| Revision as of 03:43, 6 October 2005 editRedwolf24 (talk | contribs)11,598 editsm User talk:Guettarda moved to User talk:Guettarda on wheels!← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:44, 6 October 2005 edit undoRedwolf24 (talk | contribs)11,598 edits HOW DID YOU KNOW >:(Next edit → | ||
| Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
| Hey... did you mean to say "there are 'no' edits"? ] 02:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | Hey... did you mean to say "there are 'no' edits"? ] 02:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Medcom on wheels! == | |||
| You have discovered my true identity. Thus, you know too much. ]]] (]) 03:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:44, 6 October 2005
| Template:Catneeded |
 This would enhance navigation by listing it with other articles in the Category:cats. Please help Misplaced Pages by adding more cats to articles. |
| Template:Catneeded |
This would enhance navigation by listing it with other articles in the Category:cats. Please help Misplaced Pages by adding more cats to articles. |
Archives: Archive 1 (August 29, 2004-March 3, 2005) - Archive 2 (March 11, 2005-March 28, 2005) - Archive 3 (March 28, 2005-April 17, 2005) - Archive 4 (March 20, 2005-June 6, 2005) - Archive 5 (June 6, 2005-July 4, 2005) - Archive 6 (July 4, 2005-July 26, 2005) - Archive 7 (July 30, 2005-September 26, 2005) - Archive 8 (September 27, 2005-October 13, 2005) - Archive 9 (October 14, 2005-November 18, 2005) - Archive 10 (November 18, 2005-February 12, 2006) - Archive 11 (February 12, 2006-February 17, 2006) - Archive 12 (February 18, 2006-February 26, 2006) - Archive 13 (February 26, 2006-May 13, 2006) - Archive 14 (May 13, 2006-July 31, 2006 ) - Archive 15 (July 31, 2006-September 20, 2006) - Archive 16 (September 20, 2006-October 30, 2006)- Archive 17 (October 30, 2006-January 13, 2007) - Archive 18 (January 13, 2007 - May 21, 2010) - Archive 19 (May 2010 - May 2012) - Archive 20 (December 2009 - present) Current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I liked this gem so much I thought I'd add it to my talk page.
Guettarda - Liberal Admin
All you have to do is look at his own user page and see why he's so determined to keep this article wrought with lies and deceit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Guettarda
"I am beyond disgusted. It makes me sick. People in the US government saying: " why they had so much sympathy for the victims, and not as much sympathy for the challenges that the government met in meeting this challenge". Do these people have no sense of compassion? I weep for the people of New Orleans. The tragedy of being poor and black in Bush's America."
and
"Primary Interests
* Forest ecology (plus everything else in the world of organismal biology)"
Even his nickname is an indicator:
"Guettarda is a genus of trees in the Family Rubiaceae. One of these days I have to make a page for that genus."
And we all wonder why he continues to allow conjecture and speculation, fiction and rhetoric, into this "entry"?! It's obvious. Give a man an ounce of authority and he uses every gram to force his opinions on others.
How ridiculous!
Misplaced Pages will never be a reliable place for information as long as it's run by liberals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.73.21.146 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC) from Talk:Amazon Rainforest
- Yo there, Admin! You can prove you're not hopelessly Lllllliberal by banning me, for my appalling lack of a background in history and my bizarre failure to realize that " nobility is notability" (here). Erm, incidentally, I recently had to grab a couple of magazines to supplement a couple of novels for a long flight (I'm an onboard insomniac), and something on the front cover of Harper's grabbed my attention. I'd been only dimly aware of the magazine's existence; I'd thought it was a second- or third-rate New Yorker or similar. Wrongo! It's superb. Pity there's such a concentration on the US; but the way in which it concentrates on the US is excellent. -- Hoary 22:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
'Nother move request
Hi Guettarda - could you move Coast Range Subalpine Fir to Subalpine Fir please? There's some background details at User_talk:Wsiegmund#Subalp_Fir, we both agree it would be a good move as the split of Subalpine Fir into two species isn't widely accepted. Thanks - MPF 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Grief, 20,000 edits! Eeeek! Didn't know I had that many! I'll think about it again, tho' how much longer I'll be around I don't know, the way my computer is on the blink (just had to reboot for the 5th time today) - MPF 21:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Re: Amazon
I don't have any objections to what you've proposed, but if the person in question is this determined, I'm not sure how open he would be to your suggestions. (But I guess that's what an RfC is for, eh?) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I meant if he would be open to your suggestions... anyway, doesn't seem likely. Like you, I am trying to assume good faith, but I'm wondering if this is the same anonymous editor who had previously used the term "eco-terrorist." Doesn't seem like there is much room for compromise with someone who paints others with the "terorrist" brush. Anyway, good luck. If this does go to RfC, am I allowed to wigh in or not? I have edited the article, and I've been the target of a (pretty minor) barb from this person, so I'm not sure I qualify as a neutral 3rd party. (I should review RfC again...) Thanx, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. Reply here if you prefer, instead of my page, I'll keep watching here.
- Regarding your question: No, I haven't really made any significant edits to the article, as the subject is way beyond the bounds of my personal expertise. I spotted some vandalism some time ago, and reverted it. At the time, everything I edited was added to my watchlist by default. So after that I could watch the current situation unfold. I believe the only other edit I've made was a day or two ago, when I reverted the anon's removal of text. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
You guys are being trolled by someone whose behaviour and edit history very strongly resembles the Ray Nagin POV vandal "JimmyCrackedCorn." See Talk:Ray Nagin#Sockpuppets for more on that.--chris.lawson 12:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sure thing. It's probably not something you would have noticed unless you'd been following the discussion over there. The accounts wouldn't seem related at first until you take a look at the edit histories, which reveal the same pattern of personal attacks, right-wing extremist POV, and some of the same editing targets. Your guy, for instance, has attached edit summaries to Ray Nagin that are nearly identical to those by JimmyCrackedCorn aka LongJohnSilver aka DKorn aka Roger Ramjett. His contributions are about a 50-50 mix of blatant trolling or POV-pushing and userful minor edits.--chris.lawson 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
User:206.70.251.252
Guettarda, I wouldn't worry about it too much so far. These kinds of threats are generally hollow, and if he uses multiple IPs there are always range blocks and/or page protection that can be applied. Please feel free to keep me informed. Jayjg 14:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
==Who's RfA== Thank you for supporting my masters RfA. He appreciates your support and comments and looks forward to better serving Misplaced Pages the best he can. Of course I will be doing all of the real work. He would have responded to you directly, but he is currently out of town, and wanted to thank you asap. Thanks again. --Who's mop?¿? 20:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
RFA
Och, I just noted that. Thanks for your support, much appreciated. As to Lysenkoism, I think I tried that on him before. Like water off a duck's back. Graft 21:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Big Daddy
Don't ever come on my page again with your nonsense. Certainly not with your false and slanderous accusation that my REMOVING vandalism from the Ann Coulter page is in fact vandalism. That vandalism that I removed was in accordance with Misplaced Pages standards. I suggest you review them. Best regards, Big Daddy 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Ps And save your lectures about 'community' for someone who doesn't see thru your transparently partisan interest in interjecting bias into wikipedia articles in direct violation of founder Jimmy Wales edict that these articles remain fair and neutral. Thanks and have a great night! Big Daddy 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- LOL. Wow, Guetterda... I guess you touched a nerve. Well, the vandal/troll who goes by "BigDaddy" has been referred for arbitration. His pathetic rants and anemic attempts to game the system fool no one. Except, apparently, himself. Keep fighting the good fight! --Eleemosynary 04:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't be afraid of me, son. I'm here to help. There are plenty of support groups these days. What you're suffering from doesn't have to torment you the rest of your life. Society no longer stigmatizes people like you. We just want you to get better. Love, Big Daddy 07:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Proof positive! "Little Baby" lives in his own deluded universe, taking breaks from vandalizing Misplaced Pages only to travel to the drug store for hand lotion so he can better, um, "enjoy" his Ann Coulter picture collection. Duly noted! Eleemosynary 08:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Now that's what I call a 'Cry for Help!' LOL! Big Daddy 09:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, at least Little Baby is now admitting he has a problem! Progress moves slow, but it moves. Good luck in recovery! LOL! Eleemosynary 09:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
My RFA
Thank you very much for your vote on my RFA, it is now the 6th most supported RFA ever, and it couldnt have happened without your vote. I look forward to serving wikipedia. Again, thanks. →Journalist >>talk<< 16:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Great Edits to Coulter
Thanks for doing a great job making the Coulter article NPOV. Eleemosynary 23:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Got your notes re. the Arbitration Process. I think you're right. Little Baby has now taken to trolling my Talk Page, which is sad, but typical. But I'm done responding to him on the Arbitration Page. If he can stay off my Talk Page, he's unlikely to hear from me again. Eleemosynary 02:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Once again: Yeoman's work on the Coulter page. It must be exhausting to catch all those removals and reverts. Eleemosynary 05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not really all that difficult, not with the history tab. Guettarda 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Adminship
I had generally valued my lack-of-adminship status only because I thought that on the whole it testified to the relatively egalitarian aspect of Misplaced Pages -- one does not have to be a member of any "inner-cabal" to get things done at either a content or structural level. I thought about what being an admin would allow me to do that I couldn't do now and most of the things are just an increase in efficiency (i.e. making it easier to revert vandalism). However I then realized that one area which I'd be happy to aid in is clearing up backlogs, especially in things such as copyright violations or unfree images and the like, and since I do think that I'm pretty good at spotting things like that, it might be a worthwhile contribution that I could make. So, if you'd like to nominate me for adminship, I would accept the nomination, though I would say upfront that I still reserve the right to be cranky with POV pushers and to assume good faith only up to the point where I think it is clear none should be assumed. Many thanks. --Fastfission 16:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch. I answered the questions as best I could come up with. Thanks again. --Fastfission 02:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Fastfission
Hi! There's was a minor problem with the timestamp of Fastfission's nom. The date and time stamp wasn't correctly displayed. ending 02:20 2005/10/10 TODAY'S DATE (UTC). I've gone ahead and corrected it. User:Nichalp/sg 10:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
WP:AN/I
Hi Guettarda. I removed from the noticeboard the section started anonymously by banned User:Skyring as part of his continued attack on nixie. Your reply was also removed (sorry!). If this bothers you, let me know and I'll put it back. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could block 139.168.159.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It won't stop him, but it will delay him some.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've never heard anybody criticise the excellence of user:petaholmes' research, but clearly she needs to work on her spelling and grammar, because it detracts from otherwise impeccable work, especially if it remains uncorrected. Hence my question. Obviously user:Cyberjunkie thinks there is something malicious going on, but fails to nominate a solution that doesn't ruffle anybody's feathers. Perhaps you could help to keep an eye on her edits — nobody is going to accuse you of wikistalking!
Ugh
You know, this RfA process is somewhat disgusting. Who the heck are these people? Oppose, because user has "less than 3000 edits"? Oppose, because 90% of edits are in article namespace?! Back in the day, being a sysop wasn't supposed to have this sort of cachet, as if sysops were some sort of Wikipedian Uberbearbeiter. Yech. Graft 18:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Gyrofrog RfA
I just wanted to thank you for your vote of support in my request for adminship! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: Adminship
You said, "Your point makes sense if one pre-supposes an administrative function for admins". On the surface, this seems like such an amazingly reasonable conclusion that you must have been inferring something else. After some thought, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that you are viewing adminship through the perspective of what is the lowest common usage denominator of admins and admin priviledges. Within that context, I think your statements make sense; trustworthiness would be the only criteria. We thus would only have to know if the nominee can be trusted with those powers. This view is in fact supported by much of the introduction text of Misplaced Pages:Administrators.
However, there is a crucial component of that introduction that speaks to other issues. In particular it says, "Since administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information." Consider the position a newbie to Misplaced Pages has. She's relatively new, and had some concerns regarding a rollback that was made by an admin that qualifies under your criteria, but has a very low participation level (such as Graft). She asks this admin for clarification, and days go by with no response. This could produce a negative result for the user.
Additionally it says on WP:RFA, "are often perceived as the 'official face' of Misplaced Pages". It isn't only about having extra tools to conduct editing. If a low participation admin becomes involved in a debate, the potential exists for them to badly inflame a discussion with comments that are not wholely and satisfactorily explained; text based communications have significant limitations. If the admin is not around frequently enough to stay involved in debates and discussions, they could harm the community (however unintentionally) by their lack of participation.
Another related point is the ability of the admin to respond to requests about a block they have placed. If the admin makes the block, they need to be available to respond to the user who was blocked. A low participation admin is probably ill equipped to do so.
I understand your points regarding Ed Poor, 172 and EveryKing. I've had interactions with two of them (for example, see the poll I started regarding an action by Ed Poor). My concerns regarding participation levels are not undermined by some exceptions. There is no inviolate rule in play here. We are not machines displaying bits guaranteeing we will be successful admins, and never suffering from changes in thought and direction.
Participation levels are simply one and only one metric in helping to evaluate a candidate with a somewhat low edit count. There are many, many others. Some are objective, some are subjective. For me, the participation level is an important issue. For you, it isn't. I understand your perspective and respect your view. I hope, based on what I've written above, you will respect mine. My whole point in producing the charts and statistics for admin nominees with edit counts less than 2,000 is to get people to stop debating the merits of how many counts and instead consider other related points. The very fact that we have had the discussion we have had is evidence it is working.
All the best, --Durin 18:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
"Viper"
Hey... did you mean to say "there are 'no' edits"? Eleemosynary 02:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Medcom on wheels!
You have discovered my true identity. Thus, you know too much. OhNoES!! Redwolf24 (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)