| Revision as of 14:11, 9 May 2008 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,240 edits →Dorje Shugden: new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:09, 9 May 2008 edit undoB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,960 editsm archiveNext edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Virginia Tech ribbon}} |
|
{{Virginia Tech ribbon}} |
|
<div style="border:solid 1px black;background:#f0fff0">Because of privacy concerns, I no longer maintain separate archive pages. One of the worst policy decisions Misplaced Pages has made is to allow user and user talk edits to be indexed by search engines. This creates a space that is largely unmonitored for libel and nonsense, but is nonetheless the top g-hit for any relevant search term. For previous comments on my talk page, see , , , , or ]. |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Michellecrisp == |
|
|
|
|
|
Can you take another look at your 3RR block of {{user|Michellecrisp}}? She has requested an unblock on the basis that she was removing simple spam from the article and looking at the content + website that she removed, I'm inclined to agree - it's pretty much just spam. --] (]) 12:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Done. I missed the bit where reverting spam was made 3RR-exempt, but I'll have to give myself a "nobody's perfect" exemption. ] (]) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks! ] (]) 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rollback request == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hiya; about a month ago you said that you'd restore my rollback after my going a few weeks without revert-abuse... The said request is now being made! Cheers, <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:From looking at your contributions, I'm still a little concerned about reverting without appropriate edit summaries. , for instance, doesn't seem to be obvious vandalism, nor does . For something like , there may be a reason to blank that caption other than vandalism - it's better to ] that the user might have been trying to do something useful and use an edit summary like "rv unexplained blanking, please use an edit summary if there is a reason for it". I know that the twinkle "rollback vandal" button is right next to undo when looking at a diff and it's possible to accidentally hit it (I've done that a few times) so I recognize that the last one may have been a mouse slip. I'm going to go ahead and restore it, but please remember to err on the side of leaving an edit summary if there is any question. --] (]) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Thanks for that - in reference to the edits you cited, the first link was vandalism as it simply messed up the grammar... The second and third were vandalism as it deleted valid material; but in future I'll try to be more descriptive even so. Cheers! <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you are not familiar with the series, the first edit is not obvious vandalism. A good faith user could mistakenly believe that "Pyrovile" is the correct way to refer to a group of Pyroviles, much like we might say "the witch turned the ducks into cattle" (rather than "cattles"). --] (]) 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hmm - actually the only episode featuring the Pyroviles was the episode in question, in which the word was pluralised numerous times. Presumably the editor ''had'' watched the episode and thus knew better... but I do take your point. <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">''']'''</small></small> 16:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Giovanni33 == |
|
|
Regarding my prior arbcom case, see . Only applied to ]. Those involved also thereafter solved this and produced a version all agreed on. On the other hand, please note that Giovanni33 is on a 1R per week. Check out his block log.] (]) 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Here is the actual ruling link: It clearly says, not mentioning it being limited to any one article:''"If any of them persist in sterile revert warring, admins may block them for a short period (up to a week) for each revert. Passed 7-0"''My block log is not relevant.] (]) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Giovanni, I've pointed out to you on your talk page that the focus of the arb-comm ruling was clearly on one article. The full remedy reads as follows: |
|
|
:::''Ultramarine, Pmanderson, and Robert A. are directed to work together to produce a consensus version. If any of them persist in sterile revert warring, admins may block them for a short period (up to a week) for each revert.'' |
|
|
::Note working together "to produce a consensus version". Note "'''a''' consensus version", not consensus versions on articles they edit. Given the "findings of fact" only mentions one article I don't think you can honestly interpret the arb-comm ruling as being extended to any page. ] (]) 19:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Btw, despite this notice he has continued the sterile edit war: Perhaps his response will be to list the block logs of all the other editors with whom you keep reverting? I note its several editors now and he has not been able to convince a single other editor (over 5). Doing 3 reverts, waiting a week, followed by another three reverts, and so on...is sterile edit warring and tendentious editing. Perhaps arbcom enforcement needs to weigh in on this question although I think given the violation of the spirit of 3RR, its actionable on that basis too.] (]) 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::The proposed findings of fact only talks about the democratic peace article: Nothing else. It is you have been repeatedly edit warring and violating your arbcom ruling as can be seen in your block log. You recently came very close to being permanently banned for suspected use of sockpuppets.{{checkuser|Giovanni33}}. I have not. Recently Giovanni33 has started wikistalking me and reverting my edits in several articles he has never edited before. Regarding the other editors reverting me on the page Giovanni33 now cites BernardL also has never edited the article before but has a long history of editing similarly with Giovanni33 on other pages. DrGabriela is another editor with a very short edit history who have recently also started wikistalking me. The only long time editor is Cronos1. He disagreed with me regarding if material should be deleted but complimented me here for adding opposing views: Regardless, to resolve this I will now only add disputed tags and invite Giovanni33 and others interested to mediation.] (]) 20:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Again, red-herring, and flat out falsehoods. Are you seriously claiming that all these editors are puppets? Is that your serious argument for edit warring with over 5 established editors? That is rather absurd, and without foundations. You say these are new accounts? False. Editing since 2005 a new account, with thousands of edits? Dr.Gabriela has edited since July of 2007:, and this editor since May 2006:. So lets drop your fallacies of irrelevancies. The only thing you said that was relevant to the issue was that you would stop edit warring on these articles. Good! That would solve the problem. Sterile edit warring is not a solution. Discuss and get more opinions and come to an agreement about the issues. When you can't convince anyone, walk away and let the issue rest--dont edit war endlessly. Calling others names and making false statements and accusations is not civil.] (]) 00:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::DrGabriela has only made 100 edits. Recently most of them wikistalking my edits. Giovanni33, BernardL, and drGabriela only started edited the Church Committee article two days ago. That what I meant with Cronos1 being a more long time editor.] (]) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Assume good faith and stop with the false accusations. As you know other editors who you have been editing warring with on the pages we have a long history with have noticed your spreading this dubious material to the other pages and posted on the talk page a list of all of these many articles. I'm surprised that not more editors have followed this POV pushing of yours to the other articles, as well. These are all related topic, and its the same issue. This is not wikistalking, it's joining the discussion that makes clear you have no consensus for adding this dubious material everywhere. It has a place in some articles, related to the subject, but not in any article about Guatemala. I also point out you are guilty of copy and pasting large amounts of information from globalsecurity.org, and pasting it in articles in violation of copy right.] (]) 02:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Source(s) regarding the last please.] (]) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Email evidence == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sent. ] (]) 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==R00m c== |
|
|
Thanks, B. The disruption was my main concern too...and I see the discussion has only gone downhill. Should probably keep an eye on the situation after the block expires. ] <small>]</small> 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Category:African American football players== |
|
|
Could you post the related discussion behind your speedy deletion of Category:African American football players? You had included it in your edit summary on the editor's talk page, but for some reason it doesn't work when I paste it into my address window. Please link to it from here or my Talk page. I'd just like to refamiliarize myself as to why this category is "retarded" and "sucks" and cannot exist. Thanks, ] (]) 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you click on ], you should see the deletion log which gives links to the two ] discussions where it was decided to delete the category. (If they don't show up, that's a bug that needs to be fixed.) The discussions were at and . --] (]) 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you. I must say I personally don't see any compelling arguments to delete. But the decision has been made. ] (]) 18:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you would like to ask for the decision to be reconsidered, you can make that request at ]. But as a general rule, if something once deleted is recreated, we delete it immediately so that we don't have to keep having the same discussion over and over again. If you do decide to ask for it to be reconsidered, consider one thing. Does that category refer to "African American" people who play "football", which could mean ] or ]? Does it refer to people currently residing in the continent of ] who play ]? Obviously, we know that it is intended to refer to "African American" people who play "American football", but it may be confusing to people outside of the US. A second thing to consider is that the category doesn't really serve any purpose. There is no internal maintenance purpose (], for instance, exists so that ]s may be easily patrolled). It's not useful for research because it would contain probably half or more of the American football players on whom we have articles. That's too many articles to use it for research purposes. So I would suggest against the existence of the category, but if you would like to bring it to deletion review, that avenue is open. --] (]) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks. No, I won't try to bring it up for review. The second point you raise is, I agree, really the key issue. The semantic stuff could be resolved and is not in itself a reason to delete. But yes, there are so many Black players ''now'' that they're in the majority, so one can rightly ask, what's the point? See, I got interested in this topic by editing articles on African American quarterbacks in the Canadian Football League, who were banned from the NFL because of systemic racism as recently as the ''1970s''. I'm almost 50 years old, so this was during my lifetime. This isn't ancient history; at least not to me. But things have obviously changed so much so fast. ] (]) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] reported by ] (Result: 31 hours) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your time and help. I will have to get some sleep soon but I will keep an eye on the situation and post a message on your talk page if someone editing from a similar IP starts editing in violation of the block. Good night! :) ''']]''' 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No sooner do I write that than another "anonymous" user from the same ISP has just made another . ''']]''' 01:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] and ] is now editing on someone elses talk page now. A range block may be needed. :( ''']]''' 01:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: And ]. ''']]''' 01:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: PS. I'm really very sorry the user has now started on your talk page as well. :( (It's why my page is semi-protected due to this user from this ISP). This tends to happen quite a lot with this user. I hope the abuse report ] will help to get some action from the ISP at some point over the next couple of months. ''']]''' 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I've made a request at ANI for someone who knows what they are doing to set a range block - I have no idea what numbers to use to get the right range. --] (]) 01:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Cheers, and good luck! ''']]''' 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Hi there, the user has started to come back again ] and is doing the same abusive style of editing. ''']]''' 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Blocked two weeks this time. --] (]) 22:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thank you, that was quick! :) I had hoped the user would have realised their edits are not productive the first time around. ''']]''' 22:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Sorry to trouble you again, another IP has just appeared. Obviously the same person. ] ''']]''' 22:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**I've blocked that range too. Please let me know if another pops up. --] (]) 22:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::*Thank you, I will. That should do it for another two weeks at least. ''']]''' 22:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chances? == |
|
|
|
|
|
* What do you think are the chances that ] indicates the range blocked user has just created an account? It's just been created and has been making the same edits as before as well as making the same kinds of comments on Thunbderbird2's talk page. ''']]''' 11:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**If you believe that he is a user evading a block, you can ask for a ]. Looking at {{user|217.87.83.146}}, though, I don't think they are the same person. --] (]) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thomas Jefferson and Wine == |
|
|
Just removed this article request from the wine project where some previous editore added it. In future, when coming across articles seeming to be nonsense, where do I put a request for checking my opinion, or should I go ahead and just delete it from the list ? ] 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would imagine that different WikiProjects have different practices for handling requested articles. You could always leave a message on the project talk page to ask for help/assistance. --] (]) 23:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Privacy == |
|
|
|
|
|
You may be interested in today's entry of http://blog.wikimedia.org/ --<i><b>— ]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b> - </i> 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:So does that mean they are finally going to remove user pages from google? They should. It's largely unmonitored for spam and libel. --] (]) 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::You see what I see. --<i><b>— ]<font color = "darkblue"> <sup>]</sup></font></b> - </i> 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems that the author of this article wrote the biography at privatelessons.com and has emailed us to confirm that there is no copyright violation (ticket #2008042910023622). There may be additional reasons for not restoring the article; please restore or not as appropriate. '''– ].]''' | <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks. ] G11 still applies - it is blatant advertising. I would suggest not restoring it. If someone independent of the subject wants to create a neutral article and can demonstrate that there are external reliable sources of information, we can discuss it, but the article was a press release. --] (]) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Snore Stopper Wristband == |
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I thought about G11, but a lot of that text is devoted to saying something else is an infringement. Prod works too, though. - ] ~(])]~ 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:There are older versions to revert to that don't discuss the infringement, though. G10 is only applicable if there is no good version to revert to. (If you do revert it, please leave the prod in there.) --] (]) 03:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Block of confirmed sock == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could you please block ], per ''likely'' checkuser evidence? Thanks. ] 06:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:The checkuser case referenced in the tag said that it was inconclusive. That account has only three edits from over a month ago, so I'm inclined to leave well enough alone for the moment. --] (]) 10:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ah, ok. ] 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Misuse of rollback== |
|
|
Hi B, as far as I know, roll back feature is given to non admin user is intended for reverting nonconstructive contributions (vandalism). But this four edits (, , and ) made by ], seems to violation of rollback feature. Thank you--]] 19:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
{{resolved|resolved at ANI --] (]) 21:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Re:] == |
|
|
|
|
|
The request appeared to be made in good faith, and I consider it common courtesy to delete images if deletion is requested by the uploader. However, I apologise, I didn't see that you had declined the speedy beforehand. I will have checked to see whether the image was uploaded by the tagger, and I doubt that it was in use when I deleted it, as I doubt I would have done so if it had been. If you want to restore it, feel free. ] (]) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thaks for the heads-up == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for letting me know about that IP. <font color="#3300ff">]</font><sup><font color="#33ff00">]</font></sup><sup><font color="#ff0033">]</font></sup> 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
This user moved his talk page to ] and blanked the page. He was reverted and blanked it again. I reverted, but I cannot move the page back to its correct location. Can you move it back and move-protect his talk page? Thanks. ]]] 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:<span class="plainlinks"></span>. --] (]) 22:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== That Olympia Peninsula spam tag == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've been told I'm a little overly deletionist, so I tend to either nominate or delete, but not both. I still get cursed for my vile destruction of people's creations! (I remain convinced, though, that that one is spam; see the creator's peculiar history.) --] | ] 04:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not sure I'd agree == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think was harsh and incorrect. Rosalind Picard's only notability whatsoever is that she signed the Discovery Institute petition. It is not an attack piece, it's just that's what makes here notable. And since a recent poll shows that 75% of Americans are anti-science and think Creationism should be taught, we'd fill Misplaced Pages with attack pieces if you were right. (Oh, don't worry, I'm firmly on the side of science, and I just believe Americans are poorly educated in sciences, but that's another discussion). ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:If her only reason for being notable is that signature and she is not at all known for her ] work, then under ], why not delete or redirect the article? When I , substantially all of the hits are merely lists of people who signed it, not any actual media coverage of her life based on that signature. On the other hand, gets lots of google news hits (she gets zero with darwinism), including the New York Times who . I know nothing about her, but on purely a surface glance, she looks to be very well-known in the news media for affective computing work and merely another signer with no particular significance of the darwinism document. --] (]) 18:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::But there are thousands of scientists who don't rate articles on Misplaced Pages. I still am not sure it makes her notable. But, for balance purposes, the article is mostly about her computer work. it is significant that she signed the petition. Oh, by the way, Darwinism isn't a term most scientists would use to describe Evolution. It is a pejorative term to make it seem like the science of Evolution worships at the altar of Darwin. I might make jokes about it, but in my education, Darwin was a historical figure of huge importance. He set forth the ideas that were the foundation of Evolution, but most research today is done by a mass of biochemists, physiologists, geologists, and a bunch of other -ists, most of whom are not named Darwin. At any rate, Picard has enough articles written about her support of Intelligent design to confirm that her signing the document is notable and important. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The article in question was called "]". That is the only reason I googled Darwinism as opposed to anything else. I was looking to see how much media attention her signature of that document had gathered - presumably any news article on the subject would use the name of the document somewhere in there. --] (]) 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yeah I forgot that DI would use Darwinism. OK, never mind. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 21:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Evidently to gain some privacy about his religious beliefs and activities, Marks has removed from the web sources that were used in his biography. He also removed information from his curriculum vitae and publication list. I have deleted unverifiable claims about Marks per ], including some I wanted to see in the article (I am self-policing, not wikilawyering). Editors keep reverting to an old version of the article. If you were to weigh in, that would be nice. ] (]) 06:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just because someone removes their website doesn't mean that we can't cite content from it. There's a lot in there that isn't relevant, but we can grab whatever is being cited from web.archive.org for safekeeping and exchange via email. The article should NOT have lengthy criticisms of his views - that's covered elsewhere and is a ]. Some people think that if you are an IDer, your article isn't neutral unless it contains lengthy rebuttals of ID. That's silly on its face. But so is denying (or not mentioning) his notable involvement just because it may be inconvenient. Are you in actual contact with him? If so, you can ask him to communicate with ] via ]. True and verifiable facts aren't going to be removed, but if there are factual errors and he expresses concern, that would be helpful. Misplaced Pages's treatment of BLP articles (or BLP victims as WR more properly calls them) is shameful and it's a shame that we allow these things to be turned into attack pieces. But it's going to take a fundamental change (like banning anyone who thinks that NPOV trumps BLP from ever touching a BLP) to fix it. --] (]) 12:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request for Review == |
|
|
|
|
|
I know you're a busy guy and all, but I'm trying to find someone willing to do a GA review ]. It's the final article I need to get approved for an Atlantic Coast Conference Championship Game featured article, and I know you'd do a thorough review, given your familiarity with the subject. If you don't think you'd have the time, drop me a message on my talk page, and I'll ask someone else. Thanks! ] (]) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Done. See the talk page for my comments. --] (]) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks! Now I just need to find someone to give the official OK. ] (]) 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello B. Do you think ] that you started justifies taking action on this? The recent history of the ] article seems to have been taken over completely by Wisdombuddha socks, or by red-linked editors that sound like him. I wish there were some way of handling this using article protection. For instance, apply two months of full protection on a version prior to the sockpuppetry and then let in changes only via 'editprotected.' ] (]) 14:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
|