| Revision as of 19:45, 22 May 2006 editJohnnyCanuck (talk | contribs)432 edits →NHLers involved in politics← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:48, 6 August 2021 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)Tag: AWB | ||
| (68 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to add your messages below. Messages that are not stamped by registered users will be deleted |
Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to add your messages below. Messages that are not stamped by registered users will be deleted --] 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==Personal Attacks== | |||
| ---- | |||
| With regards to your comments on ]: Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. ''"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users."'' Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. <!-- Template:NPA-n --> - ] 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="background:#ffffff; border:2px solid #FF0000; padding:0px 10px; margin:10px;"> | |||
| '''Number of times this page has been vandalized:''' 4 | |||
| </div> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Making no comment on the content of the edits, I'll simply note that my reversions were intended to prevent a blocked user from working the system to violate 3RR. ] 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, Johnny. I've unprotected this page and removed all previous comments. Feel free to use this nice clean sheet. Please don't use it to claim that people have "vandalized" the page, though! That's a very serious accusation and a personal attack. Please read ] to see that good-faith edits are not vandalism. It's insulting to call an editor a vandal, and it gets people's backs up, so it's important to think carefully before you do it. I hope you won't restore your "vandalism counter": to the best of my belief, this page has actually ''never'' been vandalized. Your work here will probably run a lot more smoothly if you stop using the word at all; at least, please don't use it as your favorite word for any message you don't like. | |||
| <br>If you have anything you'd like to say to me, write it on this page, I'll be watching it. If you're ready to edit more constructively, I'll unblock you. Please feel free to remove this post when you've read it. ] | ] 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC). | |||
| Responses: (i) It's possible that further relevant information could be added to the MdB page, but that doesn't justify the sort of anonymous sockpuppetry we saw today, (ii) I'm not a member of any political party. ] 02:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your Warning on my Page== | |||
| *Johnny, as you'll notice, my last edit on the IHHOF page was on , furthermore that edit was supported, and made again (after you reverted it) by an admin. Regardless, the edits for which you have accused me of vandalism can simply not be construed as such under any Misplaced Pages policy, as I was removing a mirror site that you had used as a reference. I will be removing the warning from my page, as it is wholly unsubstantiated. If you disagree with my assesment, I suggest you post your complaint at ] and a neutral admin can deal with the problem. As well, while I won't give you a formal template warning for removing my "vandal counter" from my talk page, I strongly encourage you to not remove content from my page again unless you have a good reason. Thanks. ] 17:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Never mind''', it seems that as I was writing this, an Admin already reverted your edits for me. Thanks anyways. ] 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == I'd appreciate it... == | |||
| ==Block warning== | |||
| Yes, I reverted them. Johnny, I'm sorry to see my appeal to your better side of nature fall so flat. :-( Returning from your block, your first edits were to delete Pm shef's vandalism counter on ''his'' page. Of course you're aware that you have no business deleting anything whatever on his page. And when it's to remove a feature that you've just restored on your own page, against appeals and advice — well, I'm speechless. According to your userpage you'd like to be an admin. You'll have to behave pretty differently for that ever to happen. And consider this a warning: leave Pm shef's userpages alone if you don't want to get blocked again. ] | ] 17:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ...if you wouldn't refer to my polite request as . You're welcome to remove messages from your talk page once you've read them, but there's no need to be rude. Thanks again, ](]) 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Elliott Frankl== | |||
| :Most people consider it rude to have their comments described as "non-sense". If you're unfamiliar with the user Pm_shef, you must have by mistake. | |||
| If you're not going to pursue the rewrite, then yeah, I can redo the redirect — it just wasn't appropriate to do that while the neverending AFD/DRV debate was open. If you've decided not to pursue having the new draft moved back into articlespace, let me know and I'll change the page back to a redirect. ] 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oops; my bad. I was under the impression that Pm_shef was female. Still, I think that using the name Pm_shef might have been a dead giveaway I was referring to Pm_shef. Regardless, the two of you have had run-ins before, and you're not the best person to be issuing such 'advice'. Pm_shef was reverting edits by a banned editor, which is both permitted and encouraged. | |||
| :If you have a dispute with Pm_shef over content, talk it over—but don't give unsolicited advice, and don't be rude to ''any'' other editors. A piece of friendly advice to you: don't take email suggestions from banned editors. ](]) 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Response == | |||
| : Ah, okay. Sorry if there was any confusion — back when the discussion of rewriting started, I had indicated that under the circumstances, I'd prefer if a ''neutral'' administrator, someone who hadn't already been involved in the prior dispute, was the one to make the final judgement as to whether the article was suitable or not. I'd actually ''missed'' your most recent comment that the article was done. I'll contact a neutral party to review it, but for the sake of objectivity I think I shouldn't make the final call myself since my judgement could be a bit too clouded by the way this whole dispute has taken place. ] 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *While I appreciate your opinion, as long as Mr. Debuono (sp?) continues to violate Misplaced Pages policy through his sockfarm, I will continue to ensure that articles related to Vaughan are truthful. I'll remind you that the only people to ever accuse me of bias are VaughanWatch and his socks (well, and you) - and none of them have ever been able to give an example. Until someone can show that I'm biased (which no one to this point has been able to do) I will continue to edit. Thanks again. - ] 02:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi, Bearcat mentioned that you were done with the draft of the new Elliot Frankl article. Do you want me to have a look at it? I can suggest someone else if you want. ] 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd be interested to know how you interpret my edits to MdB's page as biased. They were removing information which violated NPOV and was NN in and of itself, as other editors agreed to. My biggest problem with you lot is your nonstop claims that I'm biased, yet your inability to show us how! Anyways, regarding the race in your ward, unfortunately I don't have the patience for Toronto city politics beyond the Mayoral race (and even that tires me out). I haven't heard of any of the candidates personally, is the incumbent not running? - ] 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been banned for repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages's policies regarding ], ] and ]. As a consequence, ''no'' edit which can be proven to have been made by that user is permitted to stay in a Misplaced Pages article. It's already been quite clearly established that VW and his minions aren't interested in the neutral presentation of information; they're interested in using Misplaced Pages as a campaign tool to portray the political figures they personally disapprove of in the most negative possible light. | |||
| Mangojuice please have a look at the article and if you think it deserves an articel then put it back up or if you don't then redirect it to the vaughan election page, please note that my original account has been mistakenly blocked --] 23:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So, in a nutshell, I certainly won't be making any reversions that involve putting VW-related edits back into articles. An invalid edit is an invalid edit no matter who removes it. And I'm certainly not about to second-guess or overrule ] in this matter, either. ] 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The article is much better written and sourced than it had been. However, it makes it clear that this guy's only real claim to fame is being a candidate in a municipal election; the IHHOF thing is auxiliary, and not surprising, nor a claim of notability. ] 23:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : As for the Toronto election, the best advice I can give you is that media coverage and campaign materials should pick up in the fall. Summer's always a bit of a slow time in municipal politics — believe it or not, at this time in 2003 ] was still considered a minor also-ran candidate with approximately a snowball's chance in hell; he didn't really start surging in the polls until September. I don't live in Ward 27, either, so I couldn't tell you a thing about most of the candidates, except that Kyle Rae is seen by ''some'' people as a former progressive who's gone establishment, and is criticized sometimes on that basis — but I can't and won't ''assume'' that your political views are the same as theirs. ] 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==1, 2, 3...== | |||
| Kyle Rae is the incumbent in my area, I only moved into this area about a year ago and don't know him. The other candidates I don't know anything about. --] 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just a bit of friendly advice...you're ''really'' not doing yourself any favours by making new allegations of sockpuppetry against pm_shef while this is under debate. I'd advise you to just leave him alone and refrain from making political allegations; if you post another personal attack against him then ''I'll'' be the one to block your next new account. You can still edit your own user page and talk page from your original account; I strongly suggest you do that rather than creating another puppet account. ] 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm in ]'s ward, albeit that I could almost literally throw a stone from my building and have it land in Rae's. My prediction would be that Rae's going to win; his primary voter base these days is the wealthier parts of the riding, like Rosedale, and he's not in any danger there. He's not going to win the more politically radical segment of the gay community in ]; those votes are going to go to Susan Gapka because of her activist cred. But Rae didn't have their votes in 2003, either (they went to ]), so I really doubt he's going to lose anybody he hasn't already lost. He pretty much has a lock on the socially progressive but fiscally conservative moderates who are more or less the majority in the area (or at least the majority of likely voters). Think of him as basically the municipal version of ]. If you'd rather someone more radical, go with Gapka; if you'd rather someone more conservative, take a look at some of the other candidates when their campaign materials start showing up and see if any of them sound good to you. I don't know anything about them, either, so I couldn't really speculate. ] 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I do appreciate your advice, but false slanderous and malicious accusations coming from pm_shef and his sockpuppet must be stoped. pm_shef should be kicked off of wiki for good. He caused all the problems--] 01:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I live in the Yorkville area of the Ward, a stone's throw away from Ward 20 where ] is running. In my condo, Kyle Rae doesn't seem to be to strong here, could just be my building though. I don't know to many people in the area other than a few in my building. I thought in fact his primary voter base was the gay community by the Church and Wellesley area, isn't he gay himself? Do you know if Kyle Rae is related to ]? --] 04:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Even after everything was done and we were finalizing what to re-wrtie or re-direct the article, pm_shef continuries to try to get me blocked.--] 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Michael Di Biase== | |||
| :*If you're going to accuse me of "false slanderous and malicious accusations", please provide diffs to prove it, cause I certainly don't remember making any. And in terms of trying to get you blocked, no, I haven't, the nice administrators who reverted your vandalism to my Talk page did that. ] 01:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Please help me out against CJCurrie over at the Michael DiBiase page. He obviously doesn't know the history of this debate. He keeps deleting relevant material. ] 01:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| pm_shef, first of all most of your edits are unquestionably politically motivated and every user that disagrees with you call a sockpuppet and somehow get then blocked. How dare you keep calling me a sockpuppet and getting me blocked for no reason. I was not even invloved in the Vaughan region debates other than the one article that I was trying to clearup with bearcat but while I was doing this I got blocked again for no reason. Even out side of vaughan you make false accusations like you did on the ] debate. If you are not going to edit in good faith then you have no business being on wiki--] 02:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : 1) The information about the traffic tickets in ]’s article originally posted many months a go by a user authorized to make edits and the consensus at that time was to keep it therefore it should stay posted. It has been determined that it is very relevant (infact it is somewhat very interesting and ironic) was up for many months until it was removed by pm_shef (who on a side note has a personal connection with the subject of the article). It was then reverted by an unidentified user, who pm_shef and CJCurrie claimed to be a banned user (VaughanWatch) (although it has not been proven that it was him and I am confident that it isn’t him). Pm_shef and CJCurrie proceeded to revert these changes based on that it was made by a banned user making it an invalid edit. (the reverts were NOT made by pm_shef and CJCurrie because the info. was not relevant) Therefore if a user permitted to conduct edits reverted this to keep the info. Posted then it would have been all right. As this is very relevant to the article and very interesting and ironic it should stay up, therefore I am making the change and patrolling it to make sure it stays up. Pm_shef and CJCurrie you have to explain why this should be removed, not just remove it. | |||
| :*I'm still waiting for you to provide even one piece of evidence to back up your claims against me. If you are unable to provide such evidence, I suggest you stop making these unfounded and slanderous claims against me. - ] 02:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 2) The corporate donations issue on the Vaughan election page was originally posted by an unidentified user, who pm_shef and CJCurrie claimed to be a banned user (VaughanWatch) (although it has not been proven that it was him and I am confident that it isn’t him). Pm_shef and CJCurrie proceeded to revert these changes based on that it was made by a banned user making it an invalid edit. Therefore if a user permitted to conduct edits posted this then it would have been alright. The corporate donations to members of council is a major issue in Vaughan (I personally know and spoke with many people living in Vaughan although I don’t live there myself) As this is major issue it should be put in the article as an issue and as a user that is permitted to conduct edits I will post this as an issue with two sources one from the Toronto Star and one from York Region. --] 10:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for helping me out with this issue. ] 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Both of you, please cool it. Pm_shef: there's a difference between slander and a negative opinion. Johnny: Recently, ] and a bunch of other sockpuppet accounts were blocked as abusively used sockpuppets of ]; see ] if you want to look it up. I personally don't think you're the same user as all of those, but only you know for sure. However, the fact that you have tried to force the same edits that Leotardo and his gang did does not look good. If you stop doing it, and you get unblocked, you should be okay. ] 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation == | |||
| :::And while we're at it, Johnny: Look at ] and you'll see that checkuser has been run on pm_shef / Theonlyedge and the result was inconclusive. RFCU is very good at confirming two users are the same, and less good at confirming they're different, especially among different people who edit (for instance) from the same university. At this point, the matter is pretty well closed, and the allegations should stop. Also, if you want me to post an RFCU on you vs. VaughanWatch, use the Misplaced Pages email feature to email me and I'll do it. ] 03:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Not at all maliciously. I added your name simply because I have, since it all began, come into conflict with you a number of times. My goal with the mediation is to attempt to resolve the conflict, included in that is resolving disagreements I have had with you. Please understand its simply a matter of being thorough, it's not an attack or anything. - ] 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Mangojuice, first things first. I would first like to get the Frankl article cleared up before anything either a redirect or relisted, your choice. Please do a RFCU on me against VaughanWatch or any other user for that matter. I can't understand how pm_shef and his sockpuppet theonlyedge gets away with the things they do on here. Just becasue I disagree with pm_shefs politially motivated edits does not mean I am a sockpuppet, unlike pm_shef, I edit in good faith, look through all my past edits. --] 04:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| :I made it a redirect; as I said above, I don't think Elliot Frankl is notable enough; he's only a municipal election candidate, and his being on the board of the IHHOF doesn't change that. I'll put up an RFCU on you vs. VaughanWatch; they probably won't blanket-check you for no good reason. As for pm_shef and Theonlyedge, I was maybe not being direct enough. They're not sockpuppets, RFCU has confirmed this as much as is possible, so please stop calling them sockpuppets of each other. ] 04:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Please note I have removed the suspected sock tag from your UserPage Johnny. Forgive James, he wasn't around for the original Request for Comment and CheckUser case where your name was cleared. - ] 00:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Whoops. It seems my revert was a tad hasty. I double checked the earlier CheckUser and it seems you were deemed a "likely" sock by CheckUser . My mistake, I've put the tag back up. - ] 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Removal of sockpuppet tag=== | |||
| :*Good Faith Johnny? You continue to accuse me of bias, political motivations, personal attacks, and some unknown power that gets users i dont like blocked and yet you ''still'' haven't shown any proof. - ] 04:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please do not remove the sockpuppet tag from your userpage. See ] for your options. Feel free to comment on this accusation on ]. Further removal of this tag will be considered ] for improper use of dispute tags and you will be blocked. -- ] 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have blocked you for 3 hours for removing it again. I have kept is short to give you a moment to cool down. Please do not remove it again. See the links above. If you have evidence that you are not a sockpuppet, then please comment on the dispute page noted. -- ] 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your threat == | |||
| Pm_shef had ''nothing'' to do with your blocking; Curps was methodically blocking ]'s '''50''' (so far) known sockpuppets and possibly blocked you in error in the process. Pm_shef had no involvement in the matter at all. And they weren't blocked because people made ''assumptions'' just because they disagreed with pm_shef; the sysops with checkuser privileges ''actually confirmed'' that those 50 nicks were all connected to the same IP. | |||
| *Might I remind you that while you continue to hurl baseless accusations at me, it was '''you''' not me, that was labelled a "likely sockpuppet" by CheckUser while none of you have been able to provide even a shred of evidence or proof to back up any of your numerous accusations against me - ] 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| To review the larger situation, about 10 administrators have gotten involved in the process so far, and '''not a single one of us''' has viewed pm_shef as the primary problem in the matter. Which isn't to say he's been perfect; he ''has'' been warned a couple of times to be careful or to change his behaviour. But in constant monitoring of the situation by 10 different administrators, not one person judged pm_shef to have committed a blockable offense. And it's not because any of us were biased — this was overseen by editors who have ''no vested interest'' in or knowledge of Vaughan politics, meaning that all we could go on was what we could ''see'' people doing ''on Misplaced Pages''. And on that basis, VaughanWatch and his puppets were clearly the ones being disruptive and biased. | |||
| I have read your comment on your user page. Again, if you feel you have been wrongfully accused, please comment on it here: ]. If you are innocent, please be calm, and everything should be cleared up in due time. I have personally not seen any evidence that pm_shef has done anything to warrant an indefinite block. On the contrary, I believe he has been handling himself very well given the serious activity of the proven and suspected sock puppets. -- ] 23:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| And as for the current shef/edge sockpuppetry allegations, the checkuser team ''didn't'' find any compelling proof that they were the same person, and the whole thing is based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence and selective application of facts. The fact that the overlap in their edit histories happened to coincide with the articles that were already under dispute, for example, entirely misses the fact that outside of the disputed overlap, Edge's edits have mostly been related to business, the military, European politics and iPods, while shef's have overwhelmingly been education-related — meaning that even their fields of interest aren't really all that similar once you get away from ] politicians (a topic which, after all, has a potential audience of about ''five million'' or so.) And there are times when they were both editing at the ''same time'', which would take almost superhuman feats of skill if they were the same person. There ''really'' hasn't been that much behaviour from either of them that would ping an experienced administrator's warning bells. | |||
| *I support ]. This will probably get me labelled a sockpuppet. ] must have the record for accusing people of being sockpuppets. Luckily, I beat his charges of sockpuppetry in the past. He actually admitted he was wrong and apolgized. This is something I would never do for him. His constant crying has given everybody headaches. He should be banned indefinitely from posting about anything Vaughan-related. He has taken a break from it in the last few days, however, as soon as I make another edit, he will certainly resurface. I have long suspected he had a few sockpuppets. ] is certainly a suspect. The thing is, I don't have time to press charges and pursue like Shefman does. ] 01:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I do stand by what I said originally: I don't think you're a sockpuppet of VaughanWatch. But you ''have'' let yourself be used by VW in a way that made at least one administrator ''think'' you were one, and you ''really'' need to accept responsibility for that. And if you're genuinely interested in becoming a Misplaced Pages administrator yourself, I hope you're able to learn from the experience so that the next time a dispute of this type comes up, you're able to be more neutral and less likely to fall in line with people who are being disruptive. | |||
| :*CheckUser has confirmed that I do not have any sockpuppets. Do not make accusations that you cannot back up. - ] 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *You are in the business of making accusations you don't back up as it concerns these sockpuppets. ] 17:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disagreements are not vandalism== | |||
| I'm pretty confident that checkuser will clear your name, and before this whole thing began you did make some pretty valuable contributions relating to hockey (''I'' sure as hell didn't know ] had been an ]!), so I'm willing to unblock you on the following condition: there will be ''no'' further edits from you to either shef's or edge's user pages, or their talk pages, and ''no'' more allegations of sockpuppetry or bias in regards to ''either'' of them. If you have a legitimate concern about an edit by either one of them, raise it with a neutral administrator, and ''we'' will review the situation and deal with it as appropriate. If you're willing to abide by that, I'll happily lift the editblock, but if you post ''any'' further personal attacks — or if checkuser comes back with a surprise — then the block goes back on. | |||
| Please stop referring to other people's edits as vandalism just because you disagree with them. ]|] 22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *He is not a sockpuppet. ] should be banned for his baseless accusation of this guy. ] 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*CheckUser disagrees with you. And ya know, they're a tad more credible. -- ] 00:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *OK, to clear this up. Post exactly where CHECKUSER agrees that this guy IS a sockpuppet. Please show me, because I'm new to things like this. Assume good faith and show me. ] 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*On the VaughanWatch case page at CheckUser ], at the very bottom, Mackensen lists him as a '''Likely''' sock. -- ] 00:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Likely does not mean confirmed. ] 00:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*Right, but it means there's a better chance that he is one than not. I never said he was confirmed. Either way, we probably shouldn't be having this discussion on someone's talk page other than our own... -- ] 01:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] does not mind. He asked me to help him out so I am. ] 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Be calm== | |||
| So whaddaya say — is it a deal you can live with? ] 06:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *After you are proven not to be a sockpuppet, ] will lose a good deal of credibility. He has already unsuccessfully accussed me of sockpuppetry. From what I've read, he doesn't have any more evidence that you are a sockpuppet. Admins are saying that it appears you could be based on what you write, but that doesn't hold any water. They can't fully say you are a sockpuppet and you will have your name cleared. ] 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==You have been blocked== | |||
| 1) Mangojuice, the redirect you did was the incorrect spelling you redirected ] should have been (two t’s) ] (the deletion page is still up under this correct spelling) | |||
| Please read this message carefully. I am nonplussed that you should tell me on my talkpage that you cannot understand a message that says "''Don't place unwarranted warning templates. If you're not sure of the difference, simply don't place warning templates at all. Stay completely away from pm_shef's page. This is an official warning: don't do any of that stuff or you will be blocked.''" I really don't know how to put it any more clearly. Which part was hard? You have continued to edit war on pm_shef's page, re-placed the "vandalism" template, and removed my explicit warning that '''you will be blocked if you do that''' as "nonsense". You have been blocked for 24 hours. If you continue this behavior after the block expires you will be blocked for longer. I hope this message is clear. Don't remove it. If you do, I will protect this page so only admins can edit it.] | ] 18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC). | |||
| 2) Bearcat, I’m not even on wiki that often, I was on for the past few days to try to clearup the frankl article. My knowledge of Vaughan politics is limited but I am involved in politics in general as well as hockey and have heard many many stories of whats going on in Vaughan region and heard stories how shefman was elected but I won't go in to that. Its just a matter of time before the truth comes out in the media. But I really don’t care, the only article that I contributed to from Vaughan was the frankl article and the only reason I contributed to this article is because I was contacted by eyeovaughan to add info. to the frankl article as he saw I kept the IHHOF article updated with frankl as a director. | |||
| 3) Bearcat, I was blocked because pm_shef keeps saying I am a sockpuppet, listing me in some list of eyeonvaughan/vaughanwatch list of sockpuppets. If you really want I could compile a list of pm_shef violations and I am convinced that theonlyedge is his sockpuppet. | |||
| 4) Bearcat, it’s a deal! I won’t edit pm_shef/theonlyedge pages anymore and I won’t accuse them of sockpuppetry unless you want me to compile a list as I mentioned above. If you could get me unblocked as soon as possible that would be great.--"Good Faith Johnny"] 07:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Blanking== | |||
| : Okay, I've unblocked you for now. I'd actually prefer if you ''didn't'' compile me a big list of evidence that shef and edge are sockpuppets of each other. For your own sake as well as everyone else's, it'd really be best if you stay as clear of that whole mess as possible, because you may get yourself into trouble again if you start going down that road. I'm sure if one of them does something wrong it'll come to our attention somehow anyway. ] 07:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please don't spam your talk page with the same message over and over again. You are welcome to write such things, but there is no need to add it again and again. Doing so will have your talk page protected. ]]]|] 12:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| : And I've applied the redirect to the correct double-t spelling. ] 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ] (]) 19:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mensa Members== | |||
| I responded to your comment about Mensa Members on my own page so the discussion would all be in one place. ] 08:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==False Accusations== | |||
| They're not just saying that you're a sockpuppet of vaughanwatch, but others too. Go to the . 02:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == International Hockey Hall of Fame== | |||
| Hello, and ]! We appreciate your contributions to the ] article, but we cannot accept ] text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at ]. Happy editing!<!-- Template:Nothanks --> ] 05:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What are you referring to?--] 06:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| JamesTeterenko, If you feel there is a copyright problem please follow proper procedure, what you are doing is considered vandalism--] 06:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I followed the instructions on ] quite closely. Listing a page as a possible copyright violation is not vandalism. If you disagree with my assessment, you can discuss it on the copyright violation page. If you are going to accuse me of vandalism, you should read ] to understand it a bit better. -- ] 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You are not supposed to take down the page--] 06:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The very first instruction is "Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can." That is exactly what I did. -- ] 06:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please be specific on the copyright problems, you have not stated that--] 06:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :, which is the basis of the pre-reverted article, is filled with text that is nearly identical to the information on the web site. As an example, the section "Future Explansion" is a nearly verbatim copy of . The only thing that is different is that you changed it from being written in the first persion (e.g. "We are...") to being written in the third person (e.g. "The International Hockey Hall of Fame and Museum is...") -- ] 06:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::JohnnyCanuck, could you please try to argue with people without accusing them of "vandalism"? As you've been repeatedly told, calling good-faith edits vandalism is a personal attack. Personal attacks poison the wiki climate. Try to find different, better, words to express disagreement. Please. ] | ] 06:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC). | |||
| *Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages under the ], which states that nobody may ] an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the ''effect'' of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.<!-- Template:3RR --> Please note both you and ] have been warned. - ] 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == NHLers involved in politics == | |||
| you could add ] to your list of NHLers that went into politics. Stastny won the 2004 federal election in Slovakia as a ] candidate --] 03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the message, I did not know that!--] 19:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:48, 6 August 2021
Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to add your messages below. Messages that are not stamped by registered users will be deleted --JohnnyCanuck 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal Attacks
With regards to your comments on User Talk:Bearcat#Question: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. - pm_shef 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Making no comment on the content of the edits, I'll simply note that my reversions were intended to prevent a blocked user from working the system to violate 3RR. CJCurrie 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Responses: (i) It's possible that further relevant information could be added to the MdB page, but that doesn't justify the sort of anonymous sockpuppetry we saw today, (ii) I'm not a member of any political party. CJCurrie 02:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it...
...if you wouldn't refer to my polite request as "non-sense". You're welcome to remove messages from your talk page once you've read them, but there's no need to be rude. Thanks again, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Most people consider it rude to have their comments described as "non-sense". If you're unfamiliar with the user Pm_shef, you must have left a message warning her not to edit certain pages by mistake.
- Oops; my bad. I was under the impression that Pm_shef was female. Still, I think that using the name Pm_shef might have been a dead giveaway I was referring to Pm_shef. Regardless, the two of you have had run-ins before, and you're not the best person to be issuing such 'advice'. Pm_shef was reverting edits by a banned editor, which is both permitted and encouraged.
- If you have a dispute with Pm_shef over content, talk it over—but don't give unsolicited advice, and don't be rude to any other editors. A piece of friendly advice to you: don't take email suggestions from banned editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Response
- While I appreciate your opinion, as long as Mr. Debuono (sp?) continues to violate Misplaced Pages policy through his sockfarm, I will continue to ensure that articles related to Vaughan are truthful. I'll remind you that the only people to ever accuse me of bias are VaughanWatch and his socks (well, and you) - and none of them have ever been able to give an example. Until someone can show that I'm biased (which no one to this point has been able to do) I will continue to edit. Thanks again. - pm_shef 02:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to know how you interpret my edits to MdB's page as biased. They were removing information which violated NPOV and was NN in and of itself, as other editors agreed to. My biggest problem with you lot is your nonstop claims that I'm biased, yet your inability to show us how! Anyways, regarding the race in your ward, unfortunately I don't have the patience for Toronto city politics beyond the Mayoral race (and even that tires me out). I haven't heard of any of the candidates personally, is the incumbent not running? - pm_shef 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
User:VaughanWatch has been banned for repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages's policies regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and sockpuppets. As a consequence, no edit which can be proven to have been made by that user is permitted to stay in a Misplaced Pages article. It's already been quite clearly established that VW and his minions aren't interested in the neutral presentation of information; they're interested in using Misplaced Pages as a campaign tool to portray the political figures they personally disapprove of in the most negative possible light.
So, in a nutshell, I certainly won't be making any reversions that involve putting VW-related edits back into articles. An invalid edit is an invalid edit no matter who removes it. And I'm certainly not about to second-guess or overrule User:CJCurrie in this matter, either. Bearcat 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- As for the Toronto election, the best advice I can give you is that media coverage and campaign materials should pick up in the fall. Summer's always a bit of a slow time in municipal politics — believe it or not, at this time in 2003 David Miller was still considered a minor also-ran candidate with approximately a snowball's chance in hell; he didn't really start surging in the polls until September. I don't live in Ward 27, either, so I couldn't tell you a thing about most of the candidates, except that Kyle Rae is seen by some people as a former progressive who's gone establishment, and is criticized sometimes on that basis — but I can't and won't assume that your political views are the same as theirs. Bearcat 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Kyle Rae is the incumbent in my area, I only moved into this area about a year ago and don't know him. The other candidates I don't know anything about. --JohnnyCanuck 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm in Pam McConnell's ward, albeit that I could almost literally throw a stone from my building and have it land in Rae's. My prediction would be that Rae's going to win; his primary voter base these days is the wealthier parts of the riding, like Rosedale, and he's not in any danger there. He's not going to win the more politically radical segment of the gay community in Church and Wellesley; those votes are going to go to Susan Gapka because of her activist cred. But Rae didn't have their votes in 2003, either (they went to Enza Anderson), so I really doubt he's going to lose anybody he hasn't already lost. He pretty much has a lock on the socially progressive but fiscally conservative moderates who are more or less the majority in the area (or at least the majority of likely voters). Think of him as basically the municipal version of Bill Graham. If you'd rather someone more radical, go with Gapka; if you'd rather someone more conservative, take a look at some of the other candidates when their campaign materials start showing up and see if any of them sound good to you. I don't know anything about them, either, so I couldn't really speculate. Bearcat 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I live in the Yorkville area of the Ward, a stone's throw away from Ward 20 where Adam Vaughan is running. In my condo, Kyle Rae doesn't seem to be to strong here, could just be my building though. I don't know to many people in the area other than a few in my building. I thought in fact his primary voter base was the gay community by the Church and Wellesley area, isn't he gay himself? Do you know if Kyle Rae is related to Bob Rae? --JohnnyCanuck 04:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Michael Di Biase
- Please help me out against CJCurrie over at the Michael DiBiase page. He obviously doesn't know the history of this debate. He keeps deleting relevant material. ED209 01:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1) The information about the traffic tickets in Michael Di Biase’s article originally posted many months a go by a user authorized to make edits and the consensus at that time was to keep it therefore it should stay posted. It has been determined that it is very relevant (infact it is somewhat very interesting and ironic) was up for many months until it was removed by pm_shef (who on a side note has a personal connection with the subject of the article). It was then reverted by an unidentified user, who pm_shef and CJCurrie claimed to be a banned user (VaughanWatch) (although it has not been proven that it was him and I am confident that it isn’t him). Pm_shef and CJCurrie proceeded to revert these changes based on that it was made by a banned user making it an invalid edit. (the reverts were NOT made by pm_shef and CJCurrie because the info. was not relevant) Therefore if a user permitted to conduct edits reverted this to keep the info. Posted then it would have been all right. As this is very relevant to the article and very interesting and ironic it should stay up, therefore I am making the change and patrolling it to make sure it stays up. Pm_shef and CJCurrie you have to explain why this should be removed, not just remove it.
2) The corporate donations issue on the Vaughan election page was originally posted by an unidentified user, who pm_shef and CJCurrie claimed to be a banned user (VaughanWatch) (although it has not been proven that it was him and I am confident that it isn’t him). Pm_shef and CJCurrie proceeded to revert these changes based on that it was made by a banned user making it an invalid edit. Therefore if a user permitted to conduct edits posted this then it would have been alright. The corporate donations to members of council is a major issue in Vaughan (I personally know and spoke with many people living in Vaughan although I don’t live there myself) As this is major issue it should be put in the article as an issue and as a user that is permitted to conduct edits I will post this as an issue with two sources one from the Toronto Star and one from York Region. --JohnnyCanuck 10:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping me out with this issue. ED209 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
- Not at all maliciously. I added your name simply because I have, since it all began, come into conflict with you a number of times. My goal with the mediation is to attempt to resolve the conflict, included in that is resolving disagreements I have had with you. Please understand its simply a matter of being thorough, it's not an attack or anything. - pm_shef 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/VaughanWatch for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. JamesTeterenko 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please note I have removed the suspected sock tag from your UserPage Johnny. Forgive James, he wasn't around for the original Request for Comment and CheckUser case where your name was cleared. - pm_shef 00:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops. It seems my revert was a tad hasty. I double checked the earlier CheckUser and it seems you were deemed a "likely" sock by CheckUser . My mistake, I've put the tag back up. - pm_shef 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Removal of sockpuppet tag
Please do not remove the sockpuppet tag from your userpage. See Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect for your options. Feel free to comment on this accusation on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/VaughanWatch. Further removal of this tag will be considered Vandalism for improper use of dispute tags and you will be blocked. -- JamesTeterenko 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have blocked you for 3 hours for removing it again. I have kept is short to give you a moment to cool down. Please do not remove it again. See the links above. If you have evidence that you are not a sockpuppet, then please comment on the dispute page noted. -- JamesTeterenko 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Your threat
- Might I remind you that while you continue to hurl baseless accusations at me, it was you not me, that was labelled a "likely sockpuppet" by CheckUser while none of you have been able to provide even a shred of evidence or proof to back up any of your numerous accusations against me - pm_shef 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have read your comment on your user page. Again, if you feel you have been wrongfully accused, please comment on it here: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/VaughanWatch. If you are innocent, please be calm, and everything should be cleared up in due time. I have personally not seen any evidence that pm_shef has done anything to warrant an indefinite block. On the contrary, I believe he has been handling himself very well given the serious activity of the proven and suspected sock puppets. -- JamesTeterenko 23:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I support user:JohnnyCanuck. This will probably get me labelled a sockpuppet. user:pm_shef must have the record for accusing people of being sockpuppets. Luckily, I beat his charges of sockpuppetry in the past. He actually admitted he was wrong and apolgized. This is something I would never do for him. His constant crying has given everybody headaches. He should be banned indefinitely from posting about anything Vaughan-related. He has taken a break from it in the last few days, however, as soon as I make another edit, he will certainly resurface. I have long suspected he had a few sockpuppets. user:theonlyedge is certainly a suspect. The thing is, I don't have time to press charges and pursue like Shefman does. ED209 01:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- CheckUser has confirmed that I do not have any sockpuppets. Do not make accusations that you cannot back up. - pm_shef 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are in the business of making accusations you don't back up as it concerns these sockpuppets. ED209 17:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagreements are not vandalism
Please stop referring to other people's edits as vandalism just because you disagree with them. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- He is not a sockpuppet. user:pm_shef should be banned for his baseless accusation of this guy. ED209 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- CheckUser disagrees with you. And ya know, they're a tad more credible. -- pm_shef 00:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, to clear this up. Post exactly where CHECKUSER agrees that this guy IS a sockpuppet. Please show me, because I'm new to things like this. Assume good faith and show me. ED209 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- On the VaughanWatch case page at CheckUser Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/VaughanWatch, at the very bottom, Mackensen lists him as a Likely sock. -- pm_shef 00:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Likely does not mean confirmed. ED209 00:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Right, but it means there's a better chance that he is one than not. I never said he was confirmed. Either way, we probably shouldn't be having this discussion on someone's talk page other than our own... -- pm_shef 01:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- user:JohnnyCanuck does not mind. He asked me to help him out so I am. ED209 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Be calm
- After you are proven not to be a sockpuppet, user:pm_shef will lose a good deal of credibility. He has already unsuccessfully accussed me of sockpuppetry. From what I've read, he doesn't have any more evidence that you are a sockpuppet. Admins are saying that it appears you could be based on what you write, but that doesn't hold any water. They can't fully say you are a sockpuppet and you will have your name cleared. ED209 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked
Please read this message carefully. I am nonplussed that you should tell me on my talkpage that you cannot understand a message that says "Don't place unwarranted warning templates. If you're not sure of the difference, simply don't place warning templates at all. Stay completely away from pm_shef's page. This is an official warning: don't do any of that stuff or you will be blocked." I really don't know how to put it any more clearly. Which part was hard? You have continued to edit war on pm_shef's page, re-placed the "vandalism" template, and removed my explicit warning that you will be blocked if you do that as "nonsense". You have been blocked for 24 hours. If you continue this behavior after the block expires you will be blocked for longer. I hope this message is clear. Don't remove it. If you do, I will protect this page so only admins can edit it.Bishonen | talk 18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC).
Blanking
Please don't spam your talk page with the same message over and over again. You are welcome to write such things, but there is no need to add it again and again. Doing so will have your talk page protected. Iolakana| 12:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Nomination of Statue of Responsibility for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Statue of Responsibility is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Statue of Responsibility (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tophtucker (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)