| Revision as of 17:40, 23 August 2005 editDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits revert - this is my talk page, I can do with it what I want, per policy... and admins do it all the time, so if you want to complain take it up with them← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:41, 23 August 2005 edit undoRichardWeiss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users75,870 edits archive but do not remove this conversationNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ==New discussion== | ==New discussion== | ||
| ===Rfc=== | |||
| Please let an admin make the decision. I fyou are right it will not be deleted but you are heading to break the ] rule, ] 22:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I won't break the 3RR rule, you can count on that, but I'm sure lots of other people will start removing the speedy delete tag if you keep putting it there. ] 23:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You admiot the Rfc was in bad faith. It does not have 2 endorsers. What are you doing exactly, ] 00:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It '''does''' have endorsers, where do you come of claiming that it doesn't? I wrote an outside view saying that it was in bad faith but that doesn't mean I want someone to come along and delete it outright on a false claim that it wasn't endorsed. You yourself removed two names from the page, so you '''know''' it was certified. They had the endorsers so deserve to have the issue discussed to whatever end it comes to, not just have it be deleted by someone not following the rules. ] 00:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Those 2 sigs weren't legitimate in that place as they had been imported from somewhere else and were from 4 days before the Rfc. If they had been legit sigs the individuals would have re-signed. 2 people did then endorse but the second more than 48 hours after the Rfc began. All I am trying to do is help and enforcing policy. Please stop stating I am making false claims, esp as you could not prove this with diffs. Nor did I delete the article. I asked an admin to do so, ] 00:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It has been deleted now. please stop giving me or others a hard time for janotorial work at wikipedia, ] 00:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''If they had been legit sigs the individuals would have re-signed.''' Did it ever occur to you that they may not even know or think about the concept that they had to resign it? Or that maybe you should have contacted them about it and given them the opportunity to do so instead of just erasing it? I am not giving you a hard time for doing janitorial work, I am giving you a hard time for blatantly violated the rules in the process. That RfC was signed, and even if I am personally opposed to the particular RfC, I am still not going to sit by while someone erases signatures. The fact that you got an admin to go along with you, especially one who has been frequently stepping into anything I am dealing with and basically doing just the opposite of what i am arguing solely out of bad faith, does not mean that you were correct to do so. I will take this up with other admins if I have to, but you started off with a mistake and then compounded it by ignoring what a neutral outside observer was telling you and by invalidating signatures for no good reason. This is exactly why so many people think admins here are making up their own rules on a whim. You can't just kill off an RfC that had four signatures. ] 00:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well this has left a sour taste in my mouth, whatever our views on other matters this is pretty rotten and I'll support you if you wish to take it further, I honestly can't fathom what ]'s problem but I'm off to bed now, night.--] 01:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Did it never occur to you to inform Vinylgirl of the Rfc. You could also have informed the other editors yourself. There is no onus on me to do so. There is no policy about Rfc's being able to be validated on a talk page, so what you are saying about doctored signatures doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What you are saying would grind wikipedia to a halt with other editors being forced to chase up entirely spurious claims. No editor should have an rfc if they only done 20 edits, let alone one they don't know about, but you seem unaware of Vinylgirl, and that she has the same rights as other editors. I can assure I too have a nasty taste in my mouth after the shennanigans of today, and spouting rubbish about me breaking wikipedia rules simply not true. In future please check with whom you are edit warring before jumping to the conclusion that maybe they are a sockpuppet, as the information is available, starting in the user page. If Slim has been intervening around you I am sure it is for good reasons, especially after how you have behaved today. I am left questioning what your real motivation is ] 04:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, and there you are breaking even more policies. ] for one, probably ] as well. I don;t know who all you are talking to, as you seem to be replying to two people at once without specifying, but ]'s harassment of me by breaking policy and outright taking sides encouraging an extreme problem editor who should have been banned months ago and encouraging him to use sockpuppet accounts, not blocking him for periods she agreed to do so, and treating me as if I were the one being disciplined instead of him are just some of the nonsense she is pulling, not to mention her protecting articles the way the soon-to-be-blocked editor wants them, instigating his revenge RfAr against me instead of following normal conflict resolution steps, and so forth. There are some bad, bad admins here who are loose cannons, and from your actions on this RfC it looks like you are one of them too, as you simply were not following policy, and your rationalizations that the process would grind to a halt if you took a teensy bit of responsibility and did not remove valid signatures for not reason simply do not wash. ] 14:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| PLease explaion how signatures from ] are valid on an Rfc; ie quote the policy to me. Otherwise leave it be or I will start to think you are trolling, ] 15:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Please don't blank this conversation. Archiving is fine. As you spend so much time telling others to follow policy perhapsd it would be a good idea to do so yourself, ] 17:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:41, 23 August 2005
I periodically go through and clean out the old comments... This is because they refer to old situations or that the comments are otherwise no longer relevant.
Note: If you are here to leave personal attacks, false accusations of vandalism, a long tirade about why your cat photo or article about yourself should be left alone as you and only you wanted, nonsensical rationalizations of why vampires, ancient astronauts, werewolves, "creation science" and so on should be treated as completely real and so forth, do not bother, as I'll either just remove them right away or simply point you to the appropriate Misplaced Pages policy which you should have read in the first place.
Otherwise please add new comments below.
New discussion
Rfc
Please let an admin make the decision. I fyou are right it will not be deleted but you are heading to break the 3RR rule, SqueakBox 22:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- No, I won't break the 3RR rule, you can count on that, but I'm sure lots of other people will start removing the speedy delete tag if you keep putting it there. DreamGuy 23:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
You admiot the Rfc was in bad faith. It does not have 2 endorsers. What are you doing exactly, SqueakBox 00:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- It does have endorsers, where do you come of claiming that it doesn't? I wrote an outside view saying that it was in bad faith but that doesn't mean I want someone to come along and delete it outright on a false claim that it wasn't endorsed. You yourself removed two names from the page, so you know it was certified. They had the endorsers so deserve to have the issue discussed to whatever end it comes to, not just have it be deleted by someone not following the rules. DreamGuy 00:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Those 2 sigs weren't legitimate in that place as they had been imported from somewhere else and were from 4 days before the Rfc. If they had been legit sigs the individuals would have re-signed. 2 people did then endorse but the second more than 48 hours after the Rfc began. All I am trying to do is help and enforcing policy. Please stop stating I am making false claims, esp as you could not prove this with diffs. Nor did I delete the article. I asked an admin to do so, SqueakBox 00:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
It has been deleted now. please stop giving me or others a hard time for janotorial work at wikipedia, SqueakBox 00:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- If they had been legit sigs the individuals would have re-signed. Did it ever occur to you that they may not even know or think about the concept that they had to resign it? Or that maybe you should have contacted them about it and given them the opportunity to do so instead of just erasing it? I am not giving you a hard time for doing janitorial work, I am giving you a hard time for blatantly violated the rules in the process. That RfC was signed, and even if I am personally opposed to the particular RfC, I am still not going to sit by while someone erases signatures. The fact that you got an admin to go along with you, especially one who has been frequently stepping into anything I am dealing with and basically doing just the opposite of what i am arguing solely out of bad faith, does not mean that you were correct to do so. I will take this up with other admins if I have to, but you started off with a mistake and then compounded it by ignoring what a neutral outside observer was telling you and by invalidating signatures for no good reason. This is exactly why so many people think admins here are making up their own rules on a whim. You can't just kill off an RfC that had four signatures. DreamGuy 00:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Well this has left a sour taste in my mouth, whatever our views on other matters this is pretty rotten and I'll support you if you wish to take it further, I honestly can't fathom what SqueakBox's problem but I'm off to bed now, night.--ElvisThePrince 01:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Did it never occur to you to inform Vinylgirl of the Rfc. You could also have informed the other editors yourself. There is no onus on me to do so. There is no policy about Rfc's being able to be validated on a talk page, so what you are saying about doctored signatures doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What you are saying would grind wikipedia to a halt with other editors being forced to chase up entirely spurious claims. No editor should have an rfc if they only done 20 edits, let alone one they don't know about, but you seem unaware of Vinylgirl, and that she has the same rights as other editors. I can assure I too have a nasty taste in my mouth after the shennanigans of today, and spouting rubbish about me breaking wikipedia rules simply not true. In future please check with whom you are edit warring before jumping to the conclusion that maybe they are a sockpuppet, as the information is available, starting in the user page. If Slim has been intervening around you I am sure it is for good reasons, especially after how you have behaved today. I am left questioning what your real motivation is SqueakBox 04:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, and there you are breaking even more policies. Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith for one, probably Misplaced Pages:Civility as well. I don;t know who all you are talking to, as you seem to be replying to two people at once without specifying, but USer:SlimVirgin's harassment of me by breaking policy and outright taking sides encouraging an extreme problem editor who should have been banned months ago and encouraging him to use sockpuppet accounts, not blocking him for periods she agreed to do so, and treating me as if I were the one being disciplined instead of him are just some of the nonsense she is pulling, not to mention her protecting articles the way the soon-to-be-blocked editor wants them, instigating his revenge RfAr against me instead of following normal conflict resolution steps, and so forth. There are some bad, bad admins here who are loose cannons, and from your actions on this RfC it looks like you are one of them too, as you simply were not following policy, and your rationalizations that the process would grind to a halt if you took a teensy bit of responsibility and did not remove valid signatures for not reason simply do not wash. DreamGuy 14:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
PLease explaion how signatures from Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica are valid on an Rfc; ie quote the policy to me. Otherwise leave it be or I will start to think you are trolling, SqueakBox 15:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Please don't blank this conversation. Archiving is fine. As you spend so much time telling others to follow policy perhapsd it would be a good idea to do so yourself, SqueakBox 17:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)