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 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Violence against LGBT people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. as for the anon editor in this matter - whom I have now blocked for a different breach - please do not place any administrator in a position where blocking for 3RR is inevitable -- VirtualSteve need admin support? 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Having spent the last hour reviewing this mess, I cannot help but feel that you were successfully baited by the IP. If I might make a suggestion, next time rather than get into a revert war pissing match with the IP, just re-rephrase the content in question. When it comes to copyvios, I only get suspicious when 6 or more words in a row are the same. Had the "family and friends" been switched to "friends and family," I suspect that most Wikipedia editors would have rolled their eyes and totally dismissed the copyvio claim. Likewise, removing the IP's talk page comments just lend those comments some hint of credibility ("oooh, maybe he is trying to hide something!"), whereas if you had left them, people could read them, see how you had re-rephrased the sentence in question, and then immediately recognize that the IP has -at best- an axe to grind. Keeping cool when someone is out to get you can be a pretty tough thing to do, however most of us recognize that you honestly have the project's best interests at heart. Thanks for all of your hard work! — Kralizec! ( talk) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I took your advice and took a break from wikipedia. I've decided to return and ignore those whom try to exacerbate situations by wiki lawyering, false accusations, and try to bait me because of their own stuffy close minded beliefs. In saying this, I was curious if you'd still like to help me. I'm going to add some information to the article Jessicka. Her website has been updated and there's plenty of reference there. http://www.jessicka.com/faq.html. I was hoping once I made the changes you would look them over and see if my work was solid?
I'd appreciate any help. Thanks in advance. Swan Swancookie ( talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah good suggestions. I am going to make a few more additions. I'll hit you up when they are made. Thank you so much!
Swancookie (
talk)
00:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
There is this hair-brained scheme I started the ball rolling on to get this article to GA/FA status. Never done this before. If you feel like dropping by, and can give any hints/advice, please do. I'm hoping we can keep Betty Bowers in there somehow, as I am a big fan, but I don't know if it would pass muster as WP:RS - although it has to be the best example of satire on the topic out there. Mish ( talk) 01:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I can respect that. But, there was an issue brought up in ANI a while ago that included me and I was never notified as is policy. I think that it was only fair, regardless of the time frame. Thanks. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 01:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't understand why moving people from "John Doe (director)" to "John Doe (pornography)" is a bad idea. The naming convention page states: It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry). However, this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used (baseball, not baseball player and coach). If writing "John Doe (baseball)" rather than "John Doe (baseball player and coach)" is preferred, then why not "John Doe (pornography)" if John Doe has both acted in and directed pornography? Also, I don't see any mention of the entry on the admin incident page. Asarelah ( talk) 14:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ciao, Benji. Two articles you've edited concerning San Francisco LGBT figures are being discussed in a certain off-wiki forum. You might want to check it out. Regards, Skomorokh 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
So yeah, my question about the problem administrator disappeared. What was that about? -- 98.232.181.201 ( talk) 07:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the above picture has been tagged as needing permission on the Commons. I think you need the photographer, Kwai Lam, to email OTRS, or email them a scan of a written permission you have. Otherwise the picture might get deleted. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 22:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, which sourced were you talking about? - Schrandit ( talk) 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed in your archive a reply I never got around to from a while back re:a first-party source of a jewelry company announcing Clint Catalyst as their first male spokesmodel. You asked what the source/link were...the company is Bang Bang Baby, and the URL is here, I believe it is the one that had previously been in the article: http://bangbangbabydesigns.com/CLINT.html Thanks again for your help regarding this page, I look forward to your opinion on the matter. Love your rain quote, by the way! Granny Bebeb ( talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You've archived all of my thoughtful and well researched posts on the Karl Rove discussion page. I'd like to know who/what gives you the right to selectively edit my hard work. The Rove article is negative and slanted and violates Wikipedia rules. I'm going to put back all of my posts. Malke 2010 ( talk) 05:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cameron Scott ( talk) 08:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You realise that COI right? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 23:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I can understand that, but I wonder whether it would be a better strategy to simply let go of anything that might lead back to your identity—perhaps even this account. At any rate, if further dispute resolution occurs on this matter, you should know that I'll certainly be recused from it. Cool Hand Luke 15:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 03:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You clearly know Sister Kitty (and should have said so a long time ago when you were asked). But have you any idea what is going on here? Starting with sock puppetry, then simultaneous AFDs for articles. Then a line of editors voting delete, (in spite of the article being based on references). I just went and googled and found 3 more good references for Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. only it doesn't seem to have produced much joy and community singing. I find I'm anonymously accused (on my talk page, but nonetheless) of faking a reference: total tripe (!!!) and I suspect it's on my talk page so as to avoid drawing attention to the new references, but it does compound the plain weirdness. (Nobody ever wants to talk to me on my talk page :-) ) I've seen enough of normal Wikipedia disputes to know that this doesn't quite fit. Something funny is going on. Have you any light to shed on it? SF gay mafia conspiracy? -- Simon Speed ( talk) 23:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
...for the welcoming message. :) Eipnvn ( talk) 15:51, 9 September 2009 (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 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Violence against LGBT people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. as for the anon editor in this matter - whom I have now blocked for a different breach - please do not place any administrator in a position where blocking for 3RR is inevitable -- VirtualSteve need admin support? 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Having spent the last hour reviewing this mess, I cannot help but feel that you were successfully baited by the IP. If I might make a suggestion, next time rather than get into a revert war pissing match with the IP, just re-rephrase the content in question. When it comes to copyvios, I only get suspicious when 6 or more words in a row are the same. Had the "family and friends" been switched to "friends and family," I suspect that most Wikipedia editors would have rolled their eyes and totally dismissed the copyvio claim. Likewise, removing the IP's talk page comments just lend those comments some hint of credibility ("oooh, maybe he is trying to hide something!"), whereas if you had left them, people could read them, see how you had re-rephrased the sentence in question, and then immediately recognize that the IP has -at best- an axe to grind. Keeping cool when someone is out to get you can be a pretty tough thing to do, however most of us recognize that you honestly have the project's best interests at heart. Thanks for all of your hard work! — Kralizec! ( talk) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I took your advice and took a break from wikipedia. I've decided to return and ignore those whom try to exacerbate situations by wiki lawyering, false accusations, and try to bait me because of their own stuffy close minded beliefs. In saying this, I was curious if you'd still like to help me. I'm going to add some information to the article Jessicka. Her website has been updated and there's plenty of reference there. http://www.jessicka.com/faq.html. I was hoping once I made the changes you would look them over and see if my work was solid?
I'd appreciate any help. Thanks in advance. Swan Swancookie ( talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah good suggestions. I am going to make a few more additions. I'll hit you up when they are made. Thank you so much!
Swancookie (
talk)
00:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
There is this hair-brained scheme I started the ball rolling on to get this article to GA/FA status. Never done this before. If you feel like dropping by, and can give any hints/advice, please do. I'm hoping we can keep Betty Bowers in there somehow, as I am a big fan, but I don't know if it would pass muster as WP:RS - although it has to be the best example of satire on the topic out there. Mish ( talk) 01:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I can respect that. But, there was an issue brought up in ANI a while ago that included me and I was never notified as is policy. I think that it was only fair, regardless of the time frame. Thanks. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 01:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't understand why moving people from "John Doe (director)" to "John Doe (pornography)" is a bad idea. The naming convention page states: It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry). However, this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used (baseball, not baseball player and coach). If writing "John Doe (baseball)" rather than "John Doe (baseball player and coach)" is preferred, then why not "John Doe (pornography)" if John Doe has both acted in and directed pornography? Also, I don't see any mention of the entry on the admin incident page. Asarelah ( talk) 14:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Ciao, Benji. Two articles you've edited concerning San Francisco LGBT figures are being discussed in a certain off-wiki forum. You might want to check it out. Regards, Skomorokh 02:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
So yeah, my question about the problem administrator disappeared. What was that about? -- 98.232.181.201 ( talk) 07:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the above picture has been tagged as needing permission on the Commons. I think you need the photographer, Kwai Lam, to email OTRS, or email them a scan of a written permission you have. Otherwise the picture might get deleted. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 22:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, which sourced were you talking about? - Schrandit ( talk) 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed in your archive a reply I never got around to from a while back re:a first-party source of a jewelry company announcing Clint Catalyst as their first male spokesmodel. You asked what the source/link were...the company is Bang Bang Baby, and the URL is here, I believe it is the one that had previously been in the article: http://bangbangbabydesigns.com/CLINT.html Thanks again for your help regarding this page, I look forward to your opinion on the matter. Love your rain quote, by the way! Granny Bebeb ( talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You've archived all of my thoughtful and well researched posts on the Karl Rove discussion page. I'd like to know who/what gives you the right to selectively edit my hard work. The Rove article is negative and slanted and violates Wikipedia rules. I'm going to put back all of my posts. Malke 2010 ( talk) 05:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cameron Scott ( talk) 08:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You realise that COI right? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 23:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I can understand that, but I wonder whether it would be a better strategy to simply let go of anything that might lead back to your identity—perhaps even this account. At any rate, if further dispute resolution occurs on this matter, you should know that I'll certainly be recused from it. Cool Hand Luke 15:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, -- A Nobody My talk 03:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
You clearly know Sister Kitty (and should have said so a long time ago when you were asked). But have you any idea what is going on here? Starting with sock puppetry, then simultaneous AFDs for articles. Then a line of editors voting delete, (in spite of the article being based on references). I just went and googled and found 3 more good references for Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. only it doesn't seem to have produced much joy and community singing. I find I'm anonymously accused (on my talk page, but nonetheless) of faking a reference: total tripe (!!!) and I suspect it's on my talk page so as to avoid drawing attention to the new references, but it does compound the plain weirdness. (Nobody ever wants to talk to me on my talk page :-) ) I've seen enough of normal Wikipedia disputes to know that this doesn't quite fit. Something funny is going on. Have you any light to shed on it? SF gay mafia conspiracy? -- Simon Speed ( talk) 23:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
...for the welcoming message. :) Eipnvn ( talk) 15:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)