![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I would say wait for the WP:RFCU. I think they are the same but no doubt CU will say otherwise as they have been clever. GDonato ( talk) 16:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have replied. My patience with all this is wearing thin.-- Jonashart 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
while I understand your sentiment, you must understand that I was only giving a brief observation of two of the users in question. Despite my recent dispute with them, I am still a member of the community, and it is a community discussion. New England (C) (H) 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to jump offline at an inopportune time, but juggling work and WP isn't working. One eye on WP talk pages, one on excel, and I still have an actual job. I've given everyone a chunk of data at User talk:Barneca/Draft SSP report, I will try to get back on in 2.5 hours. I can't do this tonight, it's my anniversary, but will check in for a little while before going home. -- barneca ( talk) 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I really appreciate the way you've handled this. Your repeated apologies, your acknowledgement that it looks a bit like " Big Brother" etc. etc. is excellent. I know it's tough, and I think you've done well. For the record, I hope the Check User reveals nothing to worry about, as I have had only positive interaction with all concerned, but I still think that you have been very sensetive in this. By the way - Happy Aniversary! Best. Pedro | Chat 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
All's well that ends well...or something.-- Jonashart 12:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I aim to please. And baffle.-- 211.74.211.4 17:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
To be safe, you might want to revert your last reversion, I, personally think it's vandalism reversion, but some might consider it a content dispute. It would be crazy for you to get caught up in a 3RR accusation yourself. I think it's vandalistic enough that I can safely revert after the IP is blocked for 3RR so you don't have to, without being accussed of edit warring myself; that would be my third revert. -- barneca ( talk) 15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That kind of nonsensical material should be removed on sight. No worries. Cheers, Peacent
User:Barneca, an ANI thread has been opened regarding sockpuppets of Oldwindybear. Proabivouac 08:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I can now come out of hiding (I promise I'm about to leave for Maine though). I just checked the whole situation, and I am thoroughly pleased at the result. I also noticed that Proabivouac received two barnstars for his actions, and I decided that you deserve one (if not several) as well.
Thus, I, New England, on this the twenty-fifth day of July, in the Year of the Lord 2007, present to you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar, for your efforts in ending the fraudulent and abusive sockpuppetry of Old Windy Bear.
![]() |
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your efforts in ending the fraudulent and abusive sockpuppetry of Old Windy Bear New England (C) (H) 15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC) |
Enjoy it, I'm out of here for a while.
New
England
(C)
(H)
15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
One more won't hurt.
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Well, you won't be getting any from OWB, so here is a barnstar from me. For the incredibly detailed work in exposing the OWB/SS sockpuppetry. Thank you! Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC) |
I just had a chance to read the report after I saw the link to it on WP:AN/I, and I'm impressed by the work you all did in putting it together. As a new user I'm a little surprised (maybe even scared) that one person could use so many accounts for such a long time and get away with it. Hopefully this won't happen again. Pats Sox Princess 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
my username if nferbert and i was not spamming on the boston page. i am providing TRANSPORTATION information in the TRANSPORTATION section. why is that a problem for you? (unsigned comment added at 16:04, July 26, 2007 by Nferbert)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Your comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship brought a smile to my face, and, being the only person on Wikipedia to have done that today, you deserve this barnstar. ;-) Lra drama 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
Meh, it's alright, my real reward is being a
rouge admin non-admin. —
Moe
ε
17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Edits like this almost make me think humanity isn't doomed after all. Good work. Raymond Arritt 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it might go well with Loodog's "Bostonians" after I saw him remove it, but didn't notice it was already mentioned elsewhere. Thanks again. Aepoutre 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
We sure do. I love Boston, haha. Bold is good; I don't tend to take umbrage at any edits, but I've seen that some pretty nasty little "wars" occur on Wikipedia, too. Aepoutre 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to set up a template page for my userboxes but I notice that when I put the link to the userbox on the mainspace of listing of userboxes there's a dead link. Unless you can think of a better way to do it. But to be perfectly honest all the userboxes on that main listing page are not necessarily template pages, so what am I doing wrong and help me fix the problem. Thanks. þ 03:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I actually see what you think I'm doing. No, I'm not trying to create separate userpages. If you look at other userboxes they seem to be created from user pages. I'm not a technical wizard; so I don't understand why they're not being called out (shrugs). þ 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see what I'm doing wrong; I thought that those userpages were for the userbox; but I see that those are userboxes that are redirected from userpages. I guess I just have to redirect those to template pages. þ 03:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I put in redirects I don't know if that's alright. Tell me if it is. þ 06:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I finally understood what you wanted me to do. þ 06:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, your most welcome! þ 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did a minor revision of the userbox. I think it's funnier.
Fast Times | F...F...F...Three weeks we've been talking about the Platt Amendment. What are you people... ON DOPE!!! |
I've replied to your e-mail, and I expect you to keep its content to yourself. Happy editing! -- Boricua e ddie 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen Barneca threaten to publish it; in fact, he's said he has no intention of doing so. Since you aren't getting along, why not disengage? If the email is put on-wiki, then there would be repercussions, but it sounds like no one has any intention of doing that. MastCell Talk 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your words of encouragement and your luck. Luck was exactly what I needed and it prevailed in the end. The matter is resolved and will resume editing now. Thanks again, — Moe ε 11:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You have to be kidding me, that was the first time I ever edited that article. How dumb could you be to jump to a conclusion like that.unsigned comment by 67.175.48.136
Hello - I have no idea how to reply to a message but this editing system appears to allow me to write here. You sent a message saying I had edited a page about the "scottish national party" and had violated neutrality editing policy? I have edited only one page on "plockton" since registering at Wikipedia and - evidently - still don't know my way around the site. Whatever the mistake was, it was not made by me. Thank you for the message but you got the wrong person. (sgitheanaich)
WP:GROWUP would need to be written, but I imagine once it was it would be extremely dead on in regards to the Barrett situation. In fact the only reason I have not intervened is because I'd likely hand out trout all around... which would be appropriate for what is an obvious fishing expedition by someone to attempt to eliminate one of their POV opponents. Of course this is just a long winded way to say I think your assessment was fairly spot on.-- Isotope23 talk 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Barneca - Thank you for your message. I just really want to discuss changes to the page before it goes way too biased. I have requested a protection as well. I have tried to communicate with Nsk92 however no answer. I have other articles that I am working on, so I certainly would not want to be blocked. Can you please revert to the last version (since Nsk92 is still continuing to make changes) and protect the file so discussions can be made on the article without it being used as a soapbox? Skporganic 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Barneca, Thank you for the suggestion, I will try that. Regards, Skporganic 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Barneca, here is a copy of my message on the main VP discussion page.
Thanks,
Nsk92
09:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the 1982 New York Times article writes that according to NASA Uranus and Neptunus have irregularities in their orbits created by a far large object outside the known planetary system. This is also widely known that something is affecting those orbits. I will get get sources for the clame. Even the 1982 NYT article is valid enough but surely there's other sources too. So look forward to see the page edited sometime soon again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.239.219.220 ( talk) 23:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
What? "there are no remaining irregularities",, where is this being said? The irregularities were there in the early 1900's as was 25 years ago and are today. Hence Pluto was found because of the search of the 'heavenly body' that's affecting Uranus and Neptunes orbits, but is too small to cause the effect. The irregularities are still there even though what's causing it haven't been yet identified. If the astronomy community isn't looking at the issue daily or is not a the moment on the interests, doesn't mean this information about the irregularities of the orbits could be just wiped out.
If you say information known earlier shouldn't be known today, I do think it doesn't make you a very valid editor of Wikipedia. The irregularities haven't been disproved either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.239.219.220 ( talk) 23:59, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Listen thanks for your post on my talk page. You're were right before I even got a chance to see your message: someone took down my RFA :-) for much the same reasons you gave me :-) That's fine though, maybe in a year or two.
Thanks again
Gagueci 19:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Who said it was vandalism? Do you have any proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan88 ( talk • contribs) 21:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
No your right, it was a goof. Although this editor, for reasons unknown, had allowed his userpage to get into a serious mess, I agree that I did take a cut too far back to revert to. Thank you. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 23:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a fan of ur works will u marry me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialWikiDoom ( talk • contribs) 14:14, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Refering to the message you just put on my page, i did nothing. I was trying to revert the change. I need this off of my page. Agwin 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I would say wait for the WP:RFCU. I think they are the same but no doubt CU will say otherwise as they have been clever. GDonato ( talk) 16:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have replied. My patience with all this is wearing thin.-- Jonashart 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
while I understand your sentiment, you must understand that I was only giving a brief observation of two of the users in question. Despite my recent dispute with them, I am still a member of the community, and it is a community discussion. New England (C) (H) 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to jump offline at an inopportune time, but juggling work and WP isn't working. One eye on WP talk pages, one on excel, and I still have an actual job. I've given everyone a chunk of data at User talk:Barneca/Draft SSP report, I will try to get back on in 2.5 hours. I can't do this tonight, it's my anniversary, but will check in for a little while before going home. -- barneca ( talk) 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I really appreciate the way you've handled this. Your repeated apologies, your acknowledgement that it looks a bit like " Big Brother" etc. etc. is excellent. I know it's tough, and I think you've done well. For the record, I hope the Check User reveals nothing to worry about, as I have had only positive interaction with all concerned, but I still think that you have been very sensetive in this. By the way - Happy Aniversary! Best. Pedro | Chat 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
All's well that ends well...or something.-- Jonashart 12:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I aim to please. And baffle.-- 211.74.211.4 17:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
To be safe, you might want to revert your last reversion, I, personally think it's vandalism reversion, but some might consider it a content dispute. It would be crazy for you to get caught up in a 3RR accusation yourself. I think it's vandalistic enough that I can safely revert after the IP is blocked for 3RR so you don't have to, without being accussed of edit warring myself; that would be my third revert. -- barneca ( talk) 15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That kind of nonsensical material should be removed on sight. No worries. Cheers, Peacent
User:Barneca, an ANI thread has been opened regarding sockpuppets of Oldwindybear. Proabivouac 08:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I can now come out of hiding (I promise I'm about to leave for Maine though). I just checked the whole situation, and I am thoroughly pleased at the result. I also noticed that Proabivouac received two barnstars for his actions, and I decided that you deserve one (if not several) as well.
Thus, I, New England, on this the twenty-fifth day of July, in the Year of the Lord 2007, present to you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar, for your efforts in ending the fraudulent and abusive sockpuppetry of Old Windy Bear.
![]() |
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your efforts in ending the fraudulent and abusive sockpuppetry of Old Windy Bear New England (C) (H) 15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC) |
Enjoy it, I'm out of here for a while.
New
England
(C)
(H)
15:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
One more won't hurt.
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
Well, you won't be getting any from OWB, so here is a barnstar from me. For the incredibly detailed work in exposing the OWB/SS sockpuppetry. Thank you! Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC) |
I just had a chance to read the report after I saw the link to it on WP:AN/I, and I'm impressed by the work you all did in putting it together. As a new user I'm a little surprised (maybe even scared) that one person could use so many accounts for such a long time and get away with it. Hopefully this won't happen again. Pats Sox Princess 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
my username if nferbert and i was not spamming on the boston page. i am providing TRANSPORTATION information in the TRANSPORTATION section. why is that a problem for you? (unsigned comment added at 16:04, July 26, 2007 by Nferbert)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Your comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship brought a smile to my face, and, being the only person on Wikipedia to have done that today, you deserve this barnstar. ;-) Lra drama 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC) |
Meh, it's alright, my real reward is being a
rouge admin non-admin. —
Moe
ε
17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Edits like this almost make me think humanity isn't doomed after all. Good work. Raymond Arritt 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it might go well with Loodog's "Bostonians" after I saw him remove it, but didn't notice it was already mentioned elsewhere. Thanks again. Aepoutre 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
We sure do. I love Boston, haha. Bold is good; I don't tend to take umbrage at any edits, but I've seen that some pretty nasty little "wars" occur on Wikipedia, too. Aepoutre 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to set up a template page for my userboxes but I notice that when I put the link to the userbox on the mainspace of listing of userboxes there's a dead link. Unless you can think of a better way to do it. But to be perfectly honest all the userboxes on that main listing page are not necessarily template pages, so what am I doing wrong and help me fix the problem. Thanks. þ 03:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I actually see what you think I'm doing. No, I'm not trying to create separate userpages. If you look at other userboxes they seem to be created from user pages. I'm not a technical wizard; so I don't understand why they're not being called out (shrugs). þ 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I see what I'm doing wrong; I thought that those userpages were for the userbox; but I see that those are userboxes that are redirected from userpages. I guess I just have to redirect those to template pages. þ 03:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I put in redirects I don't know if that's alright. Tell me if it is. þ 06:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I finally understood what you wanted me to do. þ 06:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, your most welcome! þ 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I did a minor revision of the userbox. I think it's funnier.
Fast Times | F...F...F...Three weeks we've been talking about the Platt Amendment. What are you people... ON DOPE!!! |
I've replied to your e-mail, and I expect you to keep its content to yourself. Happy editing! -- Boricua e ddie 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen Barneca threaten to publish it; in fact, he's said he has no intention of doing so. Since you aren't getting along, why not disengage? If the email is put on-wiki, then there would be repercussions, but it sounds like no one has any intention of doing that. MastCell Talk 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your words of encouragement and your luck. Luck was exactly what I needed and it prevailed in the end. The matter is resolved and will resume editing now. Thanks again, — Moe ε 11:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You have to be kidding me, that was the first time I ever edited that article. How dumb could you be to jump to a conclusion like that.unsigned comment by 67.175.48.136
Hello - I have no idea how to reply to a message but this editing system appears to allow me to write here. You sent a message saying I had edited a page about the "scottish national party" and had violated neutrality editing policy? I have edited only one page on "plockton" since registering at Wikipedia and - evidently - still don't know my way around the site. Whatever the mistake was, it was not made by me. Thank you for the message but you got the wrong person. (sgitheanaich)
WP:GROWUP would need to be written, but I imagine once it was it would be extremely dead on in regards to the Barrett situation. In fact the only reason I have not intervened is because I'd likely hand out trout all around... which would be appropriate for what is an obvious fishing expedition by someone to attempt to eliminate one of their POV opponents. Of course this is just a long winded way to say I think your assessment was fairly spot on.-- Isotope23 talk 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Barneca - Thank you for your message. I just really want to discuss changes to the page before it goes way too biased. I have requested a protection as well. I have tried to communicate with Nsk92 however no answer. I have other articles that I am working on, so I certainly would not want to be blocked. Can you please revert to the last version (since Nsk92 is still continuing to make changes) and protect the file so discussions can be made on the article without it being used as a soapbox? Skporganic 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Barneca, Thank you for the suggestion, I will try that. Regards, Skporganic 13:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Barneca, here is a copy of my message on the main VP discussion page.
Thanks,
Nsk92
09:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the 1982 New York Times article writes that according to NASA Uranus and Neptunus have irregularities in their orbits created by a far large object outside the known planetary system. This is also widely known that something is affecting those orbits. I will get get sources for the clame. Even the 1982 NYT article is valid enough but surely there's other sources too. So look forward to see the page edited sometime soon again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.239.219.220 ( talk) 23:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
What? "there are no remaining irregularities",, where is this being said? The irregularities were there in the early 1900's as was 25 years ago and are today. Hence Pluto was found because of the search of the 'heavenly body' that's affecting Uranus and Neptunes orbits, but is too small to cause the effect. The irregularities are still there even though what's causing it haven't been yet identified. If the astronomy community isn't looking at the issue daily or is not a the moment on the interests, doesn't mean this information about the irregularities of the orbits could be just wiped out.
If you say information known earlier shouldn't be known today, I do think it doesn't make you a very valid editor of Wikipedia. The irregularities haven't been disproved either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.239.219.220 ( talk) 23:59, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Listen thanks for your post on my talk page. You're were right before I even got a chance to see your message: someone took down my RFA :-) for much the same reasons you gave me :-) That's fine though, maybe in a year or two.
Thanks again
Gagueci 19:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Who said it was vandalism? Do you have any proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan88 ( talk • contribs) 21:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
No your right, it was a goof. Although this editor, for reasons unknown, had allowed his userpage to get into a serious mess, I agree that I did take a cut too far back to revert to. Thank you. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 23:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a fan of ur works will u marry me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialWikiDoom ( talk • contribs) 14:14, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Refering to the message you just put on my page, i did nothing. I was trying to revert the change. I need this off of my page. Agwin 17:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)