| Revision as of 12:49, 11 May 2007 edit217.136.87.32 (talk) →ciber bullying← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:17, 11 May 2007 edit undoFemto (talk | contribs)13,836 edits rv 217.136.* (Belgacom ADSL) User:Bully-Buster-007 sock/block evasion. You are referred to the appropriate block appeal and dispute resolution procedures.Next edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| ::::: Dear Kuru, in this dispute ] who also seems involved in the disputed spam project http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. gave ] a one week block without prior notice. Do you think such a one week block without prior notice was justified? The people of the disputed spam project also erased harrasment warnings 1,2,3 and 4 on ] 's Talk page without consent such as one could still find them at the bottom of this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Requestion&diff=129820239&oldid=129818613 and also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Spam&diff=129841114&oldid=129822621 Are all these methods used by the spam project legitimate? Did ]mishandle the dispute or act uncorrectly ? It looks very much like a cover up operation to me. Are there methods to unblock or protect ] ?<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: 19:59, 10 May 2007 | The preceding ] comment was added at 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}}).}}</small> | ::::: Dear Kuru, in this dispute ] who also seems involved in the disputed spam project http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. gave ] a one week block without prior notice. Do you think such a one week block without prior notice was justified? The people of the disputed spam project also erased harrasment warnings 1,2,3 and 4 on ] 's Talk page without consent such as one could still find them at the bottom of this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Requestion&diff=129820239&oldid=129818613 and also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Spam&diff=129841114&oldid=129822621 Are all these methods used by the spam project legitimate? Did ]mishandle the dispute or act uncorrectly ? It looks very much like a cover up operation to me. Are there methods to unblock or protect ] ?<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: 19:59, 10 May 2007 | The preceding ] comment was added at 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}}).}}</small> | ||
| :refer to ]--] 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | :refer to ]--] 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::: having been a victim of an authoritarian spam fighter myself, i've been following the dispute ] since the beginning, and was interested to see how it would end up. It could have led to interesting conclusions. i do feel bullybuster has a point in some of his argumentation, and feel that the spam fighters failed to provide evidence of the contrary. having run out of arguments the spam fighters now decided to block bullybuster indefinately without notification or giving adequate motivation. The spam fighters completely mishandle the dispute. imagine bullybuster or someone interested in wp's decline taking this outside to some hostile website. Imagine what damage that could do: wp policers and admins not oblidging to their own rules and procedures, silencing opponents and covering up evidence. It could completely ruin wp's credability. it is time for someone to mediate in this conflict before it escalates beyond a point of no repair. --] 12:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Can you cite your sources to the changes you have made? == | == Can you cite your sources to the changes you have made? == | ||
Revision as of 14:17, 11 May 2007
| Kuru's Talk Page | ||
|
Re:Ginóbili!
Yes, I was aware of who made the spelling changes; my message at the talk page was not directed to you. Thanks anyway for your message. Good wiking, --Mariano(t/c) 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Aww..
No fair, at least I'm not putting things like "my butt" and "poopy" in it, as someone else has. I guess that's just funnier than light-hearted satyrical humor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guyfawkes22 (talk • contribs).
- Point conceded. Kuru 03:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Animanga Domains
Hi, you deleted the article for Animanga Domains, but as it was being deleted I was working on much more content about the history, future, and significance events in it's history and it's accomplishments. I feel with this information it would have very much been worthy of having an article, so may I recreate it or is there no point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NotBuchanan (talk • contribs) 03:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
- As it was written, there were no claims to meeting WP:WEB. You can certainly recreate the article, but please start by reading that link first and finding some secondary sources to support the notability of the site. Kuru 01:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Good Bull story
Thought you would get a kick out of this joke and story. — BQZip01 — 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just the kind of stories I'd expect from an agriculture school.. :) On a less sarcastic note; my deepest thanks for your service. Kuru 01:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Lebo Thug (talk · contribs)
I originaly did report Lebo Thug, having vandalized after his final warning, but after I made the report, I came accross an additional warning by someone else, so the reason I ended up withdrawing the report, was to assume good faith the user would stop.--U.S.A. cubed 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- But I also faied to read the last vandalized page by the user.--U.S.A. cubed 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Based on the type of vandalism and the user's history, I think your final warning and original AIV report were correct. AGF goes out the window with posts like the one to Picaroon's page. Thanks for the heads up. Kuru 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Trolling?
Is this edit on their own talk page considered trolling? I reverted it because it seemed misleading, because it looked like other editors wanted that user to continue vandalizing and other inappropriete edits, which is not the case.--U.S.A. cubed 02:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Coelacan has semi-protected the page. That resloves that.--U.S.A. cubed 02:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
ciber bullying
Dear Kuru,
This dispute with User Requestion might interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction Can You advise me how to reach a reasonable settlement ? --81.241.75.18 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now this is really funny. User:81.241.75.18 is completely oblivious to the fact that Kuru deleted some workforall.net linkspam and even warned User talk:81.242.58.154 who then spammed the same articles again 8 hours later. What are they thinking? And now they ask for advice?
- The workforall.net dynamic IP address individual is now User talk:Bully-Buster-007 who appears to have a Special Purpose Agenda (WP:SPA?) of disrupting my open spam cases and causing me grief. I'm guessing but I think 81.241.75.18 found their way here because of this AIV edit on User talk:Jdh30 which is another difficult and currently open spam case of mine. They seem to be canvassing everybody . It is crazy. I apologize for indirectly sending all my troublesome spammers your way! (: (Requestion 02:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
- Dear Kuru, in this dispute User:BozMo who also seems involved in the disputed spam project http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. gave User:Bully-Buster-007 a one week block without prior notice. Do you think such a one week block without prior notice was justified? The people of the disputed spam project also erased harrasment warnings 1,2,3 and 4 on User:Requestion 's Talk page without consent such as one could still find them at the bottom of this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Requestion&diff=129820239&oldid=129818613 and also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Spam&diff=129841114&oldid=129822621 Are all these methods used by the spam project legitimate? Did User:Bully-Buster-007mishandle the dispute or act uncorrectly ? It looks very much like a cover up operation to me. Are there methods to unblock or protect User:Bully-Buster-007 ?— 87.244.130.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
- refer to User_talk:Bully-Buster-007--Hu12 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you cite your sources to the changes you have made?
With regard to the article Accountancy, I note that you have amended/extended the following paragraph under the heading "Modern accounting/accountancy":
- According to critics of standard accounting practices, it has changed little since. Accounting reform measures of some kind have been taken in each generation to attempt to keep bookkeeping relevant to capital assets or production capacity. However, these have not changed the basic principles, which are supposed to be independent of economics as such. In recent times, the divergence of accounting from economic principles has resulted in controversial reforms to make financial reports more indicative of economic reality.
What is the source of your opinion? --Gavin Collins 07:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you see the edit summary here, Kuru reverted a deletion that looked like vandalism. It wasn't his opinion, nor did he add it. --Kzrulzuall 08:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kzrulzuall is correct. An IP removed roughly half of the paragraph and in the middle of a sentence, leaving a fragment that made it clear the deletion was accidental or a test. Since there was not edit summary to provide a hint as to the editor's intent, I simply chose to restore the text in its entirety. I hold no opinion on the content. Kuru 12:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you are doing, and although the edit runs against minor comments left on the discussion page, the reviesed paragraph makes more sense.--Gavin Collins 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kzrulzuall is correct. An IP removed roughly half of the paragraph and in the middle of a sentence, leaving a fragment that made it clear the deletion was accidental or a test. Since there was not edit summary to provide a hint as to the editor's intent, I simply chose to restore the text in its entirety. I hold no opinion on the content. Kuru 12:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you see the edit summary here, Kuru reverted a deletion that looked like vandalism. It wasn't his opinion, nor did he add it. --Kzrulzuall 08:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
manu
how do you get ahold of an admin? there is no button anywhere, i was just being bold.•RC2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You should always be bold; please don't let my note dissuade you from making changes in the future. The two easiest ways to get an admin to perform a move where there is already a page at the destination is to A) put a request on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, or B) simply tag the existing destination page with a speedy deletion tag, {{Db-movedab}} in this case, then do the move yourself. Kuru 00:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Kuru,
You edited links to InfiniteCredit.com that I posted on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act. I am not a spammer anymore than than the link to Creditboards.com is and I am upset that you seem to think I am and have threatened me with banning. I posted that InfiniteCredit.com could help with understanding FDCPA and FCRA rights which it can. It is no more spam than any other self-help link for any other topic on Misplaced Pages. I am not a vandal nor a spammer. You can access my email at blitzkim@yahoo.com and have my ip addy. InfiniteCredit.com is a legitimate self-help website for help with problems with debt collection or incorrect reporting of debt and our community doesn't take this lightly and we do not ask for nor accept money for our help. Please respond either to my email or to my talkpage. This is the first time I have ever edited a wikipedia content and am stunned that you would consider my contributions as spam. I am requesting that you reconsider. If you want to check, our website is 4th on Google Search for credit repair discussion, and 5th on credit repair forum. We are legitimate and have been helping consumers since 2004 and operate the site just like Creditboards.com. If we are spam then so is Creditboards. Please advise.
blitzkim 141.153.124.188 05:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
5/11/07
- . . . Or feel free to respond on the editor assistance section where the discussion started. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)