Revision as of 13:30, 18 October 2006 editJeffrey O. Gustafson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,218 edits Too Cool← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 07:45, 17 March 2024 edit undoKleshkreikne (talk | contribs)396 edits Notification: listing of Template:Unblock-spamun at WP:Templates for discussion.Tag: Twinkle | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{not around}} | |||
<div class="messagebox"> | <div class="messagebox"> | ||
'''Administrators''': if you want to overturn one of my administrative actions, and I don't appear to be active, go ahead, so long as the action wasn't an overturning of ''your'' action. Use common sense, naturally. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | '''Administrators''': if you want to overturn one of my administrative actions, and I don't appear to be active, go ahead, so long as the action wasn't an overturning of ''your'' action. Use common sense, naturally. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 17: | Line 19: | ||
# | # | ||
# | # | ||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | ||
Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I |
Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I think people casually reading my talk page would be interested in my response, in which case I'll respond here. Thanks! | ||
==Asgardian and the Red Hulk article== | |||
== arbitration == | |||
Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but Asgardian seem to be having an edit conflict again, as seen . I tried leaving explaining my rationale, and suggesting that we start a consensus discussion. Instead of agree to that, or even responding to my message at all, he went and , which is against WP policy regarding edit conflicts. I've started a consensus discussion on the conflict on Red Hulk . I request that you monitor the situation so that if he continues to revert without discussion (the offense for which he was blocked previously), you can offer your assistance. Thanks. ] (]) 15:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I am not really active enough to take on new things to monitor closely such as this. I took a look at the recent behavior and it appears that discussion is underway and reverting has slowed down or stopped, so I see no need for a block right now. I suggest if you feel a block is merited at some point, that's when it's best to request help. And ] is probably better than requesting my help directly, because I'm not all that active these days. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Two users who are suspiciously singling me and my pages out, claim that by posting any links to commercial sources we are violating Misplaced Pages policies. This has the interesting altrusitic aim that anything outside wiki must be bad. While I agree random links and blatent advertising are wrong, links are intended to show people where to find more information, not to assume WIKIPEDIA has an infinite amount of space for all information, which is edited forever. Please take a look at ]] 21:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::See, this is why blocking him outright sometimes appears to be the only option: Every time I try asking people to participate, they come up with some excuse not to. You asked me to contact you, and I did, and now you're finding a reason not to. Yeah, a discussion was underway, and guess what? Four people (I and three others) came to a consensus on three of the four points I brought up (six if you count two others in a discussion on the Comics Project in February--It's in the portion of ) and what did Asgardian do? He reverted the article. When confronted, he stated that there was "no clear consensus" on the matter. He even reverted ''blindly'', and in knee-jerk fashion, because he not only changed the disputed content, but even a valid edit in which I . He also appears to have for some reason, and others in the discussion appear to be losing their patience with him, as seen in . I locked the article down to prevent further reversions by him (and to avoid the option of blocking him) until we can get confirmation by the others that there is indeed a consensus. What are we supposed to do if you won't intervene as you said you would earlier this year? ] (]) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== <nowiki>{{</nowiki>prod}} and <nowiki>{{</nowiki>AfD}} == | |||
'''"You indefinitely full-protected Towelie, reversed yourself..."''' | |||
Thank you for informing of the policies regarding prod tags and AfD procedure. I've been replacing them because editors arbitarily remove them without discussion, and I had thought the proper procedure was to invoke discussion before allowing the tag to be delted. Thanks again. - ] 14:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Yeah, that's right. I didn't know that indefinite full-protection protection was considered inappropriate, and when someone pointed this out to me, I acknowledged this, and took that protection off, never again doing so. What's your point? That not knowing about a particular protocol is "misuse"? This was an error based on ignorance of a particular rule, nothing more. | |||
'''"and then semi-protected it for the extreme duration of 1 year."''' | |||
== <nowiki>{{speedy}} or {{db|reason}} tags </nowiki>== | |||
Right. Countless anonymous IP's are constantly adding unsourced POV information to that article (possibly one person engaging in sockpuppetry for all we know), and I had previously clarified the addition of material in which editors interpret satirical works with someone . Despite this, editors, usually anonymous IP's who don't know about or care about ], continue to add such unsourced material to the article. Thus, semiprotecting it is perfectly valid. I typically do this with articles that are subject to such disruptive editing. It is not "extreme", for if it were, why would the block page give 1 year as a duration option? | |||
'''"You also semi-protected Pandemic (South Park) over IP edits you disagreed with."''' | |||
Would you say, then, that ]' first speedy sould have been CSD A3, <nowiki>{{db-nocontent}}</nowiki> ("''no content other than external links of whatever kind...''")? I really do disagree with obvious advertising not being able to be speedied. Every second they're listed, they run the chance of being mirrored, and/or used for advertising or promotion of legitimacy for commercial endeavors who think having an article gives them a momentary notability boost. - ] 16:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
I did no such thing. I discussed the various matters of that article with others , including one matter in which in order to address another editor's insistence on adding certain material. All of this was by the book, as far as I know, and nothing was inappropriate. After this, however, anonymous IP's continue to add unsourced material against both policy and consensus, and not what "I disagreed with", so yeah, protecting it was reasonable. | |||
'''"This is not the first but the second time you have protected Red Hulk which you have been heavily involved in editing."''' | |||
== Re: ] == | |||
Of course I protected it. Editors were adding material without citing a reliable source, and in that matter, Asgardian '''''' with me. Using protection or blocks is inappropriate where there is a genuine content dispute, but not, as far as I knew, where there is an unambiguous policy violation, like ]. Is there? If so, this is news to me, and I can't imagine why. What should I do, ask another admin to protect it for me? In any event, this would be yet another permutation of admin powers that I was unacquainted with. I'll be asking around about this, but if what you're indicating here is true, that does not constitute a willful etiquette or guideline violation on my part. | |||
'''"In the discussion that led to Asgardian's unblock, it was revealed that you were sternly warned many times about misusing your tools, yet you blocked Asgardian again."''' If you're referring to the blocking that led to that discussion, that block was legitimate, and should not have been reversed. Asgardian disruptively removed of content despite unresolved Talk Page discussion, and repeated violated of Civility. He has not learned from this lesson, because he has continued to engage in both behaviors, even recently. He's made personal comments about myself, and with whom he disagreed with, ignores messages left on his Talk Page, and counterarguments during Talk Page discussions, uses , and he continues to revert articles against the consensus. You, meanwhile have done nothing about him, even though I contacted you when this started, as per your request. | |||
OK. I would (and will) argue aginst this, but if there has been previous discussion, I should read it first. ;-) Can you help me find the discussion? Where is "meta or media"? We don't put any ''other'' image categories directly into CSD, why this one? But in any case, thanks for letting me know. ] 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I haven't been able to find any discussion on suddenly doubling CSD's size with ''non-urgent'' images linked from the page... There were three pages linked there, and none of them seemed to discuss the insertion of the material into CSD. What am I missing? ] 20:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hey -- can you point me to where the debate about this template was taking place? Was it on mediawiki? I remember seeing it at one point and you were involved. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It was primarily at ], although it came up on ] at some stage also. ] (]) 21:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
'''"As to the actual issue, Asgardian is correct that there isn't a consensus over the date format thing. I do see that some editors said, speaking generally, that including dates and issue titles is okay as long as not done excessively, but that was (1) over half a year ago, and (2) not a specific opinion on the text in this dispute."''' That indeed pertains to this dispute, since it mirrors what was said on the Red Hulk Talk Page, and yet, Asgardians insists on removing '''all''' such information, arguing that not doing so leads to an unreadable "laundry list" or "minefield" of dates and issue numbers. This is false, since we're talking about a middle ground of ''occasionally'' including such info, and he's talking about an all-or-nothing proposition between a huge list and none and at all. This is on the Red Hulk Talk Page, which is not "over half a year ago". Did you not read it? | |||
As for {{tl|no license}}, it's divided by date, and I at least, do use a semi-bot to go through the categories after the five days and get rid of stuff. I don't object to deleting these images before 5 days, I just object to broadening CSD with things that are more chronic (and repetitive) than the normal CSD-worthy articles that are in there ususally. Maybe we could make (yet) another category, and put them there... in any case, a WP:AN post seems useful. Feel free to copy whatever of this seems good. ] 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
'''"As ThuranX said, you have a preferred version just as much as Asgardian does and are pushing hard for your version."''' | |||
== This is where Misplaced Pages is fun and not completely frustrating. == | |||
You are now bringing up something that is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. Of the four points I raised on the Red Hulk Talk Page, the others agreed with me on three; on the fourth, the matter of info pertaining to the character's human identity, they did not. I requested clarification of that, and ThuranX became angry at me for doing so, accusing me of pushing for a particular version, when I was merely asking for clarification of a point in order to reach a compromise. His accusation was a completely inappropriate breach of ], and by now repeating it yourself---in regard to the separate matter of dates and issue numbers, which had nothing to do with Thuran's statement--you are now violating that policy yourself. | |||
The evidence of the discussion on the Red Hulk Talk Page, and Asgardian's behavior, clearly falsify your assertion that he has not misbehaved, but I somehow have. Even the others are fed up with him, and I as well, yet you ignore that as well. I '''asked''' you to intervene, and you never responded on my Talk Page, and when you did, it was to say that you weren't going to do so because you weren't "active" enough. Funny how you're not active enough to intervene with genuine policy violations by Asgardian, or to look over the genuine evidence of his misbehavior (I guess all those other users and admins I linked you to are all wrong), but active enough to overreact and exaggerate with respect to Good Faith actions on my part. Clearly you do not have the judgment capable of dealing with him realistically or objectively, and I will show this to the AN. ] (]) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Since you seem interested in keeping ], I just wanted to inform you that it's up for ] yet again. ] 22:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
== 10c worth == | ||
I'll keep this separate from the above for easy reading. True to my word , I haven't edited ] since the issue came to a head, and have suggested that it go to WikiComics as there seems to be an impasse. | |||
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no edit warring, only improvements and modifications. The references in the article were placed in footnote formate as that is a style that I've run with for some time (over 30 - 40 articles) and seems to be becoming the norm, as the ''references in the text'' approach becomes unwieldy and difficult to read. Anyway, that's a matter for WikiComics. | |||
Thanks for the reminder! At the time I initially tagged it, the article did not state the significance of the artist. The author kept removing the speedy tag and must have added more content simultaneously, which I should have paid more attention to. Thanks! -- ] 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Finally, a tad disappointed at the "mob" mentality shown here , as while I've made mistakes in the past (although it has been noted I've been unfairly blocked on more than one occasion), I don't feel an editor's history is the issue here. Regards ] (]) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] history undelete == | |||
Sorry to waste your time with this, but ] seems to have followed ] down the road of incivility, and has become openly abusive: I would like to see him cautioned, and I really think his administrator privileges need reviewing. Many thanks. ] (]) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
I left a message on ] talk page about this: I have a hard time believing that ] is not a massive copyvio. Since you cast the sole overturn vote, you might want to chime in if it is worth keeping. ~ ] 17:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Can you unblock me? == | ||
I have now an account here at Misplaced Pages (the same as the one on the Swedish wiki "Hollac16"). Can you unblock me? /] (]) 13:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Thanyou for your help. Peace be with you--] 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Knight Prince - Sage Veritas== | |||
== Werrington Lakes == | |||
This guy looks like a disruptive SPA to me. I suggest not unblocking him or a perma ban on Barbera and ethnic realted articles. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I also must object to any unblocking of ], I spent time and effort to try and help this editor understand that edit warring and personal attacks were against Misplaced Pages policy, and after his first block and , not only did he persist in edit warring and attacking Rlevse - he still attempts to play the ] <small>]</small> 21:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I've given due consideration to both points. I feel that KP-SV was only indef-blocked in the first place for an apparent loss of temper after he was blocked. He's retracted the comment, and agreed to a 1-month ban. I don't see that he's an SPA; he has made useful contributions at ] and ]. And in any case, the 1-month ban will let him develop some breadth and his account is less than 1 month old in the first place. Plus, Juliancolton, the blocking admin, seems to feel the idea is acceptable. Just because this block is being lifted doesn't mean he should be spared from further blocks if he engages in more edit warring or personal attacks, after all. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
<s>Since you think that the {{tl|prod}} on ] was vandalism, perhaps you would care to tell us a bit more about these lakes. Like giving us a ] or indeed any external link. I expect you are going to tell us that the ] has been renamed Werrington Creek. -- ] 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)</s> | |||
:::His article range is very narrow, basically Lebanon and Jordan and he was disruptive over more than on article. What exactly does the one month ban cover, a one month block, a one month topic ban or what? The consensus at Barbera is the autobio trumps the 1-2 RS's he can find and there are more RS's, first hand ones at that, that support the Italian view. How do we know he will accept that? Given his pattern of behavior, there's a very good chance he'll return to his prior disruption. And he still doesn't seem to understand ]. Reading his talk page again note he only changed his tune when you offered to unblock him. I feel he's only trying to game an unblock.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::It's quite clear. A total 1 month ban from the Barbera article and talk page, and from edits regarding the ethnicity of people in general. As for the argument on Joseph Barbera, I don't know that he will accept it, and I don't think it's necessary for him to do so, I just think it's necessary for him to engage appropriately about it... once you guys have had a reasonable period away from it. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
I better come clean: see . The original author gave absolutely no context but from whatlinkshere and the content, it was obvious that the article was about NSW. Out of mischief, I added a link to the Peterborough, Werrington. Elonka then came along and blindly "improved" it, blithely ignoring the fact that there is no railway station and no Werrington Creek. Continuing the mischief, as an anon, I added the prod. No comment on your removing the prod and leaving inaccurate text in place. After adding a second anon to the article and the comment above, I decided I had better check and found to my horror that lake/s of this name exist in ! -- ] 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
It's just evident from his ] on the article/other articles across Misplaced Pages. However, I have no interest in causing animosity or disruption! Thanks for taking an interest, ] (]) 21:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== My block. == | |||
:Also...you appear to have redirected my old account...this is fine, but I liked the old account layout, and the redirect has made it impossible to view this. Please restore my old account - I may consider using the information there on my new one. ] (]) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::"Contradict the truth"? It's pretty blatant. And silly. I'm sorry you don't see that :P ] (]) 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Also...you haven't done what I asked....which isn't particularly helpful. ] (]) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Hey there: your decision to act out against me has been duly noted: I shall proceed as necessary if I feel these actions are escalating towards bullying. ] (]) 15:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I suggest comprehension lessons: I shall proceed as necessary ''if'' I feel these actions ''are escalating towards'' bullying. ] (]) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::There is no requirement that I not ask for further input on your behavior. So I am doing so. In particular, I will be notifying Tanthalas39, since he had placed you on warning for disruptive behavior at ]. I will be bringing up your use of alternate accounts. I will be bringing up your inappropriate accusation of vandalism. I will be bringing up your inappropriate attack on Imbris. Perhaps if you see that this is not me with a biased view of the situation, you will listen to the warnings I've given you, which I believe are fair and appropriate considering what you've done. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:It's a shame administrators aren't what they used to be. I hope you're doing all this with good intentions; but we all know what sorts of roads those often pave. Be productive! ] (]) 15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Heya! I've just realised you're a "doctor of philosophy". Isn't that brilliant :) but you don't speak much French and no German at all. How does that work? I suppose it all depends. There's an AN/I over Imbris btw, you might want to chuck your 2c in. ] (]) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I checked out the ANI, but since I've edited substantially with Imbris, I have to consider that I've taken off my admin hat in dealing with him. My interactions with him on ] were definitely difficult; you can find some rather long complaints I left him if you search through his user talk page. But ultimately, I think he came to trust that I wasn't favoring one side or another, and this let him relax considerably. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== User:Rm125 == | |||
I've been unblocked. Thanks for your help anyway. Norman. | |||
--] 11:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
FYI: I gave Rm125 a for repeatedly deleting sourced material with which he did not agree, not over a good-faith difference of opinion. — ] {{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }} 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for unblocking my account. --] | |||
== Hi, can you please check this == | |||
== 38acres == | |||
On article ], there's a user called Mohummy who keeps deleting most of the article claiming the sources provided are not WP:RS yet he can't say how that is. Can you please check the sources and give me your opinion. Thanks. By the way, I've started a discussion in that articles talk page. Thanks again ] (]) 01:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Has toured entire midwest (IL, IN, WI, MI, IA, MN) and has done as much, if not more, as other acts listed on your web site such as Insyderz, W's, etc. I dont get the purpose of the site and how to function. I am not "marketing" the band just describing who they are. Their upcoming album is being mixxed by 8 time Grammy winner, Paul Salvo, at SalvoMixx in Nashville. Not sure what your "guidelines" are and how to meet them? | |||
:By the way, he's already done 3 rv's and I'm not about to get into an edit war with him. ] (]) 02:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Please block me indefinitely == | |||
== Radwell International Deletion Review == | |||
Thank you. ] (]) 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for offering to help me open the deletion review process. I have been very careful not to be "spammy". I continue adding material to this article and to others where I feel I can provide value. Greg. | |||
:Please place an indefinite block on my account. ] (]) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Scientific notability guideline== | |||
Hey, I noticed that we have notability guidelines on everything from ] to ], but none on scientific concepts, theories, and terms. I started putting some intitial ideas together at ] and am looking for contributions and feedback now. If this essay can gather some steam we could move it into the WP space and make it an active proposal. There are lots of particulars in debates about scientific topics such as peer-review, citations, impact factor, etc., that editors should be made aware of before they offer an opinion based on the "Google test", and I think it would be a good way to collect all of this in one spot. Let me know if you're interested. Cheers, ] 10:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)''' | |||
*I appreciate the effort, but I think it might be damaging to Misplaced Pages, actually. Notability (otherwise known as "importance") is something that should REALLY only be applied to types of topics that have an endless quantity of subjects within them. It makes sense for people, since we can't cover everyone. It makes sense for companies, so that we can filter out promotional articles. It makes sense for bands, since again, self-promotion is a problem, and there's no need to have articles on bands that aren't established. I don't think it makes sense at all for ], since ] is the true test there, and "notability" adds nothing. I think it's even worse for scientific concepts and theories: see , in which an obscure scientific topic is held out as an example of why we *shouldn't* require notability for everything. The only real reason to have a notability guide for science is if we're bowing to the fact that "notability" and "includability" are the same thing and apply across the board. ] is not an official guideline, and in fact has been rejected several times; it's an essay. Notability is something that screws up deletion big time: I saw someone PROD a Celtic deity once, saying it was "not notable" -- since when do Gods have to be notable? ] and ] tell us everything we need to know about the inclusion of most articles; we only need notability when we need to interpret "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information," and I don't see how someone can claim that covering too many scientific theories makes Misplaced Pages indiscriminate. ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
**Oh, when I say "damaging," what I mean is that having such a guideline perpetuates the notability misconception. I would support having ] say simply "Notability does not apply to science. The criteria for inclusion are ] and ]." :) ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
***Fair enough. It's not a view I share since I believe "notability" is a corollary of ''] indiscriminate information'', but I accept your view. I'm not a big fan of the notability guidelines myself, but I've seen science AfD's gone horribly wrong because editors thought Google search (or even Google scholar search) were indicative of a subject's importance. ~ ] 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
***That would be wrong. ] is a criterion as well. ] 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
**]. The reason that notability is not such a concern in the field of science is in fact that notability's primary purpose is to make sure that Misplaced Pages does not turn into a directory, in accordance with what Misplaced Pages is not. There are directories in the fields of people, businesses, products, services, and web sites. There are no such equivalent ''science directories'' for an encyclopaedia to avoid being. Sciences don't have dates of birth, addresses, sale prices, or telephone numbers. ☺ ] 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Removing references == | |||
When you merged ] to ], why did you remove all of the references? References are ''good'' things. References are what enable readers of ] to know that the paragraph on orgling therein, which they may not have even heard of before, is actually correct and not some fabrication. If you are going to talk about verifiability, as you do above, then ''please help to ensure that articles are verifiable''. Removing references is the ''opposite'' of doing that, and actually makes the encyclopaedia ''worse'', not better. ] 11:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Let's see... I reported an editor for violating 3RR, and I was blocked instead. I protested the block and was denied. I said, fine, I don't want an early unblock, and was promptly unblocked early. I requested an indef block and am now (apparently) required to be unblocked. WTF. If I request a community-wide ban, will you make me an admin? Obviously, anybody who wants to be indef blocked can make that happen...do you want me to be disruptive? Are you at least going to discuss what's going on in your head, or should I just go vandalize something? ] (]) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Re:Speedy of 38 Acres== | |||
Ok, sorry about that - I'd seen bands of very similar importance speedied before. Also, I have seen many, many AfD nominations that were tagged for speedy half-way through the discuaion, and ended as "the result was '''speedy Delete''', so I had no idea that neither of these was an apropriate procedure since they were being used by experienced editors, and because no-one seemed to be complaining. ] 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::See ]. Such requests are generally not granted. You can take a break or leave. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
"not even all the admins understand it" - I feel better for that! :) Kudos for you for informing people! - ] 17:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::The idea is to help me leave. Something analogous to cutting up your credit cards. ] (]) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== alright == | |||
:::::I understand the idea, it's just against policy and therefore not done. ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== In the absence of == | ||
Just to let you know that ] has been very kind in helping me out to sort the sockpuppets over here. Since he is on a Wikibreak so I am reproducing a message that I left on his talk page for your consideration too. And I guess you very well know the main user named ] of this whole episode too. | |||
]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> awards this Barnstar to '''Mangojuice''' for commonsense; and for being open to review but being right and thus not needing it; and for being good for Misplaced Pages in every edit.]] | |||
:"Cher Tan. I don't know how did I miss this one ] which for sure seems yet another one of a suspected sockpuppet of ]. Because the quality of English, written by him all over his edits, is exactly the same - the time of creation of this user account is the same i.e. 22nd August when all the other socks were created by him - and above of all his repeated votes of his earlier bad faith AFDs of ] and ]. Now he has voted a ''''Delete''' for the second time on ], an article created by me, which though has been referenced in abundance now. I am certain that's him again but can you check this user or do something about him too. Always grateful." | |||
Heh heh! You gave him enough rope. And he then handed the rope to me and asked me to beat him with it. I declined and showed him the door. | |||
::--<span style="color:#00FF00;background:#191970;">]</span> 01:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Please advice on impossible situation- the same thing repeats itself over and over == | |||
Everyone was happy with the result. Well, maybe he wasn't. But the rest of us can live with it :o) | |||
Mangojuice, I need you advice, please. As you suggested here] I try to behave in more civil ways and when in doubt you graciously offered your help I am so fact working on J Street page. As before Malik Shabbaz and nobleezy and Sean as a team ] are undoing me constantly without providing ANY justification whatsoever. Once again we are facing the same situation when I provide a thorough and well based arguments ] | |||
Oh, and have one of these. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC) <br clear="all"> | |||
they working as a team undoing it. Please take a look at the situation on J street. Please read the article that talks about it | |||
This is the quote from NYT we are discussing: | |||
== Hunter91 and co. == | |||
::“The peril may be real. But it can also feel like a marketing device. “You know what these guys are afraid of?” says M. J. Rosenberg, Washington director of the Israel Policy Forum. “Their generation is disappearing. All the old Jewish people in senior-citizen homes speaking Yiddish are dying — and they’re being replaced by 60-year-old Woodstock types.” | |||
I suspect actual sockpuppetry. Review ] for yourself and notice the distinct pattern of coordinated vandalism to articles such as ] and userpages such as ] and ]. The "meatpuppetry" voting for Hunter91 was just the last straw that linked them altogether. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::J Street, by contrast, is wide open to the public. Visitors must thread their way through a graphic-design studio with which the organization shares office space. There appears to be nothing worth guarding. The average age of the dozen or so staff members is about 30. Ben-Ami speaks for, and to, this post-Holocaust generation. “They’re all intermarried,” he says. “They’re all doing Buddhist seders.” They are, he adds, baffled by the notion of “Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you.” | |||
As you see he gives a very pointed reply here and it is relevant. For the issue of generational gap in this context. More then that I added this right after the sentense regarding Jews and non Jews supporters ( While primarily made up of Jews, J Street welcomes both Jewish and non-Jewish members.) | |||
== Polls: == | |||
Why not to include that they have a diversity there? You can see clearly that when I give a point that Malik doesn’t have an answer to the other guy comes to undo it. | |||
This is very typical of this team and they are provoking me by undoing and working as a team. Please tell me what think you. All my edits are well documented. What should I do here? Please advise. Thanks for your time. This happens everywhere I go. Is 'team working" is allowed?--] (]) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi. I'm just sending out a message for a new study I will be undertaking soon. It will involve surveys & polls to gather information & trends of editors on Misplaced Pages & other subjects. The data gathering will involve yourself recieving a questionaire on your talk page for you to fill out. I will then collect your questionaire & combine it with data from other editors. If you would like to be a part of this experiment, or know of someone who does, place a "Yes" or "No" below this message. Remember, it's only for fun & you can choose not to fill out all or parts of your questionaire once they arrive. Have a nice day... {{Smiley}} -- ] 06:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Now the dream team are erasing talk pages. Look at the history ]how they work together even on talk pages to erase my talk. Not only they erase my contribution to the article itself. They erase talk pages. Is it possible? This is not legitimate prsactice. Something must be done about it | |||
== futureobservatory (David Mercer) copyright == | |||
--] (]) 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
I have left an email for your 'permissions' which simply explains: "As a best-selling author, over several decades and several dozen books, many of my submissions come from my books; especially from "A Dance Through the Fires of Time", "IBM: How the World's Most Successful Coropration is Managed", "Marketing" and "Future Revolutions". However, I hold the copyright for all of these - and assign any relevant aspects of this to Misplaced Pages." | |||
==Happy {{BASEPAGENAME}}'s Day!== | |||
Dr David Mercer | |||
{| style="border: 2px ridge #4682B4; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background-color: #EAF5FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 8px; text-align: center;" | |||
|] | |||
|style="padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 10px; font-family: Comic Sans MS, sans-serif; font-size: 9pt; text-align: center;"| | |||
''']''' has been identified as an '''''Awesome Wikipedian''''',<br /> | |||
and therefore, I've officially declared today as ]!<br /> | |||
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,<br /> | |||
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear {{BASEPAGENAME}}! | |||
Peace,<br />]<br />00:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== A thumbs up... == | |||
<small>A record of your Day will always be kept ].</small> | |||
...to your AfD closure for 65 episode policy. While I did think it should be kept, that was possibly the most perfect closing explanation I've seen at AfD in a while. Since I'm perfectly willing to go after people for poor closes, it seems only fair to give kudos to the good ones, so *thumbsup*. --] <small>]</small> 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see ] and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Siberian == | |||
== nableezy needs to be reminded of civil behaviour ( use of curses on talk pages- fu(xxx)ck == | |||
Look, Mangojuice, before you are going to make a huge mistake by deleting this article, let me show you my analysis of the vote thus far. I sent this earlier to ]. | |||
What do you say? Can we start working on language for a new RfC, or do we let the old one run its course? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
First of all, let me say that I completely agree that it this AfD was a hell of a mess. Yet, your answer don't convince me at all. You say that you discounted "pretty much anyone who didn't bother to make an argument". Look, I want to keep this whole discussion as civilised as possible, but in this case I really think you made a wrong decision. Indeed, it was a hell of a mess and sorting out the votes and arguments wasn't an easy task. I don't even expect you, as a admin, to read every single sentence that was written. So I took the liberty of doing it for you. It took me quite a few hours, but I think it was worth the effort. Here is the result. Let's first count the votes. | |||
Fuck"Some random word" it, just let the old one run its course. This user is incapable of not disrupting anything so there is no point in just giving him another avenue to further disrupt. nableezy - 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
If we merely look at the votes for '''keep''' (including strong keep, mild keep etc.) and the votes for '''delete''', we get: '''31 keep''', '''32 delete''', '''2 abstain'''. That is, completely disregarding any arguments used or any number of edits made. | |||
] | |||
Of course, we don't want to include the votes of those who merely joined in order to vote here. If we discount anonymous voters and people who made no edits before this AfD was started, we discard: | |||
* 11 for keep: ], ] (Rutopist), Roman Baiduk, ], ], ], 1 Anonymous, ], ], ], ], and | |||
* 2 for delete: ], ]. | |||
Which still gives us the result of '''20 keep, 30 delete'''. This would still classify as '''no consensus''', methinks. | |||
== Mangojuice I disagree with your ban and “sanctions“ == | |||
If we discount the votes not only of those who had no edits, but also of those who had few edits (less than 50), we additionally discard: | |||
* 6 for keep: ], ], ], ], ] (]), ] (]), and | |||
* 5 for delete: ], ], ], ], ]. | |||
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
Thus, we end up with the following list of people who had a lot of edits before this AfD started: | |||
|- | |||
* 14 for keep: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and | |||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it. | |||
* 25 for delete: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and | |||
|- | |||
* 2 abstained: ], ]. | |||
| style="text-align:center; font-style:italic;" | The following is an archived debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> | |||
|- | |||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | | |||
In other words, among the people with 50+ edits the final result would be '''14 keep, 25 delete'''. Although a clear majority of the voters voted for deletion, this is by no means what one would call "rough consensus". Please note that none of these 14 keep voters can be counted as "part of Zolotaryev's flashmob". | |||
=== Response === | |||
But you are right, it's the arguments that should decide. So let's evaluate them a little. | |||
* in favour of "keep": | |||
** Several people pointed out that the language got "serious media coverage" (]) or that it "look like a sufficiently notable ] in that it has generated substantial press attention (]). | |||
** "Article (...) seems to adequately describe the cultural phenomenon (initiative on codification of dialects). It isn't OR, it's an article ''about'' OR" (]). | |||
** "request for a wikipedia in Siberian has been approved lately." (]). The Siberian test wiki has over 1,500 articles. | |||
** "This is as valid as ] and ]. Few people use them, but they are clever people and their work has scientific value. It's more than original research and it's more than a stupid game - its creator acutally shows knowledge of Northern Russian dialectology (], who also added that the language is very complete). | |||
** Several of the "keep" voters agreed that the article should be reclassified, either as a dialect or as a conlang. Some of them also made suggestions for improvement. | |||
* in favour of "delete": | |||
** "Original research, not outside the internet" (]). | |||
** "A false presentation of an original development of Zolotaryov as a "standard dialect". You simply cannot make a "strandard" in 1-2 years" (]). | |||
** "shameless self-promotion" (]). | |||
** Several people argued that the language is not real, fake. For example: "There are no such language, it's artificial creation of a small group of people" (]). | |||
Frankly I see no reason to bother warning Nableezy over his use of the f-word, directed at no one, out of frustration because you seem so intent on bring it up over and over again, nearly a week after it happened. | |||
Let me just point out that the argument that the language is artificial should not be a reason in itself to delete it. There are over 200 articles about constructed languages in Misplaced Pages.en, a lot of them are far lesser-known than Siberian. If the article contains factual inaccuracies, that should be solved by improving it, not by deleting it. | |||
You are extremely close to having your block reinstated because of your complete inability to adjust your behavior to Misplaced Pages expectations. Specifically: | |||
Let's also have a look at a few non-arguments used in the discussion. Disregarding comments of the type ''"Russian Nazis against development of Siberian culture"'' or ''"The 'language' is a creation of some separatist aggressive lunatics"'', we still have: | |||
* in favour of "keep": | |||
** "This phenomena EXISTS. So the article on it has all right to exist too" (]). Sure. My shoes exist as well. | |||
** "This language really needs to be noticeable by article, if such discussions are called by it" (]). That's autoreferencing. | |||
* in favour of "delete": | |||
** "it's a constructed language, and one which is of no verifiable signifciance to an English-speaking audience" (]). It is explicitly stated that Misplaced Pages is a world-encompassing project, so wp.en is not exclusively targeting the Anglosaxon world. | |||
** "This article was already deleted once and rightly so. Nothing changed since" (]). This is not true. The original article was a stub with a merely a link to a LifeJournal. This was a decent article with plenty of references to the language itself and its press coverage. | |||
** "the article includes no references or sources, only including external links, which fails ]" (]). Not true, most of those links are actually references. As somebody pointed out, that was merely a formatting problem. | |||
** "nonnotable conlang without ] code" (]). This wikipedia features at least 200 conlangs without an ISO 630 code (very few actually have one). Several of them have passed AfD's with a broad consensus for "keep" nonetheless. | |||
** "with all the sources in Russian, this simply cannot be verified" (]). There is no policy that says references must be in English, just that they are in English ''whenever possible''. | |||
** "A set of words is not a language" (]). Perhaps the most ridicilous argument used in the whole AfD. Apart from the fact that it is not true, it wouldn't apply to Siberian even if it were. | |||
** "Was deleted in russian wikipedia too" (]). Yes. So? | |||
# After hearing from Malik Shabazz and Nableezy about your edits to the lead of ], not to mention myself, you continued to edit war over it: , . This is a violation of ]. | |||
I did another count: how many people used reasonable arguments in their vote (not counting the "per" votes and the most obvious nonsense, but counting opinions I disagree with)? My conclusion: '''16 keep''', '''14 delete'''. | |||
# Instead of accepting those opinions as legitimate, you continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of acting in collusion: . | |||
# Your endlessly incivil, anti-collaborative comments: | |||
Under the terms of ], which you have been previously warned about , I am imposing the following sanctions on you. | |||
Last but not least, I would like to note that during the AfD several improvements have been made to the article. I can't check it anymore, but ] renamed the article, and ] modified it to make it acceptable also to many of the delete voters. Unfortunately, both efforts have gone virtually unnoticed, but in fact they invalidate several of the previously made delete votes. Also, someone made the suggestion to substitute the article with a translation of the Dutch version (written by me), which many considered adequate and NPOV. The thought hadn't occurred to me, and unfortunately I hadn't seen that part. | |||
# You are on civility parole indefinitely. If you make any comments which (1) are ], (2) are incivil, (3) are intended only or mainly to mock, irritate, or provoke others, or (4) ''any'' comments which are in substance about other editors rather than about editing issues, you will be blocked. | |||
Let's not even discuss the vote-stacking here. As you know, Andy Volokhov approached everybody who previously voted "delete", and calls to come here and vote for deletion were placed both in the Russian wikipedia and on the Russian messageboard here. But in all honesty, I suspect other people might have been doing something similar to gather keep voters, although I haven't seen it. | |||
# You are placed on a revert restriction indefinitely: you may make no more than one revert per page per WEEK. If you do, you will be blocked. Be advised that ] can apply to edits that don't exactly return a page to a previous version, but rather, any edits that have the effect of undoing another editor's edits. I realize this puts you at an inherent tactical disadvantage in edit wars, but that's the point. | |||
# You are blocked for 48 hours starting now. In that time, please read and understand ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
# Be aware that knowing violations of these terms will probably be met with an outright ban against you editing any and all topics relating to the Middle East and Middle East politics. | |||
If you wish to appeal the bans, after your block expires, please go to ]. If you have any questions about the terms, ask me - do ''not'' test the limits with your edits. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Yet, Man in Black, I don't really know how you got the idea that hardly anybody bothered to make an argument. In fact, I believe the "keep" arguments in general are much stronger than the "delete" arguments (mostly the usual non-notable/vanity kind of stuff). I guess the whole point of all this is the following: no matter how you count the votes, and no matter which arguments you decide to discount, the conclusion would always be: '''no consensus'''. I'm not going to attack you, nor am I questioning your good faith. But I really believe you should revisit your decision, in either of two ways: | |||
* you restore the article and reopen the discussion, to see what new opinions can be gathered; | |||
* you restore the article and close the discussion, with "no consensus" as its conclusion. | |||
I really don't want to turn this into a personal attack on you. I don't want to make this incident more important than it is. And frankly, I don't want to start a Deletion Review either, because that would mean starting over the whole discussion all over again, which I believe nobody is waiting for. | |||
=== Rm125 letter to Mangojuice=== | |||
That was what I sent to A Man In Black. Since he reopened the vote, one additional delete vote and one additional keep vote have been issued. So believe me, there is really no other conclusion possible than "no consensus". | |||
You say: | |||
Best regards, —] ] 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
“Frankly I see no reason to bother warning Nableezy over his use of the f-word, directed at no one, out of frustration because you seem so intent on bring it up over and over again, nearly a week after it happened. | |||
:''Thanks for your comments. However, although I basically didn't count votes (it was clear this debate attracted so much attention on BOTH sides that numbers would mean very little), I did examine all the arguments. I think the best thing from AMIB's talk page that backs up my decision (btw, I didn't read that until after my explanation & decision) was when he said that the sources detail the movement/project, but nothing seems to talk about the language at all. As I pointed out, a "no consensus" would be, pure and simple, BAD for Misplaced Pages. In big debates like this, we need a decision, so we can move on. ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
::<<< Mangojuice it is frankly incorrect that nabelsy using an f-word just out of frustration. Your point is clearly not objective on your part, especially considering the fact that you are so concerned about “incivility .” If you look at the context of the discussion you are clearly jumping to conclusions here. The context is the following: 3 of us discussing the use of RfC tag. Malik Shabbazz finally agrees with me to renew the tag in the agreeable way -considering my opinion ( I previously wasn’t asked at all by those two who used the fact that I was only Misplaced Pages active for a week and wasn’t aware of it at all) | |||
::Well, that is precisely the problem. These sources actually dó discuss the language. I don't know why some of them have been removed. As one of wikipedia's self-proclaimed experts on constructed languages I can only say: if this language doesn't meet the notability requirement, then no more than ca. 20 of the current 250 or so do. —] ] 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
So here we ( Shabbazz and I finally agree to place the right tag. But nableezy says: <quote>Fuck"Some random word" it, just let the old one run its course. This user is incapable of not disrupting anything so there is no point in just giving him another avenue to further disrupt<end of quote> So clearly as you see nableezy doesn’t cooperate with two of us and solves the problem so long discussed, but instead uses curses and uncivilized behavior. As you see the word” Fuck” is crossed to show that he “kind of” realizes that it is improper to use, but of course we know better, don’t we, Mangojuice? | |||
You tell me in your decision to block me: “Frankly I see no reason to bother warning Nableezy over his use of the f-word, directed at no one, out of frustration because you seem so intent on bring it up over and over again, nearly a week after it happened.” So here we have 2 Wikipedians finally coming to a constructive agreement and the third party instead of agreeing to end the disagreement instantly-noy only doesn’t agree with the majority- he is using the f-word “directing to anyone” Are you sure he is directing it to “anyone, Mangojuice? So according to your logic if 3 people discussing the issue and someone uses the f-word- he is insulting “no one” This is shameful. This is illogical. This is not “reviewing-this is taking unjustified and subjective opinion favorable of offender and at the same toime accusing the agreeing party in “uncivil” conduct. I strongly disagree on this point, Mangojuice. Please change your ways. Be fair to new Wikipedian. Don’t wrongly accuse.Try to ask and understand. Don’t jump to conclusions.>>> | |||
::Which is to say, I fully understand your reasoning, but I disagree with it for two reasons: | |||
::* you say "no consensus" is not a decision. I don't agree with that. It ís a decision. Once an article is AfD'ed, it can go two ways: it is deleted when there is rough consensus for deletion, it stays when there isn't. | |||
::* you introduce several new arguments for deletion, which haven't been discussed at all. Instead of introducing them now, you should have introduced them in the discussion itself, so that we can talk about it. | |||
::For the record, I agree that the article in its current state is not a great example of NPOV. However, there are other ways of fixing that than deleting it. | |||
::Regards, —] ] 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== A cappella redirects == | |||
::Now you say: | |||
Please check for double redirects while you're redirecting articles on collegiate a cappella groups to ]. Thanks. --] 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
You are extremely close to having your block reinstated because of your complete inability to adjust your behavior to Misplaced Pages expectations. Specifically: | |||
==AfD of ]== | |||
I question your closure of ] as delete. Discouting IP's and sockpuppets, there were 3 votes to delete and 2 to keep. That looks like no consensus to me. After being "relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached" there were 2 (valid votes) for keep and 2 for delete. I don't know how you could make the determination that consensus was reached after that and close it as delete (only 6 hours after being relisted). Furthermore, while Misplaced Pages is not a vote, I think that further defends my position. The arguments for deletion were weak at best. "If the article could be rewritten in a more neutral, less commercial tone, I would vote to keep it". - If an article could be improved, then vote keep and rewrite, not delete. "Notability not shown" - If it passes ] (which it does) it doesn't need to be notable to have an article (even though I feel the company is notable). I would suggest undeleting and re-opening (and re-listing) the AfD to truly get a better consensus. ] 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:AfD is not a vote, but a debate. One side '''can''' win out even with equal, or even minority, representation if that argument is sufficently persuasive or otherwise weighted. Sorry to butt in, the sig intrigued me and I clicked the talk button. It may be an unwelcome intrusion, and for that I apologize. -''']</font>'''<sup>]</font></sup> ] 03:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Perhaps you missed my comments noting that very point. ''"While Misplaced Pages is not a vote, I think that further defends my position. The arguments for deletion were weak at best."'' Thanks for backing up my statement though. ] 05:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Free Range Studios on deletion review== | |||
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. ] 19:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
# After hearing from Malik Shabazz and Nableezy about your edits to the lead of ], not to mention myself, you continued to edit war over it: , . This is a violation of ]. | |||
== help with Eric Lerner page == | |||
Can you help out on my page again? I feel that the protected version is now extremely unbalanced and , in contradicting that I was a Visiting Astronomer at ESO, libelous. | |||
::<<< Wrong again. | |||
== Request for Review of AfD == | |||
::This is what Misplaced Pages says: “Misplaced Pages pages develop by discussion, with users following editing policy and trying to work together to develop consensus, and by seeking dispute resolution and help if this isn't working. An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion” If you follow the links and and really “see” the context you will clearly see that I was the one who contributed the fragment and I was undone repeatedly WITHOUT “developing discussion” at all. Not I was engaged in edit war. Not at all. I was undone without discussion ( you can clearly see if you bother to look) “rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion” You can CLEARLY see that I am discussing all right- but not the other party. Once again you decided to stick with the violator of Misplaced Pages policies and suggestion, Mamgojuice. | |||
Hello. Could you please take another look at the ]? While your decision to keep two of the articles was correct in terms of consensus, it seemed there was clear consensus to delete the third, ]. You may not have looked closely at the comments, but most people that voted "keep" also agreed that this one out-of-place month should go. It can always be put through AfD again, but I think it's kind of unnecessary given the sentiment expressed on the aforementioned page. Thanks. - ] 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Once again you take sides against both common sense and Misplaced Pages rules. When two people are fighting normally you look at who started the fight and punish him. Why would you ignore the party who started ans plus didn’t make any attempt to discuss-thus violating Misplaced Pages rules and take sides with the party who started the edit war” and without attempt to discuss the issue? Once again. Mangojuice you violsated both common sense and Misplaced Pages rules.>>> | |||
:Thank you for reconsidering this closure. ] 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Instead of accepting those opinions as legitimate, you continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of acting in collusion: . | |||
== A poem == | |||
I have left you a personal poem on your user page. There is no need to pay me for this service. ] 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::<<< Now it becomes pathetic. You are looking at my response WITHOUT looking what is related to. This is related to the fact they erazed DISCUSSIONS PAGES. Yes the pages you are discussing things the same pages that according to Misplaced Pages rules you are supposed to discuss things, Mango juice. Here what is really happened: First he started to assault me and said :” Stop acting like a kid” I didn’t respond to provocation and continued discussion to the point. Then he accuses me out of nowhere :“It is both insulting and bigoted for you to continue saying these things, and it can, and likely will, end with a block if you dont stop with these quips about people you disagreeing with being Arabs or Muslims. It is both insulting to those you are saying it to and to other Arabs or Muslims. Stop.” Let’s see what’s going on here: He accusing me of being a “bigot” and “insulting” him of “these things” and now he threatens me : and it can, and likely will, end with a block if you dont stop with these quips about people you disagreeing with being Arabs or Muslims. It is both insulting to those you are saying it to and to other Arabs or Muslims.“He assumes me of “these things”. Now what are “ these things” mean? He probably takes some unrelated things from elsewhere and vivaciously inserts “these things” here without ANY justification here. Notice that he is picking up fight with me and it followed a totally legitimate issue of Ben Ami quote. Mangohuice, can you follow me? Do you see how it started? Then it goes down the drain from here. HE has brought the ethnic issue. HE accused me of being a BIGOT and INSULTING him. Did I. Mangojuice? Absolutely not. From here the “conversation followed but you shoose to see a totally unrelated post about his erase of me. We see a pattern here of Mangojuice-totally disregarding the context, trying to justify banning me without any reason whatsoever. He says:“ Instead of accepting those opinions as legitimate, you continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of acting in collusion” So, Mangojuice, what “opinions” you are talking about here? I was accused of being a bigot and a little kid and insulting hin of “these things. Mamgojuice can it be more pathetic than this. What a shame.>>> | |||
== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Siberian language (2 nomination) == | |||
Wow, I have to say: Great close and excellent closing statement. I've seen this one bouncing around the AfD lists, and I was scared to wade into it. Tough call, but the right call, and your closing arguments were extremely compelling. --- ] (]) 04:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Your endlessly incivil, anti-collaborative comments: Are you a man to face the questions or you try to hide? | |||
== ] == | |||
::<<< Now you are totally at loss here look at this ] Does it look “insulting to you Mangojuice? The links you provide don’t say anything and just gave it here for “whatever reason” Your argument gets to the point of being totally ridiculous, Mamgojuice.>>> | |||
Hi Magojuice. This is the comment I left in response to ] about this: | |||
:In response to your query, I did take a look at the votes in the AfD. However, I speedied the article not as a result of how the AFD was going, but because I would have speedied it if I had happened upon it and there had been no tags. In its current form, the article was a vanity page created by the subject that did very little to establish the notability of the subject. However, since there was almost nothing in the article anyway, it should be a trivial matter to recreate it with content that conforms to the Misplaced Pages manual of style and other relevant guidelines. | |||
Under the terms of WP:ARBPIA, which you have been previously warned about , | |||
:If you would like, I can look at the deleted content and reproduce it here for you, if you intend to recreate a suitable article and need any lost information. | |||
I am imposing the following sanctions on you“.(((( The following is a big list of ALL the various and terrible sanctions that Mangojuice impose against poor Rm125)))) | |||
Regards, | |||
Ryan | |||
== ] player AFDs == | |||
::<<< Mangojuice this is what you say here: | |||
These are good faith nominations. I am satisfied that there is consensus not to include non-notable collecitble card players. If we are to delete an article about a CCG player on the basis that it fails the criteria of ], then M:TG players should not be given special consideration. The articles I'm nominating do not include sources and do not substantiate notability beyond the realm of M:TG. Note that I am not going to nominate ] because it does meet the criteria of ] and ]. -- ] (] • ]) 15:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Please re-open the closed nominations. This deserves discussion as to whether or not ccg players are notable. -- ] (] • ]) 15:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
“Nableezy, it would really be helpful if you would stop mentioning all the bad things that can happen to Rm125 if he doesn't comply. If there's going to be any chance to rehabilitation here he HAS to stop feeling attacked. That said, Rm, Nableezy is correct that you should read ] and understand that there's some stuff there that applies to you and could land you in further trouble” | |||
== ] and ] == | |||
::<<< well the first part is reasonable because both nableezy and Malik Shabbaz on various articles sites accuse and threaten and intimidate me continuously. The only problem he gets away with small talk- nothing to take home. Now- you say that I have to read the juristic masterpiece WP:ARBPIA. OK , I have read it. You say I need to “understand that there's some stuff there that applies to you and could land you in further trouble” | |||
Hey, I just wanted to drop you a quick note. Kudos for admitting your perception of bad faith—too many people confuse "assume good faith" with "don't admit you assumed bad faith" which are two different things. For that, I appluad your honesty and also your moderation in requesting another administrator to become involved rather than exacerbating things through a potential conflict of interest. Of course, when you do the noble thing the outcome isn't always as you like and it seems your slant may not be that of other admins viewing the issue, so I just wanted to reaffirm your actions in what I saw at ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 00:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Mow let me ask you respectfully, my dear friend..what is this “some stuff” you are talking about here? Where should I look for this “some stuff” you are so cleverly pointing to me about? I have read very carefully and I haven’t seen anything whatsoever that “applies to me” personally. And what kind of “farther trouble” are you talking about here, my dear? Can it be that all your baseless threats, lecturing and patronizing to are the result of “some stuff” you came up with-baseless- based on your subjective opinion and improper seasoning? The only “farther trouble” I see is your total inability to see this controversy from the neutral point of view. Your harassment and your ban- totally based on invented and manipulated information toward a newbie Wikipedian who sincerely came to make a contribution is misplaced. You constantly claim that as a person whose English is less then perfect I am somehow inferior to others. This is not correct. May be I need a word processor to write correctly but I am not a lazy and clueless observer. As to all your “judgments” and “verdicts’ and “sanctions” allow me to dismiss all the “stuff” you base it on. It is beyond me how did you come up with this” verdict” and what are you trying to prove here. I expect you to guide me how to overturn this injustice as soon as possible. Please let me know how we should proceed from this point. I personally don’t have lots of time to waste of going to various boards and engaging in “office politics.” I would prefer just to reverse all this and proceed from here. Like it never happened. If there is a problem to reverse your decision advice me on other venues. Respectfully. Rm125 | |||
--] (]) 09:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Request for clarification on AfD closing== | |||
Hi, MJ. I was wondering if you could clarify your closing decision on ]/] so I can understand how ] should be interpreted. In this case, how can we tell that it meets or doesn't meet ] if no references or citations are provided? I assume that this information is (potentially) verifiable based on the comments of the other editors, so I really don't have a problem with the decision. Thanks! -] 06:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for the clarification. Keep up the good work! -] 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Rm125 responds to Mangojuice- last statement in series == | |||
== Thank You == | |||
This is the responce to your post on my talk page. | |||
I would like to thank you for removing the autoblock. I am also trying to find the username change page. Can you help? Oh and the IP being blocked may be a future problem due to the fact this is a school IP. My username is FallenBoy897. | |||
Mangojuice sez: | |||
== Wicked595 - thanks == | |||
I have no interest in communicating with you further. | |||
I got all my stuff sorted out and my new username setup. Thanks for your help. | |||
::Rm125 sez:<<< And yet right after this strong statement you continue to communicate on my talk page>>> | |||
== Jordan Waring == | |||
Mangojuice sez: You are making disparaging comments about me and I don't see why I should bother responding to you. | |||
Hello. | |||
I see that you recently deleted the "autobiography" tag on ]'s article. A number of people, including me, have tried to help Mr. Waring with citation format and internet searches, etc., and I did not vote to '''delete''' his autobiography in the recent AfD, but I was wrong. Waring continually comments on his own article (and was the main commenter on the AfD), and he argues with anyone who tries to improve it. The "substantive" material on the article was added by Waring (from his publisher's liner notes, mostly), or from Amazon.com., and much of it is not verifiable from reliable sources. Anyone who has received reivews on their work will, of course, cite only the favorable ones. Now he has threatened another editor on the talk page of the article, and he continues to remove the "autobiography" tag, even though Mr. Shepherd explained why it is necessary (see the talk page). Can you help? -- ] 14:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for your message. I am going to back out of this dispute. Waring only contributes to his own article, his father's (who appears not to be notable), and his grandfather's, and I think if you investigate the edit history on the article, only Waring has added substantive info to the article -- the other editors have merely copy-edited and checked what can be checked on *biased* sources, such as Amazon.com that are trying to sell Waring's album. The fact is, that he reverts any edit that he doesn't like and today threatened another editor. But, it's not worth my losing sleep over it, I guess. Best wishes, -- ] 15:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Rm125 sez: <<<“Disparaging“?. You have been “commenting” and threatening me on my talk page constantly before I decided to answer. Your threats are baseless, unfounded and based on your personal point of view and unsupported by facts. This was given to you black and white. The fact is you don‘t have any direct answer to me and I don’t blame you for this. You can not argue with facts. General and fuzzy statements are just. what they are-. general and fuzzy statements based on fuzzy logic and lead to fuzzy conclusion-no more. I don’t make any “disparaging’ comments about you personally. All I did is to demolish all the foundation to your claims and proving to you and others that your decision to ban me is totally baseless. I didn’t initiate this- I issued it directly as a response to your posting on my talk page. I only responded to your “reasoning” and decisions but not to you personally. You- on the other hand -accused me personally as you can see from your recent correspondence.>>> | |||
==Re: Sig== | |||
Mangojuice sez:The sanctions stand, they're wise, | |||
Hi. I got the sig from ]? Can I have several colors in my sig? <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="darkyellow">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> <font color="oceanblue">]</font><font color="aqua">]</font> 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Rm125 sez:<<< The sanctions are “wise”? How about “profound, enlightened, shrewd ? Hurry up, don’t be humble too much- praise yourself otherwise nobody will notice. Yes, Mangojuice?>>> | |||
Mangojuice sez:I'm open to review, and I'm sure the community will back me and happy to discover if that's true. | |||
== Thanks == | |||
::Rm125 sez:<<< Like in “American Idol” reality show? If this is Political Correct popularity competition fer sure you will win, congratulations! >>> | |||
Mangojuice sez:I have seen no sign from you that you are actually open to anyone else's opinion | |||
Oh, thanks! I was unsure at the time on whether to give ] a speedy delete or an afd.--] 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Rm 125 sez:<<<And “anyone else” is you? I am not open to it because it is not based in reality. As I presented above. Your opinion is based on shallow “analysis”, random rather then precise quotes. Posts that take bits and pieces from the original discussions. These bits and pieces make a big and unappealing salad of nonsense, presented as “ wise” and non “ disparaging” stinky dish. | |||
== GreekEconomist == | |||
Mangojuice sez:anytime anyone says anything you don't like, you just attack them, | |||
Fair enough. I wasn't completely convinced myself, but since I had been fooled by a previous Cretanpride sockpuppet (subsequently confirmed by Mackensen), I didn't trust my judgment. (I put the tags on GreekEconomist's page because I figured he had the right to know what was going on, and for administrative purposes.) I don't have any problem with the unblock. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Rm125 sez:<<< When you are talking about “anyone says anything” are you talking about bans and threats without any foundation ?>>> | |||
:Hi, Mangojuice--before you felt that ] contributions were different enough from ] that they might be different people. Would you mind looking at and , and the activity of ]? To me, these look like sockpuppets, but I'm hardly a disinterested party. Thanks. ] (]) 21:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::If you do look at my edit you will see that I merely suggested more info on his relationships with women and more info on his military campaigns. Apro made a post and I responded. I did not support Cretanpride's argument. If you are thinking its suspicious because I have an interest in Alexander the Great, then you have forgotten that I originally named myself after him. Akhilleus seems paranoid and combative of anything I do. '''I didn't even support anything Cretanpride has argued for.''' All I did was respond to a post and then make a suggestion. ] 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Oh and regarding my edit to Akhilleus, please see what I just posted on his talk page, unless he deleted it. Thanks. ] 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Hello again. Please disregard my request, as another admin looked into this. ] (]) 17:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== re: CGS == | |||
Mangojuice sez:loaded with empty statements like your opinion on your "whatever" logic or Now it becomes pathetic not to mention a constant complete lack of respect of my judgment. | |||
Hello again! I thank you for your comments and i hope i have extended | |||
the wikipedia community the respect they deserve when it comes to content | |||
on their sites. CommuniGate Systems is the creator of a very widely used | |||
email/voip communications client, used by companies such as T-Mobile, British | |||
Airways, to your every day small to medium business. I have tried my hardest | |||
to not make this a commercial page, and have only included information that | |||
can be found in press releases by our company, articles by independent technical | |||
magazines, such as (von magazine, eweek magazine, linux server, mac world, etc). | |||
I appreciate your assistence when it comes to developing a page, and i believe | |||
i have re-submitted the graphics in a professional manner ( i will do much | |||
more editing hopefully in the upcoming days ). I appreciate all concerns you have | |||
for the content that is displayed on this page, and i would love to hear any more | |||
comments you might have, in how i can improve this page, or if i have done anything | |||
that is contradictory to the rules of wikipedia, please advise me if you can. I understand | |||
that it is my job as a contributor to acknowledge and understand these rules and regulations | |||
before any content is submitted, but after comparing to similar minded, corporate pages, | |||
i am simply trying to follow the templates they have set forth, to have an acceptable page, | |||
while sticking to the written rules... | |||
::Rm125 sez:<<< Your honor, this is not a matter of “respect”. Your “judgment” is based on empty statements, unrelated facts and mishmash. You unjustly banned me for 2 days and although you were provided the facts and detailed reasoning from me-you chose to ignore the reasoning and accuse me of disrespect to your “judgment” In the real life-you get respect the old fashioned way-you earn it. It doesn’t come through inheritance of by being a very popular editor on Misplaced Pages with zillion followings>>> | |||
Cheers, | |||
Mangojuice sez:If you don't respect it, get someone else's, end of story | |||
== Eric Lerner unprotection == | |||
::Rm125 sez:<<< I asked you to reverse your ruling and provided the necessary information. Instead of looking into it, realizing your mistakes, correcting the injustice and move on, you chose to ignore the evidence and you haven’t provided a direct answer to my letter and haven’t shown even a slight sign that you reflected upon it. I don’t have any choice but defend my honor and good name. Have a good day. --] (]) 06:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
How long is long enough? It's been three days since anyone has even discussed this page. What if people just lose interest in this so-fascinating subject? Or, just as likely, what if no concensus is ever reached? Surely it would be better to arbitrate disputes than just to leave it in the state that it is in. Compare it in this state with almost any other entry on a controversial scientist. It is way outside any other norms. | |||
|} | |||
== Restoration of Become.com Entry == | |||
Unfortunately you chose to ignore all my attempts to resolve our disagreement. I tried to reply to your accusations point by point.I know it is not easy to counter my argument. Therefore I don't hold it against you, since obviosly my reasonings are devastating. Hovever it is helpful to leave this correspondence for the sake of interested parties reference.I also will present it as an evidence to the appropriate board later. Please reconsider leaving it for a week or two and hopefully by then this issue will be resolved between both of us to out mutual satisfaction. All the best --] (]) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Dear Sir of Madam, | |||
:That's why I didn't remove it, it's just inside a collapsible archive box. The length of it just makes it hard to manage my talk page. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Please restore the Misplaced Pages entry for Become.com. This site meets the inclusion criteria | |||
== Admin enforced topic bans == | |||
specified at: http://en.wikipedia.org/WP:WEB specifically, we have received numerous media | |||
Mango, ref your comments at ] to Jayron ("I see your point . . ."), I'm curious if we're on the same line of thinking ref my thoughts in the section above that regarding this being a matter of admins interpreting consensus as we do every day when we execute a block - I don't see myself as deciding a block so much as applying consensus as the same has been conveyed to me through policy - that line of thinking. Maybe you completely disagree based on your comments but I just wanted to ping you outside the discussion to see. Also curious if you have any thoughts about my suggestion for a dedicated page where bans could be proposed by any editor for discussion (see my comments towards the end of the first section at ] and Beetstra's response). Maybe I'm completely out to lunch with my proposal but I value your opinion.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 19:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
awards and wide ranging coverage. Examples: | |||
:I agree, when there is a clear community consensus on an issue like a ban, in principle, it doesn't have to be an admin who identifies it. For instance, if a user was blocked after non-admin X made a complaint, and X continued to be involved in the user's unblock requests, ultimately X might be the one to come to the realization that Y is, de facto, banned and be the one to articulate it. That said, I would really discourage non-admins from deciding on the existence of bans for two reasons. First, as a pure matter of practicality, Misplaced Pages often acknowledges that an uninvolved, impartial admin can be relied upon to be fair. So bans "identified" by admins are that much easier to check on. Second, when it comes to bans other than total bans there are a lot of variables: duration, the wording of the topic ban restriction, which other sanctions to apply, whether the ban applies to talk pages or not, project space or not, et cetera. So there is a real possibility that a consensus may exist to ban someone but not over the exact terms. I think we can generally trust an uninvolved admin to decide the terms of a ban based on a community discussion but I don't know if I'd be so comfortable with a non-admin doing that. But I suppose, if the non-admin did a good job, the ban could have support. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
* PCMag: Top 101 Websites Fall 2005 | |||
* BusinessWeek: Best of the Web 2005 (nominated 2006...awards yet TBA) | |||
* Forbes: Best of the Web | |||
::Any thoughts on my suggestion on Bans for Discussion or some such name, as discussed on that page?--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 17:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
We have also had articles written about us in numerous publications, including: | |||
:::Well, there was the ] that got closed down. I think "bans for discussion" would be too much along the same lines, and would probably not work in the long term for the same reason. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
* Wall Street Journal | |||
* CBS MarketWatch | |||
* MIT Technology Review | |||
==] and his socks== | |||
Just to name a few..full listings are available at: http://www.become.com/press_center.html | |||
On 7 July this user was blocked for vandalism and you blocked five others as his socks - see ]. It seemed as if they were a gang of kids mucking about, and they were told to go away and start with new accounts if they wanted to contribute sensibly. I think they are back, but not contributing sensibly: | |||
*{{user1|SuperTeacher123}} has input an article ] two or three times, | |||
If you have any questions, or if I can supply additional data, please contact me at jglick at become.com. | |||
*{{user1|Falmorrow}} has just posted it again, | |||
*{{user1|Thunderbird123}} put a hangon tag on it | |||
*{{user1|HappyMan999}} has chimed in on the talk page, and so has | |||
*{{user1|MattiasGoyle}} | |||
Superteacher123 has some constructive edits, including ] and ] which I gather were also involved in the original Camponhoyle business. The others have few or no constructive edits, and the focus on re-hashing the Camponhoyle affair is suspicious. | |||
Thanks, | |||
I was going to post all this at ] but it does not seem there was a formal SPI case raised before: shall I now raise one and post all this there, or can you deal with it direct? | |||
Jon | |||
Regards, ] (]) 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
: I'm not sure what article you're referring to. ] has never existed. If you want a deleted article restored, or to allow recreation of one, you should list your request at ] but be sure to include what the title of the article was, or no one will be able to restore it in the first place. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
PS: add to the list: | |||
*{{user1|Servanthoyle2}}, author of the remark just below, and | |||
*{{user1|Servanthoyle}} | |||
] (]) 18:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for taking the measure necessary for the unblock. I appreciate it. ] 20:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
YOU WILL PAY FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE TO ME AND MY MASTER, AND MY MASTER'S ALLIES! | |||
== Moving the now deleted Auctioning4u entry to WP Corp == | |||
FACE THE CONSEQUENCES! | |||
Can you let me know how I can move the deleted enty (i.e. copy and paste it) to WP Corp. I cannot find the article anymore. Also, while not wanting to reopen the discussion I am curious why the decision has been different than for the ISold It articl? | |||
Thanks | |||
] 23:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
YOU CANNOT STOP ME! WE HAVE ALREADY BEAT THE SYSTEM! TO DESTROY US FULLY DELETE EASITEACH! | |||
== Len Tower again == | |||
== Martial poem == | |||
The process wonkism to overturn the AfD decision of ] has been successful, and the new discussion, along with my criticism of the process now being followed, can be found at ]. Please note that previous votes/comments are not being taken into account. See you there. - ] (] • ]) 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Have you checked the source?? If necessary, I can introduce several others which make the association plain - however, the existing one offers no dispute. Please check the sources before reverting edits. This is becoming intolerably unfair. ] (]) 13:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
I've now expanded the stub a bit from the cited sources. I don't have the technical competence, nor the patience, to wade through the thousands of list mailings and usenet postings to see exactly what his programming contributions to the FSF, GNU, and modern Linux distributions are. I know from what I did find that he was one of the core programmers for the GNU project for a long time. Could you reevaluate whether this is keep worthy. I'm asking you in particular as I found your argument for deletion to be strongest last time around. ] 16:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for your quick and courteous response. ] (]) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Camponhoyle == | ||
Hi I know camponhoyle and his sockpuppets, I am willing to help you get rid of them by telling you his new accounts. | |||
I get what you're saying, but I thought it could possibly qualify as a small group. Digging into their website a bit more they seem to have a lot of job positions (I was envisaging a small office of maybe half a dozen people) so you're right, they probably don't qualify. The main problem is now if its doesn't get speedied it gets Prodded. The trouble with PROD is that the article creator can remove it without censure which means an article which is most likely going to get deleted then has to go through the tiresome and bureaucratic AFD procedure, stay on the site for 5 days and consume lots of people's time and effort. So I do tend to "stretch" speedy a little on occasion if I feel the article in question has no real notability, and leave it up to the admins discretion to see if I've overstepped the mark. ] 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
A new one is user:] | |||
== Please. Really, I need help! == | |||
Thanks ] (]) 19:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hey again. Fortunatly, I was able to figure out how to perfect my sig. I still need help with my user page. Please help! It's been several weeks now! --]] 18:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Common spam pattern == | |||
== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mythic Russia == | |||
I notice that alot of accounts are adding a spammy article to their user subpage and adding a link to it from their userpage, presumably to gain SEO benefits of having a link to their spam article. Do you know anything about this? For more info see ]. ] ] 20:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
You kindly closed ] some hours ago but the article is yet to be deleted. Sorry if you have this in hand but it might just have been forgotten :-) ] 23:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hello, | |||
== Your deletion of my ] and ] pages == | |||
Why do you want to delete the article I began, "The Daily Aztec" from Misplaced Pages? Is it unacceptible to post articles piecemeal - must the article be completed before it can be posted? I had planned on adding additional information in installments. If it is simply because the article is in regrard to a student newspaper, please consider that other such articles exist, for example UCLA's "Daily Bruin." | |||
So can you please explain to me why a discussion for the deletion 2 of my users pages in which there was one vote for Keep that was deduced only after a long discussion that concluded that there's really no rules in wikipedia that will support the deletion of my user pages. And another vote to Delete that uses absolutely no supporting references to any wikipedia rules. How did you determined that there was a consensus for deletion? These topics were very contentious so I don't believe action can be taken without a clear consensus with regard to this issue. ] | |||
Please advise. | |||
] (]) 06:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I don't think restoring them necessarily makes sense. They're clearly long-term archives of one version of disputed content in userspace, without any clear effort to make them ready for prime time, and they violate ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:], I don't believe this conversation involves you. ] (]) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Thanks, | |||
::"Without any clear effort" because Tkguy hadn't been editing. That's why I closed the debate as delete; given Tkguy's inactivity (or alternately, if he had been editing but not these drafts), the argument is a good one. But now that he's back, if he's interested in starting to edit them the argument no longer applies, or rather, I don't see that consensus in the debate was clear on it. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
] 05:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks for answering. Please restore my page. Intend to make an effort to make them "ready for prime time" to appease ]. If ] or you have any more concern I will be more than happy to take care of them. ] (]) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. A "long-term archive of disputed content" is a "long-term archive of disputed content." I don't see how it makes much difference if someone is editing actively or not; the idea is that POV forks shouldn't hang around in userspace for years. That seems to be the clear spirit of ]. If there is a real effort to address other editors' concerns and move these pages toward articlespace, then fine. If not, they should be relisted for an untruncated discussion. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Feel free to renominate them, I think that would not be inappropriate. I might have done that if Tkguy had been active at the time. ]]<sup>]</sup> 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== RFCU on Zephram Stark == | |||
Might I suggest some evidence to add to the page requesting checkuser? Given the latest activity, would be best to provide some evidence for the tie and abuse. UninvitedCompany has been declining several based upon the fact that no evidence of abuse has been presented, so I can only image that since nothing other than being a possible sockpuppet of a stark has been stated, it'll get declined. ] 05:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::] I believe according to the ] you need to get a consensus to delete a page. From your writing you seem to acknowledge that there was no consensus considering the way you avoid the topic. Unless a vote for deletion by a random person with nothing to back up his or her vote and a long discussion that led to a vote for keeping means a consensus, then please explain this logic. And if you can't explain, then please revert the deletion review to an appeal. | |||
== ] == | |||
{{cquote|If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed.}} | |||
:::::I just got these pages back so give me some time before I start fixing them. In mean time please answer my question. ] (]) 03:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::The logic is, I'm not recommending a ] but rather, a new ] nomination if Mastcell feels it's appropriate. I think chances are, these user pages will be deleted if you don't start editing them. So please, get started now. If you start editing them, the best reason to delete vanishes. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::::] states the following | |||
{{cquote|Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline).}} | |||
::::::::Please revert the deletion review to an appeal as obviously you can't seem to explain how you came about that there was a consensus. ] has been rendered moot as I am back to editing. If you or ] come up with yet third reason to have my user page deleted then I would think this is discouraging editing on wikipedia which is in violation of ].] (]) 01:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::What deletion review? If you want to start one, see ]. I don't understand what you're complaining about, you got your way, at least for now. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Tannim1 == | |||
You are listed as a participant in this Wikiproject, which appears to have ground to a halt - I'm contacting all participants to try to get things rolling again... hope you can help! -- ] 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
After extensive discussion with him, I have unblocked {{Userlinks|Tannim1}}. Hopefully he will spend his time editing, not arguing. ] ] 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Len Tower article, sources == | |||
== Beaten us yet? == | |||
Greetings. I read your comment on the second AfD for ] expressing a potential interest for the article, should there be sources showing notability. I have found and cited some sources which I believe you might find relevant; they are cited in the second AfD, in ] by myself. ] 13:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
You started an enquiry, yet you still haven't won...I wonder why? We are the true masters of wikipedia. Delete easiteach, or we will keep coming back. | |||
== This Catastrophe == | |||
Many thanks, ] (]) 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Thank you. == | |||
Why does this article keep coming up for deletion? We do have an album out and a record deal with Flat 42 records, but because wikipedia has never heard of it, it needs to be deleted? the article was created to spread information about an up and coming band, but that cannot be done because one album is not recognised by some code thing i dont even understand? Im not trying to be funny here or anything, but i dont think the articlee needs to be deleted. But if our discography is the only problem, ill delete that bit. please dont delete our article :( <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
I wanted to thank you for your assistance. ] (]) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Sorry dude, i understand now. Thing is, seeing as the band have an album and gig regularly, making quite a name for themselves on the underground scene, i thought that they deserved a place on wikipedia just as much as say, metallica or any other band. I wasn't trying to promote anything, jusst to provide information on a subject that interests me and wasn't covered by wikipedia. Please don't delete :( <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
== ] block evading again == | |||
::I mean, it says youre not a paper encyclopedia so there isnt any limit on what you can cover, so i don't understand why everything cant have an article. I was trying to remain neutral and just provide info, not say "This Catastrophe are awesome- see them now! or anything. I genuinely didnt realise small bands werent allowed to have wiki features :( <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
Sorry about posting this here. I'm not sure where to report it formally. ] is currently on a one month block for vandalism. He evaded his block via a new account ], which you indef blocked not that long ago. Now it looks like Spritebox is once again evading his block. An IP address that he ''clearly'' used in the past just made an edit in the mainspace very similar to ones Spritebox has made in the past. | |||
:::ok, but at the end of the debate what happens? if there are more positive then negative comments, it stays? or what? sorry, im new to this place | |||
<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
Check the ]. It is clear that the first four are Spritebox - he blanks Spritebox's talk page , re-adds Sritebox's personal attacks to my talk page , and reverts two changes by Verbal in the mainspace that are continuations of edits that Spritebox made on those same articles . | |||
== Ok! Still need help though. == | |||
This IP then edited today, on the ] article which was very popular with Spritebox. Can you assist? Also, please let me know how to go about formally reporting this next time (AIV? ANI?) so that I don't have to bother an individual admin. <span style="color: #800800;">--</span><span style="color: #800080; font-family: Verdana;">''' ]'''</span><span style="color: #800080;"><sup><small>(] • ])</small></sup></span> 17:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Thanks. I've already read over those things. :-) | |||
:] is probably best, since the recent edits weren't obvious vandalism. Otherwise, ]. Blocked the IP for a month, b/c this IP might be a semi-dynamic IP. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
I kinda wanted for my user page to look like Butchanan Hermit's old User page. | |||
::Thanks. And thanks for the advice. If it comes up again, I'll use that as my yardstick for deciding where to report. <span style="color: #800800;">--</span><span style="color: #800080; font-family: Verdana;">''' ]'''</span><span style="color: #800080;"><sup><small>(] • ])</small></sup></span> 18:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3ABuchanan-Hermit&diff=61625289&oldid=61504127 | |||
== Knight Prince == | |||
That's ''WAY'' too much code for me to adjust though... :-S --]] 17:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
I think justifies a re-blocking. Thoughts? –''']''' | ] 16:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Thanks in advance. I'll ask you Q's if I need certain help. | |||
:I'm not going to reblock over it, especially given his later retraction . But that's just my opinion, if you feel a block is necessary, go ahead. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
In the meantime, I'll ask Butchanan Hermit if he's willing to let me have his old Userpage code. :-) --]] 19:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Transparency== | |||
I've asked him if I could, now to wait and see. --]] 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
I've re-blocked ], which you had previously unblocked in good faith. As he has now made edits similar to the user he was professing not to be, and has proceeded to vandalize an article, I felt it was sufficient to close out the account. If you disagree, feel free to overturn without consulting me. ] ] 03:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Archiving of the strained discussion == | |||
Do you know of anywhere I can find a picture of a ]? With a white background? I was going to put it in my signature, you know, for that personal touch. :-) | |||
After you have archived the section. the IP-user, which was Notpietru (the following edit confirms that), changed the title of the strained discussion. | |||
(PS, it'll be small) --]] 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
The following two links, which were both reverted portray that Notpietru is edit-warring. | |||
Ok. No picture then. --]] 20:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
Sorry I keep asking questions... but do you know where I can find a reference chart of all internet colors? I want to change the colors on my page. :-) --]] 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
I am deeply sorry that I did not recognize in time that Pietru (I do not know why he insist he is Notpietru) cannot be turned around to contribute. | |||
==]== | |||
Hi, | |||
If I remember correctly, Tan (Tanthalas39) imposed a sanction against Pietru, not to revert in the article, not to flame discussions and '''to''' discuss before editing. Notpietru did not comply and contined defamatory tactics. I was prepared to let go the issue that Notpietru (Pietru) maintained a higly POV version of the article, he did not provide a single helpful source, because for him it is still from Malta. | |||
I just checked the deletion page for the episode and it was said that the result was delete. However, I counted and I got 7-5 in favour of keep. I was told that it was majority rules in deletion votes and I was curious as to why the page was deleted. -- ] 03:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
For what that user (Notpietru, Pietru) had done to the article he should be topic banned from it. | |||
==Revenge is a Dish Best Served Three Times on deletion review== | |||
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. | |||
I am too tired to discuss with Pietru why he is not allowed to make significant changes in the article when that changes significantly misuse the sources. | |||
==Cassieiswatching== | |||
Hi. What percentage of keep/delete votes did you come up with when deciding ] should be deleted? I haven't counted them myself, but it looks fairly balanced between the two. ] 03:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I have just look at the case Scorpion pointed to and I am now alarmed. That was a majority keep vote, and you deleted it? ] 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The notability issue was for the voters to decide, not you. In my opinion 14-19 is a "keep" outcome; it's significantly less than the generally accepted two-thirds minimum. ] 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I didn't realize you were including three IP votes, which makes the issue less clear. I still don't like the decision (or the reasons you are using, concentrating on the article and not the vote), but in that case I suppose it's not necessarily procedurally wrong. ] 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::It used to be the case that a 65-75% range was necessary for deletion, to ensure extra weight for keep votes and err on the side of caution, but obviously some admins are slipping towards using simple majorities. ] 12:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Please can you select the proper title for the section that you have archived, COM is clearly not up to doing that. | |||
== Eric Lerner == | |||
:] (]) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
It has now been two weeks since my Eric Lerner page has been protected and over a week since discussion of it has ceased. Can you now please unprotect it? Thanks, Eric | |||
== ] at ] == | |||
*I'm having problems with ] over edits on Eric's article page. After extensive discussion on the introduction, JBKramer is ignoring the agreed introduction, and making edits that discredit the subject, which appears contrary to policy. Please see the section "" | |||
See ]. Your name was mentioned there since you apparently did the last unblock of this editor. You are welcome to comment there, or to impose a new block if you think the editor should have absorbed your previous advice more fully. ] (]) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for your note. I don't want to start an edit war. ] tells us the sensitivities, and Wiki policy on the matter. I've highlighted the points to the other editor who has effectively ignored them. What more can I do? Have I read policy incorrectly, is policy incorrect, or what? --] 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ACC == | |||
:::Do you feel that I have misunderstood policy? --] 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Does ] still need ACC? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Sure, sources are not necessarily unambiguous fact, but recall that "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth".] And ] tells us to (a) Assume good faith (b) that we can us the subject as a source (b) And as I have shown, there are third party sources too? --] 18:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Good point. I've removed it. ]]<sup>]</sup> 04:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Andrew Nellis article == | |||
== Informal deletion review of ] == | |||
The Andrew Nellis was unfairly deleted according to the rules of Misplaced Pages. The rules require consensus. There was a majority but no consensus. What gives? This page should be put back up immediately.--] 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hi, | |||
:First of all, thank you very much for the kind welcome, however I still would like to express my disapproval of you deletion of the Andrew Nellis article. I read your reply that you based the deletion on a 6-3 count after discounting "few edit" persons, (I don't know if I think that this practice is entirely fair, but I will defer to your administrator judgment). However if you could please explain how "count" as you calculated meets the requirements of consensus I would appreciate it. I think that over 30% dissent is significant enough to show there has NOT been a consensus. ] 18:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
This is an informal request for a reversal of ] given that PhD theses available for consultation are now reliable sources ]. | |||
This page has been restored by the users who voted to keep it, in total contravention of the majority opinion. I'm not sure I know how to revert the talk page back to the deletion log, but I suppose just clearing out the article will do for now. ] 13:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Could you advise. | |||
As someone who edited the Andrew Nellis article, I was quite surprised to see it deleted. In fact, I somehow missed the entire debate. What reasons were given for deletion? Is that archived somewhere? Who was the admin that deleted it? --] 19:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Thanks ] (]) 04:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Having now read the exchange that resulted in deletion, I agree that the article for Andrew Nellis was extremely flippant. And that was probably in part because it was created by people who know him. (If it were a vanity page, would we have mentioned how fat he used to be?) | |||
:Mentioned at ] for their interest. ] (]) 04:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
However, I think it's safe to say that Andrew is a "landmark" in Ottawa. He has organized several serious protests (including one that shut down the Ottawa police station) and is an outspoken activist and artist. I vow, here and now, that if the article is retored, I will gut it, rid it of the fluff, and make it more serious, to meet the high standards of a Misplaced Pages encyclopedia entry. --] 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Went to undelete, who recommended DRV, which is why: | |||
Thank you for your detailed explanation of the your deletion process, you have reinstilled me with some of the "ideals" that WP stands for. I also am now going to be able to participate in AfD debates much more effectively by looking at the point by point arguments and addressing all that need to be addressed, furthermore I think you alluded to an excellent point which I had previously been having difficulty with, which is the fact that THERE IS a hierarchy of deletion reasons. Thank you again for your excellent adminstrator attention. ] 23:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
===Deletion review for ]=== | |||
== You get a... == | |||
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 14:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] nomination of ] == | |||
] | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> ] (]) 06:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
--]] 22:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Our favorite editor may be back == | |||
==Nude woman pic== | |||
I noticed you were concerned about this. I think it should be deleted, until proof is provided. While it is online, anyone can use it in any way they want. ] 02:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I agree with your observation about PGUK. I will leave the present case to your judgement. It might be an idea to put a note on the image page that it should not be used till clearance is given. I am still a little concerned that anyone can download it and potentially circulate it all round the web, even though we're not sure about its origin. ] 16:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::It is minimal. I'm just very cautious. ] 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Two usernames have popped up on my radar as possible new Darin Fidika socks: ] and ]. The latter admitted that he was the former , though they don't seem to be editing abusively at the moment. The latter signed a comment as the former , though. Any thoughts on how to proceed? ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ]</small> 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Old images == | |||
Yes you may delete those images. ] 07:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Unblock Omrganews == | |||
==Ip block== | |||
Thank you for your help resetting the block on my Ip. I can now edit fine on my account. Thanks! ] 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hi Mangojuice, I need to be unblocked I must to contact other administrator or collaborator to update some information in the article "European University", so technically I was unblocked but really I'm blocked yet. Regards --] (]) 10:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
== And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting! == | |||
Hey -- just to let you know, this user is requesting unblocking. I assume the edit was in response to that user's edit on ], but personally, I don't see the edit in question as disruptive, just improperly performed: (added "<nowiki>]</nowiki>" when should have added "<nowiki><nowiki>]</nowi</nowiki>ki>".) Is there another reason I'm missing? ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border:2px ridge silver; -moz-border-radius:10px; background-color:#dfefff; font-family: urw palladio l, palatino linotype, book antiqua, serif; font-size:125%" | |||
:; subtle vandalism is still vandalism. <span style="border:1px solid #808;padding:1px;">]</span> 00:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
|align="left"|] | |||
| | |||
|align="center"|Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.<br>]<small> (]·])</small> 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== The Price Is Right - individual pricing game articles == | |||
== Merging with ] == | |||
Hi there - | |||
The AfD on ] has been closed with a consensus to merge. I merged in some very basic details of the game into Cliff's article, but feel free to merge more if you can find a way to do it well. You volunteered to help, so I thought I'd encourage that. I do think it's probably a good idea to merge ] there as well, but that's just my opinion. :) ]]<sup>]</sup> 15:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
During a short span in late November 2009, a small number of the individual articles covering The Price Is Right's pricing games were deleted. Specifically, the articles that were deleted cover games that come first alphabetically, including: | |||
: Tx for the note. In the context of a mini-bio, that probably is all that's worth mentioning. Kinda sad to see that article go from two pages to one sentence, but if I can think of a way to add more in there I will (might expand it to ''two'' sentences! :-) And about ], that game is part of ]'s release history, so it gets an article by that merit. DtD is a better game than Dragon's Plight anyway, so nothing was lost. Again, thanks for the update.--] 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Any Number | |||
== Andrew Nellis article == | |||
Balance Game | |||
Barker's Bargain Bar | |||
Bonkers | |||
Bonus Game | |||
Bullseye | |||
Card Game | |||
And none of the other 100+ articles have been touched in the slightest. | |||
Sorry, but you are abusing the condition of your admin status and the Andrew Nellis article has been recreated in accordance with conditions with Misplaced Pages rules. There was a 7-7 vote on the article being deleted and there was never any consenus to delete this article. There has been a proper ] post made on September 30th 2006. I have also contacted Misplaced Pages concerning this matter as I feel it is insulting for one admin to delete articles based soley on what he feels are "real" users on Misplaced Pages. The user asking for deletion claimed the article was a vanity page. In fact, there is ample evidence from the early history of the ] page that it was created by the same people who eventually asked for its deletion. At first the article made light of Nellis' weight, health problems and political ambitions. This was changed and so-called vanity portions of the article were removed. When the article took the shape of an actual Misplaced Pages article, the users on ] IRC, primarily those from the #Atheism and #memes channels called for its deletion as it no longer mocked Nellis' weight and other health problems. I am going to recreate this article as long as there is no consensus and as long as wikipedia admins wrongfully delete the article.--] 01:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Could you please either reinstate those articles, or delete all individual articles altogether? It is wrong for various editors to delete the first few and leave the rest intact for months. | |||
Counting all votes, including obvious SPAs and meat puppets, at the time I submitted my vote to delete this vanity page, the count was nine to delete and seven to keep. Of course, ], who I assume can view much more information about our accounts and editing practices than we can (such as IP addresses and the like) almost certainly has a better idea of which votes are legitimate and which aren't. ] 01:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Thanks... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Something shiny... == | |||
== FYI == | |||
]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> awards this Barnstar to '''Mangojuice''' for reasonableness coupled with quick thinking... if only I could manage it too!]]<br clear="all"> | |||
]. –]] 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Meh. I should have seen that option. Bah. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 19:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Are you a Scientologist? == | ||
I'm just sort of curious, if you don't mind me asking. ] (]) 05:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
Hi, why the hell did you block me from editing on 28th Sept? | |||
== Proposed undeletion of The Knowhere Guide == | |||
== Copyvio CSD == | |||
Mangojuice, | |||
Note that the commercial-content-owner provision was changed; now all that is necessary is a clear notice of an incompatible copyright. —]→] • 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
As per Misplaced Pages guidelines suggested ] I wish to put forward a case to you as to why the original deletion decision from 2006 ought to be reversed. I believe I have information not available to Misplaced Pages administrators at the time of the deletion which would make clear that the page very clearly met web notability guidelines. | |||
== Why I don't use test4 == | |||
Please let me know by which means I should put forward this information, and to whom if not you, | |||
Re: your recent non-action on {{ipvandal|209.16.74.251}}. This is why I normally don't use test4. This guy has been getting more and more postal and has now started systematically to vandalize various pages. His vandalism after a test4, and your deciding to let it go will have an escalating effect. ''You'' will not have to deal with him, but the editors who work on the ] page certainly will. I do not want an answer from you as I'm sure you are busy with other administrative tasks. I did want to you to know of the negative fallout when you encourage blatant vandalism. It will be a long time before I use test4 again, and is why I have given up on vandalism patrol in general. Cheers. ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Kindly, ] (]) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Not all vandalism is done by kiddies spending a few hours vandalizing Misplaced Pages until they are blocked. The user's IP is probably not dynamic. There are no obvious edits by anyone other than the vandal over a period of 2-1/2 months. I understand backlog. All I said was there are two very clear messages that were given today: The last warning is meaningless; and, for editors, there is little use in going to the trouble of giving warnings. The second was received loud and clear. If we are lucky, he will already have given up with the mistaken impression that he is blocked. Cheers. ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Go-Kustom article == | |||
::Life is ironic. The real target of this vandal's ire is Fire and Mello and their claim to have discovered RNAi. Today's Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology went to Fire and Mello for that discovery (totally ignoring the plant work that preceeded that, but that's another story). With luck he will have given up now. Cheers. ]<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
I am working on an article related to 2 articles you mergered/deleted per the AfD process 3 years ago - see ]. I realize you are no longer an active user but I am hoping you might come across this and be able to provide some input. I am also notifying you per Misplaced Pages's policies. I have put up a notice on the merged article's talk page ] which includes more information. I will be working on the article over the next several days or weeks if you would like to comment. Thanks for your time. - ] (]) 16:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
== A question == | |||
== Virginia Tech Massacre == | |||
Hi Mangojuice, you blocked this {{user|AshyLarryMarcySon}} account yesterday for 24 hours, and another one appeared today, {{vandal|SonofAshyLarryMarcySon}}. What do you think about extending the block on the first to indefinite? Should we wait until after the 24 hours are up and see how they edit? ]+] 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Why did you remove the reference to Hilsher being alive and her parents not being notified? The reference is from WSJ AND it quotes the Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel which YOU can read for yourself. How careless and negligent of you to say "Hilsher was not named" when there were only 1 male and 1 female in that incident and it used the pronoun "she"? I hope you are more careful when you edit articles that involve other people's tragedy. ] (]) 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
== |
== OrthodoxWiki == | ||
Apparently this source was discussed with you a few years ago. It’s now come up on the RSN board ]and your name has been mentioned as sorting out copyright issues. Just wondering why you never pointed out at the same time that this was a Wiki and as such most likely failed RS.] (]) 17:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Time to undelete! :) Cheers. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 11:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Hey not a problem. Could you however look at the actual article in question (Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox theological differences)? ] (]) 12:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Notice of discussion == | |||
==Gang Tian== | |||
As you were involved i this issue, I am notifying you of this discussion: ]. Please participate if you wish. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 15:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Hi Mangojuice, sorry for potentially causing confusion with the order of the reversion. I added your pov tag, hopefully that was the only thing that had changed. | |||
== "crazy radicals"? == | |||
The reversion I was re-reverting seems like a kneejerk reaction from 130.158.83.81. For example, they didn't even bother to keep the improved wikilinks I'd added, to ] and ]. Add to that that their reversion is poorly written and unsupported by evidence in a number of places.... | |||
How is it not appropriate to tell WP admins not to call other editors "crazy radicals"? IMHO this is a clear case for a personal attack. --] 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
If that user continues to revert, I'm afraid I don't have time to enter an edit war. Hopefully other people will notice and try to maintain some kind of quality. The whole thing could be a lot better, but I settled for trying to make it better than awful! All the best, --] 17:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not looking into this. The last time I communicated with you was 2.5 years ago. Review ] and ] and make your own judgments. ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Editing again== | |||
::You are not looking into this? You blocked me for pointing this out.--] 15:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Able to edit again :) Will tell you if Forest returns under more socks....<font color="aqua">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <small>] 00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I don't remember blocking you, there's no block of you by me in your block log, and my last block of anyone was over a year ago because I'm semi-retired. So, no, I don't intend to look into this. If you want clarification on Misplaced Pages's policies you can ask me a specific question but I can't promise I'll respond promptly. ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Aquafish == | |||
:::: Here is a specific question: How is it appropriate for a Misplaced Pages administrator to call fellow editors "crazy radicals"? How many violations of ] and ] are necessary for an administrator to loose his privileges? --] 14:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
It's actually quite obvious that Aquafish is ForestH2 (see his edits on ], just 12 minutes after creating his account, where he outs his own sockpuppets). Would you please reconsider your unblock? ] (]) 03:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::: Since I don't know what comments your referring to my response will be totally abstract. But here goes. I think there's sort of a heirarchy. On one end, there are some actual crazy radicals that try to edit Misplaced Pages, blatantly push an agenda, and ignore policy left and right. For them, there's no point in talking to them. Calling them "crazy radicals" will simply intensify them, so I think it's unhelpful and unproductive, which is to me the main point behind ] and ], but on the other hand, administrators are asked disproportionately to deal with people like that so I would tend to cut them basically infinite slack, though I might suggest a more toned-down approach would be more productive. On the other extreme, an admin might say such a thing about a good-faith editor they disagree with over content in an article - especially if the good-faith editor is a non-admin. That's about the worst situation I can imagine. There, I would sharply criticize the admin for the ] violation and complain on ] if they continued to escalate the disagreement. In principle, if there was broad support for the idea, I might block the admin. I have always been willing to block an admin were I ever to see a circumstance where it was necessary but I never have. The thing is that admins have a lot invested in Misplaced Pages and are very responsive to the community. They don't do things like ignore ] discussions or direct comment on their talk pages. They respect policy even if they differ in how to apply it in individual circumstances. | |||
: This is standard ForestH2 behavior to claim it's his brother, that he's unrelated, whatever. Similar name- compound word (something that ] of his sockpuppets share). He also on another clear sockpuppet that he was now able to create a new account. He makes ] on ], having had no prior contact with Kpjas (yet his sockpuppets have dealt extensively with Kpjas) I would urge you again to please reconsider- ForestH2 and his sockpuppets have been a nuisance for myself and others, and in my opinion, ] has a limit- that's way too many incidents to be a coincidence. ] (]) 04:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::: As for an admin losing privileges, I have never seen it for purely ] and ] violations and I doubt I ever will, though I haven't been paying attention for quite some time. Admins tend to lose their privileges if they can no longer be trusted to have them, as evidenced by a pattern of abuse of those privileges, and ] and ] violations are not specific to admin privileges. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
== ] and ] == | |||
:: I would ask you to reconsider as well - He had several socks which he was using to set-up and manipulate a wikiproject, and was also was using socks to try and gain an admin position and also to vote on other RFA. That's pretty fundamentally "bent" behaviour - what you have actually just done is told him that's ok and if he tries again, well he can just pretend to be the uncle or the family dog next time. --] 08:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Because you closed ] and ], you may be interested in subsequent discussion about these userspace drafts. I have nominated ] and ] for deletion at ] and ], respectively. ] (]) 06:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
==Questions, thanks== | |||
== Cryptography FAR == | |||
Thanks for the welcome :) I have a few questions, now 3RR? What's this? What is a monobook.js? Also please explain all the featured/good/and peer review articles. Thanks. <font color="aqua">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <small>] 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
{{#if:|] has|I have}} nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].] (]) 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Unprotection == | |||
Yes, thanks. And how can I block vandalism users? There doesn't seem to be a button...Do you need some sort of status or something? About the 3RR, can you self-revert yourself more than 3 times? Why is the You have new messages (last change) bar coming up? I've already checked my talkpage.....Hopefully I am not asking to many questions. Wishes, <font color="aqua">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <small>] 22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hi, just a courtesy note to let you know I've undone your protection on ], which you did in 2007. As she is facing murder charges, she is independently notable and I've also undone the redirect.--] (]) 16:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
== thanks! == | |||
{{Whisperback|User_talk:Omer123hussain#Looking_at_this_again}} -- ] <]> 15:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for the support on the Stress article. I'm still a bit of a newbie and have now learned how to add a signature to my statements. ] 15:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Design Classics == | ||
Since you are the admin that deleted the article ], I thought I'd contact you before recreating it. I would like to demonstrate that 'design classic' may not be a well-defined concept, but that there is a common understanding that there are a number of industrial design products that together constitute a body of design classics. To start with, I've come up with a few references: | |||
I think this comment: ''it's just leaving some people the opportunity to further disrupt things. Several people voted "strong oppose" below: what's to stop them from recalling you immediately when this ends?'' is just a tad bit outside of ]. Thank you. ~ ] 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
* (a book) | |||
* The Independent: , 27 August 1999 by Stephen Bayley | |||
* The Guardian , 13 January 2009 by Jonathan Glancey | |||
* by Patrick Taylor | |||
* , RSA Design & Society blog | |||
* by David Hill, Vice President, Lenovo Corporate Identity & Design | |||
Aren't that enough references to justify an article? Best, ] (]) 11:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Delete redirects?== | |||
==Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Prod-related templates== | |||
''']''', which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. — <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:1px 0 0 1px">]</span>, and <span style="border:dashed #666;border-width:0 1px 1px 0">]</span> 10:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Is it O.K to delete redirects? <font color="aqua">]</font><font color="green">]</font> <small>] 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Long Overdue Apology == | ||
I used to be the user ], whom you probably don't remember. I apologise for the way I acted in response to the block, and I don't hold any hard feelings. Sincerely, ]]] 15:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
You listed quite a few redirects at ] earlier today. However, you have not added the {{tl|rfd}} tag to any of these. Could you please complete your nominations? Thanks. --] 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
== An unblock request for you == | |||
I have started a discussion at ] to rename the page to Rack-o. I saw that you had renamed it from that title before, so I hope you will chime in when you get the chance. Thanks, -- ]]. 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
]. Thanks, <b>]</b> 21:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== | |||
: And my apologies to you for not replying immediately; I had to attend to something before I was able to post this to your talk page. ] (]) 22:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
] Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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 --> ] (]) 19:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
==Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== | |||
:: You're absolutely right on that. His problems are that in the face of any conflict, he switches accounts, and that he has a tendency to stalk certain areas. I'd be quite happy to let him continue editing in good faith with the assurance that he'd stick to one account, that he'd give the names of every account he's ever used, and that he'd preclude himself from ever seeking adminship. Anyway, thanks for reviewing the block. ] (]) 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
] Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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 --> ] (]) 17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
==Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity== | |||
== Re. ] == | |||
] | |||
Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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 -->] (]) 01:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
== 3 Quarters Dead profile == | |||
Thanks for the tip. I'm only just becoming familiar with the new (and very welcome) changes to ], and I wasn't aware that A7 had been expanded to include corporations and websites. Very glad to see that it does. But it was my honest opinion of the original article that it was intended to be promotional. The original author (]) edited the article after I tagged it to be less blatantly spamalicious... I probably should've changed the tag at that time. ] 19:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hello, this iS Mark Alexander, guitarist for 3 Quarters Dead from NC. I am trying to make an official 3 Quarters Dead Misplaced Pages page and i just noticed a few days ago we have a deleted account on here. I'm not sure who tried to make one but i need to know what we can do to make this right so i can get an account up and running. I noticed we are on the music page for the state of NC and we are the only band mentioned that does not have a link to a page on here. Let me know how we can fix this. Thank You. | |||
== The Beefeaters == | |||
Mark Alexander, 3 Quarters Dead <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
No, please restore it and prod it. I debated about that for a while, too, but then chalked that line up to self-promotion. (The bit about how the band apologizes for its hiatus made me question the veracity of the claim.) But it is an assertion of notability, and should probably be prodded. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
==Notice of change== | ||
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a to the ] that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the ]. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through ]. Thank you. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== The Knowhere Guide == | |||
So, 0.999... has been featured already, but I'll still try to clean up some of the prose, such as the leads for the second and third proof sections. Please drop by the talk page if you have any more advice! ] 23:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hi, I'm not sure about the protocol for recreating deleted articles but I've restarted ] which you deleted after an AFD in September 2006. By the way I'm not claiming that your action was wrong (from the AfD it seems to be right) it's just that there seemed to be a number of reliable sources. Please let me know of any issues. ] (]) 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
== WP:LIVING == | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 11:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== ] of ] == | |||
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 12:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians == | |||
I am fully aware of WP:LIVING, thanks. I believe you should review ], specifically the genesis of the policy regarding "Physics Cranks." ] 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
You have been mentioned at ]. X] (]) 14:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Lerner's theories about the plasma focus are unpublished. ] 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:: You are aware, I assume, that Mr. Lerner is soliciting donations from the public to his not-tax-exempt Focus Fusion Society, right? ] 15:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
::: Oh no, he's not doing the soliciting here. He, and the pseudoscientific supporting duped handful, and their conciously-uninformed enabelers, are pumping up his bio here and doing the solicting there. You wrote "Lerner's theories are real and have received significant coverage." Cuerden wrote "Frankly, the more I investigate you, the more it appears you're being appallingly badly treated," to Lerner. Frankly, we should delete the page about a non-notable author and be done with it. If that cannot happen, the page must refelect verifiable information - such information cannot consist soley of positive statements about a non-mainstream, non-credentialed "scientist" (scare quotes intentional). ] 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=691988767 --> | |||
==Wikiproject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary== | |||
== Re-creation of Andrew Nellis article == | |||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" cellpadding=3 | |||
|- | |||
You were the admin that deleted an article on Andrew Nellis a couple of weeks ago ]. You may remember becuase the author then re-created it twice and you had to SALT it. You may want to know that the author has re-created almost the exact same artice as ]. Thank you for your time. ] 04:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| | |||
As a current or past contributor to a USCG Auxiliary article, I thought I'd let you know about ''']''', a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the ]. If you would like to participate, you can visit ], where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! | |||
== Thanks == | |||
|} | |||
] (]) 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
Hi. Just wanted to thank you for your four "Things to remember" ... I've stolen them outright for my user page (giving you credit, of course!) and added several more of my own. I've also signed your deletion pledge; it makes sense. Thanks again for all you do! ] 18:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination for deletion of Template:Prod-reason == | |||
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> '''] ]''' 17:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Tim Kirkman == | |||
And the bar for inclusion sinks another notch. Sigh. I don't blame you, concensus clearly was to keep it, though not for reasons I consider valid: "I've never heard of him, or his films, but that doesn't mean he's not notable"; has had a film at Sundance film festival; "I am quite sure the people that have enjoyed his work find him quite notable". Perhaps it's time to change policy: Misplaced Pages is a collector of random facts. Don't mind me. Regards, ] | |||
== ] == | |||
Apparently you deleted this page after I put the hangon notice on it while I was editing it. I've recreated it. It should no longer meet the A7 criteria. However, I think we need the original contributor's history to remain for GDFL purposes. Could you take a look and restore the history if necessary? Thanks. ~ ] <small>(] / ])</small> 14:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Notability (acad) == | |||
I realize that WP:PROF is referred to a lot - however, this shortcut used to point to existing guideline ] for more than a year until it was changed to point to this proposal (and indeed, the "average professor test" has been a longstanding part of WP:BIO). It is likely that most people who use that shortcut are unaware of the change. Judged by the talk page, there appears to be no consensus for the current wording of the page, and debate has died out for the moment. I think the best way to go from here would be to add a paragraph to ] on academics, since several of the criteria are identical to those listed there; after all, a biography on an academic person is still a biography, so people could be expected to find it there. Yours, ] 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
*I haven't seen edits before and after me within a minute - by my count the last edit to ] was on September 19, and the last edit to the talk page on September 29 with only five edits total in September. Yes, it's been a long time since PROF pointed the other way, but people weren't notified of the change, and people using a shortcut tend to not read where it goes since they assume they already know what it says (which, incidentally, is why it's generally not such a good idea to change shortcuts around). | |||
*It's quite possible that the end of a debate means consensual approval, but in this case there appears to be little assent and more tangential other proposals such as Reflux's point system and Zweifel's other system (neither of which got much response). Of course, I would have no objection to reopening the debate if you want to advertise it some more - but it would be easier to take some commonsensical parts and add them to WP:BIO. ] 15:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
**Upon further reflection I've undone my edit and dropped a note on the village pump. I wasn't involved in the discussion so I'll leave it to those that were as to whether this is accepted or need further rewording. Yours, ] 17:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== AfD: Japanese Mythology == | |||
Can't you see how inconsistent you're being? The debate on ] was not about the notability of a website. As a vital point in Japanese folklore, it was really about the "notability" of Japanese folklore. Sine Japanese folklore lost, I think it's obvious that the only consistent thing to do is delete all the Japanese folklore articles. Shikino 14:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I responded to the post you recently made on ], in response to the above message. Shikino 02:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Statement== | |||
Just a note that your might be better placed on the --] 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Can you please step in and delete this nonsense? The article's author keeps removing the speedy delete tag, despite having been warned about such behavior. Thanks. ---] 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for your quick action on this matter. ---] 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks == | |||
Thank you for doing that.--] 13:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Invest Sign on deletion review== | |||
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. | |||
I would like to ask you for your opinion about Invest Sign software in ] page. Thanks :) | |||
==Invest Sign on deletion review== | |||
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. | |||
== necklace image == | |||
hello, we've seen your message on our page... | |||
we confirm the licence as declared in the image's detail page. | |||
regards, --] 23:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
p.s. for any further questions, keep on writing on our talk page | |||
== Editor Review == | |||
Hey, I've recently put myself up for the ] process. With the (seeming) end of the Vaughan-gate mess, I've been back to normal editing for the last while and wanted some outside opinions as to what kind of job I'm doing; if I'm on the right track, if there's anything I can do to improve, etc. If you have some free time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and leave me some feedback! Thanks. --] 03:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Okay. == | |||
But it's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of correction. I did not state what he said I stated. I have to disagree if I know for a fact that it is wrong, and I was simply correcting him, as I did not make the statement he said I made. - ] ] 05:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Reply regarding article wagging == | |||
As a reply to what was obviously a "cut and pasted" warning message aimed at myself and at ALLTP, I am rebuttaling the accusations you've placed against me. | |||
Never once to the best of my knowledge did I violate Misplaced Pages's policies. The main article itself was never reverted, and the '''only''' talk page reversions that I enacted were to erase a single comment where the statement was made that "there's as much truth in me wanting that to happen as is there truth in you wanting to kill all of the Jews". That comment is a baseless irrelevant personal attack which had no bearing on the discussion at hand, which is why I reverted it. You will notice that LEGITIMATE, non-inflammatory, non-personal attack comments that were made on the page were untouched by me. In fact, in the one instance where I accidentally removed a legitimate comment, I immediately re-inserted LTTP's statement. | |||
Continuing, the argument didn't "die down", I ended it- I admitted that I was at fault regarding the discussion; I had previously viewed a talk page conversation that stated LTTP was planning on moving the article "to the main LTTP page"; when I saw the text, it was on the ALTTP/FS Talk, but I had not seen that it had ORIGINALLY been placed on the Four Swords page, and when FS had been moved to ALTTP/FS, the talk moved along with it. In fact, the entire argument stemmed from that base misunderstanding regarding the editor's motivations, which is why I apologized promptly to ]. | |||
Furthermore, your claim of violations regarding ] are unfounded, despite what at the end became a very terse difference of opinions. While yes, the Jewish thing went against the policy, the rest of the entire argument was still civil: it was a difference of opinions regarding the article itself and the any attacks centered directly on the validity of the arguments posed during that argument, not on the person himself doing the argument. | |||
Quite honestly, stepping in to wag a finger and yell at two editors for percieved violations days after the respective arguments have already been settled civilly strikes me as a phenominal waste of time. There are hundreds of legitimate violators that strike Misplaced Pages at any given moment, changing article text to phallic references and sneakily changing numbers around, thinking they'll never get caught. By focusing your attention on a dispute gone cold, you're spending less time on more legitimate tasks that could be accomplished. You know, ] and some of its associated pages have started filling up with a phenominal amount of unneeded referenced to ingame text, why don't you examine those? ] 06:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: I'll be honest- my long and rambling reply to you was basically just that- a long and rambling reply designed to express my opinions and thoughts about the situation at hand. Given that I think I've said all that I could say in defense of myself and in defense of LTTP, I would actually like to get the whole ugly mess behind me. I wasn't actually being sarcastic about Chrono Trigger, by the way- those articles could really use some work, but I'm trying to do more research for the ] article I created. Hope I didn't spoil your day. Cheers. ] 12:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Question== | |||
Hello, Mangojuice. What is your doctorate in? If you don't mind me asking. Just curious. ] 17:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== RussArt.com == | |||
The article RussArt.com has been just deleted inspite of the fact that I left {{tl|hangon}} tag in the discussion of this page. | |||
I think you were one the lastest person dealing with that. | |||
I do not see any difference between RussArt.com and for instance. | |||
There is also ] as well. | |||
--] 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Many thanks for honorring my {{tl|hangon}} request. I just hope we are not like in ] here, so there is no "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHER." rule applied.<br> | |||
See again ] and alike.<br> | |||
cheers, | |||
<br> | |||
--] 19:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== SRsLyT3hB4nz0r name suggestion == | |||
You suggested SrSlytehbanz0r. But I think this name is too plain looking. The Sr makes it look like an abbreviation for "Senor" and then Sly makes the name look like "Senor Sly" and that's not what I was exactly aiming for. | |||
A few suggestions: | |||
SRsLyTehB4nz0r | |||
SRsLyT3hBanz0r | |||
SRsLytehB4nz0r | |||
I would like to keep the SRsLy and the z0r the way it is, if that's okay. | |||
] 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== The block controversy about User:68.189.255.6 == | |||
I have an idea on how to handle that block. Why don't we get a promise from *the guest* to never do this ever again? We will watch your contributions to make sure. If *the guest* does this again, the block goes into effect for two months. The minimum length of time would be two or three weeks. ] 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
: I forgot to rewrite the text - I'm sorry! ] 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: I was talking about ] ] 01:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==] FAC== | |||
Hi, I think I've sorted the images out on the above article which was what was preventing it from recieving your support. The trial image has been removed and images of Senna and Barrichello added. Let me know if you think this is sufficent to satisfy the criteria - ]. Thanks, ] 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Do you find it credible that Ozura is the bona fide publisher of the listed games? A moment's Googling turns up http://www.quicklybored.com/?p=235, for instance. ] 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Vandalism of ] by User ]== | |||
The user ] is reverted <b>sourced edits</b> of ambedkaritebuddhist. I request to block him. | |||
He is reverting article using popups without discussion and the SOURCED information is also discarded by him. | |||
Please look into this matter. | |||
] 14:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
===] is not ready to discuss=== | |||
The user ] has reverted his own talk page using pop-ups where I put Warning. This shows the user is not ready for any discussions and misguiding wikiusers by reverting his own talk page without any discussion. | |||
I request administrators to take <b>very strict action against ]</b>. He is not following any directives nor ready for debate or discussions. Not even ready to debate. Reverting using pop ups. Within few hours he has reverted 4 times. His own talk page and not ready to discuss anything. Can you block him now? ] 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== My RfA thanks == | |||
{| style="background-color: skyblue; border: 2px solid black;" | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi, {{BASEPAGENAME}}! Thank you for supporting me in my ], which '''succeeded''' with a final tally of '''75/0/1'''! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Feel free to send me a ] if you need any assistance. :) | |||
|} --''']]]''' 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== S-Man == | |||
could you please unblock my friend ]. Thanks. ] 22:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Spam tag== | |||
Regarding . I had several firefox windows open, and one probably got mixed up. Sorry about that. --] 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ] is creating problems on ] and again on ] articles == | |||
== ]: Voting now open! == | |||
You were involved previously in a dispute involving Sarner on the ] page and he banned for a brief period to time. | |||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Mangojuice. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. | |||
He is now beginning again to be disruptive on both pages. He continually reverts the articles from the consensus views to his and ignores repeated requests by me, and other editors, to consider using Misplaced Pages dispute resolution processes such as dialogue, polls, or mediation. He clearly will only accept his view, despite being the only voice there. His reverts are disruptive and irritating. Furthermore, the dispute is the same one he was banned for previously. | |||
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. | |||
On the ] he is doing the same thing, but there he has a clear vested interest. He wants all references to ] removed from the article...but he is the Executive Director of that group and the author of one of the books cited on the ] page as a reference (which is fine, because the reference provides data that meets the Misplaced Pages ] standard). | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
If you could intervene...or tell me what would be the most appropriate steps for me to follow at this point, I'd really appreciate it. | |||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
<font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 13:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/6&oldid=750545473 --> | |||
== Nomination for merging of ] == | |||
]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> — ] (] • ]) 01:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago == | |||
== Too Cool == | |||
{{User QAIbox | |||
| title = Awesome | |||
| image = Cscr-featured.svg | |||
| image_upright = 0.35 | |||
| bold = ] | |||
}} | |||
--] (]) 09:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
== "Applied Cryptography" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Applied Cryptography'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ''']]''' 13:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
== "Jamaican Shower" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] <sub> ]</sub> 17:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Once Upon a Time (game).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 --> ] (]) 19:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
I find this action disruptive and unnacceptable. You failed to discuss the block with me beforehand, which is standard practice and common courtesy. If you had bothered to show me any respect in this case by further inquiring about my reasoning, you would see that the block is not for sock evasion. This editor has a consistent editing pattern that flaunts our policies and procedures. He had been facing increasingly escalating blocks for incivility, personal attacks, OR/NPOV editing, and outright copyright violation under his old account, and had he continued he would have been permabanned anyway: umpteen warnings and several blocks have been useless to dissuade him, and he ''will'' continue his disruptive behavior otherwise. Jumping accounts to try to hide from administrative attention is not carte blanche for continuing the same activities that caused him to be blocked repeatedly and justifiably in the past. I have reversed your reversal. If you have an issue with that, take it to AN for, oh, I don't know, discussion maybe? --] - '']'' - ] 13:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==MfD nomination of ]== | |||
] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:Mfd notice --> ~ 🦝 ] (he/him • ]) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 20:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Nomination for merger of ] == | |||
]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ] on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> <span style="font-family:'Monotype Corsiva'; color:black; background-color:#f5a500;">''''']'''''</span> ] 07:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 07:45, 17 March 2024
This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Mangojuice has not edited Misplaced Pages for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Administrators: if you want to overturn one of my administrative actions, and I don't appear to be active, go ahead, so long as the action wasn't an overturning of your action. Use common sense, naturally. Mangojuice 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Leave a new message.Welcome to my talk page! Please leave your message. I'll respond on your talk page unless I think people casually reading my talk page would be interested in my response, in which case I'll respond here. Thanks!
Asgardian and the Red Hulk article
Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but Asgardian seem to be having an edit conflict again, as seen here. I tried leaving a message on his Talk Page explaining my rationale, and suggesting that we start a consensus discussion. Instead of agree to that, or even responding to my message at all, he went and reverted the article again, which is against WP policy regarding edit conflicts. I've started a consensus discussion on the conflict on Red Hulk here. I request that you monitor the situation so that if he continues to revert without discussion (the offense for which he was blocked previously), you can offer your assistance. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- I am not really active enough to take on new things to monitor closely such as this. I took a look at the recent behavior and it appears that discussion is underway and reverting has slowed down or stopped, so I see no need for a block right now. I suggest if you feel a block is merited at some point, that's when it's best to request help. And WP:ANI is probably better than requesting my help directly, because I'm not all that active these days. Mangojuice 05:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- See, this is why blocking him outright sometimes appears to be the only option: Every time I try asking people to participate, they come up with some excuse not to. You asked me to contact you, and I did, and now you're finding a reason not to. Yeah, a discussion was underway, and guess what? Four people (I and three others) came to a consensus on three of the four points I brought up (six if you count two others in a discussion on the Comics Project in February--It's in the portion of this discussion beginning on 2.13.09) and what did Asgardian do? He reverted the article. When confronted, he stated that there was "no clear consensus" on the matter. He even reverted blindly, and in knee-jerk fashion, because he not only changed the disputed content, but even a valid edit in which I formatted two mentions of the same source with the ref name tag. He also appears to have edited my post on the article's Talk Page to delink my signature for some reason, and others in the discussion appear to be losing their patience with him, as seen in this other page. I locked the article down to prevent further reversions by him (and to avoid the option of blocking him) until we can get confirmation by the others that there is indeed a consensus. What are we supposed to do if you won't intervene as you said you would earlier this year? Nightscream (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"You indefinitely full-protected Towelie, reversed yourself..." Yeah, that's right. I didn't know that indefinite full-protection protection was considered inappropriate, and when someone pointed this out to me, I acknowledged this, and took that protection off, never again doing so. What's your point? That not knowing about a particular protocol is "misuse"? This was an error based on ignorance of a particular rule, nothing more.
"and then semi-protected it for the extreme duration of 1 year." Right. Countless anonymous IP's are constantly adding unsourced POV information to that article (possibly one person engaging in sockpuppetry for all we know), and I had previously clarified the addition of material in which editors interpret satirical works with someone on Jimmy Wales' talk page. Despite this, editors, usually anonymous IP's who don't know about or care about WP:V, continue to add such unsourced material to the article. Thus, semiprotecting it is perfectly valid. I typically do this with articles that are subject to such disruptive editing. It is not "extreme", for if it were, why would the block page give 1 year as a duration option?
"You also semi-protected Pandemic (South Park) over IP edits you disagreed with." I did no such thing. I discussed the various matters of that article with others on its Talk Page, including one matter in which I requested Third Opinion and started a consensus discussion in order to address another editor's insistence on adding certain material. All of this was by the book, as far as I know, and nothing was inappropriate. After this, however, anonymous IP's continue to add unsourced material against both policy and consensus, and not what "I disagreed with", so yeah, protecting it was reasonable.
"This is not the first but the second time you have protected Red Hulk which you have been heavily involved in editing." Of course I protected it. Editors were adding material without citing a reliable source, and in that matter, Asgardian agreed with me. Using protection or blocks is inappropriate where there is a genuine content dispute, but not, as far as I knew, where there is an unambiguous policy violation, like WP:RS. Is there? If so, this is news to me, and I can't imagine why. What should I do, ask another admin to protect it for me? In any event, this would be yet another permutation of admin powers that I was unacquainted with. I'll be asking around about this, but if what you're indicating here is true, that does not constitute a willful etiquette or guideline violation on my part.
"In the discussion that led to Asgardian's unblock, it was revealed that you were sternly warned many times about misusing your tools, yet you blocked Asgardian again." If you're referring to the blocking that led to that discussion, that block was legitimate, and should not have been reversed. Asgardian disruptively removed of content despite unresolved Talk Page discussion, and repeated violated of Civility. He has not learned from this lesson, because he has continued to engage in both behaviors, even recently. He's made personal comments about myself, and about another editor with whom he disagreed with, ignores messages left on his Talk Page, and counterarguments during Talk Page discussions, uses deceptive Edit Summaries, and he continues to revert articles against the consensus. You, meanwhile have done nothing about him, even though I contacted you when this started, as per your request.
"As to the actual issue, Asgardian is correct that there isn't a consensus over the date format thing. I do see that some editors said, speaking generally, that including dates and issue titles is okay as long as not done excessively, but that was (1) over half a year ago, and (2) not a specific opinion on the text in this dispute." That indeed pertains to this dispute, since it mirrors what was said on the Red Hulk Talk Page, and yet, Asgardians insists on removing all such information, arguing that not doing so leads to an unreadable "laundry list" or "minefield" of dates and issue numbers. This is false, since we're talking about a middle ground of occasionally including such info, and he's talking about an all-or-nothing proposition between a huge list and none and at all. This is on the Red Hulk Talk Page, which is not "over half a year ago". Did you not read it?
"As ThuranX said, you have a preferred version just as much as Asgardian does and are pushing hard for your version." You are now bringing up something that is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. Of the four points I raised on the Red Hulk Talk Page, the others agreed with me on three; on the fourth, the matter of info pertaining to the character's human identity, they did not. I requested clarification of that, and ThuranX became angry at me for doing so, accusing me of pushing for a particular version, when I was merely asking for clarification of a point in order to reach a compromise. His accusation was a completely inappropriate breach of WP:AGF, and by now repeating it yourself---in regard to the separate matter of dates and issue numbers, which had nothing to do with Thuran's statement--you are now violating that policy yourself.
The evidence of the discussion on the Red Hulk Talk Page, and Asgardian's behavior, clearly falsify your assertion that he has not misbehaved, but I somehow have. Even the others are fed up with him, and I linked you to that as well, yet you ignore that as well. I asked you to intervene, and you never responded on my Talk Page, and when you did, it was to say that you weren't going to do so because you weren't "active" enough. Funny how you're not active enough to intervene with genuine policy violations by Asgardian, or to look over the genuine evidence of his misbehavior (I guess all those other users and admins I linked you to are all wrong), but active enough to overreact and exaggerate with respect to Good Faith actions on my part. Clearly you do not have the judgment capable of dealing with him realistically or objectively, and I will show this to the AN. Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
10c worth
I'll keep this separate from the above for easy reading. True to my word , I haven't edited Red Hulk since the issue came to a head, and have suggested that it go to WikiComics as there seems to be an impasse.
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no edit warring, only improvements and modifications. The references in the article were placed in footnote formate as that is a style that I've run with for some time (over 30 - 40 articles) and seems to be becoming the norm, as the references in the text approach becomes unwieldy and difficult to read. Anyway, that's a matter for WikiComics.
Finally, a tad disappointed at the "mob" mentality shown here , as while I've made mistakes in the past (although it has been noted I've been unfairly blocked on more than one occasion), I don't feel an editor's history is the issue here. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to waste your time with this, but Nightscream seems to have followed ThuranX down the road of incivility, and has become openly abusive: I would like to see him cautioned, and I really think his administrator privileges need reviewing. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you unblock me?
I have now an account here at Misplaced Pages (the same as the one on the Swedish wiki "Hollac16"). Can you unblock me? /Hollac16 (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Knight Prince - Sage Veritas
This guy looks like a disruptive SPA to me. I suggest not unblocking him or a perma ban on Barbera and ethnic realted articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I also must object to any unblocking of Knight Prince - Sage Veritas, I spent time and effort to try and help this editor understand that edit warring and personal attacks were against Misplaced Pages policy, and after his first block and my detailed explanations, not only did he persist in edit warring and attacking Rlevse - he still attempts to play the innocent card. Dreadstar ☥ 21:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've given due consideration to both points. I feel that KP-SV was only indef-blocked in the first place for an apparent loss of temper after he was blocked. He's retracted the comment, and agreed to a 1-month ban. I don't see that he's an SPA; he has made useful contributions at Lebanon and Jordan. And in any case, the 1-month ban will let him develop some breadth and his account is less than 1 month old in the first place. Plus, Juliancolton, the blocking admin, seems to feel the idea is acceptable. Just because this block is being lifted doesn't mean he should be spared from further blocks if he engages in more edit warring or personal attacks, after all. Mangojuice 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- His article range is very narrow, basically Lebanon and Jordan and he was disruptive over more than on article. What exactly does the one month ban cover, a one month block, a one month topic ban or what? The consensus at Barbera is the autobio trumps the 1-2 RS's he can find and there are more RS's, first hand ones at that, that support the Italian view. How do we know he will accept that? Given his pattern of behavior, there's a very good chance he'll return to his prior disruption. And he still doesn't seem to understand WP:RS. Reading his talk page again note he only changed his tune when you offered to unblock him. I feel he's only trying to game an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's quite clear. A total 1 month ban from the Barbera article and talk page, and from edits regarding the ethnicity of people in general. As for the argument on Joseph Barbera, I don't know that he will accept it, and I don't think it's necessary for him to do so, I just think it's necessary for him to engage appropriately about it... once you guys have had a reasonable period away from it. Mangojuice 14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- His article range is very narrow, basically Lebanon and Jordan and he was disruptive over more than on article. What exactly does the one month ban cover, a one month block, a one month topic ban or what? The consensus at Barbera is the autobio trumps the 1-2 RS's he can find and there are more RS's, first hand ones at that, that support the Italian view. How do we know he will accept that? Given his pattern of behavior, there's a very good chance he'll return to his prior disruption. And he still doesn't seem to understand WP:RS. Reading his talk page again note he only changed his tune when you offered to unblock him. I feel he's only trying to game an unblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've given due consideration to both points. I feel that KP-SV was only indef-blocked in the first place for an apparent loss of temper after he was blocked. He's retracted the comment, and agreed to a 1-month ban. I don't see that he's an SPA; he has made useful contributions at Lebanon and Jordan. And in any case, the 1-month ban will let him develop some breadth and his account is less than 1 month old in the first place. Plus, Juliancolton, the blocking admin, seems to feel the idea is acceptable. Just because this block is being lifted doesn't mean he should be spared from further blocks if he engages in more edit warring or personal attacks, after all. Mangojuice 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Maltese dog
It's just evident from his previous work on the article/other articles across Misplaced Pages. However, I have no interest in causing animosity or disruption! Thanks for taking an interest, Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also...you appear to have redirected my old account...this is fine, but I liked the old account layout, and the redirect has made it impossible to view this. Please restore my old account - I may consider using the information there on my new one. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Contradict the truth"? It's pretty blatant. And silly. I'm sorry you don't see that :P Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also...you haven't done what I asked....which isn't particularly helpful. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey there: your decision to act out against me has been duly noted: I shall proceed as necessary if I feel these actions are escalating towards bullying. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Contradict the truth"? It's pretty blatant. And silly. I'm sorry you don't see that :P Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest comprehension lessons: I shall proceed as necessary if I feel these actions are escalating towards bullying. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that I not ask for further input on your behavior. So I am doing so. In particular, I will be notifying Tanthalas39, since he had placed you on warning for disruptive behavior at Maltese (dog). I will be bringing up your use of alternate accounts. I will be bringing up your inappropriate accusation of vandalism. I will be bringing up your inappropriate attack on Imbris. Perhaps if you see that this is not me with a biased view of the situation, you will listen to the warnings I've given you, which I believe are fair and appropriate considering what you've done. Mangojuice 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's a shame administrators aren't what they used to be. I hope you're doing all this with good intentions; but we all know what sorts of roads those often pave. Be productive! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heya! I've just realised you're a "doctor of philosophy". Isn't that brilliant :) but you don't speak much French and no German at all. How does that work? I suppose it all depends. There's an AN/I over Imbris btw, you might want to chuck your 2c in. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I checked out the ANI, but since I've edited substantially with Imbris, I have to consider that I've taken off my admin hat in dealing with him. My interactions with him on Maltese (dog) were definitely difficult; you can find some rather long complaints I left him if you search through his user talk page. But ultimately, I think he came to trust that I wasn't favoring one side or another, and this let him relax considerably. Mangojuice 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heya! I've just realised you're a "doctor of philosophy". Isn't that brilliant :) but you don't speak much French and no German at all. How does that work? I suppose it all depends. There's an AN/I over Imbris btw, you might want to chuck your 2c in. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Rm125
FYI: I gave Rm125 a vandalism warning for repeatedly deleting sourced material with which he did not agree, not over a good-faith difference of opinion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can you please check this
On article Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah, there's a user called Mohummy who keeps deleting most of the article claiming the sources provided are not WP:RS yet he can't say how that is. Can you please check the sources and give me your opinion. Thanks. By the way, I've started a discussion in that articles talk page. Thanks again Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, he's already done 3 rv's and I'm not about to get into an edit war with him. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Please block me indefinitely
Thank you. Noloop (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please place an indefinite block on my account. Noloop (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Let's see... I reported an editor for violating 3RR, and I was blocked instead. I protested the block and was denied. I said, fine, I don't want an early unblock, and was promptly unblocked early. I requested an indef block and am now (apparently) required to be unblocked. WTF. If I request a community-wide ban, will you make me an admin? Obviously, anybody who wants to be indef blocked can make that happen...do you want me to be disruptive? Are you at least going to discuss what's going on in your head, or should I just go vandalize something? Noloop (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:SELFBLOCK. Such requests are generally not granted. You can take a break or leave. Mangojuice 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- The idea is to help me leave. Something analogous to cutting up your credit cards. Noloop (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I understand the idea, it's just against policy and therefore not done. Mangojuice 21:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of
Just to let you know that Tan has been very kind in helping me out to sort the sockpuppets over here. Since he is on a Wikibreak so I am reproducing a message that I left on his talk page for your consideration too. And I guess you very well know the main user named LineofWisdom of this whole episode too.
- "Cher Tan. I don't know how did I miss this one WikipedianBug which for sure seems yet another one of a suspected sockpuppet of LineofWisdom. Because the quality of English, written by him all over his edits, is exactly the same - the time of creation of this user account is the same i.e. 22nd August when all the other socks were created by him - and above of all his repeated votes of his earlier bad faith AFDs of Dil Jan Khan and Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat. Now he has voted a 'Delete for the second time on Rafiq Shinwari, an article created by me, which though has been referenced in abundance now. I am certain that's him again but can you check this user or do something about him too. Always grateful."
Please advice on impossible situation- the same thing repeats itself over and over
Mangojuice, I need you advice, please. As you suggested here] I try to behave in more civil ways and when in doubt you graciously offered your help I am so fact working on J Street page. As before Malik Shabbaz and nobleezy and Sean as a team ] are undoing me constantly without providing ANY justification whatsoever. Once again we are facing the same situation when I provide a thorough and well based arguments ] they working as a team undoing it. Please take a look at the situation on J street. Please read the article that talks about it
This is the quote from NYT we are discussing:
- “The peril may be real. But it can also feel like a marketing device. “You know what these guys are afraid of?” says M. J. Rosenberg, Washington director of the Israel Policy Forum. “Their generation is disappearing. All the old Jewish people in senior-citizen homes speaking Yiddish are dying — and they’re being replaced by 60-year-old Woodstock types.”
- J Street, by contrast, is wide open to the public. Visitors must thread their way through a graphic-design studio with which the organization shares office space. There appears to be nothing worth guarding. The average age of the dozen or so staff members is about 30. Ben-Ami speaks for, and to, this post-Holocaust generation. “They’re all intermarried,” he says. “They’re all doing Buddhist seders.” They are, he adds, baffled by the notion of “Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you.”
As you see he gives a very pointed reply here and it is relevant. For the issue of generational gap in this context. More then that I added this right after the sentense regarding Jews and non Jews supporters ( While primarily made up of Jews, J Street welcomes both Jewish and non-Jewish members.) Why not to include that they have a diversity there? You can see clearly that when I give a point that Malik doesn’t have an answer to the other guy comes to undo it. This is very typical of this team and they are provoking me by undoing and working as a team. Please tell me what think you. All my edits are well documented. What should I do here? Please advise. Thanks for your time. This happens everywhere I go. Is 'team working" is allowed?--Rm125 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Now the dream team are erasing talk pages. Look at the history ]how they work together even on talk pages to erase my talk. Not only they erase my contribution to the article itself. They erase talk pages. Is it possible? This is not legitimate prsactice. Something must be done about it
--Rm125 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy Mangojuice's Day!
User:Mangojuice has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
nableezy needs to be reminded of civil behaviour ( use of curses on talk pages- fu(xxx)ck
What do you say? Can we start working on language for a new RfC, or do we let the old one run its course? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Fuck"Some random word" it, just let the old one run its course. This user is incapable of not disrupting anything so there is no point in just giving him another avenue to further disrupt. nableezy - 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
]
Mangojuice I disagree with your ban and “sanctions“
This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
ResponseFrankly I see no reason to bother warning Nableezy over his use of the f-word, directed at no one, out of frustration because you seem so intent on bring it up over and over again, nearly a week after it happened. You are extremely close to having your block reinstated because of your complete inability to adjust your behavior to Misplaced Pages expectations. Specifically:
Under the terms of WP:ARBPIA, which you have been previously warned about , I am imposing the following sanctions on you.
If you wish to appeal the bans, after your block expires, please go to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement. If you have any questions about the terms, ask me - do not test the limits with your edits. Mangojuice 04:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Rm125 letter to MangojuiceYou say: “Frankly I see no reason to bother warning Nableezy over his use of the f-word, directed at no one, out of frustration because you seem so intent on bring it up over and over again, nearly a week after it happened.
So here we ( Shabbazz and I finally agree to place the right tag. But nableezy says: <quote>Fuck"Some random word" it, just let the old one run its course. This user is incapable of not disrupting anything so there is no point in just giving him another avenue to further disrupt<end of quote> So clearly as you see nableezy doesn’t cooperate with two of us and solves the problem so long discussed, but instead uses curses and uncivilized behavior. As you see the word” Fuck” is crossed to show that he “kind of” realizes that it is improper to use, but of course we know better, don’t we, Mangojuice? You tell me in your decision to block me: “Frankly I see no reason to bother warning Nableezy over his use of the f-word, directed at no one, out of frustration because you seem so intent on bring it up over and over again, nearly a week after it happened.” So here we have 2 Wikipedians finally coming to a constructive agreement and the third party instead of agreeing to end the disagreement instantly-noy only doesn’t agree with the majority- he is using the f-word “directing to anyone” Are you sure he is directing it to “anyone, Mangojuice? So according to your logic if 3 people discussing the issue and someone uses the f-word- he is insulting “no one” This is shameful. This is illogical. This is not “reviewing-this is taking unjustified and subjective opinion favorable of offender and at the same toime accusing the agreeing party in “uncivil” conduct. I strongly disagree on this point, Mangojuice. Please change your ways. Be fair to new Wikipedian. Don’t wrongly accuse.Try to ask and understand. Don’t jump to conclusions.>>>
You are extremely close to having your block reinstated because of your complete inability to adjust your behavior to Misplaced Pages expectations. Specifically:
Once again you take sides against both common sense and Misplaced Pages rules. When two people are fighting normally you look at who started the fight and punish him. Why would you ignore the party who started ans plus didn’t make any attempt to discuss-thus violating Misplaced Pages rules and take sides with the party who started the edit war” and without attempt to discuss the issue? Once again. Mangojuice you violsated both common sense and Misplaced Pages rules.>>> Instead of accepting those opinions as legitimate, you continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of acting in collusion: .
“Nableezy, it would really be helpful if you would stop mentioning all the bad things that can happen to Rm125 if he doesn't comply. If there's going to be any chance to rehabilitation here he HAS to stop feeling attacked. That said, Rm, Nableezy is correct that you should read WP:ARBPIA and understand that there's some stuff there that applies to you and could land you in further trouble”
Mow let me ask you respectfully, my dear friend..what is this “some stuff” you are talking about here? Where should I look for this “some stuff” you are so cleverly pointing to me about? I have read very carefully and I haven’t seen anything whatsoever that “applies to me” personally. And what kind of “farther trouble” are you talking about here, my dear? Can it be that all your baseless threats, lecturing and patronizing to are the result of “some stuff” you came up with-baseless- based on your subjective opinion and improper seasoning? The only “farther trouble” I see is your total inability to see this controversy from the neutral point of view. Your harassment and your ban- totally based on invented and manipulated information toward a newbie Wikipedian who sincerely came to make a contribution is misplaced. You constantly claim that as a person whose English is less then perfect I am somehow inferior to others. This is not correct. May be I need a word processor to write correctly but I am not a lazy and clueless observer. As to all your “judgments” and “verdicts’ and “sanctions” allow me to dismiss all the “stuff” you base it on. It is beyond me how did you come up with this” verdict” and what are you trying to prove here. I expect you to guide me how to overturn this injustice as soon as possible. Please let me know how we should proceed from this point. I personally don’t have lots of time to waste of going to various boards and engaging in “office politics.” I would prefer just to reverse all this and proceed from here. Like it never happened. If there is a problem to reverse your decision advice me on other venues. Respectfully. Rm125 --Rm125 (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Rm125 responds to Mangojuice- last statement in seriesThis is the responce to your post on my talk page. Mangojuice sez: I have no interest in communicating with you further.
Mangojuice sez: You are making disparaging comments about me and I don't see why I should bother responding to you.
Mangojuice sez:The sanctions stand, they're wise,
Mangojuice sez:I'm open to review, and I'm sure the community will back me and happy to discover if that's true.
Mangojuice sez:I have seen no sign from you that you are actually open to anyone else's opinion
Mangojuice sez:anytime anyone says anything you don't like, you just attack them,
Mangojuice sez:loaded with empty statements like your opinion on your "whatever" logic or Now it becomes pathetic not to mention a constant complete lack of respect of my judgment.
Mangojuice sez:If you don't respect it, get someone else's, end of story
|
Unfortunately you chose to ignore all my attempts to resolve our disagreement. I tried to reply to your accusations point by point.I know it is not easy to counter my argument. Therefore I don't hold it against you, since obviosly my reasonings are devastating. Hovever it is helpful to leave this correspondence for the sake of interested parties reference.I also will present it as an evidence to the appropriate board later. Please reconsider leaving it for a week or two and hopefully by then this issue will be resolved between both of us to out mutual satisfaction. All the best --Rm125 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's why I didn't remove it, it's just inside a collapsible archive box. The length of it just makes it hard to manage my talk page. Mangojuice 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Admin enforced topic bans
Mango, ref your comments at WT:BAN to Jayron ("I see your point . . ."), I'm curious if we're on the same line of thinking ref my thoughts in the section above that regarding this being a matter of admins interpreting consensus as we do every day when we execute a block - I don't see myself as deciding a block so much as applying consensus as the same has been conveyed to me through policy - that line of thinking. Maybe you completely disagree based on your comments but I just wanted to ping you outside the discussion to see. Also curious if you have any thoughts about my suggestion for a dedicated page where bans could be proposed by any editor for discussion (see my comments towards the end of the first section at Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Community_discussion_of_topic-ban_and_page-ban_procedure_urged and Beetstra's response). Maybe I'm completely out to lunch with my proposal but I value your opinion.--Doug. 19:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, when there is a clear community consensus on an issue like a ban, in principle, it doesn't have to be an admin who identifies it. For instance, if a user was blocked after non-admin X made a complaint, and X continued to be involved in the user's unblock requests, ultimately X might be the one to come to the realization that Y is, de facto, banned and be the one to articulate it. That said, I would really discourage non-admins from deciding on the existence of bans for two reasons. First, as a pure matter of practicality, Misplaced Pages often acknowledges that an uninvolved, impartial admin can be relied upon to be fair. So bans "identified" by admins are that much easier to check on. Second, when it comes to bans other than total bans there are a lot of variables: duration, the wording of the topic ban restriction, which other sanctions to apply, whether the ban applies to talk pages or not, project space or not, et cetera. So there is a real possibility that a consensus may exist to ban someone but not over the exact terms. I think we can generally trust an uninvolved admin to decide the terms of a ban based on a community discussion but I don't know if I'd be so comfortable with a non-admin doing that. But I suppose, if the non-admin did a good job, the ban could have support. Mangojuice 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on my suggestion on Bans for Discussion or some such name, as discussed on that page?--Doug. 17:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there was the WP:CSN that got closed down. I think "bans for discussion" would be too much along the same lines, and would probably not work in the long term for the same reason. Mangojuice 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Camponhoyle and his socks
On 7 July this user was blocked for vandalism and you blocked five others as his socks - see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Camponhoyle. It seemed as if they were a gang of kids mucking about, and they were told to go away and start with new accounts if they wanted to contribute sensibly. I think they are back, but not contributing sensibly:
- SuperTeacher123 (talk · contribs) has input an article Sockpuppetry of Camponhoyle two or three times,
- Falmorrow (talk · contribs) has just posted it again,
- Thunderbird123 (talk · contribs) put a hangon tag on it
- HappyMan999 (talk · contribs) has chimed in on the talk page, and so has
- MattiasGoyle (talk · contribs)
Superteacher123 has some constructive edits, including Easiteach and Technika which I gather were also involved in the original Camponhoyle business. The others have few or no constructive edits, and the focus on re-hashing the Camponhoyle affair is suspicious.
I was going to post all this at WP:SPI but it does not seem there was a formal SPI case raised before: shall I now raise one and post all this there, or can you deal with it direct?
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
PS: add to the list:
- Servanthoyle2 (talk · contribs), author of the remark just below, and
- Servanthoyle (talk · contribs)
JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
YOU WILL PAY FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE TO ME AND MY MASTER, AND MY MASTER'S ALLIES!
FACE THE CONSEQUENCES!
YOU CANNOT STOP ME! WE HAVE ALREADY BEAT THE SYSTEM! TO DESTROY US FULLY DELETE EASITEACH!
Martial poem
Have you checked the source?? If necessary, I can introduce several others which make the association plain - however, the existing one offers no dispute. Please check the sources before reverting edits. This is becoming intolerably unfair. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick and courteous response. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Camponhoyle
Hi I know camponhoyle and his sockpuppets, I am willing to help you get rid of them by telling you his new accounts.
A new one is user:Servanthoyle3
Thanks TheTraitor (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Common spam pattern
I notice that alot of accounts are adding a spammy article to their user subpage and adding a link to it from their userpage, presumably to gain SEO benefits of having a link to their spam article. Do you know anything about this? For more info see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Millennium_cohort/Archive. Triplestop x3 20:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Your deletion of my User:Tkguy/Asian fetish and User:Tkguy/Asiaphile pages
So can you please explain to me why a discussion for the deletion 2 of my users pages in which there was one vote for Keep that was deduced only after a long discussion that concluded that there's really no rules in wikipedia that will support the deletion of my user pages. And another vote to Delete that uses absolutely no supporting references to any wikipedia rules. How did you determined that there was a consensus for deletion? These topics were very contentious so I don't believe action can be taken without a clear consensus with regard to this issue. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile Tkguy (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think restoring them necessarily makes sense. They're clearly long-term archives of one version of disputed content in userspace, without any clear effort to make them ready for prime time, and they violate WP:UP#COPIES. MastCell 23:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- MastCell, I don't believe this conversation involves you. Tkguy (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Without any clear effort" because Tkguy hadn't been editing. That's why I closed the debate as delete; given Tkguy's inactivity (or alternately, if he had been editing but not these drafts), the argument is a good one. But now that he's back, if he's interested in starting to edit them the argument no longer applies, or rather, I don't see that consensus in the debate was clear on it. Mangojuice 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering. Please restore my page. Intend to make an effort to make them "ready for prime time" to appease MastCell. If MastCell or you have any more concern I will be more than happy to take care of them. Tkguy (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. A "long-term archive of disputed content" is a "long-term archive of disputed content." I don't see how it makes much difference if someone is editing actively or not; the idea is that POV forks shouldn't hang around in userspace for years. That seems to be the clear spirit of WP:UP#COPIES. If there is a real effort to address other editors' concerns and move these pages toward articlespace, then fine. If not, they should be relisted for an untruncated discussion. MastCell 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering. Please restore my page. Intend to make an effort to make them "ready for prime time" to appease MastCell. If MastCell or you have any more concern I will be more than happy to take care of them. Tkguy (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to renominate them, I think that would not be inappropriate. I might have done that if Tkguy had been active at the time. Mangojuice 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mango I believe according to the Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review you need to get a consensus to delete a page. From your writing you seem to acknowledge that there was no consensus considering the way you avoid the topic. Unless a vote for deletion by a random person with nothing to back up his or her vote and a long discussion that led to a vote for keeping means a consensus, then please explain this logic. And if you can't explain, then please revert the deletion review to an appeal.
“ | If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. | ” |
- I just got these pages back so give me some time before I start fixing them. In mean time please answer my question. Tkguy (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- The logic is, I'm not recommending a deletion review but rather, a new WP:MFD nomination if Mastcell feels it's appropriate. I think chances are, these user pages will be deleted if you don't start editing them. So please, get started now. If you start editing them, the best reason to delete vanishes. Mangojuice 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:MFD states the following
- The logic is, I'm not recommending a deletion review but rather, a new WP:MFD nomination if Mastcell feels it's appropriate. I think chances are, these user pages will be deleted if you don't start editing them. So please, get started now. If you start editing them, the best reason to delete vanishes. Mangojuice 04:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I just got these pages back so give me some time before I start fixing them. In mean time please answer my question. Tkguy (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus (determined using the discussion as a guideline). | ” |
- Please revert the deletion review to an appeal as obviously you can't seem to explain how you came about that there was a consensus. WP:UP#COPIES has been rendered moot as I am back to editing. If you or MastCell come up with yet third reason to have my user page deleted then I would think this is discouraging editing on wikipedia which is in violation of WP:EM.Tkguy (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- What deletion review? If you want to start one, see WP:DRV. I don't understand what you're complaining about, you got your way, at least for now. Mangojuice 05:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please revert the deletion review to an appeal as obviously you can't seem to explain how you came about that there was a consensus. WP:UP#COPIES has been rendered moot as I am back to editing. If you or MastCell come up with yet third reason to have my user page deleted then I would think this is discouraging editing on wikipedia which is in violation of WP:EM.Tkguy (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Tannim1
After extensive discussion with him, I have unblocked Tannim1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hopefully he will spend his time editing, not arguing. Fred Talk 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Beaten us yet?
You started an enquiry, yet you still haven't won...I wonder why? We are the true masters of wikipedia. Delete easiteach, or we will keep coming back. Many thanks, JohnCDCD (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.
I wanted to thank you for your assistance. Jw120550 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Spritebox block evading again
Sorry about posting this here. I'm not sure where to report it formally. User:Spritebox is currently on a one month block for vandalism. He evaded his block via a new account User:Britespox, which you indef blocked not that long ago. Now it looks like Spritebox is once again evading his block. An IP address that he clearly used in the past just made an edit in the mainspace very similar to ones Spritebox has made in the past.
Check the contribs for IP 217.42.67.144. It is clear that the first four are Spritebox - he blanks Spritebox's talk page , re-adds Sritebox's personal attacks to my talk page , and reverts two changes by Verbal in the mainspace that are continuations of edits that Spritebox made on those same articles .
This IP then edited today, on the Mediumship article which was very popular with Spritebox. Can you assist? Also, please let me know how to go about formally reporting this next time (AIV? ANI?) so that I don't have to bother an individual admin. -- Transity 17:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- WP:ANI is probably best, since the recent edits weren't obvious vandalism. Otherwise, WP:AIV. Blocked the IP for a month, b/c this IP might be a semi-dynamic IP. Mangojuice 18:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. And thanks for the advice. If it comes up again, I'll use that as my yardstick for deciding where to report. -- Transity 18:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Knight Prince
I think this justifies a re-blocking. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | 16:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to reblock over it, especially given his later retraction . But that's just my opinion, if you feel a block is necessary, go ahead. Mangojuice 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Transparency
I've re-blocked User talk:MarkLevin7, which you had previously unblocked in good faith. As he has now made edits similar to the user he was professing not to be, and has proceeded to vandalize an article, I felt it was sufficient to close out the account. If you disagree, feel free to overturn without consulting me. Kuru 03:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Archiving of the strained discussion
After you have archived the section. the IP-user, which was Notpietru (the following edit confirms that), changed the title of the strained discussion.
The following two links, which were both reverted portray that Notpietru is edit-warring.
I am deeply sorry that I did not recognize in time that Pietru (I do not know why he insist he is Notpietru) cannot be turned around to contribute.
If I remember correctly, Tan (Tanthalas39) imposed a sanction against Pietru, not to revert in the article, not to flame discussions and to discuss before editing. Notpietru did not comply and contined defamatory tactics. I was prepared to let go the issue that Notpietru (Pietru) maintained a higly POV version of the article, he did not provide a single helpful source, because for him it is still from Malta.
For what that user (Notpietru, Pietru) had done to the article he should be topic banned from it.
I am too tired to discuss with Pietru why he is not allowed to make significant changes in the article when that changes significantly misuse the sources.
Please can you select the proper title for the section that you have archived, COM is clearly not up to doing that.
User:Tiamut at WP:AN3
See WP:AN3#User:Tiamut reported by User:Mr. Hicks The III (Result: No action). Your name was mentioned there since you apparently did the last unblock of this editor. You are welcome to comment there, or to impose a new block if you think the editor should have absorbed your previous advice more fully. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
ACC
Does Special:UserRights/Majorgeneralpanic still need ACC? MBisanz 16:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. I've removed it. Mangojuice 04:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Informal deletion review of Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kairosis
Hi,
This is an informal request for a reversal of Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kairosis given that PhD theses available for consultation are now reliable sources WP:RS#Scholarship.
Could you advise.
Thanks Fifelfoo (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Consultable_PhD_theses_as_RS.2C_impact for their interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Went to undelete, who recommended DRV, which is why:
Deletion review for Kairosis
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kairosis. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Denialism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Our favorite editor may be back
Two usernames have popped up on my radar as possible new Darin Fidika socks: User:Ytny and User:IMMORTAL SAMURAI. The latter admitted that he was the former here, though they don't seem to be editing abusively at the moment. The latter signed a comment as the former here, though. Any thoughts on how to proceed? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Unblock Omrganews
Hi Mangojuice, I need to be unblocked I must to contact other administrator or collaborator to update some information in the article "European University", so technically I was unblocked but really I'm blocked yet. Regards --Omrganews (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!
Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
The Price Is Right - individual pricing game articles
Hi there -
During a short span in late November 2009, a small number of the individual articles covering The Price Is Right's pricing games were deleted. Specifically, the articles that were deleted cover games that come first alphabetically, including:
Any Number Balance Game Barker's Bargain Bar Bonkers Bonus Game Bullseye Card Game
And none of the other 100+ articles have been touched in the slightest.
Could you please either reinstate those articles, or delete all individual articles altogether? It is wrong for various editors to delete the first few and leave the rest intact for months.
Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.149.72.148 (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. –xeno 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you a Scientologist?
I'm just sort of curious, if you don't mind me asking. 131.191.33.121 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposed undeletion of The Knowhere Guide
Mangojuice,
As per Misplaced Pages guidelines suggested ] I wish to put forward a case to you as to why the original deletion decision from 2006 ought to be reversed. I believe I have information not available to Misplaced Pages administrators at the time of the deletion which would make clear that the page very clearly met web notability guidelines.
Please let me know by which means I should put forward this information, and to whom if not you,
Kindly, Altermodernist (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Go-Kustom article
I am working on an article related to 2 articles you mergered/deleted per the AfD process 3 years ago - see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/D.A. Sebasstian. I realize you are no longer an active user but I am hoping you might come across this and be able to provide some input. I am also notifying you per Misplaced Pages's policies. I have put up a notice on the merged article's talk page Talk:Kill Switch...Klick which includes more information. I will be working on the article over the next several days or weeks if you would like to comment. Thanks for your time. - Hydroxonium (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Virginia Tech Massacre
Why did you remove the reference to Hilsher being alive and her parents not being notified? The reference is from WSJ AND it quotes the Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel which YOU can read for yourself. How careless and negligent of you to say "Hilsher was not named" when there were only 1 male and 1 female in that incident and it used the pronoun "she"? I hope you are more careful when you edit articles that involve other people's tragedy. Angry bee (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
OrthodoxWiki
Apparently this source was discussed with you a few years ago. It’s now come up on the RSN board ]and your name has been mentioned as sorting out copyright issues. Just wondering why you never pointed out at the same time that this was a Wiki and as such most likely failed RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hey not a problem. Could you however look at the actual article in question (Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox theological differences)? LoveMonkey (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Notice of discussion
As you were involved i this issue, I am notifying you of this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 15#Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Darin Fidika. Please participate if you wish. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
"crazy radicals"?
How is it not appropriate to tell WP admins not to call other editors "crazy radicals"? IMHO this is a clear case for a personal attack. --Raphael1 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not looking into this. The last time I communicated with you was 2.5 years ago. Review WP:CIV and WP:NPA and make your own judgments. Mangojuice 21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are not looking into this? You blocked me for pointing this out.--Raphael1 15:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't remember blocking you, there's no block of you by me in your block log, and my last block of anyone was over a year ago because I'm semi-retired. So, no, I don't intend to look into this. If you want clarification on Misplaced Pages's policies you can ask me a specific question but I can't promise I'll respond promptly. Mangojuice 21:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Here is a specific question: How is it appropriate for a Misplaced Pages administrator to call fellow editors "crazy radicals"? How many violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA are necessary for an administrator to loose his privileges? --Raphael1 14:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since I don't know what comments your referring to my response will be totally abstract. But here goes. I think there's sort of a heirarchy. On one end, there are some actual crazy radicals that try to edit Misplaced Pages, blatantly push an agenda, and ignore policy left and right. For them, there's no point in talking to them. Calling them "crazy radicals" will simply intensify them, so I think it's unhelpful and unproductive, which is to me the main point behind WP:CIV and WP:NPA, but on the other hand, administrators are asked disproportionately to deal with people like that so I would tend to cut them basically infinite slack, though I might suggest a more toned-down approach would be more productive. On the other extreme, an admin might say such a thing about a good-faith editor they disagree with over content in an article - especially if the good-faith editor is a non-admin. That's about the worst situation I can imagine. There, I would sharply criticize the admin for the WP:NPA violation and complain on WP:ANI if they continued to escalate the disagreement. In principle, if there was broad support for the idea, I might block the admin. I have always been willing to block an admin were I ever to see a circumstance where it was necessary but I never have. The thing is that admins have a lot invested in Misplaced Pages and are very responsive to the community. They don't do things like ignore WP:ANI discussions or direct comment on their talk pages. They respect policy even if they differ in how to apply it in individual circumstances.
- As for an admin losing privileges, I have never seen it for purely WP:CIV and WP:NPA violations and I doubt I ever will, though I haven't been paying attention for quite some time. Admins tend to lose their privileges if they can no longer be trusted to have them, as evidenced by a pattern of abuse of those privileges, and WP:CIV and WP:NPA violations are not specific to admin privileges. Mangojuice 05:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Tkguy/Asian fetish and User:Tkguy/Asiaphile
Because you closed Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asian fetish, you may be interested in subsequent discussion about these userspace drafts. I have nominated User:Tkguy/Asiaphile and User:Tkguy/Asian fetish for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asiaphile (2nd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkguy/Asian fetish (2nd nomination), respectively. Cunard (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Cryptography FAR
I have nominated Cryptography for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Smallman12q (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Unprotection
Hi, just a courtesy note to let you know I've undone your protection on Crystal Gail Mangum, which you did in 2007. As she is facing murder charges, she is independently notable and I've also undone the redirect.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Omer123hussain#Looking_at_this_again's talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Design Classics
Since you are the admin that deleted the article Design classic, I thought I'd contact you before recreating it. I would like to demonstrate that 'design classic' may not be a well-defined concept, but that there is a common understanding that there are a number of industrial design products that together constitute a body of design classics. To start with, I've come up with a few references:
- Phaidon Design Classics (a book)
- The Independent: What makes a design classic?, 27 August 1999 by Stephen Bayley
- The Guardian Stamps of approval: British design classics, 13 January 2009 by Jonathan Glancey
- Design Classics by Patrick Taylor
- Design Classics: unequivocal, tangible, iconic?, RSA Design & Society blog
- What Makes a Design Classic? by David Hill, Vice President, Lenovo Corporate Identity & Design
Aren't that enough references to justify an article? Best, Mauro Bieg (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Prod-related templates
Category:Prod-related templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Long Overdue Apology
I used to be the user User talk:Ciaran306, whom you probably don't remember. I apologise for the way I acted in response to the block, and I don't hold any hard feelings. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 15:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Racko!
I have started a discussion at Talk:Racko! to rename the page to Rack-o. I saw that you had renamed it from that title before, so I hope you will chime in when you get the chance. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
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 over 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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) 19:30, 3 May 2012 (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 over 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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) 17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
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 over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, 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 and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). 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. WilliamH (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
3 Quarters Dead profile
Hello, this iS Mark Alexander, guitarist for 3 Quarters Dead from NC. I am trying to make an official 3 Quarters Dead Misplaced Pages page and i just noticed a few days ago we have a deleted account on here. I'm not sure who tried to make one but i need to know what we can do to make this right so i can get an account up and running. I noticed we are on the music page for the state of NC and we are the only band mentioned that does not have a link to a page on here. Let me know how we can fix this. Thank You.
Mark Alexander, 3 Quarters Dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.66.23 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The Knowhere Guide
Hi, I'm not sure about the protocol for recreating deleted articles but I've restarted The Knowhere Guide which you deleted after an AFD in September 2006. By the way I'm not claiming that your action was wrong (from the AfD it seems to be right) it's just that there seemed to be a number of reliable sources. Please let me know of any issues. JASpencer (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Orthodoxwiki note
Template:Orthodoxwiki note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Orthodoxwiki permission
Template:Orthodoxwiki permission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikiproject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary
As a current or past contributor to a USCG Auxiliary article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! |
COASTIE I am (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Prod-reason
Template:Prod-reason has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sam Sailor 17:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Mangojuice. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Nomination for merging of Template:Deprod-afd
Template:Deprod-afd has been nominated for merging with Template:Deprod. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
Ten years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
"Applied Cryptography" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Applied Cryptography. Since you had some involvement with the Applied Cryptography redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. LFaraone 13:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
"Jamaican Shower" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jamaican Shower. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Jamaican Shower until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 17:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Once Upon a Time (game).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Once Upon a Time (game).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. Stefan2 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material
Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:2006 Duke University lacrosse case/incorporated material during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Copyright permission
Template:Copyright permission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Nomination for merger of Template:Unblock-spamun
Template:Unblock-spamun has been nominated for merging with Template:Unblock-un. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. kleshkreikne. T 07:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories: