| Revision as of 03:56, 13 March 2008 editMomo san (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,043 edits →IP Madness← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:30, 23 March 2008 edit undo87.122.1.86 (talk) ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Hey there, thanks for helping to build Misplaced Pages, just to let you know, you don't have to create an article for every possible spelling of your article's title. We use things called ]: just type <nowiki>#redirect ]</nowiki>, and wikipedia will automatically redirect anyone typing the wrong title to your proper article. Feel free to ask any user if you have any other problems, and good luck editing! ] 00:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. I was having a bit of difficulty getting it right. This will make things easier. | |||
| ==Al Sobrante== | |||
| The part about him leaving Green Day without telling anyone might not be true (although I suspect it is), the part about leaving the Ne'er do Wells is correct, as I was standing there when the rest of the band found out. He had been missing shows or interrupting them with long monologues and bad jokes, sometimes in mid-song and rarely showed for practice. ] 06:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| --The last time I saw John was shortly after he left Green Day, and neither him or any other members ever gave me any indication that the split was unexpected. The move to school had been planned for a long time, as I recall. In regards to the Ne'er do Wells, I really couldn't say as that was all long after the last time I saw him. So I should have left that bit in. Apologies. | |||
| ==Green Day== | |||
| I understand that you are a fanboy of the band, but please stop the POV edits to the article, you do not need to put your own bias opinion on John Lydon or Steve Diggle, let their quotes stand alone, you personally attacked Diggle by branding him as "an ignorant" is unacceptable... you have a poor grasp on ] and your Iggy Pop comment is irrelevant. - ] 06:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] | |||
| You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.</div><!-- Template:3RR5 --> <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The edits I made were discussed at length on the talk page. I'm the one restoring the page to it's accurate state, while obvious and relevant information is ignored. The originator of the alteration I reverted (Tenebrae) has already conceded the validity of my revert. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.] 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand your frustration, but ] is an official policy, and edit warring in general is discouraged. You might try following the ] in the future. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was reverting blatantly false information, AFTER giving undeniable evidence to my position. How this can be construed as anything other than the reversion of vandalism is beyond me. And reverting vandalism (even more than 3 times) is an acceptable practice. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.] 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Simply labeling your opponents' edits as "vandalism" isn't going to make you immune to the 3RR. Only reverts of ] (e.g. graffiti, link spam) are not considered to be contentious. What you and InShaneee were in is called a dispute over content, and you should ] properly. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Blanking information that is clearly accurate and relevant while justifying it with a knowingly false argument IS vandalism. In this instance, the claim that a published book is unavailable for purchase through a Google search, and therefore likely does not exist. Incorrect. A simple Google search of the title shows multiple websites where the book can be purchased. These same websites show copies of the book through photos. Photos taken from multiple perspectives. The book exists. This is both literal fact and already agreed upon through consensus, a consensus that InShaneee ignored with repeated reversions. I attempted to resolve this issue properly. You cite the rules, lets look at the rules: "significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." | |||
| :::::The reason in this case is not readily apparent, as the content has already been shown to be accurate, and due to this, the continued reasoning behind the edit was shown to be entirely frivolous. Vandalism. And reverting vandalism (even more than 3 times) is an acceptable practice. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.] 10:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There is a difference between good faith and bad faith edits. If InShaneee's edits really fit into ], there would have been no need for him to make comments on the talk page. If you feel the block is still unjustified, please try the {{tl|unblock}} template. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 10:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The determination between edits of good or bad faith must take into consideration more than a presence of a single sentence argument on a talk page. The argument made should actually addresses the FACTS as presented rather than purposefully ignore them. If InShaneee had been making an argument based on good faith, there would have been something of substance in his posts to justify his position. Someone editing in good faith will actually read and consider the argument justifying the reversion, InShaneee clearly did not. He repeatedly blanked relevant and sourced information while ignoring every valid argument presented. He ignored an existing consensus on this matter and reverted an agreed upon version of the page without discussion. Those are NOT the actions of someone editing in good faith. Vandalism. And reverting vandalism (even more than 3 times) is an acceptable practice. Please undue this blatantly absurd block immediately.] 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <<unblock|see discussion above>> | |||
| <<unblock-auto|1=24.7.84.21|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Theplanetsaturn". The reason given for Theplanetsaturn's block is: "3RR violation at Jhonen Vasquez".|3=Khoikhoi>> | |||
| :The block in question expired before the ] was able to respond to your request. Apologies. ] 09:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Personal attack on Tenebrae== | |||
| {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|With regards to your comments on ]: }}Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) --> Argumentative accusations of "hypocrite" and "liar", etc. Occurs at ] --] 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Take a close look at yourself first, Mr Journalist. Personal attacks take more forms than just name calling. You indulged in a personal attack when you made blatantly hypocritical accusations and warped my words out of context for no other reason that to assuage your damaged ego. Comment on content, not on contributors. is that not what you just said? Yet you describe me as "huffy" on multiple occasions, while ignoring my assurance that I was not. Calling you a hypocrite is accurate. You argued in a blatantly and measurably hypocritical manner. Your glass house must be getting chilly from all your casually thrown stones.] 22:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people{{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}| as you did at ]}}, you will be ] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. <!-- Template:Npa3 --> Use of: Hypocrite again. Sarcastic "Mr. Journalist" jibes. "Your glass house must be getting chilly from all your casually thrown stones." --] 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Funny. We had come to an accord and then you relaunched an aggressive attack upon me without discussion. Notice, I'm not the one escalating this to your own personal talk page. Notice, I'm not the one who acted in a hypocritical manner. I was more than happy to discuss this issue with you, instead of returning to discussion, you turned to unnecessary moderation reporting out of context quotes. Blatantly a personal attack. You want me to stop? Look to yourself first. And I'm sorry you find your self described label as a journalist offensive. Perhaps you should rethink further appeals to authority. | |||
| ] 01:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry you believe my "motives are suspect". What do you suspect? --] 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You're not applying your logic universally. You justified the removal with the argument that it does not fall under the definition of "bibliography". True enough. Yet you leave Invader Zim. So you expose either a misunderstanding of the the content or a bias against this one particular item. Even after I clarified to you the flaw in your approach, you continue to remove video from a bibliography in an inconsistent manner. Which leaves your motives "suspect". Either delete all video, leave the section as all encompassing as I have it, or use a new term of your liking. Whichever it is, apply your argument in a consistent fashion. This applies to demanding sources as well. There are many, many claims on any given Misplaced Pages page that are not sourced. You seem to be applying Wikipedias standards of sourced information only when it comes to what is unfamiliar to you.] 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or, perhaps, I didn't notice it?--] 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::That seems unlikely, as I've pointed it out long before my post above. Take a look back through the history of our exchange on this. Furthermore, why do you continue deleting the video? I've added the source information and you continue to revert.] 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Saying "That seems unlikely" is flat-out calling me a liar. I've endured your verbal attacks patiently. If you had put a proper footnote rather than an inline link, which is a deprecated form long gone out of editorial style and policy guidelines, the citation would have been more noticeable. You also could have pointed it out. Instead, you went straight to thinking the worst. That's fine. Calling me a liar is not. --] 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The only one using the word "liar" is you. Infer what you will. But to clarify, when I say that your failure to grasp the blatantly obvious as "unlikely", I'm giving you the credit for not being an idiot. If you wish to warp that somehow into the opposite, that's your business. It's really of no consequence. But for the record: You only suggest that "perhaps" you missed the information. You bring it up not as a fact, but as a possibility. I consider the possibility unlikley. And by your own words, you do not consider your own explanation definitive. Hard to call someone a "liar" when they never made a clear statment in the first place. | |||
| :::::And by all means, explain how you somehow missed this statement, as posted in the edit notes for Jhonen Vasquez: "Invader Zim does not fit the definition either, yet you did not delete that. Your motives are suspect. Address on talk page before applying deletion of relevant information." That was at 02:04, 23 January 2007. Yet when you reverted again 15:44, 23 January 2007, you repeated this error. After this, you make the claim at 21:08, 23 January 2007 that "perhaps, I didn't notice it". | |||
| :::::Seriously, how did you fail to notice it? You comment on the "Your motives are suspect" part but somehow you missed the very clear sentence preceding it? I'm sorry you find this offensive, but the concept that you missed this is very unlikely. And if you did miss it, then you have no business reverting as you're not paying enough attention to the text. You want to take offense at these issues, be my guest. But you are being incredibly indulgent in your desire to do so as I have made no comments or claims in your direction that are unwarranted.] 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Your lack of civility and good faith has been noted. Oddly enough, we collaborated fruitfully: You put in information, I formatted it properly. Since the article is up to snuff, I don't think we need to communicate any further. Have a good day.--] 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yes. Of course. You wish to step in and cast aspersions on my civility and good faith when all insults are a matter of your lack of comprehension, be my guest. Your passive aggressive nature and your failed pretense at the high road are noted as well. By all means, take your ball with you and go home.] 01:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Green Day/Invite}}<font style="arial: ridge 2px #FF0000; background-color: #000000" color=#FF0000><big>''' ] '''</b></i></font></big><sup><small>]</sup></u></small> | <sub>]</sub> 20:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tron3 400.gif)== | |||
| Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see ]). | |||
| If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you. This is an automated message from ] 16:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == '']'' "see also" link on ] == | |||
| Hi there! The reason I purged the '']'' "see also" link from ] (along with many others) is that the article made no reference to the goth subculture nor gave any sign as to why it was a significant and relevant link. If there is goth subculture content in ''Little Gloomy'' you might want to add something to the comic's article. --] 08:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks! --] 12:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mattingly== | |||
| Thanks for the information about fansites being removed from Misplaced Pages. I am unaware of this policy change. If you could supply a link to that information on Misplaced Pages I will be more than happy to follow it. | |||
| Thanks! ] 10:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Gothic Subculture == | |||
| If you have a problem with me then take it to my talk page instead of attempting to insult me. Thank you.] 13:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You have insulted me once again. Judging from some earlier posts on here it seems to be that you have had some behavior problems on Wiki before. That's fine if you disagree with my stance, but basically calling me an idiot in so many words is ridiculous and childish. You did not make a good argument for your case, instead you came across as a vindictive immature person.] 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I haven't even insulted you once. "Basically" calling you an "idiot"? I assure you, if I want to call you an idiot, I'll just call you an idiot. I didn't because I don't think you are. I credited you as genuinely believing your own perspective. But your belief IS wrong. Now, I didn't make a good argument for my case? The case that the label "goth" existed in the mid eighties? Are you serious? DO. SOME. RESEARCH. The case that the two counter cultures spring from the same well, and that the fashions do not belong to either subculture exclusively? Read the Misplaced Pages article on "Goth". I know it's a long trek from the talk page to the main article, but the information can be found within. Extrapolate. I've been taking issue with your argument and the manner you phrased it. This is not tantamount to a personal attack no matter how much it upsets you. In the meantime, you've indulged in personal attack after personal attack. "Vindictive" "Childish" "Behavior problems" "Immature". | |||
| :You've kinda lost the moral high ground buddy. "Behavior problems" indeed.] 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blah,blah,blah. You are talking hot air and I am through with you. I've done personal attacks? HA!!!!! I'm not the person who went on a tirade on the gothic subculture page. I'm not going to insult you here. Instead I'm just going to say goodbye and good luck.] 20:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're not going to insult me here, yet you belittle my argument down to "blah blah blah", you describe it as "hot air", you dismiss your culpability with "HA!!!!!" and you depict the dismissal of an erroneous and fallacious argument as a "tirade". Gee, for someone so certain they have engaged in no personal attacks, for someone who says they're "not" going to engage in insults on this page, you SURE used alot of insulting language. I get that this is the only way out for you. But if you think you're leaving with your dignity intact, reread your own words again. You came to my talk page and continued a conversation I was comfortable being through with. Now you don't like the direction it's gone in you run away with cliche language of "I am through with you"? Typically, adults walk away without a parting shot when they're done. "Behavior problems" indeed.] 21:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===3rd Sockpuppetry case against Breathtaker=== | |||
| FYI ]--] (]) 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Incivility and edit warring== | |||
| Just because another editor has behaved badly or been blocked does not give a license for ] behavior against that editor, including deliberate taunting or baiting. Edits such as are ] and unnecessary, and may lead to a ] from editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome to your perspective.] (]) 11:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The 87.122.* IP range belongs to the German ISP , so yes, you're probably right that there is a language barrier adding to the difficulties here. --] 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for letting me know. I think the user in questions English is generally quite good, but maybe there is just enough of the smaller nuances of the language adding to the frustration and confusion. Taking in mind that no one is actually trying to be difficult, I posted a suggested compromise in the talk section of Goth subculture, that I think covers both viewpoints. I welcome any opinions on the suggested revision.] 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Show.aspx.jpg== | |||
| Thanks for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at ] carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. | |||
| If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->] (]) 05:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| He managed to get the entire 87.122 node blocked for a week... thought you might find it interesting.--] (]) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == IP Madness == | |||
| Just what is going on with ]? Should this be reported at AIV? -]] 01:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :He's a persistent vandal who's been blocked many times. Yeah, it should be reported.] (]) 01:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::So I see. I reported him. :P The numbers confuse me so please report any numbers I may miss. -]] 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I've protected as many of the IP address pages that I could find for 1 month to protect from further sock abuse. Let me know if any more need to be added. <small>] | ] | ]</small> 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Based on WHOIS, it's a shared IP range (87.122.0.0 - 87.122.255.255). Maybe a request could be put in to block the range? Blocking them one by one is a tedious task. ] (]) 03:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==User page== | |||
| Thanks for the revert. ] ] 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||