Jwhelpton

October 2016

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daddy Issues. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Don't insert your unsigned comment into the AFD nomination since it then appears that you made the nomination. And your claim that the band's name is a trademark violation is not supported by the article and would be irrelevant in any case. Meters (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I undo my edits completely and leave the page as if I had not commented or edited it at all?Jwhelpton (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I deleted anything except my own comment. If I did delete something, it was unintentional. How can I restore the page to the way it was before I did anything? I'd like to simply make my edits/comments go away and leave things the way they were prior to my edits. Is that possible? If so, how? Or can you do that for me?Jwhelpton (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Rather than strike through my edit/comment, I'd prefer that it disappear and not display at all. Is that possible? Can you do that for me? I don't want to mess it up.Jwhelpton (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Why can't my comment, as well as your response, be completely deleted? Neither adds to the discussion and clearly I was in error. It seems punitive to leave it with the strikethrough for all to see. This does not seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia and if it remains as is, I will have no interest in ever participating again, nor will I continue donating funds to support an enterprise with policies in place that punish a simple (and newbie) mistake with public embarrassment.Jwhelpton (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daddy Issues, you may be blocked from editing. Stop doing this. This time you took my comments as well as yours. Meters (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

See my comments to your thread on my talk page. And don't remove your comments from my talk page either. Meters (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daddy Issues. Meters (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, this has got way out of hand. I do not understand how/why you have escalated this so far and apologize profusely as it seems I've broken protocol. Can we please step back for a minute. I promise you, my only intent at this point is to make things right, but it seems every time I do, you ignore me or escalate with punitive actions that further embarrass and hold me up for public ridicule. I am a writer, editor and wiki creator myself, but nowhere near the same league as the editors here -- obviously. I made an innocent mistake and now it seems I'm being made an example of. I definitely no longer wish to participate in anything at WikiPedia ever again and I will no longer donate money/financially support or it any way contribute to it. Jwhelpton (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I direct your attention to the following Wiki page snippet: "Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. "Jwhelpton (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you are ignoring me again. I feel that I have acted civilly and in good faith trying to remedy my mistake, but you have consistently escalated matters and now threaten me. I feel I have no choice at this point but to file a complaint/request editor assistance/proceed with dispute resolution process. I suggest this is counter-productive for both of us and one last time request that you simply delete my original, clumsy, mistaken comment/edit and restore the page to how it was prior to my involvement. If you fail to respond to my request, I will pursue dispute resolution both here using all available and acceptable means. I do not suffer shabby treatment well from anyone. I know you hold all of the power in our dispute, but you might be surprised how effectively I can prosecute my side of this issue. Please, let's stop this non-productive use of both our time now. Jwhelpton (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Do what you think you must. I assumed good faith on your part, I explained why I was doing what I was doing, and I pointed you to the appropriate Wikipedia links. You chose to ignore that and continue with your disruptive edits. By the way, you might want to wait more than 18 minutes next time before accusing someone of ignoring you, though. I'm not on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 21:23, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

I note that you did not sign this last comment above. Is this not against policy? Jwhelpton (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not against policy. It's simply good practice to always sign talk page posts, but people do make mistakes. That's why we have the {{unsigned}}, {{unsignedIP}}, {{unsigned2}}, and {{unsignedIP2}} templates, so simple oversights such as this can be fixed retroactively. I have now remedied my lack of signature, just as several of your unsigned talk page contributions were fixed. The "glass houses" saying comes to mind. Meters (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever... feel free to block me or ban me as I'll no longer participate here or engage with you anymore -- in that respect, you win. However, I will point out one last time that all I am guilty of is trying to delete my own comment an hour or so after I made it precisely because I had independently learned what you then replied to and apparently I was trying to delete my comment at the same time you were replying. My account has been around a long time, but I have not been active much here -- that explains your perception that I have some sort of conflict between being a clumsy newbie or not: yes, I've been here, but haven't done much and was therefore clumsy in my attempt, first, to make a comment I thought was right, and then prevented from deleting it by you for reasons I still do not understand. So be it. Your behavior is consistent with the reputation that some users on Wiki are in fact frustrated bullies -- not saying you are, just saying that is the growing reputation and perception in the general population about Wiki users who like to wield power and your actions have reinforced that perception in my case. I know that I cannot delete my account, so now that I've synthesized and digested that, I am not surprised I couldn't delete my own comment, despite that being counterintuitive and lacks common sense in this particular case. I also see that someone else has already decided to "Keep" the article in question. The fact is that someone else does indeed own the trademark -- I know that does not concern or impact whether Wiki keeps the article or not -- ironic considering Wiki's own crusade on behalf of its trademark status. Please show me where you pointed out where I could go to resolve my request to completely delete my own comment because I don't see anything, zip, nada, no links, nothing that suggests I should go to wherever and do whatever -- please show me where you "I pointed you to the appropriate Wikipedia links" You didn't. But no matter. All seems moot at this point anyway. Now, just because I concede that you hold all of the power in our "dispute" does not mean that I have not pursued recourse in the so-called meatball domain. I have been in contact with certain individuals and they agreed to look into this entirely stupid, trivial pissing contest you seemed intent on starting. My consolation is that what you've prevented me from correcting will have no effect in the meatball world and indeed may make things easier. Have a good life and enjoy it while you can -- at my age (62) -- I've learned what is important and what isn't in my life. I sincerely hope you learn that about yourself some day.Jwhelpton (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:REDACTED and the comments on my talk page. Please stop splitting this between multiple pages. I will not respond to further comment son my page. Meters (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Articles for deletion/Daddy Issues, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Articles for deletion/Daddy Issues". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 October 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)