Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:04, 1 July 2006

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. You may not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. It's pretty clear that this account was created solely for trolling; a block until the AfD is over should suffice. Just zis Guy you know? 22:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock|No trolling here.}}

Your contributions tell a different story. No unblock. --pgk 07:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

GNAA photo caption

By way of explaining my edit, it's not encyclopedic to caption that photo "Future GNAA members" unless Misplaced Pages is actually claiming that those people are future GNAA members. Since we don't even know who those people are, and since Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, that's not acceptable. The picture and the caption are there to illustrate the type of image that GNAA works with. Thus, we caption it, not the way GNAA captions it, but in a more detatched way, where the caption is not offered for the truth of the matter it asserts, but as an illustration. -GTBacchus 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and you're going against consensus: two editors besides myself have edited to the original version. I'm going to change this back. Stanfordandson 00:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A majority among a few editors on one article is not the same as consensus, and anyway, consensus does not trump our basic policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV. Those kids in that photo are not "clearly" GNAA members of any kind; it's pretty clear that someone has photoshop. Unless you can provide information about those kids' identity and confirm that they are, in fact, future GNAA members, we are not going to call them that. Remember - against policy, numbers mean nothing. -GTBacchus 03:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe the image was photoshopped. No pixels, no nothing. Stanfordandson 04:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the Du Bist deletion debate

I've posted this on the relevant page itself, but I'm curious what you mean about "the informality of the title" when it comes to the song. BigHaz 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for admin

If you're serious, and not being a troll or anything, then I am most flattered and delighted to accept. Can you please activate your e-mail.--Poetlister 17:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fire discipline

Can you please explain this diff: And this one in userspace:
Throw in comments like , your commentary on 2 AfD s: WP:AFD/Du Bist and Objective validity of astrology, and your previous block , and it sure looks like you're trolling. -- Samir धर्म 04:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly always willing to explain any edits I make to Misplaced Pages.

Let's go through the ones in question with the help of a bulleted-list:

• Oops. I messed up. When I made the fire discipline edit, I was attempting to add a new category, but it turned out that what was in my paste buffer was a redirect I had been using earlier. However, the redirect did not work, or else I would have noticed immedietly and reverted the edit. This edit was entirely my mistake, and I apologize and have added the appropriate category.
• The edit to a humourous userbox about alternating hands when masturbating was supposed to be a joke, albeit possibly quite a bad one with a vaguely postmodern tinge, playing off the switch between left and right implied by the userbox. Perhaps my edit was misunderstood and unclear, and perhaps should have been reverted, but I don't see how it could constitute trolling.
• I'm not sure what problem there could be with the edit in the talk page of clonazepam, but I will attempt to explain my motivations for the edit. I noticed a comment left to a legitimate question that seemed very uncivil, including basically telling the person who asked the question to buzz off. This seemed to be uncivil as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages's policy of not only allowing but indeed propmoting unstifled and uncensored serious debate.
• The comments in Du Bist's article for deletion are nothing more than part of a debate on an appropriate title for that article.
• I disagree that the edits on the astrology article for deletion constituted trolling. I was nevertheless blocked for them, but after that I stopped making edits to that page, and though my bad was supposed to last until after the end of the article for deletion, when it ended earlier than the AfD, I went out of my way to inform the blocking admin of this , in a good faith effort to ensure I took my 'lumps', even if I disagreed with them.

I understand how some of these edits may have been suspect, but I suggest that, in the future, you ask for explanations first, before accusing people of being trolls. I am a relatively new user, and if you scrutinize my edit history even more than you already have, you'll see I've made quite a few mistakes. Most I fix immedietly, but some have unfortunetly slipped through the cracks. Stanfordandson 09:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't buy a word that you are saying. You removed AfD notices, left spurious commentary on 2 AfD's (don't buy the "commentary" argument one bit), compared the illegal use of benzodiazepines to drinking coffee and wine, and edited in someone else's userspace. We see a lot of new users, but these actions are egregious. Do not do any of these things again. -- Samir धर्म 10:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've chosen me to harrass with baseless accusations, but a better use of your time would be reading up on Misplaced Pages's guideline on not biting the newbies, which accusing people of invented misdeeds does not seem to comply with. Check my edits carefully, if you must; I have added several deletion notices, but haven't removed a single one, even in the case where I nominated an article for deletion, but later had a change of heart. I don't see what's wrong with comparing recreational use of benzodiazepines with the recreational use of ethanol and caffeine. Ask any substance use counsellor, and they will tell you that, not only are uses of illegal and legal drugs remarkably similar, abuses of them are treated in much the same way. However, even if this wasn't the case, your belief that it's acceptable to be incredibly rude to someone merely asking about the recreational use of benzodiazepines, information that would certainly be encyclopaedic, but not okay to respond to such abuse by pointing out that the belittler himself apparently actually uses recreational drugs is spurious at best, especially since in some jurisdictions and situations it's illegal to use, posess or sell alcohol and in some jurisdictions it is legal to use certain benzodiazepines recreationally. Please remember that Misplaced Pages is part of the world, not just whereever it is you happen to inhabit. You might believe my edits to AfD pages were somehow inappropriate, though just how you have yet to specify, but I can assure you they were made in good faith and if you want to complain about them, I'd request you present some sort of reason to. I did make some constructive edits to other people's user pages, but as far as I know, that's against neither policy, nor guideline, nor custom, and is in fact encouraged in some cases. You might not be 'buying', as you say, but that's okay because I'm not selling. Stanfordandson 19:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism is not

Hi there. I made a good faith edit to Gay Nigger Association of America, specifically in removing an image that I did not believe improved the article. You reverted it as vandalism, which was inappropriate. Please review Misplaced Pages:Vandalism to insure you understand what vandalism is and is not; in case you're not aware, it can be a bit insulting to good-faith contributors to treat their edits as vandalism. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions in this matter. -- SCZenz 08:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Stanfordandson 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology; thank you. One point I would like to clarify, however, is that I removed the image because I thought it was inappropriate for the article; specifically, we do not need to illustrate the deliberately-shocking juvenile nonsense that GNAA promulgates in order to have an article on them. -- SCZenz 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Stanfordandson 14:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between an editorial decision and censorship. We aren't required to use every possible offensive image just because we aren't censored. OTOH, I didn't consider the image in question offensive. -GTBacchus 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the image's removal that SCZenz gave was that it was an offensive image, and so that was the argument I addressed. I agree with you that the image wouldn't be offensive to most people. I also think the image was completely appropriate for the article. Stanfordandson 06:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Newbies

Hey dude, if you're going to pretend to be a new user, you have to not show so much familiarity with the policies and processes of Misplaced Pages. And maybe not edit battleground articles. Or nominate shitstirrers for adminship. Still, enjoy your time here, brief as it's likely to be. Grace Note 01:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made a small number (<100) edits under a different username. I'm no longer using that account, and all edits I've made have been in compliance with the rules on sockpuppetry. I've also read a lot of talk pages and some of the mailing lists, as well as the actual policy and guideline pages, in order to familiarize myself with how Misplaced Pages works. I don't think there's anything especially exciting about that. Stanfordandson 19:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't called you any names and I'm in no danger of breaching WP:NPA unless I have too many drinks and get frisky. I don't throw the "troll" word around as much as some, on account of usually being on the receiving end. You have made far more than 100 edits previously though; it's clear enough from your editing. I don't have a problem with it. I'm just being friendly. If you want us to have an email correspondence, the address attached to my userpage works, but I don't have anything further to say to you. Grace Note 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Contactss.jpg

First, the contents and caption of the image indicated that it was more self-promotion by the GNAA; second, its copyright status is unclear at best, and it seems to have been photoshopped. - Mike Rosoft 07:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition of GNAA image to protest

Stop adding GNAA images to non-GNAA articles. They are not informative because there is every reason to believe they are edited, staged, or otherwise misleading. I will not insult your intelligence by pretending you don't know this perfectly well, so if you continue such edits I will block you for deliberate disruption. -- SCZenz 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how is the image misleading in that context? I've heard a lot of assertions, but no arguments. An image being uploaded for the GNAA article does not make it unacceptable to include it in other articles. You can use your administrator powers to bully me, even though it's generally considered inappropriate to block users you've personally been involved in a dispute with, but the image is not disruption and so it stays. Stanfordandson 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 31 hours for disruption. -- SCZenz 18:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock - Admin involved in a dispute with me blocked me, falsely claiming I was adding an image that was a 'GNAA image', despite the fact that it was relevant to the article I added it to and hardly an image that was exclusive to the GNAA.

Unblock request denied. Valid block. Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it seems worth noting that the uploader of Image:Contactss.jpg put "gnaa corporate picture" in the edit summary. It is a GNAA image. -- SCZenz 08:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So if I upload an image of a tomato and say in the edit summary that it's a penis it wouldn't be a valid image in Tomato? Get real. Stanfordandson 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully support anything and everything that User:Stanfordandson contributes to wikipedia. His contributuions are true, accurate, and a refreshing addition to wikipedia. I cannot understand how you fellow wikipedians can take such a negative attitude towards User:Stanfordandson and niggers in general. You should be respectful towards gay pride day and instill a love of life in general to all. Good day. Daloonik 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)--Daloonik 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing Misplaced Pages

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Fairbank Memorial Park. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. <!-- Template:Test2-n (Second level warning) --> -- SCZenz 06:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't nonsense. There are many parks in Toronto, and while officially people of all races are welcome in all of them, there are unfortunetly some parks where certain members of racial groups harrass and intimidate people of other races who enter the park. It's not nonsense, and it's not vandalism. Also, I'm not sure what sandboxes have to do with anything. As far as I know, there isn't a sandbox in the park. Stanfordandson 05:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Fairbank Memorial Park. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. <!-- Template:Comment2-n (second level warning) --> BaseballBaby 05:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts are not WP:POV, and I didn't add any analysis of an article at all, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Also, if you continue to post in my talk page, please try to follow the formatting already in place. Consistency, readability, and my not having to refactor comments are all good things. I'm also not sure why everyone keeps bringing up sandboxes. There is no sandbox in the park. Stanfordandson 06:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Stanfordandson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Administrator involved in an ongoing dispute with me blocked me for things I've already been blocked for, and edits I made to ] that were not vandalism, as he claims. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Administrator involved in an ongoing dispute with me blocked me for things I've already been blocked for, and edits I made to ] that were not vandalism, as he claims. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Administrator involved in an ongoing dispute with me blocked me for things I've already been blocked for, and edits I made to ] that were not vandalism, as he claims. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock