| Revision as of 14:58, 14 December 2007 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,107 edits →Deletion of AccuCMS: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:32, 14 December 2007 edit undoOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits →User:Curious Blue: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
| There is no justifiable reason for the AccuCMS page to have been deleted, when it clearly meets the test for notability, including references to the material contained in the Misplaced Pages article in NY Times and Wall Street Journal. It is completely arbitrary that that article is being declared as "Spam", while it actually covers a notable topic, and at the same time a SLEW of other articles in the content management system list that are ... recitations of product specifications or the like ... are secure. Explain how the AccuCMS article is not notable, and how one of the other entries in the content management system list that has less information, no references, etc.... is.] (]) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | There is no justifiable reason for the AccuCMS page to have been deleted, when it clearly meets the test for notability, including references to the material contained in the Misplaced Pages article in NY Times and Wall Street Journal. It is completely arbitrary that that article is being declared as "Spam", while it actually covers a notable topic, and at the same time a SLEW of other articles in the content management system list that are ... recitations of product specifications or the like ... are secure. Explain how the AccuCMS article is not notable, and how one of the other entries in the content management system list that has less information, no references, etc.... is.] (]) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * Or rather, there were two reasons: ] and ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | * Or rather, there were two reasons: ] and ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| At ], we have a user that has come out of the blue (sorry for the pun), and is trying to change language that is supported by verified and peer-reviewed journal articles to weasel worded BS. I know you have a low tolerance for that activity. I'm at 3RR, and I don't want to game the system, but my patience is pretty much shot with this user. The editor is at 4RR (I believe), so whatever you can do to help will be greatly appreciated. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:32, 14 December 2007
I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases. I am prepared to do this. I am not intending to be here much, at present. I have not yet decided whether to start using this account actively again. No, I don't want to talk about any of the foregoing, thanks, the people concerned know who they are and how to get hold of me. This is about some ongoing unresolved issues being discussed on one or more mailing lists, when that debate comes to fruition I will take a view. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.
- Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
- See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
- My take on the Durova incident.
I know you're annoyed
...but calling another editor "WR's pet admin" is never a helpful strategy for dispute resolution. You've been here long enough to know that.
For what it's worth, I agree with you about the wording change. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - this makes it look like you're carrying some kind of BADSITES crusade across the Wiki. Best not to use your admin tools in any issues related to that. Videmus Omnia 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I use that phrase because that particular admin has, for example, undeleted articles by request of a banned user, said request being made on Misplaced Pages Review. Annoyed doesn't really cover it. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. Desysopping is handled over thataway. In the meantime, namecalling doesn't help. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. If you feel he's done something abusive or against policy, bring it up in proper channels. Don't use it to smear him elsewhere or to try to get the upper hand in an unrelated dispute or argument. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's a statement of fact. Jimbo knows about it, so do some arbitrators. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's namecalling. It's beneath you. Rise above. You're welcome to discuss the admin's specific actions, how they are related to banned users and/or WR, and why those actions may not be in Misplaced Pages's best interests. Calling someone a 'pet', however, distracts from the issues – look how much time we're wasting here – and stirs up trouble. Just don't do it, okay? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Viridae undeleted an article created by User:MyWikiBiz using a sockpuppet while he was banned, on a client of his, following a request he made on Misplaced Pages Review. I was the admin who deleted the article, and I deleted it because it was created by a banned user evading his ban. That is an unambiguous fact. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Really, really bad haikus from a new admin
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Misplaced Pages trembles
Watch out DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Colbert's elephants
stampede Misplaced Pages
Must protect, protect
Wiki fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings free
But fiends are about
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.
Guy, thanks so much for your support (from our senior spam-fighter no less!)
--A. B. 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
archive templates at the WP:WQA
I just wanted to drop you a line - we tend not to box-up discussions at the WQA in archive templates. I don't think anyone in the future will revert you, but it's just not common practice, so I thought I'd let you know. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- And I do tend to box up, remove, delete and otherwise expunge gratuitous abuse of process by forum-shopping POV-pushers attempting to gain advantage in a content dispute. It is not acceptable to damage the reputation of others by leaving this crap lying around. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a very productive attitude. Everyone recognized the lack of merit in the complaint. You don't appear to be a WQA regular, and I'm just explaining to you how we do things. Yelling at me about the fact that this complaint was frivolous is not going to help - I'm the primary respondent and the one who made clear the fact that the complaint was not appropriate. Chill out. Just try to let the WQA do its work. If you'd like to lend a hand, feel free, but this kind of attitude is not helpful and isn't how we archive things on the WQA. Please respect the fact this was a simple courtesy note, and that your urge to archive the discussion is not generally how we conduct ourselves (nor does it really "expunge" anything). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's a fine and productive attitude. we don't need permanent memorials to the idiocies of POV pushers. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Discussions on Misplaced Pages are not purged or expunged, except in very extreme cases. If you don't like that, you should not take it up with me personally. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes they are, all the time. We delete trolling, harassment, vexatious and uncertified RfCs and all manner of other silliness. If we are prepared to blank sockpuppeteers' user pages as a courtesy (which we undoubtedly are) we should certainly not be reluctant to remove vexatious and querulous complaints Guy (Help!) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, and for the last time, I dropped you a courtesy note about the format with which we close discussions on the WQA. This is not a moment for you to mount a tirade against people who make complaints you consider inappropriate. Just follow the format of the alert board, or don't, but I thought I'd let you know how what format you are supposed to use to label a discussion as resolved, complete, or otherwise over. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're more than welcome to ignore me, but please note that the user in question has a history of vexatious complaints and I want to make sure he bloody well stops it. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, and that has nothing to do with the format of the WQA. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're more than welcome to ignore me, but please note that the user in question has a history of vexatious complaints and I want to make sure he bloody well stops it. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, and for the last time, I dropped you a courtesy note about the format with which we close discussions on the WQA. This is not a moment for you to mount a tirade against people who make complaints you consider inappropriate. Just follow the format of the alert board, or don't, but I thought I'd let you know how what format you are supposed to use to label a discussion as resolved, complete, or otherwise over. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes they are, all the time. We delete trolling, harassment, vexatious and uncertified RfCs and all manner of other silliness. If we are prepared to blank sockpuppeteers' user pages as a courtesy (which we undoubtedly are) we should certainly not be reluctant to remove vexatious and querulous complaints Guy (Help!) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Discussions on Misplaced Pages are not purged or expunged, except in very extreme cases. If you don't like that, you should not take it up with me personally. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's a fine and productive attitude. we don't need permanent memorials to the idiocies of POV pushers. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a very productive attitude. Everyone recognized the lack of merit in the complaint. You don't appear to be a WQA regular, and I'm just explaining to you how we do things. Yelling at me about the fact that this complaint was frivolous is not going to help - I'm the primary respondent and the one who made clear the fact that the complaint was not appropriate. Chill out. Just try to let the WQA do its work. If you'd like to lend a hand, feel free, but this kind of attitude is not helpful and isn't how we archive things on the WQA. Please respect the fact this was a simple courtesy note, and that your urge to archive the discussion is not generally how we conduct ourselves (nor does it really "expunge" anything). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk page warnings
A link to what you were talking about would have been nice. Talk page warnings are obviously inappropriate when applied to productive contributors as part of ongoing disputes (I've seen it used to rile other editors so many times). On the other hand, I'm not going to spend my time working out if the user who just blanked a section of WP:WQA with an inadequate summary is a pure vandal, or a disgruntled administrator.
Being an administrator might give you extra tools and powers, but does not guarantee you special treatment. If you want to be treated like an editor in good standing, try behaving like one. -- Mark Chovain 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- What, you mean you're in the habit of using template warnings without taking even the basic step of seeing whether it's an established user? Wow. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I skimmed your talk page. Try stepping back and reading through it objectively. See what another editor might think of you. -- Mark Chovain 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Try that the other way round. Been harassed off wiki lately? Had anyone impersonate you to try to bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute? No? Come back when you have. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hey - I wasn't the one blanking sections of WP:WQA. -- Mark Chovain 10:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Try that the other way round. Been harassed off wiki lately? Had anyone impersonate you to try to bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute? No? Come back when you have. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I skimmed your talk page. Try stepping back and reading through it objectively. See what another editor might think of you. -- Mark Chovain 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Images in policy pages
I noticed you restored an image I had removed from Misplaced Pages:No legal threats. Maybe it's just me, but I find gratuitous (esp. humorous) images in policy pages awkward and inappropriate. Here's another example. At any rate, I won't remove those images if others think they serve a good purpose, I just don't see that positive purpose or how they add anything useful to those pages. But that's not the reason why I removed that image. If the images were merely decorative and didn't harm the appearance of the page, I wouldn't mind either way. But actually, I think that since people are most commonly being pointed to those pages in case of violations/warnings, those images are really inappropriate and detrimental to the appearance and purpose of the pages in that they create a somewhat "childish" atmosphere. Policies are not fun and games, certainly not for those looking them up for a specific purpose. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:23, December 13, 2007
Stop. Now.
You are forum shopping your content disputes in a quite unacceptable manner. It is time to stop it, please. To look at your recent actions one would conclude that every single editor in that dispute, with the sole exception of you, is abusive in some way. I find that implausible. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Forum shopping? Wouldn't that mean that I've been leaving messages on a lot of different user's talk pages? I haven't been doing that, so I don't know what you mean. Kindly, would you please clarify so that I can understand what you mean? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration on cold fusion
Please note that you are cited in an arbitration request. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ten points for chutzpah, zero for style. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Response to your essay
I've written a response to your essay. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh goodie...can you send me some no doze so I can stay awake long enough to read that rant? Seriously....had you spent the same amount of time typing all those kb's of opinion, and put it towards our articles, we might be able to conclude that your purpose on Misplaced Pages is something other than stirring up trouble, looking for false boogie-men and trolling.--MONGO (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- We already know what Dan thinks anyway, because it's in The Register. That's why The Register is a crap source for this story, it starts from an assumption of bad faith and extrapolates form there, exactly as Dan has been doing. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmz, kinda ironic, isn't it... 81.153.124.23 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of AccuCMS
There is no justifiable reason for the AccuCMS page to have been deleted, when it clearly meets the test for notability, including references to the material contained in the Misplaced Pages article in NY Times and Wall Street Journal. It is completely arbitrary that that article is being declared as "Spam", while it actually covers a notable topic, and at the same time a SLEW of other articles in the content management system list that are ... recitations of product specifications or the like ... are secure. Explain how the AccuCMS article is not notable, and how one of the other entries in the content management system list that has less information, no references, etc.... is.67.165.106.153 (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Or rather, there were two reasons: WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Curious Blue
At Homeopathy, we have a user that has come out of the blue (sorry for the pun), and is trying to change language that is supported by verified and peer-reviewed journal articles to weasel worded BS. I know you have a low tolerance for that activity. I'm at 3RR, and I don't want to game the system, but my patience is pretty much shot with this user. The editor is at 4RR (I believe), so whatever you can do to help will be greatly appreciated. OrangeMarlin 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)