Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ral315/Archive 20: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Ral315 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:23, 19 December 2006 editTrödel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers21,484 edits ITN← Previous edit Revision as of 15:17, 19 December 2006 edit undoHusnock (talk | contribs)12,977 edits CamelCommos's permanent blockNext edit →
Line 58: Line 58:


Sorry bout that - I didn't get home until 1 am fixing the comp issue and just woke up. I'll do the double issue next week. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 11:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry bout that - I didn't get home until 1 am fixing the comp issue and just woke up. I'll do the double issue next week. --<font color="#06C">]</font> 11:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi, I saw you were the admin that upheld this person's permanent block. I was the "victim", where this user posted to my talk page pretending to be me. Since then, this has gotten very strange with Coolcat and I talking on e-mail. Coolcat claims to know the person and states he sent him to Misplaced Pages and helped him establish an account. Then he claims to not know him, then he claims to know him again. I also got two e-mails from the person themself (he gave me his real name and e-mail which I can't post here) swearing this was all a misunderstanding. I have to say, I believe him. I think this is someone who didnt understand our policies and got sucked up into a very intense situation with me in the middle of an arbcom. Anyway, in all fairness, this person was not a sockpuppet and appears to be a real person. He is practically beggining to be let back on the site and has apologized twice for what he did. I don't think he wants any trouble and, with regards to me, is not even involved with the arbcom. I would hate to see someone banned from this site because of trying to help me. Can we unblock him? if anything negative happens, by all means ban him for good. But, I would suggest assuming good faith and giving him a second chance. Thanks for your time. -] 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:17, 19 December 2006

To Do


edit

History Archives:

Dec. 04 to Feb. 06
Mar. 06 to Feb. 07
Feb. 07 to May. 08
Jun. 08 to Present

2004-2005:

01 · 02 · 03 · 04 · 05 · 06 · 07 · 08

2006:

09 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18

2007:

19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28

2008:

29 · 30 · 31 · 32


Re: ArbCom tally

Ral315 wrote:

Bot has been down for a while. Ral315 (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The bot was working fine, but the internet was off for several hours. Not sure why, probably some sort of maintenance as it affected the whole area. It's working again now – Gurch 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Come and vote

Hi,

I've just started an award, why not come and see what it is? Don't forget to vote!

CarrotMan 07:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Anniversaries

I spotted the 100th Signpost anniversary thing, and was wondering if the Signpost will cover the sixth anniversary of Misplaced Pages in January? Carcharoth 13:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote on the silly poll

Hi, Ral. IMO, polls like that are a bad idea and I don't vote in them. But, since it is going on, it has to be presumed to be the poll on the merits of the ArbCom decision, not on the merits of the case itself. As such, it's to my mind inappropriate for ArbCom members to vote in it - it's like admin candidates voting on their own RFAs, to use the closest analogy we have. I fear your vote may be perceived to be disrupting the poll, which isn't likely to do anybody any good. Zocky | picture popups 13:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I didn't confuse you with Raul. For some reason I did indeed think you were on ArbCom. Did you run last year, or did I get confused for no reason? Zocky | picture popups 01:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy to merge

Look, I am happy to merge only if I can somehow be involved with the signpost. I am not letting my newspaper collapsp just because you started a rouge merge.Anyway, I were never told of these requirements ever. You shold have told me so I could fix up my writing. I am very,very sorry and I think I have just wrecked my chance of getting on ArbCom next year. (sob bob). Sorry again -- Nathannoblet 06:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for a month see reasoning here --Trödel 17:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Keeping an eye on it, thanks. Ral315 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Earth layer

Just confirming that if you're interested, you can write a Signpost article; I wasn't sure if you'd checked back at the Signpost pages. If you're going to do one this week, please get it in as soon as possible; it'll probably be later than 17:00 UTC this week, but I try to get it published ASAP. Ral315 (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I'll be able to make the deadline. I didn't have much of a chance to deal with it this weekend, hopefully I'll have it by next issue. -- Zanimum 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Ral315/Features and admins

Are you going to include Husnock's emergency desysopping in this week's edition? – Chacor 16:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:POST and WP:MOS

Hi Ral315, on this: as the Signpost is fairly widely read in the community, it also sets de facto writing standards I'm certain some people follow. I therefore think it is important that the Signpost follow the applicable writing guidelines. Thanks, Mikker 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages assignments piece

Ral315, my article, User:Ragesoss/Wikipedia and academia, is as done as it's going to get, content-wise. If you're not going to publish it this week, let me know what I need to do to get it into publishable shape.--ragesoss 05:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whichever you prefer; if you've already published, I suppose waiting until next week is better, since it's not that time sensitive. I left a note after you moved it to the "for next week" section, but I guess it flew under the radar.--ragesoss 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I should have left a "done" message when it was done. That's obviously the standard procedure, I was just lazy. No apology necessary. Cheers--ragesoss 05:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ITN

Sorry bout that - I didn't get home until 1 am fixing the comp issue and just woke up. I'll do the double issue next week. --Trödel 11:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:CamelCommodore

Hi, I saw you were the admin that upheld this person's permanent block. I was the "victim", where this user posted to my talk page pretending to be me. Since then, this has gotten very strange with Coolcat and I talking on e-mail. Coolcat claims to know the person and states he sent him to Misplaced Pages and helped him establish an account. Then he claims to not know him, then he claims to know him again. I also got two e-mails from the person themself (he gave me his real name and e-mail which I can't post here) swearing this was all a misunderstanding. I have to say, I believe him. I think this is someone who didnt understand our policies and got sucked up into a very intense situation with me in the middle of an arbcom. Anyway, in all fairness, this person was not a sockpuppet and appears to be a real person. He is practically beggining to be let back on the site and has apologized twice for what he did. I don't think he wants any trouble and, with regards to me, is not even involved with the arbcom. I would hate to see someone banned from this site because of trying to help me. Can we unblock him? if anything negative happens, by all means ban him for good. But, I would suggest assuming good faith and giving him a second chance. Thanks for your time. -Husnock 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: