again!
• Regarding "deleting warnings is sometimes considered vandalism" - please could you refer me to the policy or guideline that states this? Thanks.
• Regarding your justification of uw-delete. Firstly, the content was merged into cloud, not deleted. The only part not merged was the uncited etymology of the word, which was an accidental oversight and certainly not bad faith as you asserted. Given that it was a total of seven words, I doubt you will find anyone in agreement that it even warranted a uw-delete1.
• Placing mergefrom tags is not mandatory, especially when it's obvious a merge is needed, as I still maintain it was, as do other users (namely User:Mel Etitis and User:Flunkybiscuits). Or rather, content needs to be moved between articles, rather than duplicated.
• Regarding "you were going against consensus" - are we still talking about the nephology article? It hadn't been touched since 2004 and was a 2 sentence stub. It was an uncontroversial move. No concensus was required, and certainly no discussion had taken place to suggest any prior consensus.
• Regarding "I never left you a uw-move anything". Incorrect as already stated above in response to your "I warned you once, a good faith warning". Please don't repeat yourself, especially when it is untrue!
• Regarding "ignoring warnings is considered bad faith ... the bad faith warning was because you ignored those warnings." - Firstly I did not ignore them, I responded. Secondly as I said above (apologies for the repetition), I will ignore warnings that assume bad faith when no prior warnings have been given that assume good faith

Some recommendations I think would certainly benefit your contributions to wikipedia:-

1. please double-check your edits before relying on your memory of them so heavily. The majority of your reply is very repetitious and all seemingly based on your false recollection of events.
2. please don't be hypocritical, such as having an issue with me posting an entry at Administrator's noticeboard without speaking to you first, when my very first experience of the Administrator's noticeboard was due to your March 17th posting about me without discussing with me first.
3. please do not issue warnings to users when you are yourself in the process of edit warring with them. ([4], [5], [6], [7]).
4. please be civil, as you did not do here and here by referring to my edits as "insane"/"bizarre"/"odd", and here - implying I am lazy, dictating the future of articles, accusing me of lying to you, saying my article titles are misleading, syggesting I am thick by saying I shouldn't need things which are "self evident and obvious", presenting ridiculous analogies (regarding being described as 6'8" tall).
5. please assume good faith, as you did not do here, here, here, here, here and here
6. please take care not to revert other user's good faith edits: [8] - you even admit to knowing you undid the other edits but still didn't restore them. This is particularly bad considering the other user was a newbie.
7. please make it clear when you are stating policy (by providing a link) or an opinion. In the absense of a link, I will assume you are giving your opinion in future.
8. please could you be careful in your use of quotation marks as this should be used to quote what someone has said, and not to highlight words. Please use bold or italics instead otherwise it can get very confusing.
9. Finally, don't take wikipedia too seriously. Take some time in your day to do other things, get some fresh air, etc. I think both of us may be becomming a little obsessed given the amount of time we've spent just talking to each other alone. Check out Wikipedia:Don't_be_a_fanatic in case it applies to you!

Cheers, --Rebroad 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the {{uw-move3}} warning seems appropriate as you've had other moves reverted by concensus. More, when I'm on a faster machine. Network problems here at home. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)