User talk:SageMab
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] John Michell (writer)
Please stop your revert-warring. I have tried to reason with you civilly, respecting WP:BITE. Now you even add bogus protection tempates to the page. What gives? Have you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? If you don't want to consider my points, you should ask for wider input via WP:RfC or WP:3O. Edit-warring will not yield your desired revision. Your account has less than 40 edits. How about you take some time finding out how Wikipedia works instead of jumping into edit-wars immediately? dab (𒁳) 21:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- also see WP:SOCK. If you continue like this, you may be blocked from editing. dab (𒁳) 22:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You were the one who blanked out whole pages, paragraphs and salient information, plus a potentially libelous review, of a living author. I wrote the lions share of this article on John Michell and you attempted to pseudoscience POV the entire piece. Request a review of the article if you like. To slap a bogus sock puppet charge in order to block my editing is not worthy of a Wiki editor. Shame on you, I will not be bullied. Others on your Talk Page have reported on your persistant starting of edit wars, uncivil behavior and POV problems. By the way, I have over 80 plus edits so I see from your 40 comment above that your reporting of facts is as poor as your edits.
[edit] Vandalism May Be Resolved Edit War Instead
Please see Wikipedia's definition of vandalism and devote special attention to section on What vandalism is not. Do not accuse others of vandalism simply because you disagree with them, as you have done | here. Persistence in such behavior is inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards on civility and the assumption of good faith on the part of your colleagues. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, your point is well taken. Thanks for your interest. I kept adding salient facts about an author's life and Dab kept reverting them and was not clear why. I certainly did not mean to be uncivil but his use of loaded words like "pseudoscience", "opus" "lavish praise" and "hilarious" seemed to suggest a strong POV. How could it of been handled more gracefully? No offense was meant but I do have the right to an opinion especially since I wrote most of the article. I did feel it was important to add reviews of "Who Wrote Shakespeare" from well-regarded sources such as the Folger Library., "Richmond Review" and the "Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter".SageMab (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab
I have read it and if you read Dbachmann's edit of the article on John Michell (Writer) you would agree also. Dbachmann repeatedly blanks pages, he deletes facts about the author John Michell such as his servce in the Royal Navy and his work as a Russian translator and surveyor, he adds tainted words such as "fawning", he deletes whole paragraphs, etc. He slants the entire article because of his POV problem and then tries to engange in edit warring. It is also vandalism to add, and then delete reverts. I point you to his addition of a potentially libelous review (see crank') of a living author which is contrary to Wiki policy and is repeated on the author's article Talk page. If you go to Dbachmann's user talk page you will see repeated allegations of his POV and vandalism. I have followed a link from that page on administrative RtC action taken on Dbachmann and I suggest you read the comment from a fellow editor -SageMab
[(User:Pigman) at the current RfC on Dbachmann]
I agree with Pigman.SageMab (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab
Just a few more thoughts, folks. When I logged out on this computer I did not clear my cache nor shut down. It is very likely that the next user of this computer looked under GO, saw what I was up to and put in their own two cents. Someone did access the computer right after I left. David, congrats on the new admin position, and Jeffrey, don't be so quick to brand someone. I have been on Wiki for a while and I have never had this come up. Dbachmann, on the other hand, gets POV mix-it-ups with other editors all the time so I am not surprised at his recent edits of the article in question.SageMab (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)SageMab
- yes. I suggest you answer for your sins and I'll answer for mine. Pointing to alleged misbehaviour on my part in unrelated disputes hardly goes to excuse your sockpuppetry. I suggest you just resolve to stick to a single account and we won't mention it again. dab (𒁳) 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought the comments on your Talk page and on your RfC problem seemed to suggest that you had a [[POV] problem with other articles which also showed up with John Michell (Writer). You blanked out a large section about you by Pigman (on your User Talk page) on this page which is your right. You perhaps overlooked the fact that I semi-protected the article on John Michell (Writer) from new or unregisterd editors well before newbie ArchangelMichael signed on so there was no sock puppet, just perhaps someone who went to History on a common computer with an uncleared cache. Assume good faith is wise advice from Wiki and I, for one, will heed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SageMab (talk • contribs)
- I don't have a "POV problem", I get into bona fide disputes with other editors. There is nothing wrong with that. It's how Wikipedia operates. I took pains to show you how you are supposed to proceed when you find yourself in a content dispute. You chose to ignore my advice and indulge in sock-warring instead. I am most willing to engage in civil and reasonable debate. I have no patience with people trying to game the system or dodge the rules. Unsurprisingly, there are many such people at large on the internet, and they often end up venting spleen on my talkpage. Just from the fact that people rant at me, you cannot conclude that I have a "problem": you might also conclude that I am doing a good job protecting Wikipedia against nutcases and malicious editing. You didn't semi-protect anything: only admins can do that. I'll ask again for the minimal courtesy that you actually review the policy and guidelines you are pointed to before you try arguing Wikipedia fundamentals with me. dab (𒁳) 10:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I did put a semi-protected template on the John Michell (Writer) article to protect it from new and unregistered users right before the so-called sock puppet incident and you reverted the edit and said in your coment "what's going on with this". I had no idea that only an administrator could do this, and I am sorry, but this also clearly points to the fact that the newbie ArchangelMichael who reverted your edit was not a sock. You also blanked out a whole portion of my UserTalk page in which another editor, Pigman, made a convincing case for your POV problem and cited examples. Frankly, I was not interested in the rants of other editors against you, nor of disiplinary actions against you, on your User Talk page. I felt you had a POV, point of view, problem from reading the discussion page on John Michell (Writer) where you bandied about the word hilarious to refer to a living author's work and I noted your edit calling the Joscelyn Godwin commentary "fawning". I have also read your edits on other articles and your insertion of pseudoscience to the anomalous phenomena article was telling. You also tried to get me to admit, in your words, that JM's work was pseudoscience on his article discussion page, which was not germane to the subject at hand.SageMab 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
