| Revision as of 16:42, 4 July 2008 editRomaioi (talk | contribs)1,518 edits →Generalmesse: adding link to results of sock puppetry case← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2024 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits OneClickArchived "Is this an adequate source?" to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 53 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{administrator topicon|tan|cat=yes}} | |||
| {{checkuser topicon|cat=yes}} | |||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 53 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(10d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = User talk:EdJohnston/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|search=yes|auto=yes}} | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="150" | |||
| |- align="center" | |||
| | ] | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- align="center" | |||
| | ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] | |||
| |} | |||
| == note == | |||
| == Request for review == | |||
| Hi Ed, I was wondering if you could do me a favor? I recently created ]. I'm not a member of the organization, but I am related to the organization's vice-president, so there's a potential for COI. I'm pretty sure I have it properly sourced, but I'd like if someone else could review it and "signoff" that it's okay. If you have a moment, could you please take a look, and maybe leave a note on the talkpage? And of course, if you see anything inappropriate, feel free to make changes as needed. Thanks, ]]] 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi, and yes, I can definitely provide more sources. Also, did you notice that the CCDR is already listed in the ] Associations directory? --]]] 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Ed - Elonka also asked me to look at the article. I've added a reference from the ''Dance Research Journal'' announcing the CCDR's establishment and describing its resources. I'm not sure merging the article with ] would be appropriate, since the collection also includes the papers of other major researchers in this (admittedly small) field. Joann W. Kealiinohomoku, in particular, seems to have written numerous articles and books; she's a pretty big name in dance ethnology, from what I've read. ] (]) 10:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I have further expanded the article, and also fleshed out some of the other related articles (such as for ] and ] (man will I be glad when I don't have to type that one anymore!) Could you please take another look at your convenience? Thanks, ]]] 07:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Request AWB permission for Hindi wiki. == | |||
| Hi EdJohnston, I am a regular user /editor also of Hindi Misplaced Pages. Regarding the same I came to know about the use of AWB (Auto Wiki Browser). Then I requested the permission for its use, but I do not have enough of my contributions (seems) to have a permission. Regarding the Hindi AWB permission, ] has referred me to talk & request you. | |||
| I hereby request the permission for the use of AWB for hi.wikipedia.org. You can very well see my contributions at ] ऽ {{plainlink|http://hi.wikipedia.org/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B7:Contributions/%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B7_%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%9F%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%B0 सदस्य योगदान}} | |||
| --] (]) 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You are already authorized to use AWB on the English Misplaced Pages. Have you tried it out yet? If so, why not just start trying to use it on the Hindi Misplaced Pages. It's possible they don't have any approval process. Since I can't read the Hindi page names I can't check. Admins on en.wiki have no power on other wikis. ] (]) 19:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == NYC == | |||
| Thanks Ed, I just found your comment on NYC in my sub-page. I may ask you to delete the page after I'm done to hide my shame of loopholing policies :) ] (]) 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Let's not have any loopholes. ] (]) 19:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == re "expectations of privacy regarding contacting Wikipedians by email" == | |||
| Funky title, eh? Seeing as much of WP policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive, do you wish to commence a debate on what the current understanding in respect of the above is - with a view to producing a guideline/policy? I'm all for it. ] (]) 21:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello LH. It sounds like you are winning the argument in ] (regarding your own practices), so maybe you should just declare victory! The past debates on message privacy did not lead to a consensus. But since you took the initiative to tell people about your ''caveat'', perhaps you have a desire for a new WP policy. If I were to create a new caveat of my own, I'd probably say 'By writing to me you're giving permission for me to share your message with any other Misplaced Pages administrators who I think should know about this.' Then we could allow everybody to have their own policy on how they handle email, which could make sense. ] (]) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I commented there that I think it's well established that an admin should have email enabled in order that users may communicate him if blocked, etc. The purpose of this is totally defeated if they must sign away their rights when they do this. LHVU further says "this may exclude me from certain aspects of the administrative remit" -- but blocking is one thing he does not abstain from. (that's a compliment, BTW). I suggest that making special rules of this private sort is destructive of confidence. We admins seem tp get little enough trust from users as it is. ''']''' (]) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know why LessHeard developed his email ''caveat'', but I do have my own puzzlement. I see a paradox in the confidentiality of email. If the guy says 'Please unblock me,' and the admin who gets the message wants to discuss that on the wiki, how can he do so? Is he supposed to keep it secret that the guy wants to be unblocked? Or, does confidentiality prevent him from forwarding that mail to another admin to get a second opinion? | |||
| :::I suppose there is no perfect way to fix this without a written policy, and that would be instruction creep. Individual admins could create their own ''caveats''. I hope they don't pick the version chosen by LessHeard because we should be able to be more sympathetic than that. ] (]) 05:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would point out that my caveat does not say, "I'm going to publish what you wrote, so don't write me" but rather, "do not expect me not to publish on the grounds of "privacy" if you inform me of something that I feel needs to be brought to the communities attention" - i.e. admissions of serious breaches of policy. My caveat is to stop anyone declaring I breached confidentiality if I make public such information. If, to take the example above, someone contacts me requesting unblock, and I feel I cannot review the matter and decide on my own then I would write back and ask if polling other admins is okay - I would still request permission, not just do it. I still act, I hope, with due regard to privacy and confidentiality; I just have a get out clause when I feel I have a duty to disclose. ] (]) 12:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR (contd.) == | |||
| ] is at again. -] (]) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :He edited ] just once on June 5. That was four days ago. If the pattern resumes, then admin action should be considered. ] (]) 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:Luigi 28 SSP case == | |||
| Hi Ed, I've seen your note at AN regarding the SSP case. Your suggestion is a good idea. I'm off to work now, but I'll post a brief summary of the evidence this evening when I get home. Best, ] (]) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : As requested, I have entered a brief and hopefully user-friendly summary of the evidence at the bottom of ]. Many thanks -- ] (]) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Wow, that was fast == | |||
| The keyboard hadn't even cooled off from filing the 3RR. You are on fire tonight! :) - ] ] 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == IfD Image:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg == | |||
| Following the blanking of ]'s article from the image (which ] stipulated), are you minded to change your from "delete" to "keep"?] (]) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Now that ] has voted to '''keep''' the image, yours is the sole "delete" vote.] (]) 10:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The result of the IfD discussion was '''keep'''.] (]) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: 3RRN languages == | |||
| Hej hej! I wrote in Svenska originally, and then Spartaz wrote in Danska on min (my) wall. So, ja, if du (you) wrote in German too on the board we could have an ecclectic mix of Europe! ]] 12:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| Oops, I misread the block log. You are absolutely right. | |||
| I closed the case since both master and sock are blocked. Thank you for pointing out my error. ] (]) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Obama ANI == | |||
| Would appreciate it if you could look through again and give your thoughts once more. ] (]) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Yeah, I don't mind either proposal - so I've given Scarian's proposal my support. Right now, we just need prompt preventative action that's effective for some time at least. ] (]) 06:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **As this is a special BLP article (along with all other related pages), I'm more inclined towards it being against everyone so that we don't encounter the same problems with a new bunch of editors. I've restated our updated suggestions separately in a new header for input by all those who are not involved (in any way) on that set of pages. ] (]) 16:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Dispute resolution at ] == | |||
| EdJohnston, I have started a discussion at the ] in order to resolve the dispute over reliable sources at the article ]. I have placed a tag at this article in order to attract the reader to this discussion and get a broader input. I believe the tag is important. In the past, ] has reverted all tags in this article no matter how reasonable they were. I ask that you use your admin judgement in terms of this tag and prevent a good faith attempt of dispute resolution from failing due to the reverting of this tag. Let me know if you need anything from me. ] (]) 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I gave explanation for all of your recent actions . Regarding tags that you claims removed by Gulmammad, here is the for your edits | |||
| , , , and | |||
| where the last one shows that you added mentioned tags. As I told before, please do some useful edits instead of wasting your time on attacking articles. I observe that attacking articles (that you personally don't like) in different ways apparently has become your hobby in recent days as immediate one could be to mention, which has been declined by 12 and supported only by one editor. <b>] ]</b> 22:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Gulmammad, it looks somewhat like you are following me around (some might say ]) when you follow every edit that I make including an obscure AFD for an obscure article that is about a subject that you don't edit. ] (]) 02:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just friendly I am asking, is there a way of reporting this to somewhere as well? I guess that would be your '''N'''<sup>th</sup> report about me :)<br> <small>P.S. Don't worry, I am not following you, while hanging around I saw your AfD that I mentioned above</small> <b>] ]</b> 04:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::So in other words, you're following me around just to be friendly? ] (]) 15:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Could you please review my comment and close this? Thanks in advance. ] (]) 04:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Peter L. Hurd == | |||
| I note that ] (a sock of an editor I did not get along with) incorporated most/all my suggestions for ] quite some time ago. ] (]) 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == joining the ranks of the admins == | |||
| ] (]) 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)]] | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| == Be careful with national varieties of English == | |||
| Thank you for the warning. Frankly, this is the first I have heard of variants of English spelling, I am mildly bothered that someone would call it a crusade. Another note, I have been adding information to various pages for over 2 years. If this accident ( it must be, as again, I was not aware one English was different then another) is worthy of being seriously looked at, please seriously look at the edits of the IP who reported me to 3RR. Multiple vandalisms, extremely crude and offensive edit comments(I have been called a "Yank" and a "Douche Bag"), etc, to me seem like a much more serious issue. A good example, is the recent vandalism on my own page, which I have left there for you're viewing. I would hope vandalism is much more seriously looked at, then variants of English depending on the thoughts of ones born country and not based on fact as far as I can tell. (] (]) 03:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| :I have warned the IP editor {{user|24.76.20.115}}. His Talk page already has vandal warnings. He can be blocked if problems continue. ] (]) 04:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| OK in all seriousness, I just have to say, for one that purports to be "well-travelled," how can one not know that a sizeable proportion (likely a majority) of the world's English speakers do not spell using US English? A perusal of a london or sydney or toronto or New Delhi newspaper would quickly confirm that fact. and that doesn't even require you to travel there. Just go to thetimes website or theglobeandmail.com astounding ignorance. just astounding! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Aksis 3rr block == | |||
| Hi Ed. You recently blocked ] for 3rr. He/she has now agreed to stop edit-warring. Can we unblock him/her?--] - ] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Replied at ]. ] (]) 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Your vote == | |||
| Hi Ed, please review ], the article is improving, references are better than previous (click on them to view), and I've got some good ones in the works. Also, since you voted, when I post changes to the article, may I post a notice to this thread requesting your re-consideration? ] (]) 04:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There are many claims made in the article that are still marked 'citation needed.' There are still no reviews in mainstream publications, so I am not inclined to change my vote. I don't mind you telling me here that you have made an update. ] (]) 04:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, citations are required, am working on that. The PCMag reference (as newly written) works well since it is date context relevant. I have requested input from ziffdavis and cnet as you suggested, will probably get a response back in a day or two, unsure when tho. Also please see my comments in ] regarding the Robin Good review. Cheers ] (]) 08:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Added another 3rd party reference from ]. Their technical committee published a Webinar Maxtrix comparison which included WebTrain, comparing the product to public (non-private) mainstream vendors. The maxtrix is fairly detailed, it was indexed on Yahoo (not google, go figure). With the major 3rd party reverse takeover references, major 3rd party CEO references, major 3rd party matrix comparison (stc.org), major 3rd party PC Magazine reference, and some very notable 2nd party references (BC Minister, Dean of U of Regina, Sask Govt, BCTIA, etc), I am hopeful the article is improving to a point to pass criteria. comments? ] (]) 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * The AfD passed. I was not aware the vote was taking place today. I posted an extensive list of categorized references on my talk page that were not previously disclosed (so have a peek). Regardless of your vote, if you need assistance with a technical article, give me a shout, I'm an expert developer with more than 2 decades of PC hardware, software development (6 languages), networks and protocols (right down to the ethernet frame), sockets, web stuff, security, SQL, load balancing, etc. I would be pretty good at assisting with such if asked. cheers ] (]) 08:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: ] == | |||
| The formatting is quite useful to me, actually: blocked users in one group, active users in another group. Anyway, I have commented on the case, and if you'd like to offer your opinion, it would be constructive. ] (]) 21:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == IP EDITS == | |||
| Hi Ed, Yes i believe that was me... for some reason, i get logged off without knowing and only when i hit save do i realize that i wasnt logged in properly. | |||
| Also I am deleting 3 sentences from the Guterman article based on Wbpl: Harm | |||
| Please take a look at my notes on the discussion page and let me know if you think I'm correct in my reasoning. | |||
| Thanks! | |||
| NetHistoryBuff5 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Hello, thanks for looking into ] and the ] entry. Now listed at ] and a ] for another account I found. I already told ] on IRC to just ban them all (6 hours ago!!), but she wouldn't respond. ] (]) 21:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Usually she is nice though and helps me with all my newby questions. ] (]) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 4RR by Tymek on Friedrich Scherfke == | |||
| Excuse me, but what is ? You approve of Tymek breaking 3RR, and show extremely bad faith towards me, accusing me of "would-be-breaking 3RR" and of sockpuppetry. I ask you to alter your statement. Besides, the whole Scherfke article is unsourced, for crying out loud, and it contains sentences like "Rumors claim that he was a driver for the Gestapo". The similar case of his team mate ] is better documented as he was younger and thus could play for and in Germany, so Tymek on Talk concedes that "he was not allowed to return", but still claims "expulsion has nothing to do with it". And you call this "a certain logic"? -- ] ] 22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem with Scherfke is that there are very few sources, I wish I could improve it, but it has been impossible so far. Matthead, if you can find sourced and relevant information, help out. Please do not add the much more famous Wilimowski here, his story is completely different. He was not allowed to return to Poland because he played for the national team of Nazi Germany, and was regarded a traitor because of that. Look at ], ] or ] - they all returned. BTW I have a question to user EdJohnston. How do you check IPs? There have been a few cases in which some anons emerged from nowhere to back Matthead in his editing. Thank you. ] (]) 13:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is no need to consider Matthead responsible for the mystery IPs. It happens that issues start to get considered as 'trigger' issues in national disputes and other people (some of them IPs with no track record) arrive to revert on themes that they recognize. I've seen it happen with Macedonia and with Cyprus. If possible, it's always good to work on an individual page in detail as you are proposing above. I've got no idea whether the Scherfke article is appropriately balanced at the moment, but starting a discussion at ] could lead to better results. If a consensus for a change in the article was found there, lifting the protection might be reasonable. ] (]) 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| For the feedback on the SSP case on CumulusClouds. <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Clean Start... == | |||
| *Would it best serve for me to discontinue all use of ] and request a reinstatement as ]? To whom would I make such request? Or would it better serve for me to ask an Admin to approve a ] as ] rather than for to simply claim to have made one? ] (]) 06:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wait for the consensus of the people responding to your SSP. It could be reasonable for you to ask for ] to be unblocked to clear your name. Then you would not be under any cloud of block evasion any more, and you could keep on editing with ], which (in my opinion) has a good record on Misplaced Pages. As part of the deal, you would agree not to edit any more as Mqschmidt. When the time comes, you could ask any sympathetic admin to propose at ] that Mqschmidt be unblocked. ] (]) 06:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Revision as of 21:12, 12 June 2008 == | |||
| Ed, I made a small edit (Revision as of 21:12, 12 June 2008) wherein I added a new feed reader name called Genwi(http://www.genwi.com) to the list of web based feed readers. I agree that Misplaced Pages is a wonderful place that should not be filled with advertisements and links to every known site on the planet. However, I added Genwi because it has been available from past 2 years and only recently has started to gain popularity. Furthermore, it is the first feed reader that combined social networking (sharing updates with friends). Here are the articles from the blog world that already provided enough advertisement.. | |||
| Mar 1 2007: http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2007/03/20/social_media_networking_meets_rss.htm | |||
| Sep 1 2007 : http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/01/genwi-browse-and-share-syndicated-content/ | |||
| Note that in the Techcrunch article it was written as even better than Google reader. Hence I thought it is important to list a product that competes and provides more useful and original ideas compared to what is already listed. If not, could you please explain as to what is the criteria for listing this useful service in it's rightful place. I think it is a useful piece of information and not an advertisement. If you could kindly add it or let the edit be, I would appreciate it. | |||
| ] (]) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You didn't mention the article to which you had added a mention of Genwi. Your only WP edit is to my own Talk page. In general, if Genwi is important enough to deserve mention in a Misplaced Pages article, it ought to be important enough to deserve a separate ] article, which I observe does not exist at this time. You can understand that we resist inclusion of new items whose importance is not certified by ]. ] (]) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Ed:(Your only WP edit is to my own Talk page) I don't understand that. | |||
| I was contemplating adding a separate article on Genwi soon. I will wait to make these edits again utill that point. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. | |||
| However, about reliable sources, I was a member since the inception of Media RSS group in 2004 and have been consulting on the syndication and feed creation for media consumption with major media companies about it. Genwi is the only know web based feed reader that read more than 6 formats of RSS (including MRSS and iTunes RSS tags). | |||
| Thanks again. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Please sign your comments using four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> before hitting 'Save page.' Your ] shows no edits except to my own Talk page; I don't know where else you have added any information, unless you've been using multiple accounts. ] (]) 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * is the diff. The dates and times don't match, but other than that it appears to be an anonymous IP adding an entry for a news aggregator to a list of web based news aggregators. It was never reverted so I can't tell what this comment is about, other than to apparently promote their product to you. This is probably a COI violation and Prabhe is probably on staff at genwi.com. Any new article for ] should be closely scrutinized for POV and promotional edits. ] (]) 16:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*Correction: is the diff. The title of the section refers to the date and time you left a warning on their talk page. ] (]) 16:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello Prabhe and ]. Thanks for the pointers. I've removed the entry for ] from ]. Entries in that list should already have their own Misplaced Pages articles, to justify inclusion. If it's notable enough to deserve an article, then it can be included. Prabhe, please use your logged-in account when you edit, especially if you plan to work in areas that might be considered promotional. You made the change regarding Genwi using an IP address. If you can find coverage for Genwi from ], that may be enough to deserve an article. ] (]) 17:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Ed, If you have time, please take a look at my edits on the Guterman discussion page and let me know what you think, especially with the edits I cited under WBLP HARM, and my reasons for removal. I would love a second opinion on this. Best Regards, NetHistoryBuff5 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Recently you removed 3,000 bytes from the article, claiming that there was duplication. You might be correct; I haven't checked carefully. But such large changes ought to be discussed on Talk. If there are mostly going to be two of you working on the article for the next while, try to figure out what the other guy's priorities are. If you make even the smallest effort to work out a compromise, it might help to settle down the situation. There doesn't seem to be any reason why the two of you should be reverting headers (such as 'Overview') back and forth with no discussion at all. (That sort of behavior doesn't look good if the article is reviewed later to check for edit warring). Also, please sign your Talk comments with four tildes before hitting 'Save page.' You are, at present, participating on Talk more than the other guy, I see. ] (]) 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I agree, thanks Ed. Yes, the duplicate content was the QE2 part. It was in the EXACT form above so I removed it. Also, based on WBLP Guidlines, potentially harmful or libelous material is supposed to be pulled immediately and then discussed, correct? So I undid the recent changes in hopes that Smilo would discuss each edit, one at a time. Rather than post potentially harmful edits and then say "from now on, no wholesale edits" I believe it should be the other way around based on what I've read of the guidlines... am I correct in this assumption? Thanks Again! NHB5... I still cant figure out the signing thing, sorry :) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :There's not an open-and-shut case for BLP. It would be better to present each BLP item first, on the Talk page, for discussion. It was only relative weight rather than defamation, so far as I can see. He was indicted for tax fraud, and the charges later were dropped. This was well-sourced to the NY Times. (The claim that they were 'false charges' is certainly POV, and should never have been included). But we might choose to omit the whole item, per ]. That certainly does not create any urgency for immediate removal, though. ] (]) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I replied on the case page. ] (]) <small>]</small> 04:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Russavia == | |||
| As per advice in discussion I have moved debate about Russavia to ]. Please provide your views there, if you have the time and inclination. Thanks! ] (]) 12:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I still think it's better to request category deletion over at ]. When there is a disagreement, it is easier to get other editors to help solve a technical matter than an inter-personal matter. In an RFC/U, you are trying to collect testimonials to show that the named editor is a terrible person. That's not a good way to begin negotiations if there are alternatives available. ] (]) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe it's better for editors to read and familiarise themselves with ], ], and then ] to see exactly how categories can and do work. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Versace11 == | |||
| Thanks for your help and pointing me to the right projects with this case. <font color="#365a92">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Guterman yeah == | |||
| Hi Ed, | |||
| Yes, good words. My objection, was to a string of anonymous editors up to mischief and reverts without a peep. I think it's all one person, now called NetHIstorybuff5, who seems to revert any hint of balance in the article. I've been trying to talk with him/her on his/her user page. The lack of WP protocol is a bit frustrating. To my eyes s/he's clearly personally motivated to paint a rosy picture of Guterman, and uninterested in WP. ANyway, that's where I'm coming from. I appreciate your participation and thoughts. ] (]) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Circumcision RM == | |||
| Thank you for closing the discussion and your comments. Unless I'm misunderstanding, I believe you miscounted the number of non-anonymous votes (I count 8 oppose to 7 support), and I would like your comment amended to reflect that. Also your comment ignores the fundamental debate over neutrality, and over ambiguity, improperly focussing on a vague desire to have "circumcision" be an article rather than a redirect, and ignoring the current contents of that article, the ambiguity present in the title, and the non-neutrality of the article's title given its contents. It also ignores the fact that at least four of the oppose votes were based on claims that "female circumcision" is a "recent coinage" or "neologism," claims which were unsupported by any sources, and categorically shown false by reliable sources in the ensuing discussion. The falsehood of these claims was never addressed and and the evidence never rebutted. ] (]) 21:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There seemed to be about the same number of supporters and opponents. Is this correct? | |||
| ::Support: Beejaypi, Garycompugeek, Blackworm, Jookieapc, Fyslee, Nigelj, Jamesxeno | |||
| ::Oppose: Jakew, Septemtrionalis, Coppertwig, Atomaton, Avi, Andrewa and Nsaum75. | |||
| :] (]) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's Groggy Dice's oppose, making 8-7. ] (]) 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note also, from ]: ''Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.'' You counted all arguments I perceive to be based on assumptions shown false by reliable sources, as I point out above. The arguments were countered with facts, and not rebutted. You stated a vote count that was incorrect, stated a reason for discounting an anonymous IP vote in support (you apparently believe ''that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith'' (ibid.), and yet have no position on the votes based on "facts" proven false. You have no comment on the ''policy'' issues debated, i.e., ] and ], which could also have been grounds to discount votes. That is why I say I don't believe this will be resolved outside arbitration -- too many people around who hold on to misinterpretations of policy, and opinions based on beliefs ("neologism", "not standard English") that are provably false. ] (]) 21:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Consider re-running the move debate sometime in the future. If you are unhappy with my close, you could always raise the matter at ]. ] (]) 04:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning, but someone has your closing statement, with edit summary "correction", changing the vote totals to 7 in favour, 8 against. Thanks, <span style="color:Green; font-size:1.9em;">☺</span> ] (]) 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for your note! ] (]) 22:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| And well it should be corrected. See above. I do not recall ever seeing anyone have so far off a count in closing an RM. Clearly it doesn't change the results, but the count does need to be corrected, and reverting a correction is more than odd. ] (]) 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I find it ironic, especially with all the other irregularities, that the vote count downplayed the magnitude of the dispute, when I continually argue that those opposing the measure downplay the magnitude of the dispute. ] (]) 05:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR as an advanced edit warring tool == | |||
| Just I am wondering to know, how many users have been blocked according Poco's report on violation of 3RR. One of them is me, another I just saw, and wonder to know how many else have been trapped in this way? To me this 3RR policy is becoming a tool for some users to get others blocked because they have been disagree on some topics. It is very easy to get blocked someone in this way. Here are the steps: if you don't like someone, you start or get started some disruptive edit on the article that he has been working hard and naturally that user reverts it. Then you team up with a bunch of IP's or sock puppets to force that user make more than 3 reverts. In this step you report him on violation of 3RR! Then horray! The trick worked!<br>I think we should take this into account and work out some better mechanism instead of 3RR or just remember above facts when taking action for violation of 3RR. I believe this 3RR is not fair for many users because personally I have experienced this situation. <b>] ]</b> 23:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Nobody is forced to go over three reverts. It just takes an unusual amount of self-control not to get carried away, in a contentious dispute. Can you think of any way besides 3RR for handling edit wars? Would you just do article protection all the time? ] (]) 04:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand you as you have to decide about the situation in very short time. But if we have a look at the history of situation closely, we will see a lot that shows the user who is blamed on violation of simply 3RR is very productive rather than one who spends his time in Misplaced Pages for keeping such productive users busy by organizing edit war situation and then doing such reports because they have been having disagreements on some topics. This last block shows that 3RR can be violated even by experienced user unintentionally who has already have block on violation of 3RR. Now let us think of situation of a user like me who even didn't know 3RR when was blocked for violating 3RR by the above trick.<br>Taking all these facts into account, I believe, no-one needs to search for better way besides 3RR for handling edit wars, however, I found semi-protection of such articles helps a lot at least to stop anons. I am a witness of a lot of useful edits by IP's but when we come to such disputed articles, anons are just ] for edit wars. <b>] ]</b> 19:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Gulmammad, don't misrepresent the events surrounding your block or the events surrounding Kober's block. ] (]) 03:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem with Misplaced Pages policy, especially 3RR, is that it treats each editor as an individual, and ignores all forms of cooperation except obvious sockpuppeteering with a "bunch of IP's or sock puppets". Misplaced Pages is completely helpless when several established editors cooperate to push an agenda well beyond NPOV. But there is now at least one admin who distinguished himself by approving 4RR of a single editor against several others. We'll have to keep an eye on this. -- ] ] 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The problem I have is of editors that simply sit back and hit revert with no regard for your take on what information the sources give or whether the sources are reliable. They simply leave it completely up to you to try to go through the dispute resolution process whilst they just hit the revert key. Sure, it's better in theory to take the high road and continue with the dispute resolution process but to what end when they are not entering the dispute resolution process in good faith? For an example, see my dispute resolution attempt ] and notice Gulmammad's repeated ]'s. I am trying to keep the topic on reliable sources and he keeps moving the topic towards other completely unrelated articles or AFD's that have ended in "no consensus" or pictures of people that lived 100 years ago or pictures of Toronto. This dispute resolution started because of Gulmammad's use of unreliable sources such as pictures he's taken himself that push a certain position and web forums and blogs as reliable sources. ] (]) 03:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Poco, please don't wast the time of people. Here is the 1% of your similar attempts: ] ] ]] ] ] ] ] ] ]. With the time and energy that I lost both and I could have done a lot of useful edits. Still I feel sorry for my time that I lost there. You shouldn't mention a term ''reliable sources'' after above facts. ''Judge'' from point of view of wider auditorium not yourself as ! BTW, I know Kober from there, he was one who rescued the article from your AfD attack. I, or others, don't have to waste their times to defend articles from your attacks. May you just check your edit history to see how many useful edits, if any, you have done? Show your work, list the articles that you have created or significantly contributed, except disputed topics. <b>] ]</b> 04:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And also, above by saying "''I am trying to keep the topic on reliable sources and he keeps moving the topic towards other completely unrelated articles or AFD's that have ended in "no consensus" or pictures of people that lived 100 years ago or pictures of Toronto''" you are attempting to confuse people. Trough out the resolution you have many times changed the topic to unrelated and unrealistic claims. You started with reliable sources and then started claiming that the village even didn't exist! or about images or distance from the capital city and lots of many other frustrating questions. At the end you nominated the article for deletion and it survived! Please don't write propaganda conclusion about our dispute resolution discussion. <b>] ]</b> 05:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Gulmammad, for the upteenth time what exactly is your point with the AFDs? Nominating an article for AFD that ends in "no consensus" or "keep" is not disruptive. It does show however that you've been going through my edit history with a fine toothed comb. Also, nominating for deletion is a natural progression after reliable sources can't be found. ] (]) 05:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hiya, sorry to jump in here, but I've been actively looking for a "tag team" situation so that I can gather data for the ]. Might I ask which article is being discussed here? Thanks, ]]] 19:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: See ] for a case in which I believe to have been pronounced a tag teamer. See also about a case in which an otherwise unrelated editor showed up to continue reverting for an editor who tried to topple consensus. I openly stated that I'm exceeding 3RR to counter that, but of course this was futile, the issue was ]. -- ] ] 21:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::People don't realize that most 3RR closures are mechanical, based on a count of reverts, except in a few cases where there is very obvious misbehavior going on. Do you suppose that the 3RR closer is going to make a complete study of the Digwuren ruling, including its log of blocks and bans, before closing each 3RR regarding Eastern Europe? And try to figure out which editors usually support each other? That's a discussion for some place other than the 3RR board. I suppose the alternative is to completely give up trying to do 3RR blocks in nationalist cases and always do article protection. ] (]) 03:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I've learned that 3RR closures are mostly mechanical, but in the Tymek 4RR case, it was you who made an exception, a very unsatisfying one. You could have given him a compassionate short block, and semiprotect to take the IPs out, for example. If an admin is not sure what to do, there is always the option to let somebody else do it, unless tasks are alloted to admins in a workload sharing procedure I'm ignorant about. So in any closed case I assume that the admin acted with firm conviction. -- ] ] 10:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Elonka, not sure if this is the example you are looking for but a possible meatpuppetry situation is ]. I would be interested in your thoughts. ] (]) 04:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Just so you all know, I don't see any action items for me in the above thread. I plan to box up this discussion soon. If you have examples of 'tag team' disputes for Elonka to consider, please write to her directly. Or, a volunteer could offer his or her own Talk page to continue this discussion. Thank you, ] (]) 05:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| re. ] "a bona-fide long-time contributor" 14 edits in a year??? and in his he says that he was: "usando el nombre "generalmesse"" - using the name "generalmesse" to edit the articles: ] and ]. re. ] "a regular editor" with just 6 (!!!) edits??? in his last 2 edits (a whooping 33% of his total!) he complains that he can not add his imagination (or disillusion) of a (never happened) "gran victoria terrestre italiana" (great Italian victory) and that I'm not letting him add his stuff - well his stuff is fabricated exaggerations and/or blatant lies that were broadcast by Radio Rome or Radio Berlin during WWII and he wants to add them because those two are very neutral and reputable sources (for him)... Sorry, ] but you did a less than stellar work checking up on this two "users". --] (]) 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't say that these two editors were doing anything useful. In a sock report, we are trying to determine who is a sock, and that's not been shown in their case. The phrase 'usando el nombre generalmesse' has no clear subject; I don't see he's describing himself there. The section header ''porfavor DagosNavy ayudanos--nosotros de sangre italiana-- en la pagina de la Primera Batalla de Alamein'' *does* sound like nationalistic POV-warring (by Argentinians of Italian descent?) which could deserve a warning if it continues. I don't think these two guys ought not to be grouped with an obvious destructive sock like ]. Somebody who makes 14 edits in a year is easily reverted, so I don't see what the big deal is. The other guy is a named published author, which should be a clue to his identity, which is of interest in sock inquiries. On Talk, he *does* try to defend the theory of a big Italian success at the First Battle of El Alamein, but in his entire WP history he has only made one article edit. That doesn't sound very dangerous. ] (]) 16:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Topmalohouse "'''Me''' dicen que '''estoy''' cometiendo vandalismo pero si ves '''mis''' contribuciones,..." "No se porque un tal Noclador ha decido hacer la guerra contra '''mi''' en cuanto a '''mis''' ediciones sobre las fuerzas terrestres alemanas en norte africa y en el frente ruso." Me, I do, my, me, my - this are his words - but were are his edits??? Topmalohouse has done not a single edit in articles about "norte africa" or "el frente ruso" but , have... Topmalohouse = sock! and that without a doubt! | |||
| :: Historyneverrepeats - a published author?? Come on, he can say any name he wants... I doubt that a published author of books will resort to massive socket puppetry to manipulate wikipedia. Anyway: Want proof that Historyneverrepeats is a sock of the above? Here it comes: | |||
| :: Topmalohouse leaves his comments on DagosNavy talkpage at: | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::* | |||
| :: Historyneverrepeats comes back to life after a 6 month hiatus and his first edit is: | |||
| ::* with this edit comment: ''"I hope this book helps, it's me David, please read my request for your help at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DagosNavy "'' oh he calls himself David - just like Topmalohouse. and interesting: which comment on DagosNavy's page does he mean?? Historyneverrepeats hasn't written one... but Topmalohouse has... So is it now also clear to you that these two are part of a sock circus??? --] (]) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::*On further thought and after looking at your data, I've blocked Topmalohouse and Historyneverrepeats as socks of Generalmesse. Details at ]. ] (]) 20:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Generalmesse == | |||
| Ed, your whole quagmire on the General - it's ]. Ask for an RFCU. I'll bet you (given our discussions about Luigi) a nice large beer that the whole lot converges on Broomfield, Colorado. With plenty of 4.231 IP numbers. -- ] (]) 23:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello Alasdair. I know that Brunodam has some confirmed history of socking. But he has never edited any article related to Argentina or the Falklands, so far as I know. I don't see him taking much specific interest in El Alamein, either. His weblog is hosted in Italy, not Colorado. There is a CU request already submitted, which might resolve the matter. ] (]) 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: On the other hand Bruno seems to be a Italian-Venezuelan (as he speaks Spanish and Italian and has written articles about unwavering fascists that fled to Venezuela ]) A connection to South America does also exist. --] (]) 08:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just a quick technical clarification, if I may. The article on ] - Bruno's full name is Bruno D'Ambrosio - was actually created by one of Bruno's socks. Bruno's first contribution to that article (under his own account) was to add a family photo . He also created ], so yes, ] is right, there is a connection to South America. Not that this proves anything, other than some South American interest. Ed, you are right that Bruno hasn't edited anything regarding the Falklands War, but he is very definitely based in Broomfield, Colorado. ] (]) 15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: and Bruno d'Ambrosio was a user on the Italian wiki and there he has been blocked since March 22nd, 2007 ]. Btw. the "article" - or better the glorifying garbage ] states about Pompeo: "During WWII he was Lieutenant of the Italian Army in North Africa (Libya and Egypt), where was wounded and made POW in the Battle of El Alamein receiving a military Medal of Honor." or in Italian a Medaglia d'Oro and that is exactly the name of one of Generalmesse socks. Also Pompeo "In 1946 co-founded in Salerno the local section of the Movimento Sociale Italiano," I added to this that the ] is '''the''' fascist Italian Party. Also Brunodam (in the guise of Pannonicus) refers to Allied POW camps as "Concentration camps" , and who else does so: some of the socks of Generalmesse: . Mere coincidences??? --] (]) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| btw. Bruno d'Ambrosio was banned on the Italian wiki for and one of the myriad of socks just posted this in ] ''"I will be contacting my Lawyer tomorrow concerning this matter. This is not a joke and its becoming very personal. Being that it should be a professional environment, there are liability issues involved."'' ()... So has Brunodam now moved to Australia??? --] (]) 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : above mentioned "user" Romaioi claims to be from Australia and to have a PhD in physics and chemistry (see diff link in the post above) and to be from Perth... well: at 7pm Central European time he was still very active - but when it's 7pm in Europe it is 3am in Perth... so he edited today from 4 pm until 3am Perth time... doesn't sound like someone who has "a day job and a family, so as my time is constrained"... --] (]) 17:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Its actually 2.32AM where I am, as I write. Yes, you have wasted an entire day of mine ]. I hope you have taken pleasure in that. I have the flu. Would you like a medical certificate? Would you like to examine my bathroom habits too? Perhaps you would like to know how many months old my baby is child too? Perhaps interrogate her? EdJohnston, can you please review all my comments of defense and put a stop to this witch hunt? Do an IP search, EdJohnston, I know you have the software. It will show my IP to come from Nollamara, Perth, Australia. Otherwise, provide me an avenue to contact you, if you are the administrator? ] is clutching at straws and his insinuations (now I have just moved from Italy to Asutralia) and getting to be ridiculous. I am also being criticized for taking the time to defend myself. EdJohnston, I have been providing lots of information in good faith and this person is being allowed to manipulate my every word. ] (]) 18:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''FOR THE RECORD:''' ] ]! Romaioi was categorically shown to not be a sock. | |||
| No acknowledgement of his mistake or apology for his personal attacks on Romaioi were forthcoming from Noclador. Rather, another member apologised to Romaioi. Also, implied Romaioi to be a "fanatic" for defending himself. Deleting Romaioi's replies to other Misplaced Pages members at ], whereby Romaioi was thanking the other member for their apology, and requesting: | |||
| ''Whoever wishes to raise such suspicions against anyone should be more thorough in their examination of all the evidence before stepping over that line. Otherwise, state suspicion and do not just outright accuse.'' | |||
| ] (]) 16:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == thanks == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| Thanks for closing the 3rr charge. I also want to say that I still do not believe that my material was disputed as it was 100% referenced. I saw that most political partis did not have anything controvercial on their page so I shouldn't be pushing for the same as it creates controversy and a lot of energy gets wasted. There are better ways where I can still contribute. Thanks again ] (]) 13:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == SarekOfVulcan RFA == | |||
| ] | |||
| Thank you for !voting on ]. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly. | |||
| See you around the wiki!--] (]) 00:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Spam - Comparison Matrix Gibberish == | |||
| ] - this article is unreferenced. It is heresay and slanted, the purpose of the matrix is to advertise. | |||
| When they added a new subject to ] to link to their matrix, in doing so, references and contributions from others were deleted. | |||
| The comparison is incomplete, it does not include relevant vendors that have Wiki articles, nor does it include major vendors that Wainhouse, IDC, Frost and Sullivan have included in their publicated research. Both PictureTalk and WebHuddle are included articles are non-referenced stubs (spam), and I suspect the matrix is COI (prepared by PictureTalk). | |||
| Here's an example of a properly researched article (copyrighted material) - http://www.e-education.ch/presentations/27.10/Mayrhofer_Back_E-education2.pdf | |||
| Note this article includes 39 vendors and hundreds of matrix comparison points. Compare the PictureTalk article to this study. Do you think unreferneced heresay such as this should be on Misplaced Pages ? | |||
| Also note this is the second attempt by the user to post the matrix, the previous posting ALSO deleted pertinent article content that was in place for a long time. | |||
| Ed, over the past month, I have become familiar with some of Misplaced Pages policies, I have much to learn. But I am trying to make contributions relative to this space because I am an expert in this space. I added IETF source reference, I added a patent reference to Eric Korb, adjusted the non-proven statement to reflect fact, changed incorrect abandoned statement as per trademark assignment 2 factual reference, I added reference for one way statment and for collallaborative statement for Webinar using the PC Magazine Encyclopedia reference, and confirmed "Other typical features of a web conference include" by citing a Frost and Sullivan reference. These references and changes were removed by ]. I added these facts because the article requested that references be provided, so having them removed and being replaced by spam, well, it seems like abuse of policy. Feel free to review my activies and compare article revisions which show these statements are true. | |||
| I am a person that has learned that when wearing a different hat, wear only one hat. When I contribute to this space, it will be as an expert. | |||
| In summary, I believe the matrix and links to the matrix are a COI, biased, slanted non-referenced heresay posted soley for advertising, and when the article was posted, they deleted other peoples contributions including mine. I will leave this in your hands to report, correct or ignore as you are a person with experience in such matters. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *Oops - sorry, I forgot to sign my post. ] (]) 22:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''See 206.80.0.98 contributions, this turkey is spamming everywhere'''. I suspect ] is 206.80.0.98 (based upon timely edits) ] (]) 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : (Contribs: ] and ].) — ] ] 08:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for your !vote at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| Thank you, EdJohnston, for your support !vote at my RFA. {{#ifeq:support|support|I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced.|{{#ifeq:support|neutral|I will keep in mind the issues you raised and hope that you do not believe the community has misplaced their trust in me.|I will learn from the issues you raised and, in the future, I hope to show you that your concerns have been eliminated.}}}} --<font color="green">]</font> <small>(] - ])</small> 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance == | |||
| == Sockpuppetry == | |||
| I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for ]. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. ] (]) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Are you aware of the ] situation? If not, make yourself aware. Your comments on Jossi's page evinced incredible ignorance of the situation. ] (]) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : In regard to about EdJohnston's : have you ever read the ] policy? — ] ] 08:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:08, 29 December 2024
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Update regarding Topic-Ban Observance
I once again momentarily forgot about my lede image ban and reverted a change to a picture I had uploaded as the lede image for Hideki Tojo. It literally occurred to me at the last moment before making said revert that what I was about to do might violate my topic ban. However, by the time it fully registered, the change had already been made. I have since reverted said change. While I am inclined to ask you to show leniency, I realize I asked you to dismiss a similar occurence around a month ago so I will leave it to your discretion regarding whether further sanctions are warranted. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)