Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:40, 18 October 2008

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Skeptical of user

Hi Gwen. This "User:JetRuiz" user page is being used as an promotional encyclopedic article, and is being exclusively edited by an IP address since 9 September 2008. Also, the user itself has only edited his/her user page before 9 September 2008 (5 times). Thanks! — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

After search, closely related "user page" articles are found "User:JetZak", "User:Jimmy's Back Yard" and "User:SaturdayNightMorons". A template is also found "Template:Saturday_Night_Morons". Something is going on. — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And, they do not have articles on Misplaced Pages itself. Definitely hosting promotional encyclopedic articles (even a template). — Orion11M87 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. It's all CSD G11 and COI self promotion in the user space, likely by someone running multiple accounts. I don't like coming down too hard on indy teen bands though, never mind those with one or more members who can write complete sentences and conjugate verbs, all without spelling mistakes. If you were to blank those pages and let me know if it carries on, that would be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, same reason here. I didn't add the G11 template because I didn't wanted to be too hard and wanted to be absolutely sure of what's going on. Before I had time to make a decision and reply, Dædαlus has already seen and reported (my thanks, too). They were using couple of IP addresses too, Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/SaturdayNightMorons. Cheers! — Orion11M87 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Blueboy96 has helpfully come along and done the deeds. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Another of My Fans

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/69.202.69.98 (Wallamoose (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Let me know if it keeps up. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Very lame metaphorical log"? Gwen my dear that really stings! You didn't even like my homage to Cool Hand Wallamoose? No accounting for taste I suppose. Party on. (Wallamoose (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Hey Wallamoose, your metaphor, of Misplaced Pages being likened to a sordid Los Angeles murder trial or a Hollywood take on a work camp in the US deep south of the 1960s "doesn't fit" and shows you don't grok Misplaced Pages yet. You edit warred, you were blocked. Truth be told, your answers to the block have been far more worrisome to experienced editors than the block itself. Had you read the unblock guide, you could have written a very short unblock request which would have gotten you unblocked within minutes. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to argue the merits of my actions as opposed to the Admins involved, but I feel that my "lame metaphorical log" is sufficient for now. You say, "Had you read the unblock guide, you could have written a very short unblock request which would have gotten you unblocked within minutes". That's an interesting argument, but the fact that my first appeal was rejected before it was even completed doesn't support your position. How's that for AGF. I also happen to be a Paul Newman fan and am pleased to pay tribute to one of his outstanding performances. Good day. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Your first unblock request was quite finished when it was declined. Again, had you read the guide to appealing blocks and heeded what it has to say, you could have easily written an unblock request that would have gotten you unblocked straight off. Instead, you posted five unblock requests even after you'd been warned not to, so you were stopped from editing your own talk page. When you were unblocked, you wrote a long metaphorical post which was so over the top and argumentative, someone mistook it as a legal threat and posted it to ANI. You say you want to learn the rules, but I don't see that in your edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

THIS POST MODIFIED AFTER THE FACT SORRY: You're right I guess I should have said my first appeal of my appeal. So clearly I'm wrong. I was blocked and appealed. And then my appeal of that was rejected before it was completed. Anyway, what's done is done. I'm over it.

I've tried to get a semi-protect on the Clarence Thomas article, but have been turned down repeatedly. So anonymous puppets will continue to have their way. Another illustration of how things seem to work here.  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

"as the record clearly shows"? Provide diffs, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious Gale? Listen I don't want to make a federal case out of this. I made some satirical posts on my page that embody my feelings on the matter and I've moved on. I'm a big fan of yours, so if I chose not to go after the Admins whose behavior violates Wiki rules and guidelines, I certainly don't want to create a hassle for you. I did notice that a certain super-villain is again on the loose. So much for escalating punishments, and "this being the last time" etc. etc. But I've been told I'm not supposed to talk about other "editors" no matter how many rules and guidelines they violate. Cheerio! (Wallamoose (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

There you go refactoring again. Hey Wallamoose, how can you know what the rules and guidelines are if you haven't read through this yet? Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all I was never good with fractions (or linear equations). Secondly, keep in mind Groucho Marx's comment that, "I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member". Finally, I notice that a certain super-villain violates at least three of the five pillars consistently, and yet the whole edifice remains standing and little or no action is taken. These guidelines, like many of the rules here, appear to be more of a Hollywood prop facade than a true code. Isn't it strange that an organization so unconcerned with mere "facts" and the truth, would borrow greek architectural models? I think Plato would be distressed.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I don't care for the Greek metaphor, myself, it's a handy link is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fact it's pillars and not columns. So perhaps it's more of a stone age reference. Certainly more fitting. Didn't the Neanderthals have simple tools?  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Naw, they're Greek, which is to say Doric, bronze age. I'd have been too thrilled had that been done with runestones. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, are you like the head honcho of name censorship or what? What's up with that? Fo shizzle there will be no craptastical names? Tsk tsk. (Wallamoose (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Legal threat

It's in that quasi log that he posted, here, I'll copy it so you can find it/ see what I mean:

Boss man:

Since this is your fourth (actually my third since I didn’t get to finish my 2nd, but who’s counting?) unblock request and you clearly haven't read the guide to appealing blocks, I'll handle this one again. Edit warring isn't allowed. Please don't keep putting up unblock templates. You've been blocked by an admin and the block has been upheld by three other admins.

Wallamoose:

(uses his one phone call to get a lawyer)

Johnnie Cochran and I have reviewed the 3RR rules closely. Needless to say, we are prepared to take this all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary, and I'm certain that Justice Thomas will not take too kindly to certain POV abuse issues involved in this dispute. We are also confident that even Justice Ginsburg will not appreciate her fellow Justice being slandered in this manner. Please note that the exceptions include: "Reverting the addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons". There were also several instances where I did not in fact revert, but modified a comment. It also states: "Editors who find themselves on the verge of a three-revert rule violation have several options to avoid engaging in such an edit war. These options include discussing the subject on the page's talk page, requesting a third opinion or comment on the article, or one of the many other methods of dispute resolution." And in fact several dispute resolution methods and third opinions (including a RfC) are already under way. Plus, as I noted on your talk page I was in the process of doing an unrevert of one of the reverts in question, before seeing it had already been reverted. So that one doesn't count! There was also an edit I made where I made a modification. It was deleted saying it needed sourcing. So I put it back in with a source. So again, that was not a revert. And certainly not 3 reverts. But, in conclusion, Johnnie and I would like to point to the SPIRIT of the 3RR rule. Clearly the record shows that when I thought I was at or near 3RR I stopped editing the page. The evidence is INDISPUTABLE in this regard. So again, I ask for justice. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!!! As these issues have not yet been considered I do not think this is an abuse of the unblock request. I ask that the issues I have presented be adjudicated in light of my have NO PRIOR BLOCKS for edit warring and again, for ceasing the edit warring of my own volition and seeking Admin guidance.

There it is in it's entirety.— Dædαlus /_Improve 09:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

He's writing in metaphor, it's not a legal threat, but I'll leave him another note. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

After digging through the page history, I might have to disagree.— Dædαlus /_Improve 10:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnnie Cochran is dead. This is not a legal threat, it's a try at creative writing to make a point. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh...

I didn't know he was dead, or that he was a notable person....

Oops.. I guess..— Dædαlus /_Improve 10:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose's post was lame, I'm not at all startled someone took it as a legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely reject the characterization of my posts as being lame. This is an outrageous and distressing accusation. Nothing could be further from the truth. :) (Wallamoose (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Your post was a hit on ANI today, which is a hint it could be closer to the truth than you think. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Which thread are you referring to. I will try to use the sandbox feature, but Misplaced Pages formatting is difficult for me and confusing. I can't write effectively without drafts. But I've never gone back and tried to change my statement in a material way to influence an outcome or alter the record (like a certain super villain has), but sometimes I try to copy edit and clarify. So I'm sure I will be tried and hung, the Chewbacca defense having little utility here among Chairman Mao's happy workers.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Well I had a look, and the comment I interjected was in response to another editor's comment so I put mine after that comment and outdented yours below it. I thought this would make it clear that I was responding to him, inbetween your two comments. I don't know how else to do it. If I put my comment after yours it looks like I'm responding to you. I suggest you post my latest indiscretion on an Admin board so that I can be tarred and feathered straight away! I seem to deserve it. What is it that Mel Gibson yells at the end of Braveheart? Freedom? I'd like to go out on a good line...(Wallamoose (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

How bout starting your post with the name of the editor you're replying to. So, you may be muddling up threads without meaning to, please be careful. Meanwhile, if you keep calling other editors super villain and Chairman Mao's happy workers, sooner or later you'll stumble into more blocks. No personal attacks, please. Misplaced Pages is neither a William Selig serial nor the PRC (maybe Chinatown, though). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Here I found it. It's rather melodramatic really. Not my favorite of Mel's movies. Lethal Weapon was better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HYuv0Q7sdQ&feature=related(Wallamoose (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

YouTube clips seldom stir me, much less when a few of one's own pithy words would do. Also, you shouldn't be posting links to copyright violations. 'Sides, I'm more the L'Avventura kind. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

HAHA, User:Gwen Gale's next edit was to the Cleveland Steamer page. I think the Misplaced Pages rebel may be charming the proper English admin... :D Switzpaw (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, yeah, with over 1200 pages on my watchlist some shite shows up now and then. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much joy you would bring to my heart if I could at least get you to witness the Chewbacca defense in action. And that link is to an authorized site (I trust in the good faith of others as far as the other videos go, as you know I am a devout believer in AGF)! But alas, I doubt you are much of a South Park fan, and I see the censors have taken out the scene where a juror's head explodes. So the truly dark days seem to be upon us... Your suggestion of using the editor's name is genius! That should be one of the pillars. I will employ that technique from now on. I am concerned, however, that you may be letting your POV influence your opinion on my comment regarding Chairman Mao's happy workers. Maybe I meant it as a COMPLIMENT!!! Let a thousand flowers bloom! Remember, NPOV Gale NPOV! (Wallamoose (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Wait a minute now, why isn't his interjection a refactor? And for the record I suspect flowers would be far more endearing than the Chewbacca defense in "charming" this "proper" English Admin. Proper? Hmmmmm... She is awfully nice though isn't she. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

I was joking... I'm finding all of this amusing, and I did think your revision to Keith Olbermann about Ferraro was good. Switzpaw (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

See that! I knew you would. In fact, I'm counting on you to stick up for me on the next series of ANI reports. Would you be willing to add that to your watch list? That would be a big help. Is this considered canvassing? (Wallamoose (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Ahem. I have no comment on the good ship Cleveland. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

The Selig article is excellent, very interesting. A pity it has only one reference. I suppose we'll have to burn it with the rest of the books. Someone call the "Firemen". We can't have unsourced material cluttering the site. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

I wrote that shortly before we began paying as much heed as now to sourcing. Only so you know, contested and uncited material can be removed, but blanking helpful, verifiable and uncontested content because it lacks sources is pointy disruption which is blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

When you do a bunch of indents is that to indicate you want the last word? Your having written the aforementioned article would certainly explain why it was so well written. I wonder how it would read if you had to cite every line. I imagine it would be far more stilted, but rules are rules...

It's a shame the policies you've mentioned can't save the hard work of others as on the Venture Bros. article. Many of the best articles I've found have few or no citations, but all it seems to take is one disruptive user and it all goes bye bye.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

The best way to learn is to go and edit some articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You are so wise! RRG just criticized my math skills on the CT article discussion page. Please ban him for life with no chance for parole.(Wallamoose (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

I see you're both still hurling personal attacks at each other. If it keeps up, you'll both be blocked again. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Living dinosaur

What exactly did I post that was incorrect?

I am new to contributing to this site, but I have used this site for a long time. I have always thought it to be very fair and unbiased, allowing for varying opinion.

But where you claim I am using language which is misleading, I find much of the language you keep reposting to be misleading.

What did I post that was incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreshiBaraElohim (talk • contribs) 11:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been reverted by multiple editors. I already asked you to bring this up on the article talk page, but please don't bother unless you can cite reliable sources. If you revert the article again you'll be blocked for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:MisterAlbert

Is revisiting Sarah Palin again. Odd editing style to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah's the it girl these days :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to warn him about removing his Alt Account tags from his User Talk and putting them onto mine?! Mr Miles (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr Miles, please stop removing the alt account tags from your talk page, you're lucky you haven't been banned for all that sockpuppetry. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

User:LamaLoLeshLa

Said user is trying to say that Sarah Palin has a strong pro=Palin bias. To that end she canvassed several dozen editors, including some who had not made any real presence known recently, and accidently missing a few recent editors <g>. She also solicited User Talk:Facts707 who appears to be misusing Talk:Sarah Palin to accuse specific editors of biases. I suspect his "section" ought to be removed by a third party. The entire talk page is becoming even more of a circus than ever. Thank you! Collect (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked whether any absolutely NPOV controversial article exists. You might, or might not, like to see User:Collect/thoughts. Collect (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is high traffic, has to do with a current election in stateside politics and it's a BLP, hence some editors are bound to be unhappy with it. Could you show some diffs for the canvassing? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

LLLL on-wiki list is http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=LamaLoLeshLa&namespace=3&year=&month=-1 ... reported by User:Kyaa the Catlord in Talk:SP. Is 30 or more past "limited" where at least one "pro-Palin" editor was not canvassed? In point of fact, no one has suggested s ingle controversial article to me which is devoid of any POV <g>. Collect (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true, often because a consensus of core editors can keep otherwise reliable sources out of an article: Peer review in both Europe and North America has always been dodgy, but in the last 20 years or so has become utterly corrupted and politicized by government funded university systems and a big swath of Misplaced Pages's systemic bias can be linked to this. With Sarah Palin though, it's mostly the kerfuffle of the now. If you can give me some diffs, I'll try to take care of the canvassing. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what diffs are required -- her post was generally "please post at Talk' (wikilinked). Once there, she made the first comment in the topic she started, and I would surmise others would expect she was asking for agreement -- espcecially since she imperfectly chose the ones to canvass. Checked -- she did use differing wording. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Probios&diff=prev&oldid=245821651 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:IP75&diff=prev&oldid=245820926 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jossi&diff=prev&oldid=245820720 (actually asks for her "vote") http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kaisershatner&diff=prev&oldid=245820244 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Crackthewhip775&diff=prev&oldid=245819326 several others vary from the purely neutral canvass she sent to me. Does this help? Collect (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)