I noticed your edit [1] to this Hinomaru sock. I am pleased to tell you I have modified the sockblock template to automatically include the blocked person in the "sockpuppets of xxx" category. simply use {{sockblock|puppeteer}} which was an existing syntax, but I added the bit of code adding the category. Go on, try it. Now there is no need to have BOTH those templates on the one page. Nardman1 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Barnstar moved to user page
Thanks for your note. I thought your comment on AN/I was needlessly aggressive but to be honest I'm used to it. I don't need "an eye kept on me". I've been just the same since I began editing here, and I'm not going to stop standing up to bullies, admins or not, just because they whine on the admin's noticeboard. Still, on the other hand, I don't particularly like conflict and don't carry it on endlessly, so I won't bear a grudge. Happy editing! Grace Note 10:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This user (showing as blocked by yourself) shows an edit history composed of spamming the publication in his/her name. Can I request that be given consideration if he contests his ban? Thanks ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Cheers. I've reverted his/her spam and it looks like his/her uploaded images are on the way out. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 00:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Thought you'd like the above essay that Kafziel wrote. RJASE1 Talk 00:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Ryan, as a username expert, would you care to offer an opinion on this? RJASE1 Talk 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Is this what we're talking about? Niko Silver 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I know what you are trying to do by this, simply stop them falling into the tempory category, but, why this template? As sockblock is for sockpuppets, not sockpuppeteers, and adding sockblock results them in looking like a sockpuppet. The whole idea is crazy. Retiono Virginian 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
There is a vandal on here who is trying to get me blocked, I don't know why, he is User:Glfootball92.
Southluver 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Now this was a pleasant surprise to discover on Wikipedia! Cheers, and keep up the good work. :-) -- HappyCamper 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi there, I've responded to your block message for User:Spammyou on RFCN with a request that you unblock pending completion of the discussion, and I've outlined some reasons why I believe the block was a bit premature. The discussion may end with consensus to disallow the username, but it hasn't gotten there yet. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is very cool indeed. Great shooting :-) -- YFB ¿ 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Why did you delete my page? I could not edit my page because I was blocked by User:Candianceasar for a harmless edit summary. I want my page back. Payne2thamax
I try and try to keep my cool, until this air of change in WP:RFCN manages to find its path away from the sewer. Are we serious here? Are we going to allow usernames that are trademarked for crying out loud? What's next? Pepsi-Max? Windows Vista? Vaio? Lexus? Pentium? Jose Cuervo? How do you manage to keep yours? Niko Silver 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I sincerely hope something good will emerge out of all this. Niko Silver 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. -- Kevin Murray 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Centrx has words like ***, **** and ***** on his user page. I am beginning to wonder about all three of you, including Ironduke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.4.21 ( talk) 08:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC). reply
I think one of the major issues in our argument was that I was not clear enough in my initial response. While I thought I was clear that the block should stand and that greater discussion should take place before any reversal, it seems I failed to communicate that correctly. I will try to be more clear next time, and I will also search harder to notice such miscommunication in the future. I certainly have respect for your actions in the past, and in light of this misunderstanding this issue starts to make sense too.
Sorry if I was a bit heavy handed, at the time I was under the impression that you knew I wanted more discussion before you reverted me. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Peace. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply
A few weeks ago, you suggested I use the <noinclude> tags on my awards subpage. I've followed your suggestion yesterday. I had to update my user page (there was a lot of old information), so I thought I'd do put the tags in as well. Thanks. :) Acalamari 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi HighInBC, could you do that thing you do with the archiving on the 420 page's talk page next time you are there, from maybe the moment JoopersCoopers or whatever his name is arrived there. Its getting sprawling, and I feel we have all turned a corner and I would like to forget the past.
Also, there is (for once) a vaguely-intelligent and non-black and white debate going on there, your input would be much appreciated.. Jdcooper 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi HighInBC. I saw you created TUPjs.js about weeks ago. I've never seen this new type of monobook before. What do you use TUPjs.js for? In my opinion, TUPjs.js is just similar to other types of monobooks in wikipedia which is only for admins to use. Could you please explain to me more about TUPjs.js? Please, reply in my talk page. Your response would be appreciated. Cheers! Daniel5127 | Talk 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This individual has contacted the foundation (by telephone). I've requested an admin unblock him. A good deal of his issues have to do with his interaction with Philip Gronowski.
We should not be experiencing any issues of the like that earned him a block in the first place, and if there are any issues with the biography that interests him, he will contact me directly.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness regarding that. Cary Bass 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Well I hope there is a good reason then. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I removed the trademark restriction again. I know you like to point to WP:BRD, but let me say that at this point, three users (Radiant, Myself, and Abu-fool) have purposefully removed that restriction, and it's only you who is insisting on it. And it would be helpful if you could explain why you think the restriction is sensible, given the counterpoints people have made. Oh.. and how did you get the face to show up next to the Wikipedia icon on this page? That's really cool. Mango juice talk 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello HighInBC,
I was headed to my Sandbox today and realized that it had been deleted (20:07, 13 April 2007) per the 'temporary page policy'. I didn't realize that the material which I had placed there was in jeopardy and that I should have moved it to another location.
Is it possible that you could restore the page so that I might transfer the material, please?
Thanks very much for your help!
Take care,
Larry -- Lmcelhiney 14:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This page was already protected, I tagged it as so. I had adjusted the expiry, having misread the existing level, but have set it back to about the same time. If you disagree with the protection time, please feel free to remove it. — xaosflux Talk 04:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Really long message |
---|
i am sorry that you feel that way about my links. yes, the pages on wiki are about _cities_. the links i provided are to postcards and written descriptions of the _buildings and sites ***within _the city*** and are images not often available in any other historical format to show such things as the architectural context within the cities. the images were not for sale. the North Bay page, in particular, has won awards for its discussion on the history of ***the city***. what do you think historic preservationists and architectural historians (of which i am one, have a master's in the field, use as primary research material when documenting the built environment of ***the city***? why, postcards, of course. they were a popular cultural phenomenon in their time which led to a happy accident regarding historic documentation in more contemporary times. none of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me and, in fact, PullToOpen mentioned that he particularly enjoyed the North Bay page, when he unblocked me, and he took the time to view numerous pages and found nothing wrong with them, which is why he apologized to me for the block. putting links up was not an attempt to get traffic to my website - as i mentioned, we're already in the hand-edited online edition of the canadian encyclopedia and the pages are used to teach history at the college level in canada and next month, we're receiving a link from an english university with a page rank of 8, for the fact that we supply them at no charge with digital images for the students to work with. (we never charge any educational institution for anything. not even postage.) i did not need to cultivate traffic in any spammy type of way. the links were an attempt to share the history of the region. i thought history regarding this area of Canada would be welcomed. my time is very limited, as i work long hours on the history sections of the website and rarely spend time actually on any commercial sections of my website. actually, others have posted excerpts from my work here before on wiki, but i had those links removed because they only plagiarized our writing. i'm sorry that the wiki consensus thus far appears to be that original historic research on ***the cities*** is not welcome. frankly, i have become quite disgusted this week with well meaning but misguided attempts to police wiki. in addition to trying to provide original materials, i've also tried quietly to proofread and correct spelling errors, etc. as i've seen them come up on other pages. the only reason that a large number of pages were linked in the past week or so was because (the earlier links to North Bay, Sturgeon Falls and Temagami were already in place) people in Northern Ontario urged me to put up the remaining pages. it took two weeks to hand code/scan the 14 pages and then i put the links up here as a means to disseminate knowledge. which is what i thought was what wiki was about. ironically, there were no more links to put up after the most recent ones i put up. frankly, i feel most unwelcome at wikipedia and resent the implication that i am doing something "bad" by providing links about the history of ***the cities***. i think at this point that i will explore the "right to disappear" on wiki. this has been a very disappointing experience. governing by consensus at wiki just doesn't seem to work well when people (not you particularly, but some of the other people like the air force sergeant in iraq who started this whole mess during the past week or so), remove links willy-nilly ***without actually looking at and/or reading any of the materials provided*** (and frankly, from what i can see, many of them seem ill-qualified to edit links regarding history and historic preservation. i see many links and articles on wiki which i am not that fond of, but i leave them alone because i am not qualified to determine, let's say the validity of links regarding quantum physics. (this is why, when Pull looked at the pages, he realized that they were not spam but research. he took the time to look, in other words.) governing by consensus, i think does not work without leadership at some points. and i do not have time to start talk threads about numerous pages. actually, i should not HAVE to start talk threads about pages. other people put up worthy links and go on about their business, and that is what i thought would happen, but it's obviously not happening. it sort of all reminds me of let's say - let's pull any links to the corvette museum at the corvette plant here in ky. because corvette still makes and sells the car. let's remove links to the louvre because the louvre owns the paintings and thus might remotely possibly have some financial interest in the paintings. etc., etc. i can only write about what i know and love - the history. of ***the cities***. but i just don't have it in me to continually tilt at windmills endlessly here for no reason, when there are so many other productive things i could do. i would rather concentrate on something productive and will be leaving wiki today. my husband is sitting in the background saying "but this just doesn't make any sense." to which i replied, "i know." it has been an unsettling and somewhat sad experience to learn that wikipedians' interest in further opening the knowledge base to the public can become so warped and skewed by the unknown agendas of wiki "thought police." thanks anyway. ccharned 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Cathy reply |
Congratulations for having some good sense [5]. I expect some will criticise you for it, but it was completely the right thing to do. Giano 17:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry if you thought I overstepped the mark there, but believe me I've been getting quite a hard time. WP:AGF and WP:NPA seem to have gone out of the window, and I'm really quite upset about it. That of course leads to irritability. I do, however, apologise and thank you sincerely for the support you gave me earlier. Cheers. -- kingboyk 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch is in favor of pedophilia. I mistakenly joined the project [6] assuming it was a watchdog project to assure child porn sites were not being added to wikipedia. While making suggestions to an another project participant it became clear what there agenda was. This quote is from the project page, "to better organize and ensure veracity and freedom from bias of information in articles involving pedophilia, child sexuality, and related issues." The reason I bring this to you, is this also appears as an endorsment by wikipedia. [7] However I wanted you to way in on this before I went to WP:ANI with it. -- Know pedia 05:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Your block of BLueRibbon is appropriate. However, please consult directly, and privately, with the Arbitration Committee in the future regarding such concerns or actions. Public announcements don't work out well. It is good that you gave appropriate warnings. Fred Bauder 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Kelly Martin is claiming that BAG actions involved "conspiring to protect their own power base" (ludicrous and untrue, I have had no off wiki discussion on the matter with xaosflux), and has referred to us and me as "much less qualified and competent" than the self appointed IRC participants who decided to approve CydeBot without telling us. I am really quite shaken up and upset by the baseless accusations of bad faith, incompetence and idiocy, and believe it might be appropriate to file an RFC citing Kelly Martin and David Gerard, and possibly gmaxwell and Cyde. To file an RFC, two members need to certify the dispute and show diffs where dispute resolution was attempted. As somebody who has attempted to resolve the dispute, I wonder if you would be willing to so certify? If you are, perhaps we can work in my sandbox. -- kingboyk 14:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
HighInBC, I've been trying to figure out how to implement what you mentioned
here. I have a category query
here but do not know how to quickly chop it down to the form Image1|Image2|Image3
to do a query on those images. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks,
Iamunknown 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
HIBC, I am going to change the "noautoblock" message back to what it is supposed to be soon, and since you have the bots... Anyway, there was a mess up (and still is) in mediawiki, so the wrong page is listed in Special:Allmessages, but I found the right one, so... I am going to match it to the block list, so it will read "autoblock disabled". Prodego talk 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
You have been cited as an involved party in This new Request for Arbitration. DES (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Please present evidence and statements regarding this matter directly to the arbitration committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bauder ( talk • contribs) 23:48, April 23, 2007
It is precisely the idea that "there are some topics which simply should not be discussed publically, due to the risk of bringing harm and disrepute to the project" to which i most object. The more I am urged not to puiblicly discuss this, the more urgent I feel public discussion to be, or if need be, public attention being drawn to the matter in non-wikipedia web sites. I don't belive that there is anything so horrid that it can't be publicly discussed. Note that ArbCom does not set policy, and i can see no policy basis for the actions taken to date. This would be at least equally true if the arbcomn endorsed them all together. The major burdent of my compalint is removing (or rather attempting to remove) these issues from public view. It also won't work, such removals simply draw more attnetion than a proper quiet discussion would have done. If the general consensus is that this can't be discussed on wiki, I will seriously consider leavign the project, but i won't do that without having done my best to widely publicize it first. DES (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I noticed your edit [1] to this Hinomaru sock. I am pleased to tell you I have modified the sockblock template to automatically include the blocked person in the "sockpuppets of xxx" category. simply use {{sockblock|puppeteer}} which was an existing syntax, but I added the bit of code adding the category. Go on, try it. Now there is no need to have BOTH those templates on the one page. Nardman1 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Barnstar moved to user page
Thanks for your note. I thought your comment on AN/I was needlessly aggressive but to be honest I'm used to it. I don't need "an eye kept on me". I've been just the same since I began editing here, and I'm not going to stop standing up to bullies, admins or not, just because they whine on the admin's noticeboard. Still, on the other hand, I don't particularly like conflict and don't carry it on endlessly, so I won't bear a grudge. Happy editing! Grace Note 10:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This user (showing as blocked by yourself) shows an edit history composed of spamming the publication in his/her name. Can I request that be given consideration if he contests his ban? Thanks ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Cheers. I've reverted his/her spam and it looks like his/her uploaded images are on the way out. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 00:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Thought you'd like the above essay that Kafziel wrote. RJASE1 Talk 00:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Ryan, as a username expert, would you care to offer an opinion on this? RJASE1 Talk 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Is this what we're talking about? Niko Silver 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I know what you are trying to do by this, simply stop them falling into the tempory category, but, why this template? As sockblock is for sockpuppets, not sockpuppeteers, and adding sockblock results them in looking like a sockpuppet. The whole idea is crazy. Retiono Virginian 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply
There is a vandal on here who is trying to get me blocked, I don't know why, he is User:Glfootball92.
Southluver 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Now this was a pleasant surprise to discover on Wikipedia! Cheers, and keep up the good work. :-) -- HappyCamper 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi there, I've responded to your block message for User:Spammyou on RFCN with a request that you unblock pending completion of the discussion, and I've outlined some reasons why I believe the block was a bit premature. The discussion may end with consensus to disallow the username, but it hasn't gotten there yet. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This is very cool indeed. Great shooting :-) -- YFB ¿ 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Why did you delete my page? I could not edit my page because I was blocked by User:Candianceasar for a harmless edit summary. I want my page back. Payne2thamax
I try and try to keep my cool, until this air of change in WP:RFCN manages to find its path away from the sewer. Are we serious here? Are we going to allow usernames that are trademarked for crying out loud? What's next? Pepsi-Max? Windows Vista? Vaio? Lexus? Pentium? Jose Cuervo? How do you manage to keep yours? Niko Silver 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I sincerely hope something good will emerge out of all this. Niko Silver 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. -- Kevin Murray 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Centrx has words like ***, **** and ***** on his user page. I am beginning to wonder about all three of you, including Ironduke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.4.21 ( talk) 08:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC). reply
I think one of the major issues in our argument was that I was not clear enough in my initial response. While I thought I was clear that the block should stand and that greater discussion should take place before any reversal, it seems I failed to communicate that correctly. I will try to be more clear next time, and I will also search harder to notice such miscommunication in the future. I certainly have respect for your actions in the past, and in light of this misunderstanding this issue starts to make sense too.
Sorry if I was a bit heavy handed, at the time I was under the impression that you knew I wanted more discussion before you reverted me. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Peace. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply
A few weeks ago, you suggested I use the <noinclude> tags on my awards subpage. I've followed your suggestion yesterday. I had to update my user page (there was a lot of old information), so I thought I'd do put the tags in as well. Thanks. :) Acalamari 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi HighInBC, could you do that thing you do with the archiving on the 420 page's talk page next time you are there, from maybe the moment JoopersCoopers or whatever his name is arrived there. Its getting sprawling, and I feel we have all turned a corner and I would like to forget the past.
Also, there is (for once) a vaguely-intelligent and non-black and white debate going on there, your input would be much appreciated.. Jdcooper 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi HighInBC. I saw you created TUPjs.js about weeks ago. I've never seen this new type of monobook before. What do you use TUPjs.js for? In my opinion, TUPjs.js is just similar to other types of monobooks in wikipedia which is only for admins to use. Could you please explain to me more about TUPjs.js? Please, reply in my talk page. Your response would be appreciated. Cheers! Daniel5127 | Talk 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This individual has contacted the foundation (by telephone). I've requested an admin unblock him. A good deal of his issues have to do with his interaction with Philip Gronowski.
We should not be experiencing any issues of the like that earned him a block in the first place, and if there are any issues with the biography that interests him, he will contact me directly.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness regarding that. Cary Bass 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Well I hope there is a good reason then. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I removed the trademark restriction again. I know you like to point to WP:BRD, but let me say that at this point, three users (Radiant, Myself, and Abu-fool) have purposefully removed that restriction, and it's only you who is insisting on it. And it would be helpful if you could explain why you think the restriction is sensible, given the counterpoints people have made. Oh.. and how did you get the face to show up next to the Wikipedia icon on this page? That's really cool. Mango juice talk 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello HighInBC,
I was headed to my Sandbox today and realized that it had been deleted (20:07, 13 April 2007) per the 'temporary page policy'. I didn't realize that the material which I had placed there was in jeopardy and that I should have moved it to another location.
Is it possible that you could restore the page so that I might transfer the material, please?
Thanks very much for your help!
Take care,
Larry -- Lmcelhiney 14:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This page was already protected, I tagged it as so. I had adjusted the expiry, having misread the existing level, but have set it back to about the same time. If you disagree with the protection time, please feel free to remove it. — xaosflux Talk 04:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Really long message |
---|
i am sorry that you feel that way about my links. yes, the pages on wiki are about _cities_. the links i provided are to postcards and written descriptions of the _buildings and sites ***within _the city*** and are images not often available in any other historical format to show such things as the architectural context within the cities. the images were not for sale. the North Bay page, in particular, has won awards for its discussion on the history of ***the city***. what do you think historic preservationists and architectural historians (of which i am one, have a master's in the field, use as primary research material when documenting the built environment of ***the city***? why, postcards, of course. they were a popular cultural phenomenon in their time which led to a happy accident regarding historic documentation in more contemporary times. none of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me and, in fact, PullToOpen mentioned that he particularly enjoyed the North Bay page, when he unblocked me, and he took the time to view numerous pages and found nothing wrong with them, which is why he apologized to me for the block. putting links up was not an attempt to get traffic to my website - as i mentioned, we're already in the hand-edited online edition of the canadian encyclopedia and the pages are used to teach history at the college level in canada and next month, we're receiving a link from an english university with a page rank of 8, for the fact that we supply them at no charge with digital images for the students to work with. (we never charge any educational institution for anything. not even postage.) i did not need to cultivate traffic in any spammy type of way. the links were an attempt to share the history of the region. i thought history regarding this area of Canada would be welcomed. my time is very limited, as i work long hours on the history sections of the website and rarely spend time actually on any commercial sections of my website. actually, others have posted excerpts from my work here before on wiki, but i had those links removed because they only plagiarized our writing. i'm sorry that the wiki consensus thus far appears to be that original historic research on ***the cities*** is not welcome. frankly, i have become quite disgusted this week with well meaning but misguided attempts to police wiki. in addition to trying to provide original materials, i've also tried quietly to proofread and correct spelling errors, etc. as i've seen them come up on other pages. the only reason that a large number of pages were linked in the past week or so was because (the earlier links to North Bay, Sturgeon Falls and Temagami were already in place) people in Northern Ontario urged me to put up the remaining pages. it took two weeks to hand code/scan the 14 pages and then i put the links up here as a means to disseminate knowledge. which is what i thought was what wiki was about. ironically, there were no more links to put up after the most recent ones i put up. frankly, i feel most unwelcome at wikipedia and resent the implication that i am doing something "bad" by providing links about the history of ***the cities***. i think at this point that i will explore the "right to disappear" on wiki. this has been a very disappointing experience. governing by consensus at wiki just doesn't seem to work well when people (not you particularly, but some of the other people like the air force sergeant in iraq who started this whole mess during the past week or so), remove links willy-nilly ***without actually looking at and/or reading any of the materials provided*** (and frankly, from what i can see, many of them seem ill-qualified to edit links regarding history and historic preservation. i see many links and articles on wiki which i am not that fond of, but i leave them alone because i am not qualified to determine, let's say the validity of links regarding quantum physics. (this is why, when Pull looked at the pages, he realized that they were not spam but research. he took the time to look, in other words.) governing by consensus, i think does not work without leadership at some points. and i do not have time to start talk threads about numerous pages. actually, i should not HAVE to start talk threads about pages. other people put up worthy links and go on about their business, and that is what i thought would happen, but it's obviously not happening. it sort of all reminds me of let's say - let's pull any links to the corvette museum at the corvette plant here in ky. because corvette still makes and sells the car. let's remove links to the louvre because the louvre owns the paintings and thus might remotely possibly have some financial interest in the paintings. etc., etc. i can only write about what i know and love - the history. of ***the cities***. but i just don't have it in me to continually tilt at windmills endlessly here for no reason, when there are so many other productive things i could do. i would rather concentrate on something productive and will be leaving wiki today. my husband is sitting in the background saying "but this just doesn't make any sense." to which i replied, "i know." it has been an unsettling and somewhat sad experience to learn that wikipedians' interest in further opening the knowledge base to the public can become so warped and skewed by the unknown agendas of wiki "thought police." thanks anyway. ccharned 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Cathy reply |
Congratulations for having some good sense [5]. I expect some will criticise you for it, but it was completely the right thing to do. Giano 17:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry if you thought I overstepped the mark there, but believe me I've been getting quite a hard time. WP:AGF and WP:NPA seem to have gone out of the window, and I'm really quite upset about it. That of course leads to irritability. I do, however, apologise and thank you sincerely for the support you gave me earlier. Cheers. -- kingboyk 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch is in favor of pedophilia. I mistakenly joined the project [6] assuming it was a watchdog project to assure child porn sites were not being added to wikipedia. While making suggestions to an another project participant it became clear what there agenda was. This quote is from the project page, "to better organize and ensure veracity and freedom from bias of information in articles involving pedophilia, child sexuality, and related issues." The reason I bring this to you, is this also appears as an endorsment by wikipedia. [7] However I wanted you to way in on this before I went to WP:ANI with it. -- Know pedia 05:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Your block of BLueRibbon is appropriate. However, please consult directly, and privately, with the Arbitration Committee in the future regarding such concerns or actions. Public announcements don't work out well. It is good that you gave appropriate warnings. Fred Bauder 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Kelly Martin is claiming that BAG actions involved "conspiring to protect their own power base" (ludicrous and untrue, I have had no off wiki discussion on the matter with xaosflux), and has referred to us and me as "much less qualified and competent" than the self appointed IRC participants who decided to approve CydeBot without telling us. I am really quite shaken up and upset by the baseless accusations of bad faith, incompetence and idiocy, and believe it might be appropriate to file an RFC citing Kelly Martin and David Gerard, and possibly gmaxwell and Cyde. To file an RFC, two members need to certify the dispute and show diffs where dispute resolution was attempted. As somebody who has attempted to resolve the dispute, I wonder if you would be willing to so certify? If you are, perhaps we can work in my sandbox. -- kingboyk 14:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
HighInBC, I've been trying to figure out how to implement what you mentioned
here. I have a category query
here but do not know how to quickly chop it down to the form Image1|Image2|Image3
to do a query on those images. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks,
Iamunknown 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
HIBC, I am going to change the "noautoblock" message back to what it is supposed to be soon, and since you have the bots... Anyway, there was a mess up (and still is) in mediawiki, so the wrong page is listed in Special:Allmessages, but I found the right one, so... I am going to match it to the block list, so it will read "autoblock disabled". Prodego talk 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
You have been cited as an involved party in This new Request for Arbitration. DES (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Please present evidence and statements regarding this matter directly to the arbitration committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bauder ( talk • contribs) 23:48, April 23, 2007
It is precisely the idea that "there are some topics which simply should not be discussed publically, due to the risk of bringing harm and disrepute to the project" to which i most object. The more I am urged not to puiblicly discuss this, the more urgent I feel public discussion to be, or if need be, public attention being drawn to the matter in non-wikipedia web sites. I don't belive that there is anything so horrid that it can't be publicly discussed. Note that ArbCom does not set policy, and i can see no policy basis for the actions taken to date. This would be at least equally true if the arbcomn endorsed them all together. The major burdent of my compalint is removing (or rather attempting to remove) these issues from public view. It also won't work, such removals simply draw more attnetion than a proper quiet discussion would have done. If the general consensus is that this can't be discussed on wiki, I will seriously consider leavign the project, but i won't do that without having done my best to widely publicize it first. DES (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply