Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:33, 23 August 2007

Archives

Archive 1 Jan. 2006 - June 2007 Archive 2 June 2007 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is Mr.Z-man's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

William Bain

An editor has asked for a deletion review of William Bain. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkshowbob (talk • contribs)

You could have at least cleaned it up a bit. "... has not played Monopoly in years ..." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• See Talk:William_Bain--KenWalker | Talk 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

new parameter on Template:Infobox Christian denomination

I added the "imagewidth" parameter to {{Infobox Christian denomination}} davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move protection

Hey, I was trying to figure out where the actual page went to, all the ones I could find were cut and pasted. Now I see you have found the right one. The talk page that should be associated with it is at Talk:Hermetic Order the Golden Dawn (A+O) in case you'd like to put them back together. Thanks for helping! GlassFET 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I couldn't quite figure out where the talk page went. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Muller history merge

Thanks! (rather amusing that the reason it was moved in the first place got speedied 3x in 24 hours...) --SarekOfVulcan 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

I had put a sock puppeteer template on your userpage by accident! Sorry, man! When I saw the block log you had blocked a puppeteer but I thought it was the other way around, any way srry about that. Cheers, JetLover 00:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Libel

Would edit be considered libel? -WarthogDemon 04:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would... it's been removed, and the editor warned. My bad, the edit was confirmed on Dennis Rader, so I think the edit might be in good faith.--DarkFalls 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the person, no, he was the BTK Killer. As far as the company goes though, it may not belong in the article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deyitest (talk · contribs)

Just any FYI, this user is back with Detinspection (talk · contribs) and China Det Inspection (talk · contribs). I blocked the first one for spamming and the second for sockpuppetting, but then I vaguely remembered that I had since this before. Do you recall if Deyitest (talk · contribs) was the first account or another sockpuppet account? -- Gogo Dodo 08:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it was the first. I noticed it when I saw about 8 articles with similar names listed in CAT:CSD. I saw that they were all by the same account and the blatant ad on the userpage made it all too clear. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your protection of List of British flags

I am disappointed that you have felt it necessary to protect the article. The Northern Irish flag dispute is ongoing (see talk:Northern Ireland) but will hopefully be resolved soon in which case I hope you will deprotect it? In the mean time could you please make clear on the article and/or talk page that it has been protected? I cannot see one. Thank you. Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a protection template to the article. I protected it as there was a pretty clear revert war. If it is resolved before the expiration, feel free to request unprotection on WP:RFPP as I will be totally unavailable between Aug. 8-12. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the unblock, I couldn't unblock myself before because someone had protected my user talk page. Jobe6 03:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for creating me an account. Now I do not need to be in chaos and being disabled from editing.--Slayerdylan 06:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

thompsonfilm

what is the exact reason that the article 'thompsonfilm' was deleted?

please explain, as it was said that the article was deleted because; article about a company that does not assert significance.

significance to what???

please tell me how i can change the page so that it is 'legal'

thanks

Thompsonfilm was deleted because it met speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#A7. It did not say why the company is notable or significant. All it said was that it was a film studio started last year (by an apparantly non-notable person) that made one non-notable film. To avoid speedy deletion, you need to say why it is important and to avoid an eventual deletion, you need to prove the notability with reliable sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why my article was deleted?

hi,Mr.Z-man Why my article was deleted? Plz.. give me reply

It was deleted per WP:CSD#G11, it was blatant advertising. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weaponhouse

Thank you for your intervention in this matter. I considered restoring the article myself, but the last time I did that I got jumped on for having a COI. I have spent some time recently clearing out the CSD backlogs and have become frustrated by the number of admins who seem not to understand the speedy criteria. It is gratifying to know that I am not alone in my interpretation of the criteria. Dsmdgold 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Eli Whitney

I'm watching it but I am not always on. Take it easy. -- Y not? 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem was not just that the vandalism was old (over 24h) but then more vandalism was added and then someone added a tag to dispute the factual accuracy. Apparantly they did not believe that Eli Whitney was a lifeguard and the 52nd president, but did not think to change the obvious errors Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. That was unfortunate. It's par for the course. :) -- Y not? 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

protection september 11

Hi, thanks, sorry for my contribution in what turned into edit warring. I would welcome any contribution you can make to the talk page, regarding the disputes of:

• use of the word "terrorist" in the narrative, at odds with WP:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter.
• the attributing of statements of guilt to sources, instead of to wikipedia.
• including of The Terror Timeline in the "See also" section.

Thanks for considering. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:editprotect/holmes.sherlock

I want my page to be protected.Holmes.sherlock 10:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Mr-Z-man on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Mr-Z-man. Thanks. --Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Can you please take another look at the situation involving Jeeny based upon some additional information I have brought forward? I have posted at the appropriate ANI section. I'm really concerned about that situation, though I don't blame you at all because of the "quiet" nature of the trolling. Many thanks, The Behnam 05:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Her total lack of good faith in response to the block sure doesn't help. "The block was very hasty, so I KNOW it was not researched" - as a matter of fact, this is one of the tougher blocks I've had to issue. I studied this one for a while, trying to decide what to do. I hate blocking good contributors. "racists, teenagers and POV pushers" - I'm going to hope that none of that was specifically targeted at me. "It was just tonight. I was making "useful contributions" you just don't check that, though" - I did check that. That is why the block wasn't longer and why I didn't just use a basic template message as the block reason. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, she is obviously quite angry. I'm just hoping that the trolling that helped provoke her outburst won't be let off the hook. It isn't right to allow pro-Nazi (or otherwise) editors to intimidate some editors into leaving, while provoking others into getting themselves blocked. But thanks anyway for your work. Regards, The Behnam 06:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A copy of an email which I sent to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org requesting that the duration of the 6 month block which "Georgewilliamherbert" imposed on my account be reduced:

I am User:24.168.46.238 who was recently blocked from Misplaced Pages for six months by a Misplaced Pages administrator named "Georgewilliamherbert".

Since my user talk page was protected by "Mr.Z-man" only 4 minutes after the block was issued by "Georgewilliamherbert", I was denied the opportunity to post an unblock request. I'd like to request that I be give the opportunity to do so now:

I know that I was wrong for threatening legal action against "CyberGhostface", but I had asked him to stop bothering me by posting repeated warnings on my user talk page for minor violations of Misplaced Pages's rules, and he refused. I believe that he had a vendetta against me, as he seemed to be tracking my every edit, just waiting for me to do something in violation of Misplaced Pages' s rules so he could post another warning on my user talk page, which he knew would aggravate me and cause me to lose my temper. "CyberGhostface" had previously gotten me blocked for personal attacks, and I was stupid enough to fall for his ploy to get me blocked again. I lost my cool, and posted things on my user talk page that I shouldn't have. I know that there was no excuse for my behavior, and for that, I am very sorry.

I'd like to respectfully ask that you shorten the duration of by block, as I feel that six months is far too harsh of a punishment. I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Misplaced Pages), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.

I promise that once my editing priviliges are reinstated, I will no longer engage in the kind of conduct (personal attacks, threats of legal action) that got me blocked. After reinstatement, I intend on creating an account on Misplaced Pages, and I will make constructive additions to the project. I invite you to check up on me periodically to see that I am keeping my word to you!

I also promise to you that will have no further contact with "CyberGhostface", and since I have no intention of violation Misplaced Pages's rules in the future, he has no valid reason whatsoever to contact me or to post warnings on my user talk page.

I feel that a reduction in the duration of my block is warranted, considering the questionable circumstances of how my block was arbitrarily increased from 48 hours to 4320 hours.

Again, please accept my sincere apology for my past behavior on Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your consideration!

Note: I am using a friend's computer (IP Address: 64.38.198.61) simply to post this notice on the user talk page of the administrator who increased my block from 48 hours to 6 months. I am not a "sockpuppet", and I have no intention of using my friend's computer again.

64.38.198.61 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the statements made by 24.168.46.238 are false. Specifically, the claim 'I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Misplaced Pages), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.'

24.168.46.238 got the 24 hour block at 16:01, 16 August 2007 . At 16:41, 16 August 2007, he threatened 'I will, however, be in contact with a private investigator in order to find the true identity and location of CyberGhostface' . Edward321 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you are aware, the "minor violations of Misplaced Pages's rules" include blanking the page of User:Spirot, an editor who had left, with "Good riddance!" Nor did I have any ploy to get him banned. I could care less about this editor. I actually told him that once he stopped vandalizing Misplaced Pages, I would leave him alone. Before making any further judgements, I strongly suggest you look at this editor's contributions.--CyberGhostface 16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at his contributions, and up until his interaction with you, CyberGhostface, he seemed to be making positive edits and contributions to wikipedia. Now let's be honest here... aren't you gloating just a little bit now that 24.168.46.238 has been blocked? If you didn't "have any ploy to get him banned" as you claim, then you wouldn't have continued to antagonize an obviously irate editor. I would advise that in the future, you exercise a little better judgement in dealing with editors who you are having problems and/or an edit war with ...that's Mr. Sockpuppet to you! 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tempalte:Infobox NFLactive

I see you were the one to lock the template. The wrong version has been locked and it currently contains some additions that are hottly disputed not only in content but in presentation. I have posted this under an edit protected tag on the article talk page, but another user did not feel this was apporpriate and suggested that I contact you directly. I can either point you to the specific examples of a) what needs to be removed and b) where it is being addressed. Alternatively, i can just explain it to you here. I've marked this for watching so just let me know. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Indirect DRV of an AFD close of yours

Indirectly, an AFD closure of yours is being reviewed currently at DRV. You closed the AFD on The Duttons as "No Consensous". The article has now been speedy deleted. It is this speedy deletion that is actually under review. The deleting admin, as part of his arguments justifying the speedy, is challenging your AFD close as invalid. I felt that you might want to come defend your closure descision. - TexasAndroid 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your flawless move of the Al Rashid-article! Finally, I found the talk-page again ;-) Regards, Huldra 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Z-man

I am writing this letter in regards to the deletion of Discount Tire's wikipedia article today, August 22nd. I would like to know how you came to the decision of deleting this article. There wasn't to much detail given except for blatant advertising. I, of course, want to meet Misplaced Pages's standards and I just want to know what sections of the article were more of an advertisement then factual information. If you can provide the answer to this question it would be very much appreciated. The last thing I want to do is make the same mistakes when I decide to post a new article for Discount Tire. Thank you very much!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlsathomas 15:20, 22 August 2007

I didn't delete the article. It is still at Discount Tire Company. I did however, revert to the last version that did not contain excess advertisement. Unfortunately, that version was a very early stub. The "Company milestones" section just consisted of "The company got this big" and "The company expanded into this market". That's fine, but is the company's history totally perfect? It is possible to have a bad milestone. Try using the company's website as a source less often. The second "Don't know much about tires" ad campaign does not seem special. Either say why it is relevant or don't include it. The controversy was sort of buried in "Accolades, Accomplishments, and Controversy" and a lot of that section seems to be just like the "Milestones" section, too much praise. Same with the last 2 sections about sponsorships/charity. Read over WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer. This was the last version before it was "stubified." You may also want to talk to User:CZmarlin who tagged it for deletion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Justin Smith (predator)

Suggest WP:CBLANK. Dbromage  04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone else deleted it before I had time. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)