| Revision as of 05:23, 16 January 2007 editErik (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers100,616 edits →Myspace← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:36, 16 January 2007 edit undoErik (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers100,616 edits →MyspaceNext edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| ::After talking to Raul654 (see ]), he's recommended having an admin add valid Myspace blogs to ]. Know any admins that are helpful with film articles? —] (] • ]) - 05:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | ::After talking to Raul654 (see ]), he's recommended having an admin add valid Myspace blogs to ]. Know any admins that are helpful with film articles? —] (] • ]) - 05:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::I've requested the action of him. —] (] • ]) - 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:36, 16 January 2007
Welcome!
THIS IS MY USER TALK. IF YOU VANDALIZE IT, I WILL REVERT THE VANDALISM. AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES. HITTING MY TALK WITH 'CEASE AND DESIST' VANDALISM WARNINGS FOR UNDOING YOUR BAD INFO, OR YOUR OWN VANDALISM, WILL ALSO BE REVERTED.
NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM.
Hello, ThuranX, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 Archives |
70.232.140.196
Thanks. Not only is he NOT me, I've already reverted his bizarre little freakout essay. Thanks for being on the watch, I've already reported him to the admin who blocked his other IP. ThuranX 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- It appears you've already beat me to the revert, and we edit conflicted... but i didnt' get the EdCon notice... anyways, he's gone way over 3RR on the Heroes page, pretending to be an NBC lawyer. We definitely need admin intervention. Cna you step in, or should I go to AIV? thank you. ThuranX 22:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP address for some time to stop further disruption. Asterion 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re. Marzipan. Yes, you are right. I should have clarified this to him/her. Thanks for helping out. Asterion 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sock
Looks like Asterion already blocked him/her. What is the story with that IP? Ace Class Shadow (talk · contribs) is on my watchlist (because of the naming conventions ArbCom case) and his pages were hit a few times today. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I have semiprotected your user and talk pages. I will review this in a few days or as soon as you are confident there will be no more disruption. Hope this helps. Asterion 22:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks B
I see you've really had my back this week, as usual. Thanks. I don't think I have much to worry about if I start to conduct mysekf more professionally. No more "Crazy ACS" for a while...*sigh*. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
User deleting links from references
Regarding 71.231.107.188 (talk · contribs), whose edits it appears you rolled back today because he was deleting a lot of dead links from pages' reference sections: I'm just wondering why it's such a problem that he was deleting dead links. Now what we have are a LOT of articles with dead links to yahoo news that he spent a lot of time deleting - there are few citations to be found, simply blue text that says "Yahoo news report" that leads to a 404 page. I totally understand the reasoning behind not deleting viable citations simply because the url no longer works, but it seems like what he was doing (at least, in the most recent edits) was valuable grunt work, and he was repaid by having his changes reversed wholesale. Thanks-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- First, there was an AN/I against him for his actions, so I'm not the only one who found his behavior odd. Second, he used misleading edit summaries. If you actually look, he dropped wikilinks, sentences, and so on. If he found a yahoo citation, and that was dead, he seems to have deleted the relevant information too. Further, Citations aren't supposed to be deleted just because the link location may have changed. there's more info on AN/I on this, I recommend taking a look there. ThuranX 06:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I came to this from AN/I - is there anything else besides the one user's request that someone block the IP? I did not notice the other changes the editor made to the articles, if that's true your reverts are more understandable, but my original question still stands. Is it bad to delete a dead link if all that gets deleted is that - a dead link, not a larger citation etc? Also, if the link is dead and the info is no longer accessible in any way (including any way that would be facilitated by having a full citation), is it such a problem to delete the text that depended on that link as its source? I don't have a particular feeling on this either way, I am just wondering. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Check his talk, you'll see links to the FUTON bias pages. I recommend reading them. THe principle is that while the rapidly accessible links at yahoo.com and cnn.com may change, the story is still there. It's far more helpful to wikipedia for him to relink the citation to the correct story instead of use a bot to find dead yahoo.com links and remove them and associated context. I am also concerned because if his does this with Yahoo, he can nxt do it to any other site. We have no way of gauging this user's biases, either. How can we tell if he's doing this in a general, NPOV manner, merely hitting major news carriers, or if he next intends to hit CNN.com, The New Yorker's site, and then Mother Jones? or hitting links to The Economist, the WSJ, and FOX? Either way, this is an amazingly subtle and high volume way to subtly push an agenda of removing newslinks which may cater to, in writing style, some political leaning or other. By removing a link instead of relinking, he can simply remove a percieved potential bias. ThuranX 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I read all the relevant stuff, I don't comment on things if I don't know what's going on:) So, what you're saying is, when a link like this goes dead, the story is still there just at a different link, so what a user should do is fix the link rather than delete it. Is this always the case? Does yahoo news actually archive every news story that ever passes across its voluminous pages? Also, I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that this might be political POV pushing, as we should assume good faith of this user (although if he is using truly misleading edit summaries, that's not in his favor.)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- To be clear, I admitted already that I can't be sure he's doing anything wrong; that it's the potential for anyone to misuse this behavior which concerns me. I certainly think he's doing this in good faith; but the next person? Finally, I think that even if the yahoo story's been lost, most of them are from the AP, UPI, Reuters, and the other wire services, and can be found elsewhere. It's slower going, but if the editor doesn't want to do it, the article's context provides enough for a reader to search for the article in question. removing the citation instead means that any such info in the article can be removed as lacking citation, another way in for POV. It is far better to leave a citation in, to demonstrate that the item was cited at one point, and other editors should AGF about the cite, and work to replace it. Again, look at the user's talk page. I'm not the only one concerned abou this. ThuranX 16:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I read all the relevant stuff, I don't comment on things if I don't know what's going on:) So, what you're saying is, when a link like this goes dead, the story is still there just at a different link, so what a user should do is fix the link rather than delete it. Is this always the case? Does yahoo news actually archive every news story that ever passes across its voluminous pages? Also, I am somewhat skeptical of the claim that this might be political POV pushing, as we should assume good faith of this user (although if he is using truly misleading edit summaries, that's not in his favor.)--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Check his talk, you'll see links to the FUTON bias pages. I recommend reading them. THe principle is that while the rapidly accessible links at yahoo.com and cnn.com may change, the story is still there. It's far more helpful to wikipedia for him to relink the citation to the correct story instead of use a bot to find dead yahoo.com links and remove them and associated context. I am also concerned because if his does this with Yahoo, he can nxt do it to any other site. We have no way of gauging this user's biases, either. How can we tell if he's doing this in a general, NPOV manner, merely hitting major news carriers, or if he next intends to hit CNN.com, The New Yorker's site, and then Mother Jones? or hitting links to The Economist, the WSJ, and FOX? Either way, this is an amazingly subtle and high volume way to subtly push an agenda of removing newslinks which may cater to, in writing style, some political leaning or other. By removing a link instead of relinking, he can simply remove a percieved potential bias. ThuranX 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I came to this from AN/I - is there anything else besides the one user's request that someone block the IP? I did not notice the other changes the editor made to the articles, if that's true your reverts are more understandable, but my original question still stands. Is it bad to delete a dead link if all that gets deleted is that - a dead link, not a larger citation etc? Also, if the link is dead and the info is no longer accessible in any way (including any way that would be facilitated by having a full citation), is it such a problem to delete the text that depended on that link as its source? I don't have a particular feeling on this either way, I am just wondering. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Mary Goldsmith
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Mary Goldsmith, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Carabinieri 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Henry Ford
Thanks yr msg. Is there grounds for commencing an arbitration proceeding? This is a longstanding problem. Also you should lodge a 3RR if warranted. I saw in an edit summary a threat to do so. Don't threaten. Do it. --Mantanmoreland 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- yikes! sorry for posting in wrong spot. You should get an e-mail address, by the way.--Mantanmoreland 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I probably should, but I geek out enough on WP as it is. Getting Email updates about it would probably incapacitate me, LOL. As for the 3RR, I decided that giving him the opportunity to self-revert something which is a borderline situation would be better than running for an admin. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem interested in working with anyone, and as you may recall, he wasn't interested last time he tried this either.ThuranX 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's easy to add an email address, and I highly recommend it. As for Henry, I went back to the page and I see that the identical battles as previously are being refought. Given the protracted nature of this thing, you really have to follow the rules and go step-by-step in the dispute res process. --Mantanmoreland 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's not worth it. Things like this make me stick to simple articles on Misplaced Pages. I'm wasting my day off arguing with a neo-nazi about whether or not Henry Ford was or wasn't one of many influences on Hitler, which he admits over and over in talk but seeks to remove from the article. The less I have to deal with him, the better, and I've already walked away from it. I'm tired of it. He won't reply with answers, he just deliberately misreads everything said to him, picks the best way to make it a fight, and goes with it. I've already stated there that I won't waste any more time with it. ThuranX 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Might be better to stick it through for a short while, as other outside editors take a look at it.--Mantanmoreland 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- there are no other editors looking at it. He's making personal attacks and gettign away with it. I'm tired of it. ThuranX 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that does not help his case. What makes you say other editors aren't looking at it? I am.--Mantanmoreland 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've left him a final warning, revert or strikethrough, or else be reported. He hasn't replied. We'll see. As for who is and is not watching, no one other than BenBurch, an account under investigation for sockpuppetry, are opposing him. I'm tired, and have work to do. I'm out. we'll see what happens. ThuranX 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that does not help his case. What makes you say other editors aren't looking at it? I am.--Mantanmoreland 19:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- there are no other editors looking at it. He's making personal attacks and gettign away with it. I'm tired of it. ThuranX 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Might be better to stick it through for a short while, as other outside editors take a look at it.--Mantanmoreland 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's not worth it. Things like this make me stick to simple articles on Misplaced Pages. I'm wasting my day off arguing with a neo-nazi about whether or not Henry Ford was or wasn't one of many influences on Hitler, which he admits over and over in talk but seeks to remove from the article. The less I have to deal with him, the better, and I've already walked away from it. I'm tired of it. He won't reply with answers, he just deliberately misreads everything said to him, picks the best way to make it a fight, and goes with it. I've already stated there that I won't waste any more time with it. ThuranX 18:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's easy to add an email address, and I highly recommend it. As for Henry, I went back to the page and I see that the identical battles as previously are being refought. Given the protracted nature of this thing, you really have to follow the rules and go step-by-step in the dispute res process. --Mantanmoreland 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I probably should, but I geek out enough on WP as it is. Getting Email updates about it would probably incapacitate me, LOL. As for the 3RR, I decided that giving him the opportunity to self-revert something which is a borderline situation would be better than running for an admin. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem interested in working with anyone, and as you may recall, he wasn't interested last time he tried this either.ThuranX 18:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Myspace
I've been dealing with the blog.myspace.com issue as of late. One citation (Jon Favreau's Myspace blog) was removed from Iron Man, and when I restored it, I found myself discussing the issue with Wizardry Dragon. He's currently up for RfA now, and there's some brief discussion about the blog.myspace.com issue. Apparently, Raul654 added it to the spam blacklist, so I've contacted him to see what this was about, as some Myspace blogs are valid for usage. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- yeah, regretably, apparently, Jimbo Wales decided MySpace is out. When the owner says no, you can't argue. First evidence of the 'cabal' I've ever actually seen. I've asked about a way to appeal this, in light of the magazines discussing Piven and Story's intent to involve fans. I'm hoping that demonstrating that these two blogs, at least, contain enough valid content to be worth ban waivers or just a reversal. MySpace is too big and complicated to use a blanket yes/no. I'm hoping that there may be SOME way to introduce a discussion, but on the other hand, it might just get me permabanned for arguing with Jimbo. ThuranX 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- After talking to Raul654 (see User talk:Raul654#Myspace), he's recommended having an admin add valid Myspace blogs to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Know any admins that are helpful with film articles? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've requested the action of him. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)