![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Hi, sorry to bother you, I know you're busy, but an IP editor you blocked for a month ( User:72.14.117.122) because he or she was posting American Film Institute information to film articles that was badly formatted, and refused to talk about the problems on their talk page, has completed the block and is doing exactly the same thing again. I've posted a note on their talk page, pointing out what the problems are, but there's been no response as of yet. if you get a moment, do you think you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"( t / c) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
First off, Don't you ever make threats against me ever again! I did nothing to you to warrant you posting a threatening remarks in my talk page, second if they are violating the 3RR or vandalizing a Wikipedia page I am going to report them! Third and finally they are wrong but the Wikipedia Admins are either too stupid or just too ignorant to realize this. Simon Bar Sinister ( talk) 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. It was getting tiresome fixing his handiwork. We get into this throughout the Walt Disney World Resort family of articles, and we feel we have reached a good idea to have these articles flow into each other. However, as you've seen, we still get people who, while probably at their core editing in good faith, don't seem to be able to work with the group. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
here. S/he clearly isn't going to get it. TravellingCari 03:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the discussion on IRC was nearly unanimously discouraging MZM from taking that action. Phrases like "Don't do it!" and "That would be wheel warring, and there is a special arbcom restriction" where said. This was not a decision made on IRC, it was made by MZM against the urges of his peers on IRC. So please don't let this incident color your view of IRC, remember you get only second and third hand accounts about what happens there and they are often bias. Chillum 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not see anyone claiming there was a consensus on IRC, did I miss that? As far as I know IRC was only tangentially involved in that the people there gave the same opinion as on wiki. The only people encouraging the action held the same opinion on wiki as well, same with those(the majority) who discouraged the act. Chillum 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well there is always e-mail, or skype or any other means of talking. The fact is people can talk in private and you will not know for sure what they said, they just have to go on what they do and say on-wiki. Chillum 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to properly welcome Hayleyjubilee ( talk · contribs). I left a message for Nsaa ( talk · contribs) asking them to AGF and to be more cautious about labelling new users as vandals. I was about to leave a message for Hayleyjubilee explaining WP:COI and WP:N, but it looks like you beat me to it. Cheers, caknuck ° is geared up for football season 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There's another editor with similar problems to the ones I've talked to you about before. This person, User:Granpuff, has never used edit summaries as far as I can see, on 2000 edits, marks every edit as "minor" (except one, quite recently), and the only response I and other editors have gotten so far is a one line remark about being new. If you get a chance, could you take a look at their talk page and see if you can help get this person to start communicating - or do you think I'd be better off taking it to WP:AN? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
HEY YO MAN I SORRY FO DA PULLED PORK SHIZZ IN THE CIVIL ENGINEERING ARTICLE. I firmly regret that you had to waste precious moments of your life to remedy my childish mistakes. I WAS TRYIN TO WIN THE WIKIPEDIA RACE GAME (LOOK IT UP I THINK THERES A ARTICLE ON IT MAYBE) AND I TYPED PULLED PORK AS A LINK SO I COULD GET TO IT FASTER. Rather clever if I do say so myself. Anyhoo sorry for the trouble, my deepest condolences for any grief you may be harboring over that fiasco.
Hugs and Kisses Schmapyrap ( talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
PS SARAH PALIN IS HOT
Apologies for putting a speedy on the above, I genuinely thought that it was nonsense but can see now that it is quite legitimate. Regards Paste ( talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Gahhhh. Please don't call me that. If you followed the hideous UCFD wars over that category, you'd know how much I hate that description. (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you actually read the facts. He has been harassing ME! Honestly, what did I do to deserve these warnings and even the threat of being blocked ? Please, tell me. EDIT: Sorry, you can remove this section. I was not aware you were watching my user page and I see no other way to contact people on this site. I would remove it, but is that vandalism? Jeffason ( talk) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, your post on his talk page makes it seem like I am harassing him. That is definitely unjust and defamatory. Also, you never answered my question if it is vandalism to remove this post from your talk page. This whole thing is quite ridiculous. If you really want to know the timeline of events you maybe can find my email in my account, and contact me there. Jeffason ( talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for help in the issue between me and Jeffason. I appreciate the comments about how I can better deal with this in the future. Best regards, -- Ekologkonsult ( talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just had to do it! – ukexpat ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I unblocked this user, then re-blocked him for a period of a month. This is a returning vandal I've been dealing with for months who returns immediately after a block expires to vandalize the same articles. He seems to have a grudge against Shooter Jennings, Waylon Jennings, and Jessi Colter, just to name a few. No one else from the blocked IPs ever requests a good-faith unblock, so I've started hitting them with a month at a time. Let me know if that caused any problems for you. Joyous! | Talk 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to personally thank you for your comments to Seicer after his abuse, as well as all the helpful information you provided concerning my page 'Firestarter Mini Monster (Truck)', my first attempt at an article as you correctly assumed. You have been one of the only helpful administrators I have encountered, and were indeed the only administrator who forwarded my deleted page after several requests to several different individuals. I was indeed ready to dismiss Wikipedia due to what happened when creating my first page, but due to your kindness, I will be posting the page again after the truck debuts. Thank you once again, you are truly an asset to Wikipedia! Kildare2 ( talk) 04:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
For the block on this mope. I'm reminded of "Alien Nation" & what Sykes sounded like... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing else to say, really. Stalker. Keeper ǀ 76 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I just got to say, this tops my list of best AN/ANI posts ever! :P Tiptoety talk 03:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For this hysterically and sarcastically accurate discription of the way ANI is, I hearby award you this barnstar. Sometimes, even in ANI, it's good to laugh :) Keep up the good work! - NeutralHomer • Talk 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
Were you serious in your pledge to block the familiar handful of editors who were reinserting polling data at Barack Obama? If so, get busy. :) In fact, I'd have done it myself, but I was irritated enough with the blatant disregard for consensus and policy that I went ahead and removed the offending paragraph. I do feel that administrative action is appropriate, and these accounts are not exactly first-time offenders, but since I've officially intervened in the content arena I'll pass this on to you to review. MastCell Talk 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I really appreciate your comment on my talk page. Also, the post mentioned in the barnstar a few sections up made me laugh. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the editor you recently blocked, Curious bystander ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has returned to the article following his block to apply an NPOV tag [1], incite user on the talk page, [2] and file an inflamatory featured article review here. That's about the most disruptive thing he could have done. He is clearly an WP:SPA devoted to disparaging Obama. A number of us think he is likely a sock - if you look at the early edit history he jumped into edit warring on Obama in a way that suggests knowledge of process here, immediately after registering an account, and shares editing patterns in common with a couple other accounts that were banned or determined to be likely sockpuppets. There are some specific edits that are suspicious as well. Wikidemon ( talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations - you have made my list of favorite Wikipedia diffs. [3] I think we can all agree that this is the crowning laurel in your fine Wikipedia career.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, while you are taking a look at Curious Bystander could you also also take a look at some of the other editors who have been edit warring for a significant time and see what can be done? If you cannot, could you maybe recommend another admin to step in and take a look at the various behaviors? I ask this because as time moves on these editors will continue to ratchet up their warring to push their POV's. If you want/need to know more please contact me and I'll be glad to give you more information. Thanks for whatever you can do to help. Brothejr ( talk) 01:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Barneca. No, I don't have any problem with either your block or redrumracer or your criticism of my block of Thingg. Indeed, upon reflection I've decided that the Thingg block was a mistake on my part, and I've apologized to him. The only reason I hadn't edited after that block was that I had some real-life stuff come up — my silence had nothing to do with your block! Don't worry — all's well. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Barneca,
I put this on yesterday and then realised I'd put this under some else's text. Hopefully, this time I've managed to create a new section.
I just wanted to say that I really don't want to contribute to the Sawston discussion any more. I don't agree with Pete Myers comments, or the tone in which he says it - but the discussion could go on and on. I genuinely didn't mean to make him defensive - I was flagging up an inconsistency. If CCSC are CofE, then imho I would suggest going to the Ely Diocese and respectfully asking them to update their website, which is possibly all it is. Anything I say will automatically be undermined by Pete Myers, who has to have the final word, and this isn't a discussion, it is talking to a blank wall with their own agenda.
I knew someone ages ago who was converted to christianity by an evangelical church, who ended up committing suicide. I know what the minister of CCSC has said, I know that some of the things he has said are not true, I know that it was because of him that the previous incumbent resigned, and I know that the whole business has left a lot of scars, and this is extremely sad. CCSC, and Pete Myers is typical of the attitude and culture, tend to be very polarised. All the elders, like PeteMyers, are in their mid 20s or early 30s. There is much that is preached about guilt and judgement and going to hell etc, some of which I've found very frightening. They seem to set less store by treating people with respect and understanding. Knowing them as I do, I can see that they could potentially do quite a lot of damage to people, especially if they are vulnerable. Guilt can do an awful lot of damage. There are other fundamentalist churches which, whilst they also are anti homosexuality etc, are slightly more open and compassionate and less polarised. It is my POV, and I make no apologies for this, that anyone engaging with CCSC needs to be extremely careful - and this is why I think it is so important that the page should not be used for evangelical purposes, and that it shouldn't be biased.
However, whether or not this should be the subject for a Wikipedia discussion I don't know. Maybe PeteMyers just likes computers and genuinely wasn't trying to advertise CCSC or be evangelical. PeteMyers doesn't say why he objects to the 'sect'. If you look up the definition of the word 'sect' - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sect - it says it is a subdivision of a larger group and a dissenting clique - and I don't see what the difficulty is with that, because they do criticise other church members and churches who they regard as 'liberal'.
I did feel that some of his comments were a bit unfair and a bit underhand - like the constant reference to being verifiable, and 'thank you for finally engaging' , saying I didn't respond until he threatened to speak to the administrators, etc. I don't think he is entirely honest of factual when he makes his points
I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia, as you have probably realised. I apologise if this has put you in a difficult situation. I would have liked to have sent a private message but don't know how to - so if this is inappropriate in accordance with Wikipedia rules then please delete it. Anyway, thank you for your intervention and the work you do. I think that is probably more than enough said! Best wishes Barneca, Cuckoosnest ( talk) 10:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 11:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Cuckoosnest, 5pm, September 20th 2008.
I'm absolutely fine with that Barneca, thank you for giving such a complete and fair reply, I appreciate it. This discussion has upset me, because I just felt that dishonest tactics were being used, but I don't want to, or think it would be wise to contribute any more to the Wikipedia article on Sawston! Thank you very much Barneca for your time and your comments. Best wishes, Cuckoosnest ( talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest, September 22nd, 2008, 7.20 pm.
In brief - message understood, thank you & best wishes, Cuckoosnest ( talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)cuckoosnest, 24th Sept 2008, 6.52pm
I was doing my school work, involving the article Barack Obama. I happened to view the article right as User:Zach99 made that vandalism. I appreciate you blocking him; nothing worse than trying to work on school and see that. So thanks. Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you want people to know that John McCain voted 19 times against raising the [[Minimum Wage? I think they have a right to know. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
barneca ( talk) Hello my friend, I am back, and wrote a new article, [4] which could benefit from your taking a look, if you have time, to make sure I formatted it correctly. (I am getting better on formatting issues, but still need help!) Hope you are well... JohninMaryland ( talk) 11:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Unlike many other Wikipedians, I do not have the time to homestead here, so I missed your notice. I also notice that several of the editors who have been pushing like bulldozers to eliminate criticism from Barack Obama instantly supported your topic ban. MastCell said it was a borderline case. You have yourself admitted that the alleged personal attacks were borderline cases. (If I'm getting a topic ban for saying "misrepresentation," why isn't Scjessey also getting a topic ban for using that word first?) In general, despite my unswerving support for Obama I find that many others here (unlike myself) have miserably failed to check their biases at the door, and they WP:OWN the article. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed you managed to ban 66.210.76.252. He is to his old tricks ( Latest contributions) and I don't have time to go through Wiki pages of policies and procedures trying to find out whether non-registered users are already allowed to ban other users so can you do it for me and the rest of us? Thanks. 24.83.176.171 ( talk) 05:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I being thick, or can I not see it yet in the blk dialog? Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
New user PalmofYourHand ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is claiming on my talk page that he is User:Swamilive and that recently blocked Jeztheham ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not his sockpuppet. That's entirely possible, although I haven't had any other wikistalkers lately. Shall I open a new checkuser case or add to the existing? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI: as the admin who most recently blocked a Beenturn account, I thought I would point you towards WP:ANI#Pioneer Courthouse Square. The timing of the account creations suggest that more Beenturn accounts appear to be prepped and waiting use. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I reduced the protection to a 3 month semi; thanks a ton for waiting for my reply! :) Though, for the record, next time feel free to act without me; I trust your discretion, and I don't mind at all. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh... No, I saw the new layout - but I wasn't aware that the move protection and the edit protection had been separated; I was going by the old system that as soon as edit protection expired then so would move protection. Thanks for the note. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
the only one of my suggestions that has a chance of succeeding is: please stop trying to silence opposers whose criteria you find "invalid"
Good golly Barneca, you need to get out of mind and get over to RfB. Now! Giggy ( talk) 13:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, when you get a chance, could you look into the newly rehashed debate over Bill Ayers on Barack Obama's talk page. As soon as that first Times article came out, User:Norton quickly opened the debate saying with that article, the Bill Ayers controversy should be added to Obama's BLP. We all read the article and have found nothing new in the article, even to the point that the article says that there is no connection between Ayers and Obama. Yet, Norton's argument is that due to the Republicans using this attack against Obama, we should not include in in the BLP. This has been Norton's argument over and over again. You can look back in the Barack Obama's talk history to see how often he has reintroduced the info and of the last couple months seems to be fixated on nothing else. Thanks. Brothejr ( talk) 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the block of this vandal. That was getting a bit ridiculous! - FlyingToaster ( talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I replied to your message at User talk:Tanthalas39. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(for context, this is a copy/paste of Kralizec's message; I think it would be more appropriate to discuss it here, rather than Tan's talk page.) Sorry, I cannot support the out-of-process block of 217.205.107.210 ( talk · contribs · block log). The fact is, this IP followed Aldwinteo's final warning [5] and stopped vandalizing, yet was blocked for a week anyway. How can we expect others to follow our rules here, if we do not follow them ourselves? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha, you may have a point there. :) C1k3 ( talk) 07:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This hiding of stale warnings seems like a good idea. Where is the template to do that? Han-Kwang ( t) 08:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
< Fixed. By using [[Category:Foo|Something]], it will appear under category foo under the letter S from Something rather than under the letter T from Template. If you want to create a new category, you could use [[category:hidden archives]], but it would be a rather empty category. Han-Kwang ( t) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I want you unblock an account , I finished vandalsm since 5 months ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.245.142 ( talk) 10:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello - thanks for the note about Template:Infobox Country/doc. I was just trying to repair the problems, so I reverted to the last revision before WMKJ ( talk · contribs) mangled it. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barneca. Sorry about this, but, we're having a problem on the Sawston page again. Cuckoosnest has made an edit to the Churches section, which I feel is a violation of our agreement. I haven't touched the history as I'm being mega careful to avoid being accused of edit warring this time around. Cuckoosnest was good enough to leave an explanation on the talk page, and I have put a paragraph there disputing the content change. Can I please ask you to come over and have a look? Petemyers ( talk) 07:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barneca, When can we call this a wrap? Someone has posted a response on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Christ Church South Cambs on Talk:Sawston, yesterday I commented on Talk:Sawston#Our reliable source discussion, currently there's been no response, though it has only been a day. When do you think it's reasonable to say "ok", and then revert the edit to our previous consensus? I don't want to move too soon. Petemyers ( talk) 14:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Barneca. The Sawston website has been changed again, and cuckoosnest has put a lot of comments on the talk page that don't make me feel particularly happy - there is more stuff about me personally, but that I really don't want to respond to as that always aggravates the situation. There is now stuff on the Wikipedia servers which throws mud at both my boss and me, and I would like it removed. I don't know what you can do about this, could you please intervene simply to put the Sawston article back to our consensus, and then could you suggest how we move on? Cuckoosnest has now said a couple of times that he/she would be very happy to abide by a third party decision, and that has demonstrably not proved to be the case. I am now very, very unhappy with the whole situation. I'm coming to you, because, I don't know what to do, I don't want to aggravate the situation, and I don't want to sink into a mud fight. Petemyers ( talk) 10:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've read through the discussion again and my last comments, and I genuinely can't see anything which could be claimed to be mud throwing or personal at all. I'm sorry you interpret it that way. I believe I haven't said anything which is untrue. I did feel that there was a sense in which my comments were not being evaluated in an objective way.
PeteMyers says that I’m obviously very hurt by what happened in Sawston. I do think that the way in which the move from Shelford to Sawston was done was wrong. I’m also conscious that there has been a fairly strong response also from other local villages. However, what really concerns me more, and the reason I posted on wikipedia was that I genuinely am concerned about harm to vulnerable people, and, rightly or wrongly, I just felt that anyone reading the website should have an accurate portrayal of the church – for example, they should know the theological views and about the Canterbury protest etc. I also felt that the comment ‘currently without a vicar’ was a bit of an insensitive comment.
I genuinely do not know why the website says it is the only cofe church in Sawston and still do not think that it is fair or right to make the assumption that has been made - and which formed the basis for the decision on the content of the website.
I have had previous thoughts about the value of wikipedia vs an encyclopedia vs academia - given that the advantage of wikipedia is that it is instant and so many people contribute - but I have changed my mind about the rigour involved in deciding that something that is put on wikipedia is accurate. I'm new to Wikipedia and in many ways this has been an interesting experience and I've learned from it. Apart from anything, it just takes up an inordinate amount of time!
I'm glad in a way that the discussion has been hidden, because I was sorry about those comments which were made which had negative implications against others and had felt guilty about my part in triggering that - and I felt that it was wrong that those implications were made.
I've deleted some text here because on reflection, I feel that this has derogatory implications about what may or may not have been said by a third party. I would prefer that those implications were not made, and I also feel that it would be unfair to allow these derogatory implications to be made.
Please can we leave this here?????????? Cheers Cuckoosnest ( talk) 16:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest Cuckoosnest ( talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Cuskoosnest
The last thing you wrote was "Please can we leave this here??????????" - but then you had to write even more on my talk page and go back to edit your comments on barneca's talk page. I have two things to say -
I am posting this both on your talk page, and on Barneca's. Petemyers ( talk) 17:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine.
I wanted to say my reasons for posting on Wikipedia because I felt they had been misrepresented - and I feel that that is only fair. I make no apologies for this.
Barneca and Pete - I hear what you're saying, but I do feel that there is a bit of hypocrisy here - personal insults for one but not another, stuff needs to be verified for one but not the other etc - you've both thrown a lot of stuff at me, and maybe this is just the nature of Wikipedia.
I object to the comment that I'm not able to listen to other points of view etc, and feel that these constitute personal attacks. I know myself, even if you are unable to hear it, that I haven't been dishonest in any way. Yes, I think that a discussion where each person listens to and respects the other point of view would be a good thing, if it were possible - but it takes two. You already gave me your email address.
I did say, 'rightly or wrongly'. Cuckoosnest ( talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest.
Thanks for your comment on the discussion. If I could locate a barnstar for demonstrating sanity in the face of a debate wheel, I would give you one.
I had considered adding a "weak oppose" to the move ... mainly because it doesn't affect me much with either name, and I didn't want to see another move ... followed by what will undoubtedly be yet another debate for another move. When it comes down to it, I really don't care one way or another on this thing, and wish we could get away from the distraction. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You removed an entry from the Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square page that appears to be at least mostly legitimate. I agree that the edit to the page should have been reverted, but reverting a talk page entry isn't the best practice. Cheers, ted. Tedder ( talk) 03:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. There is an IP editor, currently editing as User talk:68.79.133.27, but previously under User talk:75.41.6.98, User talk:69.218.254.170 and User talk:67.36.58.41, who continues to make problematic and disruptive edits but refuses to talk about them to anyone. I've been unable to get this editor to respond under any of these IPs (there's absolutely no doubt that it's the same person, look at the idiosyncratic use of "over last" in edit summaries, and the nature of the edits), could you see if you could get them to at least discuss their edits, if not stop doing them? I believe you posted anotice to them under one of their previous addresses, probably 69.218... Thanks, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This person has appeared again, at User talk:76.212.57.95, making edits which have raised the hackles of other editors. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that the fault is not in my stars, but in me -- there's another editor, one who is apparently fixated on death and burials, who is making odd edits and will not talk about them. Could you take a look when you get a chance? (And about that template you were going to make...) User talk:71.82.7.68. Thanks you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Your threats of blocking only make the situation worse. There seems to be near resolution on ANI and now you fan the flames.
You should be fair. One possible thing you could say would be "the user did make the edits despite denial. sometimes, it's better to correct the mistake and move on." Instead you attack me and I'm the one who found the wrong information.
ANI is for discussion. Blocking someone for expressing an opinion is wrong. It disrupts nobody to read what is happening. In fact, if you do block, you would use some false excuse like "disruptive" when the other user was the disruptive one. Mature administrators can resolve this easily. Immature ones threaten.
This is nearly resolved but please withdraw your threats. Fossett&Elvis ( talk) 21:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I want you to reconsider this topic ban on me from Barack Obama related articles. But since you won't do that, I suggest that you instead issue a topic ban to User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Previous topic ban request at WP:ANI found here. This is an overwhelming amount of evidence: edit-warring and personal attacks. There is so much evidence against this person that people were refusing to read it, because it's too long. Since then, within days after the John McCain campaign began to mention Obama's links to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), LotLE went to the ACORN article and substantially reduced material about members of ACORN who have been indicted and convicted for voter registration fraud. [6] [7] [8] This was a whitewash of the article to protect Obama. He immediately started revert warring to protect his version. [9] [10] When a newbie reverted him, LotLE immediately accused the newbie of sockpuppetry in violation of WP:BITE. [11] [12] (note edit summary] This removed material that had been in the article for four years before LotLE came along. This triggered an edit war between several editors. LotLE's bias on this topic has led to long-term disruptive editing patterns.
If I'm to be topic banned for what I did, then please carefully consider all that LotLE has done. Extensive compilation of diffs for evidence at WP:ANI here. Recent diffs posted above demonstrate that he has not changed and has not learned anything. He continues to start and participate in edit wars. He continues to be hostile and accusatory toward those who disagree with him. This is surely not what Wikipedia has in mind for a collegial and constructive atmosphere. If I must be topic banned, then LotLE should be topic banned. Curious bystander ( talk) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Can i ask why u made those changes please? I think the article was better before you changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.165.150 ( talk) 17:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Still problematic. edit-warring Enigma message 05:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
While you have a right to your opinion, if you thought Threeafterthree was willing to discuss or explain anything, that was the opposite of my experience. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
A few days ago you warned RonCram ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) that he would be blocked upon any further mentions of lawsuits, [13] [14] in connection with his claiming Worldnetdaily would sue Wikipedia for calling it an unreliable source. He recently did just that. [15] This is a courtesy notice that I filed an AN/I report on the subject, here. [16] Thanks, 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, not at all patronising. Totally understand. Nick carson ( talk) 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The IP you mentioned is not new. He has a dynamic IP, one of which has been banned. He's sock puppetting and it has been discussed with him on one of his IP's. Please don't jump down our throats for maintaining standards. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 22:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Sorry to post on here but the thread for WP:ANI has changed and I just wondered whether all was resolved now? I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia - If I don't hear otherwise I'll assume this is the case. Thank you, Cuckoosnest ( talk) 17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Cuckoosnest
Ok, fine, understood, thank you. I do reserve the right to comment if personal insults are posted or I am misrepresented. Also, with the greatest respect, and my hands are now tied here – I think that 'saying things critical' should equally apply to all.
Hi Barneca. This post has nothing to do with anyone else, or any hot topic under discussion. Is it ok for me to just ask you a noob-style question? I've been trying to figure out how to archive my talk page the way you do. I used to just delete things from it as they became "deprecated"... but I can see now that deleting stuff from my talk page isn't the best thing to do. How do I archive it? Is there a way to set it to archive automatically? And how do I get that cool "archive box" icon you've got? Petemyers ( talk) 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
{{archive box| *[[/name you chose for first archive|what you want to display on your page]] *[[/name you chose for second archive|what you want to display on your page]] *etc }}
Sorry Barneca, another question I'd like to run by you if I may... I've a feeling Haiku_All-in-one has been speedily deleted and then recreated again. I put my reasons on Talk:Haiku_All-in-one. Can I get your thoughts on that? I'm not sure where I'd report such a thing, or if I'm supposed to report it? Petemyers ( talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barneca, the socks of Swamilive vandalize the same few pages so frequently, that I wonder if it is reasonable to protect those articles. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Man, this guy is nuts and I've seen a lot of nuts on this site. Keep up the good work. I'm working late, things are slow and I'm watching the new user page. Let's see if he pops up again. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
PS: Have a cookie.
PMDrive1061 (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for the cookie wipes crumbs from keyboard. I fail to see how anyone could possibly get satisfaction out of having their edits last 0.5 minutes, but I never took Abnormal Psychology. I may be off to bed soon, so I hope he's either stopped for the night, or someone's watching AIV. -- barneca ( talk) 02:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, not when I'm hungry! :) We got your back in the meantime. Pour some coffee and cut off an extra large hunk of the cheesecake. Good eats on a Friday night, at least from where I'm sitting. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I really like your line of reasoning. He's blocked "for being Swamilive." Good enough for me. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And would you be so kind as to block the talk page? He's trying to rationalize his behavior. Doesn't fly with me. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the nerve of some people. :) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this guy doesn't seem like a garden variety vandal after reviewing his contribs. He seems like an intelligent fellow, but he needs to play nice. I can only recall a couple of intelligent vandals; one was a really slippery cuss. One hell of a troll, I might add. I won't mention usernames, but feel free to e-mail me. I'd love to relate the story. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 00:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You missed very likely Swamilive socks User:Marcus Barrington and User:The Nay No. Both repeating previous Swamilive edits. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 11:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI that I've blocked him again at User:YerYellerIsBack. Cheers. Mr. Darcy talk 18:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What the heck is wrong with you? Reliableforever ( talk) 22:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Prolly worth a CU to see if there are more sleepers in the wings. I'm on it. — Coren (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barneca! Thank you very much for your support and confidence in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 20:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
No incivilty was intended. ItsLassieTime ( talk) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Hi, sorry to bother you, I know you're busy, but an IP editor you blocked for a month ( User:72.14.117.122) because he or she was posting American Film Institute information to film articles that was badly formatted, and refused to talk about the problems on their talk page, has completed the block and is doing exactly the same thing again. I've posted a note on their talk page, pointing out what the problems are, but there's been no response as of yet. if you get a moment, do you think you could take a look, I'd appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"( t / c) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
First off, Don't you ever make threats against me ever again! I did nothing to you to warrant you posting a threatening remarks in my talk page, second if they are violating the 3RR or vandalizing a Wikipedia page I am going to report them! Third and finally they are wrong but the Wikipedia Admins are either too stupid or just too ignorant to realize this. Simon Bar Sinister ( talk) 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. It was getting tiresome fixing his handiwork. We get into this throughout the Walt Disney World Resort family of articles, and we feel we have reached a good idea to have these articles flow into each other. However, as you've seen, we still get people who, while probably at their core editing in good faith, don't seem to be able to work with the group. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 23:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
here. S/he clearly isn't going to get it. TravellingCari 03:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the discussion on IRC was nearly unanimously discouraging MZM from taking that action. Phrases like "Don't do it!" and "That would be wheel warring, and there is a special arbcom restriction" where said. This was not a decision made on IRC, it was made by MZM against the urges of his peers on IRC. So please don't let this incident color your view of IRC, remember you get only second and third hand accounts about what happens there and they are often bias. Chillum 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not see anyone claiming there was a consensus on IRC, did I miss that? As far as I know IRC was only tangentially involved in that the people there gave the same opinion as on wiki. The only people encouraging the action held the same opinion on wiki as well, same with those(the majority) who discouraged the act. Chillum 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well there is always e-mail, or skype or any other means of talking. The fact is people can talk in private and you will not know for sure what they said, they just have to go on what they do and say on-wiki. Chillum 21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to properly welcome Hayleyjubilee ( talk · contribs). I left a message for Nsaa ( talk · contribs) asking them to AGF and to be more cautious about labelling new users as vandals. I was about to leave a message for Hayleyjubilee explaining WP:COI and WP:N, but it looks like you beat me to it. Cheers, caknuck ° is geared up for football season 19:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There's another editor with similar problems to the ones I've talked to you about before. This person, User:Granpuff, has never used edit summaries as far as I can see, on 2000 edits, marks every edit as "minor" (except one, quite recently), and the only response I and other editors have gotten so far is a one line remark about being new. If you get a chance, could you take a look at their talk page and see if you can help get this person to start communicating - or do you think I'd be better off taking it to WP:AN? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
HEY YO MAN I SORRY FO DA PULLED PORK SHIZZ IN THE CIVIL ENGINEERING ARTICLE. I firmly regret that you had to waste precious moments of your life to remedy my childish mistakes. I WAS TRYIN TO WIN THE WIKIPEDIA RACE GAME (LOOK IT UP I THINK THERES A ARTICLE ON IT MAYBE) AND I TYPED PULLED PORK AS A LINK SO I COULD GET TO IT FASTER. Rather clever if I do say so myself. Anyhoo sorry for the trouble, my deepest condolences for any grief you may be harboring over that fiasco.
Hugs and Kisses Schmapyrap ( talk) 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
PS SARAH PALIN IS HOT
Apologies for putting a speedy on the above, I genuinely thought that it was nonsense but can see now that it is quite legitimate. Regards Paste ( talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Gahhhh. Please don't call me that. If you followed the hideous UCFD wars over that category, you'd know how much I hate that description. (wry grin) Horologium (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you actually read the facts. He has been harassing ME! Honestly, what did I do to deserve these warnings and even the threat of being blocked ? Please, tell me. EDIT: Sorry, you can remove this section. I was not aware you were watching my user page and I see no other way to contact people on this site. I would remove it, but is that vandalism? Jeffason ( talk) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, your post on his talk page makes it seem like I am harassing him. That is definitely unjust and defamatory. Also, you never answered my question if it is vandalism to remove this post from your talk page. This whole thing is quite ridiculous. If you really want to know the timeline of events you maybe can find my email in my account, and contact me there. Jeffason ( talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for help in the issue between me and Jeffason. I appreciate the comments about how I can better deal with this in the future. Best regards, -- Ekologkonsult ( talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just had to do it! – ukexpat ( talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I unblocked this user, then re-blocked him for a period of a month. This is a returning vandal I've been dealing with for months who returns immediately after a block expires to vandalize the same articles. He seems to have a grudge against Shooter Jennings, Waylon Jennings, and Jessi Colter, just to name a few. No one else from the blocked IPs ever requests a good-faith unblock, so I've started hitting them with a month at a time. Let me know if that caused any problems for you. Joyous! | Talk 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I would just like to personally thank you for your comments to Seicer after his abuse, as well as all the helpful information you provided concerning my page 'Firestarter Mini Monster (Truck)', my first attempt at an article as you correctly assumed. You have been one of the only helpful administrators I have encountered, and were indeed the only administrator who forwarded my deleted page after several requests to several different individuals. I was indeed ready to dismiss Wikipedia due to what happened when creating my first page, but due to your kindness, I will be posting the page again after the truck debuts. Thank you once again, you are truly an asset to Wikipedia! Kildare2 ( talk) 04:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
For the block on this mope. I'm reminded of "Alien Nation" & what Sykes sounded like... TREKphiler hit me ♠ 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing else to say, really. Stalker. Keeper ǀ 76 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I just got to say, this tops my list of best AN/ANI posts ever! :P Tiptoety talk 03:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For this hysterically and sarcastically accurate discription of the way ANI is, I hearby award you this barnstar. Sometimes, even in ANI, it's good to laugh :) Keep up the good work! - NeutralHomer • Talk 03:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
Were you serious in your pledge to block the familiar handful of editors who were reinserting polling data at Barack Obama? If so, get busy. :) In fact, I'd have done it myself, but I was irritated enough with the blatant disregard for consensus and policy that I went ahead and removed the offending paragraph. I do feel that administrative action is appropriate, and these accounts are not exactly first-time offenders, but since I've officially intervened in the content arena I'll pass this on to you to review. MastCell Talk 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I really appreciate your comment on my talk page. Also, the post mentioned in the barnstar a few sections up made me laugh. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 22:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the editor you recently blocked, Curious bystander ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has returned to the article following his block to apply an NPOV tag [1], incite user on the talk page, [2] and file an inflamatory featured article review here. That's about the most disruptive thing he could have done. He is clearly an WP:SPA devoted to disparaging Obama. A number of us think he is likely a sock - if you look at the early edit history he jumped into edit warring on Obama in a way that suggests knowledge of process here, immediately after registering an account, and shares editing patterns in common with a couple other accounts that were banned or determined to be likely sockpuppets. There are some specific edits that are suspicious as well. Wikidemon ( talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations - you have made my list of favorite Wikipedia diffs. [3] I think we can all agree that this is the crowning laurel in your fine Wikipedia career.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth ( talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, while you are taking a look at Curious Bystander could you also also take a look at some of the other editors who have been edit warring for a significant time and see what can be done? If you cannot, could you maybe recommend another admin to step in and take a look at the various behaviors? I ask this because as time moves on these editors will continue to ratchet up their warring to push their POV's. If you want/need to know more please contact me and I'll be glad to give you more information. Thanks for whatever you can do to help. Brothejr ( talk) 01:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Barneca. No, I don't have any problem with either your block or redrumracer or your criticism of my block of Thingg. Indeed, upon reflection I've decided that the Thingg block was a mistake on my part, and I've apologized to him. The only reason I hadn't edited after that block was that I had some real-life stuff come up — my silence had nothing to do with your block! Don't worry — all's well. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Barneca,
I put this on yesterday and then realised I'd put this under some else's text. Hopefully, this time I've managed to create a new section.
I just wanted to say that I really don't want to contribute to the Sawston discussion any more. I don't agree with Pete Myers comments, or the tone in which he says it - but the discussion could go on and on. I genuinely didn't mean to make him defensive - I was flagging up an inconsistency. If CCSC are CofE, then imho I would suggest going to the Ely Diocese and respectfully asking them to update their website, which is possibly all it is. Anything I say will automatically be undermined by Pete Myers, who has to have the final word, and this isn't a discussion, it is talking to a blank wall with their own agenda.
I knew someone ages ago who was converted to christianity by an evangelical church, who ended up committing suicide. I know what the minister of CCSC has said, I know that some of the things he has said are not true, I know that it was because of him that the previous incumbent resigned, and I know that the whole business has left a lot of scars, and this is extremely sad. CCSC, and Pete Myers is typical of the attitude and culture, tend to be very polarised. All the elders, like PeteMyers, are in their mid 20s or early 30s. There is much that is preached about guilt and judgement and going to hell etc, some of which I've found very frightening. They seem to set less store by treating people with respect and understanding. Knowing them as I do, I can see that they could potentially do quite a lot of damage to people, especially if they are vulnerable. Guilt can do an awful lot of damage. There are other fundamentalist churches which, whilst they also are anti homosexuality etc, are slightly more open and compassionate and less polarised. It is my POV, and I make no apologies for this, that anyone engaging with CCSC needs to be extremely careful - and this is why I think it is so important that the page should not be used for evangelical purposes, and that it shouldn't be biased.
However, whether or not this should be the subject for a Wikipedia discussion I don't know. Maybe PeteMyers just likes computers and genuinely wasn't trying to advertise CCSC or be evangelical. PeteMyers doesn't say why he objects to the 'sect'. If you look up the definition of the word 'sect' - http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sect - it says it is a subdivision of a larger group and a dissenting clique - and I don't see what the difficulty is with that, because they do criticise other church members and churches who they regard as 'liberal'.
I did feel that some of his comments were a bit unfair and a bit underhand - like the constant reference to being verifiable, and 'thank you for finally engaging' , saying I didn't respond until he threatened to speak to the administrators, etc. I don't think he is entirely honest of factual when he makes his points
I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia, as you have probably realised. I apologise if this has put you in a difficult situation. I would have liked to have sent a private message but don't know how to - so if this is inappropriate in accordance with Wikipedia rules then please delete it. Anyway, thank you for your intervention and the work you do. I think that is probably more than enough said! Best wishes Barneca, Cuckoosnest ( talk) 10:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 11:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Cuckoosnest, 5pm, September 20th 2008.
I'm absolutely fine with that Barneca, thank you for giving such a complete and fair reply, I appreciate it. This discussion has upset me, because I just felt that dishonest tactics were being used, but I don't want to, or think it would be wise to contribute any more to the Wikipedia article on Sawston! Thank you very much Barneca for your time and your comments. Best wishes, Cuckoosnest ( talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest, September 22nd, 2008, 7.20 pm.
In brief - message understood, thank you & best wishes, Cuckoosnest ( talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)cuckoosnest, 24th Sept 2008, 6.52pm
I was doing my school work, involving the article Barack Obama. I happened to view the article right as User:Zach99 made that vandalism. I appreciate you blocking him; nothing worse than trying to work on school and see that. So thanks. Thanks and Happy Editing ⊥m93 TALK 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you want people to know that John McCain voted 19 times against raising the [[Minimum Wage? I think they have a right to know. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
barneca ( talk) Hello my friend, I am back, and wrote a new article, [4] which could benefit from your taking a look, if you have time, to make sure I formatted it correctly. (I am getting better on formatting issues, but still need help!) Hope you are well... JohninMaryland ( talk) 11:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Unlike many other Wikipedians, I do not have the time to homestead here, so I missed your notice. I also notice that several of the editors who have been pushing like bulldozers to eliminate criticism from Barack Obama instantly supported your topic ban. MastCell said it was a borderline case. You have yourself admitted that the alleged personal attacks were borderline cases. (If I'm getting a topic ban for saying "misrepresentation," why isn't Scjessey also getting a topic ban for using that word first?) In general, despite my unswerving support for Obama I find that many others here (unlike myself) have miserably failed to check their biases at the door, and they WP:OWN the article. Curious bystander ( talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed you managed to ban 66.210.76.252. He is to his old tricks ( Latest contributions) and I don't have time to go through Wiki pages of policies and procedures trying to find out whether non-registered users are already allowed to ban other users so can you do it for me and the rest of us? Thanks. 24.83.176.171 ( talk) 05:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I being thick, or can I not see it yet in the blk dialog? Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
New user PalmofYourHand ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is claiming on my talk page that he is User:Swamilive and that recently blocked Jeztheham ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not his sockpuppet. That's entirely possible, although I haven't had any other wikistalkers lately. Shall I open a new checkuser case or add to the existing? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI: as the admin who most recently blocked a Beenturn account, I thought I would point you towards WP:ANI#Pioneer Courthouse Square. The timing of the account creations suggest that more Beenturn accounts appear to be prepped and waiting use. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I reduced the protection to a 3 month semi; thanks a ton for waiting for my reply! :) Though, for the record, next time feel free to act without me; I trust your discretion, and I don't mind at all. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh... No, I saw the new layout - but I wasn't aware that the move protection and the edit protection had been separated; I was going by the old system that as soon as edit protection expired then so would move protection. Thanks for the note. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
the only one of my suggestions that has a chance of succeeding is: please stop trying to silence opposers whose criteria you find "invalid"
Good golly Barneca, you need to get out of mind and get over to RfB. Now! Giggy ( talk) 13:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, when you get a chance, could you look into the newly rehashed debate over Bill Ayers on Barack Obama's talk page. As soon as that first Times article came out, User:Norton quickly opened the debate saying with that article, the Bill Ayers controversy should be added to Obama's BLP. We all read the article and have found nothing new in the article, even to the point that the article says that there is no connection between Ayers and Obama. Yet, Norton's argument is that due to the Republicans using this attack against Obama, we should not include in in the BLP. This has been Norton's argument over and over again. You can look back in the Barack Obama's talk history to see how often he has reintroduced the info and of the last couple months seems to be fixated on nothing else. Thanks. Brothejr ( talk) 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the block of this vandal. That was getting a bit ridiculous! - FlyingToaster ( talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I replied to your message at User talk:Tanthalas39. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
(for context, this is a copy/paste of Kralizec's message; I think it would be more appropriate to discuss it here, rather than Tan's talk page.) Sorry, I cannot support the out-of-process block of 217.205.107.210 ( talk · contribs · block log). The fact is, this IP followed Aldwinteo's final warning [5] and stopped vandalizing, yet was blocked for a week anyway. How can we expect others to follow our rules here, if we do not follow them ourselves? -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha, you may have a point there. :) C1k3 ( talk) 07:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This hiding of stale warnings seems like a good idea. Where is the template to do that? Han-Kwang ( t) 08:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
< Fixed. By using [[Category:Foo|Something]], it will appear under category foo under the letter S from Something rather than under the letter T from Template. If you want to create a new category, you could use [[category:hidden archives]], but it would be a rather empty category. Han-Kwang ( t) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I want you unblock an account , I finished vandalsm since 5 months ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.245.142 ( talk) 10:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello - thanks for the note about Template:Infobox Country/doc. I was just trying to repair the problems, so I reverted to the last revision before WMKJ ( talk · contribs) mangled it. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 21:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barneca. Sorry about this, but, we're having a problem on the Sawston page again. Cuckoosnest has made an edit to the Churches section, which I feel is a violation of our agreement. I haven't touched the history as I'm being mega careful to avoid being accused of edit warring this time around. Cuckoosnest was good enough to leave an explanation on the talk page, and I have put a paragraph there disputing the content change. Can I please ask you to come over and have a look? Petemyers ( talk) 07:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barneca, When can we call this a wrap? Someone has posted a response on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Christ Church South Cambs on Talk:Sawston, yesterday I commented on Talk:Sawston#Our reliable source discussion, currently there's been no response, though it has only been a day. When do you think it's reasonable to say "ok", and then revert the edit to our previous consensus? I don't want to move too soon. Petemyers ( talk) 14:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Barneca. The Sawston website has been changed again, and cuckoosnest has put a lot of comments on the talk page that don't make me feel particularly happy - there is more stuff about me personally, but that I really don't want to respond to as that always aggravates the situation. There is now stuff on the Wikipedia servers which throws mud at both my boss and me, and I would like it removed. I don't know what you can do about this, could you please intervene simply to put the Sawston article back to our consensus, and then could you suggest how we move on? Cuckoosnest has now said a couple of times that he/she would be very happy to abide by a third party decision, and that has demonstrably not proved to be the case. I am now very, very unhappy with the whole situation. I'm coming to you, because, I don't know what to do, I don't want to aggravate the situation, and I don't want to sink into a mud fight. Petemyers ( talk) 10:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've read through the discussion again and my last comments, and I genuinely can't see anything which could be claimed to be mud throwing or personal at all. I'm sorry you interpret it that way. I believe I haven't said anything which is untrue. I did feel that there was a sense in which my comments were not being evaluated in an objective way.
PeteMyers says that I’m obviously very hurt by what happened in Sawston. I do think that the way in which the move from Shelford to Sawston was done was wrong. I’m also conscious that there has been a fairly strong response also from other local villages. However, what really concerns me more, and the reason I posted on wikipedia was that I genuinely am concerned about harm to vulnerable people, and, rightly or wrongly, I just felt that anyone reading the website should have an accurate portrayal of the church – for example, they should know the theological views and about the Canterbury protest etc. I also felt that the comment ‘currently without a vicar’ was a bit of an insensitive comment.
I genuinely do not know why the website says it is the only cofe church in Sawston and still do not think that it is fair or right to make the assumption that has been made - and which formed the basis for the decision on the content of the website.
I have had previous thoughts about the value of wikipedia vs an encyclopedia vs academia - given that the advantage of wikipedia is that it is instant and so many people contribute - but I have changed my mind about the rigour involved in deciding that something that is put on wikipedia is accurate. I'm new to Wikipedia and in many ways this has been an interesting experience and I've learned from it. Apart from anything, it just takes up an inordinate amount of time!
I'm glad in a way that the discussion has been hidden, because I was sorry about those comments which were made which had negative implications against others and had felt guilty about my part in triggering that - and I felt that it was wrong that those implications were made.
I've deleted some text here because on reflection, I feel that this has derogatory implications about what may or may not have been said by a third party. I would prefer that those implications were not made, and I also feel that it would be unfair to allow these derogatory implications to be made.
Please can we leave this here?????????? Cheers Cuckoosnest ( talk) 16:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest Cuckoosnest ( talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Cuskoosnest
The last thing you wrote was "Please can we leave this here??????????" - but then you had to write even more on my talk page and go back to edit your comments on barneca's talk page. I have two things to say -
I am posting this both on your talk page, and on Barneca's. Petemyers ( talk) 17:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine.
I wanted to say my reasons for posting on Wikipedia because I felt they had been misrepresented - and I feel that that is only fair. I make no apologies for this.
Barneca and Pete - I hear what you're saying, but I do feel that there is a bit of hypocrisy here - personal insults for one but not another, stuff needs to be verified for one but not the other etc - you've both thrown a lot of stuff at me, and maybe this is just the nature of Wikipedia.
I object to the comment that I'm not able to listen to other points of view etc, and feel that these constitute personal attacks. I know myself, even if you are unable to hear it, that I haven't been dishonest in any way. Yes, I think that a discussion where each person listens to and respects the other point of view would be a good thing, if it were possible - but it takes two. You already gave me your email address.
I did say, 'rightly or wrongly'. Cuckoosnest ( talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Cuckoosnest.
Thanks for your comment on the discussion. If I could locate a barnstar for demonstrating sanity in the face of a debate wheel, I would give you one.
I had considered adding a "weak oppose" to the move ... mainly because it doesn't affect me much with either name, and I didn't want to see another move ... followed by what will undoubtedly be yet another debate for another move. When it comes down to it, I really don't care one way or another on this thing, and wish we could get away from the distraction. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You removed an entry from the Talk:Pioneer Courthouse Square page that appears to be at least mostly legitimate. I agree that the edit to the page should have been reverted, but reverting a talk page entry isn't the best practice. Cheers, ted. Tedder ( talk) 03:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. There is an IP editor, currently editing as User talk:68.79.133.27, but previously under User talk:75.41.6.98, User talk:69.218.254.170 and User talk:67.36.58.41, who continues to make problematic and disruptive edits but refuses to talk about them to anyone. I've been unable to get this editor to respond under any of these IPs (there's absolutely no doubt that it's the same person, look at the idiosyncratic use of "over last" in edit summaries, and the nature of the edits), could you see if you could get them to at least discuss their edits, if not stop doing them? I believe you posted anotice to them under one of their previous addresses, probably 69.218... Thanks, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This person has appeared again, at User talk:76.212.57.95, making edits which have raised the hackles of other editors. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that the fault is not in my stars, but in me -- there's another editor, one who is apparently fixated on death and burials, who is making odd edits and will not talk about them. Could you take a look when you get a chance? (And about that template you were going to make...) User talk:71.82.7.68. Thanks you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Your threats of blocking only make the situation worse. There seems to be near resolution on ANI and now you fan the flames.
You should be fair. One possible thing you could say would be "the user did make the edits despite denial. sometimes, it's better to correct the mistake and move on." Instead you attack me and I'm the one who found the wrong information.
ANI is for discussion. Blocking someone for expressing an opinion is wrong. It disrupts nobody to read what is happening. In fact, if you do block, you would use some false excuse like "disruptive" when the other user was the disruptive one. Mature administrators can resolve this easily. Immature ones threaten.
This is nearly resolved but please withdraw your threats. Fossett&Elvis ( talk) 21:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I want you to reconsider this topic ban on me from Barack Obama related articles. But since you won't do that, I suggest that you instead issue a topic ban to User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Previous topic ban request at WP:ANI found here. This is an overwhelming amount of evidence: edit-warring and personal attacks. There is so much evidence against this person that people were refusing to read it, because it's too long. Since then, within days after the John McCain campaign began to mention Obama's links to Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), LotLE went to the ACORN article and substantially reduced material about members of ACORN who have been indicted and convicted for voter registration fraud. [6] [7] [8] This was a whitewash of the article to protect Obama. He immediately started revert warring to protect his version. [9] [10] When a newbie reverted him, LotLE immediately accused the newbie of sockpuppetry in violation of WP:BITE. [11] [12] (note edit summary] This removed material that had been in the article for four years before LotLE came along. This triggered an edit war between several editors. LotLE's bias on this topic has led to long-term disruptive editing patterns.
If I'm to be topic banned for what I did, then please carefully consider all that LotLE has done. Extensive compilation of diffs for evidence at WP:ANI here. Recent diffs posted above demonstrate that he has not changed and has not learned anything. He continues to start and participate in edit wars. He continues to be hostile and accusatory toward those who disagree with him. This is surely not what Wikipedia has in mind for a collegial and constructive atmosphere. If I must be topic banned, then LotLE should be topic banned. Curious bystander ( talk) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Can i ask why u made those changes please? I think the article was better before you changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.165.150 ( talk) 17:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Still problematic. edit-warring Enigma message 05:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
While you have a right to your opinion, if you thought Threeafterthree was willing to discuss or explain anything, that was the opposite of my experience. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
A few days ago you warned RonCram ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) that he would be blocked upon any further mentions of lawsuits, [13] [14] in connection with his claiming Worldnetdaily would sue Wikipedia for calling it an unreliable source. He recently did just that. [15] This is a courtesy notice that I filed an AN/I report on the subject, here. [16] Thanks, 08:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, not at all patronising. Totally understand. Nick carson ( talk) 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The IP you mentioned is not new. He has a dynamic IP, one of which has been banned. He's sock puppetting and it has been discussed with him on one of his IP's. Please don't jump down our throats for maintaining standards. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 22:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Sorry to post on here but the thread for WP:ANI has changed and I just wondered whether all was resolved now? I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia - If I don't hear otherwise I'll assume this is the case. Thank you, Cuckoosnest ( talk) 17:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Cuckoosnest
Ok, fine, understood, thank you. I do reserve the right to comment if personal insults are posted or I am misrepresented. Also, with the greatest respect, and my hands are now tied here – I think that 'saying things critical' should equally apply to all.
Hi Barneca. This post has nothing to do with anyone else, or any hot topic under discussion. Is it ok for me to just ask you a noob-style question? I've been trying to figure out how to archive my talk page the way you do. I used to just delete things from it as they became "deprecated"... but I can see now that deleting stuff from my talk page isn't the best thing to do. How do I archive it? Is there a way to set it to archive automatically? And how do I get that cool "archive box" icon you've got? Petemyers ( talk) 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
{{archive box| *[[/name you chose for first archive|what you want to display on your page]] *[[/name you chose for second archive|what you want to display on your page]] *etc }}
Sorry Barneca, another question I'd like to run by you if I may... I've a feeling Haiku_All-in-one has been speedily deleted and then recreated again. I put my reasons on Talk:Haiku_All-in-one. Can I get your thoughts on that? I'm not sure where I'd report such a thing, or if I'm supposed to report it? Petemyers ( talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barneca, the socks of Swamilive vandalize the same few pages so frequently, that I wonder if it is reasonable to protect those articles. Cheers, JNW ( talk) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Man, this guy is nuts and I've seen a lot of nuts on this site. Keep up the good work. I'm working late, things are slow and I'm watching the new user page. Let's see if he pops up again. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
PS: Have a cookie.
PMDrive1061 (
talk) has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for the cookie wipes crumbs from keyboard. I fail to see how anyone could possibly get satisfaction out of having their edits last 0.5 minutes, but I never took Abnormal Psychology. I may be off to bed soon, so I hope he's either stopped for the night, or someone's watching AIV. -- barneca ( talk) 02:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, not when I'm hungry! :) We got your back in the meantime. Pour some coffee and cut off an extra large hunk of the cheesecake. Good eats on a Friday night, at least from where I'm sitting. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I really like your line of reasoning. He's blocked "for being Swamilive." Good enough for me. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And would you be so kind as to block the talk page? He's trying to rationalize his behavior. Doesn't fly with me. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 02:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the nerve of some people. :) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this guy doesn't seem like a garden variety vandal after reviewing his contribs. He seems like an intelligent fellow, but he needs to play nice. I can only recall a couple of intelligent vandals; one was a really slippery cuss. One hell of a troll, I might add. I won't mention usernames, but feel free to e-mail me. I'd love to relate the story. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 00:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
You missed very likely Swamilive socks User:Marcus Barrington and User:The Nay No. Both repeating previous Swamilive edits. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 11:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI that I've blocked him again at User:YerYellerIsBack. Cheers. Mr. Darcy talk 18:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
What the heck is wrong with you? Reliableforever ( talk) 22:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Prolly worth a CU to see if there are more sleepers in the wings. I'm on it. — Coren (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Barneca! Thank you very much for your support and confidence in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 20:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
No incivilty was intended. ItsLassieTime ( talk) 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)