This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pugnavi (talk | contribs) at 14:17, 20 July 2005 (Nice job). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:17, 20 July 2005 by Pugnavi (talk | contribs) (Nice job)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Note: I may remove comments that are inserted without a section header. Please be nice and create a new section if you want to leave me a comment.
Request
Hello, JYolkowski! I have a favor to ask of you (and several other admins), and I hope you would mind helping. User:Ashida Kim has been giving several of us some trouble regarding the factual accuracy of the article Ashida Kim. I was first made aware of this issue after someone listed the user on Misplaced Pages:Clueless newbies. Therefore, I contacted User:Ashida Kim and left him a friendly message and welcome note. He responded with insults, and I again politely replied, telling him that he needed to follow Misplaced Pages policy and provide sources/proofs to back up his facts. After checking out his history, I see several other users have been attempting to talk with him as well. He insists on talking to an administrator, via email. He claims that he cannot contact any administrator (despite being pointed to the list).(For appropriate sections regarding this matter, see the two sections on my talk page, see his talk page, see the section titled "Personal Attack" in the help desk (Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Personal Attack), see his contributions, and see Misplaced Pages:Clueless newbies). I do not wish to get involved in this dispute (several other users & admins are already involved), but he basically requested (challenged?) that I contact several non-involved admins after I made a friendly offer. Therefore, would you mind taking a look at this case and seeing what you can do? Thank you very much. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 3 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks anyways! I'm just hoping that at least one admin will open a dialogue with him, so he can't complain that a admin never contacted him... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 3 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for getting rid of the vandalism on my user page a couple of weeks ago (I only just noticed!). Jez 4 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)
User:Bedel23
Danny and I both blocked User:Bedel23 wher a sting of attack pages showed up on RC with him as the author, he was unblocked by Danny very soon after when the pages were checked, Bedel had just been tagging them for speedy.--nixie 5 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)
Please help!
Hi. thanks again for reverting that anon user who vandalized my talk page. I have another favor to ask of you. DreamGuy has been posting several harsh and rude commentaries on other user's talk pages and in the history sections of various articles. He erased warnings that four other users put on his talk page as well. I have tried to be civil to him; and I will confess that I vandalized his talk pages months earlier, but I have desisted from these actions ever since. I have offered truces with him, and I have complemented him for his good edits, yet he continues to be extremely rude to other Wikipedians. Therefore, I ask that you block him for a while (about two weeks) and let him figure out that he is dead wrong. I'll post the same message that I did on Vandalism in progress
~DreamGuy (talk • contribs), may or may not pertain to the "moderate" category has often left rude and criticizing comments on history sections of articles. Avoids "direct" vandalism by using anagrams such as WAFM - which is certainly a cover-up for "what a F***ing moron- often deletes other people's complaints about his vandalism. Here are examples of some of his harsh words:
Hi. If you had bothered to look at the change you mention above, you would see that it was clearly making it more NPOV and not POV. I had a typo in the edit description area, as those are more dificult to catch as they do not show up on preview any different than when first entered. MAking it "clear that these are beliefs and not necessarily true" is CLEARLY making something NPOV, and looking at the edit you would see that that's exactly what I did. For you to try to use that to claim that I am knowingly putting POV into articles when it is clear I am doing just the opposite is simply absurd. DreamGuy 03:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
You have got to be effin kidding me. The delete votes clearly strongly outpaced the keep votes. It's ridiculous things like keeping articles most people clearly thought deserved to be deleted that makes this place such a joke. A bunch of juveniles kiddies can come along and screw up VfDs by making nonsensical claims to keep a useless and craptastic article like this and then some admin who can;t count keeps the article. The lunatics are running the asylum here. DreamGuy 05:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Such is clearly a POV rant if not vandalism. He has been warned by several others but simply deletes messages. I myself have relented from vandalizing his site since 25 April(he has reported me before, and given his demeanor will do so again), have offered truces, and I have even complemented him on his good edits. Although he is a fine editor, his actions in dealing with others must be checked. If he persists, I recommend an immediate and two week block. Horatii 8 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)
- Please stop him, and please check out his history section from his talk page and his contributions to see what I talking about. Thanks. Horatii 8 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
RC Patrol
Thanks for putting a "no-no bad user" message on vandals' userpages when you revert their trashy edits. So many RC patrollers don't, but it makes such a positive difference in keeping track of what they're doing, and in getting them to stop. Joyous (talk) July 9, 2005 16:26 (UTC)
thank you
Thank you for pointing that out. I will refrain myself in the future. Peregrine 03:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
WikiProject Chicago
Hi. As you seem to be interested in Chicago, I just wanted to let you know about WikiProject Chicago. Our goal is to improve the quality of the Chicago and Chicago related articles. In doing so, we hope to Chicago will become a featured article. To read more or join us in our efforts, please see the WikiProject Chicago page. Thanks! -- BMIComp (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
WikiProject Chicago
Hi, I just noticed that you joined WikiProject Chicago and would like to welcome you aboard. Please see the projects talk page for any current issues and projects. Also, I saw your post on my talk page, and yes that is a good idea. I have created a template at Template:ChicagoWikiProject-Invite based on the invite message BMIComp sent to you. Feel free to revise it if you wish. Thanks, --Gpyoung 15:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Need help on image tag
I was wondering if you could tell me whether this image is public domain or not? I found it at a site that's co-owned (or entirely owned) by the University of Virginia.--Kross 06:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Danke! I was thinking the same, but I wanted a second opinion. :D You're the best!--Kross 12:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Monopoly
Hello. I've just been visiting and updating the Monopoly page (and localization article) to reflect the Monopoly here and now limited edition 2005 - for the latter article, I notice you changed the "Delete" to a "Merge". Since I don't see much point in an article on a limited edition of the board game (it's not notable!), I wondered why you did this. Would it be OK if I changed it back to a "Delete" or would a stub be more appropriate (in which case I'll relink it from the main article)? A redirect doesn't seem appropriate as nothing else linked there. I'm fairly new to this chat stuff, so please let me know if I've got it wrong - Thanks! Stephenb 19:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. Seems pointless keeping the redirect, but I bow to your experience :-) Stephenb 19:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Chicago photo
Do you think any of these would work better for a Chicago picture? The photographer is a relative of mine and I could probably get him to license it if one of those suited it better. Just a thought. -- BMIComp (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
3RR warning
You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Kelly Martin 03:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Kelly, thanks for the warning. Which article are you referring to? --AI 08:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- The article in question is Scientology controversy; I noted that you reverted changes to the categorization of that article three times in a relatively short time; a fourth revert would have violated 3RR. You technically avoided 3RR by changing the categorization to something slightly different (so that it wasn't exactly a revert), so I don't think you'll be blocked, but I would still warn you against edit warring. It's obvious that you and Antaeus Feldspar disagree over the categorization of this article; I would suggest that you attempt to resolve the issue on the article's talk page or through mediation rather than through an extended edit war. Kelly Martin 13:27, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice Kelly. I will read up on mediation. --AI 02:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Critics
My intention is not to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, but with all due respect, your revert in Rick Ross is inconsistent with apparent consensus (within some controversial articles) that generalized critical claims are permissible. There should be more concisely stated policy, as I run into this disputed point on a regular basis with users such as Antaeus Feldspar, Modemac, and BTfromLA who unceasingly revert my revision or dismissal of unattributed critical claims and allegations. --AI 02:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- The behavior of other editors does not excuse your own. The comment I removed from Rick Ross is a classic example of weaseling: an attempt to convert a blatant, unsupported opinion about someone or something into a "fact" by prepending it with "Some critics say". This practice is not consistent with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy and is therefore not permitted on Misplaced Pages. If you want to call Rick Ross a "media whore", you are going to have to put those words in the mouth of some sufficiently notable individual or group; you may not put them in the mouths of anonymous "critics". Kelly Martin 03:04, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- First off, I am not trying to excuse my behavior. I am a newcomer and I would appreciate it if others would not bite the newcomers. But most importantly, thank you very much for your opinion, that's what I wanted to hear and I completely agree with you. Are you an admin or someone with authority here on Misplaced Pages? You should look at some of the Scientology articles, they are loaded with weasels and let me repeat myself: I run into this disputed point on a regular basis with users such as Antaeus Feldspar, Modemac, and BTfromLA who unceasingly revert my revision or dismissal of unattributed critical claims and allegations. --AI 03:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
read the VFD
and see that tis ubn nessessary and it all stems from one users inaprpriate edits. (dreamguy went aganist consensus) Gabrielsimon 05:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Cantus
Thanks very much for your help. -- Netoholic @ 05:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
but
but he gone i do not now were he is he leaft a long tyme ago and he need to be her i can not et or slep with out him be ing here Marijuanaisbad 01:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Masturbation
Hi, I noticed that you restored some pretty POV material from the Masturbation article. I was wondering if you meant to do that or if you felt the edits are legits. I was on RC patrol and I saw that edit come through and it looked like blanking vandalism at first glance but it seemed to me that someone was taking out some pretty questionable material. I just wanted to let you know because I'm going to take it back out. If you feel it belongs there drop me a note...Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 03:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry....looks like you beat me to it! Rx StrangeLove 03:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing Ugolino della Gherardesca so quickly
Made the redirection in the wrong page and ended up with the self-redirect. I never found the "Rollback" button and was afraid that I would had to re-do the previous merge. --JuanPDP 00:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
User:Pugnare
Can you block User:Pugnare and revery all his changes, he makes every pages 20 times the size by copy/paste over and over, including to my talk page, (please revert that as well.) --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Nice job
It surprises me how fast you admins act when presented a vandal, but how indifferent you are to messy articles in dire need of cleanup. I wonder if the fast reflexes you applied when blocking me will also apply when shown an appallingly written article. I guess not. I even wonder if what I say has an effect on you, as it has not had one on many administrators, obsessed as they are with deleting, blocking, reverting, edit-warring, article moving, disputing, quarreling, and so on and so forth, etc. etc.
You pay attention to worthless vandals, who by the way do not need immediate attention, but not to popular articles (such as the new Harry Potter Bk. 6 and 7 articles), which need much more serious attention than annoying trolls disrupting unimportant matters.
This is a threat. You may choose to view it as such or as a friendly wake-up call from a user who has long been disillusioned by the apathetic dealings of the big-headed administrators, too proud to even look back at the activities they used to do. Once elected, what do they do? They do things irrelevant to the quality of articles, all because they think they are on a "higher" level than other "normal" users, even though this is not so. Before being elected, they work hard, real hard, cleaning up articles, adding new ones, things they cease to do once bestowed the title of "Administrator."
This is a threat. If you do not change and spread this word, I will personally make sure a virus is uploaded into one of the media files so that whoever opens it will get infected. Mark my words.
Think about it.
This is our only hope. Pugnavi 14:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)