| Revision as of 14:40, 16 July 2009 editDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits →Unarchiving an archived page← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:20, 16 July 2009 edit undoIan13 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,881 edits →Unarchiving an archived page: reply againNext edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| ::Well, if the person would add comments to the correct version of the talk page instead of the bad version he keeps reverting to and ignoring a clearly valid archiving of the page, then he wouldn't have that problem, now would he? It's ridiculous for you to claim that's a personal attack against that user and further to use that justification as a threat for a block -- it is clear that you are not trying to be at all neutral in this matter. Threats of blocking out of nowhere to take a side in a dispute shows a clear lack of judgment. The bigger problem here is the person gaming the system to try to declare a false consensus through counting votes of anon IPs and clear meatpuppet accounts to insert original research, POV and clear COI material. Your threat, however, seems to indicate that you have no intention of paying any attention to any of that and merely to assist that other editor in his policy violations. Please do not make threats against me for such flimsy reasons, especially with such clear violations on the part of the other user. ] (]) 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | ::Well, if the person would add comments to the correct version of the talk page instead of the bad version he keeps reverting to and ignoring a clearly valid archiving of the page, then he wouldn't have that problem, now would he? It's ridiculous for you to claim that's a personal attack against that user and further to use that justification as a threat for a block -- it is clear that you are not trying to be at all neutral in this matter. Threats of blocking out of nowhere to take a side in a dispute shows a clear lack of judgment. The bigger problem here is the person gaming the system to try to declare a false consensus through counting votes of anon IPs and clear meatpuppet accounts to insert original research, POV and clear COI material. Your threat, however, seems to indicate that you have no intention of paying any attention to any of that and merely to assist that other editor in his policy violations. Please do not make threats against me for such flimsy reasons, especially with such clear violations on the part of the other user. ] (]) 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::You are welcome to bring evidence of sockpuppets to my or any other admins attention and we would be happy to investigate. Meanwhile, selectively removing another persons talk page comments is obviously deliberately disruptive and an attack on that user. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, nor does it allow attacks on a user. If you have concerns over the archiving, discuss them on the talk page instead. I cannot police everything - if I see a breach of policy, then I will warn and/or block, regardless of other things that may be going on. People are sentenced in real life every day despite others getting away with murder. Yours, ]] 14:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | :::You are welcome to bring evidence of sockpuppets to my or any other admins attention and we would be happy to investigate. Meanwhile, selectively removing another persons talk page comments is obviously deliberately disruptive and an attack on that user. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, nor does it allow attacks on a user. If you have concerns over the archiving, discuss them on the talk page instead. I cannot police everything - if I see a breach of policy, then I will warn and/or block, regardless of other things that may be going on. People are sentenced in real life every day despite others getting away with murder. Yours, ]] 14:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | :::::I notice that RoyLeban has since been trying to say how he reached the conclusion of consensus on the talk page, so can I ask you query how he reached that conclusion with evidence, rather than making ad hominem attacks. ]] 14:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::From the tone of your comments you seem to be acting like you think your admin position makes you a cop instead of what the position is intended to be: a janitor. Yes, you cannot "police" everything, and you, based upon your comments here, should not be "policing" anything at all. You should be trying to resolved conflicts, not actively taking a side and escalating them. I will use the talk page, but unfortunately the editor in question ignores all discussion posted by anyone he disagrees with, and your actions have helped ensure that his gaming the system will continue to allow him to outright ] the article so he can present his opinions as facts and to promote websites he is involved in. ] (]) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | ::::From the tone of your comments you seem to be acting like you think your admin position makes you a cop instead of what the position is intended to be: a janitor. Yes, you cannot "police" everything, and you, based upon your comments here, should not be "policing" anything at all. You should be trying to resolved conflicts, not actively taking a side and escalating them. I will use the talk page, but unfortunately the editor in question ignores all discussion posted by anyone he disagrees with, and your actions have helped ensure that his gaming the system will continue to allow him to outright ] the article so he can present his opinions as facts and to promote websites he is involved in. ] (]) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | ::::I notice that RoyLeban has since been trying to say how he reached the conclusion of consensus on the talk page, so can I ask you query how he reached that conclusion with evidence, rather than making ad hominem attacks. ]] 14:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::There are two people there saying the links need to be removed, one saying they need to stay as is; Two people saying the coi tag needs to be there, and only one (the person with the coi) saying it does not; and so forth and so on. That's not consensus by any sane definition of the word, that's Roy doing whatever he wants. ] (]) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | :::::There are two people there saying the links need to be removed, one saying they need to stay as is; Two people saying the coi tag needs to be there, and only one (the person with the coi) saying it does not; and so forth and so on. That's not consensus by any sane definition of the word, that's Roy doing whatever he wants. ] (]) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::When warning people, I do have to raise above the janitor capacity, hence the simplification police. You know as well as I do that its inappropriate to remove editors comments as . My role in resolving the conflict is to try and coax people to discuss themselves on the talk page, and to warn/block disruptive editors to allow the discussion to function. As I say, produce evidence of what you believe to be "gaming the system" and I will look at it (or obviously feel free to post it elsewhere to other admins) but do not just poke at an empty accusation. If you say there are two people, discuss which two and why the others don't count on the talk page - don't just moan about it to me. If you want to try and develop a new consensus, ask for people to input their current thoughts. All I am trying to do is encourage people to be constructive and talk, but your attacks on editors by selectively removing comments, labeling people vandals, claiming people "clearly not get Misplaced Pages", are not helping the discussion. And if you do selectively remove Roy's comments again, I will block you (or ask another admin to look at it and make a decision if I feel there is a loss of neutrality), just as I would warn then block Roy if he did the same to you. It's just inappropriate behaviour. ]] 15:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:20, 16 July 2009
|
|
You around again?
I've just started being active again. Spotted you editing a watched page I have. You back? Computerjoe's talk 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Exams for the year finish next week, but yea I'm trying to be more involved again! You're still here, which represents quite a long time. I think a reread of all the policies will be in order soon. Ian¹³/t 12:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wise move. I guess the five pillars are the same. Anyway, have fun Wikipediaing. Computerjoe's talk 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Michael Jackson
You added the "reportedly dead" stuff to the article which I think is good. However I don't think you should have changed the banner or added the "died" bit in the infobox as they seem to suggest it isn't actually "reportedly". Alan16 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't add the infobox or the banner bit. However, as with all events, we are an encyclopedia and report whatever has the most evidence. We can't verify anything other than through reliable news sources (else, everyone is only reportedly dead), and I felt the LA Times to be suitable reliable. Yours, Ian¹³/t 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- BBC, CNN, Sky, AP - these are a hell of a lot more reliable than the LA Times or TMZ and they are not confirming it. The majority of evidence says unconfirmed. I just think that adding the info to the infobox and the banner changing are a bit pre-emptive and suggest it is confirmed. Could you perhaps remove it from the infobox or add some sort of note? Alan16 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to add {{current event}} to the top, but the BBC News 24 confirmed it at 22.44 UTC, and therefore I have left it as is. Ian¹³/t 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Fair enough - I was fairly certain that he is dead, but until it was confirmed I thought it went against the "reportedly". Regards, Alan16 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC).
Danny Wallace
Hi Ian, I have added in a new photograph to replace the image of Danny Wallace that you took at an event last week. This was at the request of Danny, who likes the picture, but thinks it is a bit too blurry. The picture now on his wikipedia is his official photo. Message me with any questions. Randomwiki (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Image permission dispute adressed via. email - awaiting response. Ian¹³/t 17:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleting pages
i came to wikipedia today to look up a model named Brooke Banx to find that there had been an article but it had been deleted because the person was not significant. i don't quite understand that. the very fact that i wanted to look her up makes her significant, no? does the criteria for speedy deletion consider the number of page views? surely i'm not the only one to ever look her up. i realise i myself am not significant enough to merit an article--tho my user page could be considered one--but i kind of thought wp was a compendium of everything anyone knows that anyone else might want to know. DyNama (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hello. I understand that you refer to an article I deleted nearly a year ago. The article was actually deleted, as stated in the log, because it "didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject". This is different to what you suggest. It was never debated as to their significance (and I wish to make no statement on it, as I know nothing about them), but instead the article that was in place didn't make any claim of significance. No restriction was ever made on the recreation of an article, and you are welcome to do so provided it meets current policy and guidelines. Page views are not considered because it is merely removal of an article because it doesn't meet a very basic standard, with anyone welcome to rewrite. Userpages are not subject to the same policies as articles, and notability standards do not apply. Ian¹³/t 23:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Unarchiving an archived page
Your edit comment that removing Talk:Ambigram/Archive 3 was "routine (non-controversial) cleanup" is simply false. It was properly archived, as people can and do do on a regular basis. Please do not take such an action again, and do not leave deceptive edit comments in the future. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have reverted your action due to selective removal of comments by another user. Discussion continued on the article talk page. Ian¹³/t 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if the person would add comments to the correct version of the talk page instead of the bad version he keeps reverting to and ignoring a clearly valid archiving of the page, then he wouldn't have that problem, now would he? It's ridiculous for you to claim that's a personal attack against that user and further to use that justification as a threat for a block -- it is clear that you are not trying to be at all neutral in this matter. Threats of blocking out of nowhere to take a side in a dispute shows a clear lack of judgment. The bigger problem here is the person gaming the system to try to declare a false consensus through counting votes of anon IPs and clear meatpuppet accounts to insert original research, POV and clear COI material. Your threat, however, seems to indicate that you have no intention of paying any attention to any of that and merely to assist that other editor in his policy violations. Please do not make threats against me for such flimsy reasons, especially with such clear violations on the part of the other user. DreamGuy (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome to bring evidence of sockpuppets to my or any other admins attention and we would be happy to investigate. Meanwhile, selectively removing another persons talk page comments is obviously deliberately disruptive and an attack on that user. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, nor does it allow attacks on a user. If you have concerns over the archiving, discuss them on the talk page instead. I cannot police everything - if I see a breach of policy, then I will warn and/or block, regardless of other things that may be going on. People are sentenced in real life every day despite others getting away with murder. Yours, Ian¹³/t 14:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- I notice that RoyLeban has since been trying to say how he reached the conclusion of consensus on the talk page, so can I ask you query how he reached that conclusion with evidence, rather than making ad hominem attacks. Ian¹³/t 14:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- From the tone of your comments you seem to be acting like you think your admin position makes you a cop instead of what the position is intended to be: a janitor. Yes, you cannot "police" everything, and you, based upon your comments here, should not be "policing" anything at all. You should be trying to resolved conflicts, not actively taking a side and escalating them. I will use the talk page, but unfortunately the editor in question ignores all discussion posted by anyone he disagrees with, and your actions have helped ensure that his gaming the system will continue to allow him to outright WP:OWN the article so he can present his opinions as facts and to promote websites he is involved in. DreamGuy (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are two people there saying the links need to be removed, one saying they need to stay as is; Two people saying the coi tag needs to be there, and only one (the person with the coi) saying it does not; and so forth and so on. That's not consensus by any sane definition of the word, that's Roy doing whatever he wants. DreamGuy (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- When warning people, I do have to raise above the janitor capacity, hence the simplification police. You know as well as I do that its inappropriate to remove editors comments as 'vandalism'. My role in resolving the conflict is to try and coax people to discuss themselves on the talk page, and to warn/block disruptive editors to allow the discussion to function. As I say, produce evidence of what you believe to be "gaming the system" and I will look at it (or obviously feel free to post it elsewhere to other admins) but do not just poke at an empty accusation. If you say there are two people, discuss which two and why the others don't count on the talk page - don't just moan about it to me. If you want to try and develop a new consensus, ask for people to input their current thoughts. All I am trying to do is encourage people to be constructive and talk, but your attacks on editors by selectively removing comments, labeling people vandals, claiming people "clearly not get Misplaced Pages", are not helping the discussion. And if you do selectively remove Roy's comments again, I will block you (or ask another admin to look at it and make a decision if I feel there is a loss of neutrality), just as I would warn then block Roy if he did the same to you. It's just inappropriate behaviour. Ian¹³/t 15:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are two people there saying the links need to be removed, one saying they need to stay as is; Two people saying the coi tag needs to be there, and only one (the person with the coi) saying it does not; and so forth and so on. That's not consensus by any sane definition of the word, that's Roy doing whatever he wants. DreamGuy (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome to bring evidence of sockpuppets to my or any other admins attention and we would be happy to investigate. Meanwhile, selectively removing another persons talk page comments is obviously deliberately disruptive and an attack on that user. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, nor does it allow attacks on a user. If you have concerns over the archiving, discuss them on the talk page instead. I cannot police everything - if I see a breach of policy, then I will warn and/or block, regardless of other things that may be going on. People are sentenced in real life every day despite others getting away with murder. Yours, Ian¹³/t 14:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if the person would add comments to the correct version of the talk page instead of the bad version he keeps reverting to and ignoring a clearly valid archiving of the page, then he wouldn't have that problem, now would he? It's ridiculous for you to claim that's a personal attack against that user and further to use that justification as a threat for a block -- it is clear that you are not trying to be at all neutral in this matter. Threats of blocking out of nowhere to take a side in a dispute shows a clear lack of judgment. The bigger problem here is the person gaming the system to try to declare a false consensus through counting votes of anon IPs and clear meatpuppet accounts to insert original research, POV and clear COI material. Your threat, however, seems to indicate that you have no intention of paying any attention to any of that and merely to assist that other editor in his policy violations. Please do not make threats against me for such flimsy reasons, especially with such clear violations on the part of the other user. DreamGuy (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)