| Revision as of 06:18, 16 May 2006 editLeflyman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,340 edits →Impersonation of my username: thanks← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:52, 16 May 2006 edit undoGmaxwell (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,571 edits move text and reply.Next edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| *Thanks for reviewing that. So far (as I can tell) that user hasn't tried any other tricks. I think the simplest course is to block the fake name "]" (that's an "i" instead of an "L") -- and keep an eye on the other account(s) for unusual activity. —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 06:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | *Thanks for reviewing that. So far (as I can tell) that user hasn't tried any other tricks. I think the simplest course is to block the fake name "]" (that's an "i" instead of an "L") -- and keep an eye on the other account(s) for unusual activity. —<font face="Verdana,San-Serif" size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 06:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| <small>Moved from ]</small>. | |||
| Against my better judgement, I'd like to respond to the comments you made at ]. Although you maintain a civil tone throughout, your remarks seem to me to do the exact opposite of what you were intending: instead of showing that your actions on ] were not a violation of ], they demonstrate the point you were trying to make and in so doing show that you ''were'' violating WP:POINT. | |||
| I don't want to assume bad faith of you, but I honestly can't see the edits you and Cyde made as anything other than a humorous attempt to show by extreme example the problems with having userboxes in template space — sort of a Wikipedian version of "]". You chose a widely used userbox and turned it into a footnoted essay with the stated purpose of making it NPOV. You are clearly an intelligent individual. I cannot conceive that when you made this series of changes, you were unaware that many users are sensitive to changes in userbox templates. Therefore, I must conclude that you either did not care what users who had this template on their userpages thought (a possibly defensible position, albeit a slightly callous one) or you deliberately wanted to provoke them (an undefensible position). Some of your comments on ] seem to support the former; the fact that you began this project of transforming userboxes with ] to me suggests the latter, since it is beyond cliché that religion is a topic about which people have strong opinions (consider the old saw about not discussing religion or politics at the dinner table). Again, since you are not an idiot I must conclude that your reasons for choosing this template were satirical. | |||
| I don't doubt that you are motivated, at least in part, by a genuine concern for NPOV and for the good of the encyclopedia. However, I cannot conceive of a process that resulted in as having an intention that was anything but satirical. I haven't noticed you disagreeing with Tony Sidaway's of your edits as a "joke". It ''was'' a joke, and I just wish you'd have the decency to admit it instead of continuing this charade. | |||
| Cyde has apologized for the disruption he caused, and has ] that on his part, at least, the entire affair was an attempt to cause the userbox to be moved out of template space — a goal I have no problem with, by the way. (I don't really care whether these userboxes remain in template space or not — I got rid of my opinion userboxes quite some time ago, and think that a widespread subst'ing campaign would probably be the best option for the userbox debate at this point.) I just think that the way you tried to make the point about userboxes was needlessly disruptive, and a classic example of ]. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not Cyde. I can not speak for his actions. You continue to confuse my actions with his, and assign intentions to me that I simply do not have. I spent a considerable amount of time explaining my position to you, and you've failed to accept that I was honestly attempting an improvement from an NPOV perspective and was more than willing to compromise, but I was unable because people responded with incivility, intolerance, and with incorrect accusations. | |||
| :After the time I spent explaining to what I did (which does not include adding the silly rotating cross which you're effectively accusing me of above) I am shocked and upset that you continue to accuse me of participating in some joke with your reference to Tony's edit summary, which I never actually read and which I wouldn't have had any cause to respond to Tony on-wiki about because I usually talk to Tony off-wiki. I feel I'm owed an apology from you for that accusation. | |||
| :I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, I've already explained myself in detail as cited above. I don't understand why you persist in accusing me of violating WP:POINT. I thought my proposed edit was a good change, and while I wasn't surprised to see it mindlessly reverted (it's a userbox people will do that), I did honestly expect there would be discussion and compromise and that we'd end up with something better that everyone could agree on. I didn't expect harassing emails, your complete unwillingness to simply accept my explanation, or this novella you've posted to this talk page. I'm sorry for you that it's so hard for you understand that my actions were guileless. | |||
| :I am going to remove any further posts on my talk page regarding this matter. I have other projects to work on, and these continued messages are upsetting me and disrupting me.--] 13:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a bit of a mixed message: asking for an apology, and saying that you'll remove any further posts on the subject. Ah, well. I can't see why I should be expected to know that you talk to Tony Sidaway off-wiki, but if you're just going to persist in this obstinacy there's no point in my continuing to try to discuss it with you. The point of the "novella" above was to explain why I interpreted your actions as a WP:POINT violation — an effort to engage you in honest dialogue. That's what I was trying to accomplish. However, it seems you're not interested — you seem to be either trying to maintain plausible deniability or you are less intelligent than you appear. | |||
| ::For the record, I haven't sent you any emails (harassing or otherwise), and I don't appreciate you associating me with anyone who might have done so. I'm not sure whether I should just let this go or whether to file an RfC about your conduct in this matter — I'll try to see what the general feeling of others is. I just wanted to help you recognize that this was an unacceptable way of going about things, and hoped for an apology. It seems I've failed in both endeavors. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I had previously explained myself to you, in detail, already addressing every point you made with the exception of your allegation related of my failure to respond to some edit summary of Tony's. I did not expect you to know about my off-wiki conversations, rather I would expect you not to make ridiculous allegations. As such it appears to me that your continued contact on this matter is just harassment. If your intention is not to harass me then I suggest you simply stop contacting me unless you see me do something else you find objectionable. I have moved this discussion to your talk page because I'm tired of looking at it. Feel free to nuke it when you're tired of looking at it. --] 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:52, 16 May 2006
 Archives |
|---|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
Daffy
Oh, sure - I noticed that after the last reversion, which is (a) why I stopped and (b) why I didn't call him on 3RR. Not a problem. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Newbie looking for advice
Hey, I want to add a photo to a Misplaced Pages article that already exists. How do I do it, and what are the rules I should follow? Wandering Star 03:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Josiah! The picture I want to add is originally from a newspaper article, and doesn't have a byline attatched to it or anything indicating that it has a copyright. Is that safe to use, or am I better off using a different one? Wandering Star 12:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. It's an odd quirky thing about the automatic signature. I have been using the four tildes each time to sign my name. For some reason I don't understand, the signature and timestamp appear-but not as a hotlink to my page. It just shows up as plain old typeface. Beats me as to why. Wandering Star 20:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the nickname box reads "Wandering Star" and the raw signature box was checked. I just unchecked it to see if that makes any kind of difference. Wandering Star 20:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
168.169.105.252 abuse
Wait a minute.... user was warned today, has history of warnings and blocks. Let me tell you how futile it feels to report abuse and see no action. OnPatrol 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment
No, the anon's making a polemic and the matter is being discussed further up the page. Furthermore, you removed several other users' comments when you reverted. Mackensen (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Greetings
No particular reason for posting, but I wanted to express my appreciation of the cool head you've displayed over the latest, well, debacle. I'm neither here nor there on userboxes, but I think your comment on "pushing somebody into the mud, and then condemning them for being dirty" was absolutely spot on. I'm just saddened that there are admins messing around, when there are backlogs in Category:Administrative backlog. Quid custodiet ipsos custodes indeed! All the best, MartinRe 00:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for working hard to stop abuses and damiging behavior to wikipedia constantly! Heltec talk 21:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC) |
Impersonation of my username
Please take a look at the odd behavior of user Lostfan815 who apparently has impersonated me as "User:LeFIyman":
This user (I assume) registered my name on May 9, and copied the content of my user page. I have since removed the duplicated content and placed a sockpuppet notice on the userpage.
I suspect that 203.129.45.193 and/or 202.55.159.214 may also be sockpuppet IPs for this account.
Obviously, such a fraud would be pretty easy to check out, but what is the appropriate remedy? Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate_usernames says, "Users have been blocked in the past for choosing usernames that were perceived as impersonation attempts on present users".
Likewise, Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry says, "In particular, accounts that are used to maliciously impersonate another Wikipedian may be blocked permanently."
What's your take on this? Thanks, -Leflyman 03:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing that. So far (as I can tell) that user hasn't tried any other tricks. I think the simplest course is to block the fake name "User:LeFIyman" (that's an "i" instead of an "L") -- and keep an eye on the other account(s) for unusual activity. —Leflyman 06:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Template:User Christian and WP:POINT
Moved from User talk:Gmaxwell.
Against my better judgement, I'd like to respond to the comments you made at WP:DRV/U#Template:User Christian. Although you maintain a civil tone throughout, your remarks here seem to me to do the exact opposite of what you were intending: instead of showing that your actions on Template:User Christian were not a violation of WP:POINT, they demonstrate the point you were trying to make and in so doing show that you were violating WP:POINT.
I don't want to assume bad faith of you, but I honestly can't see the edits you and Cyde made as anything other than a humorous attempt to show by extreme example the problems with having userboxes in template space — sort of a Wikipedian version of "A Modest Proposal". You chose a widely used userbox and turned it into a footnoted essay with the stated purpose of making it NPOV. You are clearly an intelligent individual. I cannot conceive that when you made this series of changes, you were unaware that many users are sensitive to changes in userbox templates. Therefore, I must conclude that you either did not care what users who had this template on their userpages thought (a possibly defensible position, albeit a slightly callous one) or you deliberately wanted to provoke them (an undefensible position). Some of your comments on Template talk:User Christian seem to support the former; the fact that you began this project of transforming userboxes with Template:User Christian to me suggests the latter, since it is beyond cliché that religion is a topic about which people have strong opinions (consider the old saw about not discussing religion or politics at the dinner table). Again, since you are not an idiot I must conclude that your reasons for choosing this template were satirical.
I don't doubt that you are motivated, at least in part, by a genuine concern for NPOV and for the good of the encyclopedia. However, I cannot conceive of a process that resulted in this as having an intention that was anything but satirical. I haven't noticed you disagreeing with Tony Sidaway's characterization of your edits as a "joke". It was a joke, and I just wish you'd have the decency to admit it instead of continuing this charade.
Cyde has apologized for the disruption he caused, and has implicitly admitted that on his part, at least, the entire affair was an attempt to cause the userbox to be moved out of template space — a goal I have no problem with, by the way. (I don't really care whether these userboxes remain in template space or not — I got rid of my opinion userboxes quite some time ago, and think that a widespread subst'ing campaign would probably be the best option for the userbox debate at this point.) I just think that the way you tried to make the point about userboxes was needlessly disruptive, and a classic example of WP:POINT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am not Cyde. I can not speak for his actions. You continue to confuse my actions with his, and assign intentions to me that I simply do not have. I spent a considerable amount of time explaining my position to you, and you've failed to accept that I was honestly attempting an improvement from an NPOV perspective and was more than willing to compromise, but I was unable because people responded with incivility, intolerance, and with incorrect accusations.
- After the time I spent explaining to what I did (which does not include adding the silly rotating cross which you're effectively accusing me of above) I am shocked and upset that you continue to accuse me of participating in some joke with your reference to Tony's edit summary, which I never actually read and which I wouldn't have had any cause to respond to Tony on-wiki about because I usually talk to Tony off-wiki. I feel I'm owed an apology from you for that accusation.
- I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here, I've already explained myself in detail as cited above. I don't understand why you persist in accusing me of violating WP:POINT. I thought my proposed edit was a good change, and while I wasn't surprised to see it mindlessly reverted (it's a userbox people will do that), I did honestly expect there would be discussion and compromise and that we'd end up with something better that everyone could agree on. I didn't expect harassing emails, your complete unwillingness to simply accept my explanation, or this novella you've posted to this talk page. I'm sorry for you that it's so hard for you understand that my actions were guileless.
- I am going to remove any further posts on my talk page regarding this matter. I have other projects to work on, and these continued messages are upsetting me and disrupting me.--Gmaxwell 13:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's a bit of a mixed message: asking for an apology, and saying that you'll remove any further posts on the subject. Ah, well. I can't see why I should be expected to know that you talk to Tony Sidaway off-wiki, but if you're just going to persist in this obstinacy there's no point in my continuing to try to discuss it with you. The point of the "novella" above was to explain why I interpreted your actions as a WP:POINT violation — an effort to engage you in honest dialogue. That's what I was trying to accomplish. However, it seems you're not interested — you seem to be either trying to maintain plausible deniability or you are less intelligent than you appear.
- For the record, I haven't sent you any emails (harassing or otherwise), and I don't appreciate you associating me with anyone who might have done so. I'm not sure whether I should just let this go or whether to file an RfC about your conduct in this matter — I'll try to see what the general feeling of others is. I just wanted to help you recognize that this was an unacceptable way of going about things, and hoped for an apology. It seems I've failed in both endeavors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I had previously explained myself to you, in detail, already addressing every point you made with the exception of your allegation related of my failure to respond to some edit summary of Tony's. I did not expect you to know about my off-wiki conversations, rather I would expect you not to make ridiculous allegations. As such it appears to me that your continued contact on this matter is just harassment. If your intention is not to harass me then I suggest you simply stop contacting me unless you see me do something else you find objectionable. I have moved this discussion to your talk page because I'm tired of looking at it. Feel free to nuke it when you're tired of looking at it. --Gmaxwell 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)