Revision as of 06:55, 27 March 2008 editAnticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The (talk | contribs)Rollbackers10,383 editsm →You are a delusional...← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:22, 27 March 2008 edit undoCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Thanks!: please don't call editors "trolling"Next edit → | ||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
] (]) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC) | ] (]) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
==Using the word "trolling"== | |||
Just a reminder, please don't use the word "trolling" to refer to other editors like you did in two comments recently about DanT . This isn't a warning, just a reminder. ] (]) 07:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:22, 27 March 2008
I check in most mornings and most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my new office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.
I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Misplaced Pages is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.
Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.
Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout. |
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers
- Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
- See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
- My take on the Durova incident.
Note to self
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747
WP:SHRUBBERY?
Wasn't there a WP essay somewhere comparing arbitrary demands for discussion to the Knights who say Ni's arbitrary demand for a shrubbery? I found an instance of you making the comparison when I did a google search, but I'm at a loss as to why I can't find the essay. Unless I'm on crack and it never existed. Do you know where it is? Mangojuice 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, I thought we had that, too. Maybe it was nuked before the namespace change. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ahahaha! I remember now, yes, it wasn't in WP space was it? Excellent. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. Yes, thanks, that was really bugging me. Mangojuice 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- {{shrubbery}} it is :o) Guy (Help!) 18:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. Yes, thanks, that was really bugging me. Mangojuice 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ahahaha! I remember now, yes, it wasn't in WP space was it? Excellent. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Valkyrie
Can you explain what the problem was with the source you removed? I had reverted you, but then I revised the citation template to match the WENN article as I found on NewsBank just now. Let me know if this is still an issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Copyright violating spam. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for showing me. Was my replacement sufficient? I verified that it came from WENN on NewsBank. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't even look, I noticed you'd gone direct to WENN, assumed you'd checked the source and ensured it was reliable, and trusted you :-) Guy (Help!) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Zlango
Why are you editing the archived AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zlango? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Per the edit summary, I am unlinking an unreliable source. This is mainly so I can establish where it's being linked in mainspace and other places where it matters. No change to the content, just unlinking one site. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you should not be editing closed AfD's for any reason. I think as an admin you know this already. The link to www.postchronicle.com/news/technology/article_21225439.shtml may be unreliable, but surely that is for the reader to judge, not you. So why exactly are you doing this? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, there is absolutely no policy reason whatsoever to prevent minor edits to archived pages, and in this case I have a decent reason: to get the list of hundreds of links (many of them spammed by the site owner) down to something manageable so I can work on them. WP:C, WP:RS. Nothing was deleted, nothing whatsoever, all I did was unlink sites for convenience. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is a policy for editing closed AfD debates, which reads clearly (at the top of every AfD):
- "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page."
- So I ask again, why are you ignoring this clear instruction? What is so important about these links that they have to be removed, even if it means over-riding AfD protocol? You do realise there is a permanent audit trail in the edit summary which cannot be deleted?--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not modifying the debate in any meaningful fashion. All I did was unlink one website. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted a different such edit of yours, then came here to explain my action and found this thread. I agree that, generally, closed AfD's shouldn't be edited. In addition, the edit I reverted was to a signed comment by a Wikipedian. It's sometimes proper to cite blogs, etc. in a deletion discussion. JamesMLane t c 06:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Discussed on admin noticeboard, unlinking (no removal, just unlinking, that's all it was) is not a problem for this site due to issues with its use and being spammed by the site owner. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted a different such edit of yours, then came here to explain my action and found this thread. I agree that, generally, closed AfD's shouldn't be edited. In addition, the edit I reverted was to a signed comment by a Wikipedian. It's sometimes proper to cite blogs, etc. in a deletion discussion. JamesMLane t c 06:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Natalee Holloway
Thanks for your help on this article. I can accept what you've written re the PostChroncile. I've reverted your last edit, not because I disagree, but so we can know where we need better sources. Please look back on us in a week, if it is OK, by then we should have them all replaced. None of the postchroncicle cites look to be anything we can't get from CNN or FOXNews. If you see anything else we're doing wrong, please also let us know.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I note you have also removed this link to www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_2121626.shtml. Is this part of a crusade to rid Misplaced Pages of links to this site? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:C, WP:RS. We do not use blog aggregators and copyright violators as sources in WP:BLP articles. Wehwalt, reverting was a crap idea. We don't keep bad and possibly illegal sources just because we haven't a better one. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- And who has made this judgement, and when did it become offical policy? Is there a thread on the Village pump I can refer to?--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I am being misunderstood. I am asking who has decided that WP:C applies to www.postchronicle.com as although I am not convinced it is a reliable source, I believe it is unusual for sources to be expunged from article. In this instance, I believe the link is a now dead. Sites like this come and go, and they seem to be little more than mirrors for other sources. However, why are you particularly interested in this site? Please disclose your interest for clarification. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not being "expunged", it's just being unlinked. The site freely admits violating copyright, and per WP:C we may not link to sites and content that we know infringes copyright. In addition, unlinking (not deleting) these links makes it easier to track where it is being used, in contravention of WP:RS, in mainspace. There are many such links, a lot of them added by the site owner, others added in good faith by people who were misled into believing that the site was a genuine news source, which it isn't. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- We've gotten rid of the Post Chronicle refs, though I am not terribly happy at having to do it. They don't seem to alter what they collect there, they just have a rather questionable fair use rationale that I'm not sure of the validity. However, we've done it. Incidently, when I reverted, the "crap idea" that you mention, I simply wanted the refs there temporarily so I knew where to find replacements rather than searching through the history. That is what I said, see above. Jeez. Had you done as you had suggested over on the Administrators' notice board and simply deleted the http, that would have been fine and probably made life simpler. Thank you for your contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- They have two sorts of content: that which is collected form other sites without permission, violating WP:C, and that which is published under their own (apparently fictitious) bylines, with no evidence of a fact-checking process, thus failing WP:RS. If you can track the original source, which can sometimes be done, and establish that the original source is reliable, which it wasn't in a number that I checked, then citing the original source should be fine. No problem, though, it's entirely fair to ask for clarification. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:ANI Thread
Good Morning. There is an inquiry at WP:ANI regarding your removal of links to a source called the Post Chronicle from articles and other pages around the project. At your convenience, you may wish to stop by and discuss the matter. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ping re gawiki
Yep! Should be fine now, as I've unblocked. Go for it :) If you've any issues, let me know and I can ask the local 'crat to rename if needs be - Alison 00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Pashtun Mafia
Hi Guy,
The author of the article is back and using his same old tactics. He has proven again to be uncooperative and in violation of Wiki rules. He has edited the main article and is posting under his handle and IP on the Articles for deletion/Pashtun Mafia page. Please take a look into it when possible NangOnamos (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Canadian Royal Family
Approximately a year ago you put a permanent lock on the article Canadian Royal Family after it was made a redirect. A discussion is now underway at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Commonwealth realms in which a number of editors are in favour of reinstating the article. Please feel free to observe and or participate. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
gaWP
The local 'crat has now moved that account, so you're good to go :) - Alison 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, just spotted the "all in order" on my prefs. Seems this feature also, as a side effect, prevents users from registering a new account with a global account name, so that problem should not recur. All in all I rather like this new feature :-) Guy (Help!) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank goodness!! No more JtV impersonations :) That'll be a relief for everyone - Alison 21:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ho yus. I expect we'll still see some like Pistonfest Gatecrasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) though - but that's almost certainly an import from Usenet, where there has been a rather thorough demolition of the deluded twaddle promoted by one recently deceased militant petrolhead. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Please unblock me as I am trying to bully JzG off wikipedia" - okay, now that made me laugh! Yeesh! - Alison 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
For your comment about "list of films to wank to" here, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters award you the Barnstar of Good Humor. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC) |
Oh please, he deserves a good "trout slapping" rather than a stupid humour barnstar. heh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.204.71 (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Mattisse (Talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Using the word "trolling"
Just a reminder, please don't use the word "trolling" to refer to other editors like you did in two comments recently about DanT . This isn't a warning, just a reminder. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Category: