→Thanks: new section |
The Behnam (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
For keeping things on an even keel. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
For keeping things on an even keel. [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Conduct policy violation == |
|||
{{stop}} I'd like to remind you that violations of [[WP:NPA|Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks]], such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHaiduc&diff=157610173&oldid=155856068 this edit], where you wikilink "well meaning Wikipedian" to [[Brainwash]] when referring (quite obviously) to Jeeny (over the LGBT tag removal), such that you effectively call Jeeny 'brainwashed.' The other remarks of that diff are also of questionable appropriateness. Such comments are never acceptable and work against the project's collaborative environment. I'd ask you to read WP:NPA again, but as you are an experienced Wikipedian, I trust that you know how to make amends. [[User:The Behnam|The Behnam]] 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DavidShankBone&diff=prev&oldid=157616716 Calling Jeeny a knucklehead] is also unacceptable. Please commit no further violations, thank you. [[User:The Behnam|The Behnam]] 14:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:32, 13 September 2007
oob
Hey Jeff. =) I hope you're up to no good again. I have to take my little breaks too; this place is frustrating, no doubt about it. For a minute I thought the "boo" comment was yet another cheerful evaluation of my admin activities. Let me know if I can smite anyone for you. ;-) ··coelacan 08:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good to see you around again - and with old colourful userpage as well :-). WjBscribe 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Good to see you back on form Jeff. :) Btw, see the gay debate last night? I bet on Obama for President (and I will), but I'd campaign for Kucinich. He's a no-hoper but so sweet... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- *Grin* I'm afraid I don't know him, although I might have heard his music if he was at the Europride. ;-) That was a blast! I will check him out though. And you went to Poland for vacation? :-S I would have thought that wasn't too friendly right now, even if the evil twins are about to be royally kicked out of power... Me, I'm at Switzerland, enjoying the sights, food and fireworks. ;-) Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 09:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Aherm
Jeff darling, much as I remain willing to shout at IPs that a being rude, please don't delete threads from my talkpage. I only realised the damn thing was missing a few minutes ago. At least if you'd blanked the whole thing I'd have realised stuff was gone... (PS. that's not really an encouragement for you to blank my whole talkpage when you want my attention) WjBscribe 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Alleged vandalism on Talk:Larry Craig
Whether or not it was the correct thing to do, I don't think you can call it vandalism, based off the category discussion at the bottom of the page. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can certainly call it vandalism. We are not talking about a category, but a project tag. That's an entirely different matter. Jeffpw 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I acknowledge it is a different matter, but certainly it's possible to believe that even an established editor could think (whether or not it's true) that the same policy applies to project tags. As for me, I have no idea if liability concerns extend to project tags. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Liability does *not* extend to project tags. And I am under no obligation to assume good faith. It's not a core policy; it's a guideline. Now thanks for your unasked for opinion, which doesn't interest me. This conversation is concluded. Jeffpw 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, adding the project tag isn't because he's gay (which he denies), it's because he was caught trolling for gay sex, which also comes under our purview. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Liability does *not* extend to project tags. And I am under no obligation to assume good faith. It's not a core policy; it's a guideline. Now thanks for your unasked for opinion, which doesn't interest me. This conversation is concluded. Jeffpw 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I acknowledge it is a different matter, but certainly it's possible to believe that even an established editor could think (whether or not it's true) that the same policy applies to project tags. As for me, I have no idea if liability concerns extend to project tags. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
30=3? I wondered about it...
- Jeff, Thank you for realizing that I was only copyediting someone else's erroneous change (on the McClellan page). I, unfortunately, even though I opened the page (figured someone had to do it and I knew that I could do so with a neutral article), I have not kept up on this well lately due to overworking and no television (I love CNN). Anyway, thans for watching that page like a hawk. Wikipedia needs more editors like you who can take a potentially explosively-controversial or emotionally-charged article and add to it, fix it, and epand it with accuracy and neutrality. Kudos! VigilancePrime 08:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Jake
Well, I managed to miss all the excitement and my near block because I just left home, and my room has yet to be connected to the Internet (that and I spent most of last night smoking shisha and chatting with germans). :) Should be on in the next few days, but until then, I'm afraid, no hanging out in the channel. :( Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Vieira
Hey Jeff - I assume by "lazy idiot" you weren't talking about me because I'm neither lazy nor an idiot, "himself" would be wrong, and I was just fixing typos and saw that someone removed (without any explanation) a cite tag that someone else put on, and I understood the reason for the tag. I haven't looked to see who it was who put it on originally, so I can't say if your characterization is apt, although it is a bit harsh, seeing as the citation you added is merely another source referring to Cohen as an Emmy winner (which could theoretically have come from his Wikipedia page and isn't particularly definitive) - a better citation would be from the Emmy site, or a bio of Cohen, but I couldn't find anything on a quick look that works, so I reinstated the tag in my edit in hopes that someone would come along and find something appropriate, or make an argument against needing the cite. Or I'd come back and find it or argue against it when I had a moment. So you might try not shooting so fast, eh? And if you did mean me, well, see my first sentence above. Cheers Tvoz |talk 21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Gee, Tvoz, I never thought you were either lazy or an idiot--Would a perusal of your wiki contributions prove me wrong? I am aware of who placed the {{CN]] there, and my characterization is apt, though not particularly civil.
The source I used as a ref was the Lasker Foundation. Cohen did an interview for them, and they refer to him as an Emmy winner. I think that's pretty definitive. You don't think an organization like that would lie, do you????????? Maybe I will go check your contribution history. :-) Cheers, Jeffpw 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, do! Trust me, my contribution history is incredibly fascinating reading. (By the way, for un-quotable reasons I have absolutely no doubt that he is an Emmy winner. Nor would I question the Lasker Foundation. But I'm going to put Larry King in, because Larry says it in Richard's presence and presumably would be corrected if wrong. There are, by the way, several Richard Cohens in and around the news bizz, and they are often confused for one another. As in, I'm pretty sure, although not positive, that Meredith's husband does not teach at Columbia - that's one of the other Richard Cohens -although some articles out there say her husband is that one. So a good source for the Emmys would be worth while.) All best Tvoz |talk 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Rfc Template
If the discussions are long over, then feel free to remove the RFC tags from the respective pages. MessedRocker (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject Newsletter
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
Re: Pavarotti pic
Yes, the non-free content policy does have its ups and downs. The image I added should however prove useful until a free one turns up. It completely struck me to see a wax figure as the leading image for an article of such public interest! Oh well, it’s better than nothing. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ha - yeah - I don't know why it irritates me so much, but it does. I also can't stand the calculate-age-at-time-of-death template, although I sort of can see its value... nah. Another one, as long as I'm on a roll here, is when they feel the need to characterize someone's early demise - as in "Unfortunately, he was only 36 years old". cheerio Tvoz |talk 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Julie Andrews
Thanks for being objective despite your reservations and reverting that homophobic robot! Limehouseblues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limehouseblues (talk • contribs) 03:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
NPA re edit summary on NAMBLA
This edit summary [1] is on the line for personal attacks - please don't push it further. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 04:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Get a grip, George. I was just trying to be helpful. :-) Jeffpw 04:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- (Homer Simpson voice) Mmmmm. Help-full... Georgewilliamherbert 04:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's fairly amazing how someone could not see the warnings and still think they're doing everyone a favor by correcting the Zodiac's prose. I'm just happy I broke out the Zodiac in Popular Culture section. That section was my number one revert for the longest time. Now that it's broken out, it seems like no one's touching it. Knock on wood ... Jimbonator 23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Vandals
Thanks for your note. It's just part of being an admin. Watch out that someone doesn't notice you being helpful and stick you with a mop too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- LOL! Trust me, Will, that will never happen! There have been one too many ANI discussions about my testy nature for the community to give me the tools--and the first thing I would do if I ever got them would be to mass ban half the community (starting with Wales himself) and rewrite the Pedia to suit my particular world vision. But sweet of you to even think I might be capable (and I have actually never made a bad faith mainspace edit). Jeffpw 05:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Name Change
Already reverted. I was the one who changed the title in the Discography section but I dont know who redirected it to Piece of Me. BritandBeyonce 07:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Justin Berry
Thank you for adding your voice to the discussion at Talk:Justin Berry. I was starting to feel that I was the only editor who was raising a serious objection to Phil Sandifer's actions with regard to this article, which he describes as "nuking." I'm not one to invoke dispute resolution mechanisms like requests for comment or arbitration. Do you have any experience with making a case in one of those fora? Do you know any friendly administrators who can advise or help? I feel like I've been drowning in well-meaning but destructive acts by Sandifer and others. I would sincerely appreciate any help you can provide. I'll look for your reply here, or feel free to come to my talk page, as you please. --Ssbohio 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
For keeping things on an even keel. Haiduc 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Conduct policy violation
I'd like to remind you that violations of Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks, such as this edit, where you wikilink "well meaning Wikipedian" to Brainwash when referring (quite obviously) to Jeeny (over the LGBT tag removal), such that you effectively call Jeeny 'brainwashed.' The other remarks of that diff are also of questionable appropriateness. Such comments are never acceptable and work against the project's collaborative environment. I'd ask you to read WP:NPA again, but as you are an experienced Wikipedian, I trust that you know how to make amends. The Behnam 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Calling Jeeny a knucklehead is also unacceptable. Please commit no further violations, thank you. The Behnam 14:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)