Misplaced Pages

Welcome to my talk page

User:Allstarecho/talkheader

Userbox

east.718 at 23:05, November 20, 2007

Re: Colleges and universities

I did that because it is an overpopulated category. I'm of the opinion that no template cat should go over one 200 item page unless it's absolutely necessary. If you think that "Higher education navigational boxes" or "universities and colleges navigational boxes" is better, than we can go with that. I see that we have Category:Universities and colleges as the article space cat. So universities and colleges navigational boxes would go right along with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woohookitty (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to organize the template categories so they are more in line with the general guidelines on subcategorization. I'm not talking about creating a second category. I'm talking about moving the ones I've categorized under Universities navigational boxes to a new subcat called colleges and universities navigational boxes.

There actually is such a thing as an overpopulated category. The whole purpose of categories is to articles grouped under one subject easier to find. Well if you are having to page through multiple pages to find what you need, it defeats the purpose of categorization. Now I don't believe in overdoing it. We don't need subcats on universities and colleges navboxes for every state. There just aren't enough navboxes on the subject for that. But I think we should have separate cats for universities and colleges navboxes in general along with subcats for states with more than a few templates, such as California. My main thing here is just making the categories more in-line with our general categorization guidelines. If you don't think we should break it down by state (i.e. have a separate subcat for California or New York), then I have no problem with that. We can just do United States college and universities navigational boxes (or United States college and universities templates) under United States education navigational boxes. I have no problem with that. --Woohookitty 06:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thyatira

Sorry about not getting back to you on Thyatira; as you can see from my talk page, I've been rather busy with other issues in the last few days and forgot about Thyatira. It's done now. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Heyo

Thanks for your holiday message. I have been on forced wikibreak lately, first due to a 10-day power outage from an Oklahoma ice storm, followed shortly by moving across town. It seems that the user in question has backed off of the article for the time being and moved on to different things. Happy new year. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Always good to have a bit of help, they used your image of J and T FYI, I've reverted but thought you'd like to know. Benjiboi 13:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Used it where? I checked their contribs and don't see where they used it.. -- ALLSTARecho 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is quite enlightening as well. Benjiboi 21:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Special Senate Election

Didn't read the discussion... sorry. Gueas I was being bold. There's not too much precedent for this in wikipedia... only one I found was United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008 which is a relatively new artilce... even the United States Senate election in New Jersey, 2006 isn't comparable because, despite that being a special election, the other Jersey Senate class was not up for election that year... and if you go further back then that, wikipedia wasn't around so nobodies created those articles (yet). If you want to de-merge the articles I understand and I'm fine with it. My opinion is they should be merged (though it's not a particularily strong opinion). We probably need to establish a standard for this rare occurence and also apply it to United States Senate elections in Wyoming, 2008. Anyway... that's my 2 cents.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has started a lively discussion at Talk:United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008... I actually voted for a split.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually went to restore like it was but for some reason the original history isn't in the article to restore so I just gave up on it, moved on to other things.. -- ALLSTARecho 01:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You removed my comments when you moved the page... you needed to merge them properly! I made a very important point about the naming of the special election page in there.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The comments on Talk:United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2008 were moved to Talk:United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 where they belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr who1975 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

wave

but only for a few... What's up? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

When a page is moved, all the history goes with it. Someone either deleted United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008, then moved United States Senate special election in Mississippi, 2008 over, or they did a history merge, which is something I know nothing about except that it exists. If the former, you should be able to find a revision in the United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008 history of the other page. If the latter, I think it's pretty impossible to "undo". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's tricky but try WP:SPLICE if you want to get history restored. Benjiboi 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Status script

Try this. Just made it, for my purposes, actually. I need the same thing. (adding to your talk page to increase the chance you'll notice it) --cuckooman (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That pesky King James

164.58.209.131: you smell a sock, too? Jeffpw (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Very much so. -- ALLSTARecho 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My new "friend"

I'm concerned may be a sock as well, they certainly seem to know how to skip along the lines of policy enough to not be blatantly attacking. (As far as I know, I'm trying to just ignore them now.) Thank you for pointing it out, I had completely missed them and if they are also trolling then they've suckered me into their game. (sigh!) Be strong! Benjiboi 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt's offensive language

Don't change it. Just report it, and let the admins block him again. Aleta (Sing) 07:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Although I was under the understanding that talk page comments could be removed if blatantly offensive. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 07:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I've learned, and seems true in this case, folks are a bit more impolite in cyberland and if they are a repeat offend of civility issue on wp you should ensure they have been warned in the past and then take it to ANI if they don't change. Matt's an exceptional case and seems determined to get himself banned from the site altogether. Rarely have I seen him behave although he's certainly capable of good editing. Benjiboi 11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI Matt's RfC. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bluemarine Good luck with that, seems an endless and non-productive process to me....a nobody.

DADT

On the Matt Sanchez article - DADT is referenced inline, that's why I revert it after adding it back in in the see also section. Aatombomb (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK. Sorry, I missed that. -- ALLSTARecho 15:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with repeating - another editor removed it because it was in line. I'm not sure what the policy is on See Also sections. Aatombomb (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See also should be treated as a waiting room for wikilinks, once they are in the article then remove from See also; likewise if you remove wikilinks from the article they could go back there. Benjiboi 15:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Aatombomb (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusive comments

I'm extremely, extremely sorry you guys (collectively, you specifically, and all) had to put up with that kind of nonsense for so long. It's completely unacceptable. Lawrence Cohen 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez / prostitution

And after the Colmes interview he's denied it. Sorry - it's one of those issues that Misplaced Pages is *very* strict on. If he's denied it, we can't put it on. There's a blog that details quite a lot of info about the situation at . -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez

I have declined the request to unprotect the Matt Sanchez page - the page was protected per an OTRS ticket, which is the system used to track officially inquiries or letters to the project or the Foundation. There's an OTRS reference number on there - that's how you can know. :-) - Philippe | Talk 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez - Escort

The prostitution thing is probably a losing battle - these discussions have been going on for eight months now. Aatombomb (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so but that's the spirit of Misplaced Pages.. to write factual and honest articles. There wouldn't be a Misplaced Pages if it weren't for users who fought for the truth. -- ALLSTARecho 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case the BLP policies and fear of legal action have trumped the truth. I know this guy and his legal threats are completely empty. He knows he couldn't win in a court case, but the administrators can't count on it. Aatombomb (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I hadn't realised how far you'd crossed Misplaced Pages policy in your editing of the Matt Sanchez article. Your addition of the "Prostitution" section and edit warring when that was removed was one of the most blatant violations of Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view and biographies of living people policies I have ever seen. I have blocked you from editing Misplaced Pages for 48 hours for breach of fundamental policies of this website. You are welcome to continue editing when your block expires but note that further breaches of Misplaced Pages's polcies on biographies of living people will not be accepted. WjBscribe 01:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): see below Request handled by: WjBscribe 03:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock reason: There was no edit warring WJB. You can't come in 8 hours after the fact and block someone without knowing all of the facts. Aleta and Satyr pointed out those edits and the 2 reversions I did and then we started discussing the issue here and here without any further edits to Matt Sanchez from me in regards to Sanchez's prostitution career. So, no, there was no edit warring and in fact a conversation was began regarding the issue. I feel you're only blocking me because you feel I am one of those you talked about here, and the fact that I linked to this web site which you obviously took offense to based on your comments there. Because of your offense, I removed the link and even said I'm sorry and pointed out why I linked to it. -- ALLSTARecho 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your editing of the article Matt Sanchez (a living person) has not been acceptable. You added weekly sourced allegation of prostitutions (previously removed by several admins including myself) . You were reverted by another administrator (User:SatyrTN). But then continued to restore the material. This constituted an edit war on a biography of a living person - it also further escalated ongoing disputes in relation to the article in question. WjBscribe 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't say anything new WJB. I said above in my unblock reason that I reverted twice after Satyr and Aleta removed it twice. I then did not add it a 3rd time but instead joined in the 2 different discussions about the information. Secondly, the "allegation" is not weakly sourced. It's Matt Sanchez's own voice admitting, during a radio interview with FOX News' Alan Colmes, that he used to be a prostitute. The second source, the Salon.com source, is Matt Sanchez's own article he wrote, admitting that he used to be a prostitute. If you would bother reading the discussion, I even presented a suggestion on the talk page about how to include both sides.. that he admitted it and that he now denies it ever happened. You are the one that is failing to assume good faith here. -- ALLSTARecho 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the pending unblock request, please see my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Contradictory_information. John254 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John but your comments themselves there really have nothing to do with the unblock request, other than proving that I did take the issue to discussion with Aleta and you when you eventually weighed in on the discussion. -- ALLSTARecho 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The facts are, I made a bad decision - bad as far a policy is concerned. While I still feel the information is valid because it is reliably sourced and admitted to by the subject of the article in a recording, I should have not reverted Satyr's removal of the information - if for nothing more than the simple fact that I hold great respect and admiration for Satyr. Unfortunately, I made the reversion because I feel it is appropriate material (I've since edited it to include both sides thereby avoiding BLP issues and posted the edited version to the article's talk page for discussion). Aleta, another WP individual I have great respect for, removed it again, and she opened the discussion at BLP talk. That was the end of it, as discussion was now taking place in 2 different areas of WP.. until 8 hours later when WJB comes along and is offended by a request I made on Satyr's talkpage for his opinion on my edited version - of which I apologized to WJB for him being offended and explained that certainly wasn't my intention. He went on to accuse me of baiting and such and not acting in good faith. So here we are. I'm not some generic vandal or anonymous user. Indeed, I don't create many articles but I do alot of the "grunt" work on articles - someone has to. I say that to show that everything I do is with the best intentions and in good faith, regardless of who feels otherwise, and my history shows I'm not here just for shits and giggles. -- ALLSTARecho 03:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This block is ill supported by the blocking policy. It is irresponsible, and I urge the reviewing administrator to unblock. ➪HiDrNick! 02:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with HiDrNick (talk · contribs) for several reasons. The block does not appear to be preventative in any sense, as the article in question is protected, Allstarecho hasn't edited the article in nearly 8 hours, and discussion related to the incident is on going in several places. Additionally, I can't say I would call the blocking admin uninvolved. I encourage WJBscribe to reverse this block. - auburnpilot talk 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree as well for the reasons cited by both HiDrNick (talk · contribs) and AuburnPilot (talk · contribs) -- blocking admin was clearly not uninvolved, and the reason for the block doesn't really hold water. Allstarecho (talk · contribs) should be unblocked. Ashdog137 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This may have some relevance on this however it turns out. Lawrence Cohen 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as you pointed out correctly there, I did not bait Matt Sanchez. He was already indefinitely blocked for his violations of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NOT and WP:COI -- ALLSTARecho 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Having listened to opinions here and in particular to comments make to me by SatyrTN and Steel359, for whose judgment I have great respect - I have unblocked. I think my decision to block was a misjudgment. It reflected the fact that I regard WP:BLP as one of our most serious policies and the fact that I think Allstarecho's edits to Matt Sanchez serious inflamed an alreay controverisal situation. However, I failed to assume good faith on his part and for that I apologise. It is clear from his comment above that Allstarecho appreciates the mistakes he made in this matter, I will now reflect on mine. WjBscribe 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you WJB. -- ALLSTARecho 03:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Matt_Sanchez

I feel that the matter of Bluemarine (talk · contribs) and Matt Sanchez now requires the involvement of the Arbitration Committee. Given your recent involvement in the matter, I have listed you as a party to the case. WjBscribe 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

04:46 (cur; last) . . (+172) . . Law Lord (Talk | contribs) (→Back from ban and back at it - User:Allstarecho has sex with a person 10 years younger than himself)

Felt I should draw your attention to that edit. 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw it. It's information that is found on my user page so no biggie. He just used it to get back at me for my own comment I left there. :] -- ALLSTARecho 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay away

Please do not write on my user talk page any more. I find your pederast life style very upsetting and disgusting. Writing on my talk page about it causes me to vomit. --Law Lord (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, you had a page, that had an article about a 17 year old boy on there. I am 35 years old partnered with a 25 year old man. Who's the pederast here? At least mine is legal and beyond. -- ALLSTARecho 05:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours (Law Lord is also blocked). This is not the way to carry on this dispute and that post above is unacceptable in any context.--Doc 05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)