![]() | 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. |
Thank you for reviewing my submission. I've suggested an alternative hook on the DKY page which relies on information contained in one of the plaques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter4Truth ( talk • contribs) 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Yours in bacon.-- kelapstick ( talk) 18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your post this morning regarding what a problem Murphy has created here. He is unrelenting, he is dangerous for people, and I hope that explains why people react the way they do when he has a couple spare hours and feels the urge to stir up trouble. This was first done to me in a most vehement way, as it has been done to others, and it is a danger. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You quite rightly deleted the above named user page, which was being used to create a hoax article. The deletion log entry is as follows:
11:54, 15 June 2009 Law (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Gstkvwpkcweophdty14108844" (Userspace is not for hoax articles).
The same hoax page is back now. I have put a warning message on the user's talk page, but perhaps you would care to take further action? JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've seen your bacon-related articles on DYK and stuff. I thought you might be interested in WP:WikiCup/2010 Signups. It seems far away right now, but it starts in January. Just thought you might be interested. :-) Killiondude ( talk) 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
lol. I did see this one guy that I could block .. User:Jimbo Wales ... know anything about him? ....
Hey .. seriously Law, thank you for your help, support and advice. It's greatly appreciated. ;) — Ched : ? 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
LMAO .. somebody better eh? ;) — Ched : ? 06:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting my user talk page. Could you please switch that protection to my user page instead? Explanation at WP:ANI. TY. -- Scjessey ( talk) 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you added a line to this article, saying:
On 16 June 2009 G Media offices in Melbourne were raided by Victoria Police 'as part of a wider operation named "Operation Refuge", which is a police investigation into the filming of underage models, as well as producing pornography in Victoria, which is illegal'.
The reference given is this, from the Herald Sun ( http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,27574,25641940-2862,00.htm)
Detectives raided five premises as part of Operation Refuge, seizing computers containing footage of women allegedly performing explicit sex acts, which are illegal to produce in Victoria. They are also investigating allegations that some of the models on the porn company's website are under age.
But this says nothing about what Operation Refuge actually is, and Googling it turns up nothing either. And the quote 'as well as producing pornography in Victoria, which is illegal' is almost certainly wrong. Some types of pornography, perhaps.
As such I propose deleting the text in italics, again Adell 1150 ( talk) 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC).
You make two claims in the sentence you included:
"Operation Refuge" is a police investigation into the filming of underage models
producing pornography in Victoria is illegal
The article you cite for these says neither of those things. It says nothing at all about what 'Operation Refuge' is. Indeed I can't find anything anywhere about what 'Operation Refuge' is (can you?). For all we know, it might be an investigation into trafficking, or tax dodging, or (my personal bet) a figment of the journalist's imagination. Nor does the quote above say that producing pornography in Victoria is illegal. Adell 1150 ( talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted that sentence again. I'm going to put it back, and if you still feel strongly about this, I suggest we submit this to the
mediation cabal. I'm posting this here because I don't think you've read the note I put on the talk page; you certainly haven't replied to it
Adell 1150 (
talk)
13:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Meantime, I'm going to revert the page so our mediator can see what we're talking about: please leave it for now, or at the very least till you've read and contributed to the mediation page. Thanks. Adell 1150 ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
…the fact that he asterisked out the Naughty Words in "F*ck you you stupid assh*le. This is the last time I add any of my time, energy or creativity to puss pile that is wikipedia". Otherwise, I might have thought he was being rude. – iride scent 00:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think an admin should short-circuit discussion by blocking that like. I suggest that you reverse yourself and await the outcome of discussions. Please note that I certainly do not approve of destroying Wikipedia, I simply believe that your action was premature and should have awaited the outcome of discussions.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough to make a judgement call on the goodness of this block, but can you re-do your block? Currently your blocking reason looks like you've blocked for harmless hyperbole. Whilst I know where the quote is taken from, many people looking at Wikipedia will see this as a fairly arbitrary block if the log is left as it is. Best wishes, Fritzpoll ( talk) 13:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community review of Law's block of Peter Damian KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
and it appears to me that this editor has been given numerous "second chances", and has ultimately found more blocks in further efforts. I think you were correct in your action to block. — Ched : ? 18:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:ADMIN "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed." There has been, in the past, wide agreement that it is inapropriate to "blockandrun" - make a highly controvercial block, and then peace from the discussion for an extended period of time.
You blocked Peter Damian at 13:10. You made your last edit after that at 13:30. Discussion over your block began at your talk page at 13:55, and on WP:ANI at 15:16. It is now 17:42. You have not responded to any concerns raised. Did you block and run? Regardless of your answer, are you open to adminstrative recall? Under what circumstances would you give up your buttons? Hipocrite ( talk) 17:44, 30 June 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. |
Thank you for reviewing my submission. I've suggested an alternative hook on the DKY page which relies on information contained in one of the plaques. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter4Truth ( talk • contribs) 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Yours in bacon.-- kelapstick ( talk) 18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your post this morning regarding what a problem Murphy has created here. He is unrelenting, he is dangerous for people, and I hope that explains why people react the way they do when he has a couple spare hours and feels the urge to stir up trouble. This was first done to me in a most vehement way, as it has been done to others, and it is a danger. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You quite rightly deleted the above named user page, which was being used to create a hoax article. The deletion log entry is as follows:
11:54, 15 June 2009 Law (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Gstkvwpkcweophdty14108844" (Userspace is not for hoax articles).
The same hoax page is back now. I have put a warning message on the user's talk page, but perhaps you would care to take further action? JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've seen your bacon-related articles on DYK and stuff. I thought you might be interested in WP:WikiCup/2010 Signups. It seems far away right now, but it starts in January. Just thought you might be interested. :-) Killiondude ( talk) 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
lol. I did see this one guy that I could block .. User:Jimbo Wales ... know anything about him? ....
Hey .. seriously Law, thank you for your help, support and advice. It's greatly appreciated. ;) — Ched : ? 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
LMAO .. somebody better eh? ;) — Ched : ? 06:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting my user talk page. Could you please switch that protection to my user page instead? Explanation at WP:ANI. TY. -- Scjessey ( talk) 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you added a line to this article, saying:
On 16 June 2009 G Media offices in Melbourne were raided by Victoria Police 'as part of a wider operation named "Operation Refuge", which is a police investigation into the filming of underage models, as well as producing pornography in Victoria, which is illegal'.
The reference given is this, from the Herald Sun ( http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,27574,25641940-2862,00.htm)
Detectives raided five premises as part of Operation Refuge, seizing computers containing footage of women allegedly performing explicit sex acts, which are illegal to produce in Victoria. They are also investigating allegations that some of the models on the porn company's website are under age.
But this says nothing about what Operation Refuge actually is, and Googling it turns up nothing either. And the quote 'as well as producing pornography in Victoria, which is illegal' is almost certainly wrong. Some types of pornography, perhaps.
As such I propose deleting the text in italics, again Adell 1150 ( talk) 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC).
You make two claims in the sentence you included:
"Operation Refuge" is a police investigation into the filming of underage models
producing pornography in Victoria is illegal
The article you cite for these says neither of those things. It says nothing at all about what 'Operation Refuge' is. Indeed I can't find anything anywhere about what 'Operation Refuge' is (can you?). For all we know, it might be an investigation into trafficking, or tax dodging, or (my personal bet) a figment of the journalist's imagination. Nor does the quote above say that producing pornography in Victoria is illegal. Adell 1150 ( talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted that sentence again. I'm going to put it back, and if you still feel strongly about this, I suggest we submit this to the
mediation cabal. I'm posting this here because I don't think you've read the note I put on the talk page; you certainly haven't replied to it
Adell 1150 (
talk)
13:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. Meantime, I'm going to revert the page so our mediator can see what we're talking about: please leave it for now, or at the very least till you've read and contributed to the mediation page. Thanks. Adell 1150 ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
…the fact that he asterisked out the Naughty Words in "F*ck you you stupid assh*le. This is the last time I add any of my time, energy or creativity to puss pile that is wikipedia". Otherwise, I might have thought he was being rude. – iride scent 00:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think an admin should short-circuit discussion by blocking that like. I suggest that you reverse yourself and await the outcome of discussions. Please note that I certainly do not approve of destroying Wikipedia, I simply believe that your action was premature and should have awaited the outcome of discussions.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know enough to make a judgement call on the goodness of this block, but can you re-do your block? Currently your blocking reason looks like you've blocked for harmless hyperbole. Whilst I know where the quote is taken from, many people looking at Wikipedia will see this as a fairly arbitrary block if the log is left as it is. Best wishes, Fritzpoll ( talk) 13:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community review of Law's block of Peter Damian KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
and it appears to me that this editor has been given numerous "second chances", and has ultimately found more blocks in further efforts. I think you were correct in your action to block. — Ched : ? 18:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:ADMIN "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed." There has been, in the past, wide agreement that it is inapropriate to "blockandrun" - make a highly controvercial block, and then peace from the discussion for an extended period of time.
You blocked Peter Damian at 13:10. You made your last edit after that at 13:30. Discussion over your block began at your talk page at 13:55, and on WP:ANI at 15:16. It is now 17:42. You have not responded to any concerns raised. Did you block and run? Regardless of your answer, are you open to adminstrative recall? Under what circumstances would you give up your buttons? Hipocrite ( talk) 17:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)