Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:32, 9 September 2006

3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Er...yeah. Cool Cat and I have discussed things now. Thanks, though! Bastique▼ _voir 22:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's block has been reduced to two hours while you've been unblocked... I didn't agree with your original blocking (nor really Cool Cat's - but he does have a rather extensive block log). You might consider unblocking him. Cheers. (→Netscott) 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You actually didn't unblock me but reduced my block (thanks again for that)... You should have unblocked me though considering User:Jayjg and User:SlimVirgin gamed the 3RR system to get me blocked. I'm likely to file an RfC over that matter. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 22:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Macgregor

None of which changes the fact that ordinary admins have no authority to invoke WP:OFFICE. They can protect it on their own authority if they must, but simply cannot invoke WP:OFFICE. If it was from an OTRS complaint (i.e. editing by lawyer) then the protecting admins, including you, should say so in the protection summary, rather than a smoke-and-mirrors explanation that gives other admins nothing to go on.

And anyway. I unprotected that nearly 3 months ago; just go and fix it! I explained why at the time. -Splash - tk 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Grapefruit Seed Extact - Quackery or Legit.

Hello,

If you know, please explain in the Scientific Research section of the Grapefruit Seed Extract article about the efficacy of GSE. Is GSE itself a preservative or is it due to the synthetic preservatives within the extract?

My question is simple. Is GSE legit or adultered?

Thanks for your contributions. Good Luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.42.128.31 (talk • contribs)

Poll

I was acting on WP:ANI beliefs. However, I probably should have though, but what's done is done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding KojiDude's recent block on WP:IAR

I strongly believe this block is not justified and unreasonable. Only two offenses were made and none after being warned. -- bulletproof 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

MacGregor

Bastique, you apparently have no idea about the convoluted and controversial history of this article. MacGregor has been found to be sufficiently notable as the founder and president of TIPT to merit inclusion, and the details that follow are the verifiable facts about Alexander MacGregor. This article has been reviewed by Michael Snow and even Wales himself, so please do not presume that you know best. It has also undergone and survived afd for deletion in essentially the form that was stable for a long time until your involvement began. The article was originally created by a transparent sockpuppet of MacGregor himself, and the version you keep reverting to is known to contain many outright falsehoods and unverifiable assertions from the original puff piece. Finally, I am a longtime administrator here, so don't presume to lecture me on the rules. Naturally, I am reverting. Fawcett5 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the article. It has been through the afd process, indicating that MacGregor is suitably notable. Leaders of academic institutions have long been found notable enough for inclusion, thus your arguments are completely without basis, and your deletion constitues unilateral abuse of admin abilities in direct conflict with established procedure. Please desist at once. Fawcett5 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My only agenda is to see that wikipedia articles contain verifiable factual information, not fantasies pulled out of someones head. I didn't start the article, and I didn't somehow create the news stories and court records about MacGregor, they are a matter of public record. If the correct process (afd) has determined that the article should exist, then it should, and only verifiable facts should be included. What is controversial about that? You mention "sensitive issues" - but the foundation dealt with this months ago. Go ahead and email me the details. Fawcett5 18:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Email turned on now, you email me. Obviously, you haven't even read the article, he is not a professor, he is the founder and head of a very well known academic institution, and it is uncontroversial that such individuals are sufficiently notable for inclusion in wikipedia. Moreover, when an afd is found to have no consensus, it is effectively the same as "keep", as the burden of proof is on those proposing deletion. Therefore, it is highly innappropriate for you to delete the article. Fawcett5 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is "our" supposed to be? You and Tony? There was foundation level involvement on this months ago. User:Fred Bauder has even restored the article in the past after another misguided deletion, and he is one of the very few people with true oversight capability to make it permanently go away. And you still haven't emailed me anything. Fawcett5 19:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but nastygrams from MacGregor's lawyers are nothing new I'm afraid, and are safely disregarded as the article contains only information freely available in the public domain. I suggest you contact Fred as he has dealt with this article before, and is in fact a lawyer. Fawcett5 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for recommendation

I withdrew the checkuser. It seems to be par for the course. --Ben Houston 04:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL

I consider this to be a completely false and unwarranted personal attack. I would appreciate its removal, and an apology. Jayjg 18:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your comment, but this comment violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please remove it from Misplaced Pages, and I would appreciate an apology. I'm sure the other person you referred to would appreciate an apology as well. Jayjg 19:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The lines that labelled SV and Jayjg did seem to violate the twain (NPA, CIVIL). Labelling someone's views as idiotic and "hyper" violated WP:CIVIL and attacking any though that you percieve to be a person when specifically mentioning their names is just a backdoor personal attack, and a user that I respect as much as you should know that. Please calm down and avoid doing that again. Voice-of-All 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

VoiceofAll, I've requested JayJG not communicate to me any longer. He will not get an apology, and he shouldn't expect one. I think he's wrong and a bully. Bastique▼ _voir 19:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read Bastique message thus there isn't much reason to keep a particular sentence of it now if it continued existence is problematic. --Ben Houston 19:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the term "idiotic" is offensive, and would recommend that you remove that word from the comment and apologize. Excluding that word, however, I see no basis for contention. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you guys knock it off? It's a bit transparent to be engaged in a rather vicious argument with Bastique and then turn around and start accusing him of being incivil or whatever. I know you guys have thicker skins than that, and you're not totally innocent either. Debate the issues, don't devolve into attacks about "You said something incivil". --Cyde Weys 23:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Who is involved in a "rather vicious argument" with Bastique? He has inserted himself into a content dispute he has no knowledge of (again!) with the result of stirring things up (again!); he made personal attacks (again!); and he is being asked not to, and rightly so. Period. SlimVirgin 00:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the same old tactic, Slim. It's getting mighty tiring. You and Jayjg harrass a user repeatedly until they reach the breaking point, then you exclaim, "Oh look, you're being incivil! And you're totally ignorant of the issues!" Don't you ever get tired of the sheer hypocrisy of saying stuff like, "Don't be incivil; you're making personal attacks and you don't know anything." --Cyde Weys 00:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your nonsense

I've just been made aware of this, which I find very offensive. Your sole contribution to that article was to support an editor who was out to cause trouble, and then to unblock him when an uninvolved admin blocked for disruption/3RR, even though you were involved in the dispute. You have no knowledge of the subject, and you're therefore not in a position to know whether it's a "propaganda piece" or not. Now, once again, you're supporting an editor who engages in personal attacks by engaging in them yourself.

Your comment — "I've developed a substantial amount of positive contribution history at Misplaced Pages and developed friendships with well-established users who came to my defense that I managed to survive that scuffle with my sysop flag intact" — is hyperbole in the extreme and completely misleading. Who on earth "came to defense"? When did anyone need to?

Please stop these personal attacks and unhelpful interventions regarding articles and issues you're not informed about. SlimVirgin 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This comment does nothing but make me angrier with her. I think she's trying to get me to say something which will only make things worse. I believe it's best ignored. Bastique▼ _voir 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Then kindly do that. Stay away from me, don't comment on me, don't support trolls who are baiting me, don't use your sysop tools when you're involved in a content dispute, and don't launch personal attacks on other good editors. Then all will be well. SlimVirgin 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)