| Revision as of 23:13, 24 March 2008 editGiano II (talk | contribs)22,233 edits →Stalking!: forgot to sign← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:45, 19 January 2015 edit undoOiyarbepsy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers26,313 edits ←Redirected page to User:John254 | ||
| (310 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
| |- | |||
| !align="center"|] | |||
| ] Note: The links below are permanent links to the correct versions of the archived talk pages. Any "newer" versions of these pages may have been compromised. | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| |align="center"|''' ''' | |||
| |} | |||
| ] | |||
| == My vandalism == | |||
| Sorry, I misread the page history. It appears the vandalism was actually removed while I was reading the article. - ] (]) 23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have , and apologize for the inconvenience. ] 23:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==HELP== | |||
| I have tried to add information about the digital phase converter to the three phase power site, but am continually being removed by Wtshymanski. Can you help? I would appreciate any suggestions, etc. Thanks. ] (]) 15:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you... == | |||
| {{The GO-PCHS-NJROTC Antivandal Barnstar|For reverting vandalism to ]!}} ] (]) 00:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. ] 01:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == shaftesbury page (again) == | |||
| Sorry to bother you again with this John but it seems the people that were spamming for their link to a commercial site on shaftesbury are back again and are ignoring that we had this whole editor discussion a while back about their site selling advertising space and the link there being to one of a community non-profit site. They keep just adding the link without discussion while talking about all the editors agreeing with them when no such event has ever taken place or anything close. Would you mind terribly revisiting the page ] and just showing them there are editors about that will stand up for pages not being used as advertising tools. Thanks for your time --] (]) 13:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I closed this DRV, please discuss the redirecting/non-redirecting of the article on its talk page. Redirects are not the same as deletions, and they are in no way equivalent because simple redirecting is done editorially without a deletion debate, and the history is preserved - anyone can revert a redirect. No deletion debates on this article reached a "redirect" consensus, so this is not in DRV's scope. --]] 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Some other administrators disagree with that contention, and assert that the redirection was effectively a deletion of the entire article Perhaps it might have been better to let the discussion continue, and close it on the basis of the consensus expressed therein. ] 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is that it's not deletion at all because the history is preserved, and I'm not sure why they think it is. DGG is arguing a change in policy, and DRV is not the right environment for that - until such change is made, redirects are not deletions and cannot be considered deletions. As for JoshuaZ, the redirection wasn't done as a result of a debate. Anyone can revert it and discuss it on the talk page, there's no need for a DRV at all. Last I checked, we didn't use DRV to settle content disputes, which is what this is. --]] 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, the preservation of the page history is factor which weighs in favor of the finding that redirection does not amount to the deletion of articles, as does the fact that this particular redirection was not implemented with administrative tools, by protecting the redirect. These factors, however, are not dispositive, since other considerations cause redirection of an article to partake of the character of a deletion: | |||
| :::(1) Redirection removes the article from existence for most purposes, insofar as most readers won't follow the backlink after being redirected, and view the original article in the page history. Furthermore, the article cannot be edited without reversing the redirect. | |||
| :::(2) Redirection is a uniquely binary decision, which sharply distinguishes it from most content disputes: the article is either redirected or it isn't, no compromise or intermediate position is possible. In an ordinary article content dispute, it is usually possible to resolve the disagreement by producing a compromise version of the article somewhere in between competing versions. | |||
| :::I contend that these two factors, taken together, render the redirection of an article a deletion in effect and character, even if conducted without the use of administrative tools. I further note that the fact that redirections are sometimes implemented administratively as a result of AFD discussions, weighs in favor of considering the reversal of redirects (even those not implemented via AFD) within the scope of DRV. Finally, since deletion review discussions are closed administratively, and not subject to unilateral reversal by any editor, DRV has a fairly good track record of implementing decisions which are not subject to substantial further conflict. Effective deletion of articles through redirection, however, has often resulted in massive edit warring over a large number of articles -- see, for example, the situation described in ] -- simply because controversial talk page discussions often have no objectively ascertainable consensus, which results in a situation in which each side in a content dispute can claim that consensus favors them. As described above, this situation would ordinarily be resolved through compromise, but, because redirection is binary, such compromise is impossible. ] 01:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| As the administrator who handled the AfD on this article, I wanted to bring a blatant COPYVIO in the History section of ] to your attention. I have placed the {{tl|copyvio}} template in article. -] (]) 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have the section of the article which was comprised entirely of a copyright violation. ] 03:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == js in category == | |||
| Hey, your javascript at ] shows up in ] because it contains some template text ({{tl|rescue}}) that is mistakenly expanded by mediawiki. Can you fix that? I actually did the same thing in one of my scripts, which I fixed by splitting the string up into something like <nowiki>'{{' + 'rescue}}'</nowiki>. (Probably the other templates or category links, too...) <span style="font-size: 10px">— ] (])</span> 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have ] to remove it from ]. ] 03:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have the strings used to represent ] templates, and of ]. These modifications should (hopefully) remove the script from all deletion and featured pictures related categories. ] 03:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == List of Blue Man Group CDs == | |||
| Hey, saw that you closed this AfD. I agree with your call, but for consistency's sake, I moved the article to ]. Hope you don't mind. :) ]''']''' 10:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == My RfB == | |||
| I wanted to personally thank you, John, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- ] (]) 15:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocking an IP?== | |||
| Hello John, | |||
| I've been fighting a consistent vandal on the page for ]. This vandal operates under IP 212.16.62.98. I went to his/her talk page and noted you had already issued a warning about bad behaviour. | |||
| My question: do you have, or know someone who has, the authority to block this person? Not a big deal but it might put a stop to me annoying having to revert the article every day. | |||
| Thanks, ] (]) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. {{userlinks|TTN}} is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified ]. | |||
| Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the ] enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == AFD script == | |||
| Nicely done on the script! I was wondering, could you change it a little, so it also asks a reason for the keep? That would be great. Thanks! BTW, the script instead of removing the notice. Also, how do you make it work for FPC, TFD etc.? - ] ] ] 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have fixed the page-blanking bug, and added a "keep (reason)" tab which will prompt the user for a statement before closing the AFD discussion. Use of the "keep" tab will continue to produce the usual behavior of closing the discussion without a statement. Note that it may be necessary to update your version of the script by viewing ] and pressing control + F5. ] 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you! How do you get it to work on FPC, TFD etc? - ] ] ] 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The script can currently handle all types of FPC closures except the promotion of new images. A discussion such as ] which will not result in a promotion can be closed by pressing the "decline fp" tab that will appear when viewing the discussion page. To close a nomination for delisting such as ], the "retain fp" or "delist fp" tabs can be selected, as appropriate. Note, however, that if an image is delisted, any transclusions of the image on ] or subpages thereof must be removed manually. Use of the script to close TFD discussions would likely require extensive modification, as TFD does not have individual discussion pages, but instead uses a single page for all nominations which were initiated on a given date. The script would need to be modified to prompt the user for the name of the template whose discussion was been closed, then parse the discussion page to determine the boundaries of the relevant entry. ] 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The da Vinci Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For making a '''''very''''' useful script for closing AFD's, FPC's etc, I - ] ] ] hereby award you this barnstar. - ] ] ] 02:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Thanks. ] 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You deserved it! BTW, when using the "Keep (reason)" script, while closing an AFD, when it leads you to the articles talk page, it will ''not'' save automatically. - ] ] ] 02:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::. ] 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Live at the Crystal Palace AfD== | |||
| I was wondering if you'd reconsider your closure of ]. None of the "keep" !votes addressed the fact that only 1 of the references given in the article even mentioned the album; and that only confirmed that, at least in 2006, they were planning on releasing an album with that title; two years later and it's still not out. One minor reference doesn't indicate notability, and only barely covers ]. Your thoughts? (You can respond here.) Thanks —<font color="007FFF">]</font> <sup><font color="FF0000">]</font></sup> 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Unless an article contains certain severe policy violations, such as copyright violations or unsourced controversial information concerning living persons, deletion discussions are generally closed on the basis of ]. While some administrators have been known to delete articles if they find the arguments for deletion to be compelling, even where a significant majority of participants in an AFD discussion have supported retention, consensus for the deletion of an article requires, at a bare minimum, that at least some users beside the nominator support deletion. As there was significant support for the retention of the article, no users besides yourself supporting deletion, and no severe policy violations asserted, I closed the discussion as keep. Naturally, if you disagree with this outcome, you are welcome to raise the issue at ]. ] 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, that's cool. I know some admins do things differently than others and since it was closed without any elaboration, I figured I'd ask. I may chuck it in DRV; if I do, I'll drop you a line. Peace —<font color="007FFF">]</font> <sup><font color="FF0000">]</font></sup> 01:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Script == | |||
| Do you mind if I modify your script a little (as in move it to my userspace, credit to you). I want to make some additional tabs (results are merge;no consensus etc.) - ] ] ] 02:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Go ahead. ] 02:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, could you create a new tab with a "no consensus" closing? - ] ] ] 02:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I could -- however, note that per ], "Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." Thus, AFD discussions with "no consensus" outcomes are not suitable for non-administrative closure. If an administrator wants this feature implemented, please let me know. ] 03:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == RFA == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="rfa" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFAEF; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;"> | |||
| '''] would like to nominate you to become an administrator.''' Please visit ] to see what this process entails, and then ] to accept or decline the nomination. A page {{#ifexist:Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/{{BASEPAGENAME}}|has been created|will then be}} for your nomination at ''']'''. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.</div> If you accept, I will create the page. Thanks, - ] ] ] 14:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, but I've been involved in a bit too much recent controversy to pass an RFA at this time, and it's still somewhat too soon after my last RFA. Maybe next year? ] 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think next year, is a long wait. I suppose we can wait until May. Is that good for you? You sure look like you would make a great admin! - ] ] ] 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Based on my past experience with an RFA in January, May would probably be too soon. Thanks anyway. ] 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 14:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks John, I will go away and rewrite the article from a business tool perspective on cardscan business card reading tools for office automation. Cheers Riccardo | |||
| ==]== | |||
| An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 15:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thank you for your kindness in cleaning up my user page so quickly after the vandal hit it. Much appreciated . . . ] (]) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==User:Twaz== | |||
| I can't really argue about the first two edits, but I certainly can about his post on my userpage. So, Twaz forgot to click User Talk, and posted his warning on my userpage. So what? I don't think that I should have to remind you that Misplaced Pages doesn't block because of trivial mistakes like that. Please ] before slapping on ]. '''<font face="verdana">Cheers, ] ]</font>''' 02:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : and indicate that ] has recently restored vandalism to articles using popups, at a rate far greater than what would be expected due to simple mistakes in RC patrol. ] also recently a vandalism warning to a user who actually vandalism from {{la|Pythagoras}}, and placed two warnings on userpages -- warnings are only placed on talk pages, a custom with which ] is clearly familiar, as indicated by his of a warning on my talk page. If ] isn't engaged in outright vandalism, he is at least being sufficiently reckless as to warrant a block for disruption if he continues. ] 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == March 2008 == | |||
| ] I noticed the message you recently left to {{#if:|]|a newcomer}}. Please remember to ]. If you see someone make a ], try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:uw-bite --> | |||
| IN RE: your recent posts on my user page. Pointing it out would have been sufficient. No clue how I changed poopane to propane, must have double reverted. About the rest, a Bureaucrats guess is as good as mine. Going to go to sleep, researching for like 30 hours. --'''] 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::So, why didn't you warn the original vandal to ]? I mean, you know I'm just zapped from being online too much. But, this guy actually inserted non-referenced material. In fact, why haven't you warned any of the original vandals I thought I was going behind and reverting? I mean, I'm in no capacity without sleep to take on an advisory role as an editor, but you sure could if you were truly interested in the encylopedic quality of Misplaced Pages. Which, through your zeal of my activity demonstrates that you are. For which I applaud you. I'm just coming to you to resolve this directly. --'''] 03:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Six restorations of vandalism ( ), a restoration of hoax content (), and the of a vandalism warning to a user who actually vandalism, in the space of less than 50 edits, indicates that you are making inappropriate edits at a rate vastly exceeding what would be expected due to simple mistakes. If a user is employing an RC patrol tool to restore vandalism at a sufficiently high rate, one may justifiably conclude that the user is either actually ''engaged'' in vandalism, or at least editing in an unacceptably negligent manner, either of which ''will'' result in such a user's account being blocked if they continue. ] 03:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That was all freehand homie, using popups. A lot of them were due to things like double reverts, or in your case, accidentally reverting ]. But good job watching the page, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten Huggle at the behest of Glacier. --'''] 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == IP: 76.235.87.57 == | |||
| I was going to say something, but you did that. I reverted the petty vandalism by that IP address on ]. ] (]) 05:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == New policy proposal that may be of interest== | |||
| I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of ] or ]. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at ]. There is a page for comments at ] should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! ] (]) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| =="Defamatory" edits== | |||
| How is mentioning the known fact that this person left Lyndon LaRouche's movement defamatory? It can be referenced to other works as well. The subject has been up-front about his reasons for leaving the movement... I'm not sure where you're coming with this. | |||
| Also, it is highly ] to leave warning symbols on established users' talk pages. Don't do it again. I know my way around Misplaced Pages fine without your harassment. | |||
| ] (]) 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :As ] is a highly controversial political figure, any claim that a living person is associated with ] is necessarily controversial as well. That the claim might "be referenced to other works as well" is irrelevant -- per ], any controversial material concerning living persons which is inadequately referenced now may be removed from Misplaced Pages articles until acceptable sourcing is provided. The warning indicates that your account will be blocked if you continue to restore this information -- I strongly suggest that you heed it. ] 19:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The change of BLP from "defamatory", "potentially defamatory", or "negative" to "controversial" or "contentious" is, itself, highly controversial. WIthout that, there's no remaining support of your edits in BLP. — ] ] 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I respectfully disagree with that assessment, and would suggest that the current wording of ] accurately reflects consensus. I will raise this issue further at ]. ] 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I appreciate your comments on the Eric Lerner talk page. You were able to see and communicate in Misplaced Pages-speak what I was trying to convey in English. ] (]) 00:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Stalking! == | |||
| Kindly desist from stalking my edits and trying to cause trouble. It won't work, so go and find something more constructive to do with your time. Such edits as this may make you appear foolish. ] (]) 11:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You have begun to interest me, stalking is a game that two can play...I'm wondering why the Arbcom accepted a case from you with such speedy, almost suspicious, alacrity - if I were one of those Arbs I would now be very worried, because your edits have started to interest me too, first one on ] - now there's a sunject and a half. As I said I am now very interested indeed.You see John I am still far from happy about the IRC case, and I will get to the bottom of it, if not here then elsewhere. ] (]) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:45, 19 January 2015
Redirect to: