Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:53, 2 November 2005

Cleared 05:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC) -- check history for record.

RfArb against Zephram Stark

I've requested arbitration against Zephram Stark. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 19:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Malcolm X vandal

Yeah, it's the same guy. (I didn't see much point in continuing this on the article's Talk page.) At least three other admins have gotten involved since his initial block, because he has singled me (and one of them) out for persecution and Wikistalking. Not that I really care -- I think it's nice that he's doing such a great job of finding anonymous open proxies for us :)--chris.lawson 01:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, 68.167.30.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be his latest incarnation.--chris.lawson 04:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Bloodsport (film)

I was hoping to stem the flood of reverts, which was why I didn't do that myself. Did you read the talk page? Splash 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok. The reason I asked was because you used rollback rather than manual revert, where you could have explained your reasoning in the edit summary. I don't really think it was vandalism, (not quite, anyway), so a manual revert was probably all that was needed. I hope it doesn't just lead to revert warring where none is needed. -Splash 18:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

This Dickius person claims not to be a sockpuppet of rms315. If you look at his last edit, it's awfully close to the edits rms315 has been making -- almost identical changes in fact. He wrote me email just a second ago claiming innocence and ignorance of what a sockpuppet is. He does have some past editing history, but I'm not sure whether that's good enough or not for me to overcome the skepticism I have regarding the edits he just made, which change pretty much the exact same things as the rms315 sockpuppet has been changing. I'm still relatively new at this, so wanted to ask your advice since you've been involved with the article. · Katefan0 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, in order to avoid the potential for collateral damage and because the account does have some edit history, I went ahead and unblocked. Time will tell; feel free to tell me if you think I've been mistaken. Thanks. · Katefan0 19:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Speaking of disruptive editing, do you think it's disruptive to solicit various uninvolved editors to revert-war on your behalf? Do you think it is disruptive to solicit people to revert for you, and give them explicit instructions on how to do so? What if you've solicited the latter individual solely because he awarded you with a barnstar for "helping keep Jewish POV and Zionist propaganda to a minimum", and it turns out that that person is the sockpuppeter-extraordinaire Disruptive Apartheid editor, who is subsequently blocked by David Gerard for being a "Nazi sockpuppeteer"? Jayjg 18:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned

Hello, I was wondering about the "preceding" bit: is this template supposed to go before or after someone's unsogned comments? "Preceding" makes it sound like before, but everyone always seems to put it after the comment, like a normal sig. --Blackcap | talk 13:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, got it. I was thinking that it was referring to the template itself for some reason, like an instruction: "This template precedes the comment." Thanks for clearing that up. I feel a bit silly now that I get it. --Blackcap | talk 04:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

efroze

It's a Lost and Found board, where people can advertise things they've found/lost so they can be restored to their rightful owners. Jayjg 05:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

RJII seems to ignore all request to stop edit warring and discuss on Talk, since he knows he is going against consensus. Can you help? --Goodoldpolonius2 20:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Latest sockpuppet

Sigh. See . Jayjg 07:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case involving Yuber

The Arbitration case centred on Yuber, to which you gave comment, has closed. As a result of this:

• Both Yuber and Guy Montag are each placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation for one year from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005). Should any sysop feel that it is necessary that either of them be banned from an article where they is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article, or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{Yuber banned}} or {{Guy Montag banned}} as appropriate at the top of the talk page of the article, and notify them on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Misplaced Pages:Probation. The template may be removed by any editor, including them, at the end of the ban. If they edit an article they are banned from, you will be briefly blocked from editing Misplaced Pages, for up to a week for repeat offenses.
• Yuber is instructed to use only this account, and no anonymous IPs. What editing constitutes Yuber's is up to any sysop to decide. If Yuber violates this, any sysop is authorised to ban them for up to a week.
• Guy Montag is banned from editing any article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the date of closing this case (9th of October, 2005).

Yours,

James F. (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Yeah, I think it's sad that so much time is spent on arguing about stupid things (although important articles). And so many reverts because of inclusions of single statements "because I'm afraid what people will think", instead of adding... deleting. And all the "let me bring my friend so we can outnumber you" or "I'm going to get you mad so you will lose focus". And all the brute force employed when people run out of arguments. But someday, things will get better, it is already happening. You would think having so many people angry at that SlimVirgn/Jayjg it would give them an idea that their behavior is less than perfect. --Vizcarra 17:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy

Why did you revert me at Ted_Kennedy just now ? Please advise. Rex071404 03:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A reverse of your question would be more germane; in particular, please answer this question: Please state specifically, how does the inclusion of the link which I posted (and you deleted) make the wiki article on Ted Kennedy less "encyclopedic"?

By the way, you did not answer my question, you only asked me a question. If you revert me, please show me the courtesy of answering my questions. Thanks. Rex071404 03:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So your "answer" is that the link I supplied makes the article less encyclopedic, because it makes the article less "useful"? How is the article less "useful" to readers with the inclusion of the link? Or in other words, how is the article more useful to readers with the link removed? How does the omission of the information supplied by that link benefit those who seek information about Ted Kennedy? Please advise. Rex071404 04:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your "ipso facto" answer is a circular reference to your previous answer, explains nothing and does not actually answer my most recent question pertaining to "useful" (see above). So far, I've been able to glean from your comments that you take the view things must be "encyclopedic" or else not be referred to/linked to? If this is the case, please direct me to a page (or pages) which makes clear what you understand "encyclopedic" to be, ok? If not, then please clarify your previous answers. Thanks. Rex071404 03:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy anonymous editors

The ArbCom has accepted arbitration with respect to the Kennedy anonymous editors. Robert McClenon 12:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Kelly Martin on some of the anons and some of the named accounts. I think that some of them, including the ones on 22 September, were sockpuppets. The timing is too perfect for meatpuppets. They only showed up to sign the RfC, and then disappeared, and then showed up to game the system on a revert. Robert McClenon 21:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Jpgordon. I would be delighted if you would vote here at my rfa. Its a pretty tight race ;). Thank you. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)