→You have email: new section |
Admin abuse |
||
Line 250: | Line 250: | ||
Sent you a reply. [[User:MrWhich|Mr Which]][[User_talk:MrWhich|<sup>???</sup>]] 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC) |
Sent you a reply. [[User:MrWhich|Mr Which]][[User_talk:MrWhich|<sup>???</sup>]] 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Removing links== |
|||
You are removing a large number of links, including from a protected article. This is both disruptive and an abuse of your admin privileges. I would urge you to self-revert before I take this further. [[User:Sfacets|<span style="font-family:century gothic"><font color="DarkRed">S</font>facets</span>]] 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:13, 2 December 2007
I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases. I am prepared to do this. I am not intending to be here much, at present. I have not yet decided whether to start using this account actively again. No, I don't want to talk about any of the foregoing, thanks, the people concerned know who they are and how to get hold of me. This is about some ongoing unresolved issues being discussed on one or more mailing lists, when that debate comes to fruition I will take a view. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.
- Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
- See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
Cypri
We may have another problem related to that issue, and articles that link there. Next time we're both on IRC, remind me, and I'll explain. DS 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
In the middle of all the other drama...
I know you have been busy with all that is going on and may have missed the NPA stuff. I have been playing with the wording of the proposal on WT:NPA and made a bit of a radical proposal at the bottom. I would like to know your opinion on both to see where we can go from here. Thanks!
And if I was still living in the DC area, I would most definitely come up to have a beer with you in Philly. Cheers spryde | talk 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that is one way to comment :) Instead of adding the "not acceptable" phrasing, could the section be moved to the "never acceptable" section up top? I will copy this comment over to WT:NPA. spryde | talk 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Your archiving at ANI
I really don't think that was a helpful action which will do anything to lower the temperature. Could you consider reverting yourself? Physchim62 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I really really don't think you want to reopen that can of worms. Seriously. Some of your recent actions have raised eyebrows, and pressing for the continuation of that debate is very unlikely to help anything. That battle is already raging in one or two places, let it reach its natural conclusion. If you consider there is genuine cause for concern you are welcome to try WP:RFAR, but I see a number of contributors to that debate who would not come out of an arbitration well. Better to let it drop, I think. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
JzG, I am trying to find out why this article was deleted. Also, Is there anyway to find the article in wiki now that it has been deleted. Thanks (Lew Basnight IV (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
- Because it was complete bollocks in the opinion of everyone who saw it, a personal essay of no obvious coherence. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Woops I didnt see your note at the beginning
You said beer as in beard hole in Oslo? Just kidding... But I am serious about its deletion... LoL... just teasing... No I am serious.... hahaha... No. Seriously (Lew Basnight IV (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
Nattering nabobs of negativity
The civility-above-all-else crowd is getting restless. It may be wise to file off some of the rough edges so as to deny them ammunition (sorry for the mixed metaphor). Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
AN notification
It's only courteous to inform people when something is posted on AN, so I'm just directing you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Personal Attacks by JzG where someone has started a discussion about you. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please strikethrough
JzG, please strikethrough your comments at Giano's talk page. He has a right to be angry with me. I've apologized to him. I owed him that. I think it would be a good gesture if we all turned down the heat. Best, DurovaCharge! 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest I think that will only make it worse, though I've no objection. You seem to be making some progress there, anyway. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
RWI?
Could you briefly clarify on your evidence this means "Real World Information" (I think?)? It took me a bit long to figure this out, and I'm usually pretty quick. I had at first thought you meant some User:RWI, i.e. yet another sock. -- Kendrick7talk 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
James Randi
Thanks for going ahead and deleting that bit about the sex scandal on the talk page. I was unsure whether it could just be eliminated all together. Glad to see we can delete such trolling. I just wish that the particular user would just stay away. Happy Thanksgiving! Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. You can always remove crap posted in bad faith, and WP:BLP supports removing from talk any material which is clearly unsuitable for the article. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you. Sambure (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. It might help if you were to give people some context - this is clearly not your first day on Wikipedia. There are suspicions. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Unprotect
If you'd kindly unprotect my "sockproblems" page, I'd like to db-userreq it. Thanks. Precious Roy (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The True Values about being Hip in New York
What's all this swindling-gibbering talk about wikipedia policies against articles that contain the word Hip within them
- And what about words like Hip Hop which sound like Bebop in the reversedMode of Pihpoh?
- Truly yours, (Scandinavia ... Word! (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC))
For doing what few have the balls to do:
The Golden Wiki | ||
Going above and beyond most people and protecting Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and supporting the few users/bots who do the most unpleasant and thanksless, but never the less important tasks, I award a rare gift The Golden Wiki for this βcommand 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC) |
- I, as always, appreciate your work on Wikipedia, Guy, and always look up to you to provide inspiration to me and the countless other contributors to the 'pedia! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- yay!!!SqueakBox 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Dunno if you've seen it, but you got 3 messages there (including a barnstar, woot!) -- lucasbfr talk 12:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks! Now I've purged my watchlist and got down to about 20 pages I will watchlist it. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Block
Guy, can you explain this block? Videmus Omnia Talk 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I explained it to Cary Bass. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, checks finished, worst fears luckily not realised. Mercury downgraded to a softblock. In other news, world continues to turn. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Privatemusings arbitration
Left a suggestion on the workshop page.... inspired by those TV documentaries on the police forces! --Solumeiras talk 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Your edit to Bernard d'Abrera, citing OTRS ticket 2007080210005311, appears to be problematic under both WP:RS & WP:NPOV. I have posted detailed concerns at Talk:Bernard d'Abrera#WP:BLP. HrafnTalkStalk 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova/Jehochman arbitration
I noticed your section on posting of private correspondence, and I believe you might be looking for Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Private_correspondence. I don't think anyone got sanctioned for posting email, but the editor who did it had already requested desysopping and left Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for providing a link to the original Ikkyu2 material. I added some stuff that guides readers to the meat of his comment.
I never really liked linking to WR, so this is an improvement, even though it requires a bit of work to see his comment. There's some good stuff over there, and I used to go there every day, but I got tired of the constant negativity. (I kind of remember seeing the occasional mention of JZG over there -- sometimes they pick on the wrong people. <vbg>) Lou Sander (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes. Overall I am in favour of linking to the source of truth rather than some commentary on the truth that may be - how to put this? - designed to promote a particular interpretation. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
SSP deletion
Yes, the submitter an obvious sock, prob the same as the one that submitted the first one that was oversighted, but it's way more complicated than that. I'll get to the bottom. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion please...
I expanded music torture. Your opinion please as to whether you still think an article on the topic merits deletion.
I remember we have interacted before. I am hazy on the details. Do you remember if I was correct to write that you had been generous and helpful? If so thanks again.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. Well, even if I am misremembering you being helpful in the past, best wishes in the present anyway. Geo Swan 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
DRV notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Music City Legend Drum and Bugle Corps. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you're still around... a problematic user page you unprotected
I would say that it looks like User:Callmebc is not using the unprotection of his userpage for constructive purposes. He's soapboxing, etc, and only digging a further hole. Would you consider declining the request and protecting the talk page again? The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Completely agree. Callmebc has done nothing but prove that the indefinite block was right. Guy (Help!) 04:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat
Guy, Pat's driving me crazy. He's off on a we need four dicdef footnotes to prove that a ms is a millisecond is really one-thousandth of a second kick. He's also raised it at RfC and at WP:RSN.
I called him on the absurdity, but he's playing the 'how dare you threaten to block me, we have a content dispute' card. Can you talk some sense into him? He seems to listen to you more than most, and it would be good for the encyclopedia if he could be persuaded to put some of that boundless energy into something useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Before I go on making any brilliant proposals (which I fear may be mis-interpretated as some Pointy insult and lead to some sense that I'm trying to be disruptive) perhaps you would be so kind as to propose to user:TenOfAllTrades and I what steps you believe we should take to resolve this dispute? --CyclePat (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Step 1: You stop adding superfluous and ludicrously inappropriate sources to millisecond (as in milli- + second). Step 2: Dispute is resolved. Pleased to eb of service, Guy (Help!) 10:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Guy for the suggestion. However I don't agree with this. WorldNet defines inappropriate as "not in keeping with what is correct or proper; "completely inappropriate behavior"."[1] To date I believe I have been keeping in line with the spirit, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Simply take a look above the edit summary box which states "Encyclopedic[sic] content must be verifiable." Perhaps you would be so kind as to indicate what exactly is superfluous (in excess of what is required) with the sources to which I want to add? (Notice: the correction I made to you accusatory tone in step 1 "You stop adding..." which lead people to believe that I am being disruptive in some editorial fashion.) Furthermore according to WorldNet "ludicrous" is defined as "incongruous; inviting ridicule "the absurd excuse that the dog ate his homework";"[2]. This being said, let us assume you are correct in saying that adding references, despite the fact that when there are no references this is a violation of WP:V, to the article millisecond is, as you say, "ludicrous". I would put it to you, in light of the definition that you are lacking good faith and falling into the trap. This is because the definition states "inviting to ridicule", which means being "ridiculizing" (or bullying). In this case TenOfAllTrades would be considered the bully ridiculizing my good faith attempts to add the references which are conform to wikipedia's policies.
- Maybe it's not the references themself but the amount of references? If this is the case, I would understand. That is why I've post a compromise for user:TenOfAllTrades that we only have 2 references instead of 4. So what exactly is "ludicrously inappropriate" with the sources I added to the article millisecond, where then removed by TenOfAllTrades, and now, to which we discuss?
- In light of the fact that I don't quite agree with your method, I ask you again, what steps do you think we should take to resolve this issues?
- p.s: On a secondary issue: When you look at the definition of milli- it states in that article that it's 1/1000. However when you read the second sentence it then states that the prefix's etymology means 1000. Is it 1000 or 1/1000? How can this be verified? Where are the sources? --CyclePat (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- p.p.s: I just noticed the addition you made to the article millisecond regarding milli-... etc... I'm happy to see this contribution. --CyclePat (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- p.s: On a secondary issue: When you look at the definition of milli- it states in that article that it's 1/1000. However when you read the second sentence it then states that the prefix's etymology means 1000. Is it 1000 or 1/1000? How can this be verified? Where are the sources? --CyclePat (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent for my pleasure...) Mind moving the talk page as well? It seems to be splitbrained right now. spryde | talk 16:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
psi research
hi guy: when you get a chance, perhaps you could do a quick NPOV check on Early psi research at SRI, which was added recently. i'm not sure whether to link to it from the main remote viewing page, which is rather a mess at the moment. but since you've been monitoring that page, i thought perhaps you might like to do the relevant linking. thanx! jxm (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
McMoneagle
Joe McMoneagle was awarded the Legion of Merit for his RV work. Whether you like it or not does not matter. It is a fact. Did you ever check it out? Or do you just believe things that make you happy? I did check it out. Mc Moneagle was a remote viewer for almost 20 years in experimental intelligence operations to gather information no one else could furnish. That is why the medal was awarded. Kazuba (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- So, like I said, link the citation and let people make up their own minds. Otherwise we have to use scare quotes to make it clear that RV does not have any objective validity, and the obsessive fans of RV really hate that. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, sorry about that block/unblock thing. I asked Ioeth to let me do it and I thought I had. I went through the steps, hit the button, then flashed back to a different tab and posted the block message. IRC cvn-wp-en alerted me to the block by you, so I go check, system error, my block did not go through! Ha. Anyway, sorry for the confusion. Lara❤Love 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- No biggie. You can unblock and reblock, it just wasn't blocked when I saw it. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
BLP
I already know.
Anyway, though, I checked the BLP policy again and there are restrictions for public figures, so the deletion of my post is justified. WhisperToMe 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I started a talk section about "involuntary public figures" at BLP - Maybe more restrictions should be placed on involuntary public figures than voluntary public figures in terms of BLP: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Voluntary_public_figures_vs._involuntary_public_figures WhisperToMe 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Guy, Thank you for your quick reply. Let me observe that I brough to the attention the following text on User:Moldopodo page: "My page was vandalised by User:Moldorubo related to User:Dc76." It is right in bold there. IMHO, suggesting I have anything to do with a banned user or with vandalism, is a form of PA. Same goes for the things Moldopodo implies in his answer that you saw. About the other issues, I agree with you, the better place is dispute resolution. However, I respectfully insist that the sentence I mentioned by removed from this user's page. (I asked him, but he refuses to answer.) Thank you for your assistence.:Dc76\talk 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Early psi research at SRI AfD
Thanks for this [3] feedback. I'll scope it out and change my opinion accordingly. Pete.Hurd 18:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Re: [4] boggles the mind, The men who stare at goats Jon Ronson's book about the First Earth Battalion was a jaw dropping read, highly recommended. (even though it left unanswered my question of whether these people expect that when a special forces soldier walks through a wall, that his clothes & gear will also make the trip through...) Cheers, Pete.Hurd 06:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Wales
Thanks for the note. My edit history might look strange but that's because I only log in when I need to edit a protected entry. The vast majority of my edits are under whatever IP address I'm using at the moment. Why log in if you don't have to? Jhurlburt 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should refrain from assuming too much
Not every account is what it seems. You are very presumptive to assume I have only a few hundred mainspace edits. Have you ever stopped to consider why Durova's block of !! angered me so much? Anyway, you're very emotional about all of this. Perhaps you should retract your angry, bitter message on my talkpage? Mr Which??? 13:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is, I am not very happy about the current trend for using sockpuppets to engage in contentious policy debate. For better or worse, Giano edits only as Giano and any crap he gets attaches to the reputation of Giano. People who choose to use another account for argufying causes, unfairly disadvantage those who are prepared to stand up and be counted. My statement on your talk was a plain statement of fact: I would be much more able to take your words at face value if you used your usual account. I suspect that we would agree on moist things, given your userboxes, and one fo the things Occam's Razor suggests to me is that people who are in good standing in the community are rarely in need of concealing their identity in order to join in an argument. I happen to think that the loss of transparency caused by the present tendency to use sockpuppets for argument is rather corrosive. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Bravo
Thank you very much.Thanks. 85.5.180.9 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please, could you kindly erase this redirect to the same article? Thx in advance. I tried to do it myself (I deleted the redirect) but deleting the title - I could not do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_A._Hill_%28U.S._congressional_press_secretary%29
85.5.180.9 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Help!
Sorry to bother, but can you please encourage this Crum375 to stop nagging me to make an Arbcom case? This is highly inappropriate, and really not their proper business whatsoever. Thanks much. 85.5.180.9 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. It was you who moved it. This person has been pestering me to no end. Two pages worth of nagging. :/ 85.5.180.9 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. Ok, now I see what you are talking about. I dont really have thetime for this, but I will state some corroborating information related to that post. I had no idea what he/she was talking about. I thought Crum was talking about my comment on the article of Ruud Lubbers, not the Durova Arbcom case (and she called it an ANI, which completely confused me). The main point I sought to make was "inform better about COI" and to highlight the damage, which D participated in. But since Crum is going to make a federal case of it, then fine. I'll add the annotations as requested. Thanks for putting the edit there, and I'll follow up.
- Oh, I see. It was you who moved it. This person has been pestering me to no end. Two pages worth of nagging. :/ 85.5.180.9 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
85.5.180.9 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Please ask Crum375 to stop bothering me
He/she started out with accusations, non-stop nagging (and I had no idea you'd copied that passage to ANI, with my IP on it - but this person was so vague I had no idea what they were talking about. I thought it was a comment about Ruud Lubbers article). This person has been quite unkind, and tossing all kinds of accusations at me, and when the person refused to stop, I told them that their accusations and threats were bordering on harassment, and instead of leaving me alone, Crum375 threatened me with a block. Possibly the person is trying to provoke me so I can be blocked, or perhaps the person simply can't respect polite requests to be left alone. Please, if you can communicate that I want nothing more to do with this person, I'd be grateful. At this point, the person has stepped over the line. Thanks. 85.5.180.9 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would like you to send me email, please - guy dot chapman at spamcop dot net. There are very good reasons why we do not need another witch hunt, equally there are good reasons why I would want to review evidence (as opposed to assertions based on interpretations of evidence) in some detail. I can help with the former, if I decide it's the latter I should at least be able to advise you how to avoid future problems. I don't think this conversation should be conducted on my talk page, though. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help with the content dispute but things just got a whole lot more interesting. Meatpuppetry galore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Your endorsement of Perspicacite's position
Is this a correct statement of your position: [5] at User talk:Kirill Lokshin?
Do you indeed endorse User:Perspicacite alias Jose João's position (not my own, which is that he should simply cease reverts and harassment of other editors) that an RfC would be a waste of time and that we should proceed directly to an ArbCom considering my conduct? Alice.S 09:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You have email
Sent you a reply. Mr Which??? 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Removing links
You are removing a large number of links, including from a protected article. This is both disruptive and an abuse of your admin privileges. I would urge you to self-revert before I take this further. Sfacets 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)