| Revision as of 18:39, 11 December 2008 editVanished user skj3ioo3jwifjsek35y (talk | contribs)1,567 edits →Haaretz← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:09, 3 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (822 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 3 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(3d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Smashville/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Smashville/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| {{User talk}} | {{User talk}} | ||
| {{Archive box| | {{Archive box| | ||
| *] - Aug 2007 to Dec 2007<br> | *] - Aug 2007 to Dec 2007<br> | ||
| *] - Dec 2007 to |
*] - Dec 2007 to August 2009<br> | ||
| *] - August 2009 to Present | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity == | |||
| == Disruptive editors - Part 2 == | |||
| ] | |||
| SMASHVILLE, VASCO again, | |||
| Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin --> ] (]) 00:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity == | |||
| I'll complete my reasoning with the following: I am under the assumption that if you thought the fact i remarked the disruptive editor (i warned you about)'s poor English ironic, it was possibly due to the fact you believe my English is also subpar, therefore leaving me with no right to judge others? If my idea is correct, i'll only it this: yes, it is subpar, compared to yours, as you are English-speaking, and i am Portuguese, therefore will make mistakes in your language (and occasionally in mine too). | |||
| ] | |||
| If you intended nothing of the sorts with your "ironic" statement in WP/ANI, i'll reiterate: sorry 4 the inconvenience and keep up the good work. | |||
| Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin --> ] (]) 00:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== | |||
| Greetings from Southern Portugal, | |||
| ] | |||
| Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at ]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->–]] 04:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification of automated file description generation == | |||
| VASCO AMARAL - --] (]) 21:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Your upload of ] or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page. | |||
| This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions ]. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 14:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == AN/I == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You wrote: ''Resolved. Malcolm very clearly edited contrary to a guideline. He has been warned that his continous pursuit of the matter is disruptive and that any further mention of it will lead to a block. --Smashvilletalk 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)'' | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I have more problem with your summery than with your closing, although I am not too happy about that. The main problem is that you (and, of course, others) have said that I edited contrary to guideline, but you (nor the others) have pointed given a link to the guideline I acted contrary to. I think my requesting that is a minimal request. ] (]) 18:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692057745 --> | |||
| == Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago == | |||
| Looking a little further, It seems that you are saying I broke a rule listed here : | |||
| {{User QAIbox | |||
| | title = Awesome | |||
| <blockquote>===Behavior that is unacceptable=== | |||
| | image = Cscr-featured.svg | |||
| Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Misplaced Pages policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being ] or ] from editing Misplaced Pages. | |||
| | image_upright = 0.35 | |||
| | bold = ] | |||
| *''']''': A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means: | |||
| }} | |||
| **'''No insults''': Do not make ] attacks, such as calling someone an ] or a ]. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it. | |||
| --] (]) 17:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| **'''Do not threaten people''': For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. | |||
| **''']''': Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Misplaced Pages, for reasons given at the linked page. | |||
| **'''Never post personal details''': Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely. | |||
| *'''Do not misrepresent other people:''' The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: | |||
| ** Be precise in quoting others. | |||
| ** When describing other people's contributions or edits, use ]s. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed. | |||
| ** ], do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the ]. | |||
| **DO NOT ask for another's personal details. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| <cite id=anifurtherexpl> | |||
| I really do not see anything here as describing what I did, and would appreciate a further explanation. NB: referring to ] allows removing off topic discussion (which I did not do intentionally anyhow). Also, since I was blocked for disruption, that actually requires an RfC, or equivalent, ''before'' the block. Thanks.</cite> ] (]) 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have replied to Mr Schosha's request ].<br> | |||
| :—] <small>(] · ])</small> 15:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I broke my own rule, so to speak, by correcting a typo of yours, to put the second left bracket into the above. I just wanted to see what it was. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh...you are so going to Dave Chappelle's Block Party... ;) --]] 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I drop my shields, and throw myself before your tender moicy. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| There's a recurring phenomenon on ] where someone files a complaint and ends up getting blocked themselves. It could be called "hoist by one's own petard", or something to do with boomarangs, or the old axiom "never sue, because they might ''prove'' it." Seems to me we need a special term for that kind of thing on wikipedia, but I'm not sufficiently right-brained to come up with one. :'( ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :"Moisten ones own retard"? I...don't get it. Just a sec; lemme get a Q-tip. I'm sure I must have misheard that. ]] 19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here's an idea: "]". ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Plaxicoed sounds good. Or ]ed..."Officer, I had to kill him, he stole money from my illegal gambling ring." --]] 20:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Possibly a more extreme analogy: "]". ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Or torpedoed onself on[REDACTED] - a "wikipedo". Or, in the word(s) of Homer Simpson when he messes up, "Wikipe-D'oh!" ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your block of Malcolm Schosha == | |||
| As much fun as it must be to josh around about having blocked a good-faith contributor, doesn't it seem inappropriate to block someone for pursuing a complaint that ''they'' feel is justified? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to just let him tire himself out? The fact that you told him to stop talking about it and he didn’t does not empower you to block him. | |||
| Please overturn your block forthwith. Or are you going to block me too for complaining about it? ]! 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :He was shown numerous times where the guideline was and told numerous times that editing other people's comments or removing them outright was against the rules. He was blocked for that, it should have been the end of the discussion. But he continued to harp about it coming off the block and refused to listen to people who told him that he had in fact broken the rules and it was getting to the point of being extremely disruptive. --]] 21:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::As the administrator reviewing the unblock request of {{user|Malcolm Schosha}}, I too ask you to undo the block, which appears unfounded to me. It appears that you blocked him solely for to your talk page. This messsage (even if possibly wrong or bothersome to you) was not disruptive, at any rate certainly not to a degree deserving a week-long block. Too, it is unclear to me on what basis (such as a properly imposed community sanction) you purported to prohibit Malcolm Schosha from contacting you about this matter. The Arbitration Committee has repeatedly held that administrators must respond in a professional manner to concerns about their conduct. I don't think that such a response is meant to include blocks. Thank you for your consideration. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I lifted the block despite the fact that his "question" was the same as the one that was repeatedly answered at ANI and I specifically asked him to drop the matter. Considering how many times it had been explained to him and the fact that he had been specifically pointed to the portion of the guideline he violated and that he continued to question it, I felt that asking the same question again after it had been answered umpteen times was fairly mocking and trollish. But apparently I'm the only one that saw that. --]] 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He was engaging in the classic trolling "endless loop". The solution, if he continues to ask that question at ANI, is to ''not respond''. Then he'll either give up or he'll accelerate his behavior and garner another block. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A look here finds this statement: ''Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Misplaced Pages. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling.'' | |||
| :::::The accusation of "trolling" has been placed on my talk page by Smashville; and, since is is an unfair accusation, it would be nice if he would refactor it. (I do consider his strong defense of the nice Gwen Gale, against the mean accusations of Malcolm Schosha, to be essentially goodhearted in intent.) I probably will leave the subject for now, but may return to it later. ] (]) 13:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Suggesting that you back off because your edits could be construed as trolling is not an accusation of trolling. You seem to have some issues with basic reading comprehension, which leads me to ask - in all sincerity, I promise - is English a second language for you? --]] 16:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The one is just a slightly nicer way of saying the other. | |||
| :::::::To answer your question: English ''is'' my first language, but, I have very little formal education (outside professional training in the visual arts), and regard myself as just a simple worker. | |||
| :::::::By the way, if in the course of this discussion, I said anything personally offensive to you, I regret that. ] (]) 16:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] edit war == | |||
| I've left a couple of messages on ]'s talk page ( & ) as well as comments on my own talk page and in edit summaries. They have added unsourced material about a non-notable cover version of the song to the article seven or eight times over the past few days. Now they've started removing existing unsourced material instead of adding <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags. I've tried to explain ] to them, but somehow it's not sinking in. I don't want to violate 3rr so I'm leaving it as is, but would you mind having a word with them? Thanks. ] (]) 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You don't have much to worry about with that one. The person he kept trying to add in was deleted as non-notable. Obviously, we don't list singles of non-notable artists. Just be careful not to violate 3RR. I'll have a word. --]] 07:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==reverting my talk page== | |||
| A user has reverted material that I deleted from my talk page . Since I explained my reason -- it belongs on the article talk page -- this revert of another user's talk page seems beyond obnoxious. ] (]) 17:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Handled. ] (]) 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Smashville, I came back to leave a note, because it seems you are not present today, but Gwen Gale was here first. ] (]) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, I saw your note and lost my internet connection almost immediately. You are absolutely allowed to remove discussions from your own talkpage - especially when they are occurring in the wrong forum. --]] 17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Haaretz == | |||
| if you check the section of Haaretz you will see that they (Malik Shabazz,Malcolm Schosha ) break[REDACTED] law. | |||
| The keep calamining that you must not mention "Political allegiance" in the infobox of newspaper's article unless it is own by party but they have yet to show any[REDACTED] guideline article that say so.On the other hand I have shown them four important article that contradict their claim.],],],] in all of this article there is "Political allegiance" in the of newspaper's article.They know this and other pointing that as well. | |||
| As for Boodlesthecat he discussed this issue before as you may see in http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Haaretz/Archive_1#BBC_overwhelmingly_characterizes_Haaretz_as_.22liberal.22 | |||
| They issue was brought up noticeboard and eventually even Malik Shabazz admitted that the sources are good. | |||
| The fact is that I Bring reliable sources in order to solve the issue and Boodlesthecat ignore from them and continue to claim that it is only according to self description even though there is no[REDACTED] law that say so.] (]) 12:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The fact that they are trying to keep a ] is not breaking "Misplaced Pages law". The fact of the matter is that you added 19 sources to one word on an infobox. Not only is it disruptive, it messes up the format of the infobox. --]] 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The fact that you lied twice doesn't mean that they have tried to keep[REDACTED] neutral.I have NEVER put 19 sources in the infobox.Please stop LYING.Even for administrator it is not allowed.I will talk with other about this issue.It is NOT about POV but about facts and[REDACTED] policy.] (]) 18:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::. --]] 18:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is a big different between 9 and 19.You have falsely accused me and you need to apologize for this.] (]) 18:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:09, 3 April 2022
Hello, welcome to my talk page!
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. –xeno 04:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Churchill Downs 6-16-07 - Patten 025.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
 | |
| Ten years! |
|---|