Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:24, 9 October 2006

Old talk at /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10, /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive 13, /Archive 14

Please review

Please review my actions described at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Freestylefrappe and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe#Logs of blocks and bans. Thatcher131 19:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it seems to have been taken care of. Thatcher131 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this should be noted on WP:BU then. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Thatcher131 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"edit wars"

Can you please comment as it seems you have proposed this. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop#Laughing_Man_edit_wars. It has been nearly 7 days and I have yet to recieve a reponse. Regards.// Laughing Man 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you really look into those edits and put them into the proper context? Obviously not, so I will need to spend some time now on explaining the examples you gave as they do not support your proposal. It's unfortunate that now I need to spend time defending myself instead of other more productive things I can be doing here. Sigh. // Laughing Man 05:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, those are certainly edit warring (you shouldn't war against or for consensus, use dispuute resolution) but of course, they aren't the best examples because you only disputed that you had edit warred regarding Kosovo, not that you had edit warred in general. Your tone is off-putting, by the way. Believe me, I'll change my mind if I'm mistaken. Dmcdevit·t 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OSTRICH

I think you might be the one who needs to cool it. You're AfDing and PRODing articles about a subject you obviously know nothing about, and judging by recent comments by other editors, I'm not alone on this. PT 18:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Prod

Just thought I'd bring these three to your attention: . Unsure what you want to do next. Daniel.Bryant 01:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Template Removal

Regarding this edit - why would a sockpuppeteer need to be blocked while that template is in place? BhaiSaab 06:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand whay purpose you feel that template is serving, other than as a social stigma for past wrongs. The sockpuppet is long since blocked, and there is no danger from it. CltFn is not blocked. Do you intend him to carry that template with him forever? Let's move on. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

So User:Shiva's Trident doesn't need it either? User:Blnguyen said he did. I just want to know what's policy on this - if there isn't any policy, maybe the admins should make one. He was also blocked for his continual removal of the notice, which indicates that the blocking admin felt it was necessary. Considering it was his second sockpuppet, I feel it's important. BhaiSaab 09:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly BhaiSaab cannot move on. Look at the discussion over an account we had over an account I made at the start of my wikiediting which wasnt even a sock by any means . He seems to wish to tag user pages with "sock-graffiti".Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered why it is important. Is there an actual reason for it, other than that it was ever put there? Dmcdevit·t 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because he may do it again. BhaiSaab 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is the tag important? It isn't going to prevent anyone from using sockpuppets again. Dmcdevit·t 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But it does indicate his past actions to anyone who may suspect him of using sockpuppets in the future. BhaiSaab 19:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Be realistic. So he was blocked for using a sockpuppet in the past, and now wants to start fresh. You want him to have a sockpuppet tag forever? Well, you were blocked for edit warring once, too. Should I create a template to put on your user page forever so everyone knows you have a history of it? There is no reason for it, and it's in the block log in any case. You are really just making yourself look vindictive. Dmcdevit·t 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not one, but two sockpuppets. If the template is not to be used, why does it exist in the first place? BhaiSaab 19:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The way you want it to be used is silly, that doesn't mean it is not to be used. Dmcdevit·t 19:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it up with User:Blnguyen and please form a policy regarding this. User:Anwar saadat and User:Shiva's Trident still have to carry the templates because of what that admin said. You can't apply two different standards to users who have committed the same offenses. BhaiSaab 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ER

Hi Dmcdevit - I request you to please visit Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2 when u have time. I need your criticism and advice on improving myself - I will greatly appreciate your input. Thanks, Rama's arrow 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica article again

Please investigate possible immediate responses regarding the IP address 68.126.253.36 Someone is gutting the Srebrenica article from this IP address that has never been used before on wikipedia. Thank you. Fairview360 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

SV RfAR

You were right, I did not present any evidence for that at this time and I have removed the assertion accordingly. -- Kim van der Linde 04:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

Thanks for one of the best edit summaries I've ever seen.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)