Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:41, 10 July 2007

If you're looking for my archived Talk, it's here: User Talk:SirFozzie/Archive 1 and User Talk:SirFozzie/Archive 2, and maybe even here User Talk:SirFozzie/Archive 3 and here User Talk:SirFozzie/Archive 4 (One of these days I'll figure out how to gussy this up and make it look better.. but don't expect it any time soon)

Archived 6/29

Thank god it's friday. :) Oh.. I won't be in much the next couple days. New position at work means I be wiped out! SirFozzie 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi SirFozzie. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee 08:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

More IPs for you

220.133.101.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) –– Lid 06:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

blocked. Made a nice nightcap to a night out with my friends :P SirFozzie 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Alex Porteau Article

The article has recently come up for deletion and you voted for its deletion. I have since re-written the article and think that the article is now good enough to remain on Misplaced Pages. If you could have a look at the article and re-consider your vote it would be much appreciated. A-Dust 11:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo

Thank you for wading through the history and comments to come up with a considered decision that frees many of us up to focus on improving Misplaced Pages.--Epeefleche 17:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI comment removal

I apologise, this was inadvertent on my part; I was trying to tidy my last edit and hadn't realised you had inserted edits at the same time.

best regards Mark MarkThomas 17:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi SirFozzie , would not have a clue how to go about a Rfc, have not been around here long enough yet for that. The only Rfc I had experience of was Sarah777’s, and that was pure tripe, if you don’t mind me saying. I just came here to edit, and not have to engage in this type of BS. I do have a serious case of bias though, I can not stand hypocrisy, cant or BS, will put my hands up to that! Regards --Domer48 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I see you aren't being drawn SirFozzie, note this edit that Domer48 just made regarding a perfectly sane and reasonable attempt by Sony-youth to label a previous unsigned posting by Domer48 as belonging to Domer48. The usual accusatory style, breaches of WP:CIV, etc. I have to ask - how much evidence is neeeded? MarkThomas 19:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No Problem SirFozzie, will use the head. --Domer48 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello SirFozzie, you may be right and I may have gone to town, a little overboard? I admit! But I have had the mother of all head wreckers with this! There is two issues, First, Sony, if they put their hand up and say I was wrong! I can not argue with that, and will have to accept it. That’s it case closed! Now as for the other Issue. That’s never going to end! I will be thwarted and scourged! If you all think that a Rfc will do the job, no problem, I’ll give it a go, sign me up. As for ArbCom, don’t know what it is, but would not have a problem with it. Any editor can review my contributions, and my comments! My contributions are all referenced, and my user page outlines my POV. My comments are rough and ready! If I think someone is acting the goat, I’ll say it. If someone is genuine I’m as polite and placid as they come. I will not suffer fools gladly! So that’s me in a nutshell. What ever you think, I’ll go along with it. I would like if possible that my comments and contributions on the sister sites be included if editors want a complete picture of me. One issue is resolved, i.e. Sony, just one to go. Regards --Domer48 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PANONIAN

I have declined his unblock and pretty much told him next alternate account he creats I will extend the block. He probably just needs a cooldown period and 72 hours is not bad, especially with his 3rr history.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks, I've added my bit to the ArbCom. But a clarifier: the RfC on Sarah is unrelated to Ireland/Northern Ireland and endorsements of the RfC come equally from all quarters of British-Irish politics.

Also, my dispute with Domer has no relation to the RfC. I don't recall ever seeing the guy before a few weeks ago and then only on Great Irish Famine. --sony-youth 14:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only intrested in having it sorted! I will be civil.Thanks for that, Regards --Domer48 14:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you review my statement on Arbcom, and let me know if it conforms to standard? I’m not supposed to argue my case there am I? If it would be better to get help of another Admin, let me know, or suggest one? Thanks, Regards --Domer48 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I Revised contribution, and made it as breif as possible. Regards --Domer48 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie; I am a bit disappointed that you were selective in your choice of who to warn about WP:CIVIL of those you notified. I am thinking of one glaring omission in particular. Regards (Sarah777 09:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

AGPW/GPW

There appears to be two articles about the same fed, Atlantic Grand Prix Wrestling and Grand Prix Wrestling. Could you delete one and redirect to the other? Cheers. Darrenhusted 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work

You've already earned a barnstar from me or I would have given you one for your very sensible input about a certain IP address that had a history of vandalism. Congrats for keeping your wits about you while a whole lot of media professionals were losing theirs. Perhaps your quick thinking helped prevent a non-story from growing even bigger. Kudos! Durova 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan Images

SirFozzie,

I come to you seeking assistance. I noticed that the Hulk Hogan article had several pictures deleted from it...or actually the images were deleted from wikipedia, but the links are still in the article. User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted the images saying "bad source" or "no fair use rationale." The images have been in the article for at least a little while now, and they seemed very obvious to me that they were low resolution screen shots or photos of a television (which I thought were free use (or maybe fair use...I'm so confused on the whole image use thing). Anyway, I don't know what the images were tagged as, but it was obvious to me what they were (and if the person uploading the images is like me, they probably had a heck of a time trying to figure out how to tag the dumb things). Anyway, maybe the right process was gone through to delete them, I don't know, but I thought they were free use, and they improve the article, and now they are gone. I'd hate to see this happen to too many articles. I don't know what or if you can do anything, so I thought I'd check with you and see if you had any ideas or advice or if you could look into if. Thanks! - T-75|talk|contribs 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected against recreation

Hey SirFozzie. First of all, thank you for your help with countering vandalism. I have a tip for you: instead of recreating pages with {{deletedpage}} and then protecting them, you can also include them in Misplaced Pages:Protected titles/July 2007. This way, they aren't "articles" (i.e. they don't get counted at Special:Statistics, you cannot end up at them when using Special:Randompage, and they show up as redlinks). Still, when you try to edit them, roughly the same template as {{deletedpage}} will display (try editing a protected page). Just a tip ;-) SalaSkan 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC) UTC)

Advice please

Hi SirFozzie, rather than get into a heated exchange, I thought I would run this by you first. As you are aware the Northern Ireland page was locked because of a revert war on the info box. I got feed up and left the discussion, . Now someone had a brain wave, just lock the info box! No need for the whole article to be locked? Now I get reported for the 3rr and this goes on with not a comment, . It is this crap, editors who just want to have a lock on an article! That gets my goat! If I do an 3rr I will draw down the wrath of …! That’s if I knew how to? But do you see what I mean? Regards --Domer48 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC) P.s. just blowing off steam!

Yes, and note the intense incivility you used in your "got fed up" statement referenced by you - "you hear their knuckle dragging mates arriving to lend support. Like nodding dogs in the back of a car window, they will agree with any type of argument" - I am very curious SirFozzie, you are clearly an admin who takes an interest in the Ireland-related articles, isn't it actually incumbent on you as an admin to deal firmly with breaches of guidelines like this? Or is it that, like Admin Alison, your own opinions lead you to a different course of action? I note that now for example on Great Irish Famine, User Domer48 apparently has carte-blanche to destroy what actually was quite a well-worded article previously. No editor not of a particular viewpoint apparently dares to intervene given the position of the admins interested in the Ireland-related articles. Probably I'm wasting my time asking as you have specifically not answered queries of this type before, but why don't you check Domer48's repeated abuses of the civility policies? MarkThomas 09:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

While you are considering this I'd like your views on the input of the Admin User:Andrwsc. He seems to side invariably with the Unionist pov. As Alison has done in the Famine article should he not cease to partake as an Admin while he is manifestly also acting as a disputant? He is also becoming involved in an edit war on the "Symbols" section of the NI article. (Sarah777 21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

I have just looked at the history of the NI page; the article had been locked to prevent edit-warring and the status quo was "no flag" in the infobox. Having argued for the flag in the talk pages he here -

Revision as of 16:46, June 28, 2007 (edit) (undo)

Andrwsc (Talk | contribs)

pull infobox out into separate page as per discussion)

unlocked the box, inserted the flag and has now locked the box again, this time with the flag in place. This behaviour will have to be taken up at the highest level, unless you can see something I'm missing. regards (Sarah777 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Dropping by to notify about below, but while I'm here, just letting you know, as one of those who had the "brain wave" to lock only the info box (see here), on my part, the suggestion was only so work could continue on the NI article while the infobox was being sorted out. NI had been locked for over a month before (was it longer?) only because of the dispute with the info box. Then it cropped up again with the same chance of dragging on for ever. Meanwhile, there was people posting messages about wanting to insert images in the article, but could not because the whole thing was locked. Anyway, that's why I proposed to lock only the box - just because it was possible, in that context, to naturally lock what people were disputing and leave what people were not disputing. (Oh, and by the way - regarding 'getting your goat' - this was the first time that I had ever suggested, or even vaguely wanted, and still don't, a lock on any article or any other such thing. Its no solution to a problem.) --sony-youth 08:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just looked through the history of the NI infobox template. That was actually quite shameful. I wasn't aware of it. My intended proposal was to lock it in the template as it was locked on the NI page. Obviously if it was being edit warred on the NI page it would be edit warred as a template too. --sony-youth 09:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi SirFozzie, thanks for the advice, I will “endeavour to persevere,” and will avoid comment. I consider your approach to date even-handed and fair, and regret the augury it has brought upon you. Thanks, Regards --Domer48 17:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, Sony, the “Brainwave,” comment, was actually a complement! and to be honest, I did not know you suggested it, not that it would have changed my opinion.--Domer48 17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure how to take it because it came with complaints about editors involved.--sony-youth 17:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom and Holidays

I'm going on holidays for a week starting tomorrow, so may not be around for the ArbCom. I'll send a post card :) --sony-youth 08:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No invite for the Abrcom, know why?

No invite for the Abrcom, know why? Could be they seen this . I’m all over the place with this. Should I just stick with the Famine article (which this is), or expand it to other instances on other articles. Or is the candle analogy, back in play? Kind Regards

No problem, thanks for that, Regards --Domer48 22:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Domer48 should have received the notice. I seem to have accidentally skipped over him inadvertently, for which I apologize, and have given the notice now. Newyorkbrad 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In light of this comment, and this , and subsequently this one, , is it ok for me to use them in my case? In order to illustrate some points I wish to make? I just thought I’d ask? Sorry if I keep bothering you, getting the invite is a bit unnerving? Regards --Domer48 22:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh! Tickles!

Ahhhh! You couldn't have picked a more ticklish person, Fozzie! So keep that brigade away from me! ;) I see that the buttons suit you... it's almost like you had been an admin for months now, considering how many administrative stuff you're doing (and all superbly, btw! ;) Hope you have a beautiful, shiny weekend! :) Love, Phaedriel - 22:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)