Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 15 August 2007

Archives

Archive 1 (18 Feb. - 20 Apr. 2007) Archive 2 (21 Apr. - 28 Jun.) Archive 3 (30 Jun. - 3 Aug.) Archive 4 (7 Aug. - 12 Oct.) Archive 5 (13 Oct. - 15 Jan. 2008) Archive 6 (20 Jan. - 21 Apr.) Archive 7 (Rest of 2008)

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Signpost updated for August 6th, 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 08:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Green108

you blocked one or some address relating to posts i made for one month......i think it is both pointless and unfair as my isp obvious uses dynamic address

you should really unblock them

i am not hiding about or doing anything funny here.......i just dial up and make my edits

thank youUser:Green108

From Defender 911 (talk · contribs)

Let's get one thing straight about the Resource Center I created:

>:(   

AND STAY OFF OF MY TALK PAGE! --Defender 911 (Leave a message!) 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to remove this. There's no need for incivility to remain on your page, especially when the poster has been blocked indefinitely. Just a thought ~ Anthøny 18:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it's fine, I don't mind. GDonato (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about pic removal from Hata, Nagano

I'm pretty sure I screwed up the upload and license on that pic, how can I upload the pic to English Wiki (Original was on the Japanese Wiki) and note that it has been released under the GNU license?--Jusenkyoguide 12:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is add {{GFDL-self}} if you created it or {{GFDL}} if ot was someone else. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CVU MfD

Hi, I reverted your edit because this MfD (the fourth one) was originally posted as the second one (mistakenly), and already has numerous links to it -- far more than any links intending to go to Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination). Cheers! --Ratiocinate 22:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. I was thinking about putting a banner on the 2nd one but OK. GDonato (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

86.143.7.252

sorry - im bored — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.7.252 (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

NCDave

I note http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:NCdave_reported_by_User:MastCell_.28Result:_72h.29

I must admit, I am bemused. MastCell made 4+ edits within 24 hours recently, and he wasn't banned, cos he is on good terms with the admins. NCDave gets banned for breaking the SPIRIT of the rules.

I agree with NCDave. The article in question contains defamatory material, inaccurate material, and is a one-sided sliming. What else should you do but put a POV sign on ? There happens to be a series of people who think that they are correct; they are quite content to do non-discussed reverts on a routine basis. That doesn't mean the article is not controversial. Peroxisome 22:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm on any particular terms with the admin who reviewed your 3RR report on me. I've never interacted with him. Here's the 3RR report. You failed to provide diffs, and I didn't think I had gone over. When another editor kindly supplied the diffs, I offered to revert myself. As a full-blown edit-war was underway, the reviewing admin saw fit to protect the page rather than sanction individual editors.

Contrast that to NCdave's behavior. First of all, I oppose unblocking him (although I understand GDonato's rationale) because he is utterly unrepentant, does not admit to any behavioral problems on his part, and indeed used his unblock request to attack me. If he doesn't understand that making 4 reverts in 27 hours, without discussion, immediately after coming off a weeklong block for 3RR is inappropriate, then I oppose unblocking him all the more.

You've been advised endlessly of the options open to you if you dislike the consensus on the article, which is hardly defamatory (as several uninvolved editors who have stopped by have mentioned). Open a content WP:RfC or go to the BLP noticeboard for outside opinions. Those options have been suggested to you and NCdave repeatedly; that you refuse to follow the procedures listed in WP:DR and insist on accusations and edit-warring instead isn't helping your case. MastCell 22:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is worth reviewing MastCell's comments. For the record, he appears to accept that he recently went over 3RR, yet wasn't penalised. He opposes unblocking NCDave. He called for blocking NCDave. There appears to be a bit of personal needle here.

rather more to the point, there have been an awful lot of falsehoods, and defamatory material posted on the steven milloy page. For example, allegations were made that Milloy received money, when it was a company that Milloy was associated with that received money. A company budgeted to pay Milloy, and this was represented as Milloy having been paid. When these falsehoods are pointed out- clearly on the talk page- they are strongly resisted and reverted. It is somewhat disingenuous for MastCell to call me an edit-warrior, when he comes fresh from reverting my comment without even reading my comments on the talk page, and when he has a long and partisan history on this page. Peroxisome 22:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not need me to tell you that I am watching NCdave (talk · contribs) closely. Regarding the WP:3rr report on MastCell; that was a different admin, not one I know so take it up with them if you have a problem with it, Peroxisome. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were, indeed, watching closely, GDonato, then you would know that both of MastCell's accusations against me were false. Of the 4 alleged reverts in 27 hours, only three were actually reverts, the other being an original edit. Of the previous 4 alleged reverts in 24 hours, only 2 of my edits were reverts. What's more, all 5 of my reverts were actually un-reverts, in which other editors (including MastCell) had deleted material, generally without even bothering to put a comment on the Talk page. Peroxisome and I (and some other editors) have tried to make the article in question NPOV, balanced, and truthful. MastCell has stubbornly worked to inject his POV into the article. NCdave 03:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:United Kingdom regions

I see you blocked User:81.79.203.71 for 24hr for making 5RR, but before your blocking he had requested protection on the template which another admin, applied for a one month period, I had earlier filed a compliant against this IP as this the second time in the past few days where a anon IP has appeared and targeted my edits. The main problem now is this sockpuppet has achieved his aim with the template locked at his POV pushing version for one month, I think the template should be reverted to the version prior to is actions, as to leave it as it stands only encourages him to do the same again.--padraig 22:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

meta:The Wrong Version would apply here. Anyways, the page is at the other version now anyway since the protection level is reduced – something which I would not have done. GDonato (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 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 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)