Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jpgordon: 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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:58, 22 September 2005 editRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,293 edits →24.147.97.230← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:59, 10 January 2025 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,030 edits →Master?: argh 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__
Cleared 02:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC) -- check history for record.
{{lowercase title}}
----
{{User:MiszaBot/config
== MacDonald ==
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 11
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = User talk:Jpgordon/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box|search=yes|auto=long}}


It's not "NPOV" to call ] an evolutionary psychologist. To do so takes the POV that his analysis has any basis in science, and it doesn't: it's pure Jew-bashing, and nothing mor
== Placing users in danger ==


Josh, FYI ] ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


{{adminstats|jpgordon}}
== ok ==
{{Signpost-subscription}}


For older history, check as well as the archives.
ok i see your point about the sewer story but the new news about the goal should be included this is the first time he has totally admitted it the previous line only said it might have been illigitmate but now he says it was definately so obrigado] 04:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC) By the way "Calton" is stalking me and being rude and making sarcastic comments on my talk page i am autistic and this is not very nice.] 04:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
__TOC__


== Your signature ==
thank you very much for your advice i changed that paragraphi somewhat and please take a look at it now if you want thank you.] 05:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


Could you fix your signature? Your talk page link has random box characters in them (which display "01D 122"). On another computer, it just comes as boxes. <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> | ]) </span> 04:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
== Re: ] ==


:I would've uploaded an image but Commons kept saying that my file name was too generic (yeah right). <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> | ]) </span> 04:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
No problem, I had noticed it changed a couple times back and forth while patrolling RC, so I figured the anon. user was indeeed in the wrong. I hope a short block calms the editor. Good luck (: ]&mdash;]]] 05:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
::Interesting that nobody has complained in the many years I've used those four unicode characters. Hey lurkers (do I have any lurkers? hello?), are my musical characters legible? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – December 2024 ==


] from the past month (November 2024).
Nice. A short block to try to shut people up when they are telling the absoulute truth.
Just goes to show how much politically-correct censorship really goes on at Misplaced Pages.


]
I used have a college professor who knew Malcom X personally.
What I can tell you that may suprise you:


] '''Administrator changes'''
1) Malcom X frequently spoke in racist hyperbole. Just because he is quoted as saying his teacher called him a nigger, does not mean that this can be taken literally. He was using the hyperbole to make a point. Did your favorite black teacher ever call you a honkey? I doubt it. No matter how many times his statement is quoted,doesn't make it TRUE. Did Malcom X's teacher try to discourage him from being a lawyer? Probably. I think his teacher was smart enough to know he wasn't exactly "college-bound". He did, in fact, not become a lawyer, but a criminal. Someone with NO respect for the law.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''Interface administrator changes'''
In any case, Misplaced Pages isn't doing anybody any favors by posting some quote by Malcom X which probably isn't true.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


] '''CheckUser changes'''
2) Malcom X was pathologically crazy. There is much evidence to support this. The FBI knew of his insanity, and wrote about it. Malcom X knew he was crazy, and sought psychological help. Most of this has been expurgated from historical texts.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
3) Malcom X had white ancestors. Just take a close look at his features in any picture of him. His family is from the west indies, where race mixing was quite common. The FBI classified him as a Negro-mulatto. It is a historical fact.
* Following ], the ] has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the ] within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
* Following a ], a new speedy deletion criterion, ], has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.


] '''Technical news'''
:While I largely agree with what you've been doing on the page, Jpgordon, I have to say I agree with the anon who reverted the following: "he also was found to be insane {{note|asocial}} when he was examined for ] ]" I've had a read through the entire FBI file linked at the bottom of the article, and it says more than once something along the lines of "subject was examined in 1943 and found to be psychopathic, a sexual pervert, and psychologically unfit for service". However, I also agree with your point that Malcolm himself seems to think he pulled one over on the government, because the correspondence quoted in the FBI file makes multiple references to Malcolm's claim that "if they thought I was crazy, it would be easy for me to convince them". I personally prefer the version that exists right now, but I would be quite amenable to some compromise between the two. It seems that both versions are at least partially true.&mdash;''']'''&nbsp;(]) 03:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
* Technical volunteers can now register for the ], which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.


] '''Arbitration'''
::I like the compromise you worked out. Hopefully others will as well.&mdash;''']'''&nbsp;(]) 01:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
* The arbitration case '']'' (formerly titled '']'') has been closed.
* An arbitration case titled '']'' has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.


----
To be quite honest, I DON'T like the compromise. I didn't think Misplaced Pages was supposed to be about politically correct compromise. If you can find a place where Malcom X specifically said he feigned insanity, it should be posted. I don't think you can, though.
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1259680487 -->


== Galopindeschamps ==
The statement made in the letter specifically says everybody said he was crazy.
Now isn't that evidence that he was in fact crazy?


You recently blocked sockpuppets of Budisgood. Now there is another brand new editor ] working on the . I am hesitant about another sockpuppet investigation. What do you think? <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 19:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
If you read the FBI document a little more closely, they say early on that he
was being treated for some unknown disorder. Later, they say things indicating
he was seeing a psychiatrist.


:Oh hell yes. CU-blocked. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong -- I am in no way denying that Malcom X said MANY contradictory things. He would say really radical stuff on one day, simply to deny it the next. I have seen interviews with him on television where this was specifically discussed. The question of if this was simply media manipulation on his part, or evidence of his insanity, I don't honestly know. However, if you go by historical references, the evidence points to insanity.
::I reverted some of 'em, could you get the rest? (Gotta run.) ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay, I will take care of it. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 19:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


What do you think of ]. To me it screams the same level of incompetence as Budisgood. See . <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Take a look at the wiki on insanity, and see if you don't agree. I see Malcom X as being insane in the same sense as Adolph Hitler being insane. Both were so completely obsessed with an abnormal ideology as to affect their behavior in a negative way. This is somewhat different than the way Jeffery Dahmer or Dennis Rader were insane. They were motivated by sexual impulse, which is something different. I do believe that medication would have helped Malcom X. Specifically, Prozac or Zoloft. Too bad those medications didn't exist then.
*He says he faked out the draft board in chapter 7 of his autobiography. That's sufficient, I'd think. As far as the rest, my opinion and your opinion of Malcolm's sanity, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. --]] 02:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


:Yup, and another range CU-blocked. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 21:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Malcom X said 1955 would be the year of Armageddon - the year that the white man would be wiped off the face of the earth. Are we to believe this, too? That's a quote. Go back and read the FBI documents if you don't believe he said this.


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
You seem to believe that quoting a madman will somehow reveal the truth? I can imagine how quickly you would be reverting people if they started posting exact quotes from Matt Hale or Adolph Hitler on their wikis. Your double-standard on the truth is not at all befitting an administrator of this website.


] from the past month (December 2024).
And while we are talking about the value of direct quotes as being relevant to the truth, let's talk about one of our other favorite islamic radicals, Osama Bin Laden. In reference to the September 11 attacks, on September 16, he stated "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," which was broadcast by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel.
On September 28, He stated "I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. "


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
OK, now what does this say about deeply religious islamics, and the ability to tell the truth?
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
*Look, the article says "he claimed to have feigned insanity". That is undeniably true; he made the claim. --]] 05:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
Another thing that I would point out to you -- I have read this Alex Haley book twice
:] ]
over the years. I thought it was an interesting read, but it is NOT journalism. Alex Haley was not a reporter. He didn't verify his sources, he didn't check quotes, nothing. Alex Haley was a poor student who dropped out of school to enlist in the Coast Guard as a messboy. After 30 years of military service, he emerged from the military on a pension writing adventure stories. They didn't sell. Then he turned to writing semi-ficticious books, including "Autobiography of Malcom X", and "Roots".
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
I guess you have to consider the validity of your source. I don't think you have.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
And by the way, please take a look at the wiki on Alex Haley, who seems to be your
|]
source.
|]
*Whatever. Take it to the ]. --]] 21:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
== ADL ==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
Haven't I done that? I've pointed out eight specific problems on the talk page. ] 22:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
== Thanks ==
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page...I fear I've made myself popular with the wrong set. ] ] 00:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
== Thank you ==
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
Thanks for the swift action on ] Ironic, isn't it, that he didn't write about Brasil? ] 04:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
==Pope Pius XII==
{{center|{{flatlist|
I started an RfC on ]. You are invited to comment. ] 00:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
* ]

* ]
The RfC/dispute on the introduction is not yet resolved, so my editing of the article is pending a resolution of that. ] 04:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
* ]

}}}}
Re: Cornwell in the Introduction of Pope Pius XII. Is it time for mediation? Please discuss on my talk page. ] 14:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
<!--

-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
==Wiki brah: The final cut==
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

Thanks with all my heart for the support. I truly didn't want to overstep my bounds but those totally bizarre comments on the RfC were just too much for me. I owe you one. Best, ] 03:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Me too, but I want to go on record as stating that I'll pull his plug if I think he's still yanking our chain. This is the second weirdest conflict I've ever had here on Misplaced Pages; the "B-Movie Bandit" still takes the taco. - ] 20:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

== ] ==

BYT put my article on this informative book up for VfD, I'd be honored if you'd take a look at the article and its VfD and share your opinions. Thanks. ] ] 07:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

== You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing ==

Sir,
Mind your own business. Do not threaten me. You are not a policeman, and you have no authority to patrol my editing when I have breached no policy. Furthermore, you are a hypocrite: the accounts ] and ] (and no doubt more accounts still) are shadowy ]s for a single real-life person. You have yourself (yourselves?) therefore already infringed the 3R rule.
60.240.142.101

== Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark ==
I have filed ]. Please contribute to it. &ndash; ]\<sup><font color="gray">]</font></sup> 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

== "Judah Benjamin? Did KKK members respect him? Cites, please" ==

"Judah Benjamin? Did KKK members respect him? Cites, please"

Can you imagine a Confederate veteran not having at least a small amount of respect for a member of Jefferson Davis's Cabinent?

Assuming that they were honor bound to respect such a person since the original KKK was composed primaraly of Confederate veterans we can conclude that those who knew of Judah Benjamin's religion must have shown some (however little) restraint when it came to Jews.

Is there evidence which contradicts this?

BTW why did you get rid of what I wrote about Booth? {{unsigned2|05:43, 7 September 2005|132.241.245.49}}

"I think it's entirely likely that they had respect for Benjamin, but it's also possible that they resented his bugging out to England. I've never seen any mention one way or another regarding KKK attitudes toward Judah Benjamin, though -- that's why I asked for cites. (Without them, it's original research. The rest of that section didn't work with only the example of Booth. Besides, wouldn't Booth (and perhaps Benjamin) be a special case, anyway? Seems to me it wouldn't be hard at all to be strongly anti-Catholic but even more strongly pro-Lincoln's-assassin."

I've looked in the index of a book I have on the Klan and it seems the anti-semetic(sp) stuff didn't really start till the second Klan.

As for Booth....you may be right.

====]====
I see - I should check with User Page before making any corrections to Loremaster's mistakes.
Yet others can make corrections immediately by clicking onto "edit this page".
Strikes me as a bit of prejudice at work here.
Well, you say you don't believe me yet you put a link to my website.
AND a great deal of the existing material on the Priory of Sion article was contributed by me - that was "believable".
My website will have to contain an article about Misplaced Pages practices relating to Priory of Sion and to the behaviour of Loremaster.
Will the link to my website continue to exist thereafter? {{unsigned2|00:09, 8 September 2005|Wfgh447}}


<blockquote>''Talk pages (not user talk pages, article talk pages, such as Talk:Priory of Sion, are where one discusses changes to articles. It's good to be bold and go right ahead and make changes in the article; if nobody objects, you're doing fine. But making substantive change in articles is fraught with peril for any editor, especially any new editor; and if other editors do object to your changes, they will discuss the changes themselves on the article talk page; putting personal comments on the article page itself (or on user pages) is frowned on (which is what got other editors coming to this page and complaining). Don't take any of this personally; Misplaced Pages can be pretty complicated technically and is also a large, complex social system -- and Misplaced Pages also gets disrupted a lot by vandals, which is why some editors have short fuses. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)''</blockquote>


I understand what you are saying. And only wish these were the circumstances that I find myself in. But the difference between myself and Loremaster has spanned quite a while - Loremaster demands a definition of the Priory of Sion that is biased towards the content found in the book "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" whilst I would like to present an account of the Priory of Sion as based upon the activities and objectives of its founder, Pierre Plantard - and the Priory of Sion of Pierre Plantard is somewhat different to the account of the Priory of Sion as found in the pages of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". The difference between myself and Loremaster can never be resolved. Nothing can alter Loremaster's addiction to "Holy Blood"; and nothing can alter my desire to present the definition of the Priory of Sion as created by its founder, Pierre Plantard.

Loremaster's account of the Priory of Sion is not "objective" because there are instances in his article where he has merged Plantard with Baigent, Lincoln, and Leigh. Another point concerning Loremaster: he has not read or accessed any of the Priory Documents, he has not read any of the French books, he has not acquainted himself with the history of the subject matter in France - all that he knows is restricted to what is contained within the pages of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and "The Messianic Legacy".

And now it looks like there is a concerted effort to delete my corrections to his article at the very moment that they appear.

Paul Smith
{{unsigned2|00:38, 8 September 2005|Wfgh447}}

== Extrusion Copyvio ==

When you see large blocks of copied text, like on ], you can just delete them... no need to post on the talk page unless someone argues. :) ] 04:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

== Nitpicking :) ==

Hey, If the page wasn't protected I would've noted it! :) :). --] <sup>'']''</sup> 01:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

==Pubic hair (image status clarification requested)==
Was it suggested that preceding art image was a copy violation, or was the B&W image a copy violation (it is ambiguous in your edit note). I had just finished a nice edit of the B&W image title concerning other hair when I hit an edit conflict with your substitution - specifically:
:''Natural Female Body Hair is present in the pubic area, the armpits, the extremities of the arms and legs, and often a few coarse hairs around the margins of the ]s''
This is not appropriate to the image you replaced. Please comment here, I will observe. If the B&W is not a copyright violation I think that it is a much more appropriate illustration. Best wishes, ] 01:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
*Well, I obviously disagree about the relative appropriateness of the images; a world-class piece of art vs. an unattributed picture that at least one editor believes is a shot of Madonna from a Penthouse spread; a picture focusing on the pubic area vs. a full body nude, and so on. The article isn't about "natural female body hair"; it's about pubic hair -- personally, I think maybe there should be a good shot of a naked male pube there too, but one picture is really enough to get the point across. --]] 01:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
::I agree that one image is enough, but the color art image does show quite a bit more than pubic hair, is also charged with much more sexual suggestiveness (via multiple characteristics) than is appropriate to this article, and does not offer the opportunity that the B&W does of related hair (hair of similar secondary nature). While a close shot would be appropriate it would not offer that opportunity. What would you consider the ''ideal'' image for this article? I am somewhat opposed to taking a full nude image and via image processing to dissect it into various component parts, except as the whole is also shown to give context to the detail. It should not be too difficult to obtain an appropriate and PD or cc-sa image for this and other similar articles. - ] 01:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
:::I do agree that it's an intensely sexual image. I wouldn't even call it "suggestive". When the drawing was first inserted, I did note that it had not been discussed; no discussion ensued. I didn't object because I'm so fond of the painting - I mean, yeah, it's porn, but it's totally classic porn. Maybe a line drawing would be better -- or something completely clinical. --]] 02:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
::::It could be ''too'' clinical - I am considering putting together a free licensed image suite that would be suitable for both external anatomy and anatomy for artists (the later perhaps appropriate for a ]). I think that images (and articles) should be both informative and beautiful and both can (and should, where appropriate) reveal more than the immediate subject at hand. Bye for now, I will cogitate upon the issue. - ] 02:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

== Santorum ==

The subject of insults was thoroughly discussed on the ] the consensus there applied to all current political and cultural figures was (1) third party insults of the subject are not encylcopedic, not factual, and inherently POV and (2) no policy is needed now to enforce that judgment. In the discussion many figures on the left and right were cited, the most frequent subject at that time subject to an edit war was Teddy Kennedy. It is unlikely this consensus is going to change so while most Wikipedians, I suspect, would endorse any and all insults to Santorum, applying the Kennedy or Clinton article editing consenus on insults to the Santorum article leaves us standing on principle. ] 23:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If the editors on ], ], and ] have a consensus to delete third party insults immediately, who are we to do otherwise in the ] article? ] 02:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

==Stalin==
Sorry, I don't understand your question. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was funny, but I didn't read it carefully enough the first time. I didn't get enough sleep last night, maybe that's the problem. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 16:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

== My RFA ==

Thank you very kindly for your support of my nomination; it means all the more because I respect your contributions. I promise your trust hasn't been misplaced; I will only be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) &middot; ]<sup>]</sup> 21:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

== ] continues ==
Hello jpgordon. You have deleted my changes to the Malcom X wiki yet again. The changes I have made
were backed up by references from other wikis. I am going to restore my changes. If you remove them
again, I am going to file a complaint with wikipedia for your removal as adminstrator.


== User ==
{{unsigned2|03:20, 13 September 2005|70.23.104.48}}


@] Hi JPgordon, you recently unblocked this user ] and they claimed they had improved.. Well they dropped this on the talk page over a dispute claiming me and another editor are ''disruptively editing''...while they themself didn't actually read the discussion to see what the dispute was about. I'm not sure what would be done here, but giving you a headsup. ] (]) 18:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*Take it to the ]. --]] 03:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


:Thanks for the heads up. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
==Thank you==
::Ridiculous, I just pointed out how @] had been quoting an incomplete snippet and then misinterpreted the source, @] they are not presenting the full picture here, please do not judge my behaviour by this. ] (]) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, ] 03:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm not. All I'm concerned about in your case has to do with what you were previously blocked for, not your editing disagreements. So I don't need this discussion here. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
==Rhodus==
::::Understood, the discussion has been resolved now. ] (]) 07:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Glad to help. Since ArbCom is overloaded already, what can be done with someone like this? ] 05:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


== Master? ==
:I would keep a little list of his greater annoyances, with diffs, and enter it every so often on the RfC; report the worst, like vandalizing the AfD, to ]. (I am not offering to do this, sorry; I have a True Believer of my very own to keep track of, and I want to avoid swamps like ] anyway.) ] 05:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


Hey JP, I just blocked {{noping|S344556}} as a sock. They were created two minutes after {{U|Risker}} blocked {{noping|Smart Sarno 1}} whose unblock request you declined. S344556 posted a cheeseburger to your Talk page (I reverted it), apparently a reward for your decline (smile). Anyway, who's the master? No one tags anyone. There are some others recently as well, also untagged. Thanks.--] (]) 01:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
==24.147.97.230==
:I didn't even need to check. It's a sock of Smart Sarno 1. ] (]) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that whether he is the only editor who has that view depends on how one counts sockpuppets. ] 20:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
::No, I meant who's Smart Sarno 1's master?--] (]) 01:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:59, 10 January 2025


Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.



The Signpost
24 December 2024

For older history, check as well as the archives.

Your signature

Could you fix your signature? Your talk page link has random box characters in them (which display "01D 122"). On another computer, it just comes as boxes. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I would've uploaded an image but Commons kept saying that my file name was too generic (yeah right). TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Interesting that nobody has complained in the many years I've used those four unicode characters. Hey lurkers (do I have any lurkers? hello?), are my musical characters legible? --jpgordon 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

added
readded Pppery

CheckUser changes

readded

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Galopindeschamps

You recently blocked sockpuppets of Budisgood. Now there is another brand new editor user:Galopindeschamps working on the same articles as Budisgood. I am hesitant about another sockpuppet investigation. What do you think? The Banner talk 19:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh hell yes. CU-blocked. --jpgordon 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I reverted some of 'em, could you get the rest? (Gotta run.) --jpgordon 19:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I will take care of it. The Banner talk 19:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of user:Jetelasseraidesmots. To me it screams the same level of incompetence as Budisgood. See here. The Banner talk 20:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, and another range CU-blocked. --jpgordon 21:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

User

@User:jpgordon Hi JPgordon, you recently unblocked this user User talk:Koshuri Sultan and they claimed they had improved.. Well they dropped this on the talk page over a dispute claiming me and another editor are disruptively editing...while they themself didn't actually read the discussion to see what the dispute was about. I'm not sure what would be done here, but giving you a headsup. Noorullah (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --jpgordon 18:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Ridiculous, I just pointed out how @Noorullah21 had been quoting an incomplete snippet and then misinterpreted the source, @Jpgordon they are not presenting the full picture here, please do not judge my behaviour by this. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not. All I'm concerned about in your case has to do with what you were previously blocked for, not your editing disagreements. So I don't need this discussion here. --jpgordon 06:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Understood, the discussion has been resolved now. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Master?

Hey JP, I just blocked S344556 as a sock. They were created two minutes after Risker blocked Smart Sarno 1 whose unblock request you declined. S344556 posted a cheeseburger to your Talk page (I reverted it), apparently a reward for your decline (smile). Anyway, who's the master? No one tags anyone. There are some others recently as well, also untagged. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't even need to check. It's a sock of Smart Sarno 1. Risker (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
No, I meant who's Smart Sarno 1's master?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)