Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG/wp-stuff: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:JzG Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:38, 8 February 2008 editRevolving Bugbear (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,923 edits →User talk:Jrichardstevens: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 01:08, 9 February 2008 edit undoMalakai Joe (talk | contribs)386 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 161: Line 161:


I don't see disruption here at all -- his comments are far above the median comments on AfD. Will you reconsider this? - ] 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC) I don't see disruption here at all -- his comments are far above the median comments on AfD. Will you reconsider this? - ] 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


== Randy Richards Article ==
The article contained nearly 20 citations, and at least 2 meaningful secondary sources WITH independent verification for notability. What more could anyone want? ] (]) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:08, 9 February 2008

A temporary subpage for Misplaced Pages stuff.

Unprotection request

I am requesting the removal of the protection that the Colour Revolt wikipedia page received. This group is a national touring act from Mississippi. They have a cd out on Tiny Evil, a part of Interscope Records. Recently they have signed with Fat Possum Records and will release their cd nationwide on April 1 via Sony RED distribution. They have played festivals including Lollapalooza, Purple Door, SXSW, and CMJ. The availability of this page will help better inform the public on news related to this band. --jpa514 11:43, 05 February 2008

NB I have asked for unprotection of this title at WP:DRV. Chubbles (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Phantorg.net links

When you get a chance, can you take a look at this? This isn't earth-shatteringly important but I would like this resolved in the case of my, IMO weak, conflict of interest here. Graham87 15:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

Why are you deleting referenced material? Grant | Talk 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

==Deletion Review for Sigrid Regina Trarbach-Nazario==

(moved from talk page, as per user request) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sigrid Regina Trarbach-Nazario. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billn4q2 (talk • contribs)

please don't threaten

Misplaced Pages is not in any need of people coming here to pursue crusades or ideological agendas. If you carry on as you are, then your editing career may be short and turbulent.

I am not on a crusade. The article in question is so poorly written and an attack piece. A neutrally worded one would state the facts and state the controversy, that's all. An attack piece keeps on going on saying how bad the film is. I am firmly against what you call POV. I am for NPOV. NPOV is NOT blind support of the film. Fairchoice (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course its fine to label Guy a criminal but threaten you? well.... Thanks, SqueakBox 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One of your blocks

Hello Guy. I didn't see that anyone had directly notified you of this, but your indefinite block of Fairchoice (talk · contribs) was undone by User:Archtransit, who shortened it to 48 hours. Just as a heads-up and courtesy notification. There has been some discussion at User Talk:Archtransit, but I wasn't sure if you'd noted it. MastCell 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

holocaustresearchproject.org

FYI, in case you have further relevant info or would like to comment on this site you recently recommended blacklisting, there is a request to unblacklist here. You can find further conversation about it at Talk:Abraham_Gancwajch#Blacklisted_hyperlink. Thanks! --MPerel 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the rest was obvious.

...please don't exacerbate the drama by throwing accusations like that around. If you think he's a meatpuppet and tendentious troll posting on behalf of a banned editor, by all means open a bloody thread on that, get a bit of consensus, and ban him. Or ban him and take it yourself to AN for review. OK? Or just wait two weeks for the ArbCom to pronounce on it. I'm going around reverting people reinstating edits of sockpuppets of banned editors, but I'm doing it politely, to minimise drama. You try it as well. Relata refero (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm serious. Do get right on it, do it right, and I'll be backing you up, I assure you. Relata refero (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, I understand. I am collecting diffs, since it needs to stick. I am convinced, following numerous comments from people who have much deeper knowledge of Ilena Rosenthal than I do, that Anthon01 is Anthony Zaffuto, and that his presence and editing is therefore a violation of an ArbCom ban. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy/Lwach...

I really wish you'd asked around before implementing an indef block on this basis. This makes my resolution work at the Brahma Kumaris article that much more difficult (everyone there, including myself, already knew Lwachowski = Lucy, and I was prepared to accept that so long that they didn't use any *other* accounts it would not be a violation of WP:SOCK) - if you look at the reason for the indef block, it was a usernameblock, which implicitly implies the person can start a new account. Sockpuppetry has been a problem previously but I think common sense should have applied in this case. Note that in saying this I'm not defending the particular actions of the person that may have led to them copping a 48-hour block on unrelated articles. Orderinchaos 02:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries - and thanks. I'll wait till tomorrow morning (Australian time) to do it though, as after looking at the situation in more detail, the 48 hour block was in fact quite justified. To be honest the improved behaviour at BK had led to me watching the user's contributions less, so I didn't even see this other matter unfolding. As for courtesy - true, it's kind of sad that good faith discussion seems to have fallen by the wayside on the Wiki. I mean, just look at the current state of AN/I - its main purpose these days seems to be a boxing ring for non-administrators to fight each other. Orderinchaos 10:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Guy, I mailed you during my block and so you have my comments. I am not entirely stupid and unreasonable. I have faced and come through some clearly and highly unreasonable conditions. I am hear to learn and, as in good child psychology, an individual learns better through reasonable discussion rather than beatings and punishment. If I have a fault I admit to, it is that I do not back off when faced with obviously unreasonable behaviour rather than run to an admin to fix it for me. But if you look closely at my off-POV conflicts, you will actually see that a high proportion of well-formatted citations and general technical (linking and formatting) work.
I do edit fringe subjects where passions are high and individuals have their own personal interests. One would have to be highly naive to suggest the wiki was not full of jockeying and "skillful play", some being better at it than others. But, honestly, look again at my work. Again, if I have another fault, it is that right or wrong I play it very straight and some individuals are not used to that.
But, I can reason if given credence. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is G___ K_____ back?

There's some very familiar about this "brand-new" user. --Calton | Talk 04:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Harassment link

Since you have some background and experience in dealing with offsite harassment (ie your essay). Would you have look at this situation. All the relevent links are provided. A few users seem to be attempting to advance an agenda and pursue a campaign after it has been appropriately investigated. Much appreciated.--Hu12 (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fork of a fork

Question: should VigilancePrime's fork of a fork be included in this MFD? --Calton | Talk 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The one I found, above, I stumbled over. After reading the comments here, I decided to go looking:
--Calton | Talk 01:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Deletions have been undone by PeaceNT (who seems to have taken the other side in this debate, interesting since she closed the most recent related DRV). 17:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I replied

Keeper | 76 23:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree

I don't think you're being fair. My "restaurant" comment was a bit snarky, but the "mirror" suggestion was a legitimate point and I don't think you're right to call it "unhelpful". You also haven't acknowledged my other contributions, such as adding instructions for hiding images to the FAQ. In any event, I believe it is extrememly inappropriate to remove others' comments from the talk page that aren't out-and-out vandalism. I suggest perhaps that you are inflaming matters even more by doing so. You have good intentions, but perhaps you might want to focus your energies on a less controversial subject.—Chowbok ☠ 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you didn't feel this was worth responding to. I've combined this with a couple related complaints at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heavy-handed admin behavior at Muhammad, FYI.—Chowbok ☠ 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Note the time stamps and check to see what timezone the UK is in. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I note that you were actively editing for over an hour after my initial post, does that count?—Chowbok ☠ 15:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pages Within Userspace Deleted Without Warning

(Moved from talk page per user request)

I would like to inquire why three pages within userspace attached to my username have been deleted without warning and without any discussion. I'm referring to the following three pages:

These were not copies of the deleted "Adult-child sex" article, but instead mostly drafts constructed by a number of editors within userspace. Although some parts of these pages incorporated information that was present within the deleted article just mentioned, the majority of text was original, and these drafts went a long way to demonstrate what the ACS article could potentially be. There is no reason to delete editors' hard work, especially if material in question has not yet been discussed by the community at large.

From what I can tell, you were the deleting admin. Thus, I would like to courteously request that you restore these three pages, at least until proper Misplaced Pages proceedings can be carried out to determine whether or not these drafts should remain within the project's userspace. There are venues for deleting pages such as these, but speedy deletion without any warning is definitely not the appropriate approach to take.

Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

warning

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --PeaceNT (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh christ. PeaceNT, do not template the regulars. FCYTravis (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Sanity has left the building, at least in respect of this particular subject. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please leave Misplaced Pages

You appear to have an ounce of common sense. Please be advised that this is explicitly against the policy WP:IDIOT, which states that rationality and similar displays of intelligent are strictly forbidden. Any further violations may result in you being blocked indefinitely. Thank you. Will 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC) This is your final warning. The next time you show that you have a brain, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Will 22:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment at MfD

Guy,

I noticed you had posted just below me at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tlatosmd/Adult-child sex. However, I wasn't sure if you were responding to me or not since I don't think I was making a legalistic argument about WP:CSD#G4. It's not a big deal but I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. BTW, I think we are in general agreement on the topic at hand. Cheers. Ronnotel (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No, it was a response to 12noon. I only just noticed this comment, feel free to fix it, I'm shutting down for the night and tomorrow is the funeral, so that's me done for a bit. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris

As Lar explicitly stated, this investigation is still ongoing, and several respected CUs have indicated that they are afraid something fishy may be at work here. Please leave the notice in place until a CU consensus has been reached, as is usual for sockpuppetry investigations, so others are aware of the discussion. krimpet✽ 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No, you have it the wrong way round. CU has come back inconclusive, and we are talking here about a request made by a now blocked sock of a banned user, so sensitive handling and AGF are demanded. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Out pour the WR-related adminstrators. PouponOnToast (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
And out pour the OMGBadsites brigade. Guy, I disagree with you on many things, but its out of principle. If we are to claim the high road, we better be acting on the high road, and I don't like what I'm seeing. Because one group is acting horribly, that does not give WP editors the right to act horribly in return. I was hoping that instead of blocking the accounts as WP:Ducks, I posted it on ANI for technical discussion, and instead got the usual red herrings, misdirection, and accusations.
I originally came here to let you know I restored a section of the AN discussion that you accidentally removed, but I saw this comment, and figured to reply. SirFozzie (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As noted elsewhere this has less than nothing to do with BADSITES. But banned users have no entitlement to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Rather the opposite, in fact. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I have a bit of overreach, I just wish that up till GWH's recent comment there was more discussion on the technical merits of what was found (and wouldn't you find it curious if one account who is widely believed to be connected with another account had only edited from open proxies, to possibly defeat that kind of connection being made), and not focusing on the original creator.. especially when a checkuser specifically states: "However, as I said, the request is otherwise valid. If the devil tells you your fly is opened, don't you zip up anyway? I can't think of a good reason to ignore policy violations based on how many enemies one has. In any event, the technical check here was inconclusive so I suggest taking it to AN/I to get some uninvolved admins to apply the duck test." That is what I've done. Anyway, time to take a break and do some non-WP stuff.. have a good evening, ok? SirFozzie (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, it doesn't help your rep much to be seen to be promoting Bagley's latest attack meme when you're involved with Misplaced Pages Review. It looks poor, mate. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
DAMNIT, Guy.. (and yes, I am pissed..) How many freaking times do I have to state that A)I didn't approve of the tactics supposedly used to gather the information, and B) Stated so in a thread that was my last post to WR? I hope it's just a case of you missing the numerous times I've said that.. (INCLUDING THE FREAKING DISCUSSION THAT'S ONGOING).. SirFozzie (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you want direct proof, Take a look for yourself. Now it IS time I step away from the computer before I say something I really would regret. SirFozzie (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Fozzie, you got mail. I think we should be friends. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful input at the RfC

The solution you are proposing seems be gathering support, save for #4, and (perhaps) the harshness of #3. Would you consider refactoring the proposal, sans #4, and perhaps with #3 reworked? Regards, Bellwether C 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it didn't work

Thanks for stepping in. I had hoped that a few kind words would set this person on the right path, but it doesn't look like such a good idea in retrospect. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Really?

I suppose it's purely academic, but do you really think arbcom would desysop Archtransit based on just some RFC? I'm not sure they would.. if they were of a mind to do it, why isn't it already done? Friday (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody asked, I guess. If you went there with that series of bad blocks and that evidence, you'd likely see a desysop. Look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Physchim62 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend, and there was another one where bad blocks were an issue, but I can't recall it offhand. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Jrichardstevens

I don't see disruption here at all -- his comments are far above the median comments on AfD. Will you reconsider this? - Revolving Bugbear 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Randy Richards Article

The article contained nearly 20 citations, and at least 2 meaningful secondary sources WITH independent verification for notability. What more could anyone want? Malakai Joe (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)