| Revision as of 16:14, 14 August 2006 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsm Reverted edits by Stevertigo (talk) to last version by SlimVirgin← Previous edit |
Revision as of 16:14, 14 August 2006 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits archivingNext edit → |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
] |
|
] |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
== your review page == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your note. I'm unsure what can be added to the criteria, which are reasonably explicit about the requirements. The title of the page suggests that it's not directed at nominators—only at reviewers. ] 09:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, the title's wrong—no hyphen. And I wonder whether (either in the title, or perhaps in the main text) you can include the FAR/C process? It's very similar. (]) ] 10:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is a good idea. Anything that raises the profile of reviewing in the FAC room is worth doing. There aren't enough reviewers to go around, and there ''certainly'' aren't enough copy-editors. |
|
|
|
|
|
The FARC process seems to be so close to the FAC process WRT the skills required of reviewers that I think it's a good opportunity to link them here, even if the title highlights only the FAC process. They're mirror-images of each other: the FAC process is for promoting; the FARC for demoting. One's in, the other's out, and both have a steady flow. In fact, the FARC process (and its newly conceived initial review stage) has been flooded with nominations, and we're only ''just'' coping. Your input there would be greatly appreciated. ] 10:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I like the trend to Harvard away from footnotes in hard-copy (academic writing) because I hate interrupting my reading to see the author and year; I like WP's emphasis on footnotes because they're less intrusive than Harvard and are but a click away; WP readers are less likely to want to check them out as they read, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
:However, I've have to admit that I'm not big on the whole reference debate here: I just know when they're missing. SandyGeorgia is the expert, so you might consider bringing Sandy in on this. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Am I sensing that this page might be explicitly written for reviewers, but that there'll be an implicit assumption that potential nominators will read it too? If so, that widens the scope a little, and may bring together both communities in what should be a common pursuit. ] 10:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::To that end, I've posted a note on the talk page for FAR/C. ] 11:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I've posted some guidelines on the page you suggested. Do check out! ] 15:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Got your note. I thought I did have e-mail activated, so I don't know what's wrong: I'll check that when I have time. Anyway, not to worry, I'm not upset. Indignant perhaps at the lack of gratitude and the personal ax those folks are grinding after all the time we gave their article, and considering the serious personal abuse they unleashed upon us and which we took in good stride and with grace. I'm more irritated about the neglect of other projects. I don't think they have any idea of the consequences of all those FAs that get promoted without a serious review: we have to deal with them on FAR. Anyway, time to take a step back, and revisit it another day, but nothing unmanageable here :-) Thanks for the note, ] 19:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==BLP template color test== |
|
|
|
|
|
Something to consider. I think the green color is both pleasant and catches attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''''' |
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="messagebox plainlinks" style="width:60%; background:#E1D1FF;" |
|
|
||| This article must be edited in accordance with our policy on ''']'''. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately.<!-- --><sup><!-- --><!-- --><!-- --></sup> |
|
|
|}<noinclude> |
|
|
'''This tag should ''only'' be placed on the talk page of the article.''' |
|
|
] |
|
|
</noinclude> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
''''''' |
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" id="t_blp" |
|
|
| style="width:65px;" | ] || This article is about a living person and the ''']''' policy must be adhered to. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to this article ''or its talk page(s)''. Such material '''must be removed''' without hesitation; the ] does not apply to such removals. |
|
|
|}<noinclude> |
|
|
] |
|
|
</noinclude> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Code for light green color''' |
|
|
|
|
|
CCFFCC |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''Test of purple version with light green''' |
|
|
|
|
|
{| class="messagebox plainlinks" style="width:60%; background:#CCFFCC;" |
|
|
||| This article must be edited in accordance with our policy on ''']'''. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately.<!-- --><sup><!-- --><!-- --><!-- --></sup> |
|
|
|}<noinclude> |
|
|
'''This tag should ''only'' be placed on the talk page of the article.''' |
|
|
] |
|
|
</noinclude> |
|
|
|
|
|
-- ] 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mailing list == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot! :-) --] 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== NathanDW == |
|
|
|
|
|
FYI, I blocked him and his ips for 3rr on ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Dispute thingy== |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your notes, SV. I'll say it again, you have done a great job. And I'm trying not to take sides on this. The whole point is to make it easier for admins & reviewers by forcing contributors to support their position with evidence, citations & so forth. This point is simply not coming across. Perhaps everyone is a little too het up right now. Best ] 11:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== your comment == |
|
|
|
|
|
You're "stunned by rudeness"? Jeesh, looks as though any point of view that you don't like is "rude". ] 12:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Hello== |
|
|
Hi - just wanted to say hello, and thanks for your calm and good sense around the whole Putnam/WP:REVIEW thing. Cheers, ] 15:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems the nominator choosed to interpret the result of the afd as "delete and merge". |
|
|
I understand that afd aren't so much a vote as they as a discussion. So the twice as many votes for keep don't necessarily count if they don't make a good argument against the nominator (right?). But I'm still baffled as to why it was interpreted the way it was. It only received 1 vote for merge. Do you think the section would be better off back in the article? Let me know what you think. If you have a minute, maybe take a look at the deletion review process initiated by Ramdrake. Thanks ] 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==...every reviewer here...== |
|
|
I won't get into a revert war but personally don't see it as an attack - it is expressing an opinion, and since Tony has already objected to the change I feel you have acted wrongly in changing it again. I hope you will reconsider, as I can't see it doing anything but escalating the personal conflict between you and Tony. Cheers ] 00:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:OK, I can sense your frustration so I won't push it. Not feeding the troll might be the best policy though. All the best. ] 00:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== FAC comment == |
|
|
|
|
|
I hope my comment on the FAC talk page wasn't too harsh. Everyone gets a little involved from time to time :). I think your attempts to explain the FAC process for nominators, and perhaps reviewers as well, are good and I don't want to deter those at all. What I want to exphasize though is that there are several regular FAC reviewers there (Tony, Peta, Sandy, Zzzzz etc.) who have a lot of experience reviewing articles and I think any page should be weighted with their experience so that it can reflect the FAC process accurately. As for Tony, please realize that he, as well as other FAC reviewers, have adjusted their FAC objections quite a bit from what they were originally were to be less on personal preferences in an evolutionary process of sorts. ] 06:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Usercheck comment == |
|
|
I appreciate your support. Thank you. But with a user this prone to wikilawyering and pseudo-legal threats, I'd rather do everything exactly by the book. --] 07:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== More Kosovo weirdness == |
|
|
|
|
|
We've had some disruption on ], ] and ] from an anonymous user who's been using multiple proxy servers to make highly contentious edits and personal attacks against me. It would appear that the person responsible is the operator of the ] account. I'd be grateful if you could check my reasoning on ] and let me know what you think. If I'm right, the user in question has clearly been acting dishonestly and disruptively; the question is, what should we do about it? -- ] 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't think sprotection is really needed, the contentious editing isn't ongoing. I do think we need to respond to the ongoing personal attacks though. I'd suggest a short block and asking him to choose one account, as you say, also reminding him of ] and ]. -- ] 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
==Image copyright problem with Image:PA103reconstruction3.jpg== |
|
|
Thanks for uploading ]. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate ], it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
For more information on using images, see the following pages: |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Article of questionable value== |
|
|
|
|
|
I came across the following article, which was started by a new user - ]. It seemed suspicious, as it didn't appear to have any real value. So I googled and only got one result on his university website. |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you list something for deletion because it's not of any value, or something? ] 11:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Feeling Unclear== |
|
|
I am still very new here, and do not really understand the ettiqutte yet. I worked in RPGs for a while where there were real disputes, but they were very cordial and productive. I decided to try to help the philosophy project because its my field and the first task on the list was working on the Putnam article, so I tried to help. Then an awful lot happened leaving me not quite understanding how I am supposed to be helping. The first task in the al but dead aesthetics wikiproject, is to try to get aesthetics to FA. Obviously it needs more in-line cites, but that would be a short afternoon work for me. Part of me now beleives that the standards for copy-editing for FA articles are so high that nothing I can do will help to reach them. To my eyes Putnam looked well written (but lacking in-line references) at the start. I don't doubt that it was improved by the work on many professional level copy-editors. Do I need to find some way to hire professional copy-editors before nominating an article? Is the whole FA process a tar-baby that I should just stay away from, and focus on helping pages to A status instead? Was the Putnam thing really atypical, and I shouldn't be gun shy? Were people just over-critical because tempers frayed at the beginning, or it is really the case that FA articles need to be better-than-professionally written to count as "well-written"? Should I not even ask this kind of thing on your page because I'm in danger of spreading a flame war? Is there an appropriate thing for me to be doing? Right now I feel like any help I try to give to an already good article will do more harm than good, even though I am a professional, because I am not a professional copy-editor, and all my work will have to be undone by later hands if the article is ever to reach FA someday. Am I misunderstanding things? I am sorry if this post itself is an error. ] 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Re Allegations of Israeli apartheid== |
|
|
Hi Slim. Do you think (Jossi as well) the same about Islamofascism? Cheers -- ''] 23:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)'' |
|
|
:Thanks for the reply Slim ;). -- ''] 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
This case has been closed and the final decision is published at the link above. |
|
|
|
|
|
For the Arbitration Committee. --] 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Hilary Putnam again== |
|
|
Hi - I've just noticed that Raul has reopened the nomination for ]. All brief supports so far (including from Sandy, Tony, etc.), but if you wanted to support it, now's the time (again). Separately, on the ] thing: thanks for your note about this, and I completely agree that Tony's 'How to' should be presented as one editor's personal opinion. But to be honest, the responses have been pretty hostile - especially from Sandy - when I've added comments on this issue, so I've backed off. I support the guideline, and I think you're doing great work, but at the moment I think my most strategically sensible contribution is to stay out of it. Cheers, ] 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sorry, didn't make myself very clear. I'm not intimidated or hurt or anything, I just think that the best way I can support the general move towards repairing the FAC process is not to stick my oar in at the moment, since when I do I get knee-jerk responses (of the form 'you've got no experience of FAC, so your opinion's worthless'), and just seem to harden the resolve of the people who think there's nothing whatever wrong with the process. Perhaps I'm just cursed with a sarcastic tone of text. I'll keep an eye on the discussion, though - I'm not completely ducking out. Cheers, ] 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::OK, seems I wasn't able to restrain myself for very long... Cheers, ] 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Putnam image == |
|
|
Yes, I emailed him, but I haven't heard back. I got his vacation auto-responder, which said he'd start going through his emails on Tuesday, so maybe he has gotten through all of them yet. --]<sup>]</sup> <small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 12:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
That's a pretty cool acronym. Anyway, thanks for the touch-ups—it's amazing how blind one gets to prose problems after staring at them for months. --]<sup>]</sup> <small><font color="brown">]</font></small> 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Block== |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, this ip address 208.3.69.196 have broken the 3RR rule on the Kosovo-article: |
|
|
*1: 13:21, 10 August 2006 208.3.69.196 |
|
|
*2: 13:20, 10 August 2006 208.3.69.196 |
|
|
*3: 13:15, 10 August 2006 208.3.69.196 |
|
|
*4: 20:08, 9 August 2006 208.3.69.196 |
|
|
|
|
|
He or she should be blocked. |
|
|
|
|
|
== message == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Unfortunately I'm away on business & will have no access to the net (or at least not WP!!). Back in September. ] 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Conflict of interest proposal by Eloquence== |
|
|
Please see ] created by ] 10 August 2006. I know you are good at this sort of thing. Thank you. ] 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Please do not revert me without discussion == |
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding this reversion: ... I gave my reason why I feel it is important that there be a history here of the requests, and you reverted me without any discussion or rebuttal of the reason. Please do not do that going forward, but rather discuss reversion, I would appreciate it. If you have a suggestion as to how to make it clear that there is a history, which I feel is quite important in this particular case, without restoring the template itself I'm very open to that. Would a mention of a diff showing the request be acceptable to you? You can reply here, I prefer conversations to remain threaded and get confused when people reply to me on different pages. ++]: ]/] 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I did not revert you without discussion, I restored something you removed and explained why, as part of the restoration, it wasn't a pure revert by any means. As for why he's not unblocked already, I think the reason clearly is that there's consensus that unblocking is not the right thing to do and that he should remain indef. blocked. Should consensus change, that's fine, and I'll happily support consensus, as I always do, but I don't see it yet. ++]: ]/] 22:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== You've got a Thank you card! == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="padding: 5px; background: #FFDCF8; border-style: groove; border-width: 10px; border-color: #003153; -moz-border-radius: 25px; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; "> |
|
|
<center> |
|
|
<div style="margin-top: 5px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 250px; background: #ffffff; border:1px solid #8888aa; float: center;">]</div> |
|
|
</center> |
|
|
<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none; font-size: 100%;"> |
|
|
<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none;"> |
|
|
<div class="NavHead" style="background: #FFDCF8; text-align: center;"><small>Open your card!</small></div> |
|
|
<div class="NavContent" style="display: none; text-align: center;"> |
|
|
Dear Slim, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me! My ] is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to ] and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.<br> |
|
|
Dear Slim, as I write you this, I remember the words we exchanged some time ago when you kindly offered me your support and sympathy in my worst moments at Wiki. Coming from a person who has had to endure so much suffering and bashing, your words of encouragement gave me great strength. I told you then that we would meet again, here, at your Talk page, where you belong. Now, it has come to a full circle, as we talk to each other in your rightful place, my dear friend. I'll always be proud, and honored, to remember your words to me - I'll never be able to thank you enough for what you did for me. With a big hug, your friend, |
|
|
<center>] <b><font color="#FF0000">♥</b> '''<small><font style="color:#22AA00;">]</font></small>'''<center> |
|
|
</div></div></div></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
== tattering my posts == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please help me having others not to , and certainly not to edit them. People like El_C really try to follow: I want them to understand what I write, they should decide whether it's bull or not. --] ] 05:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Going on: ] / . --] ] 06:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's getting . --] ] 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Kibbutz == |
|
|
|
|
|
I placed a long comment at ] if you're interested. I think it's in need of sub-articles. Cheers, ] 12:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Orphaned fair use image (Image:JewishFedofSeattle1.gif)== |
|
|
|
|
|
{| align="center" style="background-color: white; border:8px solid red; padding:5px; text-align: center; font-size: larger;" |
|
|
|] |
|
|
|This file may be '''deleted'''. |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. ] 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Forwarded request :) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Slim - how's it going :)? I was wondering if you could do me a favor and take a look at someone else's request - ] has been asking around to have an admin look in to possibly deleting some images, unfortunately he's scoring out with former administrators me and Carnildo :\. Here's his request |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are several Apple II-related images that need deletion. They all lack proper source information, and they are all tagged as orphans, as they have been replaced by me with free-use alternatives from the Wikimedia Commons. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am not an admin, So I cannot delete the images myself, otherwise I would. I thought Carnildo was an admin...obviously not though. |
|
|
|
|
|
:The ones needing deletion are: ], ], ], ], ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:If they haven't got an orphan tag on them, then its because someone already removed it because there are on-going edit wars. |
|
|
|
|
|
:— ] 08:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for your time :) ] 23:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Hello== |
|
|
<center>] |
|
|
<font color = "black">'''My dear friend'''</font><br><font color = "black"> |
|
|
:Saw this and thought of you. Enjoy. ] ] |
|
|
</center> |
|
|
|
|
|
== peta == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, sorry to bother you but I just got that on my talk page. I figured I should paste it to you since it was meant for you initialy, even tough I just reverted the article to your version. ] 05:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Can you please stop removing the "Holocaust on your Plate" heading? There's no reason for it not to be there. ] 05:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)" |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mary Wollstonecraft == |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] article has recently been added to the ]. As such, it requires a quality evaluation. It seems that a major issue with the article is that one or more sections seem to have been plagarized at some point. The discussion of the plagarism problem seems to have ended over a year ago, and judging by diff comparisons it looks like large amounts of the article have been largely rewritten since the plagerism problem was first brought up. However, the talk page still has a copyright violation template on it and there is no definitive statement on the page as to whether or not the plagerism issue was resolved. Obviously this will make a huge difference on the quality evaluation, so it would be enormously helpful if someone involved with the article (such as yourself) could post some statement on the talk page as to the status of the plagarism issue. If it is in fact resolved, the copyright violation template should be removed from the talk page. ] 01:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:After painstakingly reviewing the entire history of the article, I have determined that none of the material suspected of copyright violation remains in the article. Thus I have removed the ] template from the talk page. If you would like to review my analysis, please see ] on the talk page. ] 04:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Citation templates "not recommended" again == |
|
|
|
|
|
The texts you, and now JonAwbrey are introducing can be understood to discourage the use of citation templates. There are ways to say the same thing without discouraging them, such as the form I suggested in WP:CITE, but you have not used them. If you are going to insist on saying "not recommended" then you might as well say "don't use these unless you can't write citations yourself." I get the impression you don't like them. In most contexts, I don't either; I especially don't like them used in-line with footnotes. But '''not recommended''' is going too far. |
|
|
|
|
|
On another note, I have seen it said many times that policy pages should not be changed without prior discussion. ] 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== WR link in the list of banned users == |
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize for retaining the link to Misplaced Pages Review, which had been added by an anon, in my expansion of {{user|Karmafist}}'s entry on ]. I don't know where my head was. I detest WR and everyone associated with it. I have an idea, though: Perhaps, for the purposes of evidence, we could provide the URL within nowiki tags, preferably on ] or similar pages rather than on WP:LOBU. <font color="green">]</font> <small>(], ], <font color="green">]</font>)</small> 11:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
P.S.: I wonder if KF's association with WR has something to do with his support of the Mistress Selina Kyle troll, which went on even as s/he was blocked indefinitely. <font color="green">]</font> <small>(], ], <font color="green">]</font>)</small> 11:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Please stop harassing me== |
|
|
You accusations of sockpuppetry against me have gone way overboard. It appears that you have embarked on a mission to label every anonymous IP or single-use account that has edited any page I have ever touched to be one of my sockpuppets, as well as labelling anyone with the temerity to challenge you publically as such. You have little (in many cases no) evidence to support these claims, other than a spurious "Contributions" link. It would appear from Misplaced Pages and various other public forums that you have many enemies, but blaming me for every nasty thing that happens on Misplaced Pages is unwise and unreasonable. It is unwise as it conveniantly blames one person (me) for everything you don't like, rather than the multitude who you have offended; and it is unreasonable, as the accounts/IPs you label as sockpuppets have, in many cases, made numerous contributions to articles with which I have no history, and in most other cases have done nothing offensive whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have no doubt that, as an administrator and immune from scrutiny, that you will change your behaviour, but I will say this: |
|
|
#I am not using the accounts you have listed as either suspected or actual sockpuppets; |
|
|
#I am not harassing you, stalking you, or involved in any articles not in my contribution list; and |
|
|
#I do not appreciate your punitive laying of every nasty action on Misplaced Pages at my doorstep. |
|
|
|
|
|
The situation with ] was unfortunate (and I won't explain it because you wouldn't believe me anyway), but ''you'' more than anyone, are now in danger of fostering a permanent state of ill-will, and I suggest that, as you have counselled others so often, just move on, or failing that, please apply more diligence to finding your perpetrator(s), as it is not I. -- ] 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>Someone created an article that I would call a content fork about that section I edited this morning. I'm not that lazy that I wouldn't nominate it myself for deletion, if only I knew what argument would be most effective. I've asked for help on the afd talk page, if you have a minute maybe you could go take a look at it. Thanks. ] 00:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC) </s> |
|
|
:Nevermind, I might have jumped the gun here as I've been pointed out. There's always room for discussion, so I've created a temporary redirect for now. ] 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'll take a look. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Ex-Homey== |
|
|
|
|
|
''The user is under a community ban. Fred Bauder unblocked him on condition he restrict his editing to his arbitration cases, which he has not done.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Your information is out of date. Bauder lifted his restrictions on ex-Homey earlier today. (See the admin discussion board.) ] 04:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:While Ex-Homey's recent edits may have been unnecessarily provocative under the circumstances, they do not constitute "disruption". I do not believe there is any procedural justification for the current block. |
|
|
|
|
|
:(You will note, incidentally, that I've been reluctant to lift the block myself. On principle, I do not wish to create even the appearance of a conflict of interest in these matters.) ] 05:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Personal Attacks and Civility== |
|
|
Regarding statement such as (and among others from that discussion) : please see ] and ], being unnecessarily rude and making attacks on other contributors will only make (what seemed to be) a heated discussion turn worse and is not allowed. Try to keep a cool head and if necessary take a break before responding. Comment on actions, not the contributor. Thanks! ] 07:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Responded on your talk page. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 07:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'd like to second that, you do seem to have gotten more emotionally invested in this issue than you might realize, and while certainly none of your posts are personal attacks, it would also be very hard to describe them as civil. Perhaps you should consider stepping back form this affair. As to the general matter, Homey is unquestionably one of the 50 people in the world who have contributed the most to this encyclopedia. It is wrong to believe that since his political views conflict with yours, he is merely here to create conflict. I have been following the case, and while his actions were certainly inappropriate, calling his actions "highly abusive" is inaccurate. Some rebuke is certainly called for, and all that I am opposing is the effective life time block that a community ban implies. - ] 12:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
snow-coat.jpg)