Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 16 November 2008

January 2008

Your recent edit to User:Sellick666 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your username

I wonder if your username, when taken in conjunction with the fact that the only three edits you have made are reverting (directly or indirectly) edits by User:Calton is in breach of the username policy, as it is not a huge leap to read it as being aimed at that user. Is this the case? Giles Bennett 12:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No. NoCal is short for Northern California, where I hail from. Reading your above comment as well as the one you left on the administrator's noticeboard leads me to believe you are not assuming good faith. NoCal100 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'm sorry you feel that way, and if your edits entirely coincidental then I happily apologise. However, of the four edits you have made under a registered username (I'm not counting your response above and your insertion your userboxes on your userpage) two are to Kate Mulgrew reinserting an inappropriate link removed (correctly, I believe) by Calton, and the other two are to User:Sellick666 where, without discussion, you have twice reverted Calton's amendments back to MegaMom's. Giles Bennett 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Happy editing. NoCal100 (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of fictional ducks (oh, and your username, while I'm here)

Please stop edit warring at the above page.
While I'm here, I should point out that my apology above was conditional - "if your edits are entirely coincidental then I happily apologise". You added your "Northern California" userbox after my comment, and after your edits at List of fictional ducks, User:Sellick666, Kate Mulgrew - all of which were edit warring with User:Calton - I don't harbour any thoughts that your edits are in any way coincidental. In the case of List of fictional ducks in particular, you're merely continuing another edit war over Croppy the Puletide Duck that a number of other editors and IPs have been involved in with Calton over the months.
Oh, and something struck me that I should have realised earlier. 100 = "ton" (to quote from Ton - "In Britain, ton is colloquially used to refer to 100 of a given unit"). Given "NoCal100" = "NoCalton" and your stalking behaviour, I'm inclined to think I've got enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith. _GB 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess if you try hard enough, you can twist and turn everything into an anti-Calton statement. I am not British, and have never heard of the ton=100 slang until you brought it up here. Give me a few weeks, and I'll show you how Giles Bennet is in fact a some contortion of the same. Frankly, I find you lack of good faith, as well as one-sidedness, appalling. As you note, several editors (I count at least 3, other than myself) , who have opposed Calton on that article, yet for some strange reason, you come here to warn me, not Calton, about edit warring, and on Calton's page, rather than telling him to cease his disruptive behavior, you encourage him to continue and oppose me, while making baseless accusations of sock puppeting against me. Please review your own behavior in this case. NoCal100 (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The obligation is to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary - given your contributions from the outset of your editing here, I feel I have enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith on your part. I have no issue with my behaviour in this case, nor, actually, do I have any issue with Calton's behaviour on List of fictional ducks - the entry you are warring over is completely non-notable, the article to which it relates has been removed, and there is no practical justification for its entry. Perhaps you could take time out from your unrighteous indignation to explain your first four edits, and why, all of a sudden, you have turned up at List of fictional ducks if not to stalk Calton's edits? _GB 05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't see any problem with your behavior, perhaps you need to refresh your knowledge about our blocking policy, seeing as you've already made threats to have me blocked. The policy on blocks for edit warring clearly says, in case you missed it, 'In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.' - you have failed to do so, coming here to warn me about edit warring, and going to Calton's page not to issue a similar warning, but rather to encourage his disruptive edit warring. Now, you may have several reasons to come here - perhaps you would like to take Calton's side in this content dispute, as an editor - in which case I suggest you take this to the appropriate place - the Talk page of the article, and make your point there. Perhaps you are just here to let me know you are Calton's friend - in which case - I got your message, move along. But if you are here as an administrator supposedly concerned with putting an end to edit warring - then you have failed in your job miserably - you have issued one-sided warnings, and intervened on behalf of an editor who is edit warring against consensus - you have conceded there are numerous editors other than myself who disagree with Calton's position on that page. Please review your conduct. NoCal100 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe I've made any threats to have you blocked for edit warring, nor have I encouraged Calton's actions - I have suggested that he take you to WP:RFCU, as your contributions give rise to sufficient suspicion that you are a sockpuppet of another account to merit a checkuser. The fact that you war with him on two separate articles within your first four article edits are a bit of a giveaway, frankly, something which you fail to address...but since you fail also to address your coincidental arrival, and automatic adoption of a position opposite to Calton, at List of fictional ducks then I'm not particularly surprised.

I'm not here as an editor (although you are notable by your own absence from the talk page of the article) nor am I here as a friend of Calton (perhaps you should have a look through our historic encounters to work out why I think that's one of the more amusing suggestions I've come across). I'm here because as with, say, User:Former User 2 before you, I think you're only warring to make a WP:POINT and to deliberately cross swords with Calton. That it happens to be on List of fictional ducks this time is irrelevant - it is merely a continuation of whatever grudge you harbour from earlier in this account and your previous accounts. The more you moan and groan about others' actions, whilst failing to address or explain your own, the more evident this becomes. _GB 11:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You are also edit warring at List of oldest continuously inhabited cities. What's more, your edit is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable policy. --dab (𒁳) 07:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it quite amusing that someone who has already violated 3RR on that page, by edit warring and reverting 3 different editors, comes here to lecture me about edit warring, for my single revert. Don't you? Have you read this article yet? NoCal100 (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have one link for you: WP:ENC. Begin helping with the project within whatever is your capacity, or find some other pastime. dab (𒁳) 18:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am helping with the project, which is more that I can say for you. Thanks for the link - now get to work, editing within policy, and without edit warring. NoCal100 (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of your comments

Hey, NoCal100, don't think we've met. While I'm past horrified at William Connolley's behavior (he deleted the comments of many editors on that page already), it was only a matter of time before Eleland deleted your comments anyway, You can do as I did, and complain on Phil's talk page. That would have the advantage of putting him on the record (assuming he actually gave a meaningful reply, which is perhaps hoping too much). It would have the disadvantage of almost certainly not changing his behavior. Cheers. IronDuke 02:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

re Self-admitted sockpuppet account at it again

Hi Fayssal,

I noticed that a few weeks ago you indef blocked the account ofUser:Obaminator, and remarked that "Creating sockpuppet accounts to question other people's accounts" is not appropriate. It seems that the same editor who created that account in order to harrass User:Einsteindonut is back at it again, this time as User:JIDF Threats. Notice the same focus on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article, thesame insinuations with regard toUser:Einsteindonut, and the same modus operandi - the creation of a single-purpose sock account, to avoid linking the complaint with the master account. I believe this user account should also be quickly indef-blocked. In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy. At a minimum, you should privately communicate to him/her that such behavior will not be tolerated. NoCal100 (talk)` —Preceding undatedcomment was added at 02:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the notice NoCal100. It's late over here. I'll be looking in depth at the situation and consult the view of some admins (mainly the ones participating in that thread) by tomorrow. Regards. -- fayssal - wiki up 03:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

oops

thanks for not mentioning my name at the AfD, but i went there and admitted the blunder. DGG (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi NoCal100! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey 22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit you made to Palestine Liberation Organization has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Irgun

Concerning Irgun categories. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Category:Palestinian terrorists and Category:Israeli terrorists. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello? NoCal100. Rather than continuing to remove the category why aren't you discussing this at the above-linked talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Second Intifada

Re this comment: It seems to me that possibilities include a misunderstanding, difference of opinion, or typographical error ("hasn't" instead of "hadn't"). Please assume good faith; it's quite fine to point out incorrect statements by other editors but I see no need to use words like "disingenuous". Also please try to move most of that type of discussion to user talk or someplace so it doesn't distract people from discussion of article content. Thanks. I'm also putting a comment on PR's talk page about a comment on that article talk page. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine editing restrictions

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if logged here.

PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)