Mike Doughney (talk | contribs) →User:Manutdglory is back at it - insulting other users: +more; campaigning by Manutdglory |
Manutdglory (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 491: | Line 491: | ||
These three edits constitute [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning campaigning], including the above terminology, clearly inappropriate behavior: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CarverM&diff=prev&oldid=263126873] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&diff=prev&oldid=263127004] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lyonscc&diff=prev&oldid=263127693] [[User:Mike Doughney|Mike Doughney]] ([[User talk:Mike Doughney|talk]]) 06:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
These three edits constitute [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning campaigning], including the above terminology, clearly inappropriate behavior: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CarverM&diff=prev&oldid=263126873] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&diff=prev&oldid=263127004] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lyonscc&diff=prev&oldid=263127693] [[User:Mike Doughney|Mike Doughney]] ([[User talk:Mike Doughney|talk]]) 06:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Mike, your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. Steve already warned you that your comments to me were far worse than mine about User:Teledildonix314 (who by returning to his behavior on the Warren article is begging for a block) and that the only reason he didn't block you is because I asked him not to, yet you again baffle everyone by defending a radical editor (who we all know should have already been blocked) and accusing me. Steve, take note of the fact that I followed your request by not editing the [[Rick Warren]] article and not dialoguing with Mike, while he defied your request and went straight back to editing the article and messing with me. [[User:Manutdglory|Manutdglory]] ([[User talk:Manutdglory|talk]]) 06:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:12, 10 January 2009
| ||
| ||
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Gene Poole block discussion
Where was the discussion that led to the long block? You mention other admins discussing and suggesting an indef block, but I can't find anything on your talk page, his talk page, AN or ANI...
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good morning George. I was referring Gene to the previous similar behavior of September 29 this year (indeed stemming from the same types of edits now displayed) where a discussion at ANI titled Block on User:Gene Poole included comments suggesting indefinite block by fellow administrators were posted. Also see my archive 9 for two threads and the enormous disdain created as a result of Gene's behavior.--VS talk 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, I think the block was sound. I fall into the camp that thinks he should be indef. blocked, but respect there are those who would like to see him clean up his act and remain on the project. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Hiberniantears - I can understand why many are in the same camp of "indefinite block" but I am hoping that a 3 month block will bring him back around - as a last chance plea that he come back to the project with a positive good faith view towards his fellow contributors.--VS talk 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You mean this thread?
- I don't see much support there for an indef, no. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Combine that post and the archive talk page thread, plus comments in the history such as the one above and you see that many people are reaching final views on Gene. However as I have noted above and in the block post, I think there is still a possibility of "saving" him hence a reference only to other's thoughts of indef block and my block of considerably less. I note that Gene has simply removed the block post from his talk page (adding a poorly worded edit summary) and that he is not requesting unblock at this time.--VS talk 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I feel nothing will change but I'm always hoping he clears up he attitude towards other editors but his removal of comments on his talk page isn't helping him to stay as an Wikipedia editor. delete rant by abusive admin and delete trolling/personal attack by michellecrisp. Bidgee (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This dif, as well as this earlier one do not seem to indicate that things will change much. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Actually, upon further investigation, disregard this. Those were socks of a different editor. Egg... meet face. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Hiberniantears - I can understand why many are in the same camp of "indefinite block" but I am hoping that a 3 month block will bring him back around - as a last chance plea that he come back to the project with a positive good faith view towards his fellow contributors.--VS talk 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a general comment as I haven't looked into this current case extensively (and sorry for the length of this), but taking all the comments here at face value, if Gene has been blocked for behavioural issues and then returns from that block to POINTily resume the same behaviour that got him blocked last time and resume targeting the same users, then it's pretty much standard operating procedure to reblock with escalating blocks, and I'd support such a re-block.
George, I've worked with you a lot over the last few years, both on and off-site, on unblock-en-l, OTRS, cyberstalking-l etc and I'm sincere when I say that this is said with respect, but I've noticed before that you always challenge blocks and other interventions applied to Gene, to such an extent that any time I see that Gene has been blocked again, I think "It won't be long until George takes up that block". I don't recall ever seeing you support any administrative intervention against him and given his disruptive behaviour and your tendency to be a no-nonsense admin who won't abide abuse and harassment, particularly in trying to enforce blocks equitably and wont brook users being harassed on the project and so it always stuns me when you "lead the charge" on questioning and disagreeing with sanctions; what's up with that? Are you and Gene friends or something? If so it might be an idea to leave him to other admins who don't have any sort of bias either way?
I've found Gene's behaviour outrageous since I first became aware of him in 2005-2006, particularly when he used a sockpuppet, User:Centauri to double-support Elonka's RFA and was accused of using socks since mid-2004. At the time of the RFA I was amazed that he wasn't given a lengthy block as others would have been in the same situation. Looking at Gene's and Cetauri's accounts now, I see that you've been interacting with him and supporting him since back then and that you even supported his RfA in January/February 2006. Since then you've advocated on his behalf frequently and I'm really not convinced that you're looking at him as you would if he were any other user. I consider Steve a personal friend and it's possible that my point of view is shaded by that, but my opinions of Gene and his behaviour have not since I first encountered him, long before I became an admin and before I even knew Steve. And so it would just be nice if you could acknowledge any friendship or bias in favour of Gene instead of leaping to his defense each time an administrator tries to hold him to policy and guidelines as though you're a neutral outside observer.
I hope Gene accepts the block now, goes away and thinks about why he was blocked (and no, it's not because he is being victimised by an "abusive admin") and then comes back in the new year and appeals the block. Knowing Steve, I am sure he doesn't want Gene to be blocked, but just wants him to stop his disruptive behaviour and to protect other editors from abuse and harassment. The irony in this is that this is exactly what I usually see you doing to the extent that you put your own bit on the line doing so. I hope in the interests of the project that instead of rejecting sanctions of him, you might reach out and encourage him to agree to stop disruptive behaviour and particularly to avoid the editors he does not get along with. Otherwise I'm sure that a new RFC#Gene and a proposal for community enforced sanctions or another arbitration#Gene are just a heartbeat away. Sarah 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also George, sorry for another post, but since you seem to have Gene's ear, I ask you to review and address this User_talk:Gene_Poole/attackrants which is essentially a copy of these deleted pages - User talk:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil and User:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil, also, MFD - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil and this one - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive92#Gene_Pool, User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Jun#Storm_in_a_teacup and this one where you asked him to stop provoking the named user - User_talk:Gene_Poole/archive_4#User_talk:Gene_Poole.2Fgenepooleisevil. Please also see the edit summary from Brad on the delete page that he would delete the page himself if the comment regarding a certain user was restored, and note that that very edit was restored on the current version posted by Gene. This is patent POINT violation, disruption and mocking of the community and holding it in contempt. As an admin who repeatedly takes up this user's causes and defends him, I ask you, please, would you address this matter. Given the amount of distress these pages have caused to these users and the and disruption to the community in general I find him quietly reposting the page months and months later a blatant and deliberate POINT violation. Sarah 05:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is my block removal request being declined?
Hi there, I'm not sure if this is where I come to to ask about this block removal but cos I saw your name as the blocking admin thing in the msg that got displayed telling me that I got blocked because of vandalism from some other user whom apparently I might share an IP add with I guess I should give it a try...
Ok first of all I don't quite understand how this whole thing works. I'm quite confused even with the user talk page - how do I reply somebody on the same page, or send them a msg or something like that? Apparently somebody commented that it seems too much of a coincidence that this user having the same IP add as me got blocked and immediately I ask for the block to be removed, especially when the last time I edited anything was about a year ago. I'm not exactly new to Wikipedia, I've been reading articles here for a long time already and Wiki is indefinitely useful for almost everything, but as to editing I've to admit that I'm really pretty much foreign to it.
The first and only time that I edited something was on a Pride and Prej page where I corrected a fact the person who put up had apparently gotten wrong. There was no vandalism no abuse no anything of that sort, just an honest edit for an error. I am very angry about the fact now that I'm being blocked as a 'sockpuppet' and that other users have left things on my talk pg like 'am I kidding' and that 'it is too much of a coincidence'. I don't think I've to edit every page I come across right, esp. when there is nothing wrong with them. I don't know in what way is it a coincidence and I'm definitely not kidding about getting my block removed because while I don't often bother with editing, I'm not happy about being blocked (and now for an indefinite amount of time for being a 'sockpuppet'!) for some apparently 'vandalism' which I don't even know of or understand.
May I know if you can assist in anyway or help me get this block removed? I'm quite badly affected by this because I've always trusted Wiki and unfortunately still have to use it for research purposes and knowing that I'm being blocked and snubbed rather unfairly in others' comments is making me rather miserable.
Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrocheese (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Firstly I have never blocked you as Afrocheese or as IP 218.186.12.219 - indeed the latter IP does not appear to be blocked and you obviously were not blocked as Afrocheese before you came to my talk page to ask me to unblock you. Secondly I note that you have posted an unblock message with my name as the blocking admininistrator by copying an unblock request from the user talk page of Stmgmg (another sock of Cheesetree) - not too convincing when you think on it, is it?--VS talk 20:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Dumb as a brick
but [1] made me chuckle :-) Guy (Help!) 20:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yep - I am sitting here with a bewildered smirk on my face also! :-> --VS talk 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Rollback?
Please consider me as someone who would handle the rollback privilege with reluctance and care. I'm proud of the work I've been doing here (although I hope I'm not goithing to the fall), and think I could be trusted with it. Thanks for considering me. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Granted per your request. Please see WP:RBK for instructions on use or feel free to ask me! Take it slow, learn more as you go. Cheers!--VS talk 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Always go slow! Don't think I'll need it much, but will probably save me a bunch of time down the line. Thanks Steve Pastor (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Donor EBM
Hi Steve, Thank you very much for keeping the article Donor EBM, and not deleting it, I would like to keep an interesting fact in it. --173.88.145.154 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well I think it has some potential - but it needs a lot more work - so keep editing.--VS talk 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Premature archiving of topic ban discussion
Steve
- When you archived the discussion at AN/I Guy had not responded to my post "With due respect Guy I think you are mistaken. Personal feelings don't enter the equation. Good science and good wikipeida articles do. Correct me if I'm wrong but your principal argument is that I am unable to work productively with people with an opposing viewpoint. How many diffs would you require to change your mind? Have you seen the strenuous efforts I have made on the acupuncture talkpage and other talkpages to gain consensus from true believers (often as the lone science editor)? Do you know what my ratio of discussion to mainspace edits is? I also don't understand your threat "carry on as you are". Am I not entitled to be judged on evidence? Am I not entitled to put the evidence? This issue is at root a content dispute about acupuncture with an editor who now insists his claims on acupuncture are supported by WHO. I'd be grateful for your considered response.Mccready (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"
- Gladys had not responded.
- Nihonjoe had not responded in substance.
I'd be grateful if you would reopen the discussion and allow Guy and Gladys time to make considered responses.Mccready (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mcready, have a look at the actual final responses of both Gladys and Guy. Also have a look at their talk pages (something I checked first) which clearly shows they had considered your requests at those places and in turn their responses. In my view they are final responses and the consensus is that you remain topic banned - I appreciate that that result p*sses you off a little but like life, that's the breaks sometimes. That said I have a feeling with your obvious energy you will come back (in terms of this topic ban) in a couple of weeks, wiser and even more likely to add to the topic rather than the drama. Believe me the topic, the article and the editors will still be here in 14 days. Of course how you come back is up to you but I hope that positive and more learned is the end result. Thanks for stopping by, best wishes.--VS talk 06:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Steve. Although Guy and Gladys haven't responded to my followups it doesn't look like they intend to at this stage. I'm not pissed off, but I would have hoped admins, once they engage, follow through thoroughly and particularly respond to questions about their reasoning. So I accept your closing of the discussion and your advice to wait a little longer. I must say the quick solution I have proposed all along hasn't been addressed. This would have avoided all this hassle. ie Why not lift the topic ban and reinstate if needed. Hopefully that can be done soon as you intimate.Mccready (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
RE: TIGER M Article Deletion. Thanks For The Heads-up VirtualSteve!
Thanks Steve!
Sorry to take so long to respond.
Thank you for being so kind.
Cool beans! =)
We'll get on revamping the article as soon as all possible
After registering better sources
(That is getting an album and 'reason for' set of sources up).
The ending article probably will end up looking something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kan_Fukumoto
Until this place is better understood. =)
And since it is that anyone can edit most pages here,
why not just let other users "do their thing" with it after its up eh? =)
[That's the coolest part about wikipedian-articles yes?]
We'll make the article more neutral.
[understand the COI and am glad there are excpetions if the article is made neutral]
Oh! Speaking of which [neutral] so we don't make the same mistake again
(or get tagged for a different "Wiki-offense"):
What is this about "This article's neutrality is disputed" tag on some articles here.
Do we want to make it not "too neutral" or something?
Any link for how to avoid this 'publication citation'
Thanks.
-Angel Arc Publishing Sunday, December, 21, 2008 Minawa, Y. 10:31 AM
- No problems. Also when you see the tag "This article's neutrality is disputed" it is just someone questioning whether a particular article is written from a Neutral Point of View. The link to this information is here. Best wishes. --VS talk 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Invincibles
- Err, thanks, full steam ahead on the reports for the others as well. You enjoy yourself as well. I wonder, could you keep an eye on WP:AWNB/A in case my articles get reviewed during the Christmas period as I'll likely be away although it is unlikely that it will be picked up before then. Yes, I have started compiling about 12 of these "XXX with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948". YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: Seasons Greetings
Thank you, and to you as well! Cirt (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Steve, the same back to you :). [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 11:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
All the best, Steve. Have a good one! ScarianCall me Pat! 12:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. And you, Same to you, Wish you the same . . . Hope 2009 brings more cheer. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, VS! Have a great holiday, and try not to spend it all on the wiki ;) . —Politizer talk/contribs 15:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much VS, and same to you :) Hope it all goes well for you. Orderinchaos 20:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
What the guys above me said! =) Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC).
Happy Holidays!
Thanks for still remembering me and the wishes. I wish you also have a happy Christmas and a new year. Docku: What up? 13:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and enjoy all your celebrations whatever they may be. The Festivus Seinfeld episode was on last night. So it's definitely a festive time of year. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks. Best wishes to you as well and I hope you have a great Christmas and a happy new year. Landon1980 (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Ho ho ho
<insert neutral happy holidays greeting here> Hope it brings endless wealth and happiness to you and yours! :) Cheers mate! Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 21:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
More ho ho ho!
Steve, you're the best. Thank you for the wonderful holiday greeting. A very merry Christmas to you and yours. See you in '09! :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Hi, and thanks for the holiday greetings. I hope you and your family have a safe and happy holiday season as well. Best regards for the new year. ;o) --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 00:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello VirtualSteve! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from Promethean
VirtualSteve,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)
Holiday wishes
Steve, I'd like to wish you pleasant holidays and a smashing new year. Keep up and enjoy the good work! - DVdm (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Christmas
Steve, I trust you had a great Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 22:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for the Seasons Greetings. I hope you has a happy and safe Christmas plus a happy New Year. Bidgee (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Unprotect page "Kurukshetra University"
Hi! VirtualSteve.......Sir! i wanna talk about my pages those are quickly deleted by you without any reason.....i created a page about "Kurukshetra University" which is completely reasonable........i didn't use any copyright information...........only some information i use from university site to give complete information about this university.......which is not illegal......i am student of this prestigious University & i have all rights to use information from university site.......so please unprotected this page as early as possible......... Mamboitaliana100 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Having been away on holidays I have just come back to this message but I note that you have not edited for some days. Please let me know if this is still an issue for you and I will reconsider the salting of this page.--VS talk 08:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's already been dealt with, VS. User talk:Jéské Couriano#unprotect page "Kurukshetra University". I haven't had any contact from him since, either. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
an expired block
Hello. A headsup that a block on an anon IP that you did a few days ago has expired, and they have done some minor continuation of their previous activity. Nothing overly crazy yet as far as I can tell, but still... Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Spike - looks like another admin has sorted this out (whilst I was away on holidays). Sorry I could not assist during that time. I am back now so if you need further help please let me know.--VS talk 08:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Merry Xmas Late
Unprotect please
Hello Steve, It's been awhile. Anyway, can you please unprotect my userpage. Chances are that I will come back and stay back so I would like to have my userpage open for me to edit. I'll try to watch my anger this time. I don't know what I was thinking then! Chicken-7 09:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
PS-Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
- Don't worry. I've had another administrator do it because it looks as if your on holidays (I'm not gonna say vacation!). Enjoy (or I hope you enjoyed) your holidays. Cheers, JamesA >talk 03:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
Right back at you. Hope your holidays were/are/will be relaxing and enjoyable. --barneca (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Repeated vandalism by User:Teledildonix314
User:Teledildonix314 has repeatedly vandalized the Rick Warren article, which you semi-protected against unregistered users two weeks ago. He is vandalizing the article by repeatedly posting unsourced inflammatory comments about Warren, such as insinuating that he is a bigot (calling him "reactionary" - which is completely unfounded), which is the reason you had to semi-protect the article in the first place.
A simple overview of his recent contributions clearly demonstrate that he is a gay-rights activist and not a neutral, unbiased contributor. Clearly he is no different than the unregistered users you had to block, but is using his registered status to continue the vandalism. So to be consistent, please warn him to stop posting on the article and keep an eye on him. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This guy continues to purposely vandalize this article with completely unsourced comments on this article and needs to be blocked ASAP. Another editor has identified him as an activist and agreed that his posts should be removed, yet he keeps reposting them. See the discussion page for self-incriminating evidence of his non-NPOV views.Manutdglory (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, User:Teledildonix314 has repeated his vandalism antics today, with no less than 10 edits of legitimate sourced material, including lengthy personal anti-Warren editorials that 2 other editors were forced to remove - this is getting worse. He also wrote a disturbing, multi-paragraph vitriolic essay describing his hatred of Warren on the discussion page. Please investigate and deal with the matter ASAP, as I am getting tired of restoring his vandalism. Thanks.Manutdglory (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The issue was resolved by another administrator. Under threat of being blocked, User:Teledildonix314 apologized for his behavior. Manutdglory (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Illegitimate threats and name-calling by User:Mike Doughney
Regarding my identification of the user responsible for the repeated vandalism of the Rick Warren article (discussed above), User:Mike Doughney has repeatedly used personally demeaning language towards me (claiming that I mentally don't comprehend things), yet more offensive are his repeated hypocritical threats towards me. He claims that by identifying the person responsible for the situation discussed above as a "vandal" (and I would claim accurately, given the situation) I was "name-calling" (after both he and User:Teledildonix314 had repeatedly called me names) and he has threatened to have me blocked (he seems to believe that it is solely his purgative whom to block). His most recent message to me is posted below.
Now I realize this all sounds rather juvenile, but I assure you that he is the one doing it - I could care less if he calls me names and I have no desire to have him blocked. What ticks me off are the threats - please tell him to stop. Just investigate his comments on the Rick Warren discussion page, along with mine and his for the evidence. I'm sure you will come to a logical and fair resolution. Thanks.Manutdglory (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Rick Warren, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You have been warned by me twice to cease making abusive comments to other editors in your edit summaries and falsely accusing editors of vandalism. This is your final warning. Stop. Your previous warnings were here and here. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea why this user sees fit to attempt dispute resolution by leaving you personal messages here rather than using the usual channels. That said, open incidents at WP:ANI regarding these matters exist here and here. Last time I checked, making false accusations of vandalism, personal attacks, and general incivility were grounds for blocking, hence my series of warnings and final warning as detailed at WP:ANI. The accusation of name-calling directed at me seems to be centered on this edit and frankly, it does appear to me that Manutdglory cannot and will not accept the fact that the personal views of an editor are separate from their edits. Mike Doughney (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello just back from a vacation. Have seen these messages, read them but not investigated. I am happy to help if I can but at this time I will await further responses (if the issue is still alive etc). I won't go and check the links as yet but rather get through some of my other messages left during my break.--VS talk 08:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would still appreciate it if you would investigate this situation. His entire reason for threatening to report me was because of someone who repeatedly vandalized the article (User: Teledildonix314) who I accurately identified as a vandal. I was later vindicated when User: Teledildonix314 admitted he was wrong and posted a lengthy apology/admission of guilt on the Rick Warren discussion page (see for yourself). In addition, User:Mike Doughney proved I was right by eventually reporting User: Teledildonix314, so I don't know what his problem is. I attempted to resolve the situation and make peace with User:Mike Doughney so that administrators like yourself didn't have to waste their time in a completely pointless endeavor (remember, it was him who started all of this and there's absolutely no legit reason to block either of us), but he responded with the following insult (below) - classy. Now you know what I'm dealing with. Just please investigate the evidence and warn him to knock it off. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can't write clearly, and you don't seem to be able to tell the two of us apart, when you're not busy trying to play us off each other. Get lost. Mike Doughney (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your objective and fair analysis of the situation. I will certainly abide by your requests. Manutdglory (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Years!
Thanks for the holiday comment on my page. I was traveling, but back in time to wish you a great 2009! :-) Fletcher (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
POV-pushing editor.
Gingerboy06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding unsourced content (which seems to be also POV-pushing) to Dog fighting and RSPCA Australia but has now tell me to source content that they add and pages that I edit (See: User talk:Gingerboy06) and has even made a threat to seek arbitration[2] and has also called me being "hypocritical and unprofessional manner" (Which I feel is Assuming bad faith and disruptive) which I clearly fill I've been keeping a neutral POV on the subject matter. Bidgee (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Bidgee - I have been away until this afternoon on holidays. Can you tell me where this matter is up to?--VS talk 08:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I am attempting to clear some of the backlog at SSP, and am at the above case. I see that all named accounts have been blocked indef (although some for straight vandalism rather than socking), but most ip's are not. The ip's that are currently active are not editing the problem areas (and are not editing problematically at all) while the inactive ones are some 3 weeks old. It is my opinion that this case can be closed on the above basis. I am willing to place the templates and write up the final conclusions if you agree. I shall watch for your response. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for delay in my response - on vacation for 10 or so days and didn't touch WP. That said, I most definitely do agree with you LessHeard vanU. Thank you for your patience.--VS talk 08:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK - I shall resolve per above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC) ...Ummmm, the link doesn't work and I can't find it - it appears to have been sorted in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Happy New Year!
Thanks again for all your help. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
No content in Category:Riverina lists
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Riverina lists, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Riverina lists has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Riverina lists, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Response
I have replied in my talk page. Shovon (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Shovon - Last vandalism edit on this anon IP was on December 28th - whether that is 5 or 6 days depends on your calendar. More importantly the top of the AIV report is very clear ...
1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.
2. Unregistered users must be active now.
3. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.
If that is not the case then blocking via AIV is not appropriate.--VS talk 10:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Steve, according to Special:Contributions/99.228.164.238, the IP user has edited today also. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Shovon let me try to make it clear to you again. I have already clarified that we are talking about the IP's last Vandalism Edit - that edit by your own report was on December 28th. Your own report uses the words I fully understand that edits are not vandalism. I'm sorry but your request does not fit within the boundaries of action at AIV - and especially so because it is an anonymous IP - with edits that are not vandalism coming since and over the past 6 days of 29th, 30th, 31st, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.--VS talk 10:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protection thanks
Thankyou this will help allot! :-) --Hfarmer (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Nativity of Jesus
In response to your decline for protection (I meant it temporarily, if that wasn't clear), if I sent it back now would it be received differently? Since I listed, it has been edited twice again by the same editor, who is acting in the face of consensus. Would it be better to bring something up at the 3rr/edit-warring page? What are we to do when someone refuses to acknowledge that no-one agrees with them, and that as a result they ought to desist? Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have looked at all of the last few edits. To protect against the editor you are referring to would require full protection. I am loathe to do so even though you clearly have an edit dispute with Doktorspin. I did read through the talk page discussion and it is not absolutely clear that no-one agrees with that editor (or conversely that everyone agrees with you) although I note the irony etc of the discussion with regards this particular page. My advice is to either provide appropriate warnings to the editor in question (but you would need to make sure you were on very solid ground regarding say 3RR) - or take the matter to ANI for input from a number of editors. I hope that helps you in some way.--VS talk 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply, Steve. I looked back over it, and you're right, there was one person supporting him. I just find it so frustrating when users care nothing for consensus. I have to avoid 3rr warnings, because an admin who didn't see my reversions as correcting vandalisms would block me as well. It's such a pain defending consensus. Ah well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration Carl and your point on being seen to be another 3RR victim if you also revert - however you are always safe within your rights to warn the other user when they have put up their 3rd revert (and you your second) - that will put the warning in their history and make it possible for admins to act (3RR always requires a warning first).--VS talk 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I will try n refrain from reverting more, and post a 3rr warning on his page if he reverts again. I do fear it will inflame the situation though. And for my curiousity, about how admins make decisions, why are you so loathe, as you put it, to protect the page? It look as though there haven't been and really substantive edits since at least the 1st. Why would it be imprudent to protect it for a couple/few days? Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Because (1) the problem edits are content dispute orientated and not straight vandalism, and (2) full protection means no-one other than administrators can edit the page - when a third solution is either and ANI discussion or a 3RR warning. Indeed having just looked at the page again, I have actually gone through and placed a warning at Doktorspin's page. For you therefore the ANI option (which will generate further discussion and a point of reference to move forward) is perhaps a better way of moving forward (should it become necessary to do so). That said - please come back here directly if the editor in question again acts in contravention of the 3RR rule and I will act appropriately. --VS talk 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help, Steve. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I looked at AN/I, and I didn't think I should go there; there hasn't been any reversion since you posted on spin's talk page. I did post something at RfC though; the problem is, only one person has commented. And honestly, I'd rather give it to the CE camp than go with their compromise. Could an uninvolved, unbiased admin make some kind of decision on this? I don't really know what to do. I don't think we're going to get consensus on this, and I don't know how to generate more attention for it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Template:RFCreli_list. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your trouble, Steve. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
He's returned the page to CE again. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Reverted to earlier version of date style - fully protected for 3 days to allow for appropriate discussion at talk page - that comes to a consensual conclusion.--VS talk 03:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Cervélo TestTeam
That was quick! Thanks a lot. I'm a firm believer in writing a "beefy" first revision, so what I write as a first revision should have no trouble sticking. Thanks again Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 09:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Always a pleasure to assist and thank you in return for your kind response. Good luck with your first revision. --VS talk 09:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Block on User talk:216.188.230.89
Hi VS. Just curious. Why did you block the IP with one edit today, although similar pattern/subject with yesterday's only edit, and with no previous warnings made? --Efe (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Efe - I did consider twice before doing so (and noticed your comment following my block). In the end I blocked because of the rather extreme offensive nature of the comment today (yesterday's may or may not be related). If you feel that excessive I will not argue against an unblocking. Appreciate your follow up question.--VS talk 12:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yah, very offensive. I will not contest the block. I respect it. --Efe (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Signswork
[3] Thanks, nice judgment.:) I didn't realize I was in the middle of a content dispute! --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers Unpopular Opinion - as you know I am not afraid to use the blocking button but just didn't feel right about this one at first - although now if you go to his page you will see I ended up blocking [4] for constant disruptive editing and dropping a 3RR warning for next time if necessary.--VS talk 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Robbie Keane
Just so you know he could and did not win 2 different underage tournaments in the summer of 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.1.93 (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
130.209.6.40
Hi Steve
I'm writing regarding the blocking of the above IP address.
Whilst this isn't unreasonable bearing in mind the vandalism that taken places from this address, it belongs to the University of Glasgow, a large and prestigious research university with over 20,000 students and hundreds of staff. It's thus inevitable that a significant volume of vandalism will come from and IP with so many users: however, it does form a small proportion of the total contributions from the address. I feel that by imposing a blanket ban on the IP, Wikipedia will ultimately lose: not only will many people be put off from editing as a result, but that, considering the nature of the institution, many of those contributions and contributors are likely to be uniquely valuable.
BestFrFintonStack (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Finton - thanks for dropping by with this comment. I went back to review my block (not recalling it upon receipt of your message). I understand your point, it being similar for any other school or university. What you may not be aware of is that there are 18 records in the block log for this IP alone, 16 of them direct blocks which have escalated over a period since March 2006 and following numerous counts of disruption and vandalism. Indeed I have been somewhat lenient because the policy of escalation might have led me (or others) to a block of longer than 12 months on this last occasion, because in fact the IP address had received already a block of 12 months in the previous blocking which only ended 25 days before my intervention. All of that said, (and most especially if you are a member/teacher/student of this university) if you can think of a way to move forward that would prevent the continued disruption of wikipedia by this address I would be happy to assist. --VS talk 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Greetings again Steve,
I just created a new article, Rock Harbor Church. While I used the church's website to garner basic information, I was careful to ensure that I didn't copy and paste anything, except for 2 quotes, and I gave full citation. Given my experience is editing articles, I didn't believe there should be any problems and felt that the article was compliant with Wikipedia regulations.
However, another administrator User:ZimZalaBim, suddenly deleted the majority of the article, citing it as being too "spammy and promotional" - along with claiming that typing the church's name as ROCKHARBOR (which is the official way to write the name - notice the church's logo and website) suggested that I had copy and pasted the article, which is completely untrue. Had he simply checked the cited website, he would have seen that I had clearly not copy and pasted, because the article is completely different than the website.
In my nearly 2 years on Wikipedia, I've never had an administrator come in and delete nearly an entire article on an assumption. It's like he simply glanced at the article and didn't like it, so he deleted it. To me, it looks like he did a shoddy investigation and made a rash decision. Maybe he's a new administrator or something. Anyway, given your fair dealing with me in the past, would you mind taking a look at the article and letting me know what you think? And if you agree with me, would you mind informing User:ZimZalaBim to stop deleting my work? Either way, I appreciate your help in the matter.
Thanks.
Manutdglory (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I did already note this interaction between you and ZZB, I noted his comment at your talk page concurring with Mhking (indeed it was Mhking who first removed material deemed as spammy). I read the material that was posted and I agree with the removal. I am glad that you understand me as fair and impartial - and I will also be candid and say that it is never going to assist your cause to take side swipes at other editors or admins as you have done above and indeed in the edit summary here. I would strongly suggest you take the talk page road to justify your situation rather than using edit summaries as your method of conversion. ZimZalaBim is a very competent administrator and has been a very trusted member of wikipedia since 2004 - I have only positive views about his work.--VS talk 05:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Unblock request of Chuck.gamble
Hello VirtualSteve. Chuck.gamble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 15:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for stopping by Aitias. I have reviewed my block and made comment as well as adjustment at the editors talk page. I will leave it to your discretion if you wish to further adjust the block. Best wishes. --VS talk 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Thank you for providing that explanation. I don't think further adjustment is necessary and have acted accordingly. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Unblock request by 67.180.5.41
I have put it on hold pending discussion with you. I would like to know which user he is presumed to be a sock of, since the template on his page said nothing specifically about socking and the block message did not identify the puppet (Not that I doubt you, but it seems complicated enough and some guidance would be helpful for a reviewing admin). Because without that we have a guy who got blocked after he stopped doing what he was warned to stop doing, which on its face would lead me to grant the unblock as a violation of good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just up now Daniel - will look into it again and respond again here shortly.--VS talk 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes this one - okay he appears to be a sock or meat puppet of user: Signswork. His edits only started on January 7, two days after Signswork on January 5 was short blocked for disruption. Signswork then appears to have come back as this IP for a day and was again short blocked by me for block evasion. The next day this current IP comes to the scene and immediately starts editing the same articles in the same way and edit commenting the same editor Lalit Jaganath. My WP:Duck perusal of the edits themselves, the date order Signswork to the 5th, 128.189.208.27 on the 6th, and this IP on the 7th, and the three reversions of this editor against Cluebot, Alansohn, and Ollie Fury (immediate reversions in the same fashion that Signswork did two days previously against Dekisugi, Unpopular Opinion, and MattieTK - led me to strongly believe it was either a sock or a meat. I have not got around to tagging it as such yet (although I have tagged Signswork as a sock-puppeteer. If you need more please let me know. Thanks Daniel appreciate your comments.--VS talk 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Any edit with the word "Beer" in it deserves its own heading
(Unrelated to the above, just this doesn't need its own heading) Cheers Steve! Wikimania 2010: Oxford: Get the beers ready. Be there. ;-) ScarianCall me Pat! 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds great - what month and I'll look closely into being there - seriously?!--VS talk 23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- [5] - All the info there, Steve. Although, maybe I'll have my Fosters a little warmer though, my teeth aren't built for the cold like those Australians ;-) ScarianCall me Pat! 23:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds brilliant - although I'll let you in on a little secret, most Aussies wouldn't drink Fosters if it was the last beer on tap, so for me you'll be shouting the Boddingtons or a Tetley's - as cold as you can get it please (given the warm weather in Oxford at that time of the year - says I today when it is in the high 30's Celsius here at 10.30am already).--VS talk 23:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Fosters is the only beer that doesn't make me heave after eating a donner kebab. How comes it's not as popular in Australia as popular culture suggests? ScarianCall me Pat! 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know in Australia (it must be taste and certainly is for me) but you rarely even see it sold here. There is only one beer worse for most of us (and it is sold a bit around here) - and that is Foster Lite. Of course you know the old joke - do you? Let me tell you anyway .... "Why is drinking lite beer like making love in a canoe?
- Because they are both f*cking near water! Boom Boom. Cheers Scarian - oh by the way I like the taste (not) of some of the vandals coming to your page recently - you know your work is worthwhile when you get hit by the grawp types.--VS talk 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ha! Good joke :-D - The sense of humour of the Aussies comes in close second to, of course, our blood relations, the Irish: What's the difference between an Irish wedding and an Irish funeral? One less drunk. Boo! - Oh well! I tried.
- Re: Userpage vandalism. Didn't even notice! Thanks for the revert Steve. Pictures of male reproductive organs might have given people the wrong impression about me! ;-) Take care. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know in Australia (it must be taste and certainly is for me) but you rarely even see it sold here. There is only one beer worse for most of us (and it is sold a bit around here) - and that is Foster Lite. Of course you know the old joke - do you? Let me tell you anyway .... "Why is drinking lite beer like making love in a canoe?
Anwell Technologies Limited
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, and I am hoping to learn from a recent edit. I tagged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwell_Technologies_Limited with db-inc because its content did not seem to meet the Notability guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. Additionally, no sources were included in the article. When I checked Google News I found 1 hit (unfortunately, I could not read it because it was not in English). I also looked at some results from Google, but could not find any from good sources, such as a newspaper. None of the editors posted any comments on the article's talk page after I tagged it, so I was not able to get feedback from them.
I saw that you declined the speedy deletion and I was wondering if you could expand on your decision--so that I can learn from your thought process and hopefully not mistakenly make incorrect tags in the future.
I would like to be a worthwhile contributer to Wikipedia, so if you have any suggestions for me, I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you. Jlhiowa (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for stopping by Jlhiowa. As per the first line in the notability guidelines, The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice. - This article speaks of Anwell Technologies being a global supplier of manufacturing equipment and process technologies, and through vertical integration strategy, they entered into manufacturing business of optical disc and solar cell, became the world's only equipment maker with its own manufacturing hubs; being on the Singapore Stock Exchange, and employing 2000 people world wide. Per the rules then, notability is asserted and that denies a speedy deletion. The article can of course be nominated at WP:AfD if you believe that the notability is not verified or unverifiable. I hope that helps?--VS talk 06:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, it helped clarify the notability speedy deletion tag for me. You are correct, they were asserting notability and thus should not have been a candidate for speedy deletion. In hindsight, I should have placed fact and source tags (I just learned about fact tags today though :) I went back to look at the Anwell page and it looks like it's had quite a bit of activity, so I will have to look through that later. Again, thank you for your educational response :) Jlhiowa (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome
Thank you for your welcome, and I hope Enigma becomes an admin. I do have a couple of questions, now that you mention it. First, the only real edit I've done is on History of Washington University in St. Louis (as I'm sure the world now knows). While I was editing it, it seemed to me that it deserves better than a Stub rating. I wasn't sure about changing it, though, since I'm new. It seems more of a Start or C article to me, especially after my edits. What's your opinion? Second, many users have a list of how many FAs, GAs, etc. they contributed to. What's the general level of involvement needed (I guess suggested, since the users make these list themselves) to say a user has contributed substantially enough? Minor question - with the talk pages, is there a standard on where replies should be posted? I prefer my conversations in one place, personally (I'll be looking on your talk page for your reply to this). Thanks again! Shubinator (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pleasure to welcome you. Some answers. I would wait until you gained more experience before adjusting stub to start etc (that's only my opinion, you're entitled to be bold, and for all I know you may have a wealth of assessment experience, but others will wonder how a newbie can grade at this stage). I will have a look at the article you are currently referring to and grade it again as necessary. You need to be a substantial contributor to an FA or GA article to be able to put up the badge. There is no straight definition of substantial as far as I know - but believe me if you start putting details of FA's GA's etc that others feel you have not contributed to substantially plenty of editors will complain of your error. Finally I always reply to posts started on this page, on this page - just thought I'd tell you - but would have been happy to do so by your request in any case. Again best wishes.--VS talk 06:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answers. No, I don't have any experience. I wouldn't be surprised if I get CU'd because of the RfA. But I had to speak out. The reason I know some of the lingo is because I was wandering around talk pages and RfA stuff last night. I've only made two edits before officially becoming a Wikipedian, one this Christmas, and another two years ago. Shubinator (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well my friend don't let being new worry you too much (unless you are Enigma - *okay that was a sick joke* but there are some very hard political types around here) - RFA process states, Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical "vote". see here for further details. So now that you are a welcomed new user, get to work and help us build an excellent, world-wide, free resource.--VS talk 06:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lol, but I expect many will not see the humor. Yeah, I did see the RfA rules, which is why I didn't do anything last night. Unfortunately, it also states Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. I did explain myself, so that should help. And the people involved in Enigma's RfA are all intelligent; someone would have to be exceptionally stupid to make a sockpuppet for an RfA, especially a heated one like Enigma's. By the way, thanks for upping History of Wash U to a Start. What can I do to make it a C? I'll turn in for the night...thanks for your help. Shubinator (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Click on the assessment guidelines under quality scale at any talk page with an assessment and it will outline the difference between each class.--VS talk 07:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Protection of Nativity of Jesus
Hi, I've just noticed your warning in my talk concerning the Nativity of Jesus. Could you explain the benefit of blocking the site, which leads to those I was engaged with not having to elaborate a rationale for their edits, while the blockage maintains their edits?
Getting a coherent argument from these guys as to why they were participating was like pulling hen's teeth -- as hopefully the talk page for the entry reveals. --spin (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted the document to the previous version of the page (in terms of dating). At this stage I am seeing you push your argument through edits rather than finalised discussion. I have protected for 3 days and will watch to see if your ideas on dating are engaged by the other side, appropriately and hopefully so as that the parties reach consensus - if the other parties do not engage you at all then I will have no alternative but to open the page and allow continued edit warring. If that occurs editors will get blocked. I suggest that you continue to engage in discussion over this short period to see if you can agree on a compromise, solution or the alternative of walking away from the debate. Best wishes.--VS talk 20:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. My logic with the edits was to provoke reasoned response from my opponents, as I tried to maintain an active participation on the talk page, but the results are not good. I have been engaged in discussion on the issue for the last few days since you protected the article, but none of the opposition have made their presence felt. I guess they'll appear once the protection is removed. Cheers. --spin (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair use of movie images
Hey Steve, glad you enjoyed your holiday. Where'd you go? Anyway, I have a question regarding the fair use of movie or video game screenshots. Are they allowed to be uploaded if the image was taken by a user and a suitable fair use rational is given? I read some of the policies and they kinda answered my questions but I want to make sure because you know how I feel about people warning me about images being deleted. :s Cheers, JamesA >talk 11:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- WP:FAIR USE, WP:IUP, etc.. JamesA >talk 13:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Teledildonix314 is back at it
User Teledildonix is back at it. After being warned, he promised to desist in his lengthy apology on the Rick Warren discussion page. He recently posted another inappropriate blog-sourced edit on the Warren article that was removed by another editor. Please investigate and warn him that any further action will result in a block. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
It's really good to be back with the full arsenal at hand. I plan to have some real fun knocking out the serial vandals instead of just blowing the whistle at AIV. Anyway, thanks for the note. I genuinely and deeply appreciate it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Manutdglory is back at it - insulting other users
I refer you to this edit. While the edit may have been marginally sourced, it was in no way 'vandalism.' Manutdglory must desist from calling other users 'vandals' by falsely insisting that their edits are 'vandalism.' Mike Doughney (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There is now also this edit, which continues the implicit insult to many other editors that the referenced edit above shows some real distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" editors. Mike Doughney (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
These three edits constitute campaigning, including the above terminology, clearly inappropriate behavior: [6] [7] [8] Mike Doughney (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mike, your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. Steve already warned you that your comments to me were far worse than mine about User:Teledildonix314 (who by returning to his behavior on the Warren article is begging for a block) and that the only reason he didn't block you is because I asked him not to, yet you again baffle everyone by defending a radical editor (who we all know should have already been blocked) and accusing me. Steve, take note of the fact that I followed your request by not editing the Rick Warren article and not dialoguing with Mike, while he defied your request and went straight back to editing the article and messing with me. Manutdglory (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)