Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 19 April 2008

User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch

Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam.

I check in most mornings and most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my new office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.

I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Misplaced Pages is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.

Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
• My take on the Durova incident.

Note to self

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

Can you explain this edit?

Hello, can you explain this edit? Thanks! JBFrenchhorn (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and can you explain what moel of horn you play and whether you are a member of the International Horn Society and why is Giovanni Punto not up to FA standard yet, I want to know? Guy (Help!) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I am wondering why that particular site is blacklisted, what "linksearch" is, where the list of blacklisted sites is, and why they should not have links that go to them. I'm just wondering, as I don't really care whether it has a link in it or not. I play a Conn 11Dr. I don't know why the Punto article isn't a FA yet. I don't think I've done any editing at that article yet. Most of my edits are on topics other than music. Thanks.JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A website tends to get blacklisted when it has no particular value to the encyclopedia but gets repeatedly placed on article pages. An external link needs to be reliable and informative, and to contribute something of encyclopedic value which the article itself doesn't already have. See WP:EL for the policy, and WP:SPAM and WP:WPSPAM to get a handle on what a problem external links are.

There is an en:wiki spam blacklist and a meta blacklist. Linksearch means this page where you can see what sites are linked from within the wiki. Hope this helps! Franamax (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And this is how you sidestep a block

Recently, you blocked 75.57.196.81 (talk · contribs), an anon with an IP banner for being a "Disruptive and disputatious editor)". That anon subsequently adopted a new anon IP address (quie likely simply restarted his modem and received a new dynamic IP address) and began editing under as 75.58.39.201 (talk · contribs). As there was also a prior caveat to keep the IP banner identifying the IP range as well as an apparent avoidance of the block you placed, I filed an AN/I complaint in regards to the matter. With apologies, I meant to notify you immediately, but was sidetracked. - Arcayne () 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, were you planning on commenting on the block you placed on the anon user who then sidestepped it by rebooting their modem and start editing from a new one? - Arcayne () 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention. - Arcayne () 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir, In the section of AN/I in which you originally banned me - it was Arcayne that was severely admonished for the following edit in which he removed my entire post after I changed the tag on a thread I had opened in accordance with the written instructions: No one was aware of your action as the thread was Archived shortly after your post. The thread which you posted in regarding Arcaynes threatening of me appeared to conclude with an edit by ThuranX at 01:57, 16 April. My IP changed and I had confirmed edits from a new IP at 14:07, 16 April. I was apparently blocked at 21:35, 16 April by you. I am now charged with Block Evasion by Arcayne and he is now engaged in a private effort to have me banned. As I have stated I do abide by the rules here and will continue to do so, I have refrained from all edits except those specifically allowed by the rules to post your page and AN/I. I am not comfortable with Arcaynes continued relentless obsession with me - and I am certainly not comfortable with him going to you after failing to harm me through AN/I - he has an open complaint against me regarding this allegation of Block Evasion.

The allegation of Block Evasion is untrue. I would further defend myself against your initial coloration of me by pointing out that Arcayne has colonized my Talk page and will not allow me to Archive his threatening posts to me - My talk page is a picture painted by Arcayne. I am also fully with community consensus in the dispute over allowing a films credits to be cited and referenced in a films InfoBox. As a point of fact, Arcayne failed to enlist a single voice in support of his effort to overturn community consensus, he has tried to find support to overturn community consensus in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five different sections on WP:RS, taken it before WP:OR, efforts to enlist support were made on numerous user talk pages; it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox by numerous distinct editors and then immediately Reverted by Arcayne on Ten Separate Occasions and he has now opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style! WP:MOS

I am sorry to have troubled you for your time over this but things are not necessarily as Arcayne has painted them to be. 75.58.32.90 (talk)

Just to be clear, and Arcayne knows this to be true as it was brought up in his failed attempt on AN/I to ban me for this very same Block Evasion: My IP address changed before you blocked me.75.58.32.90 (talk)

With respect, the anon suggesting here - posting on your talk page - that he isn't evading a block - seems odd. If he was blocked the first time, and was made aware of the block and continued editing, that's block evasion. That he started up not one but two different IP addresses after being blocked that the second address the one commenting here is one of them. I don't really know how to respond to the irony of the situation. - Arcayne () 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for the former content of List of books portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

You seem to have protected this entry (probably a good thing). I'm looking for the full list that used to be there, but all I can find on the Talk page is titles between A and E: Talk:List_of_books_portraying_paedophilia_or_sexual_abuse_of_minors#refs

My interest is simple: now that the title has been changed again to " . . . paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors" I would like to remove from the provisional list various works that portray neither.

That has always been my interest in the page: that works were being put on the list that did not belong there unless an extraordinarily broad definition of paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors is in play -- one completely inappropriate to the categorization of fiction (especially utopion fiction and science fiction). Current editors of the page think there is no problem with definition. Fine, I guess. But I feel I need to remove works that will be badly misrepresented by the restored title, before the list is restored to the main page.

I can't do that if I can't find the list! Can you help?SocJan (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's only protected against moves, the content should still be there in the history, but I'll have a look. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks!. SocJan (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • P.S.: Read the lovely tribute to your father on your page. I'm typing through tears. Thanks for sharing his life with us, and for your efforts to bury him in the fashion that he wanted. SocJan (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article in userspace

Why did you delete the article Leftist-Islamist Alliance from my own userspace? You have no right to do that, so please restore. /Slarre (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• You created the article, moved it to mainspace, and it was promptly deleted by acclamation. Feel free to try Conservapedia, where I believe that kind of content does not violate site policies. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not "move it to movespace". It was created in mainspace before I moved it to my userpage. I moved it to my userpage to have a copy of it, so I could work on it to become a decent article under a new title or integrated into an existing article. What policies are you referring to that says you can't keep copies of old articles on your userpage? /Slarre (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I can't quite understand why you deleted that page; when an article is AfD'd, I was under the impression that it was acceptable for an editor to userfy the content in order to work on it and add references, with the aim of eventually moving an improved version of the article back into mainspace. (I've seen this done before, at any rate.) I agree that the article, as was, did not meet notability guidelines for neologisms, but User:Slarre seemed to be making a good-faith attempt to improve it. Apologies, of course, if I've misunderstood the situation. Walton 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It very much depends ont he reason for deletion: poorly written articles on borderline or good subjects are certainly game for user space rework, but as you'll see from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Leftist-Islamist Alliance this was just a piece of political advocacy sourced from Free Republic and the like. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. As you can see from the discussion, several users seem to think that the content is encyclopedic enough and worth expanding/improving under a new title or merged into another article, that's why I moved it to my userpage to try to improve it. It should also be noted that the article was previously nominated for deletion and was then voted to be kept. You have also not pointed to the guidelines/policies you seem to be relying on that says admins have the right to delete non-inflammatory content from other users' pages without even notifying or asking the user before. I ask you kindly once again to restore the article, otherwise I'll have to take this to another level. /Slarre (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Several? Oh, you mean three. And it's only your opinion that it's non-inflammatory. Actually, if that genuinely is your oipinion then I foresee trouble. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So what's 'inflammatory' in the article then? /Slarre (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask a passing Muslim, I'm sure they'll help you out with that. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was asking you, since it was you who made the assumption. /Slarre (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Guy) I agree (looking both at the AfD and at the deleted text of the article in Slarre's userspace) that the article did not meet WP:NEO, and obviously Free Republic is not a reliable source; thus I completely agree with the consensus on that AfD. However, I also think it's worth noting that the version in Slarre's userspace did cite two published sources; that isn't enough on its own to meet the notability threshold, of course, but it does suggest that the term is actually in use, and therefore that there's a possibility of writing a decent article at some point if enough acceptable sources can be found. Even if this won't be possible, it might also be possible to merge some of the content into another article (as a representation of a particular viewpoint). I agree 100% that the article, as was, doesn't belong in mainspace, but wouldn't it be acceptable to let him store it temporarily in his userspace to let him work on it? Walton 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I noticed you removed the archive links of three references on three Degrassi: The Next Generation articles yesterday, which pointed to pages at freerepublic.com. In the summary, you put unlink copyvio per WP:C; I read the page but see no explicit mention of the site or why any like it cannot be used. What then, is the problem with the website?

Also, when you removed the link, you messed up the formatting of the entire reference by not removing the archive date:

"McKay, John (2004-07-19). "American teen channel delays abortion-themed Degrassi episode". National Post. Retrieved 2007-09-10. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)"

Please be aware of this in the future. Regards, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject Spam members
• Misplaced Pages OTRS volunteers
• Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping