| Revision as of 15:01, 20 May 2010 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 5 thread(s) (older than 14d) to User talk:Jpgordon/Archive 5.← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:04, 22 May 2010 edit undoAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,260 edits →RfC Michael Collins: notificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
| I am asking your opinion on this matter as an uninvolved admin. Hasn't crossed the line into plain and simple disruption? The matter has been discussed at length for a week now, and the minority who want the categories included have not made their case, despite multiple attempts to intentionally misrepresent the inclusion criteria. A majority of editors would now like the discussion closed. So, the minority have moved on to making accusations of anti-Catholic bias. This is beyond the ken. I ''am'' Catholic, and I resent these sort of accusations. Bigotry and bias have nothing to do with the issues involved. I ask that you inform these gentlemen that they are out of line. Thank you. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC) | I am asking your opinion on this matter as an uninvolved admin. Hasn't crossed the line into plain and simple disruption? The matter has been discussed at length for a week now, and the minority who want the categories included have not made their case, despite multiple attempts to intentionally misrepresent the inclusion criteria. A majority of editors would now like the discussion closed. So, the minority have moved on to making accusations of anti-Catholic bias. This is beyond the ken. I ''am'' Catholic, and I resent these sort of accusations. Bigotry and bias have nothing to do with the issues involved. I ask that you inform these gentlemen that they are out of line. Thank you. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==Request for lifting of restriction== | |||
| Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator.] (]) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:04, 22 May 2010
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
 |
|---|
| 15 January 2025 |
|
For older history, check as well as the archives.
Meg Whitman
- I strongly resent your ad hominem attack and will be reporting you to Misplaced Pages for the personal attack. It is unacceptable and I cite ALL Misplaced Pages statutes on etiquette which you have categorically violated.
- Let me give you a little history lesson:
- I first placed the Goldman Sachs info on the Whitman bio page many months ago since it is material info about this person that had NOT been provided in the creation of her corporate history. Yet, on TWO separate occasions, that Goldman Sachs info was expunged from Misplaced Pages by various editors, and only when I interfered in the matter, was the material replaced, on the grounds of NPOV.
- The fact that links placed on this page pertaining to her Goldman Sachs connections have been expunged and/or modified to prevent readers discerning her involvement with the company is pure VANDALISM. It is designed to omit a material chapter in her corporate involvements.
- When I report an unwarranted link modification, I sure as hell do NOT need a lecture about NPOV from the likes of you. Consider yourself reported.
BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- To whom, and where, please? And, regarding your allegations of conflict of interest -- yeah, I worked at eBay; it doesn't mean I like Meg Whitman at all. Rather the opposite; I wish I was currently a California resident so I could vote against her; I've voted for Jerry Brown every opportunity I've had over the past 40 years, and would love to again. On the other hand, I get to work to keep Harry Reid in office. There's much else I could say about Meg Whitman, but it would violate Misplaced Pages's WP:BLP policy. --jpgordon 03:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're just antsy 'cause you don't have anything worth bartering for medical care. :P MastCell 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- <snort> --jpgordon 00:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're just antsy 'cause you don't have anything worth bartering for medical care. :P MastCell 00:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The Hetoum I SPI case
I was the one who endorsed the CU on that case. I see you and I share the opinion that creating a sock to comment on other editors in wikispace is not a legitimate use of a sock. I actually thought that was written in policy somewhere, but now I can't seem to find it. The only relevant policy I can find is regarding SPA and "good hand/bad hand" socks. But in my mind, creating a sock to complain about another user in wikispace should not be legitimate. I like to think our due process should include the right to face one's accuser. Your thoughts? Respond here if you like. Auntie E. (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't consider it legit, but it's not really a blocking offense either -- it's something to bring up on AN/I, perhaps. --jpgordon 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Permanently banned editor editing anonymously
Honorable collegue, user:ptmccain, permanently banned editor is again editing the Book of Concord article. His new anonymous address is 70.253.172.5. I reverted his edits, which were not only obviously "illegal" but also inferior. This article MAY need protection as it is one of his pets. It appears that he has put in internet links to his website and blog. Even if his edits were superior, they should not be allowed to stand because he is permanently banned by Jimmy Wales, et alii. With kindest regards,--Drboisclair (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Anne Teedham sock puppets
I suspect we have a few more Anne Teedham sock puppets starting up. Would you mind looking into these users? They are just getting started tampering with pages related to the ones the Anne Teedham socks were vandalizing. No major damage yet. 24.170.242.101, 24.170.225.180, 24.49.51.81 Thanks for your efforts! Winksatfriend (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend
- Hmm? Contributions/24.170.242.101 hasn't edited since 2009; Contributions/24.170.225.180 since January; and Contributions/24.49.51.81 since March. --jpgordon 04:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
One of the original Teedham socks was 24.170.224.225 another was Hag2. 24.170.242.101 and 24.29.51.81 are also both out of Hagerstown, MD. One of them was offended by a Teedham sockpuppet notice and removed it. I'm not worried about that, just think it is suspicious in light of the server it's coming from. If you don't think there's enough to be concerned about, I'm okay with your decision, but please be aware that the Teedham socks accused one vandalism target, Michael Riconosciuto, of three homicides and left a note on Lex Coleman discussion indicating that alterations were being made at the request of an employer, and were being made from the employer's IP. As there are past and current homicide investigations for which Riconosciuto is a witness and has provided extensive documentation, this is a serious problem. I think the water is being tested, so to speak, and anticipate another flareup of activity. Winksatfriend (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)winksatfriend
User:CantorFriedman
I'm not sure, but I think this User:TomasCantorFriedman might be a sockpuppet for the above.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Tomas Cantor Friedman. Please unblock my account! I have not done anything wrong! Whats a sockpuppet? In any case i'm really not any puppet!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- And you're also User:Arn Cantor, User:Tosses and User:CantorFriedman; you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I have an explanation for that, even if it sounds kind of corny. I had a account named Tosses but I realized that "Toss" or something like that is a sexual behaviour, something &#%#%#. So I created the account Arn Cantor because I'm related to Arn, a figure like Beowulf(believe it or not). Anyway, I forgot my password and had not linked the account to any mailadress. So I created the account CantorFriedman, which is my name. Then that account was blocked indefinitely. So I created the account TomasCantorFriedman = also blocked for obvious reasons. But please, 3 of the accounts are named almost the same. Arn Cantor, CantorFriedman, TomasCantorFriedman. This just because I did not want to deceive anyone. Is there any way I can clear this and start over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- This would be a lot more believable if you hadn't been alternating between the Tosses and CantorFriedman accounts on the same articles at the same time. I imagine the account User:Cantor is your as well? --jpgordon 14:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No I can't remind me of creating a account named Cantor! I only altered between Tosses and CantorFriedman when I got a angry hate message(or what you call it) on my talk page. I don't recall altering on any other site except when I stopped using the Tosses account and started writing with my CantorFriedman account. Is there a way to start over or am I forever banned from Misplaced Pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- You should appeal your block at User talk:Tosses, while logged in as Tosses. You'll have some explaining to do, because we really really don't like it when people use multiple accounts abusively. --jpgordon 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
But I don't want the account Tosses because of, you know. And secondly, I can't edit my talk page while logged in because the account are blocked indefinitely! So that means I can't appeal my block!! Moment 22! Have you got some other advise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see, if I appeal the block at Tosses(and hoping for the best), is it possible to change the username afterwords? PS. Thank you for just not ignoring me! DS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The appeal is mailed to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org, :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing stopping you from logging in as User:Tosses and appealing from User talk:Tosses; blocked users can generally edit their talk pages to make appeals. --jpgordon 14:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't edit anything when logged in as Tosse, I had to mail the appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.151.53 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Unblock my Accounts
I don't see how we sockpuppeted. If you agree, can you please unblock my accounts? 71.94.158.203 (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Shot yourself in the foot there. --jpgordon 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not "shot yourselves in your feet"?—Kww(talk) 16:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Shot yourself in the feet, and shot yourselves in the foot, would do too. SlimVirgin 17:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Reguarding the ban of Rob-Oblong
Hello,this is Robert Parrish,for some reason ive been accused of using "multiple accounts",not sure why My accountUser:Rob-Oblong was banned,because that was my only account up until i made this one to inquire why the first was banned,seeing as didnt sign up an email address because i wasnt expecting to be randomly targeted and attacked).seeing as really havn't made any edits,there was another issue as well everytime ive logged on it says my ip is blocked for vandalism? I've never vandalized anything and resent this greatly,and now my account is blatantly being bannned for no reason,it seems like[REDACTED] is being run by a bunch of loose cannons with an itchy ban button finger who are making it quite complicated for the average joe to use wikipedia. You see, i dont have a problem,it would just be much appreciated if you unbanned my account ,thanks. RobP1989 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please use an {{unblock}} request on the blocked account's talk page. --jpgordon 18:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Feedback
Saeedrags (talk · contribs) left an odd note at my talk page (and some others)...I know it's hardly standard operating procedure to run a check on an account at that account's out-of-the-blue request. Frankly, I'd like to know why and have asked as such. I just wonder what you might think of the situation... Thanks, — Scientizzle 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just a recurring pestilence. --jpgordon 14:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sadly, that's what I figured...Thanks for your help. — Scientizzle 14:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
RfC Michael Collins
I am asking your opinion on this matter as an uninvolved admin. Hasn't this crossed the line into plain and simple disruption? The matter has been discussed at length for a week now, and the minority who want the categories included have not made their case, despite multiple attempts to intentionally misrepresent the inclusion criteria. A majority of editors would now like the discussion closed. So, the minority have moved on to making accusations of anti-Catholic bias. This is beyond the ken. I am Catholic, and I resent these sort of accusations. Bigotry and bias have nothing to do with the issues involved. I ask that you inform these gentlemen that they are out of line. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Request for lifting of restriction
Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)