Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:21, 11 October 2010

DJ Concept

in relation to the: DJ Concept article:

the page http://www.execute1200.com/site/djconcept.html page does not exist anymore. furthermore i've updated the DJ Concept article, removing any unnecessary links & added reference links from external websites. thanks!

Please delete User:Polargeo

I don't accept other users editing my user pages. It should be up to me to decide not you. You may request and negotiate but just leaping in an editing my userpage is extremely rude. Jbtscott (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not. People examining your editing history should be able to find your previous account, and people looking up your previous account need to be able to find the new one. In case you had not understood, linking the accounts to each other was not a suggestion, it was a requirement of being unblocked. I'm going to restore the redirect; please don't make me have to protect your former user page. If you prefer some other means of linking the accounts, you are welcome to alter the redirect into something else (for instance, the {{FormerAccount}} template would do), but the link between the accounts must be clear and direct. — Coren  15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

How

How can you go about editing my userpages without asking. Do you think I cannot organise my own affiars. This is deeply deeply insulting. Jbtscott (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and you blocked legitimate socks of mine. Such as PolargeoSock. Would you accept such legitmate socks of your own to be blocked? Or would other arbs accept this? Just seems to me like you have decided it is okay to shit on me from a great hight. Jbtscott (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed to use exactly one account. — Coren  15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Donaldson Prison

I don't see how it's a copyvio. I made my text all on my own. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• BTW I used http://www.doc.state.al.us/facility.asp?id=4 as a source, but if you compare the two, you will find the sentences are different. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• And I noted things at Talk:William_E._Donaldson_Correctional_Facility WhisperToMe (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what happened - I had some text that was quoted directly from the ADOC source that I was using to write new sentences, but I forgot to remove the quote. In this revision I removed the quotation WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

False positive: Carlos Arellano Felix

Seconds after I created the Article Carlos Arellano Félix y got a message from the bot. However, web page created an instant mirror web page of the article I just created. Thank you. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed in Misplaced Pages

Hello,

Someone from your organization keeps writing me the below message. There is no way to communicate with this person. I originally came to[REDACTED] to introduce a topic for historical archive. I never wanted to write an article. The only way I could introduce it was to write the article by your policy. I had to read pages of protocol just to get to a finished product which was approved even though I thought it was poorly written and demeaned the original content. I worked on it for 3 days to get it to the point it didn't look like an amateur article. Then today I started getting disturbing error messages one after another with a suspicious and accusatory tone. Below is a sample of what I got and how I responded to it.

Whoever this is writing this to me has no talk back capability when I follow the link.

You shouldn't be writing about a topic with which you such an obvious personal association. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all I never wanted to write this article just to introduce the event to be archived in history. As a newcomer to this site I am very disappointed in the direction this has taken. Please remove my article 140TH Anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation from your site. When I first came to wiki I thought you would be writing it. So when I was told to author it I attempted to include all facts. This was not a self promotional for me this event is over 6 years old and this time in history is gone. There is no money to be made from it or off it.

Whoever this suspicious person is they have been downright rude and accusatory, unnecessarily. I do not want a positive event to end up on your site with such a negative box and connotation added to it after the event's success. Please remove the article immediately. I find it slanderous. I have barely been on[REDACTED] for three days and I know no one personally. Thank you, for your civility. This was a horrible mistake and experience. Cwestllc (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As essentially the same message was left on my talk page, I have dealt with this issue there. If you’re interested, you might want to comment there … or not. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

Hi. Because you are a member of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to make you aware of the following post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on this here.  Roger Davies 07:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The only comment I'm going to offer, Quest, is that your bellicose reaction to what is, in the end, a simple topic ban (arguably one of our most gentle an measured remedies) is ample illustration of the importance of you needing to take a step back from the topic. Misplaced Pages isn't a place where one rights wrongs, or one battles for a cause — something which you have lost sight of. — Coren  14:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GWR 3206 Class

ref:

http://train.spottingworld.com/index.php?title=GWR_3206_Class&action=edit

This is the second time I have been warned about plagiarising this site - but obviously they are instantly plagiarising ME, a mirror article or whatever it is called. Please don't delete my work!!!8474tim (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry — human beings check the tags for correctness before any action is taken. The only thing the bot does is flag the similarity for human attention. — Coren  14:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Kim Dabelstein Petersen

Kim has proposed a voluntary agreement modeled on S C Jessey's, but covering biographies of living persons, as well as these are relevant to his case. Since you have proposed closing the case, and bearing in mind that Kim is an editor of four years' good standing with no block record, I thought you should be informed. --TS 23:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please also note that Kim made the initial offer in principle on 3 October, but a lack of response delayed development of the agreement. Kim's gone to bed, but his proposed agreement should be given full consideration. Thanks, dave souza, talk 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Routine" cleanup concern

I just noticed your concern about "routine cleanup" edits that may fall within the topic of climate change. Please be assured that this will never amount to more than things like correcting spelling, formatting dates, adding dates to cleanup templates, fixing references, etc. None of the articles within the topic are on my watchlist (or have been for a few months now), so these would only occur if I came across them while looking something up, or via recent changes patrol. Please feel free to add a diff of this clarification to the text of the remedy if you feel it is necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my concern isn't just about what you would feel is cleanup, but also how others might dispute any of your edits as not cleanup. Just be careful. — Coren  02:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I will indeed. Thank you for the advice. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback...

Greetings,

I'm responding to a message regarding my user name, and, I am providing feedback. For one, I have a fairly common name, and, it is short, so I use llc at the end of it to differentiate. I've been doing this for well over 10 years. Don't see a point of changing it now. Because of this consistency, I don't have to remember different logins for different sites, and, I use it for all my personal financial dealings as well. Never had anyone mention it to me before as being problematic.

SITE EXPERIENCE FEEDBACK My article submission was for an event which happened one time in history and I wanted to introduce it as possible content for your site. I sort of viewed wiki as being like a depository site, not a lifestyle change or a career move. I appreciate your help, support, and suggestions and in particular the final article. However, I can't say for sure I will be contributing again, there are too many rules and regulations, and I'm finding the Misplaced Pages dynamic as not being user friendly or welcoming, especially, when dealing with some of the volunteers. There seems to be a lack of respect for patrons and a dictatorship approach being taken and it is offensive. I'm a humanitarian by nature, so I don't take it lightly when others aren't civil, humane or treat others as equals. We are all human beings and should be treated as such. There is no above or below. Some wiki patrons do not want to be cattle-herded or talked down to. Simply put, some of the volunteers here at wiki should not be working with the general public. Their personalities are, unnecessarily, too harsh and abrasive. It reflects badly on your business when that occurs, giving the appearance of poor management and a lack of decorum. I do understand now why on all pages regarding communicating; you are stating patrons should be nice and write in pleasant tones. Clearly outlining the communication rules. You (not you personally, but you get my meaning, your volunteers) should follow the same advice you are giving others; it goes both ways. I had a different opinion of[REDACTED] before introducing content to your site. In the past, I have used it often. This has been, an unnecessarily, made unpleasant, experience, I would quickly like to forget. I feel like in a way, I that I have been involved in an online assault. Not the experience I was at all expecting. One of your volunteers chzz or whatever the acronym is for their name. In the IRC chat room the first day I signed on to write the article, was extremely abusive. My concentration at the time was pumping out the best article I could produce considering I am not an encyclopedia writer.

After every edit or change, this volunteered continued on in the same abusive manner, however, it got worst. From suspicion to accusatory even though I made it clear to them I had never written a wiki article. Some of us are in the late years of our career and have many successes under our belts. How could anybody think, writing one article and placing it on an open source, free, online community; could possibly make a difference in anyone's career status, it is the epitome of absurdity. By insinuating my motivations were self serving.

ON A FINAL NOTE Remember your patrons are allowing you to use their intellectual property to build up your site. Self serving is going on, from wiki through the outside links article writers are providing, and, from the reputable outside links coming back into wiki being listed on the article pages. There are many articles on the internet outside of wiki that outline user experience and wiki practices--good and bad. For the example, the FBI asking you to remove their logo from your site, citing that it violated federal law and their copyright (August 3, 2010). Equally, the links from some of the articles being introduced with links from reputable sites coming back in, are doing just that, and, including, us, allowing wiki the utilization of certain premium content. In, all intellectual property fairness, it should be balanced and include the article provider; other than that, it is akin to intellectual property rape, in some instances. Being fair would hardly constitute a conflict of interest, but, would be reflective of, a more mutually beneficial and respectful exchange. Consider this message being primarily for feedback and for the benefit of current and future content providers. Thank you, for listening. Cwestllc (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read and respond

You have voted on a finding against me. Please read and respond to this section and explain to me why my warnings directed at these admins were out-of-line. Thank you. ATren (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Socks and Jacob M. Appel

Coren, I note from block logs that you blocked a bunch of socks related to spam/promo at article Jacob M. Appel. Please see more about the socks, at Wikiquote village pump and Checkuser request on Wikiquote. Can you identify which one was the original sockmaster (from that block log of yours, seems you used similar block edit summaries on a bunch, referring to a massive sock farm), and then tag those sock user pages accordingly? Thank you for your time, this would greatly help the sock investigation, at Wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, looks like Vartanza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have been the oldest account, that should probably be the one tagged as the sockmaster? -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I could see, everything on enwp was socks. Vartanza is a likely candidate, but they're hard to set apart here; I basically just did a sweep when their behavior was raised on checkuser-l from the mess on enwq under the presumption that they came from over there. Might just want to pick one and declare it master; or alternately take the one with the most recent history since that's going the be the most useful to find new socks? — Coren  22:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Coren. Would you be willing to clarify what "the problem is" in your view? That might help me give a better response. Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)