This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zer0faults (talk | contribs) at 10:18, 9 June 2006 (→RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:18, 9 June 2006 by Zer0faults (talk | contribs) (→RfC)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This user is a Cabal of One. |
Feel free to add your comments below.
Anyone up for chess?
nd
|
Sasquatch v. World (Sasquatch to move) 1.e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. b3 d5 4. exd5 exd5 5. Qe2+ Be7 6. Ba3 b6
User:Kuban kazak
Thanks for giving him this warning block. But "momentary"? I doubt it. I'm seriously thinking about taking him to ArbCom over this threat. I don't know yet whether that's just an attempt at an insult or a hollow death threat. This person appears as very sick to me. In any case, his behaviour is grossly inacceptable. Lupo 07:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
REALbasic
Hey there. Back in April you sprotected this article due to problems with a single persistent vandal. That person then created an account (Boycottrealbasic) to circumvent the sprotect, vandalised the article some more, got banned, and that was the last we heard of them for a while. Well, guess what, they're back and stirring up the exact same kind of problems as before(e.g.), but this time with some legal threats tossed in for good measure. I'm not really sure what can be done as a more permanent solution to this problem (being able to block ranges of IPs from editing specific articles would be ideal); I was hoping we were done with this rather bored person by now. :-/ Warrens 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry i haven't replied in a while but i didn't know i am new to wikipedia and Georgemoney told me to copy and did it for me Airforceguy 22:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Range block
My home dial-up connection was caught in your range block (the IP assigned to me this morning was 67.0.66.233). I can't edit at home, and I have limited time here at the library.
The IP is randomly assigned by Qwest Communications. Arch O. La 15:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ndru01 evading 3RR block again
I left a comment on the Admin's noticeboard earlier. The edit war continues at Gnosticism in modern times, with User:Ndru01 using another previously-created sockpuppet, User:Moonlight serenade to evade a week-long block Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ndru01. Please block User:Moonlight serenade permanently as a sockpuppet, and I would suggest also User:Abba13133131 and variations beginning with 'Abba' (I think I noticed at least one other, but can't find it now). Thanks if you can help. --Cedders 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
3-RR
Is finding different ways of saying the same thing, and adding them to an article, considered reverting? For example, supposing an editor inserted into the article the following statement:
About his own religious stance, he said: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
and somebody deleted it. Next the editor inserted:
"Some say Hitler wasn't a Catholic, but he was faithful to the Church his whole life",
and someone else deleted it. Then the editor inserted,
"The Führer remained loyal to the Vatican for all his days "
and that too was deleted. Then he inserted,
"The faith with which Adolf was raised never left his heart,"
and again it was deleted. Has the editor inserting the statements made any reverts at all, for purposes of the 3-RR rule? Please reply here, I'm watching this page. Thank you. Drogo Underburrow 01:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- If it was that exact example I'd consider that 3RR and block for 12 hours on edit warring. More important is the "spirit of 3RR" which is there to prevent edit warring. But that's just me on that case. Sasquatch t|c 15:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
7 Help?
(Moved from my talk page...)
What do you need help with? Sasquatch t|c 15:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Have never used this feature before I assume that I answer here instead of on your talk page. Anyway I have just completed a concise article on a method of optimal classification and I am ready for peer review so I visited the mathematics project page and was just about to post it there. What is the appropriate thing to do and where should I publish it once it is reviewed? -- PCE 15:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Sock puppet of Ndru01
Hi. Thanks for your action to finally resolve problems at Gnosticism in modern times (and elsewhere), and so save everyone's time. As I mention above, there is almost certainly at least one remaining sock providing a loophole Special:Contributions/Moonlight serenade. Please could you also block this? Thanks. --Cedders 19:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
help
I made an article and I afterwards realized the contend is already written about in a different article. I want to redirect his article to the older article.
Bloger 23:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Its not working I did as you said when you click on “edit this page” in the page you see the words #REDIRECT name of second page but the page itself stays the same
Plus isn’t there a way so when one goes to this page he should automatically get redirected
Bloger 23:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all the best
Bloger 23:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
College of Toronto
Thanks, I wasn't certain how to handle that. I marked College of Toronto as {{copyvio}} but wasn't certain if a user's page or a talk page should also be marked with the same template. Couldn't find a WP:<something> to explain how to deal with the situation! Again, thanks for the help (and hello from Kelowna). --Stephane Charette 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Mediation Committee Business
Dear Fellow Mediators:
I'm writing to all mediators listed as active to point out several emergent issues that require the immediate attention of all active mediators. The Committee has come to a place where we can neither provide the function we were created to provide (timely formal mediaton for the English Misplaced Pages community) nor correct matters to be able to provide that function. In specific, we cannot perform any mediations, because most mediators are no longer taking cases, and we cannot add new mediators, because mediators are no longer responding to requests to join the Committee. I am in a place where I continually accept new cases for the committee, only to see them go stale after several months because there is no mediator willing to take it, and where I deny candidates a place on the committee because no mediator will speak up in support of them. I ask that all mediators take ten minutes to look over the following matters:
I beg, beseech, and pray each Mediator to please take a few moments to at the very least comment on the five candidates, and to consider taking one of the open cases. We are at a place where we are literally relying on the kindness of strangers: Almost all cases are being taken by non-Commitee volunteers at this point. Putting the open tasks page (which only changes when we add a new case), and the main committee page on your watchlist so you will know when new nominations and cases are added, would go a long way to helping the Committee succeed. (If having the main page pop up on your watchlist every time someone else comments in a nomination is too annoying, I can move them to subpages like RFA, so that the page will only change when a new nomination is added.) Additionally, I ask that all mediators check that they have a current email address subscribed to the Mediation Committee mailing list, mediation-l, to avoid the need for future talk page messages of this sort. My apologies for having to air the committee's dirty laundry in this manner, but I fear it is the only way to get everyone together to bring the Committee back to life. For the convenience of those who simply cannot be involved due to time constraints, I will be listing those that do not participate in any Committee activities as mediators emeriti, so that we have a clearer picture of who exactly we have available to take cases. I am, by separate posting, asking all mediators emeriti to return to actively participating in the requests to join the commmittee. Yours respectfully, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC) |
The site where some one is vandalising is...
Yeshiva Or Chaim, the person is Ti8381. Thanks
Help request from Dakpowers
(Moved from my talk page, I didn't know which to reply in) Thank you! I am trying to fill in all of the gaps on the PGA Tour page by making pages for all of the tournaments. There is a Template:Golf tourny template that I add to each one. How do I edit these templates to add the tournaments I'm making? Thanks so much. Dakpowers | Talk 01:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your help, Sasquach. :) Dakpowers | Talk 01:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
>:(:(-2006-05-20T02:17:00.000Z">
Have it your way :'( Master of Puppets 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC):("> :(">
Block
Oops - I apparently blocked a user the same time you did, me for three hours and you for one month. Will my block override yours? That is, will he be blocked for three hours or one month? If I accidentally overrode your block, feel free to reblock him. Thanks! --M@thwiz2020 22:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, sounds good. I always thought it was the most recent block - it's the shortest block? You probably know more than I do... --M@thwiz2020 22:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Page deletion
I know what you mean however, I know what I doing and you don't because I am me. I am not going to waste 20hrs of my life writing an article then submitting it and 10 minutes later seeing it all being edited. By someone who seems like a Mongoloid with a candle stick stuck in its ear helped him out or his mom taught him history. So I would rather write a few sentences leave the article for a little while let others expand on it then come back to it and sort it all out. --Street Scholar 13:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Dude, did you even read what I said? you know what just stfu. --Street Scholar 16:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
How about you just shut up and leave me alone? --Street Scholar 10:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you have an ulterior motive and you want to block me for the reason that I am a Pakistani. Are you a racist? you sure must be a racist you're harassing me. I don't see how my comments can warrant a blocking. I am asking you clearly to stop harassing me and leaving messages on my talk page which any civilized human being would understand. My 3rd comment was not profane and was not against the policies of Misplaced Pages to my understanding. So I suggest you stop abusing your administrative privileges to silence good people or people who's beliefs and views you do not agree with. I actually challenge you to prove how my comment above this results in me getting a second warning from you? I believe you're incompetent and incapable of distinguishing what is offensive and what is a simple request. --Street Scholar 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You really don't know when to give up do you? you're harassing me which part of that do you not understand? I do not want to converse with you stop leaving me messages on my talk-page. You're annoying. Anyway have a good day and dude just me alone I am a man not a woman and I am not homosexual. And I am also a Jatt in our culture unvilived is when you beat someone up not when you say a few words to them, I have different ethical and moral values to you, so try to understand. In my culture talking nicely to someone in a girly fashion is considered a weakness. The way we talk to you may seem rude but to me it doesn't. --Street Scholar 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Rhetoric?
Please point to 1 instance of me expressing Rhetoric against Cyde? JohnnyBGood t c 00:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't being sarcastic. Cyde actually made me laugh, which is a first considering he's done nothing but piss me off for nearly a week. And I genuinely think it is hope that progress can be made. You're inferring sarcasm where there was none implied or intended. As for the "Emergency, Emergency" comment I was referring to the edit history of the anti Cyde shadow group. It was intended as a joke. If you took it as me being sarcastic I apologize as that also was not the intent. JohnnyBGood t c 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- No worries, I know alot of animosity has been thrown his way, some of it by me in other instances no doubt. People get fired up when it comes to userboxes it seems. Apparently this isn't the first time this year this has happened either. In the end the status quo from before will prevail no doubt since by and large Wikipedians like their boxes (myself included). I think Cyde just made a mistake of stepping on the wrong hornets nest however it will calm down in a few days. JohnnyBGood t c 01:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Policy patrol?
Hi, I didn't see you briefly talking with myself or slimvirgin to meet the straw-test or what-have-you. Even so, nice to have you around. If you mess up, I'll yell at you loudly ;-P Kim Bruning 10:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh , actually, that was the straw test. You pass. :-P I'm not entirely sure I've seen your stance on policy before, but we can muddle that out as we go along. Or perhaps have a discussion on irc sometime soon. Kim Bruning 23:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
EWS23's RfA
Hi Sasquatch! Thank you so much for supporting "esoppO"ing my request for adminship; it brought a smile to my face. :o) I'm sure I'll continue to see you on IRC, where we can relax a bit from a hard days work. :o) Thanks again, and please let me know if you ever see something I could be doing better. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
An RFA thank you!
Thank you for supporting my recently successful nomination, even though I still haven't worked out exactly what you said... :-) Jude (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Sass...
Less than what one might have hoped for, but appreciated nonetheless. Saves me a monitor headbutt from at least *one* IP for the next six months. >_> Papacha 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.
Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!
--Bhadani 10:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
KI
I'm not at all involved with this situation (nor am I an admin), but I saw a link from BanyanTree's talk page, and I just want to know why you blocked him for so long. Certainly he deserves a block a little longer than 24 hours (a few days in my opinion), but don't you think 3 months is a little long?
ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- On the same issue, Tchadienne / KI / Freestylefrappe asked me for help. Obviously there was justification for a block on civility grounds, but three months seems extreme. He had a legitimate point about POV bias in the edits he was objecting to and, while removing comments without responding isn't particularly friendly, re-adding them isn't either. This is a generally good contributor who reacts badly to conflict, which would be a reasonable description of half the userbase... the other half being the ones who don't contribute much.
- I'm talking to him about the issues and will likely unblock if he shows a willingness to discuss ways of resolving the underlying content dispute. --CBDunkerson 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Why Not Follow your Own words
As long as you are documenting Japanese War crimes why not start an article documenting Chinese crimes against humanity since after all its a historical fact Mao killed more people than even Histler and Stalin. So you like China do you - so do you think you'd have the right to write and veiw Wiki articles uncensored in china now - or could you be punished. How about asking your Chinese commi buddies why they allow North Korea to exist - there would have been unification if your Commi buddies hadn't went aginst United Nations forces during the Korean War. If you think Japanese War crimes are bad wait until you see what China has in store for the world. Why not ask your Chinese buddies about the road system they have been building in Pakistan for decades or their cooperation with Pakistan? Remember what the bible says will happen in the edn times - a army of 200 million will invade Israel - and the only country which currently has that many troops in its army and reserves is China - of course going agianst God's people will result in the total destruction of China as a result of its invasion of the Mid East - a day I cannot wait for, mnkowing that all those Godless commi bastards are dead!
^^^ heh
That's the REALbasic vandal, Sasquatch. He vandalised my talk page, too. Warrens 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Freestylefrappe's accounts
Hello, Freestylefrappe has asked me to look into the blocks you put on his KL and User:Tchadienne accounts. I agree completely that KL's personal attacks deserve a significant block, but three months does seem somewhat excessive after several months of good editing. A compromise somewhere between Kelly Martin's initial 24 block and your three month one might be more appropriate. He also wants to change from the KL to the Tchadienne user name. There is no harm in this as long as he doesn't try to hide his identity or use multiple accounts at once. I would thus suggest indef blocking KL, and giving whatever lenght of block you feel is appropriate to the Tchadienne account, so that he can edit with that once his block expires. - SimonP 01:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Meh
I've just never gotten around to registering. I know I'll get there eventually, but even when my IP changed I avoided it. Dunno why, I just don't want to do it right now. 69.145.123.171
- Thanks. I'll let you know if I eventaully get to it. Ha! Soon as I join the procrastinator's club. 69.145.123.171
You deleted X-men 4
You thought this was going to be someone complaining about deleting the article?
Wrong.
Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/X-men_4
Close the AfD, please? Kevin_b_er 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
RfC
You blocked a user today, User:Añoranza, I am wondering if their RfC against me Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults is still in effect and if so is there a way for me to get an admin to look at its basis before it proceeds? I feel this RfC was filed because I placed the two notices on the administration/incident page. I also dont think any dispute resolution was attempted and challenged what their version of that is. If it is valid can you please advise me as to my options as I feel it is unfair and that this user will just rally the same people who filed a RFCU against me, one that was proven me innocent, to attempt to imbalance the RfC. They have already contacted one user regarding it . Advice, information, whatever you can offer is greatly appreciated. --zero faults 04:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- As I feared, the same users who accused me of being a sockpuppet are running to the RfC and making accusations. I am allowed to even defend myself? They are saying they started a poll in violation of WP:STRAW then tell me I am giving "cockamamie wikilawyering" for telling them that. They then say I cannot be reasoned with and state the cabal I asked for against me, wouldnt that be proof I try to resolve conflicts? They are even starting the rex accusations of me being a sockpuppet. Do I get to address these comments at all? --zero faults 04:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- The User:Mr. Tibbs comments arent even certifying according to the rule "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." this is not the same dispute he is reffering to. --zero faults 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- See the statement of the dispute: . This RfC is about your behavior Zero, and yes I am most definitely a part of that dispute. This kind of behavior is exactly what I mean by wikilawyering, Sasquatch. And Zero you can respond all you want, in your response section. -- Mr. Tibbs 04:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is not the same dispute, look at Anoranza's evidence it all relates to one incident, one dispute. Stop calling it wikilawyering when someone asks you to follow rules on wikipedia, its rude and insulting. Your Straw Poll did violate the provision of making it, and that is to get everyone to agree on questions, and now you are certifying a RfC for a situation that does not involve you after your failed RFCU against me. It says same dispute with a single user, his comments are not about that dispute. --zero faults 10:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- See the statement of the dispute: . This RfC is about your behavior Zero, and yes I am most definitely a part of that dispute. This kind of behavior is exactly what I mean by wikilawyering, Sasquatch. And Zero you can respond all you want, in your response section. -- Mr. Tibbs 04:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)