Revision as of 13:38, 25 August 2007 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 9.← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:46, 25 August 2007 edit undoWJBscribe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,293 edits →That *awful* anon IP again: replyNext edit → | ||
Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
After reading his to the Twinkie defense article, and after looking through , I am more convinced than ever that he is an established user editing anonymously. I was under the impression that sock puppetry was not allowed here, unless it was made clear by the user what their actual Misplaced Pages identity was and their reasons for doing it. I don't think a check user will help, since it is a company IP, but I do think this bears investigating, since his actions seem to have ] from <s> this exercise in frustration</s> this noble experiment we call an online encyclopedia. Can you find a solution to this mess? ] 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | After reading his to the Twinkie defense article, and after looking through , I am more convinced than ever that he is an established user editing anonymously. I was under the impression that sock puppetry was not allowed here, unless it was made clear by the user what their actual Misplaced Pages identity was and their reasons for doing it. I don't think a check user will help, since it is a company IP, but I do think this bears investigating, since his actions seem to have ] from <s> this exercise in frustration</s> this noble experiment we call an online encyclopedia. Can you find a solution to this mess? ] 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
:It is a little suspicious but without evidence of who they are, there isn't much one can do on that front. Regardless of that I'm unimpressed with their approach- I reverted the post you linked me to and have given a final warning. The rules say people should comment on content, not contributors and that edit seems to be a series of accusations against Benjiboi. <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 13:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:46, 25 August 2007
19:21, Thursday 16 January 2025
Userpage (commons · meta) |
Talk (Archives) |
Gallery |
Barnstars |
Drafts | |
Cobra Video
Please read the paragraph about Kocis' death, to make sure I am in compliance with BLP. I think I was neutral and verifiable, but I don't want to open us up to accusations of libel. Jeffpw 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree as to neutrality and verifiability, but I suggest that until the two are actually convicted, we omit their names from the article. Although the evidence against them is compelling, I think we can give decent coverage of the matter without mentioning their names. I am a little more cautious than the some when it comes to WP:BLP but I'd rather not name suspects where if it's avoidable. Interesting stuff though... WjBscribe 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- But, but but.....they are actually charged with the murder and are going on trial. I won't revert, but if newsapers are naming them, and they are being tried for the murder, it seems like their names can be used. Frankly, that was the last of my concerns (and if you browse the linked articles, you'll see that others have used their names in different articles). Give it some thought, peaches. I do wish Misplaced Pages were more Like News Of The World. :-(Jeffpw 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Jeff, ask the lawyer get the safe option :-). Under UK law publishing the case against someone before a trial is illegal anyway on the basis that it prejudices the later proceedings - as soon as someone is charged the press are required to shut up. I know the US takes a more liberal view but I still think "innocent until proven guilty" and all that. Feel free to get a third opinion as I know I do take a pretty strict view on BLP but serious accusations about people who have never been found guilty by a jury are a problem in my view. ArbCom's last word on the BLP thing has been "do no harm" and I tend to follow that course. I'll think about it, but I'm unpersuaded about naming names.... WjBscribe 00:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- But, but but.....they are actually charged with the murder and are going on trial. I won't revert, but if newsapers are naming them, and they are being tried for the murder, it seems like their names can be used. Frankly, that was the last of my concerns (and if you browse the linked articles, you'll see that others have used their names in different articles). Give it some thought, peaches. I do wish Misplaced Pages were more Like News Of The World. :-(Jeffpw 17:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sheesh, you're no fun!:-( On a semi-related note, if we do later decide to name their names (and what is the real harm inherent in claiming somebody stabbed another person 28 times, slashed their throat and set them on fire to conceal the evidence?), can I grab their mugshots off of their MySpace page? If I remember correctly, mugshots are government property. Gonna hold them on my computer for safekeeping against the day they may shine brightly on Misplaced Pages (and oh how I just love a juicy sex/murder scandal!) Jeffpw 05:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I found several pictures of Kocis to add to the article, but they are all copyrighted. The only free use (govt photo) was a crime scene pic of his charred , almost headless body (they almost decapitated hijm with one swipe of the knife--the next 29 stab wounds were just to make sure). If I photoshop it to put the head closer to the body, and one squints a bit, one can pretty make out who it is. Should I go ahead and upload that one, or take a chance on one of the living (non-crispy) fair use images????? Jeffpw 19:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Help
Hello. I have received insults on the talk page of MauronZ, they are in Spanish, so I am going to translate them: Please, don't humiliate yourself with Soda-POP. if she does not accept your excuses, fuck off with her. This is repeated on my talk page, where it accuses me of calling “homosexual” to the user LeAngeGardien. You can see my contributions and observe that I have not made that thing. This also happens in wikipedia in Spanish, where already I have warned an administrator of there. Best regards. Goddess {post} 07:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC) I have to deleted this message on my talk page, where the user uses spanish language in the end of the message to camouflage his insults to me. Translate of the end: "you accuse to me to be homosexual, when you put of nick “Goddess/Goddess” I accuse to you of homosexual, vain person and pride! haha!."
- If you need help on this one contact me, I'm an admin in es:wiki. Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
G'day
I am a mediator in real life and if I can be of help in the Mediation Committee, please let me know. I tried to add my name in the "submit" box but didn't work. Daoken 19:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, it will be most kind of you if I can receive a reply about how to add my name to the list of who is willing to help the MC. Thank you for your time.Daoken 11:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't backed to you sooner. Things have been pretty busy and this post had rather slipped off my radar. Thanks very much for getting in touch and offering to help. Not sure exactly what you mean by the "submit box". The Mediation Committee acts as to provide formal mediation of disputes on Misplaced Pages. Mediators are appointed on the basis of experience with Misplaced Pages's policies and process, community support and a good track record of resolving dispute of the sort that crop. Clearly your outside experience would be invaluable to helping you were you to get involved in Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process. You might want to take a look at the Mediation Cabal which offers more informal mediation - any editor can volunteer to mediate a case that is listed there - its a good way to build up experience of how mediation works on Misplaced Pages and apply the knowledge learned elsewhere. If working in the dispute resolution process through MedCab becomes something you enjoy, I'm sure the Committee would be glad to receive a nomination from you in the future. Best wishes, WjBscribe 02:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Help in requesting Mediation
Hello,
I would like to request mediation, but the amount of information on the RfM page is quite overwhelming.
I have a technical question: do I have to add all of the text from the box into the page or do I just add the RfM mark into the page?
Thanks, Horlo 03:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Feedback
I've been fleshing out an idea for a serious overhaul of the sources section of WP:NOR. I'd really appreciate it if you would visit the draft and share your thoughts, as I value your opinion. Thanks! Vassyana 11:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Cheers
Thanks for blocking this vandal 74.13.46.137, he blanked my page. Ryan4314 01:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
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 06:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well
There is still plenty of time for discussion at ANI. If you have salient points to bring to the table, nobody's stopping you. >Radiant< 13:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Antoni Dunin
If you had read what I said on the AfD, this is what the Countess reference says according to Elonka:
- "It says that my aunt Krysia Dunin (Antoni's daughter) is the daughter of a Count, and that she had to flee from Poland to come to the United States. ".
It says nothing about Antoni Dunin. Similarly, see the references on Stanley Dunin. This is being done to make an impression of notability and when you actually examine the references, they either dont talk about the subject, or mention them only in passing. --Matt57 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing me to that. I will factor it into further consideration I give this article. WjBscribe 14:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Response
I'm sorry to hear that you are so upset over the unblock of Matt57. However, it seems from your comments on various pages that you believe such issues should be based on weight of numbers, i.e. the amount of people who agree with them, rather than on fact. This assertion I fundamentally disagree with. While one could easily to claim that "a few people agreed with the block, therefore it was consensual", one should look deeper and examine the underlying reasons and facts. It was alleged that Matt posted personal information - but he didn't. It was said that Matt was editing the same articles as Elonka - but he wasn't. It was stated that he spread the dispute with bad-faith accusations on commons - but he didn't do that either. This indicates that the charge of harassment is on shaky grounds at best.
That is not to say Matt's behavior should be endorsed, for he hasn't been particularly friendly to Elonka - but it is important to note that neither has she been particularly friendly to him. Perhaps Matt has been reading her contribs log (which does not in itself constitute stalking), but it is obvious that she has been reading his. Matt may be tackling the issue the wrong way, but his underlying point (that the Dunin family articles may have COI or POV problems) is not a priori invalid. When two people are in dispute, blocking one of them in this fashion is not an effective way of resolving it.
>Radiant< 09:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- My point remains the same Radiant. You could and should have argued this at the ANI thread. Instead you reversed the block based on your own conclusions and accused Kylu of having blocked in a manner that was "unwarranted and punitive", when several admins of high standing had endorsed the block. That remains what concerns me about your actions. WjBscribe 14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- "It was alleged that Matt posted personal information - but he didn't. It was said that Matt was editing the same articles as Elonka - but he wasn't. It was stated that he spread the dispute with bad-faith accusations on commons - but he didn't do that either."
- Exactly. No more than he edit-warred with sockpuppets - and, excepting Chaser, we've still heard no apology about that, either.Proabivouac 10:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Who are you saying should have apologised for that block? Chaser was the blocking admin. I decided to seek checkuser information before taking action. Checkuser exhonerated Matt57 - so I did not block (in fact I lifted the autoblock on Matt57's account that Chaser had missed). So I don't see who else should apologise for that incident. As to the more recent block - again, I was not the blocking admin. But I do endorse that block (and feel it was if anything too short). I would support much tougher sanctions against Matt should the matter arise again. So what is it you want me to apologise for? WjBscribe 14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
United Nations Security Council Resolution 127
Hi - can you have a look at this when you get a minute? It was tagged by a copyright violation seeking bot, but it seems to me to be fair enough. Let me know if I'm wrong, and buy me a pint regardless Chrislintott 12:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looks fine. That Bot is pretty new and I think the "whitelist" of sites that actually do provide free content is still being developed. WjBscribe 14:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I thought so - thanks. It seems to me that slapping a big box on the article itself (rather than the discussion page) is rather trigger happy, especially if it relies on whitelisting which isn't fully complete. But what do I know? Chrislintott 15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well its new - I'm sure user:Coren is taking suggestions. His Bot got into a war with another Bot that was creating articles on genes based on public domain info - gave it a ridiculous number of warnings for uploading copyvios. Still it is very good and detecting people who really are copy and pasting stuff from other sistes. No idea what percentage of its tags are "false positives". WjBscribe 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Snotty Anon IP needs civility lesson
. I have already warned him once, and he has been blocked for edit warring on this article before. He seems to think because he is anonymous he can be as rude as he wishes to other editors. I haven't edited this article myself, but am a purely disinterested party. Thanks in advance. Jeffpw 16:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Bot error
Ah, good call-- those should be treated as whitespace. However, one small request: if you have any other issues, please use my talk page instead, as I can keep track of bugs and stuff better from there. --slakr 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Quick update, this is now Fixed in v1.1.5. Lemme know if you have any more issues. Cheers :) --slakr 05:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:RFD clean up request
This discussion ended with "delete", but the almost identical second redirect I mentioned in my rationale was kept. I guess it was missed - could you delete it too?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Yeah, you're quite right - I missed it completely. WjBscribe 20:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Block Of User:81.153.196.168
Thanks for blocking him, he was getting somewhat irritating. Keep up the good work! Tiddly Tom 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Shakespeare in performance RfD request
Could you please address the matter at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 August 23#Redirects to Shakespeare in performance? Thanks. It either needs a speedy keep closure or the RfD tag needs to be put back all of the nominated redirects that have had it removed. BigNate37(T) 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is it possible to speedy keep at least that redirect. As I stated in the RfD, it was the article's original title until yesterday!--Alabamaboy 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, let me read the discussion. WjBscribe 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Alabamaboy 22:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, let me read the discussion. WjBscribe 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is it possible to speedy keep at least that redirect. As I stated in the RfD, it was the article's original title until yesterday!--Alabamaboy 22:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I agree that Shakespearean performances needs to be kept - I think discussion of the others can continue a bit longer though. WjBscribe 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the other discussions continuing. Also, I apologize for any trouble I caused.--Alabamaboy 23:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Its OK. Look like you had the right idea - just caught people by surprise. WjBscribe 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the other discussions continuing. Also, I apologize for any trouble I caused.--Alabamaboy 23:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Response to Admin topic
I'm looking forward probably within the next month, maybe as early as next week before I will try for my second nomination. I will scroll the policies in the next few days. The last major issue which prevented the successful nomination was the images and copyrights although I'm seen to have worked for most of the images I've uploaded.
Also, one more element: I've noticed that very few or no admins are using Twinkle (security issues?), so probably I would have to be forced to remove it? Thanks!--JForget 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Twinkie defense RfC initiated
As you are an editor who has given a warning of WP:CIVIL violations to the disputants in an ongoing dispute at Twinkie defense, I thought you should know about this article RfC. Please see Talk:Twinkie defense#Request for comment: Twinkie defense content dispute. This article RfC is was initiated per the Dispute resolution process. Please see WP:RFC, particularly the section on Request comment on articles, for information about this process. Thanks. --Yksin 01:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Lé fired in your direction. Daniel 06:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was online when the issue cropped up, and dealt with it. Email's mootness level has reached 1.0 :) Daniel 13:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Cuz I'm a blonde, (yeah, yeah, yeah)
My God!!!!! A THOUSAND apologies, my dear! It was purely unintentional. I hadn't finished my first cup of coffee yet and must have...well, I don't know how I managed to do it. Sheesh, I passed the idiot test with flying colors that day (and that damnable IP has caused more trouble than he is worth, one way or the other).
I will pay more attention when starting a new subject. Thanks for your high tolerance of my blond moments. Jeffpw 15:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That *awful* anon IP again
After reading his spirited defense of his edits to the Twinkie defense article, and after looking through his edit summaries, I am more convinced than ever that he is an established user editing anonymously. I was under the impression that sock puppetry was not allowed here, unless it was made clear by the user what their actual Misplaced Pages identity was and their reasons for doing it. I don't think a check user will help, since it is a company IP, but I do think this bears investigating, since his actions seem to have run Benjiboi off from this exercise in frustration this noble experiment we call an online encyclopedia. Can you find a solution to this mess? Jeffpw 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is a little suspicious but without evidence of who they are, there isn't much one can do on that front. Regardless of that I'm unimpressed with their approach- I reverted the post you linked me to and have given a final warning. The rules say people should comment on content, not contributors and that edit seems to be a series of accusations against Benjiboi. WjBscribe 13:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)