Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:38, 2 November 2007

Isotope23 is almost completely not here... so I may not respond all that quickly (or at all). Just remember though; BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Bill-See answer at bottom.

I don't know how to respond to you except to post her (please educate me...)

There is no copyright problem. The previous bio that was up for years was deleted some months ago, likely vandalism. I can confirm any information in the post, and can re-add the links that were there previously in the prior version. Just for my understanding, what is one fact in the post that you were not able to confirm. Finally, there are hundreds of articles and posts about Bill Lichtenstein and Lichtenstein Creative Media, so there is a lot of material out there. Please help! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.220.36 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill, when I looked at it, there were full sentences lifted from the LCM website. Give me a bit of time to review the sources out there. What is necessary is multiple sources covering you that are independent of you (i.e. they don't come from LCM). Give me a day or two to work on this. If I can find the sources I will create a stub article and then from there I can assist you in creating a neutral and sourced article that won't be deleted.--Isotope23 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I'm still looking into this. At this point I nearly have enough non-trivial coverage from reliable sources to start a fresh, sourced, stub article. I should get to that later today.--Isotope23 15:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sengunthar

How curious, a bunch of Mudaliar (talk · contribs) socks get blocked, and a new editor shows up making the exact same edits.--Isotope23 00:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually look at the talk page history or anything... I don't know what's going on. Is this a sock?

That's so page move vandal

Thanks. I don't know this show and am unsure what the true names of the characters are. I suspect that some have been messed with. --Jack Merridew 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but being how I'm decades out of the target demographic, I have no idea either.--Isotope23 12:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

i noticed that you have left a few messages on my page, you must be watching my page...no problem i have nothing to hide, feel free to continue watching --Greenwood1010 13:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)(LLTWUAF)

As a practice, I pretty much watchlist any page where I've left a comment so I can see if someone responds to it... if I don't watchlist it I have a tendency to forget all about it. Rest assured that I'm not trying to police what you are doing here; any comments I left were intended to be helpful and you are free to ignore them or delete them if you wish. But, if you don't want people reading what you write, email is the way to go. Cheers! --Isotope23 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do this too... if I've ever posted on the talk page, then it's on my watchlist, and I check in from time to time to see if anything interesting is happening. That's why I sometimes chime in on Isotope's talk page, for example... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If only I could get Isotope to watch my page! I'd be happy to have him spy on me! ~*Grin*~ Ariel♥Gold 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Done.--Isotope23 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh, I'm in the big time now! ~*Ariel struts her stuff*~ It's pretty quiet today, but that's probably because according to Misplaced Pages, I'm still sleeping! (Well, I will be soon, I hope, lol.) Feel free to join in the "mini-help desk" any time, now, y'hear? Ariel♥Gold 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's been pretty quiet here too. Nothing wrong with that though... --Isotope23 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

???

What the hell did you do here? Looks like you hit the wrong button. WLU 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hell if I know... I'll fix it though.--Isotope23 16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you have a fan...

Spryde 14:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just blocked him. I'm evil like that.

It's Dr. Seaweed (talk · contribs) who apparently is still upset that I blocked one of his (?) accounts for WP:3RR. Maybe with his new found free time he can start a blog about what a jackbooted thug I am suppressing the truth.--Isotope23 14:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute?

Is a request to remove original research a content dispute? Mpublius 16:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage... but short answer = "yes".--Isotope23 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Brief cameo appearance from an old acquaintance

Hey Remeber User:Jfell well i am back again!! i will time you to see how long it will take you to make the fact that i am a sockpuppet know. Jfellsback 22:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

...not very long at all, really. Indef blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See, this is why FisherQueen is my favourite admin - cruel, yet amusing. WLU 22:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Joey Shabadoo

This article has been relisted; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Joey Shabadoo (2nd nomination). I am notifying all participants in the first AfD. Chick Bowen 20:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the creature shows it's spots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Foofiles&diff=167869973&oldid=167869765 HalfShadow 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, a troll... and not even a particularly amusing or interesting specimen at that. I didn't even need to see that to have him pegged.  :) --Isotope23 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Isotope

I apologize for what I have said but I am sick of this reputation from this old user account I made following me around. Can't you look through my edits and see that I am not a vandalizer. I have never vandalized wikipedia. I only get angry when I feel other editors are being jerks. If you look at all my contributions, surely you can consider them vandalism like contributions I have just spent the night laboring over on wikipedia. LITERALLY! My eres are red from all the hard work I put into those articles of my favorite shows and you're going back and reverting all of my hard work hurts very much. Look, since everyone on wikipedia hates me this much, I won't evade the block. Just please don't revert all those edits. I worked so hard on all of that. You've reverted hours of sweat and hard thinking I have done for weeks to make those articles flow. You're just changing them because you're upset with me. You have a right to be upset with me and I am sorry. I just wish I could edit wikipedia without constantly being accused of being a sockpuppet. Yea, I am everybody hates chris, but I NEVER once vandalized an article. I know I need to control my feelings. Anyway, as much as I love editing those articles, I won't come back. Just please don't go all the way back. I worked my ass off on those articles. I wish you adminns would just give me another chance. Let me edit :( All my contributions are in good faith. Please go back to the everybody hates chris page, rochelle, and julius page and bring it back up to the correct edits Yourboyfriend 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is a one time offer. I will restore your edits. If however I find that you evade your block again, I will revert them all back to the cleanest version I can find free of your edits, policy will allow me to do this, and I will aggressively watch them and revert any changes you make to these article on sight. If you want to return to editing, email unblock or post an unblock template on your original account. I can't guarantee that will work, but it is the only way you are going to be allowed back here to edit.--Isotope23 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mold (mould?) me!

Hi Isotope,

See, FQ may have the more entertaining talk page, but who do I come to for advice? If that's not flattery, what is? Incidentally, don't read the parts for FisherQueen. It's totally irrelevant.

(FisherQueen - if you're watching, this is totally insincere, I'm just buttering Isotope up. You're still my favourite. And don't bother reading the comments for Isotope, it's not important.)

(Isotope - I'm totally lying to FisherQueen, YOU are my favourite admin, evar!)

Can you have a brief gander at Talk:Bipedalism? Could I have handled it better? I value your input, because you're my favourite admin. (Note to FisherQueen - except for you!) WLU 21:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind sharing. There are so many wonderful admins (and so many wonderful not-yet-admins) running around, who could choose a favorite? It's like having a favorite ice cream. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pralines and cream. Everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. No wiggle room. WLU 23:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article talkpage tomorrow.--Isotope23 04:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

At your leisure, it's a favour I appreciate. It's a bit long, usually I'm more convincing than this, and I'm wondering what made this case exceptional. WLU 14:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK... so what is the issue there? I mean, I understand the core diagreement (i.e. number of external links), but I'm not sure I see a problem. You have an opinion. The other editor has an opinion. You've both expressed your opinions. Neither of you swayed the other. That happens. Did I miss something else? The whole conversation seemed completely civil and there was very little blood shed.

On a side note, removing dead links is always a good idea and despite what that editor contends, it isn't the responsibility of other editors to try and figure out why the link is dead (be it due to a mis-typed URL or just the site being taken down). Remove dead links and hit the talkpage of the article or the editor who added it with a courtesy, "link was removed because it points to a non-existent page; please review when you get a chance".--Isotope23 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more that I don't usually run into this much opposition for what I see as 'pedestrian' edits - things that appear very clear to me via policy but I'm still getting pushback for reasons that seem irrelevant to me. It seems like a lot of electrons were wasted on what should have been a simple matter and I wanted to make sure I wasn't mis-reading the situation. Secondary to that, I appreciate any feedback on my comments - if you think it's good, I'm reassured that the issue doesn't lie solely with me. Plus, I always get little tidbits like your side note. Gracias! WLU 18:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

After nearly 3 years here I'm no longer surprised what people will argue over.--Isotope23 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember my LAME edit war over Sole (foot)? I'm king lame, stubborn and convinced of my own inability to be wrong. Bad combination, which is only made up for by my considerable charm and full, succulent thighs. That's why I like these little checks to make sure I've still got at least one toe still in line. WLU 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

why

Why would having a tilebox be a problem?--Greenwood1010 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sock?

Hey Isotope23, check this user out. He's got all the trademarks of Nintendude going: the name, inane categories, one-line unsourced additions like this and this, and POV edits to regular targets of other his other socks, like Music Radio and a radio station in Detroit. It's got to be him. Thanks -- Torc2 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Torc2 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One more, though it looks like this was only used for a day: User:Green Pipe. The clue was the same kind of edits to Music radio (like this and the use of the (now deleted) Category:Songs that radio no longer plays. I'll scan Music radio to see if I can find any more obvious ones. Torc2 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a single purpose acount, but I took care of it anyway.--Isotope23 01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but some constructive advice needed

Sorry the spat over WAS 4.250‎ got so out of hand, and I would appreciate some advice on a better way to handle this in the future. I was quite discouraged from trying to start a convesation when the first thing I got was a fake "warning", though after his second blanking on the Agriculture talk page, I made one comment on WAS's talk page that he immediately blanked and didn't respond to, so figured there was no hope there. WAS kept blanking things I posted in other areas, calling them all "personal attacks", and so I got a bit spooked and tried to give a heads up to people in places where he might not be looking and blank the comment before it was even read. I wasn't intending to spam, I just panicked trying to find someone who was online. I hope Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ the right place for me to go? In 18 months or so on wiki, I have never seen someone blank comments on other article discussion pages and call them "personal attacks" before, then put a "warning" on my talk page about it. This really did spook me. I am so sorry that things escalated. Usually when there is a problem, I just give a heads up to one of the admins who has helped me in the past, they say a quick word to the other person, and it all blows over. This was really different. I am rather shaken that suddenly what I thought were good faith attempts to find someone who was online who could help was misinterpreted so badly. OK, I've gone on a bit here. But I hope that any misunderstandings can be remedied. Montanabw 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And after today, I think I wholeheartedly agree with your comment to FisherQueen that "Wikiproject reform or dissolution would be a good thing." I wasn't even a major contributor to the project. Sigh... Montanabw 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, if there is any advice I could offer, it would probably just be to try and be mindful of how your actions could be interpreted, and try not to take stuff too personally. I don't think any of you were trying to be malicious, it appears this is just a big misunderstanding where actions were misinterpreted or blown out of proportion. It happens. Mostly I would just say to let it blow over and go back to editing. No harm no foul.

I've long been of the opinion that Wikiprojects are a noble idea in theory, but in practice they seems to always result in abuse. I don't watch every single project and perhaps there are some out there that work, but the ones I've observed eventually run into WP:OWN issue on articles or somehow get the idea that the consensus they reach on their project talkpages somehow can be applied to articles as if it were a guideline. In my view it contributes to the balkanization of Misplaced Pages and promotes small groups lording over fiefdoms of articles. I however would guess that my opinion is very minority on this and I expect Wikiprojects are here to stay for the foreseeable future.--Isotope23 12:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Workable advice. I guess everyone needs to remember AGF. I wasn't really accusing WAS of being a troll, I was more trying to get the others to just disengage because I though the whole debate was silly. (sigh) I was also surprised at how a couple of the other admins were so quick to go after me for basically trying to find an admin! I have never had that happen before. Just a bad day, I guess.

WP:OWN gets abused too, I was rather surprised at getting that little blast laid on me for things like "multiple page edits in a day" when the problem is that my eyesight is poor and even when I use "preview" I miss errors, resulting in multiple page edits when I am working on something. (That and not clearing off my watchlist enough, thus spending a lot of time reverting true vandalism and commercial linkspam; but that has gotten me accused of ownership too. sigh). I fess up to "ownership" feelings about a couple of articles, but can always be swayed by verifiable data, which is something that is not often understood. AGF really is the most important thing here, and probably the quickest forgotten, including by myself at times. Lesson learned, I guess. Montanabw 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

More Seaweed puppet would-be-stalkers?

Hi Isotope23, you blocked Cyril Reid, who a.o. wrote this: "Denveron and DVdm are clearly not yet mature enough to be editing encyclopaedia articles." and you also blocked this Catsiam, but I don't find their names on category listing. Can you insert the {{blockedsock|Dr. Seaweed}} tags on their userpages?

By the way, see also:

• Tempus Krilly with this: "Walk away now otherwise you will perpetually torment yourself. This game is tailor made for the likes of Denveron and DVdm and all the sympathetic kindred spirit administrators"
• Benzit Fingo with this: "What seems to be annoying him is that fact that two students (Denveron and DVdm) want to stand in front of the article holding up placards claiming that Dingle was wrong.", and this: "How about if I start vandalizing the Eric Laithwaite pages by constantly inserting 'Laithwaite was wrong about the textbooks being wrong because the textbooks say that the textbooks are right'? Would I get the VIP treatment that is afforded to DVdm?"

I find this rather amusing and I really don't mind him doing this, but you might be interested in ip-checking this. Mind you, I'm still 100% convinced that Seewead really is Swantzsteve himself :-) Cheers, DVdm 10:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You can boldly tag them if you wish. I, as a rule, don't usually bother to tag obvious throwaway accounts like the Doctor is using. You can also submit a request for checkuser if you wish, but he is using a fairly broad IP range from what I gather so I don't think an underlying block is the appropriate action here. I'll also say that Checkuser cleared Swantsteve and I agree with those findings; unless Steve has a jet stowed away somewhere or knows some super secret TOR nodes, Seaweed and Steve are separate individuals. Peeking into my crystal ball (since it is Halloween), it is also very unlikely that Dr. Seaweed's allegations that Denveron is a physics student are actually correct.--Isotope23 12:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these are allegations. He's just trying to tease and annoy. I actually find it a bit sweet :-) - Cheers, DVdm 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

True... it's much nicer than most of the stuff said about me on the internet.--Isotope23 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Webcomic CSD

Greetings,

I respect and appreciate your comments but I disagree with the notion that removing the CSD tags was tantamount to disruptive editing. The CSD policy says that anyone but the creator can remove them (and if you are the creator, they need to use hangon). Based on the fact that mass tagging with little discussion, seemingly single purpose, and even tagging articles that do assert notability reeks of vandalism to me. We have indefblocked named accounts for less which is why I did what I did. Anyway, I have said what I feel needs to be said. I respect your opinion but I disagree with it. Spryde 17:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem... you are absolutely free to disagree with me. The problem wasn't the initial removal, the problem was continuing to go back and forth on these, particularly on the articles where no assertion of any notability exists. At this point I have no plans to issue an additional blocks in regards to this matter, though I think the articles in question either need to be updated to show why they are notable or they stand the risk of deletion.--Isotope23 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was planning on going back through after the issue was settled to recheck what needs to be done if anything. I just wanted to make sure one issue was settled first before dealing with another. Anyway, cheers! Spryde 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to review them for a week or so. I'd rather let whatever furor still exists die down and give interested parties some time to source them.--Isotope23 17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to mention it at the incidentboard, but I was a bit miffed at your accusations of foul play between me and Spryde, which came close to a personal attack in my opinion, especially after you accused me again of disruptive behaviour. What really happened was that I noticed this person was tampering with a page on my watchlist, I investigated and checked the guidelines on speedy delete and removed the notice, checked further and saw this guy on a troll through the webcomics pages. So I warned them, started to undo their damage, noticed they continued and were undoing my undos, warned the administrators and after this Spryde started pitching in as well. Only after the troll was blocked did I undid the rest of their reverts of Spryde. --Martin Wisse 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

criteria for external links

Hello, I am curious about your criteria for removing external links. You stated the reason for removing my edit on Neutral Milk Hotel was that it contained a link to an opinion piece. If you would be so kind as to read the external link's article, I think you'd find it is full of careful research about Jeff Mangum's life, most of it reiterated from Jeff's own words (see Pitchfork's interview, for one source and the official Neutral Milk Hotel press pages for another). Any opinions presented in the article are really nothing more than a colorful view on the facts that don't stray very far from the general consensus of the record. I respectfully disagree with your removal, and would like to know your thoughts on the matter. I sincerely only want to add to Misplaced Pages's integrity, not take away from it. - - Jamesrejoyce 31 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 20:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

EverybodyHatesChris

Sorry to bother you, but why on Earth was this user unblocked? He or she was blocked originally, then resurfaced at least once (as User:Foofiles) and was blocked again. The editor is now back as User:EverybodyHatesChris doing exactly the same things as before. (As "Foofiles", the editor also demonstrated several instances of following editors who disagreed with him to unrelated articles he had never visited, and reverting their edits without explanation.) --Ckatz_spy 07:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. This editor has been operating sockpuppets non-stop ever since he was blocked. How did this happen? Who thinks this is a good idea? ➪HiDrNick! 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It happened because I spoke to the original blocking admin and the editor in question. The blocking admin had no objection, so I unblocked. The editor created multiple accounts because they were blocked; no block = no reason to edit through other accounts. Blocking is a preventative measure, not a punishment. As long as the user behaves themselves, there is no reason for them to be blocked. If they don't, they will be reblocked. If you have a problem with this, you are free to request a review of this at the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks.--Isotope23 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Butt Out

What does it have to do with you eh?

If you can tell me what it is all about and what pages it occurred on I would move off into the ether never to bother you again.

--LPWRHR 17:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)