This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 14:35, 29 May 2009 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 2d) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 47.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:35, 29 May 2009 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 2d) to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 47.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
I want the Unblock in spanish wikiquote
Hello dear Jimbo, my IP adress is blocked because a mistake, I`m a innocet user, but Drini hates Jehova's Witnesses users, and he is a proscriptor and a very bad enemy of us. I want, please, the desblock in spanish wikiquote, because I`m working constructuvely. Can you Speak with Drini the Ip's policeman an say him I'm innocent an I`m not a vandal? Thank you very much. --87.220.31.209 (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Jimbo, I wait for a response. Thanks. --87.220.31.14 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
General note for everybody: Drini is a steward who has confirmed that the above IP belongs to a sockpuppeteer. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a sockpuppeteer. Drini hates Jehovah's Witnesses users because he likes Maya's gods. I was working constructively but he hates Bible quotations in the proyect. If I'm writing here is because I'm innocent. I want the desblock. --87.220.31.238 (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- What does "desblock" translate to in English? --64.85.222.62 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Unblock", (or "disenblockification", if you're not into that whole … brevity thing). pablohablo. 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a vandal, I want unblock because I'm innocent. --87.220.31.238 (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jimbo is not going to interfere with something like that. If you want to be unblocked, you are going to have to take it up with whoever blocked you. J.delanoyadds 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Has anyone thought of asking on eswikiquote village pump? Any of the regulars will confirm that he's been a problem user for a year and half. The whole "religious persecution" and "worshipping mayan gods" thing has been played before, some insulting usernames with that card are logged here: . Please, if this continues just go and ask the people on eswikiquote and you'll confirm what I'm saying. -- m:drini 18:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jimbo is not going to interfere with something like that. If you want to be unblocked, you are going to have to take it up with whoever blocked you. J.delanoyadds 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- What a lot of names! Anyway, 87.220.31.238 (talk · contribs), you will have to request your unblock at the site where you are blocked, as M. delanoy suggests. pablohablo. 19:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm innocent, I'm not a vandal, I'm workimg constructively but Drini hates Jehova's Witnesses users, these are my last contibutions: Do you think I'm working constructively in the project when I'm editing pages like John Quincy Adams, Peter Hamilton Raven, Jane Goodall? obviously I'm not a vandal. --87.220.30.124 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- As you've been told, you need to plead your innocence on the site where you were blocked. No-one here is able to help you. --Tango (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Is a requirement that administrators be tolerant, Drini it is not, therefore you must to expell him from Wikiquote.--Oo 19 oo (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you understand now? I'm a innocent editor. --Oo 19 oo (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh, here we go with the crosswiki harassment. , , and cherry top of the cake where it shows the same underlying ip. No big deal, just for the record in case this pops up again (when the next batch of sockpuppets is nuked). -- m:drini 14:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a wandal. I want the unblock in spanish wikiquote. I'm innocent. Are you going to speek with Drini for the unblock? --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Leave Jimbo alone. Listen to what the other editors have told you. Go to es.wikiquote and request an unblock there. This situation has nothing to do with Jimbo. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I want Jimbo talks with this administrator for the unblock. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I want the unblock now. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- This in the English Misplaced Pages. If you want to complain about the Spanish Wikiquote, do so on the Spanish Wikiquote. No-one here can or will help you. Jimmy doesn't even speak Spanish, as far as I know. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have the IP blocked there, then I can not to speak there. This is the Jimbo Wales page. He is an administrator and he can to speak with this another administrator for the unblock. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- He is an administrator here, on the English Misplaced Pages. He isn't an administrator on Spanish Wikiquote (). You can still post to your userpage or email somebody and ask them to post your request for you. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
This problem can to end if Jimbo speeks for my unblock. Is very simply. --87.220.31.154 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Threats will get you nothing and may lead to a block on en.wiki. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly seems to be building up a viable rangeblock. Rodhullandemu 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- How is Jimbo supposed to judge the case without speaking the language the disagreement took place in? --Tango (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- How is the anon to make his complaint when he doesn't speak English. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
An idea to consider...
This discussion is now on WP:VRP. Please click on the link to that page if you wish to contribute to this discussion. Ross Rhodes (T C) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Disastrous Cyberstalking campaign in some Misplaced Pages Articles and TalkPages has gone unimpeded for 18 months
Mr. Wales, this is the first time myself or a friend or relative has attempted to contact you. We have each attempted numerous numerous times in the past 22 months to solicit helpful intervention from many Misplaced Pages Administrators, but in almost every single case, the Administrator ends up worsening the problem or making only a few feeble attempts to understand it and "fix" things...and then basically "runs away," confused or intimidated by the complexity or volatility involved -- or deciding to further harass and defame the Mormon involved. As a result of this, a particularly cunning and obsessive cyberstalker has been able to censor or mutilate articles and items of information of great interest to Mormons, researchers, and rights activists everywhere. Just today, he and an accomplice of his Luna Santin put a total edit block on Temple Lot and Church of Christ (Temple Lot) in order to preserve "and protect" Good Olfactory = Snocrates's smear campaign at both articles since the first of December 2007. Disgraced editor Snocrates quit editing on February 16, 2008 and Good Olfactory began editing on February 16, 2008. I'm disappointed to realize that some Administrators possibly knew that the Wiki-arsonist Snocrates is the same as Wiki-arsonist Good Olfactory, and haven't done anything to stop his misconduct, but have done plenty to assist.
A few recent explanations of the problem are here and here and here (please scroll down that page) and here (note there how GoodOlFactory=Snocrates on March 7 2008 once again "tag teams" a victim editor...just 21 days after he was denied Administratorship for "tag teaming" a victim editor via Zoporific=Snocrates....!). Another useful recent resource of explanation is here on GoodOlFactorys Talk Page --comments offered before the victims of Snocrates realized that he and GoodOlFactory are one and the same. By now, there are hundreds of relevant edits, reverts, comments and so forth related to the cyberstalking scheme initiated by a couple of users in late July 2007, and then "picked up" and intensified by Snocrates =Zoporific=G77=Good Olfactory as well as accomplices such as Americasroof in December 2007 and (sadly) Versageek who banned the cyberstalking victim on December 18, 2007 when he announced he would contact Law Enforcement if the cyberstalking continued. That's not a legal threat, that's a universally-recognized civil right, for a victim of a crime to "threaten" to contact relevant police authorities. A legal threat is "threatening" to hire a lawyer and so forth. It is sad that Versageek did that, because she was helpful to the cyberstalking victim in August and earlier in December 2007, but it was wrong and injurious for Versageek to ban the cyberstalking victim and then refuse to lift the ban, to this day, just as it is wrong for the "malicious genius" Snocrates=Zoporific=G77=GoodOlfactory and accomplices to keep banning and censoring anything offered at Misplaced Pages by Mr. Smith or family and friends who may occassionally share his username.
I would like for Jsmith51389 to be un-banned, the same as was CheckIntentPlease, after some Administrators realized he was right about Snocrates/Zoporific, and they were wrong (see a few extra-noble Wiki Administrators apologize at the Talk Page for CheckIntentPlease) And I would like any other so-called "suspected sockpuppet" of Jsmith 51389 or friends or relatives of his (such as Snocrates Olfactorys intent and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? to also be un-banned, on the principle that every single instance of banning has been unfair, misinformed and/or malicious.
I apologize that I don't have the time now to add a lot of convenient documentation and explanation, but as you know, defamation instigates harassment and still more defamation if someone influential and authoritative is unwilling or unable to intervene. Please intervene and completely stop in all articles and Talk pages of Misplaced Pages, the vicious cycle of defamation and harrassment instigated in 1990 and 1991 by a malicious or inept anti-Mormon media reports locally and then replicated countless times nationwide to the present day (thanks to the internet), ranging from an atrocious false report atop the Kansas City Times/Star on January 2, 1990 to the Associated Press thereafter, and the virulently anti-Mormon Watchman Fellowship to the present day. Thank you. Victim of Cybercrime (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- User:Victim of Cybercrime has now been banned because it is a sockpuppet of User:Jsmith 51389. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Appeal of arbcom case
I am extremely concerned about aspects of the Scientology case at the arbcom, and would like to appeal it. My basic concern is that I am worried that, in an attempt to try to make the decision not seem one-sided, people were wrongly singled out for censure for minor problems, and sanctions were imposed on users based on insufficient or at times non-existent evidence of wrongdoing.
Would you prefer I submit this appeal via e-mail, write up the issues here, write it up on a user subpage and link you to it, or what? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Seconded. --Ghirla 06:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Email me and let's discuss it. This will be a major undertaking for me, obviously, and a task I don't take lightly. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Red links
Hi, Jimmy Wales.
I'm from the portuguese Misplaced Pages where some users criticize the featured articles only because they have red links. You could answer if we can or not criticize red links in featured articles or lists, only by changing the layout? What is your opinion?
Regards, ⇨HotWikiBR 13:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
minus 10 points for spelling his name wrong, but I'm pretty sure a FA shouldn't have many (if any) redlinks PXK /C 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Haha... Typing error. I agree that a FA shouldn't have many red links, but at pt.wikipedia some users are removing red links in articles that are important to the reading of any visitor of the page. That's a really problem. I think that Misplaced Pages is an 💕, and not an complete encyclopedia, and for that it requires the support of its editors, and, in parts, of the red links.
Regards, ⇨HotWikiBR 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- If a redlink is important then it wouldn't be red. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- An FA should be featured by it own, no? ⇨HotWikiBR 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Darren, that is simply not true and you make the assumption we have 100% coverage in saying. While in some areas this is true because we have excellent coverage there are many areas, eg in our coverage of the so called Third World, where our coverage is poor ad red links are often to articles on important subjects we do not have coverage of. And that's just speaking of the en wikipedia, wikipedia in other languages are often sporadic and have many new articles needed. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- An FA should be featured by it own, no? ⇨HotWikiBR 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- If a redlink is important then it wouldn't be red. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)