Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irishguy (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 12 July 2006 (Revert to revision 63468971 dated 2006-07-12 20:05:11 by Irishguy using popups). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:TeckWiz/Wikibreak

Arthur Ellis

Hey Pete, I see you have accused Arthur Ellis of being a sockpuppet. I though he might be as well because his very first edit was to ceraurus's talk page and the fact he edits all the same pages that ceraurus editted. However, adding unverifiable info to Mark Bourrie's page is totally uncool. I direct you to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets or Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser where you can make a formal complaint. Good luck Geedubber 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It was uncool, but Mark Bourrie should not lie about his Wiki accounts. Thanks Geedubber for pointing out the Sock Puppet tribunel process. I shall persue. Pete Peters

Perhaps, since your checkuser request wasn't granted, and you obviously still want to persue this, then you should try going to the Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. Maybe a checkuser isn't even needed. plus I see you've catalogued all the suspected socks of ceraurus and/or arthur ellis so you will have more evidence this time (you should add all the evidence to the RFCU page as well). it will be hard to make the case though since you're a newuser and they might think you're biased. it might be better to let someone else make the accusation. I don't really want to get all that involved, but Wiederaufbau might do it. I have removed the suspected sockpuppet tag from Isotelus's page since it is confirmed not suspected. good luck! Geedubber 07:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been making edits for a while, but only the other day was I asked to join the Wiki family. So my IP was use instead of a name Arthur..errrr.... Mark Bourrie Pete Peters

Right. All you've done is vandalise.Arthur Ellis 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• RFCU was declined. Now drop it please. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• • You have come close to crossing the 3RR line, but did not. Please take this as a severe warning: do NOT conduct edit wars on Misplaced Pages. Arthur Ellis has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR - but it doesn't mean I like your position any better than his. The war will now stop - because one of the participants is blocked. When you come back, please work out your differences on the talk page and consider the services of WP:3O. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing users' signatures

Absent evidence from CheckUser—and with it, for that matter—altering a user's signature is vandalism. Please stop. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will. He is using an alias to avoid breaching an out of court agreement. Pete Peters

Explain with evidence, please. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 He just deleted from his blog.  But he reached an out of court settlement, and part of the deal was that he not write about Warren Kinsella and vice versa.  He posted the agreement on his blog, but has since deleted it.  

I really don't care that he uses an alias, and maybe I was wrong to put it on his Wiki entry. But then calling it vandalism really offended me. The fact you can be accused of such activity is offensuve. The on the Warren Kinsella page, I took out his name, like many other people have done, and he all of sudden accuses me of vandalism again.Pete Peters

When confronted with accusations, we should respond with evidence to the contrary; if sockpuppetry is suspected, one must go through the CheckUser process—and, if denied, a better case must be made. Changing a user's signature is vandalism, and lends credence to the accusation that caused offense in the first place—and, damages your argument. Also, I would need better than someone's blog entry—especially given its deletion since, as if the user was couldn't prove it—to demonstrate that an out-of-court settlement involved Misplaced Pages in any way. I understand these things can be frustrating, but staying on the high ground serves us all much better. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

True, true, but he has no right decorating my user page as he see's fit. I told him to do it on my talk page, but he wouldn't stop. Am I allowed to revert an infinite amount of times on my user page. I lost the Sock Pocket thing, he got vengeful and wouldn't stop altering my user page, that is what was so frustrating. Pete Peters

That's fine. If the user is clearly vandalizing, and he's been sufficiently warned to not do so, report him at the vandalism-in-progress page. If you present the appearance that you're reducing yourself to vandalism in response, you hurt your own case. Happy editing! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He has now created a new blog. http://www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com/ and the lawsuit agreement is in it.

Hm, gee, I wonder why it's so vague... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the "vandalism" by SArthur Ellis is actually warnings to stop vandalizing his page after the sock puppet check was rejected. Seems "Peters" has some stalking thing going against Arthur Ellis. In fact, I suspect Peters' account was set up for stalking Ellis and reverting the Kinsella entry. 70.51.52.253 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie, I mean Arthur Ellis, quit using socks. Grow up.

Pete Peters

You might want to check the Pierre Bourque entry, Pete. 70.51.52.253 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing Arthur Ellis, I mean suspected sock puppet 70.51.52.253

WP:NPA

Please stop with the personal attacks. Argumentum ad hominem only hurts your credibility and will end up with you finding yourself on the block list. Deal with facts and their fitness or lack thereof, not with the person; or, if that fails, get administrative help—that's what we're here for. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ǁ

He edits every modification I make, and refers to it as vandalism. Read all the effort I put into the discussion, and he simply by passes it, and reverts anyway. Today Warren Kinsella has notifed Mark Bourrie, that a new libel suit is being pressed against him. Mark Bourrie under all of his alias, should not be allowed to edit anything relating to someone in Canadian Politics, whether the person be a politician, journalist, party bureaucrat and so on. Radio Kirk I dare you to put something into the Warren page, and watch this guy Mark Bourrie revert it. Pete Peters

I am rather a modest person. My patience is running thin on with him. It has got to stop. I caught him, and he cry's murder. Pete Peters

No matter, you should keep your cool and resolve the matter in a more civil manner than attacking him yourself. You win no sympathy on your side by attacks like that no matter towards whom they are directed.--Konstable 10:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, for the meantime I'll stop getting into an edit war with Arthur Ellis. What I will do, is ask people who have had past problems with this user to take up the challenge. Thus I promise to behave, and not get into his dealings for the next week. It is just I lost my cool with him the other day on his blog. I entered a rather modest question about his activities, like many others have, I thought his actions on Misplaced Pages wore amusing at the time. Intsead of getting a response, whether it be comical or legitimate, all he did was delete my comment. I have never seen this done before, and I realized he must be doing this to people all the time. I then querried him why he deleted my comment, he responded by saying that it was vulgar or some nature like that. (He has since deleted the comment, so I can't get the exact words.) This ticked me off, so then I posted a note on his wiki enty, Mark Bourrie which probably was uncool, but I assumed he would edit it to fit his perception, instead he just accused me vandalism, it could have been borderline vandalism, but crying murder offended me. Other people who know him personally have lost their cool and vandalized his page, something I realize is a result of their frustration with him. So, I'll pass on my troubles with him to other people who have had the same problem, and let stand at that. Pete Peters

If you suspect AE is a sock of Ceraurus, please take it to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser, the only authority for such matters - not to me. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see now it's been declined before. You can make the argument again there.... - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Ellis

Arthur Ellis is not my friend, but he does me favours and puts false information about me on my User talk page. I find it flattering, oh well, cherio. 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

I see you are still in a feud with Authur Ellis. Continuing this is pointless and if it continues to get too out of hand some blocks could have to be made to your accounts - I'm sure neither the administrators, nor you, nor Arthur Ellis want this. Have a look at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes - it contains some information to help you resolve disputes. First of all you should try to resolve this yourself, but if it fails there is a list of options which will help you figure out what to do next. But please stay clear of Requests for Comments against each other and Requests for Arbitration until you absolutely need to, because those involve a lot of time on behalf of other users, which should not be necessary).--Konstable 00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: You decide

Perfect! Include it then as a direct quote with citation, and it's good to stay. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done

- CrazyRougeian talk/email 02:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pete, wtf was this reversion? You removed the source I just added, for example?? - CrazyRougeian talk/email 05:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Gomery Inquiry back to Geedubber's orignal before it got Arthured. I rearranged the pic. And something else. Pete Peters 05:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so at least go back in reinstate all the non-arthur versions you've zapped! - CrazyRougeian talk/email 05:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Warren

Can you come to the talk page and discuss this issue further? Thanks! Yanksox 15:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your last hoorah

We'll see if there are objections - and then we will allow you to implement whatever's non-controversial, one change at a time with informative edit summaries. Hold on... - CrazyRougeian talk/email 16:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Eye-Eye, Captain. Pete Peters 16:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bourie Reverts

Watch your reverts Pete. I think that you're at the limit now. And you aren't supposed to get even that far, you just get punished if you go over. --JGGardiner 02:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have to wait 3 hours till I can revert. But he has passed his limit. Check out the hot Nassties, how many times did he CSD. Pete Peters 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check the policy: WP:3RR. You're not supposed revert that often. The fourth is an automatic punishment but you shouldn't be edit warring at all. As for Arthur (I assume that's the he that you mean), it looks like he did revert too often on that article. But he was warned by admins who seem to be watching that page. I'm not an admin myself so I couldn't do anything even if I wanted to. I suppose that you could ask an admin for a block if you'd like but I'm not sure that it would help anything. --JGGardiner 02:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My last edit asked for a citation. It was no revert. Pete Peters 02:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about that. Although I knew that I was smart to put an "I think" in there. But regardless, it is best to remember that one shouldn't be reverting even twice if it is avoidable. Hopefully everyone can talk through the problems. I would suggest that if you want to make the addition, first explain it on the talk page. Arthur has already put in at least some of her (yes, Arthur is a she) concerns in earlier. Maybe you could respond to them, if they don't persuade you that she's right. Thanks. --JGGardiner 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the IPs, all that I can say is that it's a small world I suppose. But semi-protection at least keeps out the IP vandals. It is unfortunate that legitimate IP users have to be left out. But we're obviously having enough problems with the article as it is. --JGGardiner 03:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD etc

Hi Pete!

An admin will strike that comment at some point in the near future. If not, it will be disregarded by the closing admin anyway, so the point is probably moot - although worth mentioning to keep Misplaced Pages's processes running smoothly.

As for voting in AfDs: no, you're not able to vote in AfDs. Nobody is able to vote in AfDs, because AfD is not a vote. Voting is evil anyway, but voting in discussions is severely frowned upon.

You may, of course, give your opinions in the discussion on AfD. The more detailed your opinions are and the more policy they reference, the more they will be counted. Simple "votes", without any additional information, will be ignored.

Caveat: I'd suggest not contributing to the articles nominated by User:Arthur Ellis. I haven't looked much at all into your talk page, but I did glance to see many references to him. Probably for the best to put a bit of distance between the two of you, whether you are pro- or anti- his point of view on things. Since AfD isn't a vote, nodding in someone's direction or voting just to refute someone usually doesn't work anyway!

Cheers! ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Even though it is called the 3RR rule, one can only be blocked for their fourth revert in 24 hours. So you should be fine if you revert it yourself. The 3RR rule also tends to side against the first reverter ( in your case, that would be National Library IP). I suggest you warn him by placing a {{3RR}} warning on his talkpage. If he reverts your edits again he will eligible for a block. But, I doubt any admin would want to block a computer terminal in a public library. Read up on WP:3RR. Knowing wikipedia policy in very useful in these situations. If he does break 3RR, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR is the place to report it. I know absolutely nothing about the Trinity—Spadina riding so I would rather not edit it myself.Geedubber 02:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way Pete, one of your edits was marked minor but actually had a large content change as you can see. I know that happens by accident sometimes but try to watch out for that again. Thanks. --JGGardiner 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to play, use a sandbox

Changing other people's comments on talk pages is not acceptable.--Konstable 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of asthetics. The red card in soccer looks much better and friendlier. Pete Peters 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you see the problem is that the user who gave out that warning did not want to use a red card. And the user who made the comment to which you added a yellow card did not even intend to have any image there. If you want to use it yourself in your own comments go ahead, just don't change other people's comments.--Konstable 01:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ruby D.

Hmm ... I never thought of creating these things as templates. It's not a bad idea, though. I don't think the old method is particularly inconvenient, but I suppose there's no reason not to switch to an easier version. CJCurrie 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be silly to cut and paste everything around. It is poor syntax. Pete Peters 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I've removed the "+/-" column from the 2006 results -- we've generally stopped using it. CJCurrie 03:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that when I was editing the 2004 version. Look at it, now you can add to everyone you want to. But I find these results tend to takeover each entry. Pete Peters 03:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize they take up a fair bit of space, but I don't think it's particularly problematic when all the information is clustered toward the end of the article (people can just bypass the entries, if they don't find them interesting). CJCurrie 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind if I deleted "Template:Canadian federal election, 2004/Electoral Districts/Brampton—Springdale"? I've already created a duplicate page with the proper title ("District"), and there's no point in keeping both. CJCurrie 03:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do, I am going to sleep and there were thing like that one that had to be fixed. Also, when I click on the edit for the 2004, it takes to the 2006 results. Might want to fix that bug too. Pete Peters 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that -- I'll take care of both problems in a minute. CJCurrie 03:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no -- but I started expanding the Volpe page a short time ago, and it seemed like the rational first choice. CJCurrie 04:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Big Thanks

Re: your message: No problem! Sorry you've been having so much vandal trouble. See you around! - Tapir Terrific 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)