| Revision as of 19:49, 24 May 2010 editThe Return of Cicero Dog (talk | contribs)10 edits →Unarchiving an archived page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:45, 19 November 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 8 discussion(s) to User talk:Ian13/Archive13) (bot | ||
| (56 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{hidden|Archives| | {{hidden|Archives| | ||
| {{Archives|bot=MiszaBot III|age=3|large=yes|<div style{{=}}"text-align:left;"> | |||
| * ] <small>(''31 October 2005 - 23 December 2005'')</small> | * ] <small>(''31 October 2005 - 23 December 2005'')</small> | ||
| * ] <small>(''23 December 2005 - 31 December 2005'')</small> | * ] <small>(''23 December 2005 - 31 December 2005'')</small> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
| * ] <small>(''22 July 2006 - 1 November 2006'')</small> | * ] <small>(''22 July 2006 - 1 November 2006'')</small> | ||
| * ] <small>(''29 November 2006 - 22 June 2008'')</small> | * ] <small>(''29 November 2006 - 22 June 2008'')</small> | ||
| <hr> | <hr /> | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| {{Autoarchivingnotice|bot=MiszaBot III|age=3}} | |||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ]</div> | ||
| ⚫ | }}}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 40K | |maxarchivesize = 40K | ||
| Line 24: | Line 30: | ||
| |algo = old(72h) | |algo = old(72h) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Ian13/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Ian13/Archive%(counter)d | ||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| ⚫ | * ] | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| Hi Ian. How are you doing? It's been a while. | |||
| (] (]) 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| == Unarchiving an archived page == | |||
| Your edit comment that removing ] was ''"routine (non-controversial) cleanup"'' is simply false. It was properly archived, as people can and do do on a regular basis. Please do not take such an action again, and do not leave deceptive edit comments in the future. ] (]) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I have reverted your action due to selective removal of comments by another user. Discussion continued on the article talk page. ]] 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, if the person would add comments to the correct version of the talk page instead of the bad version he keeps reverting to and ignoring a clearly valid archiving of the page, then he wouldn't have that problem, now would he? It's ridiculous for you to claim that's a personal attack against that user and further to use that justification as a threat for a block -- it is clear that you are not trying to be at all neutral in this matter. Threats of blocking out of nowhere to take a side in a dispute shows a clear lack of judgment. The bigger problem here is the person gaming the system to try to declare a false consensus through counting votes of anon IPs and clear meatpuppet accounts to insert original research, POV and clear COI material. Your threat, however, seems to indicate that you have no intention of paying any attention to any of that and merely to assist that other editor in his policy violations. Please do not make threats against me for such flimsy reasons, especially with such clear violations on the part of the other user. ] (]) 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are welcome to bring evidence of sockpuppets to my or any other admins attention and we would be happy to investigate. Meanwhile, selectively removing another persons talk page comments is obviously deliberately disruptive and an attack on that user. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, nor does it allow attacks on a user. If you have concerns over the archiving, discuss them on the talk page instead. I cannot police everything - if I see a breach of policy, then I will warn and/or block, regardless of other things that may be going on. People are sentenced in real life every day despite others getting away with murder. Yours, ]] 14:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I notice that RoyLeban has since been trying to say how he reached the conclusion of consensus on the talk page, so can I ask you query how he reached that conclusion with evidence, rather than making ad hominem attacks. ]] 14:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::From the tone of your comments you seem to be acting like you think your admin position makes you a cop instead of what the position is intended to be: a janitor. Yes, you cannot "police" everything, and you, based upon your comments here, should not be "policing" anything at all. You should be trying to resolved conflicts, not actively taking a side and escalating them. I will use the talk page, but unfortunately the editor in question ignores all discussion posted by anyone he disagrees with, and your actions have helped ensure that his gaming the system will continue to allow him to outright ] the article so he can present his opinions as facts and to promote websites he is involved in. ] (]) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are two people there saying the links need to be removed, one saying they need to stay as is; Two people saying the coi tag needs to be there, and only one (the person with the coi) saying it does not; and so forth and so on. That's not consensus by any sane definition of the word, that's Roy doing whatever he wants. ] (]) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::When warning people, I do have to raise above the janitor capacity, hence the simplification police. You know as well as I do that its inappropriate to remove editors comments as . My role in resolving the conflict is to try and coax people to discuss themselves on the talk page, and to warn/block disruptive editors to allow the discussion to function. As I say, produce evidence of what you believe to be "gaming the system" and I will look at it (or obviously feel free to post it elsewhere to other admins) but do not just poke at an empty accusation. If you say there are two people, discuss which two and why the others don't count on the talk page - don't just moan about it to me. If you want to try and develop a new consensus, ask for people to input their current thoughts. All I am trying to do is encourage people to be constructive and talk, but your attacks on editors by selectively removing comments, labeling people vandals, claiming people "clearly not get Misplaced Pages", are not helping the discussion. And if you do selectively remove Roy's comments again, I will block you (or ask another admin to look at it and make a decision if I feel there is a loss of neutrality), just as I would warn then block Roy if he did the same to you. It's just inappropriate behaviour. ]] 15:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Funny that you say that removing comments is bad, yet when Roy edited that talk page he conspicuously removed my comments from it and you did nothing about it at all. As far as it not being appropirate to remove comments and call it vandalism, that's on a regular basis, while my edit was calling the unarchiving of properly archived old content as vandalism, not his comments in the first place as vandalism. As far as new consensus, we had that, except for Roy not allowing it... ] (]) 15:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It is his own talk page, but it is also inappropriate to plainly remove your comments. Can you give me the page diff for "conspicuously removed my comments from it" please, then I can warn as necessary. Regarding your 'vandalism' revision, you did use your vandal whacking tool to both revert and remove a series of his comments from the main talk page - it's designed for things such as "MOOOOOOOOOOOO". ]] 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| Yay, my first warning ever in over 8 years of editing :) | |||
| First off, thanks for stepping in and I really mean that. | |||
| I knew there was a risk when I wrote that section. I really, really tried to avoid attacking DreamGuy, restricting myself to responding to his baseless attacks. But, if you look, you'll find that my record is clean and that he does the same thing all over the place, with multiple lengthy blocks. Finally, it was too much. I wrote what I think it is a fairly accurate description of his actions. I thought putting it on the Talk page was a bit nicer than going higher. | |||
| If there's anything that makes it look like I have a COI (which I clearly don't) it's that I spent a lot of time improving the article and to have huge chunks of what I did summarily ripped out is really annoying. I added that content because I thought it belongs, not because I thought it didn't. Duh! On Misplaced Pages, we're supposed to improve content, not just delete it. And if you look at DreamGuy's edits, you'll find the vast majority are deletes. Having him repeat baseless claims gets really frustrating. And having him state (over and and over again) that we just can't have external links or that timelines aren't allowed, etc., when there is either no such policy or it is a misstatement of it, is frustrating as well. | |||
| == Alisha Pillay == | |||
| If you believe DreamGuy, I work for/own both FlipScript and Ambiscript (and all the other companies referenced in the page), I'm best friends with Robert Petrick and John Langdon and everybody else in the world, I have a hundred puppets who do my bidding, etc., etc. It's incredulous. I wish, that you, as an administrator, had been firmer with him, telling him (a) he should stop attacking me, and (b) he should stop making unsubstantiated claims. For example, I apparently made a single counting mistake on Monkeyshine. Oops. How does that make me a liar? Why does he keep repeating that Tech Lovr is a FlipScript person when he has no proof and I honestly believe it to be false? I'm not mad at you for not reigning him in, it's just a wish. | |||
| Hey Ian, | |||
| So, sorry, if I stepped over the line. I kept my cool under pressure as long as I could. But I really do wish some administrators would take a hard look at him. | |||
| Just wanted to ask you about a wiki page that was deleted about 2 years ago. The page was about an artist from Canada titled "Alisha Pillay". I would love to see this page on Misplaced Pages again. Her debut single "Convicted" hit Canadian radio in January 2010 and she managed to reach #38 on the Canadian Top 40 charts. She won the opportunity to have her song on Canadian radio through a competition called "Radio Active" which was thrown by Pitbull Promotions. The song was received well and managed to win over Sony Music Canada, who continued to market and promote the song. She was also featured as an emerging artist on the Billboard Canadian Update and won the "Chum Emerging Artist" award for April 2010. | |||
| On changing the archive to 30d, you proposed 30d and I responded suggesting 60d. Nobody else responded. Why not go to 60d? (I don't care that much, so don't make a big issue of it) | |||
| She has collaborated with many established writers including: Alisha M'Jestie Brooks (Rihanna, Pon De Replay), James Fauntleroy (Chris Brown, Beyonce, Rihanna, Justin Timberlake and many others), Jarvis Church of the Philosopher Kings (Nelly Furtado) and many others. She has also performed with the Canada's most acclaimed producer, David Foster. She was the winner of his first singing competition in BC called "Opportunity of a lifetime" | |||
| ] (]) 01:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| She is going to release her second single "Love Drunk" in Canada on July 12, 2010. | |||
| P.S. Here's DreamGuy's edit summary when he removed your warning from his talk page: ''→Ambigram talk page (warning): identifying problem behavior so it can be stopped should be encouraged, not a reason to "warn" someone'' | |||
| Thanks for your time! Would love to see this page back on Wiki with all the new updates! | |||
| ] (]) 01:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| -- <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| :Thank you for your response. I've not seen anything to suggest that you have a conflict of interest, or that you are deliberately attempting to lie. I can see you were trying to avoid attacking, but the talk page really isn't the place to do it, and the community cannot ban people form articles. As you are probably aware, I have warned DreamGuy twice now over the course of the last few days (for attacks, and for the same thing I warned you). With regards to his removal, either he wants to provoke or really thinks he's not doing anything wrong, and sadly it seems to be the latter. From my position, everything that has been going on has been bad, but it takes gross incivility for a block to stand, and thus whilst I keep an eye on it all, it is hard to have strong evidence to support a block of any editor on disruptive grounds. The thing is, like with the counting, you shouldn't be counting in the first place, so it could be said of him that that was to provoke him into responding - I know it's unlikely it was, but it's very hard to be sure that an editor is deliberately annoying people without others affecting it. You'll see of his former blocks (and I cannot use these as a basis of deciding to block, only of determining length) that they have been undone because of things like not reverting 3 times within 24 hours despite his edits being against the spirit of the 3rr. I understand it's frustrating, but its quite possibly frustrating to him as well for other reasons. ]] 12:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ''This was submitted to an archive page, and subsequently not noticed.'' | |||
| :Regarding the auto-archiving: have you seen the length of the page already? It's still 20-odd days until anything there will be archived. ]] 12:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== | |||
| == Your recent ANI thread == | |||
| ] | |||
| Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at ]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->] (]) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== | |||
| Considering your recent ANI thread making accusations against me that other admins have soundly rejected, I would suggest that you desist from acting on ] in any way that suggests that you are speaking as an impartial admin. Roy has enough problems following basic Misplaced Pages standards on his own without you making inaccurate claims about policy that he can grab onto as a rationalization for his bad behavior. ] (]) 02:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at ]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->] (]) 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Ian, please ignore DreamGuy. It is obvious that you stopped by the ] page as an impartial administrator. | |||
| :DreamGuy, it's never too late to start being civil. | |||
| :] (]) 05:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == OLD TIMES == | ||
| :And you've just made another personal attack on Roy here. There is a difference between posting with diffs various accusations in the appropriate place for review by others - it's quite another to use them as a mallet in content disputes. ]] 09:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| We had some fun, didn't we Ian? Shame that it looks like you gave up on the Misplaced Pages. You loved it so. ] (]) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Don't think Higenzon removed the csd notice... == | |||
| == ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
| I noticed that you warned {{user5|Higenzon}} for removal of the csd notice, but I don't see that in his (mostly deleted) edit history. He did recreate the article. Just don't want to accuse him of things that he didn't do. ;) Cheers! ] (]) 18:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :That's what you get for not properly looking at edit histories. I've removed the warnings with apologies, and salted it instead for a month as the subject won't gain notability in that time. Thank you for pointing this out to me - I'll keep a better watch for this. ]] 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not a prob, I've done things like that before too. :) ] (]) 19:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Ian13. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| == Go == | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| In all seriousness, could you please clarify what qualifies ] for a speedy keep, but not ]? Just your suspicions about my motives or something I'm missing? ] (]) 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No-one, besides yourself (the nominator), supported that Go be deleted, and the nomination was made for 'consistancy' which clearly the two languages are distinct and will have differing levels of notability. Because of the nature of the nomination, and lack of advancing discussion, the outcome was going to be keep, and continuing the AfD would have been a waste of time and bad publicity. The nomination of Go! has sparked much discussion and arguments for both keeping and deleting, and thus there really is material difference in these discussions. ]] 23:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::But there's something I really don't understand here - doesn't the notability have to be established ''in the article''? This whole "come on, we all know it's Google etc." argument, in meta-discussions not backed up in the article, make me genuinely uneasy. I had to bully the most vocal opponenet of Go!, and proponent of Go, into actually lowering himself to making positive contributions to the Go article, instead of throwing his weight around outside it. There's something very wrong with this when it leaves an article on the site that indefinitely fails to justify its own inclusion, which really stings while I'm working hard, challenge after challenge, to defend a language I honestly believe is of note. ] (]) 01:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/05&oldid=813459745 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 04:45, 19 November 2022
|
| ||||||
Alisha Pillay
Hey Ian,
Just wanted to ask you about a wiki page that was deleted about 2 years ago. The page was about an artist from Canada titled "Alisha Pillay". I would love to see this page on Misplaced Pages again. Her debut single "Convicted" hit Canadian radio in January 2010 and she managed to reach #38 on the Canadian Top 40 charts. She won the opportunity to have her song on Canadian radio through a competition called "Radio Active" which was thrown by Pitbull Promotions. The song was received well and managed to win over Sony Music Canada, who continued to market and promote the song. She was also featured as an emerging artist on the Billboard Canadian Update and won the "Chum Emerging Artist" award for April 2010.
She has collaborated with many established writers including: Alisha M'Jestie Brooks (Rihanna, Pon De Replay), James Fauntleroy (Chris Brown, Beyonce, Rihanna, Justin Timberlake and many others), Jarvis Church of the Philosopher Kings (Nelly Furtado) and many others. She has also performed with the Canada's most acclaimed producer, David Foster. She was the winner of his first singing competition in BC called "Opportunity of a lifetime"
She is going to release her second single "Love Drunk" in Canada on July 12, 2010.
Thanks for your time! Would love to see this page back on Wiki with all the new updates!
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.218.254 (talk • contribs) This was submitted to an archive page, and subsequently not noticed.
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
OLD TIMES
We had some fun, didn't we Ian? Shame that it looks like you gave up on the Misplaced Pages. You loved it so. The Vestiges of Cicero Dog (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Ian13. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)