Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:18, 11 March 2008

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• NOTE: If you leave a message for me here, I will respond to it here.
• NOTE: If you need to ask me a question regarding certain users, be aware that I will look into the history.
• NOTE: I reserve the right to remove any posts by anons unrelated to building an encyclopedia. Personal attacks, vandalism, Internet memes, etc. will be reverted on sight.

Ur cool

I like how ya handle things really well.

~Ya Boi Krakerz~ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank'ee muchly. -Jéské 00:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Mudaliar, Sengunthar, Gatti Mudalis: Heavy POV pushing by Saedirof (talk · contribs) who is a sock of MarkPC (talk · contribs)

Hello Jeske,

Saedirof (talk · contribs) has been making disruptive edits to a number of articles, specifically Sengunthar, Mudaliar and Devadasi (all 3 are related articles) by using multiple socks and open proxies. He was initially blocked by JodyB (talk · contribs), check . MarkPC (talk · contribs) who was initially confirmed as a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs) but later managed to escape by saying that he only edits Devadasi. But the account MarkPC (talk · contribs) has been created for the sole purpose of edit-warring on the article Devadasi, (check , , , , , , ,, while Saedirof (talk · contribs) edit-wars on the articles Sengunthar and Mudaliar at the same time. These are all socks of Mudaliar (talk · contribs) (username same as article name) or Venki123 (talk · contribs) who were banned by the arbitration committee for heavy trolling and edit-warring on the very same articles, namely Mudaliar, Sengunthar and Devadasi. Check . Request you to take action against Saedirof (talk · contribs) who has a history of pushing POV using socks. See his latest edits , , where he has deleted multiple references.

Also note the strong similarity in sentence structure of Saedirof's edit-summary "reverting after vandalism by YouOnlyLiveTwice a master puppetteer and a banned user" and MarkPC (talk · contribs)'s edit-summaries , . Look at the way they both allege that I'm a master puppeteer and sock of a banned user before reverting. MarkPC (talk · contribs) is definitely a sock of Saedirof (talk · contribs). This was confirmed but he escaped by saying he never edited anything other than Devadasi. In any case Saedirof (talk · contribs) must be banned for abusing using socks. See how he keeps blanking his talk page), where the info that he has abused using socks been clearly put by an admin JodyB (talk · contribs) for using socks.

Thanks, Youonlylivetwice (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but MarkPC is not a sock as far as I know - CU false-positived on him. I will quote from the CU:

* Unlikely Upon review, MarkPC and Saedirof are probably not the same person. I've unblocked MarkPC. --jpgordon 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. However, Saedirof is going to end up blocked if he continues calling you a sockpuppet/master. Lastly, all users are allowed to remove warnings and such that they have read and acknowledged from their talk page. -Jéské 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: I hve filed a suspected sock puppet request at Youonlylivetwice (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the most recent evidence(at 00:28, 27 February 2008) by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) here where he confirms both Saedirof (talk · contribs) and MarkPC (talk · contribs) edit from the same ip location like a workplace. He very clearly says that Saedirof (talk · contribs) could very well be MarkPC (talk · contribs). Thanks, Youonlylivetwice (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the thread, and I don't like what I'm seeing. I'm stuck between Tediz and SHC forces, where Saedirof and (possibly) MarkPC stand on one end and you with OPs stand on the other end. I have given all the info I can on the matter and wish not to entangle myself further. Any further posts by either of you to this page will be reverted. -Jéské 08:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Youonlylivetwice is undergoing a checkuser

Hello Jeske, may I bring to your kind attention about checkuser on Youonlylivetwice (talk · contribs). http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mudaliar

He has been a strong supporter of edits from open proxies.

Is it possible to take some action on Youonlylivetwice (talk · contribs) as he is vandalizing my user page apart from reverting many articles to the the versions which have no relevance and removing valid proofs. Saedirof (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Saedirof (talk · contribs) is lying blatantly. The check user was over and I was found to be unrelated. However, Saedirof (talk · contribs) has been falsely accusing me of being a banned editor and edit-warring in the same articles whereas a quick review of his user and talk page would reveal that he was found to be using multiple socks to push POV and was temporarily banned. Youonlylivetwice (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Saedirof is on his last legs. Any more accusations from him and the only thing he'll be able to edit for a while is his talk page. -Jéské 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Response regarding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sabitha Kumari

Thanks for asking about this on my talk page. I'm not directly involved with that AfD, but your offer to close it and open a new AfD to have a better shot at getting a consensus not tainted by sockpuppets seems like a good idea. Sadly, though, there seem to be numerous sockpuppet accounts involved with that person, and the more I look, the more I continue to find. --Dachannien_Contrib 06:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the old and relisted the new, adding to AfD right now. -Jéské 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jon Hobynx likely reincarnation of R:128.40.76.3 et al

You might want to look at this as it is now talking a bit about the Grawp case and the IPs.

• WP:ANI#Jon Hobynx likely reincarnation of R:128.40.76.3 et al.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn. And I was having a nice dream of getting a backrub from a Raichu anth.... -Jéské 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Things have moved on to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/R:128.40.76.3 and I expect that this is connected to one of the groups in the Grawp case. If you need a massage there are many cheap places I could recommend; you would likely have to get a not so cheap airline ticket, first. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Naw, just picturing a Raichu anth's hands on my back calms me down (I blame AGNPH). -Jéské 18:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP.

I left you a note here. Cheers, · AndonicO 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. -Jéské 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Mudaliar

Hello Jeske, I got your message. I guess you were just doing your job on good faith. Can you please unprotect the Mudaliar article? Saedirof (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One sec. -Jéské 18:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Done -Jéské 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kopru

Do you think you could be the one to add a mention to the article on the module? I am unfamiliar with the monster and the module, otherwise I would do it myself. There is already a brief mention, but it may deserve more, or at least a little context explaining what the monster is. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the module, sorry, although I *am* familiar with the monster. I generally do not so much as look at modules largely because I use homebrew material so heavily. -Jéské 23:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

WTF is this about? A final warning alleging "false information"? As far as I can tell all he did was reformat the text. I can't find a single word that he added. So what are you on about? -- Zsero (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I had seen two ships added on the green side - which, sadly, is the modus operandi of an IP-hopping vandal that has indeed been adding flat-out prevarication both to that article and Raiden Fighters - and assumed that the vandal had changed IPs again. I'm going to look at Raiden fighters as well. -Jéské 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thx. I know nothing at all about the subject, and IMO the formatting was prettier your way, but the warning just seemed way over the top. I happened to see it only because this IP left a message on my talk page once and I responded, so it was on my watch list. -- Zsero (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. I double-checked Raiden Fighters; the ship added there was present in revisions untouched by the IP-hopper. Rolled myself back and unprotected both Raiden Fighters and its descendant. -Jéské 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think it looks prettier your way. Less cluttered. But I'm not about to edit it, since I'd never even heard about the subject before about half an hour ago. (Not that that hasn't stopped me from doing major editing to Nikki Sixx, whom I'd also never heard of until today...) -- Zsero (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting doesn't require that you know anything about the subject. If you feel that your way is better, do it. -Jéské 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:3RR violation

Thank you for clarifying that Jeske. Next time, I'll be sure to just report a violation if I see one as opposed to reporting and getting involved. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Null persp, chummer. -Jéské 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

IP spam attacks

Hi, I've been recieving a lot of threats of late, in several waves. They follow the same format as some Jack Merridew recieved, he said I should let you know about it. Do you know the cause? I've just let other admins deal with it- IPs blocked, talk page semi'd. J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm here, Connie Talbot and Devourment band members, two articles I worked on, were attacked by IPs who seemed a little annoyed about my D&D clearout. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I do know - you've been targeted by 4channers, according to the AN/I thread there is on this. I've told the admins there to pay some extra attention to your userpage, but since you're an administrator yourself (are you not?), you should be able to protect your talkpage to keep from getting the crap. -Jéské 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm an admin. Somone else beat me to the protect, though- three times! Currently have it protected for a few more days. I guessed it was 4channers... J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I should read AN/I more often. I usually just have a glance at AN every day... J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Three Issues

• And of course this one involves Advance Wars: Days of Ruin. The bright side is that the other user involved is actually attempting to provide a compromise. To summarize, the user wants to include a statement to the effect that many players of the game have noticed the trend that some maps are impossible to win when the other player has a first-turn advantage, and to cite this with fan sites. Is this allowable?

• Also related to the above game, another user (User:Darkmasterchief), has for the third time in the past two months added in a section about controversy of the game, which is apparently that gameplay in AW: DoR is too similar to another game. He provides no source for this info, and is the only one who adds it, and yet has informed me on my talk page that I should have read through his addition first, and even then I am somehow not allowed to delete it. I had already read it the first two times and just removed it again, but the point is I would like to make sure that I am in the right when I say that the section violates WP:NPOV.

• This is the one that is really beginning to irritate me, because I may be edit warring. On the article Turning Point: Fall of Liberty, one new user and a few IPs keep adding in a comment (cited with the user score at Metacritic) to the Reception section that fans of the game think highly of the game (in contrast to the reviews, which average at a 44% or so). I believe this is nothing more than fans (or a fan using different IPs, but I have no evidence, of course) trying to make themselves heard, and removed the statement several times over the past two days, citing WP:NPOV. Here, I would like to know if I am also on firm ground in my actions, and if indeed I am, what to do to settle the issue with whoever keeps adding the statement in.

I apologize for heaping this on all at once, but any advice you can give regarding all this would be greatly appreciated. While I find the first issue almost refreshing when compared to the whole V-Dash fiasco, I just want to make sure I'm not digging myself into a hole or something with the latter two.  Comandante Talk 00:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

1. No. WP:RS forbids the use of fansites due to their lack of editorial control.
2. You're not entirely correct here - he's also violating Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and I have told him so.
3. This is where I suggest you back down. While you *are* in what looks like an edit-war, I suggest you talk with the editor(s) adding the information in and come to a consensus. -Jéské 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged.  Comandante Talk 01:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning?

I am going to say the same thing to you as I did to Patmar. Do not involve me in your disputes

What? I'm not involving you. Where did you get this from? --Naruto134 00:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm warning you for future reference, not for the DAH! stuff. -Jéské 03:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Contribs Link

Hi, I fixed it. Thanks for notifying me. :) おべんとう むすび (Contributions) 07:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. I'd noticed it while clerking at CHU. -Jéské 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Jéské, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page

thank you. It is A TALK page, please respect MY right to speech. I act in good faith and ask that you do the same. Thank you Thright (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Calling others' concerns vandalism is not "good faith". -Jéské 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply upset

Hi, I would like to tell you that I am deeply upset with how you handled yourself. I feel that many people do not realise that humans are on the other side of the computer screen reading comments others write. I feel that you overreacted and were not concerned with my feelings. I feel that you simply did not take the time to ask the question, "what is going on." This is a skill needed not only by admin but by bureaucrats too. I am sorry that you were not selected, but I think you should work on your interaction skills. This is not a personal attack, I am just telling you how you have made me feel. Thright (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Um... I'm not a bureaucrat, nor have I even attempted an RfB (that's Riana (talk · contribs)'s above). And I understand how you feel, but understand how I feel as well, based off of my perceptions of what you said during this incident. You stated that your main concerns for whether the article existed or not were "What if my little five-year-old kid saw this after finding sheisse porn?!" Despite the efforts of many users to point you to WP:NOTCENSORED, you appeared to have not even bothered to take the time to read that section. Since you didn't listen there, I'll state it here: Misplaced Pages is NOT CENSORED for the eyes of minors or to fit religious sensibilities. If I were a parent, I would have done the responsible thing and parent: talk to the child about it. I would not be leading the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a jihad to protect the (perceived) innocence of a child. Think about others beside your immediate family and remember this: CDA was nullified for good reason. -Jéské 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point, again. In any event you should work on your interpersonal skills. Take care Thright (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)thright

Then what was the point? Tell me; I'm not Mewtwo and do not have the clairvoyant brain necessary to find the point of something when no clues were given other than to an immediately obvious point. -Jéské 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough

I am warning you, if you continue to use smart aleck remarks in response to other Misplaced Pages users, I will terminate your admin privileges and ban you myself.AceBanditX (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)