Misplaced Pages

User talk:Rklawton: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:33, 22 December 2007 editSarah777 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,582 edits →List of massacres: c← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:47, 5 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,142,213 edits →Administrators' newsletter – January 2025: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 2 |counter = 6
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = User talk:Rklawton/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Rklawton/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== Administrators' newsletter – November 2024 ==
== ] ==


] from the past month (October 2024).
Re: I apologise, I did not realize what I was doing was vandalism. I was doing some research on Canada Geese and was looking at several sources for information (including Misplaced Pages) and notice that they all said different things, so I decided to average them out and edit the Misplaced Pages article to such an extent. I will try to be more careful.


]
== ] ==


] '''Administrator changes'''
Hi
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
I created a page for Substace Co-op, as this is the research coop I work for. I planned to put details of the publications onto wikpedia, as these are in the public domain (http://www.substance.coop/index.php/Section10.html) but it seems that the page I created has been deleted, and linked to yourself.
:] ]


] '''Oversighter changes'''
Is there a reason for this?
:] ]


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Many thanks
* Following a ], the ] proposal that went for a trial to refine the ] (RfA) process has been discontinued.
* Following a ], ] is adopted as a policy.


] '''Technical news'''
Steven Flower {{Unsigned|Stevieflow}}
* Mass deletions done with the ] tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. {{phab|T366068}}


] '''Arbitration'''
== ] ==
* {{noping|RoySmith}}, {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the ] for the ]. {{noping|ThadeusOfNazereth}} and {{noping|Dr vulpes}} are reserve commissioners.
* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the ].
* The Arbitration Committee is ] for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
] '''Miscellaneous'''
* An ] is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. ]


----
Ford was antisemitic. For people who don't read the whole entry, they should be able to know that Ford is antisemitic. {{Unsigned|Dlippman}}
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1254686817 -->


== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
== Cleanup tags ==


Hello,
Hi, best not to "subst" things like "unreferenced" etc. For more details see ]. ''] ]'', 15:57 ] ] (GMT).
:Probably not, I'm just clearing up the stubborn undated maintenance tags, which includes "substed", botched parameters and protected pages (and idiosyncratic tmplate redirects, and ...). I only do it occasionally because it's a bit of a hassle to boil it down to the stubborn ones. ''] ]'', 16:29 ] ] (GMT).


I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
== Image copyright problem with Image:Aoe4and5.jpg ==


Take the survey ''''''.
I added the "fair use - art" license to the image in question...please let me know if this is appropriate.
--]


Kind Regards,
== I believe Gauche & Timeonmyside1 are sockpuppets used by Astanhope ==


]
Evidently, you've been keeping an eye on this guy (who seems to be fond of vandalism, uncommented revisions, etc) - you might want to take a gander at IPs for each of these user accounts. {{unsigned|Frangible}}


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
== Re:Sassanid Empire ==
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->


:done ] (]) 16:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
If I was ever in any way in the wrong, then please do not hesitate to revert my reversion. I apologise for my mistake. It simply appeared to me that you had pulled out a great deal of text. I did not read the edit summary, but rather rolled-back immediately. I will remember to not do this again. Thanks, -- ]] <em style="font-size:9px;">-- (dated 23:42, 16 June 2007 UTC)</em>


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
== Rebelyell1916 ==


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
Apologies. I have removed commercial content from that page, and left the article on its own.
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
I hope this suffices.
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Regards
Rebelyell1916


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== ] ==


</div>
Hey guy, I saw that you helped out originally with ]. I just wanted to let you know that I have converted it into a table, and Ivo and myself are going to start working on it towards FL. So any assistance with the page or the other articles would be great. Or heck, just even morale support would be great!--] 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
</div>
:That's great! I'll be in Springfield in a few weeks, so if you've got maybe one place that needs a photograph, I might give it a shot. Keep the weather in mind, though. ] 03:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
::Boy, one place huh. I will have to think about that one.--] 04:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, my one place would have to be the ]. I am going to make a quick map for you, well, trying to anyways. I saw someone do this, so give me a few here.--] 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
:Well, it was much more than a few! Here is the map I created . I know you said one, but you never know if you would have time for the others!--] 10:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
::I've got Friday morning available. The executive mansion won't be open then, and I suspect an interior shot would be most useful for the article. Any ideas for a Friday morning shoot? ] 12:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, I would just say get what you can get that is close to where you are. If it happens to be a place side by side...well =). Just take the map, all the addresses are on it, so its your choice.--] 21:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey guy, did you have any luck on your adventures in Springfield?--] 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:I just returned. I was able to shoot a few locations as the weather was crisp and the trees colorful. The images will take another hour to download and a few more to process. Look for changes to my gallery page tomorrow. ] 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==
== For your information ==


] from the past month (November 2024).
A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:


]
<center>'''''Look in that girl's face. I really do not think she accepted to be photographed or pictured resp. --Revolus 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)'''''</center>


] '''Administrator changes'''
Under the ], articles that do not meet ''very'' basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time. Please ], and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> on the top of the page and leave a note on ] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria ], ], ], or ]. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.<!-- Template:Nn-warn-reason -->
:] {{hlist|class=inline
--] 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
|]
:OK. I deleted it. ] 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
|]
}}
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== Formatting question for you. ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
I want to make my "Pages I watch" list on my userpage into a collapsible secion. Do you know how I do that? I've looked and experimented, and can not seem to figure it out. Thanks, ] 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
:Not a clue, sorry. ] 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
::I swiped some code from your userpage, and accomplished nearly the same thing simply by "column-izing" my lists. My userpage is much shorter now. Thanks for the inadvertent help! :) ] 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:::No problem. ] 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


] '''Technical news'''
== Small world! ==
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.


] '''Arbitration'''
One of the IPs that vandalised your page on Commons just turned up on en books () and is blocked by you . I'm inclined to think this is not a school given ? Any thoughts & no urgency at all, cheers --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
:Just a general thought that it might be neat if we could see edit histories across projects for IP addresses. It would provide us with more context when evaluating current problems. ] 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.
::Yeah, I generally check Luxo's tool out for an ip (or user - good for cross wiki spammers!) when I have time, hence the thought that it is not a school that we are dealing with, regards --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not familiar with that tool. Can you point me to it? Thanks! ] 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Apologies - it is in the link above (for the ip) and what made me suspicious about that IP. is the general one. It does not always work and isn't that fast but it is good for reviewing when there's time (& getting the domain is a bonus!) , regards --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 15:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


----
== ] ==
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->


== Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder ==
Hey Robert, wondering, could I get a little help on the article above, ] is up at the edge of 3RR changing units to list metric first in a U.S. article, flatly in the face of ]. Perhaps you could help explain this to this user. ] 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:Seems to have stopped, maybe he/she read my note on the talk page, it makes great sense. :) ] 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
::Where is the thread now? It should either be on the project's page or the bot's page. I'm assuming the project complies with UNITS, so perhaps this is just a matter of fixing the bot. UNITS is pretty clear, though I'd be in favor of changing it formally. English measures suck; even the English don't use them. ] 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Alas, it is what the U.S. recognizes and uses, the talk page of Tombstone, but a bot operator is already on the task. I just wanted the reverting to stop, it did. ] 16:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


]This is a reminder that established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.{{pb}}Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the ].{{pb}}Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;] 00:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
== Quick question... ==


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
Can an article about an album (i.e., ]) be tagged db-band? It does not quite seem to fit, but it's the closest I can find. This article is rubbish. Thanks for your time. ---<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:So... I am guessing that the answer was, in one form or another, yes. Anyway, the article is gone. Thanks. ---<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::Save conflicted... Yes, I've deleted/reverted all his stuff on conflict of interest/self-promotion/repost grounds. The guy's got a history and at least two accounts. Good catch. ] 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not quite sure what it was that caught my eye when it came up on recent changes. Perhaps his name was mentioned in the edit summary, and it matched the username, which is always a red flag. At any rate, I'm glad I saw it, and glad it is gone. Cheers! ---<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
== Penn State ==


] from the past month (December 2024).
You caught it a little before me--I've commented at AN/I and am speaking to the appropriate PR people there tomorrrow--I've done this before, with advice and instruction from Durova, using her WP:BFAQ. ''']''' (]) 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
:Rklawton, I've made requests on both the admin page discussion and in the Prasenjit Mitra discussion for *constructive* suggestions on how to help my students make more productive contributions. I thought I'd repeat it here in case you weren't watching. I'm sorry if my students' first drafts surprised you and were misinterpreted, or if my assignment was in your opinion suboptimal, but please try to keep things respectful and helpful.] 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
::It would be helpful if you didn't assign work for your students that wasn't blazingly self-promotional. How's that? ] 14:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== Please advise on the conduct of admin ] ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
'''A brief summary''':
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
This user came to my attention when I was doing some RfA reviews and votes. He was blanketing every RfA with an oppose vote and some version of a "we don't need a professional police force" commentary. At first, this simply struck me as misguided, and a bit disrespectful (per ]), especially coming from an administrator. Upon reviewing his contribs further, I realized that this was a more blatant violation of both ] and ], as he was simply taking out his frustrations about a 48hr block he received from another admin for edit warring on the RfA candidates up for consideration. I approached this editor, both in the main RfA space, as well as on his talk page. Several other editors did so as well. He has continued his policy violations by ]|attacking]] us as "bullies", "trolls", and "wikistalkers." He has also deleted multiple good-faith contribs from his talk page, simply because he didn't like what we had to say. While I know that at least THAT part is within his rights, I don't know if I've ever seen an admin demonstrate less good will and good faith in my previous months on the project. I have included what I feel are the most pertinent links. What I'd like to see is an "outside review" of sorts, of how this admin has conducted himself, both in the initial RfA canvassed opposes, and the subsequent discussions. Thanks in advance for any time you can put into this. Regards, ] 18:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline

|]
|]

|]
|]

|]
}}

:] ]

(The above are various diffs that demonstrate his extreme incivility in both posted content and edit summaries.)

(This is the 48hr block that apparently started his inappropriate RfA campaign against an admin "professional police force.")

(I placed a discussion he deleted from his talk page here for preservation.)

(His accusations of bullying are all the way at the bottom of this page.)

:Other than similar RfA votes and comments, is there a pattern to his votes? For example, is he opposing only RfA nominations which his detractors have supported? You may have a case even without this information, but a bit more research might make this airtight. Suggestions:
:# See if you can find an additional pattern
:# Create a complete list of RfA diffs from this admin over the last week (both yes, no, and neutrals)
:# Summarize your concerns (basically around ]).
:# Post this on AN/I.
:Remember, RfA voting is an editing issue, so leave the bureaucrats out of it for now. ] 18:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::AfD? I'm confused. His canvassing with opposes was at RfA, and was simply blanketing 10+ RfAs with the same basic message about WP not needing a "professional police force." His utter incivility came afterwards, when multiple editors approached him with concerns regarding these RfA votes. ] 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

:I don't enjoy such confrontations, but this seems to be a blatantly abusive admin, especially in edit summaries accusing people who disagree with him of being "bullies", "trolls", and "wikistalkers." I guess my basic question was, given the above evidence, is it worth pursuing? ] 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::If you can find a pattern where he is basically voting no for every RfA his detractors favor, then yes, I would think it's worth posting on AN/I. ] 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Here's what I don't think I'm making clear: he's voting "oppose" on EVERY RfA, in my opinion simply because he's angry about being blocked 48 for edit-warring. That's how he has attracted "detractors." He simply opposes every RfA he votes on, and leaves a cursory message about "professional police" or some variant thereof. His detractors have come as a result of his unprofessional behavior, first on RfA in blanketing oppose votes on every RfA, then on his talk page for deleting good-faith questions, as well as leaving personal attacks about "trolling" and "bullying" in the edit summaries. ] 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::::I understand that. If you like, then just bring it up as a ] issue on AN/I. Keep it short and simple, provide the full list of vote diffs (so others can quickly grasp the scale), and focus only on the votes. You may want to suggest that these votes be removed and that the admin be warned (by someone new). ] 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'll see what I can put together. I'm not very good at formatting diffs and the like, but I think I may do this. He's being VERY pointy, and uncivil as well. ] 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

== FYI, FWIW ==

FYI (since you're a significant contributor to the article), I've ] members of WikiProject Law to comment following . Cheers, ] 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:The early news reports claim no warrant. The later reports make no such claim. That's also significant. ] 01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


== RE: Zhan Li USC Survey ==

Hi there,

if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey

I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.

thank you very much
Zhan Li
] 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

== Could you take a look at ]? ==

Both the talk page and the article are being monopolized by pettifoggery from ]. She is opposing uncontroversial portions of the article based on minutae, and refusing to recognize any sources provided as reliable. I've disengaged from her now. I'd appreciate another set of eyes on the article, and this potentially problematic user. (As background info, you should know that she has claimed she could reliably source that Lincoln was "genocidal", so she's got some "different" ideas on Lincoln.) ] 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
:She's at it again. She's now accusing me of the following:

::...you are edit warring without end and continue to engage in low level personal attacks. Please stop edit warring. Please stop engaging in personal attacks. Please stop mis-applying Misplaced Pages policy. Please stop using belligerent and misleading edit summaries and please stop forum shopping. '''per ] at the talk page for ].'''
:I'm not sure she understands that accusing people of violating various and sundry wikipolicies without merit is ITSELF a violation of wikipolicy. Could you look into this further, when you get the chance? Regards, ] 18:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Re: Need your help <br>
If you think it's appropriate, please block ]. Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 18:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:Done, thanks. It's faster, probably, to report this sort of abuse through ]. ] 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. This is the first time I asked an admin help for blocking. I saw you blocked ] and asked. Because I thought User:Dawgs05190's edits were so terrible. I'll be more patient with users like him/her. Best regards. ] <small>(])</small> 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't mind helping. However, if I'd stepped out for the day, your request would have received a delayed response, and that would have been unfortunate. That's why I recommended ]. Please do not be more patient with these sorts of vandals. They should be blocked quickly and without drama. ] 19:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Oops. Stupid of me! I was a little bit sleepy and misread the word 'through' as 'though'. Ha ha ha. Well thanks and good night. (It's early in the morning where I am) ] <small>(])</small> 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::よい夢 ] 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately it was a bad dream. (about my hasty and silly English reading and then my upsetting and embarrassment, of course) ] <small>(])</small> 07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

== Merck vandal ==

Just wondering if you think it might be useful to put a range block on the IPs used by the person who keeps vandalizing the Merck article. Do you think the collateral damage on blocking 201.141.128/17 would be minimal? --] (]) 12:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
:The collateral damage would cover just over 65,000 IP addresses. They're Mexican, so it might not have much of an impact on English Misplaced Pages users, but I'd feel more comfortable if we had a way of checking out the activity of these 65,000 addresses first. I don't mind 6 month blocks on the IPs he uses because I can check them for activity first. Interestingly enough, I know who is responsible for these edits. You might try contacting his internet service provider about this. How's your Spanish? ] 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah, I know it's a lot of addresses, but as far as I can tell there have been no other edits from any IP used by the vandal. Your suggestion of contacting the ISP is probably a much better way to go, though. I know very little Spanish, so I would have to enlist the help of someone else. Can you elaborate on who is responsible for these edits? --] (]) 15:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I'll forward that on to whoever would coordinate with the ISP. The ISP, however, will probably only need IP addresses and GMT edit times. From this they can trace the account holder themselves. I doubt they would want to take action on my word alone. ] 17:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
::::OK, thanks for the input. I'll let you know if I decide to take any action (not sure it's worth the effort for a generally low level of vandalism). --] (]) 19:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

== Could you take a look at my conduct at the talk page of ]? ==

''I am reposting this from the note I left at Tim Vickers talk page, as I just noticed he won't be around until Wednesday.''

I have a request for you. I have been accused of several egregious policy violations by ]. I believe she is out of line in doing so, but I am requesting that in your capacity as an admin, you take a look at my actions (and hers as well) to insure that I'm not out of line in my behavior towards her. Thanks in advance for any time you spend on this matter. Regards, ] 05:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:I see that once again your use of a certain word has raised hackles and distracted an editor from your most relevant points. I hope you keep this in mind. Being right and being effective are not the same thing.

:Other than that, Gwen obviously stands alone. Learn to trust your judgment – and Misplaced Pages's other editors. This trust would manifest itself by clearly and succinctly outlining your arguments and then leaving it to other editors (not the one in question) to agree. They will. By responding to every comment, you increase the length of the thread and decrease the probability that an experienced editor will want to join in.

:Why? Reading long threads requires a significant investment in time and energy, and the surety of a return comment from you guarantees an additional drain. If you keep your arguments short and to the point, more people will have a chance to join in and your opponent will find him or herself overwhelmed. Unless you're wrong, of course. In that case, they probably won't – but then – you won't have wasted much of your time on the matter. It's a win for you either way. ] 05:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

::So, aside from my use of the word pettifoggery (which I will remove from my wikivocabulary, per your advice here) do you see any merit in her various and sundry claims of policy violations on my part? To be honest, dealing with her (as well as the problem at RfA) has sapped some of my passion for the project, and I've been considering taking some time off from WP. This might be the best thing for all involved. I'd be letting other editors deal with her, and I could come back renewed.

::As a side question, I have created an above-board second-account, ]. What procedures do I need to go through in order to make certain that I don't break any policies by having that account? I was considering going dormant on this account (which has my real name), and letting that one gradually become my main one. What are your thoughts on this matter? Thanks again for all your help. ] 06:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:::I see no merit to her claims. Many editors have taken a vacation; I recommend the beach. There are several valid approaches to creating a new account. If you wish to switch ID's, simply abandon your old account and start a new one. You need not make a connection between them, and so long as you've given up the one entirely (an indef block is not a bad way to go, either). You always have the . ] 06:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually, I wasn't necessarily wanting to completely abandon this account. Isn't it fairly common for one person to maintain two above-board accounts, as long as they're not vote-stacking at AfDs and stuff like that? Also, is it necessary to post the userbox identifying ] with the KSB account? Sorry for all the questions. I guess even after 8-9 months, I'm still a bit of a nooby. ] 06:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::See ] for details. But yes, I would cross-link both accounts if you wish to take that approach. ] 06:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind talking to ] about both her accusations against good faith in calling my removal of external links at ] per ] "edit warring", as well as her continual insistence on reinserting them after several editors have removed them based on the same reasoning. I've asked her to stop accusing me of "edit warring" in her summaries, but she refuses to do so. I will remove them one last time, but I need someone other than myself to contact her regarding both her accusations and her reinsertion of what basically amounts to a link farm. ] 01:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

:I left a short note on her talk page. I'll follow up in a few days. ] 01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks for your help. ] 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
::I appreciate your getting to it so quickly. One question I had was whether or not it will always take such an in-depth, source-by-source review to remove external links per ] and ]. ] 02:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi! It's me again. I've been sighing since then. I'm not in hurry. so I ask you the block again. To tell the truth, it's easier. I'm not sure if I could post the report appropriately. Thank you. ] <small>(])</small> 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

== AL ELs ==

So far I agree with your takes on each one you've looked at, thanks for doing this. ] 11:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
:I've been too busy to go over the whole list, so keep the ball rolling if you like. ] 13:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
::I concur with GG's opinion on your views thus far. I still think that the "Open Directory" links at the top serve much the same purpose as some of the links in the list, but if it takes a link-by-link look to pare down the current linkfarm, I'm all for it. ] 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

== RfA for Canadian Paul ==

{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk"
|-
|]
|<p align="center">'''Four years ago this day, ] was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, ] humbly accepts the charge and support of serving ] that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint.'''</p><br>Thank you for participating in my ], which '''passed''' with a vote of '''(47/0/1)'''. The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of ], "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to ] for nominating me. Cheers, ] 23:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
|}
== Kremlin armours ==

<blockquote>I've got a few dozen closeup photos of medieval Russian armor from the Kremlin Armoury. Would they be of use here? Rklawton 02:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)</blockquote>
* do you have a photo of baidana? (it's a mail from quite big flat rings, weared over a mail from small rings) unfortunately the photo from ] is gonna be deleted :-(
* do you have photos of ] and ] ?
:I'll have to check. It'll be a day or two before I can get to it. On what grounds will the original image be deleted? ] (]) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
::as FU violation, as a free photo could be made (it's gonna be deleted by the end of this week) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::the image which is gonna be deleted http://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Baydana_of_Boris_Godunov.jpg
::another picture http://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:Baidan_Rings_%28close-view%29.jpg that could be deleted in future too <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* did you find anything? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I haven't had a chance to look yet. ] (]) 17:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
::OK! I'll wait :-) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* how about photos now? :-) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Abraham Lincoln Bibliography ==

This aspect (spiritualism) of A.L. was probably neglected by many as considered unfit for such a prominent man and president;
The article mentions his position concerning religion,but I may suppose that, so far, his spiritualist interests was not acceptable for religious reserchers for one reason, and for laicist ones for another, but if there was it should not be ignored; furthermore, at that time it was much more common and relevant, in U.S. and elsewhere, to search contact with spirits; Shakers and many more could be an example; so I suggest to reconsider the cancellation of the mentioning of the Book by Dr. Susan B. Martinez in the Bibliography, and also I think an addition on this topic should be done regarding A.L. religious views; Sincerely, Vanais. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please bring this up on the article's talk page so all can participate. ] (]) 01:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

== Birding image deleted from ] and ] ==

See ], who uploaded the image. Its caption is ''Birding in Indian River County''. Located in the Indian River off the northwest coast of Orchid Island is the ]. While access is limited, birders do watch from nearby either on the water or on Orchid Island. EvanS put the image in the Town of Orchid article and I put it in the Orchid Island article when I created. it ] (]) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)corrected typo ] (]) 11:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
:The image shows us nothing of Orchid, Florida, nor does it show us birding. The image depicts two people with binoculars. It is a singularly uninteresting photo that certainly does not belong in a city article. Sorry. ] (]) 14:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

== Treadwheel ==

I've responded to your question on the talk page, hope it is of use to you. ] (]) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

== thank you ==

Thank you for looking after my page during my absence] (]) 16:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
:No worries. ] (]) 16:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

== Abraham Lincoln ==

I would have expected more from an admin. How you could possibly call that link a personal website or a blog is beyond me. With all due respect, I think you should retract your assertion. Either way, I do wish you all the best. ] 01:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
:Um - because it's his personal website. Check out his bio. Check out the site. It's a personal website. This article calls for peer-review material. ] 03:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Rockwell is a public figure and president of the ], lewrockwell.com is a high traffic economics and libertarian web site with its own columnists and lots of features and archives (along with a separate blog feature which isn't an open blog). As for peer review, much of the material on the site is peer reviewed but that's irrelevent, WP policy has little to say about peer review and nothing to say about the need for peer reviewed external links for ]. Lastly, the disputed link points to material by published authors and academics. As I said on the talk page I'll go with consensus which has its sway, after all, but please don't think for a moment it has anything to do with the article being NPOV (it is not) or in comformance with Misplaced Pages policy. Thank you for your time and I do wish you all the best. ] 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
::::It would be more appropriate to discuss this on the article's talk page. ] 14:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

== Please reconsider ==

Dear Rklawton, I think you may have confused incidents when changing this sentence: "This, and other reports of members of the US military's Criminal Investigation Command working with, or posing as, members of Canadian law enforcement has raised questions about Canadian sovereignty" The reference supporting the statement is not about the incident in BC, and I think it supports correctly the assertion made. ] 07:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
:This belongs on the article's talk page. ] 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
::OK, more there, but an here. ] 05:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

== Removing external links I added? ==

Rklawton, I appreciate you showing me the Wiki policy on external links, but wouldn't you agree that some some sites (such as gruntsmilitary.com) offer high-quality image scans of these medals which people might actually be searching for? And, if they are searching for nicer images, they honestly won't find much on Wiki's current collection. Plus, I can't exactly grab the images from gruntsmilitary.com because most aren't in the public domain (and thus we can't paste them onto their wiki pages). Don't you think that this adds content and is worthy of an external link?? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:No. It's spam. ] 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
::I think it's a bit more of a fine line here between 'spam' and providing a link to a page with a lot of good information, which also offers links to buy the medals in question. To my mind, the gruntsmilitary.com site seems to offer a great resource of information with a very unobtrusive commercial side to it (in fact, it took me a little while on the site to work out what the concern was with it). ] 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
:::We've already got good images, so we don't need to appear as a link farm for a commercial website. If we need better images, then the article's talk pages should be tagged with a photo request. Oddly enough, they aren't. So in short, the spam links are fulfilling a "need" that doesn't exist. ] 22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

== Kremlin armours again ==

it's me again is any hope for Kremlin armours photos? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It's not that easy. I need to go through my archive, and then I need to identify each piece from the armory's catalogue. It'll happen, but I've also got work-related tasks, too. I'm self-employed, so as you might imagine, my "boss" is a real pain. ] 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
::I've uploaded a detail image of Boris' armor to replace the copyvio scanned from the Armoury's guide book. It illustrates the flat rings in contrast to the more typical style from his barmitsa. ] (]) 16:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:::GREAT THANKS! :-) don't you have a photo of whole baidana? ;-) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Baidana is a style of ring, and I only have detailed images of these rings. I have nice images of a plate/mail joint and a lamellar/mail joint if that is of interest. ] (]) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::OK! Thanks again! :-) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Matt Sanchez Civility ==

Civility is great. I'm glad you added the war correspondent, but a month of making the request is an awful long time for something that is properly and obviously sourced. ] 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
:I see. So you're giving me heat for doing something you've wanted done? ] 21:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

== Proposed Re-Write ==

No, I'm not giving you heat. I'm actually pointing out that it's great you were able to effectuate a change that was dragging along.

I need for people to point out what the "personal attacks" are, because there's obviously a communications' issue.

I've revised the Adult Entertainment category. How do I get editors to vote on this proposal? What is the usual process for making this change?

The revision is on the site, how do I proceed?] 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:You could start by providing a link. There is no ] ] 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


<b>So, we could re-write:</b>

I got the links to the article and rewrote several parts. Much better re-write. Please comment and see if we can get editors to approve it.


In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors John Rutherford and Kristen Bjorn and Chi Chi Larue at the studios Bijou, Catalina and Falcon Video. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under Rod Majors.


During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including Call of the Wild, Jawbreaker and Idol Country co-starring Ryan Idol and Marco Rossi.

Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with Radar Magazine that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."

Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?

Matt Sanchez 17:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

== Re-Write 2.0 ==

Here's the re-write with links:

== Re-write for Adult Career 2.0 ==

<b>So, we could re-write:</b>


In the early 1990's, Matt Sanchez lived in Montreal, Canada where he worked in the adult entertainment industry in all-male films for prominent directors ] and ] and ] at the studios ], ] and ]. For French-speaking films, he used the stage name Pierre LaBranche, but all of his titles in the United States were under ].


During his career, Sanchez stared in several award-winning films including <i>Call of the Wild</i><ref>http://www.rainbowhire.com/store/GrabbyAwardWinners1993.html</ref>, <i>Jawbreaker</i><ref>http://www.rainbowhire.com/store/ProbeAwards1995.html</ref> and <i>Idol Country</i> co-starring ] and ]. <ref>http://www.rainbowhire.com/store/GayEroticVideoAwards1995.html</ref>

Scenes from many films have recently been re-released as part of compilations; Sanchez stated in an interview with ] that it "was just the nature of the business, you shoot a lot of films and they use them forever."

Any votes or suggestions on this re-write?
:Yes, please put these types of messages on the aritcle's talk page. ] (]) 15:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Why did you sent me that message I didn't readd any corporate logo it was already there,I just moved it. Anyway its not a coporate logo its a free non-profit organization and its supposed to be an article about the square so shouldn't we have their logo on the page? Lastly other pages have logos for their organization,and or landmark why should fountain square be any different? As I said before I'm confused. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:These edits show you re-adding the logos - logos that are not part of the non-profit organization to which you refer. Do not re-add these logos to the article. ] 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

== Abraham Lincoln/Lindley ==

Do you mean the Lindley info should just be not included? I have no view, except that Lindley is certainly not notable enough for his own article independently of Lincoln, his article was all about Lincoln. But we could just make Lindley a redirect, though thhen maybe he should get a one-sentence mention in the rare event people come from there.] 15:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
:It's trivial compared to the main article, and it's already included in the burial article. I agree that the biography isn't sufficiently notable. I think it should be redirected to the burial article. ] (]) 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

::(edit conflict) ::Aah I just spotted the burial article, didn't see it before you mentioned it. Ok I will redirect Lindley to there but without altering the info there.] 15:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
:::My bad. I should have provided a link. ] (]) 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm just into redirects at the moment- working through clicking 'randam article' and redirecting non-notable ones. But if you asked on the Lincoln page or asked someone who works on the buurial page, I'm sure they'd sort it.:)] 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Happy editing. ] (]) 16:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

== Silver Star recipients notability ==

I note that you responded on ] about his notability as a ] recipient. From time to time, there have been afd discussion on military personnel based on either rank/honors (BGen/NC). Some arguments centered on how many people there would be that would meet the criteria &mdash; I don't think numbers mean anything. At this point, I'm not inclined to support blanket notability on the basis of a Silver Star award. See ]. Checking just the "A"s &mdash; all have notability apart from the Silver Star. In the case of ], his additioanal notability comes from having a USN ship named in his honor. In the case of ], there are a number of issues, in addition to notability of a Silver Star recipient &mdash; ], ], ]. I'm interested in your further thoughts. &mdash; ] (]) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:I haven't given it much thought. I'll sleep on it, though. ] (]) 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:We have to balance the fact that tens of thousands of these awards have been made against the fact that every new Silver Star recipient will receive enough press to satisify ] and ]. ] (]) 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

== Your behaviour at ] ==

. I have been neither incivil nor disruptive and have not even edited the article lately. Moreover, the only reason I showed up again is that other editors had expressed, both on my talk page and on the article talk page, concerns about the lack of ] at ]. Under the circumstances, if you wanted me to leave the discussion you could have sent me a polite email asking me to step back for awhile and I would have done, happily. I had already agreed on the talk page that waiting 90 days or so was a helpful notion and was only replying to straggling comments. To put it in a friendly way and very much assuming your good faith, let's pretend you handled it like you should have and I will step back. Meanwhile, since you're an admin and seem to have gotten a bit lost, I humbly suggest you take a moment to review, if you like, ], ], ], ] and notably, ]. Either way, if you have any lingering concerns, please feel free to contact me either on my talk page or through my email link. You do have my best wishes. ] (]) 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
: edit was highly inappropriate since no such "concensus" exists. It is simply your opinion - one that violates ]. Indeed, you won't find any edits from those who oppose this link that claim "we can't have it because it's critical". And that's just not appropriate. ] 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
::I think we may have to agree to disagree on that one. Since I see little consensus (and zero helpful consensus) for my take on the article, even if I strongly disagree with your means of communicating your opinion, we do happen to wholly and sincerely agree on the same outcome, which is that I step back from the article for awhile. I'm happy to do it and only came back because two different (but I must say, WP-inexperienced) editors lately posted their concerns about the stark lack of ] at ] on my talk page. The article isn't even on my watchlist. Let's think of this as settled then, ok? I'm not so hard to get along with and was bowing out of the discussion anyway, you didn't have to say a thing. Cheers! ] (]) 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Do you think your comment was appropriate then? ] 18:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Why are you asking? ] (]) 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I am asking because 1) this is a rather obvious example of an inappropriate edit, 2) to see if you'll do the civil thing and apologize to the editors you abused, and 3) failing that, to use as evidence pursuant to a proposal for a community ban against your future editing. ] 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think that ] is hardly in any position to lecture others on the issue of civility; user is (at least on the AL talk page) in the habit of acting outside of consensus and seems to think that demonstrably political and fringe positions belong on the AL main page. Cheerful interjections aside, ], please stop making disruptive edits on the ] page after discussion has gone against you. ] (]) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for your input, ]. However, I have not acted outside of consensus, I have measured consensus. ] (]) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::No, you have acted outside of consensus on numerous occasions, and then recommended that others review various policies when they dared revert you. Cheers! ]] 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You've very welcome, Gwen Gale. I hope you enjoy. ] (]) 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::It is you, Gwen Gale, whose behavior approaches violation of our expectations of civility. Rklawton has been marvelously patient with you. WP:NPOV does not mean that we have to give equal time to every attack site and fringe nutcase, such as the Rockwell material you have persisted in expecting us to treat seriously. The Lincoln article has plenty of sound scholarship, and incorporates criticism of Lincoln and his actions in the appropriate places. We are under no obligation to provide a hosting service for links to neo-Confederate apologists without credentials or credibility. --] | ] 19:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
], Lew Rockwell is not a neo-Confederate apologist (wou might want to do some reading up). Are we done now? ] (]) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:The opinion pieces he posts on his "King Lincoln" archive are indeed from neo-Confederate apologists. You might want to stop insulting people who question your sources. Cheerio! ]] 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
::This is ]'s talk page, not the Gwen Gale bashing zone. Bye all. ] (]) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:::No one is "bashing" you, they're questioning your sources, and the fact that you insult people with your condescending "recommendations" that they "read up" on wikipolicies that only ''you'' think they violated. You brought the discussion here. If you wish it to continue at ''your'' talkpage, I'm sure people could cheerfully navigate over there! Glad tidings to you! ]] 19:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Why don't we take this talk ? ] (]) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Since apparently that didn't work either, I've archived talk ]. ] (]) 16:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

== Is it time to take this up a level? ==

She is showing no willingness to even consider that she's been ''much'' less than helpful at Abraham Lincoln. At what point do we take the evidence up a level? ]] 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
:IMHO, we just stop editing on the subject. User has agreed to avoid linking the Rockwell site to any presidential site for 88 more days. If user honors that, all the rest of this is just unnecessary energy spent. If user decides to replace all variant uses of the idiom "vandalism" with pictures of little bunnies on user's page, who am I to argue? What user does to user's own page is of zero importance to me. User's contributions in pagespace are of great concern to me. My suggestion is that we ignore the (perhaps intentionally easily provoked) drama and pay attention to user's ] for violation of the warning. User has not edited AL page since 12/1. We act best on actions in pagespace, not mere annoying talk behavior. IMHO. I believe we've established our position about user's actions in talk by posting and endorsing the vandalism tag. ] (]) 01:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

::I most certainly agree to not repost the link, there is no meaningful consensus for it. Moreover, given the state of consensus at the article, I'll be happy to stay away from ] for 90 days, since it's not even in my core areas of interest. Moreover, if I do wish to do any editing there in the meantime, I'll gladly approach ] and work with him on entering any suggestions into the talk page. ] (]) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Sounds fine to me. Lincoln ''is'' in my area of interest, so I will be keeping an eye on it anyway. ]] 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Cool. ] (]) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::As long as we agree not to waste any more unnecessary time in discussion, I'm very satisfied with the resolution as proposed. I will continue to watch and edit the AL page and talk; also in my field of study. ] (]) 01:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::Cool with me, too. I ''would'' like to see the development of a controversies section with the obvious caveat that we focus on academic rather than crank works. I believe there are some excellent analysis of his suspension of habeas corpus, as well as other military and constitutional issues. We might also/instead consider requesting an article review with an eye toward regaining FA status. ] (]) 03:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Please visit her talkpage, where she's placed an accusation of bad faith editing as a reply to a sympathetic editor. I find this incredibly offensive, and have asked her to remove the accusation. As of my last check, the accusation remained. ]] 03:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I have not accused ] of bad faith. I have strongly asserted he edited in good faith. Please ask ] to let this all drop. Alternately, I'm open to your suggestions, I was only linking to the archive. ] (]) 03:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::And in "linking" to the archive, you accused everyone who dared challenge you of editing in bad faith, which includes me, Rklawton, Buster, and many other editors. I "drop it" when you delete the accusation of bad faith. ]] 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe everyone involved has edited in good faith. ] (]) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
:Then remove the post where you accuse us of editing otherwise. That's all I'm asking. ]] 03:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
:::No such post exists to my knowledge (note, we're discussing this on my talk page). ] (]) 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

== Sorry, don't agree ==

] (]) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

== Perro de Presa Canario Typo - Can You Correct? ==

Please see comments by ] in ] discussion.

] (]) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

] (]) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Oft Blocked User? ==

I just saw the article Corcoran and you said you removed unsourced material which is NOW sourced.You also stated I was an often blocked user,may I enquire as to where you got that impression?This is extremely irritating of you to suggest so as my intentions are not well meaning,how dare you.~~
:I based my comments on my analysis of the article's edit history. If my analysis was incorrect, I apologize. Next point: it would be helpful if you would indicate page numbers in your references and provide in-line citations to show which reference goes with each piece of information, that would be great. This ] will take your to our citation templates page which provides many different examples. If you need help adding these citations as references, please don't hesitate to ask on the article's talk page. If you include the information you are trying to add and indicate where it should go, another editor will likely come along and complete the task for you. ] (]) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok very well.At least you intentions on the edit were meaningful. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->



== Silver Star discussion ==

You might be interested in providing your thoughts on a discussion that I started on the ] talk page on ] of Silver Star recipients. &mdash; ] (]) 01:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
: Thanks for your comments. I've added more thoughts on the ]. &mdash; ] (]) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== Jean LeRoque ==

I tagged it as nonsense/hoax because I couldn't find one mention of the person on google. The article mentions their supposed fame, and backs it up with refs from journals supposedly by and about this person. I could find no mention of the ref documents either. So article about someone who I can't find any proof of, backed up by documents I can't find any existence of looked like a hoax to me. I have no *explicit* proof of hoax, just that it matched a pattern for creation of hoaxes I have seen from other editors before. ] (]) 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


== THANK YOU ==

I admit that I'm a bit out of my depth here on Misplaced Pages. I didn't think that could really happen. This is just a website! I thought. But no. I was wrong. I want to say thank you for your patience and counsel with me. Some folks have been a bit abrupt, and between figuring out how to make words ], not to mention getting the reference codes right, not to mention understand what references are not considered appropriate, I've been barely able to breathe! Everybody thinks I'm a vandal, and I'm not, I'm just doing everything wrong.

Anyways, thanks for your patience and counsel regarding the journals. We found an amazing collection that belonged to my grandfather and his brother -- apparently this was their hobby. Some incredible stuff - I just can't believe it! I'm having so much fun reading them and learning so much that I guess I got overexcited. I'm reluctant to take them into a university (safety issues), but maybe that'd be best. This information is truly amazing.

So I guess I'll just give up Misplaced Pages and leave it to the experts. I just wanted to include some of this stuff I'm learning, but maybe this isn't the right place for it. I'd heard that Misplaced Pages was supposed to be the collected intelligence of everyone in the world, and I felt I had something to contribute. I guess I was wrong.

] (]) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

== appendix L ==

is called "Appendix L Interim Report on WTC". ] (]) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:See reply on your talk page - and take heed. ] (]) 03:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::It is a interim report on the Working Collapse Hypothesis, please restrain from making threats, please assume the good faith. ] (]) 03:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] GA Sweeps Review: On Hold ==

As part of the ], we're doing ] to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the ]. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles and just reviewed ]. I am leaving this message on your page, along with the other relevant task forces/WikiProjects/editors to the article, since you significantly edited the article (as determined by ) and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a ]. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. The article needs just a few more inline citations and some minor cleanup, and if fixed, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --] (]) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks for the heads up! ] (])


</div>
== QE's disruption ==
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
I can't deal with the guy anymore. Raul even suggests blocking him. Perhaps we could contact Raul (or some other uninvolved admin) about placing a short block on this account to prevent his disruption. Then, if he continues, the block could be extended. Your thoughts? ]] 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
:What to heck am I disrupting? Your beauty sleep, your nerves, your talkpages? How can this sort of crap be acceptable! Why would I waste my time here, what to...uf, uf, uf... did I do wrong?! No, I certainly have no time for this, and after all said and done, I definitely lack the will. Please, there's no need to wake this Raul persona! Good night and good luck with the project. ] (]) 03:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
::You are disrupting 9/11-related articles, by attempting to foist your conspiratorial theories on the articles. It seems you will not stop doing so. Classic disruption. And filling an edit summary with what is commonly thought of as symbols used to replace profanity is not good form either. ]] 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
::QE, if you have difficulty following our policies and guidelines, then your decision to leave is undoubtedly for the best. Good-bye and good luck. ] (]) 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
==]==
{{center|{{flatlist|
I reverted your malicious edit. "The Independent" and RAI are '''not''' fringe sources - they have rather more reliability and credibility than, for example, the New York Times. - ] (]) 05:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
* ]
:This belongs on the article's talk page. Oh, and characterizing my edits as "malicious " is not civil and violates the good faith assumption. ] (]) 05:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
* ]
::Nope, as you are clearly engaging in edit warring the warning belongs here. Which source do you think is "fringe"? The Independent or RAI? (] (]) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
* ]
:::Discussions about an article belong on the article's talk page where all interested editors may participate. Editing warring involves reverting without discussion - which isn't something I have done. ] (]) 05:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
}}}}
::::Oh yes you have. Check the chronology. First you reverted; then you want to discuss. I call that edit warring. (] (]) 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
<!--
:::::My first edit and all subsequent edits included detailed edit summaries. You reverted back without so much as an edit summary. ] (]) 06:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
::::::You have reverted '''again'''. Please note I did not "revert"; I resubmitted the massacre with yet another reference (the 4th). '''YOU''' should stop reverting. OK? (] (]) 06:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

Latest revision as of 15:47, 5 January 2025

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

[REDACTED] Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

done Rklawton (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder

Information iconThis is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

[REDACTED] Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Rklawton: Difference between revisions Add topic