Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:02, 3 August 2006

Please avoid unusual formatting. This is both my user page and my talk page. To find out more about me and what I do, click on the icons in the amazingly cool navigation bar above. Click here to leave a new message. Disclosure of political bias: I took the the political compass questionnaire on 15 July 2006 and the result was economic left/right: minus 8.13, social libertarian/authoritarian: minus 8.26 Please contact me by email if you are blocked from editing: minorityreport@bluebottle.com

Listen to this page (2 parts, 7 minutes) Part 2 These audio files were created from a revision of this page dated Error: no date provided, and do not reflect subsequent edits.(Audio help · More spoken articles)

Internal link on Brian Peppers article

Thanks for the good explanation; I will revert. --Merovingian (T, C, @) 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I believe User:SPUI has something to tell you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#.7B.7Bvandal.7CElkman.7D.7D. I think I've officially crossed the line into being a vandal and a bad Wikipedian in general. Go ahead and apply the appropriate block; I've probably earned it. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfa

Thanks for the notice. Tazmaniacs 12:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix

Tony, HELP! I do not know if you notice or not but Wikipediatrix has a very short fuse and seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. We have articles on here that she has continually gotten involved in. When we have asked her to help us she became very confrontational and even claimed we were editing under different names. It got to the point that other editors were calling her down for her antics. I surely hope that this is not a regular problem that everyone has to deal with in thier dealings with her? She has tagged yet the same article on David L Cook for "cites" We went in and gave what we had. Such as a quote from Bob Hope. That comment was made at a banquet full of comedians and not recorded by television or radio. We have tried to explain these things and she still comes right back and tags everything again. I do not know if this is all she has to do all day but it certainly is very hard to deal with someone who has this kind of agenda. We are not Wiki savy and do not claim to be. We have gone in when we check these things to see if everything is done right and if not we try to fix them. I do not know how to cite the things she is talking about. Most of the things that are said between celebrities or at functions are not things that are citable in our opinion. Could you please help us? We need to get this woman off of our backs! She is very nasty. Thanks Daylon Ware IAMAS Corporation 9:14, 2006,25,07 (UTC)

She's doing a good job. Please see Verifiability and Reliable sources. If there is no reliable source for Bob Hope's opinion on David L. Cook, then we can't use it. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Deuterium/Bad edits

It looks more like a hit-list to me, and I don't appriciate being included on yet another one of these. I don't know if you noticed it, but Zeq has also expressed some concerns re being included on that list on the talkpage. -- Karl Meier 17:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Eluchil404's RfA

Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent request for adminship. I have withdrawn my self-nomination because there seemed little prospect for further productive discussion or the formation of a consensus to promote. Many commentators offered constructie critisism that I will use to improve myself as a user. Others suggested that the nomination was premature and that a re-nom in a few months would be more likely to gain consensus. I want to thank you in particular for pointing out specific areas where my contributions were deficient as that shows me where I should work to be a better editor. Eluchil404 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mohit for speedy deletion

This article seems a purely imaginative narration by the author. This may look good in a story book, but not in an encyclopedia. BTW, I did a search on google to confirm my suspicions.--→Talk 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Three anonymous AOLers wrote on my talkpage.

One claimed to be Sceptre and two congratulated my on not snorting marijuana today. The history speaks for itself:

• ⁃

¡Thanks!

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BLESS YOU

Thank you for speedy deleting Jim Shapiro. I have been accused of sock-puppetry (I am not my husband and we are not one except in the eyes of the Church, and not even there since we are Jewish.) I have also been accused of calling my family 'consensus', although 11 different independent editors thought this article should be deleted. It is true that several attorneys weighed in on this, other than Gfwesq and me (who are both attorneys), for good reason. WIkipedia is not a vehicle to bash lawyers. I had not even heard of Jim Shapiro until I came across the 'article'. There is good reason why we haven't - this lawyer is 'famous' only in his own local area, and 'Overlawyerd' perhaps, since 'Overlawyered' sole aim is to disparage lawyers and they look for lawyers to criticize. Thank you again. You restored my faith in Misplaced Pages. jawesq 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Another 'sister' Jim Shapiro

Would you mind looking here please:

http://en.wikiquote.org/Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion

Thank you!jawesq 18:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a comment there. I don't work on that site so I didn't really think it would be appropriate to vote. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Did some admin now decide to challenge the deletion?

Administrators may view the page history and content at Special:Undelete/Jim_Shapiro.jawesq 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Precedent for blanking an AfD?

I'm not particularly concerned about whether Jim Shapiro merited a full AfD or a speedy deletion, but I'm a bit puzzled about the blanking of an existing AfD, especially since there was some controversy about this issue. Isn't it more appropriate just to post the result near the top, like in any other AfD? After all, this was a content discussion that could be valuable to future editing on this topic, especially as it provided evidence about the questionable nature of the sources. (I myself am wondering whether something meaningful could have been developed out of the New York Lawyer source, but I'm not going to press the issue.) Thanks for any insight. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder about this. I'd love to hear more about this because the choice to blank the AfD is a bit puzzling to me as well. Erechtheus 19:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a fairly common practice to blank an AfD in which very uncomplimentary things are said about a person or company. The result can be seen in the history. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What Tony said. Per WP:BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material abut living individuals should be removed from articles and Talk, and by extension from related Project pages. The AfD is moot anyway, so blanking is perfectly reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to you both for the explanation. The explanation certainly makes sense. Erechtheus 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

'Preciate the pointers, guys. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jim Shapiro. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. I know you had good reasons, and I know you are usually quite adamant about your own correctness, but I strongly feel that a speedy was not the best decision here. I've explained why on the DRV page. Powers 00:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. I can't believe that anyone would even try to defend this article.jawesq 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Babur

Some IP is vandalizing the Babur page. I've reverted his changes two times, already. I do not want to violate the 3RR, so please have a look at the article. Thanks. Tājik 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

User: RJII

Excuse me, but you stated the following on the discussion page of RJII: "Anybody who behaves in the same manner as RJII, who claims to have been a group of different editors, may on reasonable suspicion supported by a consensus of editors, or by other means, be treated under RJII's arbitration remedies. Continuously. --Tony Sidaway"

Given that the arbcom ruling banned RJII, does this mean that individuals who make the same edits as RJII and explicitly claim to having used the RJII account themselves, would be under effect of the same ban now placed on RJII? If so individualistanarchist has claimed to be such a user. Thanks for the clarification. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a question as well. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that says that shared user accounts are prohibited, is there? I find this to be a little bit strange "admits to being a shared account" . Hopefully someone can clear that up... Intangible 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely and extended RJII's ban to run to 31 July, 2007. Shared accounts are prohibited and will be blocked on sight. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this, Tony. --AaronS 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a policy that says this. I don't remember where it is, but I asked the same thing when the block first happened. I think it's called a "role account" or something. And I too thank you. The Ungovernable Force 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the ArbCom decision to block RJII was reached independently of the fact that he had a shared account. Second, I'd like to notify you that User:TheIndividualist has also admitted to being a puppet of RJII, and has been banned accordingly. I strongly suggest that RJII be marked as a puppet master and that we should be on the lookout for any future puppets. The IPs used by his puppets should be monitored. -- Nikodemos 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, IndividualistAnarchist first said they were a new account of TheIndividualist, so TheIndividualist admitted to being RJII when IndividualistAnarchist did. The Ungovernable Force 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro

A second article James J. Shapiro was made with significant additions. I viewed the DRV on Jim Shapiro as being moot in this context, and unsalted Jim Shapiro for a redirect. I'd value your comments if you feel the new article is inappropriate. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 03:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

On the Table

Hi, me again. I noticed you haven't answered my email, even though I thought it was pretty reasonable. I would like to ask you something, and I swear I won't berate you for your answer, argue with you, or ask for an explanation or reply in any way or complain on any medium; you can delete my comments if I do. What I want to ask is, do you consider me a part of these "ED trolls" you've occassionally referenced or not? Obviously, I'm aware of my own good faith or lack thereof, but since the perception of my edits is seems to count more than anything, it will be helpful in the future to know if my actions are going to be seen as trolling or not, and since you seem at least more rational than other editors I've encountered, your opinion would be appreciated. You can reply here, at my talk page, by email, whatever. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User page versions of deleted (or otherwise) articles

Greetings Tony Sidaway, What's your view about main user pages becoming defacto articles? I can understand when a user has a copy of a deleted article (or working copy) say at User:Someuser/deleted (or worrking copy) article but when I see user pages such as User:Supplements I'm hard pressed to not see them as attempts to get around deletion policies. Thanks. Netscott 19:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages clerks