Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:45, 4 May 2006

==Welcome== Hello JohnnyBGood and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple rules and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

If you want to learn more, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Misplaced Pages:Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're right...

...even though you have to consider the IR port on the mini is very hard to spot ;) -- grm_wnr Esc 23:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Vandalism is not an edit you dislike. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Note how none of the boxes on Misplaced Pages:Infobox are anywhere near as long as the California route shit. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should only major interchanges be included in those, when the others have all? The point of an infobox is to get an idea of what the subject is. Not to whip out your penis and say "hey, look at me, I'm huge". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny, Misplaced Pages:Be bold says nothing about whether one uses "vulgar language". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV lists "belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" under examples to avoid. Please stop. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If my points are ignored, that's the encyclopedia's loss, because I'm right. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. (ESkog) 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI

If you want to open an RFC or Arbcom complaint at this point I would support it.Gateman1997 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Same here but we all have too. I got shot down at WP:AN/I last time. Please go there and comment. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops I just removed it... sorry. But we can't appease though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Interstate 80 Business (Sacramento, California)

Ahem... I wonder if you might be able to find time to read WP:3RR? I've given you 12h , in case you're busy William M. Connolley 00:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Don';t worry

Working on getting you back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Um aren't I on a twelve hr ban?JohnnyBGood 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it now saying that I have a sockpuppet?JohnnyBGood 18:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You have run up against the unstoppable force that is David Gerard: 2006-03-09 03:06:50 David Gerard blocked "JohnnyBGood (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppetry (JohnnyBGood and Gateman1997; email me with which is "real", the other is gone)) (from your block log, link above). Please don't waste your time fighting; just email him with which one is the real account. And stop breaking 3RR and using socks. William M. Connolley 19:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

I'm not using any socks. This is my one and only account? Isn't there some way to verify that this is my only account, an IP check or something? JohnnyBGood 19:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is David serious? Just because some other guy edits a few of the pages I do he's my sock puppet? If Gateman is then who is to say Rschen isn't. We've all be resisting the edits made by SPUI.JohnnyBGood 19:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He has invited you to mail him. Do it! William M. Connolley 19:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have. No response yet.JohnnyBGood 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Still no response. Does he read his email? I assume he's still awake as it's day in Britain.JohnnyBGood 22:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

List of things to do once David comes to his senses

• Remove 238 from list of subroutes on I-80
• Create new userbox

I-238 would have been an auxiliary route of I-80 had a number been available. It makes perfect sense to list it in the I-80 article. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Per AASHTO it would be a subroute of 38 if it existed. However since it doesn't 238 is an orphan. It has no parent route, especially not 80 as it's misleading to put it there. Someone might get the idea it's a subroute of 80, which it isn't.JohnnyBGood 22:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Per AASHTO it would be a subroute of X80, except that all were taken. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

True, however it isn't at this time. Caltrans may renumber it to 180 or 480 in the future as they're fond of number short routes as interstates (like 980 and 110), however that has not happened yet.JohnnyBGood 18:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way SPUI, I give up on the page moves. I don't give a fuck where you put the goddamn things anymore. I'm going to start another state project for some other state if David ever gets off his ass and unblocks me.JohnnyBGood 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. It appears that SPUI trolls editors he has debates with and applies his rogue techniques to whatever project they are working on. Stick to it. --Censorwolf 13:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You can be the judge on that, I'm just summerizing the record of what has happened. --Censorwolf 18:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked you per WP:AN/I. Sorry it took so long... I slept in too late. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back.--Censorwolf 13:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it shouldn't have happened to begin with. The "evidence" that was supposed to be such solid proof was never presented. Another (prehaps unintended) result of SPUI's actions it appears unless I am mistaken. --Censorwolf 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

He is right, everyone else is wrong and lots of ad hominem attacks thrown in. He must be either loving the attention or having a miserable time. --Censorwolf 20:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Wrong?

The template is far from satisfactory as currently phrased. One does not have to be collosally stupid, as you suggest one does, to have some difficulty being happy with the wording. Since everyone apart from SPUI is saying "keep", the stupidity comment could reasonably be construed as having a fairly obvious target. Instead, you should make a proper argument for why the template should be retained, as other editors to the debate have taken the time to do. That said, SPUI has a thicker skin than that (or, if he doesn't, he shouldn't give it out like he does) and is probably just being a bit oversensitive. He shouldn't have simply removed your whole comment, but I'm not sure it's an issue that needs admin attention. I don't think your userpage is likely to help your interactions with SPUI, by the way. -Splash 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Left Behind

Yup, love them.

Another thing that shows that two users can have the same interests and not be socks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

That was dumb. You're unblocked. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages

Can we agree to not move any more CA pages until the mediation case goes through? Otherwise I'll have to protect or go to WP:RPP since now it's just making a mess. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI won't agree to it. Never mind. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Flat-out vandalism
• Flat out vandalism 2--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please do not mark a revert as minor. Thanks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AFreakofnurture&diff=44735339&oldid=44734674 This is wiki-stalking. Stop harassing SPUI. — Mar. 21, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Please clarify the pronouns used in your last statement. — Mar. 21, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
  • From what I can tell, harassing and reverting SPUI is the only function that this JohnnyBGood account performs. Answer my previous question. — Mar. 21, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
    • Wikistalking? WP:AGF, for one. Also then why do other users such as Gateman1997, Mwanner, Gentgreen, myself, etc. hold the same views? Rather SPUI has been harassing us. Look at the med cabal page for yourself. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move for RCC

Johnny, you say: "Catholic Church is too broad and can refer to ANY Christian church in harmony with the Roman Catholic Church" (emphasis added). THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT! This article purports to be a discussion about that Church of which the Pope is head. Therefore, its title must reflect all of the particular Churches within that larger Church, not just one of them. --Hyphen5 01:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Johhny, please visit Talk:Roman Catholic Church#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church again. If voters don't start responding to my actual case (laid out in the discussion section), and explain to me why Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Eastern Orthodox Church, Church of Christ, and similar articles, should be titled by their claimed names--even though they can be ambiguous--but the Catholic Church should not be extended the same treatment, then I will begin proposing moves for those articles, as well. Merely for the sake of consistently applying this new de facto policy we are inventing for this article. Also see Robertsrussell's point on this double standard at the top of the page. --Hyphen5 09:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Most Roman Catholics don't even know about Eastern Catholics. That's part of the problem. But the point is using "Roman Catholic" to describe the entire Church is simply inaccurate. --Hyphen5 21:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. And this is a dispute about terminology, so nominal differences matter! --Hyphen5 21:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Should we have disambig pages at Orthodox Church and Church of Christ also? To redirect to all the churches that claim to be orthodox and "of Christ"? Look, I've never had a problem with discussion of small-c "catholic" at Catholic (even though we are normally supposed to redirect adjectives to nouns) or at Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. All I'm asking for is for Catholic Church to be extended the same courtesies as the rest of the Churches that claim possibly ambiguous names. According to the Google test (40m hits for "Catholic Church", only 10m for "Roman Catholic Church") and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names) (which states: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Misplaced Pages put into the search engine?"), we should err on the side of "Catholic Church". --Hyphen5 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
        • You are misunderstanding my points.

          Orthodox Church should also be a disambig page with links to the Eastern, Russian, Armenian Orthodox churches etc...

          But I think the Catholic Church is "orthodox" too! If other Christians claim that their churches are "catholic" too, and we kowtow to them, then our Orthodox Church article should kowtow to me and other Catholics who consider Catholicism orthodox.

          As for Church of Christ that refers to a specific protestant denomination however a small disambig label should be placed at the top linking to Christian Church or Christian Churches.

          Okay, so "Catholic Church" refers to a specific Christian denomination. However, a small disambig label can be placed at the top linking to Catholic or One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

          Also you state it should be at "Catholic Church" because that's the most common name... well only to people of the faith and even then not all of them would search for Catholic Church first. The majority of non Catholics would search for Roman Catholic Church when looking for it. So that argument is moot.

          Give me a break. Do the Google test. "Catholic Church" is by far the most common way to refer to that Church of which the Pope is head, regardless of if you're Catholic or not. Only Protestants who want to claim that their churches are "catholic", too, object. And they are a minority. The naming conventions say to put the main article where the average person would most likely look for it. That is Catholic Church.

          You seem to think calling it the Roman Catholic Church is an insult. That is one of the self appointed names of the church chosen BY the church. Your comparison to say, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is moot as well since that church does not refer to itself as the Mormon Church. Only outsiders call it that.

          Insisting on calling the Catholic Church the "Roman" Catholic Church is insulting because you're not extending it the same courtesies as other religions on Misplaced Pages. There are other churches that claim to be "orthodox", there aare other churches that claim to be "of Christ", there are other churches that claim to be Latter Day Saints, and, alas, there are other churches that claim to be "Catholic". Yet we only deny the Catholic Church the name that it claims, whereas we defer to the preferences of the rest. It is a double standard. --Hyphen5 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • It is you who are not listening to what I am saying.

          It might surprise you to learn I too am a Catholic... a ROMAN CATHOLIC. I always have been. I follow the Roman Rite, hence I'm Roman Catholic.

          I don't care if you're Roman Catholic. So am I. I'm not claiming that the term "Roman Catholic" does not have legitimate uses. I am saying that reference to the entire Church is not one of those legitimate uses.

          You cannot place the Roman Catholic Church at "Catholic Church" for the reasons stated many times above and for the simple fact that in some measure all Catholic Chruches have a claim to the title of "Catholic Church" which obviously won't work.

          Okay. Why is this so hard to get? Because they all are Catholic Churches, they should all go under Catholic Church. They should not all go under Roman Catholic Church, which is where they are disambiguated from now. It makes no sense.

          Your claim to "orthodoxy" does not trump both the Holy See and common usage. I'm sorry.

          Not you, but many others, have been objecting to this move because other Protestant denominations claim to be "catholic". I assume you reject this because, in your words, a Protestant's claim to "catholicity" "does not trump both the Holy See and common usage"? --Hyphen5 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

help

WP:AN/I my section. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Moves

You';re supposed to fix the double redirects when you move pages... but much thanks for your moves lately. I moved more and restored infoboxes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop bad-mouthing me

Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you should go around on all these talk pages bad-mouthing me. None of you on the pro-status quo side have made a case from the naming conventions that the article should remain where it is. I have pointed out inconsistencies and you have all ignored them. I am trying to mediate the dispute because that's what one is supposed to do. This is a perennial dispute, and it's not going away, because the title of Roman Catholic Church is simply and flat-out wrong, no matter how many of you vote otherwise. If you stopped being so obstructionist, and so hostile, maybe we could come to an agreement. MEDIATION is COOPERATIVE. You clearly have no interest in cooperating in any of this. --Hyphen5 20:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Pagemoves

What are you doing? Stop this mass reversion and open up an RFC to determine once and for all what these pages should be named. This request will be enforced with a block if necessary. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case U.S. Roads

Concerning this case:

If you need a fast assignment of a mediator it generally helps when you are willing to mediate in a different case. If you can't mediate yourself maybe somebody else interested in the case would be willing to mediate and thereby increase your chance to get a mediator fast. --Fasten 11:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads

If you are interested in this case please leave a statement at this page for the mediator. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Re. page moves

I know you're involved in the war over page moves. I would like to urge you not to revert SPUI's recent moves until we can get a consensus sorted out. The constant moves are disruptive, and hurt Misplaced Pages. Ral315 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Thank you for finally helping to break the beaver dam blocking the transformation of this article into something more satisfactory. I hope by the end of the week to have merged material from the other articles in question, per the mediation discussion. Fishhead64 22:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

{{Portal US Roads}}

There is no point in linking to the portal, as it has not been updated in over a month. If you want it linked, please make regular updates. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI RFC

I have filed an RFC regarding User:SPUI's disruptive behavior. You may comment or provide additional evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SPUI. —phh 02:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Harrasment

Would you please go talk to this guy User:Doc glasgow and possibly SPUI's RFC and tell them we're not the same person. The whole project is apparently out to kill us both and your input would be greatly appreciated in the matter because I've just about had it with this crap. They can search all they want as I've got nothing to hide, but you do seem to stalk myself and a few others like Rschen around so it looks like we could be related. I don't know what else to do at this point but please go to those pages and discuss and I know I never said anything before but if possible try not to follow me and others around anymore as it's now become disruptive. Gateman1997 17:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack?

{{unblock|Unequal application of policy. See below for reference.}} I would dispute that this was a personal attack. I just pointed out he's being a WP:DICK. Why can he call multiple users dicks on multiple occasions but we can't return the favor when he's being one? Talk about a one sided policy. JohnnyBGood t c 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nice to see I've gotten a response. JohnnyBGood t c 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortened your block to sixteen and a half hours, or one hour from now 03:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC). I disagree with using that phrase myself but noone gets punished for it... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Article titles

Please stop moving pages to what we all know is the incorrect title. I'm done for now but I will fix your shit. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 20:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Move warring

Stop the move warring. Sasquatch t|c 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Him first. He needs consensus to make these mass moves. Many have pointed this out and the dick won't listen. JohnnyBGood t c 23:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha. And you don't "need consensus" to make your moves? I don't need consensus because I'm right. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. These pages are in high levels of dispute and as usual you choose to plow through with no consideration for many of your fellow wikipedians who have voiced objections. You've literally driven people from the project. Real Wiki like of you. (Also please note how he comes here to gloat almost immediately after being unblocked. What a WP:DICK thing to do. JohnnyBGood t c 23:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no consideration for objections that are wrong. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 00:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Who died and made you the never wrong king shit of road articles? JohnnyBGood t c 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"never wrong king shit"? I'm assuming that means "one who knows the truth better than JohnnyBGood". --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 00:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If it were just me objecting you might be right... but you've got at minimum half a dozen users objecting. Maybe you might want to go through the appropriate channels if there is that much objection. Would it kill you to use WP:RM? JohnnyBGood t c 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

With the objection of the groupthink, a requested move would not get through. Read groupthink until you realize how wrong you are. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 00:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it wouldn't get through... you've never tried! And for the record, IF it doesn't get through, then per policy that's it, you drop it. Pure and simple. Why can't you accept that, because you think you're right? That's not an accepted reason per wikipolicy. We don't have a WP:SPUI's Opinion section. JohnnyBGood t c 00:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a policy of no original research. Your "California State Route X" names qualify as original research, as they are not actually used. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 00:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We've already established that this isn't an OR case. There is a good argument for these routes being kept at CA ST R XX. I won't bring it up here as it's been said so many times you can find it on any board related to this debate. JohnnyBGood t c 16:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked under the condition that you will not revert SPUI, regardless of who is right or wrong -- Tawker 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed as long as he can also not revert me.JohnnyBGood t c 00:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, what is your IP address or autoblock number -- Tawker 00:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting... if Tawker isn't around can someone else finish the unblock please. JohnnyBGood t c 17:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, should be unblocked now, it looks like it went through -- Tawker 20:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Interstate 75

Please explain that statement. JohnnyBGood t c 01:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have the belief that "User:SPUI is never right", then i believe that is evidence that you continuously revert Interstate 75 just to spite him, and not because it's necessarily what is best for Misplaced Pages. Evan Seeds (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the statement to avoid the stalking term, but i still stand by my original point, that you seem to have bias. Evan Seeds (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:)

...coolest...username....ever!!!!!! jaco♫plane 18:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Move Warring

I am making this offer on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject California State Highways, its fairly obvious that some sort of outside help is needed and if you and SPUI are willing hopefully we can come to a reasonable compromise. Please let me know -- Tawker 18:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how SPUI is a little weary of binding, perhaps if you could post your argument for the move in on the page, it will help everone see where the other is coming from and hopefully find a solution -- Tawker 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Because from the comments on the non binding arbitration page that a reasonable compromise cannot be reached (this dispute has passed through mediation once without a resolution being reached) I'm afraid the only major course of action is to request that ArbCom, the people who do have the power to issue a binding resolution, take a look at this case. If you feel that this case cannot go any further through non binding means, I encourage you to take it there. -- Tawker 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to iniate it on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration - I'm not the best person to do it as I'm more of a mediation role than a disputant, though I will file a third party comment if necessary. I've been talking around and you do have very reasonable grounds for such a case and odds are very likely that it will be accepted. -- Tawker 23:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ouch. I've been gone since Wednesday. What's been happening? I probably won't be back until Tuesday either :( --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have filed a request for arbitration on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration, this is the required notice of filing so you can make a comment -- Tawker 00:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I-93

Because adding that junction adds nothing new. We already know there is an I-95 junction near Boston. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)