| Revision as of 20:13, 24 June 2006 editAndrew Norman (talk | contribs)4,289 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:27, 24 June 2006 edit undoPoolGuy (talk | contribs)308 edits GoldToeMarionetteNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| --] 12:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | --] 12:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == GoldToeMarionette == | |||
| :::Your account of the arbitration committee findings is simply not true. You say: ''They found just two things, one that I created multiple accounts, and Nlu thought it was disruptive.'' - the actual second finding was that the multiple accounts '''were''' disruptive, in the opinion of all seven involved arbitrators, not just that Nlu thought they were. There are two remedies - firstly that you are restricted to one user account. If you want Goldtoemarionette to be unblocked, that's fine, but I will then block this account. The other remedy is that any admin may ban you from any article you're disrupting. You're disrupting the page I've banned you from, by posting repeated requests for unblocking an account which you have been told you cannot use at the same time as this one. I'm not going to lift that ban. You are, of course, free to appeal this on ]. I think you know what sort of response you'll get. --] (]) 20:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for recognizing that GoldToeMarionette should be unblocked. However if you unblock it, why would you block this account? ArbCom said I am not to use more than one account. Unblocking GoldToeMarionette does not relate to that. Please unblock GoldToeMarionette, but do not block this one. I want it unblocked because it never should have been blocked initially. I won't use that account until I am allowed to use multiple accounts again. | |||
| ::::Regarding the Page Protection page, I am not disrupting it, I am asking that a page be unprotected, which it should be. If the page were unprotected I would not have to request it be unprotected. I don't see the purpose of it being protected because it was falsely protected by Nlu initially to shut me up. Users removing the request without dialogue are the ones that cause the disruption. The term disruptive is extremely subjective, and I fail to see how requesting a page be unprotected could be disruptive because that is half of what people do on the page. Besides, I was polite. | |||
| ::::Thank you for taking some time to dialogue with me. I appreciate it. ] 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:27, 24 June 2006
| This is the best way to communicate with me.
I respond to comments here, not on the other user's talk page, to keep both sides of a discussion in the same place. |
Archives
Reverted
I have reverted you're recent edits to userpages stating "removing various userboxes". I think the request on WP:AN/I in which said to depopulate the deleted category, does not require you to remove the userbox. It only requires removing the category itself. If you would like for me to remove them from the category, I will assist you in doing so. — The King of Kings 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, since I recieved no response, I went ahead and did it myself before I went offline. All the pages I reverted, I went back and depopulated the category by removing the category instead of everything. Cheers! — The King of Kings 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert any of that, but I think it was wrong. There's nothing in Misplaced Pages policy to say that people are allowed or encouraged to make inflammatory statements on their user pages, or that others can't remove such statements. --ajn (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, there's nothing in Misplaced Pages policy to say that people are not allowed to make inflammatory statements on their user pages, or that others may remove such statements. It's only disruption which is prohibited, which is your fault. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert any of that, but I think it was wrong. There's nothing in Misplaced Pages policy to say that people are allowed or encouraged to make inflammatory statements on their user pages, or that others can't remove such statements. --ajn (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK, since I recieved no response, I went ahead and did it myself before I went offline. All the pages I reverted, I went back and depopulated the category by removing the category instead of everything. Cheers! — The King of Kings 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm
OK, fine, unlock my user page, I DID NOT PUT THAT BANNER ON THERE, the user that put it there is BOCKED, why should I be punished as well? When he added it, I ONLY placed it on the bottom of the page! If you unlock my page I won't put it back, cuz I know you'll just lock it up again, I'm not stupid. You have nothing to lose, just unlock my page, please. --
serbiana - talk 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
MichaelIsGreat
Hello. I was just about to cut short this dreadful waste of everyone's time by permanently blocking MichaelIsGreat for exhausting the community's patience. Would you object? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not in the slightest, but I suspect he'll just pop up again under another name. --ajn (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a point, you're probably right there. Mutze seems to be trying to get him onside; I'll give that a chance, and perhaps implement a permablock later if there really is obviously no hope of progress. Thanks! --RobertG ♬ talk 10:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your support. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is great to see that Misplaced Pages's admins are as active and as reasonable as this issue has shown. I hope this will put the matter behind us, particularly because many people will now be watching the Bösendorfer and the player piano articles. My best wishes to both of you! Mütze 13:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
Being a war refugee myself, I can't see why we should tolerate people making political statements, which are divisive and inflammatory, whether pro or against or whatever. This is an encyclopedia not a battleground. They'd attack me for "censoring" or "violating freedom of speech", but I know it's the right thing to do. Once all divisive userboxes are gone, people may look at each other as what we truly are, human beings. Best wishes, TheCooler
Gibraltar
Hello Norman:
I would like to ask you a favour. Could you please have a look at the talk page and history of the article on Gibraltar. Over the past few months a number of users, including myself, have been in conflict with user:Gibnews. We feel he has taken over the page as his pet project and has imposed a NPOV pro-Gibraltarian point of view. I feel his attitude and utter refusal to acheive any form of consensus is contrary to the rules of wikipedia. He accuses everyone of Spanish propaganda even on issues which are not directly related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute over Gibraltar and reverts pretty much everything which is not written by himself. Although I am not Spanish, I sometimes wonder if I may be slightly biased towards the Spanish perspective. I do not however believe that Gibraltar should be Spanish and I try to remain as neutral as possible. I do not have a problem with Gibnew's views. I simply do not approve of his way of discarding other people's sources, opinions etc... You should perhaps consult other users for their opinions such as user:ecemaml and user:asterion.
That is why I ask you, as an English-man, to mediate or atleast give your perspective on this issue.
Please look at the talk page over the past few months. Conflict with user Gibnews seems to go a long way back.
Thankyou very much for your help. We would really appreciate it. There is nothing worse that when articles are hijacked by individuals with political agendas.
--Burgas00 12:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
GoldToeMarionette
- Your account of the arbitration committee findings is simply not true. You say: They found just two things, one that I created multiple accounts, and Nlu thought it was disruptive. - the actual second finding was that the multiple accounts were disruptive, in the opinion of all seven involved arbitrators, not just that Nlu thought they were. There are two remedies - firstly that you are restricted to one user account. If you want Goldtoemarionette to be unblocked, that's fine, but I will then block this account. The other remedy is that any admin may ban you from any article you're disrupting. You're disrupting the page I've banned you from, by posting repeated requests for unblocking an account which you have been told you cannot use at the same time as this one. I'm not going to lift that ban. You are, of course, free to appeal this on WP:AN/I. I think you know what sort of response you'll get. --ajn (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for recognizing that GoldToeMarionette should be unblocked. However if you unblock it, why would you block this account? ArbCom said I am not to use more than one account. Unblocking GoldToeMarionette does not relate to that. Please unblock GoldToeMarionette, but do not block this one. I want it unblocked because it never should have been blocked initially. I won't use that account until I am allowed to use multiple accounts again.
- Regarding the Page Protection page, I am not disrupting it, I am asking that a page be unprotected, which it should be. If the page were unprotected I would not have to request it be unprotected. I don't see the purpose of it being protected because it was falsely protected by Nlu initially to shut me up. Users removing the request without dialogue are the ones that cause the disruption. The term disruptive is extremely subjective, and I fail to see how requesting a page be unprotected could be disruptive because that is half of what people do on the page. Besides, I was polite.
- Thank you for taking some time to dialogue with me. I appreciate it. PoolGuy 20:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)