Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 15 December 2008

For older history, check as well as the archives.

Moronicbajebus

Re this edit. I was not the blocking admin ... that was Gwen Gale. Take it up with her. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Jpgordon, in your opinion is it allowed to delete material from talk page edits that are WP:SOAP, or that is just chat not connected to discussion -- particularly when apparently used to bury other discussion under a mass of pointless edits. I am referring particularly to this (pretty much the entire content of the diff, not just the change), which I removed as harmful to the discussion in progress. In the ensuing argument, an administrator supported returning the material to the article, while not supplying any reason why it should not be returned to the talk page, beyond that doing so is upsetting the sensitive users who's chat got removed. At this time that content is back in the article. I have been trying to find the current WP guidelines on talk page chat, but can not find that. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether it's allowed. However, it really pisses people off, and usually causes a lot more hassle than just ignoring the garbage might. I usually suggest people not do it unless it's vandalism or deliberate disruption. --jpgordon 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. (At least I know another way to piss people off now:) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gotten this warning from Gwen Gale . If there is no rule, as you say, what is she going to block me for? Any how I did not remove a single word, as can be seen here . The only difference is that I removed a separate heading, but kept the wording even for that. It was bizarre for PalestineRemembered to put a lengthy personal attack on Village pump (policy). My reply to him is at the bottom of the diff, and there is nothing in what I said that is uncivil.. I feel that Gwen Gale has developed a personal dislike for me, and I find it strange that she is threatening me, while PalestineRemembered's violation of WP:no personal attacks is ignored. If this is something you can not get involved in, would AN/I be a proper place to discuss it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no rule; I said I didn't know. I was right about it really pissing people off, though! Talk page refactoring might seem a good idea at the time, but except for routine cleanup, it's not a good idea if you're at all involved in the discussion. Take the warning in good faith -- Gwen's correct in principle. Her reaction to PR is irrelevant to the propriety of your refactoring. --jpgordon 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

no need for bitchy edit

Glad that you corrected your mistake however (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Red_Army_Faction&oldid=253813320). I assume you're not properly educated in this field, so I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Antisemitism and in the future discuss politically controversial edits. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. The tone of that post is almost... what's the adjective I'm looking for? I've seen it in this thread somewhere, near the top... MastCell  19:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bombastic? Jehochman 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Blathering? Of course, I was amused that someone points jpgordon to the antisemitism article. OrangeMarlin 18:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for lifting the block but why was it done in the first place?--Natsubee (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Didn't have anything to do with you; it was an autoblock as a result of a vandal who shares your IP. (There sure are a lot of users going through that IP!) --jpgordon 16:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

user Malik Shabazz brroke WP:3RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gush_Shalom&action=history

It was its thread time during 24 hours.Oren.tal (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been no 3RR violation. I made three reverts and so did Oren. I'm sorry that he bothered you with this. — ] (] · ]) 20:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have not violated that law.Malik Shabazz had violated that law so I reverted his edit.You can take a look in history to see this.I have also mention to him that he should not violate this law in his talk page.You can see this as well.Oren.tal (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here; WP:AN3 exists (I only saw this by co-incidence). No-one has technically broken 3RR; both users have 3R William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but he has first.I have only reverted his 3RR.Maybe it was still wrong but he indeed violated this.I have reverted it only because he violated and he should not have done it.Oren.tal (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And you are bothering me about this -- why? WP:AN3, please. --jpgordon 21:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

because when I broke the law you gave me warning.You should give him as well.Oren.tal (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Second thing he always ignore what I write for him in the discussion and just revert.Oren.tal (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway I didn't know about WP:AN3Oren.tal (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ignoring myself

On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Facilitate a move of an article

Some time ago I made a mistake of moving The Golem: It! from what it really should be It! (1966 film). Could you possibly move it back to It! (1966 film)? I'm sorry that I made this mistake. With the DVD coming out it might be nice to have it accurately presented in Misplaced Pages. With kindest regards for you and yours during the holidays. David--Drboisclair (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done! You might want to check redirects. --jpgordon 03:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As always, "smooth as a gravy sandwich," as Paul Hogan would say! Thanks!--Drboisclair (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your question in an edit summary

Hi JP, FWIW, the answer to your question here, is that someone had attempted this edit repeatedly. Hopefully, the refnote has served its purpose and will keep it from starting up again without having to re-add it. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ah! Makes sense now. Twittish world sometimes. --jpgordon 17:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vuerqex

I am honored that a former trumpet player for Oingo Boingo actually told me to work something out on a talk page. Wow! Vuerqex (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Specifically, the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo. (I just like the opportunity to type out that wondrous phrase.) --jpgordon 17:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible typo on Checkuser page

On the recent fulfillment of this checkuser case, you named a User:Schrampes which doesn't seem to exist. I am assuming you mean User:Shrampes? Also, the ISP that you mentioned (sdfreen.net) doesn't seem to resolve. Is that the correct name of the ISP? ←Spidern→ 02:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Typos, of course. sdfree.net. And of course Shrampes. I like Sch, I guess. --jpgordon 05:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I corrected the typo Schrampes on the checkuser case page to Shrampes. I hope that was okay? Cirt (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Yup. Minor obvious typos are always fair game. --jpgordon 14:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, thank you!  :) Cirt (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Article

Has been vandalized, I cant revert or fix--Woogie10w (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't see what you mean. --jpgordon 04:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Danelkayam

• Danelkayam (talk · contribs).

Back in September, you blocked this person as a sock of Shevashalosh (talk · contribs) and he's back today, claiming innocence, and that the block was likely due to the fact that he shares his IP with many other students. I don't see an obvious behavioral pattern between the two, but I am sure you have additional evidence I am just not seeing. Could you respond on that user's talk page with more information so that I or someone else may respond intelligently to his unblock request. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• And thanks back! --jpgordon 02:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing edit

Why would you remove the material I added..."In fact, the risk of this activity is nearly zero (see http://www.thebody.com/ for reputable sources)" ? The previous sentence needed a citation anyway and this information is more accurate. It is obvious that this article needs some work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.98.150 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• A few reasons. Most important, though: "see some or another website for reputable sources" isn't in any way providing a verifiable reliable source. A quick look at the URL you provided just shows the top level of a very dense site (and a quite good one, it would appear). We can't ask our readers to go and read the entire site to try to figure out which particular statement backs up your assertion that "the risk of this activity is nearly zero". Now, if there there a sentence somewhere on that site asserting that there is a nearly zero risk from mutual masturbation, great -- it would provide the source that the previous sentence ("Although the risk of infection in this manner is thought to be low...") is missing. --jpgordon 02:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology

Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

You seem to have processed all of the relevant RFCU cases. What can you tell me about these?

Please also take a careful look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#Update: Additional confirmations in COFS checkuser case. Would you agree with it?

I'd be happy to know any insight you may wish to share.

-- Cat 20:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The chart looks right. I think I provided all the information I had on the RFCU and arbitration evidence pages. --jpgordon 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

pester power :-)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Motions - come on chaps, bums off hands please. It's not acceptable to leave this hanging, and you have a duty to make your position known. It's causing drama, and undue stress in all directions. Socks up please. Privatemusings (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)