| Revision as of 00:57, 9 March 2006 editNJZombie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers30,603 edits →Mucky Pup← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:12, 4 January 2025 edit undoNJZombie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers30,603 edits Reverted 1 edit by MontanaBrice (talk)Tags: Twinkle Undo | ||
| (874 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
==You deserve this== | ||
| even if you don't want it, just delete it then... :) | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid purple; background-color: beige;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Music Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid purple;" | for all that good work on the ] and other pages on which we've crossed paths... ] (]) 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Vince == | |||
| Having dropped in to see what was going on with this recently AfD'd article, I took a look at the article history, and I'd like to suggest that you take a break from editing this article for a couple of days. Let it be, find something else to work on, let the Wikistress levels die down. I know that you want to make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia, and I am certain that you will continue to do so. | |||
| Nice job adding to the "Legacy" section. The negatives were written objectively, no undue weight, and the two paragraphs didn't come off as smear pieces. Nice job. ] (]) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Carlos Correa vandal== | |||
| I've left a similar suggestion to MikeWazowski, because I think it's a good idea for him to take a brief break, too. Not being much of a music fan, or Bloom County fan, I am just sort of looking at this from a distance, and I believe that a few days of benign neglect might improve perspectives all round. | |||
| Thanks for suggesting protecting ], which I have now done. When I wrote the talk page message saying "The article you have been vandalising has now been protected", I had seen only one article that had been affected, but later I realised there are more. It looks as though you probably know more about this vandal than I do, so if there are other affected articles that you can let me know about, I'll consider protecting those too. ] (]) 17:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. I know they had been hitting ] at one point but that calmed down. However, they may resort to hitting that one again now that the others are blocked. ] (]) 18:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| -<font color="#2000C0">]</font> (<font color="#00FF00">]</font>) 07:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, there has been continual vandalism at ] for years, so I think protecting it may be a good idea anyway. I have now checked all of the editing history of all the accounts I know of, and semi-protected all of the articles. Unfortunately, sometimes the effect of doing that is just to drive the vandal to other articles, but it's still worth trying. ] (]) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| *That's an understandable solution. My problem is the fact that he feels the need to be 100% right or not at all. While I haven't agreed with every deletion he's made, I've accepted most of them and moved on. In fact, I'm not even deleting his line, which I agree was a good point. I'm simply moving it to the appropriate section. Before the incident, he removed one my opening sentences, claiming redundancy. After thinking it over, I agreed with his deletion but realized the previous line was also redundant. This is the line that he's throwing a hissyfit over. As far as putting the line in, in order to make it interesting to people, if they're visiting the entry, they already had an interest, or found it interesting enough to follow a link from another entry. All a introduction, for a band, needs, is a lineup (original or current works), a formation year and the location a band came from. Unless there are some extraordinary events, that the band were resposible for or part of, there's no need for some minor accomplishment, like winning a writing contest for a cartoon strip. | |||
| He then removes a factual line about the first bass player, not being an official member, because there's no specific reference listed. Not every band entry is going to have a reference regarding the official status of each member that passes through. Most of the information, that I've supplied in the entry, comes from a mixture of information off of the band's site and my own personal knowledge resulting from my friendship with the members. | |||
| Lastly, the fact that a person may have suggested an entry, that I submitted, be undeleted, does not mean I'm going to just accept the person poor changes. | |||
| I just wanted to state my case and make my point. Thanks. | |||
| ] 02:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| First, I am requesting to be unblocked (IP address 172.131.153.132), as the situation was resolved. However, since the resolution was resolved, ] continues to rant about the situation, and has now tried to bring details of my personal life, which I choose not to share on this site, to the attention of Misplaced Pages readers. He identified me as a porno ACTOR, after misreading details of my life, at ]. Even if I had been such a thing, how does my personal life reflect my writing an unrelated article? After reading the guidelines concerning ]s, I am considering this instance, as one. Since I cannont currently contact either user, I'm requesting that all comments and links to my personal information, be remove. As far as knowing the bands that I've written entries for, it's irrelevant. None of the articles make any claims, other than factual events. The argument was NEVER about removing information. It was about its placement in the article. This was never a personal issue, on any level, until ] chose to make it such. ] | |||
| :Apologies, just received (and replied to) your email. As I apparently typo'd your uName, I couldn't find you, so my reply email surely made no sense to you. Signing now so I can (hopefully) head off confusion, then will post more. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, issues resolved is one thing, but then you post that issues are not resolved. I'm going to follow up on your assertions about MikeWazowski, and try to make sense of this situation. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks. My point about issues being resolved, concerned the original issue about the entry. I THOUGHT it was resolved, at least, until I found the write up at ], talking about my personal life. In my eyes, it was resolved, but apparantly he wanted to keep talking about it. | |||
| ] | |||
| ::and I am back, not much more enlightened than before. I will unblock, please be nice, avoid revert warring, and if you have a problem with another user there are many venues, such as Rfc, mediation, or just asking someone to come in as a third party. The situation on Kingboyk's page has, to the best of my knowledge, been taken care of by Kingboyk, so let it drop. Please be civil, regardless of what the "other guy" does. thanks - ]<sup>]</sup> 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I deleted that comment from my talk page. I suggest you both stay away from the Mucky Pup article for a while. Make your next edit on that subject be to ] where you'll discuss the problems with the article, and the ''good'' points of the article as you see it, and work out how you are going to go forward. You can always ask for outside help such as mediation. I'll be keeping an eye on both of you tonight, any repeats of edit warring or incivility from either of you will result in a ban (and it will be longer than 24 hours). See you around and happy editing! --] 23:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are now unblocked, go forth and edit. Please note: I will block again if hostilities and revert wars commence again. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I appreciate the help from both of you. As I said, I considered it over. What I didn't appreciate is having personal, and inaccurate, information posted about me. I'm actually pretty easy to get along with. --] | |||
| :I don't doubt that, which is why I recommended that your block be lifted. Now I'm going to post a question to ] which you can maybe answer for me? --] 23:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Good enough. Least said, soonest mended. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'd be happy to answer that question for you, ], but I'm still showing as blocked.--] | |||
| :Bother. You're only my second UNblock, let me try again. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::lol! Say no more! --] 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very funny, Kingboyk. John, you show as not blocked. What message did you get when you tried to edit? thanks - ]<sup>]</sup> 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is the message I'm getting... This is the message I'm still getting.... Reason given: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "JohnBWatt". The reason given for JohnBWatt's block is: "3RR on Mucky Pup". ] | |||
| You still getting that error message John? --] 00:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Unfortunately, yeah. ] | |||
| I'll leave a note for the Puppy and try to fix it. Sorry about this. --] 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No big deal. The answer to your question, by the way, is yes, that is the same Mucky Pup. In fact, your mention of Carter USM, previously, is what reminded me to add that fact into the article. --] | |||
| :::Thanks for the answer. I hadn't noticed that you'd added a Carter reference in. --] 00:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ok, the unblock worked (nice to know I didn't mess that up) but you're being caught by the autoblocker. give me a few minutes - ]<sup>]</sup> 00:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I tried something. How about now? —] (]) 00:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::<s>And if not, what is the IP address given in the message?</s> | |||
| ::and thank you Bunch for helping out! ]<sup>]</sup> 00:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 17:53, 8 March 2006, KillerChihuahua (Talk) blocked #114191 (expires 11:22, 9 March 2006) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "JohnBWatt". The reason given for JohnBWatt's block is: "3RR on Mucky Pup".) | |||
| I reversed. Fixed it? (Maybe ] did the same thing at the same time? :)) --] 00:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| All seems good now. Thanks to all involved! --] | |||
| :Now if I have to come back to ''block'' you after all that hassle, you know it's gonna be a big one don't ya? :P --] 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rofl, I was thinking how nice and patient he's been through all this, but you're right - if John responds by edit warring and conflict, no WAY I'm going to unblock whatever you receive! And thanks again to Bunch and Kingboyk. My unblock experience is seriously lacking, but I learned a good bit today. The good news is that this is the first block ''I've'' ever done that was reversed. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hey now! I'm generally very patient and nice to people. The two incidents, on here, happen to be rare happenings. My responses, in the two incidents, were based on, what I felt, were improper procedures or lack thereof. I don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone, but you'll see, in talking to me, that I'm pretty easy to talk to and get along with. =) --] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:12, 4 January 2025
You deserve this
even if you don't want it, just delete it then... :)
|
The Music Barnstar | |
| for all that good work on the Mucky Pup and other pages on which we've crossed paths... Luminifer (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC) |
Vince
Nice job adding to the "Legacy" section. The negatives were written objectively, no undue weight, and the two paragraphs didn't come off as smear pieces. Nice job. Kjscotte34 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Carlos Correa vandal
Thanks for suggesting protecting List of people from Minnesota, which I have now done. When I wrote the talk page message saying "The article you have been vandalising has now been protected", I had seen only one article that had been affected, but later I realised there are more. It looks as though you probably know more about this vandal than I do, so if there are other affected articles that you can let me know about, I'll consider protecting those too. JBW (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know they had been hitting Shannon Sharpe at one point but that calmed down. However, they may resort to hitting that one again now that the others are blocked. NJZombie (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, there has been continual vandalism at Shannon Sharpe for years, so I think protecting it may be a good idea anyway. I have now checked all of the editing history of all the accounts I know of, and semi-protected all of the articles. Unfortunately, sometimes the effect of doing that is just to drive the vandal to other articles, but it's still worth trying. JBW (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)