User talk:JimmyTheSaint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] JimmyTheSaint's farewell

I was critical of an article's content on that article's talk page. In retaliation, a self-appointed policeman of that article, the user ChrisGriswold, began stalking my WP activity. Among other things, ChrisGriswold marked a new page I created for a well-established, ongoing, famous institution and landmark, the St. Mark's Poetry Project, as lacking notability, which would lead to that article's deletion. I'm not going to list the other stalkerish things this person has done, as there are many things you can do to be a nuisance, and bother and harass people without clearly breaking some law or rule. One of the things the user ChrisGriswold did do was to remove additional information I added to the article to speak to its notability (as if it needed it), and the user ChrisGriswold removed that information, then re-marked what he left as not notable and worthy of deletion.

I'm not interested in policing articles or rounding up my online friends to make cases on my behalf on the talk pages of others who have clearly stated that no more discussion is welcome. The record speaks for itself. Leave me alone and stop stalking me.

Here are the facts anyone can verify. The record shows that the user ChrisGriswold's edit of St. Mark's Poetry Project which is tagged "rv - tag for notability must be addrsssed for this one-sentence article to continue to exist" and is the fourth version of that page timestamped "22:00, October 19, 2006" removes information from the third version of that page, which is timestamped "20:43, October 19, 2006." That is vandalism.

As I said, this is not an invitation to respond. Just stop stalking me, stop harassing me, and stop vandalizing pages I contribute to because that hurts mostly others not just myself. ChrisGriswold's stalking is real: his sudden interest in "improving" articles so disparate that their only common thread is my recent contribution to them is evidence that the user ChrisGriswold is more interested in me and his personal issues than in WP. People like that wreak enough havoc and bad feeling without technically breaking any rules, but also run the risk of their obsession taking them over the line into real damage. Mitigate that damage right now by leaving me alone. The WP project is the most important thing, right? Just go back to it and don't bother people who ask you to stay away from them.

I've already created another user id to make contributions with. I don't care about cultivating my online persona, and those who do are bad for WP and a good argument for citizendium.org. But at WP, learn how to police yourselves before policing others. My talk page is worth preserving as a record for the kind of thing that happens at WP.

[edit] regarding disruptive wikipedian ChrisGriswold

Dear JimmyTheSaint,

Please forgive the intrusion on your desire to be left alone, but I too am experiencing difficulty with ChrisGriswold's disruptiveness. I see you have a long history of quality editing and I hope that you will still contribute to Wikipedia under any name you desire. But if you could see your way clear to assist one more time with ChrisGriswold's unruliness, Wikipedia would benefit. At the article Taylor_Allderdice_High_School, ChrisGriswold has been reverting my meticulously documented edits, I would guess because he personally finds the subject I document distasteful. After overlooking the abundant incivility he evinced at the drop of a hat and carefully answering all raised objections, he has taken to simply reverting my edits without substantiating any claimed justifications. Having sen his potentially legitimate criticisms nullified, he merely gestures at Wikipedia style pages or declares available sources invalid or unreadable, when, upon inspection, they are easily seen to be neither. As far as I could glean from your experience with him, and with mine, his agenda differs from Wikipedia's; the evidence points to his aim to generally sanitize articles having to do with Pittsburgh, PA. An encyclopedic collection of information about Pittsburgh should not amount to a tour guide, and the only criteria for articles having to do with Pittsburgh should be the quality of the additions to such articles. Please consider participating in the article but only if you have expertise on the subject. I think that escalating the choler of others would be a mistake, so if his offensive actions have injured you too deeply for objective participation, then I will understand if you choose not to participate.

Sincerely, 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, now that I'm back I can take a look. JimmyTheSaint 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)