Misplaced Pages

User talk:WebHamster: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:45, 10 June 2009 editMalleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)145,401 edits →Rollback removed: little wonder← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:19, 25 November 2024 edit undoB-bot (talk | contribs)Bots531,711 edits Notification that File:Hendrix Memorial Concerts (album).jpg is orphaned and will be deleted in seven days per WP:CSD#F5 
(848 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{|-
<span style="position:absolute;top:-29px;left:-180px;z-index:100">]</span>
|width="10%" bgcolor="#F8EABA" style="border:1px solid #8F91A1;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"|


{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} |archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 4 |counter = 6
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:WebHamster/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:WebHamster/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}

<div style="position: fixed; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; height:{{{1|100}}}px;
width:{{{1|360}}}px;;-moz-opacity:.80;opacity:.80">
<div style="position: relative; width: {{{1|400}}}px; height: {{{1|175}}}px; overflow: hidden">
<div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 2">
{| id="toc" style="margin: 0 2em 0 2em;"
! align="left" style="background:#ff0000; color:#ffffff; font-weight:bold;" width="100%" | <center>Welcome to my talk page!</center><br />Please sign your post with the four tildes, like this: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki><br />Remember: New topics go at the bottom!<br />To keep a topic intact I'll reply here.
|}
</div></div></div>
{{archive box|auto=yes}} {{archive box|auto=yes}}
{{wikipedia ads|ad=98}} {{wikipedia ads|ad=98}}


] ]


{{-}}
<div class="center">'''And don't forget, just in case you don't get it:<br /> Politeness and civility are just two different ways of<br />demonstrating passive-aggressiveness.'''</div>


== IRC cloak request ==
<br clear="all" />
<center>'''Please note that if you leave a message here then I'll reply here'''.<br />
'''Likewise if I leave a message on your talk page please reply there'''<br />'''as I'll be watching your page. Thanks.'''</center>


IRC cloak request
== Civility and decorum ==


==Orphaned non-free image File:RJ Wagsmith Band - A Christmas Message.ogg==
Please do not use gratuitous profanity in Misplaced Pages community discussions. This can create a ] for other editors. If you do that again, you may be blocked. ] applies to content of articles. It is not a license to use profanity against other editors. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
: Since you , you are blocked for 24 hours for ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:Mo Foster - Bel Assis (sample).ogg==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
::I will use the words I deem necessary to get MY point across, you are of course entitled to use what ever words YOU choose. Now quit with the threats, they neither impress me nor scare me. --''']]''' 21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:Pet Sounds (hamsters album).jpg==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
:::] is policy. You are not entitled to use unlimited amounts of profanity against other editors. At some point crude discourse amounts to ], ] or ] and is blockable. You have crossed that line today and been blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:They Live By Night (hamsters album).jpg==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
::::"Unlimited"? I used one f-bomb on AN and one on your page. That can hardly be construed as excessive. And please don't talk bollocks to try and justify this block. You know and I know it's because I didn't back down from your almighty power. Power corrupts, total power corrupts totally, and almighty sysops don't like it when the proles talk back. --''']]''' 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
|}

==Orphaned non-free image File:Route 666 (album).jpg==
:::::Jehochman, there is no way ''"Why the fuck is this being argued both here and on the article's talk page?"'' would qualify as "Gross profanity or indecent suggestions '''directed at another contributor'''" (my emphasis) which is the only part of ] that could possibly apply here. The intention of CIV is "don't hassle people unnecessarily", not "don't ever use a naughty word". Please reconsider this one.&nbsp;–&nbsp;''']''' 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

::::::That's just the tip if the iceberg. The greater problem is the personal attacks that WebHamster is making. Please do not unblock without prior discussion with me. I'll post some diffs in a minute. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::::(ec)Whilst looking for the diffs, why not just pop over to dictionary.com and refresh yourself as to the definition of "personal" and then explain who specifically I've personally attacked? I've used general terms for general ethos and belief systems. I've not aimed what I consider to be an attack at anyone personally. Though since this block I can think of a couple I could aim in a certain direction. --''']]''' 22:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::::(ec) Agreeing with Iridescent; not everything that merits a refactor request is blockable. Although the following post to Jehochman's user talk goes farther, as a matter of form it would have been better for the administrator who was targeted to have filed a request for independent review rather than take action himself. Perhaps the best thing would be a good faith unblock and leave the matter at that. I certainly didn't intend to spark drama with the attempt to defuse one f-bomb. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I believe the diffs below are enough to justify a block. The crudeness on my talk page merely served to confirm that WebHamster was unwilling to back down. Had they shown any willingness to discuss concerns and moderate their behavior, I would not have blocked them. The ''fuck'' drew my attention to a latent problem. You have to look at the entire combination of circumstances here. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::::::The "fuck" drew your attention? I'm not surprised, it sounds to me like you're in need of a good one. --''']]''' 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the following policies and compare them to your comments: ], ], ], ], ]
*
*
*
You need to refrain from personally attacking other editors, treating Misplaced Pages as a battle zone, and creating gratuitous violations of decorum if you want to edit Misplaced Pages. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:If those diffs really are blockable, then surely the result of independent review would reach the same conclusion and place the action above reproach. The post ''Since you , you are blocked for 24 hours for ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)'' (referring to a post that had been directed at the blocking admin shortly beforehand) has at least a superficial appearance of retaliatory action. That may not have been the intent, but differences between appearance and intent are the stuff of drama. Let's resolve this matter without opening that door. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:Or how about asking for a block review from an independent sysop instead of using bit-bully tactics to win a point? It's actions like this that can get a sysop a bad name. --''']]''' 22:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:: See ] which provides instructions for requesting an unbiased review. It's not for me to pick the reviewing sysop. I request whoever reviews this to discuss the matter with me. I'll be able to respond fairly promptly this evening to any questions. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm not appealing an unblock. I'm requesting that an independent admin review your biased actions. Perhaps if you were to be so kind as to make a small post on ] and ask your peers. --''']]''' 22:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::I've already posted a notice of the block to ], and will add a comment that you'd like it to be reviewed. I don't think I've ever interacted with you before. We have no conflict between us whatsoever. You're evidently upset about editing disagreements and see to have misidentified me as an adversary. I am not. If you state that you will follow the above mentioned policies and try to get along with other editors, that would resolve many of my concerns. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::Firstly I should point out that I really don't care if I'm unblocked or not. Secondly my accusation of bias towards you is not because of any previous interactions as like you I don't recall any. The bias I referred to was your knee-jerk reaction based on our short discourse on your talk page. And finally the things that concern you are totally irrelevant to me, much like the things that concern me are irrelevant to you. The only thing I promise is to be me. I am what I am and I don't see any reason that either you or Misplaced Pages will change that. Now I shall enjoy the rest of my block safe in the knowledge that WP is safe in the hands of sysops like you. Good night. --''']]''' 00:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

::::::Chin up WebHamster; there's one thing that wikipedia isn't short of, and I'm certain you know what that is. --] ] 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

::::::I noticed your account some time ago and have been growing increasingly concerned that you seem to show a pattern of combativeness and incivility towards other editors, and you seem to want to push limits. The recent incident at ] with the word ''fuck'' brought me to the point where I was thinking, ''should I block this account now, or wait and see''. I decided to assume good faith a bit longer, and merely redacted the gratuitous profanity from your post. You seem to have used the word to either shock or annoy other editors, not because it added anything to the conversation. That's not good. Don't do things to upset others on purpose. When you appeared on my talk page to complain about my redaction, I '''earnestly''' asked if you would have prefered for me to have blocked you, because that's exactly what I had been considering to do. Here I am being lenient, and you're complaining to me. You answered my earnest question with a suggestion my proctologist would advise against. I translated your answer to mean ''yes, you should have blocked me, because I'm going to do exactly as I please, regardless of community norms''. That is also not good. Everyone is subject to limits. You can't just do or say whatever you please. You have an obligation to get along with other people. Please understand my decision to block you was not motivated by personal pique. People have often told me to go fuck myself. I'm used to it. That sort of thing doesn't bother me, but of course, it is not acceptable discourse on Misplaced Pages. Anyhow, you should be you. I appreciate sarcasm, irreverence and individuality. However, please try to see things from the point of view of your peers, and make an effort to get along. When totally uninvolved people, or people sympathetic to you suggest you might be crossing the line, please heed them. I'm going to unblock you now because I dislike controversial blocks. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

::::::::"''I'm going to unblock you now because I dislike controversial blocks.''" Presumably the fact that is purely an accident then? --''']]''' 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::The block log indicates that you were unblocked. . Do you want another admin to review for technical issues? -- ] 15:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::My IP is autoblocked as the link above attests. Yes please, I would be grateful if someone would finish the process Jehochman started. --''']]''' 15:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::I've lifted the autoblock. – <span style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC; font-size:15px;">''']]'''</span> 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::Ta muchly. --''']]''' 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, having posted the concerns about Jehochman's decisions in this episode the appropriate thing is to balance that with concerns about yours. I've defended your actions a couple of times now, but it's been a very close call on each occasion. And frankly it would save quite a bit of everyone's time if your actions weren't so close to the line. It's possible to contribute to the encyclopedia--even on controversial issues--without doing so in a manner that personalizes the issue or increases polarization. The Bible belt reference, for instance, was directed at an editor who describes himself as a European atheist. And although I agree with you on the underlying content discussion, it so happens that I've actually lived in the Bible belt. Please refrain from judging books by their covers; it reflects poorly on you and makes you appear gratuitously disruptive. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Perhaps I should point out that I used the term as an adjective, also one doesn't have to be an actual bible-belter to behave like one. I should also clear up my response to the fallacy of comment on the content not the editor. Well that doesn't apply in this particular discussion. When someone is trying to hide away an explicit image then it's perfectly clear that their attitude and belief system is coming to play and is therefore a legitimate target for comment. Now hopefully you will see what it was I actually said and why I actually said it. --''']]''' 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

:Hmmm, but the way it works around here is that the lowly editor gets the block and the misguided administrator walks away scott free to repeat his abusive behaviour elsewhere, again and again. --] ] 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::That could be dealt with separately if you wish to do so, Malleus. Let's say this was not particularly well done on either side, and I do hope it's the last we need to deal with it. There's a GA drive I ought to get back to. Best wishes, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Please forgive my hollow laughter at the idea of this kind of out of process block ever being dealt with at all. What motivation does the administrator have to conform to the policies laid down instead of engaging in further one-man crusades of this sort? None. Editors are blocked every day because of what an administrator ''thinks'' they might do—just ask DougsTech—but I've yet to see an administrator blocked for what they are ''certain'' to do again in the future. --] ] 02:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Having spent time on both sides of the admin/editor fence, am more of a mind to mend the divide. The block has been lifted by the blocking administrator. Although, to be candid, if he had posted the relevant diffs to the noticeboard before/instead of intervening with the tools himself it's entirely possible a similar block would have been implemented by someone else and withstood review.
::::To speak more generally, one thing I learned long ago as a student in New York City is that if I allowed every small injustice to eat at me then I really didn't like the person that turned me into. So there's a simple metric: is a grievance worth really doing something about? If so then figure out what can be done and do it. If not then let it go. I have no intention to go farther now (am thumbing through references about Irving Berlin). If you feel so strongly then admin conduct RfC is thataway; it's surprising that process doesn't get used more often. Best wishes, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::RfC is a waste of time, so it surprises me that it's used at all. --] ] 03:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Do you have any ideas on how to implement something better? It seems to me that part of the reason that many RfC's fail to have positive impact is that they fail to follow any of the standard protocols for giving and getting feedback and constructive criticism. I dont have any great ideas either, but would be willing to discuss with you and others at some other venue. -- ] 04:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

:::::::This little story pretty much sums up my feeling about most wikipedia processes. A couple are travelling in the depths of the Irish countryside and become lost. They come across an Irish peasant, and ask him for directions to their destination. He thinks for a while before replying: "Well, if oi were goin' dere, oi wouldn't start from here. oi'd go to Ballymollee and start from dere." --] ] 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say WebHamster that while I have defended your right to express your opinion in the past, the moment you throw out civility my support for you will go with it. ] 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

::Let be clear, although any support I receive from anyone is nice, I don't request it and I don't require it. As concerns the matter of civility, well my humble opinion is that there's no such thing. It means one thing to one person and another thing to another as such I don't waste CPU cycles trying to figure out the difference and instead I use use my own criteria. I most certainly wouldn't use the moving target set by Wikipedians. As far as I'm concerned I haven't been uncivil in this recent matter merely blunt. Either way I'm not going to worry about it, no-one ever died of incivility and the alleged 'sufferer' of my supposed incivility will soon get over it. So once again it's not something that worries me. It should also be pointed out that when I requested some state who I'd "personally attacked" strangely there was no answer. Funny that. Likewise Jehochman accused me of ] the retracted yet that is the only reason on my block log entry. Some strange inconsistencies going on here. --''']]''' 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

:I think you have to recognise that your interpretation of "civility" is just one of several plausible ones, and perhaps not the one that WebHamster, or indeed I, ascribe to. I consider it ''far'' more incivil to issue an unreasonable block than utter a word that may scare the horses, for instance, particularly if that word is not directed specifically at another individual but is used as a perfectly reasonable intensifier. --] ] 16:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for me to tell you what I think of your interpretation of civility Malleus. So I won't. ] 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

:No doubt because you couldn't do it civilly. I rest my case m'lud. --] ] 16:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And I rest . ] 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:Is that what you meant to type? All I could see was a circular argument with no place for anyone to leave an umbrella much less a case. --''']]''' 21:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "I rest my ''defense''" would have been more clear. ] 15:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

== WikiProject Greater Manchester June Newsletter, Issue XVI ==

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Newsletter/June 2009}} ] (]) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi!! Regarding Lady Gaga discography.. you said that Spanishcharts was not a reliable source. But in fact it is. Official Spanish single charts are given by PROMUSICAE. Since Jan 09 the Official Single Charts combines physical single sales + digital downloads + ringtones, making the "Top 50 Canciones", and that is what reflects Spanish Charts.(] (]) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

== St. Joseph's Collegiate Institute ==

Hello WebHamster. Although St. Joseph's Collegiate Institute says it is located in Buffalo, New York, it is referring to its postal address. Though it does have a Buffalo ZIP code, it is physically located outside the city in the town of Tonawanda. or . I hope this clarifies things. --] (]) 22:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:According to those links it's actually in Kenmore. But TBH I don't really care where it is, it's just that at the time I did the revert, the school's article and the school's website said Buffalo. Looking at the maps it looks to be mere yards outside the city's boundary anyway :) --''']]''' 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
::It's actually just outside the village of Kenmore too. A thin, dashed line just west of the school represents the village boundary. Even so, Kenmore is part of Tonawanda, as villages remain part of the town. Though the school is perhaps mere yards outside the city, one has to draw the line somewhere. Should it be the official boundary line, or something variable and subjective? --] (]) 22:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:::As I said, I don't really care. I was just synchronising the two articles. If you wish to remove the school from the Buffalo article I won't revert it. I'll also remove it if I see that pesky IP putting it back in. --''']]''' 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Okay, thank you. --] (]) 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Please do not use rollback to . The previous edits directly addressed concerns raised in the GA review, and were no way vandalism. '''] • '']'' ''' 01:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' That was a ''serious'' misuse of the ]. Please do not do it again. ''']''' (]) 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:(ec)I didn't say it was vandalism. I rolled it back because that was the easiest thing for me to do. Your copy-editing used unencyclopaedic words e.g. "snitched" "tattled" and quite frankly was quite poor grammatically. If you'd rather put that in the edit summary then that's your choice. As it is I'd already copy-edited that section a day or so ago with regard to the comments at GA. Again, frankly I believed your version made it worse. --''']]''' 01:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::Content issue aside, using the native rollback button naturally implies that the edit is vandalism or made by a banned user. Use twinkle's rollback that allows you to enter a custom edit summary, or undo with a descriptive edit summary. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 20:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm not concerned about what other things or other people imply, as I've explained above I clicked on the rollback button because it was the easiest thing for me to do at that particular time. So sue me for a moments laziness. Another part of the reason was that I didn't want to leave an edit summary as I couldn't think of anyway of explaining the reason for my deletion without it offending a neophyte editor. Unfortunately due to his reversion and administrative nosing in I was forced to state that the edit I reverted was crap, it was grammatically suspect not to mention using non-encyclopaedic words. So now I hope the relevant admins are happy now they've forced me into that admission. I rarely use rollback and considering the amount of vandalism I revert that's minimal usage. No-one can say (and prove) that I abuse rollback. But if they are so worried about my shameful use of it then by all means rescind my rollback rights. It's not as if I get a drop in salary. I do wish sometimes that admins would realise that I do have a clue as to what I'm doing and why I do things. It's not as I've been here 5 mins. Oh, to clarify something else. The fact that the article is trying for a GA is totally irrelevant to me. I think all this FA and GA crap is total bollocks. It turns the whole thing into a competition, creates extra stress on editors and doesn't necessarily create better articles but certainly creates a disproportionate amount of wiki-drama. I edit the article because there was bad grammar that didn't flow and seemed particularly awkward in its structure. As far as I was concerned I improved it. Then along comes little lord fauntleroy and decimates my amendments with grade school level grammar. Then add to that a supercilious admin then wants me to revert back to the shite version purely because I used the rollback feature. I really don't believe this place sometimes. There is so much bullshit I'm surprised anyone stays here at all. --''']]''' 22:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::::As I said, you may have misinterpreted my intentions. I don't have a problem with the edit and I'm not trying to show that you abuse rollback. In fact, I think you should use native rollback a lot more - I see you still use Twinkle for vandalism (perhaps force of habit, or because it automatically takes you to the user's talk page?). Anyhow, I'll leave you to it but just keep that in mind. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 22:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't help but notice that a non-admin's arguable misuse of rollback generates ''far'' more sound and fury than the everday misuse that administrators make of the block function. Curious that. --] ] 20:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:I wouldn't call what I wrote above "sound" or "fury" but as the admin who granted him use of the rollback tool, I thought I should clarify appropriate use of the same. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 20:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::You appear to have been the third to jump in with both feet though. Is it really that important that it requires the attention of three of you? --] ] 20:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I was just clarifying after WH's response which seemed to hold to the belief that the use of rollback in this case was appropriate. Correcting an honest misunderstanding of a tool's purpose seems important to me, yes. Regards, –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 21:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that according to the rules WebHamster ought not to have rollbacked the offending edit. I'm simply pointing out that having a gang of you turn up on his doorstep repeating the same thing is unlikely to lead to an optimal outcome. Is the article now better or worse? What's more important, the rules or the encyclopedia? --] ] 22:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::::(ec) Where did I say I thought it appropriate? What I said was that it was the easiest way for me to achieve what I achieved. As it happened I was on the phone at the time and leaning across my laptop awkwardly. I simply couldn't be arsed (or contorte my body enough) to go through the multiple steps with Twinkle and then have to write a critique that I didn't want to write. So no I didn't think it appropriate, just convenient. No-one died, no blood was spilled, nothing to see, please move along. --''']]''' 22:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I think you (both) misinterpret my intentions here. I was trying to explain more clearly why the two prior commentors objected to the use of rollback. That is all. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::You think what you like, I'll think what I like. --] ] 22:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Nope didn't misinterpret your intentions and as it happens I don't have any problems with you writing whatever you want. It's not as if I listen, you should know that by now :) I've explained why I did it. If it was abusing it it was hardly the "serious" abuse it was said to have been above. It got the job done with the minimum amount of effort by me. None of this would have been necessary if someone had looked at the edit list then checked the revisions before jumping down my throat with the bullshit above that was factually wrong and patronising in the extreme. As it happens the only person who pissed me off was Cirt for his knee-jerk reaction and patronising tone. --''']]''' 22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::heh, fair enough. =) –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
'''Note:''' ] - This is quite clear. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is okay to use the ] to revert edits of other editors while you yourself are involved in a dispute at a particular article with those editors. This is incorrect, and please do not misuse the tool in this manner again. Thank you, ''']''' (]) 07:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::And you sir seem to be under the impression that I give a fuck. Have a nice day. --''']]''' 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

== Edit-warring at article Bart Sells His Soul ==

You have so far reverted edits by multiple editors at ], three times. Please stop this disruptive behavior pattern, and instead engage in discussion about these edits with other editors, on the article's talk page. ''']''' (]) 01:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:WTF are you talking about? I've reverted twice and against one editor. If you actually look at the article history instead of skimming it. Now please go use your broom instead of your lecture podium. Thank you. --''']]''' 06:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::By edit-warring multiple times on this article, which is currently undergoing a review for possible GA status, you are jeopardizing that GA status consideration, due to point '''5''' of ]. I request that you please self-revert yourself to the last edit before your most recent revert, as a show of ]. Thank you, ''']''' (]) 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Bollocks to that. Thye reason I reverted in the first place was because I thought the text that replaced mine was garbage. So no I won't self-revert, why would I? Good faith has got nothing to do with it. And if you look at the timings my copyedits were made ''after'' the critique of the article's prose. That's why I did it in the first place. Then along comes someone using terms like "snitched" and "tattled". That's why I reverted and that's why I won't self-revert. It's pretty apparent that you haven't given this any in-depth analysis and have just taken a cursory look at the edit history. Are you really telling me that the crap that replaced my text is better than mine? --''']]''' 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::::I am saying that the way you have gone about asserting your stance is inappropriate, and that instead you should try to engage the other editors in discussion, at the article's talk page. So far, you have failed to do so, instead preferring to edit-war. ''']''' (]) 07:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

== The Mighty Bruce Campbell ==

Bruce Campbell with smite you with his awesomeness. Love, Brian ] (]) 20:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

== Rollback removed ==

] while edit-warring in article dispute: , and failure to acknowledge or understand after instruction, see above discussion on this page. ''']''' (]) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:I think you've behaved disgracefully in this affair Cirt. You issued a warning and because the demanded ritual self-abasement was not forthcoming you decided to remove rollback '''without there having been another misuse of the tool in the interim'''. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth. --] ] 23:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:No wonder that so many believe the administrator corps needs a bloody good clear out. --] ] 23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
::If you see above discussion the user fails to comprehend the tool was misused. ''']''' (]) 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::If you look at what I've said, the user has not repeated that misuse since your warning, so removal was not warranted. It was clearly done because the ritual self-abasement you demanded was not forthcoming. --] ] 00:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Nope, it was done because the user misused the tools, does not have a need for the tools, and has shown a misunderstanding about how to use the tools appropriately in discussion at this page. ''']''' (]) 00:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::'''Note:''' See also the '''<span style="color:red">bolded text in bright red</span>''', at ]. ''']''' (]) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::If users trusted with a tool <u>abuses</u> that tool, then <u>refuses</u> to acknowledge that he did anything wrong, and then he tells administrators clearly acting in good faith that he doesn't give a "fuck", then removal of said trust should be swift and sure. The actions taken here were entirely appropriate; I'm only surprised that so much good faith was extended. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 00:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Ahh, dear pious Blaxthos, thank you for your comment, however you appear to be incorrect (now there's a surprise). I didn't refuse to acknowledge that I had done something wrong. I knew I had done something wrong. My response was that I really didn't give a shit. It's hardly a hanging offence and doesn't rate even a 1 on my "in the shit again meter". There are far worse problems happening on WP yet someone takes the time and trouble to make a big deal out of an insignificant event. Yup, that's the sort of admin we ''really'' need on WP. Why sort the big problems when it much easier to deal with the insignificant ones? --''']]''' 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::'''Comment:''' Fully agree with this comment, by {{user|Blaxthos}}. ''']''' (]) 00:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Please don't try to patronise me. You acted inappropriately and no amount of disingenuous bollox from you or your mates can disguise that fact. --] ] 00:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Um, what? In no way was I trying to be patronizing, and to my knowledge I have not had prior association with this user {{user|Blaxthos}}. ''']''' (]) 00:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::The indentation after the edit conflict made it look like I was replying to you, whereas I was actually replying to Cirt. --] ] 00:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Still confused - I think you meant you were replying to {{user|Blaxthos}}? ''']''' (]) 00:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::I meant what I said, I was replying to '''you'''. --] ] 01:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Heh, okay. Well, like I said, the comment above by {{user|Blaxthos}} is quite appropriate and sums up the matter nicely. ''']''' (]) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Like I said, it's a punishment for not bending over and puckering up whichever way you try to spin it. When you have a free moment from all this important work that you do perhaps you'd be kind enough to remove my rollback rights as well. I see no reason to offer any passing administrator on a mission a similar stick to beat me with. --] ] 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::'''' Wow, highly inappropriate. ''']''' (]) 01:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*My take on this (as I intimated at ]) is that WebHamster was basically admitting that it was inappropriate use but that he wasn't too fussed about it one way or the other (DGAF'ism). What I don't see him saying is that he will continue using rollback for such purposes so I felt leaving him with the tool was fine. He's a smart guy, and if he wants/needs the tool, he'll probably use it the right way going forward. It's not that big of a deal anyway and I doubt he will give a toss in the morning when he sees it was taken away. Would suggest re-instatement anyhow, as there was only 1 misuse. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 01:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:Whatever "DGAF'ism" is, it is ''not'' an excuse to respond inappropriately as was done above by {{user|WebHamster}} and {{user|Malleus Fatuorum}}. I would be '''against''' reinstatement of ] for WebHamster, as the user misused the tools and not shown an understanding of this or of ]. ''']''' (]) 01:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::I think that by now you ought to have got the idea that neither WebHamster nor I give a flying fuck ''what'' you think. About anything. --] ] 01:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::How is this statement relevant to this discussion, or ]? ''']''' (]) 01:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::::It's relevant to being honest, something you seem to be struggling with. --] ] 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Everything I have said above is relevant to this discussion and factually accurate. Your comments seem to be instead laced with incivility, rudeness, and obscenities. ''']''' (]) 01:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
'''Disengaging:''' It is clear from above that this discussion has deteriorated and is no longer directly relevant to the purpose of the discussion itself, rather it has become a forum for editors to direct incivility at each other, which is most unfortunate. ''']''' (]) 01:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:Just a pity you didn't disengage sooner, and used a little more common sense before doing so. --] ] 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, what is painfully obvious is that you don't understand what not giving a fuck means. By your words you also can't differentiate between a user "not understanding" and not caring. That in my view makes you admin who is left wanting in the area of 'customer relations'. What is also apparent, and I'm in total agreement with Malleus's assessment above, is that you are one of those admins whose view on the world has been affected by their admin bit and the power it brings them. You obviously didn't like the fact that I didn't immediately do an Uriah Heep at your first words from the Mount and your response was that of a petulant school prefect who brought his power to bear. In my view that also makes you an example of a bad admin. Strike 2. Am I bothered by the rescinding of my rollback, well what do you think? Now on the other hand your evidence to suggest that I would abuse it again, given that I've only used it once more since the use you take exception to, is absolutely minimal. This means that your admin action is one that is punitive rather than preventative. This, as you well know or at least should do, not only makes you a hypocrite (unless you genuinely don't understand punitive vs preventative) because that is a similar abuse of your privileges to the accusation you made against me, it also makes you a bad admin. Strike 3.

Now, has all of this bollox made any difference to how I do business here? No. Has it made any difference to my attitude towards admins? No, I still think the majority shouldn't have the job, you most definitely included. The fact that you are aware that I don't have an absolute need for rollback as I use Twinkle most of the time; yet strangely, even though it's more powerful than rollback and the fact I've been using it for years, there is no evidence that I've abused that either. That in itself shows what a piss poor decision you've made. It also demonstrates that your action is just pure petulance to make a point. Unfortunately the real point though seems to be rather obvious to everyone but yourself. In other words how to fuck up being an admin in one easy go. Have a nice life feeling powerful. It's a shame you can't see the illusion. --''']]''' 06:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:After reviewing this I would say Cirt was not wrong to remove your rollback. You should consider the very real possibility that rollback was taken away from you due to your actions, not some childish impulse on behalf of a power hungry admin. I see nothing out of line here done by Cirt. For someone who does not a fuck you sure have a lot of spite in your response. ] 13:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:Hendrix Memorial Concerts (album).jpg==
::Yet I didn't ask for it back. Probably because I don't give a fuck whether I had it or not. I only actually asked for it in the first place so I could give Huggle a try and to compare it with Twinkle. I never got round to installing Huggle, so rollback was irrelevant to me. Anyway, who asked you to chime in? Afraid of missing out on some time-wasting wikidrama? The above paragraph of mine was what I was thinking at the time I wrote it. Your response or anyone else's for that matter wasn't required. It most certainly wasn't necessary. But as you've done your little bit in defence of a fellow admin you can feel proud and fraternal. Not a lot else to hang around here for now is there? --''']]''' 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::And you, Chillum, should realise that you are once again talking complete crap. I doubt I've ever seen just an ill-fitting username as yours. --] ] 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::It's little wonder that people complain about there being too many admins when it takes ''three'' of them plus one sycophantic wannabee to deal with a single alleged misuse of rollback. --] ] 16:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:19, 25 November 2024



Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Misplaced Pages ad for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Greater Manchester
Misplaced Pages adsfile info – #98
Botticelli's Venus... Gimped
And don't forget, just in case you don't get it:
Politeness and civility are just two different ways of
demonstrating passive-aggressiveness.

IRC cloak request

IRC cloak request

Orphaned non-free image File:RJ Wagsmith Band - A Christmas Message.ogg

⚠
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:RJ Wagsmith Band - A Christmas Message.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mo Foster - Bel Assis (sample).ogg

⚠
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Mo Foster - Bel Assis (sample).ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pet Sounds (hamsters album).jpg

⚠
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Pet Sounds (hamsters album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:They Live By Night (hamsters album).jpg

⚠
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:They Live By Night (hamsters album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Route 666 (album).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Route 666 (album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hendrix Memorial Concerts (album).jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hendrix Memorial Concerts (album).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)