| Revision as of 16:01, 29 May 2009 view sourceFDT (talk | contribs)7,708 edits a prolonged case of wiki-hounding and subtle vandalism← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:19, 29 May 2009 view source El Sandifer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,527 edits →Appeal of arbcom caseNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| Email me and let's discuss it. This will be a major undertaking for me, obviously, and a task I don't take lightly. --] (]) 03:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | Email me and let's discuss it. This will be a major undertaking for me, obviously, and a task I don't take lightly. --] (]) 03:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I've e-mailed you. (I say this not because I don't think you'll notice it but out of an interest in public transparency.) ] (]) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Red links == | == Red links == | ||
Revision as of 16:19, 29 May 2009
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
I want the Unblock in spanish wikiquote
Hello dear Jimbo, my IP adress is blocked because a mistake, I`m a innocet user, but Drini hates Jehova's Witnesses users, and he is a proscriptor and a very bad enemy of us. I want, please, the desblock in spanish wikiquote, because I`m working constructuvely. Can you Speak with Drini the Ip's policeman an say him I'm innocent an I`m not a vandal? Thank you very much. --87.220.31.209 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, I wait for a response. Thanks. --87.220.31.14 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
General note for everybody: Drini is a steward who has confirmed that the above IP belongs to a sockpuppeteer. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a sockpuppeteer. Drini hates Jehovah's Witnesses users because he likes Maya's gods. I was working constructively but he hates Bible quotations in the proyect. If I'm writing here is because I'm innocent. I want the desblock. --87.220.31.238 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- What does "desblock" translate to in English? --64.85.222.62 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Unblock", (or "disenblockification", if you're not into that whole … brevity thing). pablohablo. 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a vandal, I want unblock because I'm innocent. --87.220.31.238 (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jimbo is not going to interfere with something like that. If you want to be unblocked, you are going to have to take it up with whoever blocked you. J.delanoyadds 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Has anyone thought of asking on eswikiquote village pump? Any of the regulars will confirm that he's been a problem user for a year and half. The whole "religious persecution" and "worshipping mayan gods" thing has been played before, some insulting usernames with that card are logged here: . Please, if this continues just go and ask the people on eswikiquote and you'll confirm what I'm saying. -- m:drini 18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jimbo is not going to interfere with something like that. If you want to be unblocked, you are going to have to take it up with whoever blocked you. J.delanoyadds 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- What a lot of names! Anyway, 87.220.31.238 (talk · contribs), you will have to request your unblock at the site where you are blocked, as M. delanoy suggests. pablohablo. 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm innocent, I'm not a vandal, I'm workimg constructively but Drini hates Jehova's Witnesses users, these are my last contibutions: Do you think I'm working constructively in the project when I'm editing pages like John Quincy Adams, Peter Hamilton Raven, Jane Goodall? obviously I'm not a vandal. --87.220.30.124 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- As you've been told, you need to plead your innocence on the site where you were blocked. No-one here is able to help you. --Tango (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Is a requirement that administrators be tolerant, Drini it is not, therefore you must to expell him from Wikiquote.--Oo 19 oo (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you understand now? I'm a innocent editor. --Oo 19 oo (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh, here we go with the crosswiki harassment. , , and cherry top of the cake where it shows the same underlying ip. No big deal, just for the record in case this pops up again (when the next batch of sockpuppets is nuked). -- m:drini 14:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a wandal. I want the unblock in spanish wikiquote. I'm innocent. Are you going to speek with Drini for the unblock? --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Leave Jimbo alone. Listen to what the other editors have told you. Go to es.wikiquote and request an unblock there. This situation has nothing to do with Jimbo. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I want Jimbo talks with this administrator for the unblock. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I want the unblock now. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- This in the English Misplaced Pages. If you want to complain about the Spanish Wikiquote, do so on the Spanish Wikiquote. No-one here can or will help you. Jimmy doesn't even speak Spanish, as far as I know. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have the IP blocked there, then I can not to speak there. This is the Jimbo Wales page. He is an administrator and he can to speak with this another administrator for the unblock. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- He is an administrator here, on the English Misplaced Pages. He isn't an administrator on Spanish Wikiquote (). You can still post to your userpage or email somebody and ask them to post your request for you. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This problem can to end if Jimbo speeks for my unblock. Is very simply. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Threats will get you nothing and may lead to a block on en.wiki. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly seems to be building up a viable rangeblock. Rodhullandemu 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- How is Jimbo supposed to judge the case without speaking the language the disagreement took place in? --Tango (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- How is the anon to make his complaint when he doesn't speak English. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
An idea to consider...
This discussion is now on WP:VRP. Please click on the link to that page if you wish to contribute to this discussion. Ross Rhodes (T C) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Disastrous Cyberstalking campaign in some Misplaced Pages Articles and TalkPages has gone unimpeded for 18 months
Mr. Wales, this is the first time myself or a friend or relative has attempted to contact you. We have each attempted numerous numerous times in the past 22 months to solicit helpful intervention from many Misplaced Pages Administrators, but in almost every single case, the Administrator ends up worsening the problem or making only a few feeble attempts to understand it and "fix" things...and then basically "runs away," confused or intimidated by the complexity or volatility involved -- or deciding to further harass and defame the Mormon involved. As a result of this, a particularly cunning and obsessive cyberstalker has been able to censor or mutilate articles and items of information of great interest to Mormons, researchers, and rights activists everywhere. Just today, he and an accomplice of his Luna Santin put a total edit block on Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot) in order to preserve "and protect" Good Olfactory = Snocrates's smear campaign at both articles since the first of December 2007. Disgraced editor Snocrates quit editing on February 16, 2008 and Good Olfactory began editing on February 16, 2008. I'm disappointed to realize that some Administrators possibly knew that the Wiki-arsonist Snocrates is the same as Wiki-arsonist Good Olfactory, and haven't done anything to stop his misconduct, but have done plenty to assist.
A few recent explanations of the problem are here and here and here (please scroll down that page) and here (note there how GoodOlFactory=Snocrates on March 7 2008 once again "tag teams" a victim editor...just 21 days after he was denied Administratorship for "tag teaming" a victim editor via Zoporific=Snocrates....!). Another useful recent resource of explanation is here on GoodOlFactorys Talk Page --comments offered before the victims of Snocrates realized that he and GoodOlFactory are one and the same. By now, there are hundreds of relevant edits, reverts, comments and so forth related to the cyberstalking scheme initiated by a couple of users in late July 2007, and then "picked up" and intensified by Snocrates =Zoporific=G77=Good Olfactory as well as accomplices such as Americasroof in December 2007 and (sadly) Versageek who banned the cyberstalking victim on December 18, 2007 when he announced he would contact Law Enforcement if the cyberstalking continued. That's not a legal threat, that's a universally-recognized civil right, for a victim of a crime to "threaten" to contact relevant police authorities. A legal threat is "threatening" to hire a lawyer and so forth. It is sad that Versageek did that, because she was helpful to the cyberstalking victim in August and earlier in December 2007, but it was wrong and injurious for Versageek to ban the cyberstalking victim and then refuse to lift the ban, to this day, just as it is wrong for the "malicious genius" Snocrates=Zoporific=G77=GoodOlfactory and accomplices to keep banning and censoring anything offered at Misplaced Pages by Mr. Smith or family and friends who may occassionally share his username.
I would like for Jsmith51389 to be un-banned, the same as was CheckIntentPlease, after some Administrators realized he was right about Snocrates/Zoporific, and they were wrong (see a few extra-noble Wiki Administrators apologize at the Talk Page for CheckIntentPlease) And I would like any other so-called "suspected sockpuppet" of Jsmith 51389 or friends or relatives of his (such as Snocrates Olfactorys intent and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? to also be un-banned, on the principle that every single instance of banning has been unfair, misinformed and/or malicious.
I apologize that I don't have the time now to add a lot of convenient documentation and explanation, but as you know, defamation instigates harassment and still more defamation if someone influential and authoritative is unwilling or unable to intervene. Please intervene and completely stop in all articles and Talk pages of Misplaced Pages, the vicious cycle of defamation and harrassment instigated in 1990 and 1991 by a malicious or inept anti-Mormon media reports locally and then replicated countless times nationwide to the present day (thanks to the internet), ranging from an atrocious false report atop the Kansas City Times/Star on January 2, 1990 to the Associated Press thereafter, and the virulently anti-Mormon Watchman Fellowship to the present day. Thank you. Victim of Cybercrime (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- User:Victim of Cybercrime has now been banned because it is a sockpuppet of User:Jsmith 51389. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Appeal of arbcom case
I am extremely concerned about aspects of the Scientology case at the arbcom, and would like to appeal it. My basic concern is that I am worried that, in an attempt to try to make the decision not seem one-sided, people were wrongly singled out for censure for minor problems, and sanctions were imposed on users based on insufficient or at times non-existent evidence of wrongdoing.
Would you prefer I submit this appeal via e-mail, write up the issues here, write it up on a user subpage and link you to it, or what? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Seconded. --Ghirla 06:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Email me and let's discuss it. This will be a major undertaking for me, obviously, and a task I don't take lightly. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've e-mailed you. (I say this not because I don't think you'll notice it but out of an interest in public transparency.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Red links
Hi, Jimmy Wales.
I'm from the portuguese Misplaced Pages where some users criticize the featured articles only because they have red links. You could answer if we can or not criticize red links in featured articles or lists, only by changing the layout? What is your opinion?
Regards, ⇨HotWikiBR 13:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
minus 10 points for spelling his name wrong, but I'm pretty sure a FA shouldn't have many (if any) redlinks PXK /C 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Haha... Typing error. I agree that a FA shouldn't have many red links, but at pt.wikipedia some users are removing red links in articles that are important to the reading of any visitor of the page. That's a really problem. I think that Misplaced Pages is an 💕, and not an complete encyclopedia, and for that it requires the support of its editors, and, in parts, of the red links.
Regards, ⇨HotWikiBR 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- If a redlink is important then it wouldn't be red. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- An FA should be featured by it own, no? ⇨HotWikiBR 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Darren, that is simply not true and you make the assumption we have 100% coverage in saying. While in some areas this is true because we have excellent coverage there are many areas, eg in our coverage of the so called Third World, where our coverage is poor ad red links are often to articles on important subjects we do not have coverage of. And that's just speaking of the en wikipedia, wikipedia in other languages are often sporadic and have many new articles needed. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- An FA should be featured by it own, no? ⇨HotWikiBR 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- If a redlink is important then it wouldn't be red. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Reporting an editor who is engaged in a prolonged campaign of subtle vanadalism
Jimbo, I've been compelled to return to you one more time in relation to the editor FyzixFighter. I reported him twice recently to the administrators incidents noticeboard for wiki-hounding. I gave ample evidence to the extent that he has been following me around on physics articles undermining my attempts to make these articles more readable. The administrators turned a blind eye to the evidence and ignored the complaint. That of course gave FyzixFighter the green light to continue in earnest.
I specifically want to bring your attention to this passage which I have copied from the yesterday's centrifugal force talk page. Basically FyzixFighter is trying to prevent me from making references in the article to the extent that centrifugal force can be treated outside of the context of rotating frames of reference. He demanded that I produce sources. I produced a perfectly good source, and he then denied it.
This problem needs to be dealt with. Here is the relevant passage from the discussion page. Meanwhile, he is still continually reverting all the edits that I make to the article.
- In my opinion, centrifugal force and Coriolis force are inertial forces and they don't need to be understood in terms of rotating frames of reference. I have got a few sources to back that idea up. I suggest that we totally remove the reference to 'two' approaches to centrifugal force in the introduction, because the literature clearly talks about at least three approaches. David Tombe (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- :Start providing the sources then so that we can discuss them. As the 'two' approaches in the intro are supported by two references, removal of such and/or inclusion of a distinct third approach requires another reliable source that explicitly says as much. While you may believe the references are misinformed, they pass wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, thus the viewpoint they contain goes in the article. NPOV says that we report all significant, verifiable viewpoints supported by reliable sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- FyzixFighter, we can start with Shankar 1994 . Here is a clear reference to centrifugal force outside of the context of rotating frames of reference. But I'm sorry that you have chosen to play this silly game. I'm trying to make the article correct and readable. You think you're playing a clever game by using the many conflicting sources in the literature to undermine what I'm trying to do.
- And just for good measure, on page 179 in Goldstein (second edition (1980) before Poole and Shaftoe got the hold of it in 2002) writes,
- "Incidentally, the centrifugal force on a particle arising from the earth's revolution around the Sun is appreciable compared to gravity, but it is almost exactly balanced by the gravitational attraction to the Sun. It is, of course, just this balance between centrifugal force and gravitational attraction that keeps the earth (and all that are on it) in orbit around the sun."
- There is no mention of rotating frames of reference in either the first edition (1950) or the second edition (1980). However in the 2002 edition, the new editors have added an extra bit in about rotating frames of reference to justify their own prejudices. They are obviously from that generation that have been brainwashed into thinking that you can't have a centrifugal force unless you strap a rotating frame of reference around the problem.
- Also on page 78 in the second edition, beginning sixth line down on discussing planetary orbits, Goldstein writes,
- "A particle will come in from infinity, strike the "repulsive centrifugal barrier", be repelled, and travel back out to infinite". Some illusion! David Tombe (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- :Sorry but these do not support what you are trying to put into the article. Specifically they do not support the statement that the centrifugal force exists in the inertial frame. Lack of discussion of rotating frames is not the same as confining the discussion to an inertial frame. Especially when we have multiple other references that do the same analysis and explicitly state the transformation from an inertial to non-inertial frame.
- :For example, Shankar doesn't mention frames - so we cannot say that he supports the statement that the centrifugal force exists as a real force in an inertial frame. Note that he also refers to them as terms and not forces. This is probably due to the fact that he distinguishes between generalized forces and real forces. See his comment on the previous page:
- ::"Although the rate of change of the canonical momentum equals the generalized force, one must remember that neither is pi always a linear momentum (mass times velocity or "mv" momentum), nor is Fi always a force (with dimensions of mass times acceleration)."
It should be obvious to any impartial observer that FyzixFighter's objection to the references that I provided was totally specious. This guy has been following me around for over a year. Since I started, he hasn't done a single physics edit that hasn't been for the purpose of undermining what I have been trying to do. I do hope that you can help to sort this problem out once and for all. David Tombe (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)