Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:01, 19 April 2007

See also User talk:Y/Archive

Welcome Y!

— xaosflux 04:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Chronic The Wedgehog

Hello, why did you ban this username? In what way is it offensive etc.? Thanks. 86.6.207.111 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Drug reference -- Y not? 21:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That was the last thing I expected you to say - I have no idea whether Chronic, The or Wedgehog have any meaning to do with drugs. I assumed you were going to say it was something to do with infringing Segas trademark or something. It's just a play on words to rhyme with Sonic The Hedgehog, thats all! Please restore my account, thank you. 86.6.207.111 22:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's Chronic -- Y not? 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Following the link, I see that is apparently one possible meaning. Perhaps it is US usage, because I have never heard of it in the UK. However, I sincerely believe I am not in any violation of policy - I certainly am not trying to promote use of illegal drugs or cause any controversy, its just a little fun wordplay. I would like the matter to go WP:RFCN where I can state my case, thanks. 86.6.207.111 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do it. -- Y not? 20:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Y, I don't see how this name is in violation of the username policy. I would like to unblock it, but I am going to give you a chance to explain which part of the policy it is in violation of first. _InBC 21:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I found out "Kronic the Wedgehog" is actually a contestant's name in Robot Wars. Wooyi 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, even if it was drug ref, it's not violating any policy, drugs aren't that bad either. I'm addicted to this drug :-). Wooyi 21:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you already had a chance to explain at RFCN and did not point out how it was in violation of policy, and you don't seem to be here right now, I am going to just go an unblock the user. Not trying to step on your toes, there is just no reason to block this newcomer. _InBC 21:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ladies, don't unblock until the RFCN discussion has had time to develop. Then unblock away if warranted. Drug references in username have been judged inappropriate many times in the past. I guess you've forgotten the classics: "Got a fat-ass 'J' / Of some bubonic chronic / That made me choke / Shit, this ain't no joke!" hehe. See also here. I bet the user is evading a block, anyway. Very interesting contribution history. -- Y not? 21:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec)RFCN does not decide when we block and unblock, it is a place for discussion. While in the past there was a prohibition on names that referred to illegal activities, there was a talk page consensus that it should be removed, and it was. So while those names may have been in violation in the past, there is not policy based argument for the block today. The block was contrary to the blocking policy, I assume by accident. _InBC 21:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings Y, we all make mistakes.Chronic The Wedgehog 21:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've told ya multiple times that the name is the famous robotic contestant's name "Kronic the Wedgehog", not a drug. Also just FYI, drug use is neither inappropriate nor offensive, check our precedent Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names/Pothead12345. Wooyi 21:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, I find the recreational abuse of drugs at best pointless and at worst destructive. But thanks for your support :-) Chronic The Wedgehog 21:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. -- Y not? 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Crunkb

Also, may I ask what part of the username policy Crunkb violates? _InBC 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's crunkb? -- Y not? 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OIC. The same one. -- Y not? 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This Crunkb: . _InBC 21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. Same exact deal. Unblock if you wish. See deleted userpage first. I think there were other deleted contribs. Can't remember. -- Y not? 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Crunk is a specific type of hip hop music, based out of the southern United States, particularly Atlanta, Georgia. I will take you up on that offer to unblock him. _InBC 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. Read the very article you cite past the 1st line. -- Y not? 04:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Still not a violation. _InBC 04:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

See just below. This is ridiculous. I am getting bemused emails from friends about this "controversy". Any plans to change your username to "embezzler" or "inject-heroin"? how about "InsuranceFraud"? All perfectly valid, yes? WP:U!! WP:U!! Phooey! -- Y not? 04:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• HighinBC is correct in that this does not violate our username policy. And neither does "embezzler", and so forth. We even have an admin who calls himself a thief. >Radiant< 10:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:U

A quick follow up on a recent block of yours, drug references are absolutely not forbidden in usernames. Please defer from making any further username blocks until you can re-acquaint yourself with WP:U. An acknowledgment of understanding regarding this issue would also be appreciated, your responses to other folks regarding the 'Chronic' block have been less than re-assuring. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:U and its "Promotion of a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view" clause. Our goal here is to build an encyclopedia good enough to be cited by scholars and judges. Do we really want users with usernames such as "Chronic the Wedgehog" or "crunkb" help us reach that goal? What about the notion that the spirit and the letter of the username policy forbids references to criminal and/or drug activities is so controversial? -- Y not? 04:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Referring to something is a bit different that promoting a point of view. _InBC 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's an endorsement. If WP:U doesn't squarely cover that, let's change it. -- Y not? 04:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to be harsh, but Y is also a drug reference (yohimbine, formerly sold on the street as an ED cure as "Y"), I'll facebook you with the interesting stories of a yohimbine overdose I treated when I was a medical student 74.12.80.240 05:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

God save me from medically-trained anonymous apparitions! It's 4:13 AM EST - time for my Nexium, I think. -- Y not? 08:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Asserting that women be allowed to use computers is considered a controversial or inflammatory view in some conservative religious countries, your example would also rule that out considering that this is an international project. Also, the elitism in "do we really want users with usernames like X and Y helping us reach that goal?" is certainly not in the spirit of the project either. There are plenty of folks here with "silly" usernames, it's part of the culture. If you still believe that WP:U prohibits this type of reference, we can request wider comment on WP:AN or WP:VPP, and I'm afraid you'll find that while not unanimous, there is a consensus at odds with your statement. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Y, to promote something you need to take some sort of position. "Chronic The Wedgehog" is not putting forth any position. Therefor it cannot be promoting anything. If you want to change WP:U, I suggest you start by discussing this change at WT:U. _InBC 14:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Y, let's get it straight, drug use is not a bad thing and lots of Wikipedians do it. Get over it and don't complain. Wooyi 14:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Complain? -- Y not? 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

More accurately, the idea that drug use is bad is an opinion that does not necessarily enjoy consensus on Misplaced Pages. _InBC 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether drug use is "bad", it is "criminal" in the vast majority of countries, and certainly in the U.S., where the majority of our users come from. That would be at the heart of any proposed change, which would not be drug-specific. -- Y not? 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but the current policies do not support your decision to block that user based on username, and that's the issue here. If you'd like to change it so that names that reference drug terms aren't allowed, you're welcome to, but that isn't currently the case. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely academic debate, but I maintain that reasonable people can disagree about the application of the "Promotion of a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view" clause to these usernames. -- Y not? 16:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not just academic to me - you banned me out of process for no good reason. If you think you own ideas or values superseed Misplaced Pages policies, then you should resign your Adminship. BTW, some sort of apology would be nice. Chronic The Wedgehog 20:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No apology, Chronic. You were never banned - you were just forced to choose another username. -- Y not? 23:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Our community consensus makes rules, and rules do not prohibit username with reference to illegal activities. And also, drug use is not always criminal, use of my drug of choice isn't illegal at all, man. Wooyi 21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

While the application of the "Promotion of a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view" may be subject to different points of view, a name would first need to take some sort of position to promote something. neither of these names claims anything. You will see in the policy that some things you cannot refer to(such as violence), but other things are forbidden to promote. Key distinction.

Regarding and change to the WP:U policy to prohibit illegal stuff, this rule existed and was removed after a consensus to do so was found on the talk page. The main issue is that laws vary from country to country, even kite flying is illegal in some places. _InBC 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Username containing only one character?

Nice username... :-) you are NYC JD? ↔ z (talk • contribs • autographs) 19:46:09, Saturday, April 14, 2007 (UTC)

He's an administrator (check his logs), so it must be him. --Bear and Dragon 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ye. Dat's me. -- Y not? 14:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for participation

Please give your view on Talk:Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. I would value your view. --Bear and Dragon 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you perhaps check what is wrong with the References on Voice of America? (Purely technical issue, not content-related.) Thanks in advance. --Bear and Dragon 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I won't be doing the former, and I did the latter. -- Y not? 14:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-hui is indeed a playwright

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cho_Seung-hui&diff=123837590&oldid=123837287

Did you read Richard McBeef and Brownstone? Did you hear about the fact that the teachers in Cho's class became frightened for Cho after reading the plays?

And now Smoking Gun disseminates them. WhisperToMe 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't mock the dead. Not everyone who wrote crap for a creative writing class is a "playwright" -- Y not?

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination)

Hi. I don't understand your closure - it was 15 Delete (counting me, the nom) to 10 Keep. How does that equal a "Keep" closure? Can you please point me at the guideline you are following? Thanks --Justanother 02:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't counting. Delete votes were less than impressive. Experienced users came down heavily on the keep. There seem to be some partisan shenanigans involved, so I closed it no consensus again. -- Y not? 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the "partisan shenanigans" - The anti-Scientology clique counted for 6 of the 10 keep votes. The pro-Scientology clique counted for 3 of the 15 Delete votes. If you remove the clear partisan aspects it goes 12 to 4 for Delete. Personally, I think you should discount the known partisan votes of regular edit-warriors in the Scientology-series articles and go with the non-involved and close it Delete. Of course, I am the nom and a Scientologist to boot but I think we have a clear preponderance of non-involved editors coming down on Delete. --Justanother 03:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)