| Revision as of 19:02, 13 July 2007 editBobblehead (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,705 edits Another suggestion... Move on.← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:24, 14 July 2007 edit undoVK35 (talk | contribs)2,251 editsm housekeeping/archivingNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| I haven't run Lupin's tool in a while. I forgot how bad things got here...--] 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | I haven't run Lupin's tool in a while. I forgot how bad things got here...--] 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi, | |||
| I think that merging the ] page and ] is a good idea. However, I don't think that there should any link to "], found in salt water and in the human body". I am fairly certain that this use of the word, as in , is actually a reference to sodium (perhaps a mistranslation). | |||
| ] 22:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi there; you have commented on this user's vandalism edits in ]. I cannot find any. Could you point them out, please?--] 21:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, but with the deepest respect, if you post a message referring to this user - which you did, it is still on ] - it would take a remarkable leap of intuition to recognise that you actually meant somebody else. --] 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I cannot locate a user called Sogood 123. Or Sogood123, or sogood123, or sogood 123. Please give me the name of a vandalised article.--] 21:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Blocking may well be appropriate, if you will give me accurate information so that I can locate him.--] 21:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yes. His username was ], which is why I could not find him on the info you gave me. But no harm done.--] 21:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sogood == | == Sogood == | ||
| All is explained. We have a really crafty vandal here, who was editing both as Sogood 123 '''and''' as Sogood 1234. Both are now indefblocked.--] 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | All is explained. We have a really crafty vandal here, who was editing both as Sogood 123 '''and''' as Sogood 1234. Both are now indefblocked.--] 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == New category of users == | |||
| Hi, I was one of the editors who replied to the ] topic that you created. I am sorry, there I was being too harsh in rejecting the proposal. I was being too, I don't know, thick, may be. But later when I thought of it, it seemed a very good idea. We work so hard in improving articles, and we get its fruits when the article gets ]. But as editors, we do not get any recognition. | |||
| My reasoning there still holds, since all editors have same editing capabilities, creating a new category of users wont be of help. But rather creating titles for users would help. Also, I think the three month period that you mentioned seems too long. How about this: | |||
| We create an ''Star Editor'' program, where people will nominate other users (maybe self nomination be allowed as well). We will go through their contributions and judge them solely on the basis of their article contributions - no deletion noms, no talk page counts, no AN participation etc etc. Those promoted can proudly display a badge on their user page. And may be an accompanying ''Star Editor of the Week'' program. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry for the late reply, I will write up an informal essay describing the essay and get a discussion rolling. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Signature == | |||
| Ah, okay. I'll see what I can do. <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">]]</span> 22:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Better? <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">]]</span> 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yay, thanks. I like your font too! <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB Demi; font-size: 10pt">]]</span> 22:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi, I have met you before == | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| | | |||
| | <center><big>'''], unite!'''</big> | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] | |||
| | Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}! You are invited to participate in ''']''', a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.</center> | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| | This week, ] will be cleared. Articles will be ]. ] will be fixed. ] will be edited. ] will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Misplaced Pages will become as a result. | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| | I would love it if you would participate! - ] | |||
| |- | |||
| | <small></small> | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Nitrium== | |||
| A "{{]}}" template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "]" and ]). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the <code><nowiki>{{dated prod}}</nowiki></code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ] 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppetry == | |||
| Yes, I found that blocked user too, and referred to ] in my initial review of his edits. However, that blocked user wasn't a ]. Is ] to be read as meaning that if you've been blocked from editing because of vandalism, you can't return as a reformed character? I think I'll ask for further advice on this point in case I'm unwittingly encouraging a breach of policy. Thanks for the heads-up. ] 17:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| do i get banned if i have been a sock puppeteer in the past? | |||
| ] 15:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the comment on medical referencing, my tak page, I have read the core cite on foreign referencing but did not see any requirement to provide or cite an english translation? Perhaps you could direct me to these words in core policy?.Pubmed only requires an english Citation, why would wiki demand higher?] 03:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Singaporean patriotic songs == | |||
| Many thanks for adding to the article. I was going to do it but didn't think I would have time until later in 2007. I am sure that I would not have done as good a job as you did! ] 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You're most welcome. I was looking at the article, one thing led to another, and I ended up doing a bigger cleanup than I intended to. Do continue adding to the article – I'm sure there are many other patriotic songs apart from those already listed in the article, particularly those with non-English lyrics. Cheers, ] 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] date changed== | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Singapore/Invite}} | |||
| Hi VK35, you were originally invited to ]. However, due to the lack of response, the date of the meetup has been changed to November. Please refer to ] for more information. -- ] ] 05:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Your warning to ] == | |||
| I think you might want to retract your warning because if you check the ], you will see that he was removing vandalism. -- ] 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Re : No problem. I left a welcome note for the editor explaining what happened. -- ] 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == More a warning == | |||
| Re: | |||
| Apparently I should have been clearer. My comment on the RFCU talk page was more a warning that you're being watched and as long as this account continues to make constructive edits, I won't make a stink about it. If the RFCU were the only evidence against you being a sockpuppet of Dereks1x, then we'd be more forgiving. However, the RFCU was requested in response to similarities that were noticed between how you worded comments on talk pages and how Dereks1x worded his comments. When that circumstantial evidence came back with a hit from RFCU and then Jimbo repealed your block, the only thing it made us do was question if we had been incorrect in thinking that Dereks1x's claims of being a medical doctor were false. All in all, regardless of you being a sockpuppet or not, if this account continues to contribute constructively, then you've got nothing to worry about. If it starts showing Dereks1x's tendentious editing patterns, then I wouldn't be surprised if a block is heading this direction. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Why == | |||
| May I ask why you're interested in mediating a dispute (that doesn't exist, at least as far as I'm concerned, since I'm not involved in a content dispute at the article and have hardly edited it in over two months) between the sock puppet of a ] user and me? There is nothing to mediate, as the banned user is no longer on Misplaced Pages, or, at least, shouldn't be. '''· <font color="#70A070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What Jersyko said. Feddhicks was pretty obviously a sockpuppet of Dereks1x and has been blocked for it. There isn't anything to mediate.--] <sup>]</sup> 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| My answer is the same. A banned user cannot be a party to mediation. '''· <font color="#70A070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is the legalistic answer. The practical answer is if everyone wants to, I am willing to consider it. Since Bobblehead and Jersyko have refused, the question of informal mediation is settled (won't happen). ] 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm an attorney. That's how I write. '''· <font color="#70A070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' 00:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| How is harassment? I'm merely trying to get a clarification on the original checkuser request that did confirm that you're editing from the same IP range. If you're not editing from the same IP as the most recent sock, you shouldn't be worried. I'm asking for a clarification, perhaps even to clear you so that you can go on about your business without ever having to worry about Dereks1x again. So why is it harassment? '''· <font color="#70A070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :After all, you're the one that contacted me requesting mediation with the banned user's sock. Not the other way around. '''· <font color="#70A070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' 00:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| According to the secret RFCU not published, you claimed that I was. So even if true, the determination of identity is wrong per Jimbo Wales.] 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :VK35, take a breather for a bit. One way or another this will all be over shortly. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, my above comment is not irresponsible, it is a bit of advice that you should really take. Getting yourself all worked up over this is not going to help your situation. Sockpuppet and meatpuppet accusations are part of editing on Misplaced Pages. The appropriate course of action is to ride it out and let it run its course. As for adding my name, if you have reason to believe that I'm a sockpuppet and can provide evidence for this, you're more than welcome to submit a request. However, if you do not have evidence that I'm a sockpuppet and are submitting the request for some other reason, I direct your attention to ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You ought to listen to Bobblehead and ride it out. You're not helping your case. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you sent an email to Jersyko, it went to Jersyko, not to me, so I can't read it, can I. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR warning == | |||
| VK35, you may not be aware of this, but wikipedia has a policy against reverting a change by another user more than 3 times on the same article. See ]. You have currently removed your username from the RFCU 3 times and if you remove it again you'll be in violation of this policy and subject to a 24 hour block.--] <sup>]</sup> 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, I've created an entry on the ] so it can be discussed without edit warring over it. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Per checkuser == | |||
| I have no control over the action or inaction of other administrators. But per , if I see ANY further Dereks1x sock edits from any accounts other than this one (i.e., VK35), I plan to either block this account indefinitely or (more likely) get another administrator to do so. Otherwise, don't plan to hear another word from me (again, I cannot vouch for anyone else). '''· <font color="#70A070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == message == | |||
| Yeah I understand and thought the same thing but hopefully it'll remove alot the anxiety that you must be experiencing over the matter. Hopefully in due course people will not need such a reminder and it can be removed. Talking about time I'm on the west coast so its the same time as Singapore just pushing midnight, I do keep an eye on my adoptees but only step in unannounced when the situation needs another perspective. ]] 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Move on == | |||
| VK35, you have got to move on, man. All you're doing by continuing to argue your case on the RFCU is digging yourself a hole that you might not be able to get yourself out of. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence that even if you aren't the same editor as Dereks1x and despite your constructive and value added edits, you will get blocked. As Jersyko says above, as long as you keep your nose clean, there isn't anything to worry about. Just go back to editing your medical related articles and forget this unpleasant business ever happened. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:24, 14 July 2007
"PLEASE NOTE:This user has the unfortunate co-incidence of editing from within the same range as Dereks1x (talk · contribs) who was banned after falsely claiming qualifications as a Doctor and who has since edited with various sockpuppets. To clarify this issue User:VK35 established to satisfaction of User:Jimbo Wales dif that they are two different people please also assume the same good faith when discussing issues here. Thank you GnangarraUnsolicited message placed without warning but subsequently approved for retention by the operator of this user talk page. VK35 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Montana Law Enforcement Agencies
Thanks! Please visit Cut Bank Police Department article. I plan to create all the Montana Law Enforcement Agencies. The ones I did not create are the Billilgs PD and Montana State Patrol. I would also like you to revisit my fist article the Pigeon Forge PD article again, and suggest any other content I should add. ] Hi, Harebag!
 Archives |
|---|
|
|
Logic
I haven't run Lupin's tool in a while. I forgot how bad things got here...--SarekOfVulcan 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sogood
All is explained. We have a really crafty vandal here, who was editing both as Sogood 123 and as Sogood 1234. Both are now indefblocked.--Anthony.bradbury 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)