Revision as of 17:03, 24 June 2007 view sourcePi Delport (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,053 edits →Star (disambiguation): disambiguation pages disambiguate titles← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:35, 24 June 2007 view source Ryulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits talk it to other talk pagesNext edit → | ||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:There are plenty of other pages that could use your enthusiasm. Just write about wrestling that doesn't involve the PCW.—] (<font color="gold">竜龍</font>) 07:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | :There are plenty of other pages that could use your enthusiasm. Just write about wrestling that doesn't involve the PCW.—] (<font color="gold">竜龍</font>) 07:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
::Still, I would reconsider the words you use in your warning. you said, 'if you solely edit concerning PCW' - we have lots of users who only edit on one subject, and its not disruptive. The words you used didn't match what I thought was your intent, which I expect was the editor's PCW ] and creation of dozens of close to content-free PCW pages. The editor doesn't seem to understand what you mean, because of the phrasing. --] 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | ::Still, I would reconsider the words you use in your warning. you said, 'if you solely edit concerning PCW' - we have lots of users who only edit on one subject, and its not disruptive. The words you used didn't match what I thought was your intent, which I expect was the editor's PCW ] and creation of dozens of close to content-free PCW pages. The editor doesn't seem to understand what you mean, because of the phrasing. --] 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
== Star (disambiguation)== | |||
Per ] (likely misspellings), "Astar" can mean "a star", the singular form of "star"; hence, it's a likely misspelling of "star"; hence, it belongs in the "See also" section on ]. ∞] <sup>(]|])</sup> 08:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:That doesn't make much sense...—] (<font color="gold">竜龍</font>) 08:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Uh, how so? Also, why did you the context for ]? "a search algorithm for graphs" isn't very descriptive; we're not all programming geeks, you know... ∞] <sup>(]|])</sup> 08:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::If someone's looking up "Astar" and they know that they're looking for that, then that's what they click.—] (<font color="gold">竜龍</font>) 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Huh? ''That'' didn't make much sense. Someone could forget the space and mean "a star", for example. Dab pages are for people who aren't exactly sure what they're looking for; hence the ]. You also failed to answer the second question... ∞] <sup>(]|])</sup> 08:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::Where does "]" redirect to then?—] (<font color="gold">竜龍</font>) 08:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::Exactly. And ] is an alternate spelling of "A star", "which can be confused with Astar", per ]. ∞] <sup>(]|])</sup> 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::: Note that disambiguation pages ''are'' exactly for people who know what they're looking for: lists, categories, portals and searches are for people who aren't exactly sure. --] 08:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::Um, no. Disambiguation pages are for making the ambiguous less ambiguous. And every time I create a list in response to removal from dab pages, it gets nominated for deletion! And, Ryulong, I don't appreciate you removing my comments and just giving an edit of "Just don't fuck up". That shows signs of you abusing your admininstrative "powers". You are not beyond the rules, yourself, you know... ∞] <sup>(]|])</sup> 12:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::::: They are for making ambiguous ''titles'' less ambiguous. This is the very foundation of the entire disambiguation system, ] and ]. | |||
::::::: (Regarding the lists: the consensus to delete them (supported by ]) should be telling you something about their merit.) --] 17:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Why did you this? And why are you wikistalking my edits? ∞] <sup>(]|])</sup> 08:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I was not wikistalking your edits. After seeing your name come up in the recent changes, I went to see what you have been doing since the block I imposed on you expired. I saw a handful of questionable edits that I undid. That's one of them—] (<font color="gold">竜龍</font>) 08:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Again you fail to answer a question... Why did you revert a valid disambiguation reference? Going to see what I've done since your block, and reverting numerous edits without reasons (and evading direct questions of your actions), is wikistalking. ∞] <sup>(]|])</sup> 08:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::It is not wikistalking. It is an administrator's duty to make sure that the person he blocked is not repeating the behaviors that led to the block.—] (<font color="gold">竜龍</font>) 08:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::It's wikistalking (and general harrassment) when you revert edits without giving justification for doing so. I've already given you the ''exact'' Manual of Style (disambiguation) section which allows confusing/misspelled links in the "See also" section (which you ''still'' have not addressed!). ∞] <sup>(]|])</sup> 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Drop it== | ==Drop it== |
Revision as of 20:35, 24 June 2007
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page by using either the "new section" tab or this link. |
Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If you do not sign your comments, I may remove them entirely. |
Please keep your comments short and to the point. I do not want to read essays on this page. |
I will revert and ignore any basic template messages used on my talk page. If you want to talk to me, use your own words. |
I prefer to keep conversations on one page. If I left a message for you on your user talk page, I prefer to respond to you there. |
My local time: January 2025 5 Sunday 10:45 pm EST |
Archives
|
---|
|
When I find that the conversations or issues discussed here have either ended or resolved, they will be inserted into my archives at my own discretion.—Ryūlóng
Re: Stern warning
Why would I be disrupting? That was the only page I wanted to do anything to, and now that it's all going to get deleted, I have no point in editting anything else. I haven't even editted anything in several days. - Cwmoneybags
- There are plenty of other pages that could use your enthusiasm. Just write about wrestling that doesn't involve the PCW.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Still, I would reconsider the words you use in your warning. you said, 'if you solely edit concerning PCW' - we have lots of users who only edit on one subject, and its not disruptive. The words you used didn't match what I thought was your intent, which I expect was the editor's PCW walled garden and creation of dozens of close to content-free PCW pages. The editor doesn't seem to understand what you mean, because of the phrasing. --Thespian 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Drop it
NO! Not until the foundation actually DOES SOMETHING! Misplaced Pages has a duty of care to protect its editors from criminality. While this is not really dangerous with children like GNAA, as i said many people edit about terrorist organisations and thier corrupt government. "Outing" in those cases could result in death. PS I care what happened on a non-wikipedia irc chat site. Hypnosadist 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Then I strongly urge you to email or call the foundation about this, a mob scene on a noticeboard won't register on their radar, contacting them about their handling of this actually might. --MichaelLinnear 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- And there's nothing that complaining about it at the administrators noticeboards is going to solve. And what "non-Misplaced Pages IRC chat sites"? There's nothing that I can do, and there's nothing that you can do concerning this situation. It's best to let that discussion go away while it's being worked on by the office. There's nothing that we can accomplish at this moment with that thread, and that's why it's archived. ColScott is still indefinitely blocked, and there are several administrators trying to deal with this bullshit.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're underestimating the power of community sentiment. See User:Essjay, where the foundation had it wrong, the community had it right and the foundation ultimately recognized this. Of course sometimes the foundation is right and the community is wrong, while most often there is no difference. Here I see another case where the community was and is right. The deeper you dig into the rank and file, the more people are pissed off about this, as was plain as day on the prematurely-closed WP:AN ban discussion. We have policies here which prohibit harassment. That is part of the trust under which volunteers commit our expertise and labor. For those policies to be deliberately unenforced - literally un-enforced - is a breach of that trust.Proabivouac 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
"while it's being worked on by the office" well why has no-one has metioned this in the topic. Several editors asked repeatedly for official input into this but there was silence, silence is equated with inaction on wikipedia. Heres a hint inform editors whats going on! 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- All I know is that a bunch of us were looking at the photograph to figure out anything. I closed the thread because it was attracting trolling. There were mentions in #wikipedia about it, and it was by obvious members of the 4-lettered organization. And that carried over onto the site. Cary was not online today (I had something unrelated to talk to him about), so he may have been working on it, or he may not have. The only person from the office who I saw any discussion from was an OTRS deletion that she was unable to perform. There is nothing else that can be done on the site, and nothing I know that's going on personally.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 10:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So if i understand what you say, after 48 hours of this the office has done nothing publicly and is probably not doing anything in private, thats just not good enough. This defeatist attitude is not helping either, GNAA have stepped up from trolls to a terrorist orgaisation (under my IANAL understanting of terrorist threats charge in USA law). Death threats to editors CAN NOT BE TOLERATED, especially when they are off-wiki and hence have much more force and likelyhood of being real. As i understand it Colscott can still edit his talk page so he can out someone on-wiki any time he likes, as well as opperating an off-wiki site to threaten editors (which again the foundation should take legal action against). 10:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Let us, though, draw a clear line between what is done and allowed off-site and what is done and allowed here. Cutting deals to reduce off-site harassment in exchange for enabling harassment here is, for a number of obvious reasons, deeply ill-advised.Proabivouac 10:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not to butt in, but indeed, I am pretty confident that if anyone wishes to email H and tell him to call or email the Foundation, I am very confident they will do what they can. Jimbo Wales takes these situations very seriously and I believe he will do what he can to help.--MONGO 11:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The foundation has H's email they could always email him to offer help, how about that! 11:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good ideas, but, the point is that Foundation very deliberately and consciously took the step of unblocking ColScott, and unprotecting his userpage, which any reasonable person could have known and did know would virtually guarantee the resumption of attacks against several of our editors, as it did. This is completely unacceptable, and must never happen again.Proabivouac 11:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, Ryulong thanks for trying to deal with the mess at ANI about this situation. --MichaelLinnear 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:DENY
WP:DENY is an essay not a policy or guideline - even so it's very very clearly about vandalism and those seeking attention, not intended as a mechanism to remove the comments of editors operating in good faith. Please do not use it in future when dealing with good faith contributors. --Fredrick day 10:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocking of User:Republicofwiki
Hi, this user just came onto IRC enquiring about his blocking. I've had a look over his edits, and while I agree that it could be seen as suspicious that a relativly new user participates in RfA (possible sockpuppet?), I think indef-blocking in this way is a violation of Assume Good Faith. Unless there's any evidence I'm missing that confirms this user as a sock puppet, I'm going to state my opposition to this block.
I hope you don't mind me making these comments, I'm attempting to be bold and help out both this user and Misplaced Pages. If there is something else I'm missing in this case (deleted edits, etc), could you please let me know? Thanks, Darksun 11:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree he's a sockpuppet/new account of an other user (he know the procedures much more than most users), I don't really see the harassment. In my views his behavior is not really against WP:SOCK, since he did not disrupt a process or seem to have /voted somewhere. Am I missing something? For now I'd assume good faith, personally, but it's your call. -- lucasbfr 12:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You should be aware there is a discussion about this user on AN/I, and that I have added a comment regarding the situation. Be well! Vassyana 12:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure someone else raised this before, so please pardon me, but is there a reason you do not have email enabled? Vassyana 12:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Some asshole's bothering me. I'm pretty sure I reactivated it here.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Cockroaches
Hello Ryulong. I have restored Category:Wikipedians who own cockroaches that you speedy deleted earlier today. This category had been through a couple CFDs back in March and the result was "keep" (here). Therefore, can't be speedied. Regards, Húsönd 12:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's a category that serves Misplaced Pages no purpose. I know that you were in this category, but it's something like "Category:Wikipedians who like to lick their elbows" and it was really lowly populated. The only CFD I found there was a consensus to delete.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- It serves a clear purpose, as to inform that I am able to respond to queries regarding this species as a pet. It's depopulated alright, but that doesn't prove its uselessness. Two discussions took place, one resulted in delete and the other one in keep. The link I provided directs to the latter. Regards, Húsönd 00:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Gekiranger, July episodes
Lession 19: Gokin-Gokin! Showdown with Rio : Rio sets out to eliminate the Gekijuuken's fighters other than the Gekirangers, who battled Rinjuu Toad-Fist Master Eruka. Though they defeated the Beastman, they had to deal with Rio and his two Beastmen Butoka and Wagataku as they captures Master Shafu.
Lession 20: Title- VS Lion Ken Part 2 (Temporary): To rescue Master Shafu, the Gekirangers must seek and gain the power of the Ultimate Gekijuuken in 3 days' time, obtaining the "Extreme Nature". In front of Retsu, Ran and Jan, appear the Fist Saints of the Geikjuuken Penguin-Fist, the Geikjuuken Gorilla-Fist, and the Geikjuuken Gazelle-Fist.
Fractyl 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Rumors
As the SuperGekiranger appear in July, The Kenma of the Earth appears: Maku, Grand-Master of the Rinjuu Bear-Fist. Shortly after, GekiViolet will appear. There will be a mystery warrior, named Ron, who appears in the Akugata. Another Gekiranger appears, the rhino-based GekiChopper.
Fractyl 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can I have an image that supports all of this?—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the info on the episodes is accurate enough, give me time with the "rumours". Fractyl 03:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- The next Lesson's...19.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- My bad. Fractyl 03:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- The next Lesson's...19.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the info on the episodes is accurate enough, give me time with the "rumours". Fractyl 03:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Gekiranger Movie
If you saw the pic I showed you, GekiRinTohja is to be involved in the Gekiranger movie. Fractyl 03:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I know, I know. Let's just limit that information right now.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked user
Republicofwiki (talk · contribs) has not been connected with any known blocked account, abusive sock or banned user. I cannot find a reason to justify an indefinite block. Discussion also seems to indicate that we should unblock, assuming good faith. Given all that, I am willing to unblock, though I am suspicious. If you have any serious objections, please let me know. I will not unblock for 24 hours, to allow time for your response and any further evidence. Be well! Vassyana 07:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)