Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:38, 19 November 2007

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me messages or even flaming bags filled with poo.

At least 100 years ago I archived a few years worth of people's comments. And then I did it again! I'll keep doing it as hard as I can.

Image:AvnerCat.jpg

If this image isn't under a free license, it's a non-free image. Whether it's "fair use" or "with permission" doesn't affect that. That's why we don't allow "noncommerical only" licenses, for example, although they do give us permission to use the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Farm Sanctuary

Hi, Just curious, what's your opinion of Farm Sanctuary? And as a peripheral question, view on Animal Rights? Olephill2 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has voted to lift the restrictions (probation and other remedies) that were imposed on Huaiwei in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I still have problems finding the full details of the motion other than at (cant seem to find where the actual voting took place), I thank you for taking the trouble to advance this initiative. I am indeed glad that the final shackles and legacy of a three-year dispute has finally dissipitated!--Huaiwei 12:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The voting took place on Misplaced Pages:Requests for Arbitration. I don't think the actual votes got archived there, just the original discussion and the result, but you can find them in the history of WP:RfAr before yesterday. FYI, the arbitrators' vote in favor of lifting the restrictions was 6-4. Basically, the arbitrators who supported the motion thought it was time to make this change, while the others wanted to see some more time pass without your having any more difficulties. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiadon Hill question

Since I know you are also an admin at that other wiki, I ould like you to give me back the deleted content of the "Tiadon Hill" article. If so, I will attempt to write a first draft of an article about that wiki in my personal sandbox. Illintea 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have email enabled. I won't restore it to any public site. SchmuckyTheCat

If you don't restore it, I will tell about the countless times you have insulted MONGO. You have been warned.

Well, on a more serious note, I will not reveal my e-mail address. Why was the page deleted, anyway? Illintea 15:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK fine. You're just a threat, so go away. SchmuckyTheCat

Source of CCTV-9 statistics

About 18 months ago, you added some significant Xinhua statistics to the CCTV-9 article in this edit. An anonymous editor has now removed them. I'm reluctant to add a statistic without a source, so could you track down the IHL article? I have tried, but (a) herald.xinhuanet.com doesn't seem to have a search (b) search.xinhuanet.com seems dead (c) a Google search gets lost (zillions of CCTV.com pages and closed circuit television reports). Seektruthfromfacts 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites

Some butthurt morons opened up an arbitration case there. Since you have interest in the subject, hopefully you can comment there. Oh, and RESTORE TIADON HILL!! Illintea 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

now go away.

ED

As you're an ED admin, can you tell me what's happening/happened about Die clown die and the page about me? At the moment, the page on me is just a stalker's conspiracy nutjob theories. Will 20:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre, also contact Blu Aardvark, he is one of the most active ED administrators for dealing with stuff like that. As far as I know he also has had dealings with Die clown die. Zurishaddai 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.

Thank you for the welcome and advice. I like contributing because I care about the truth, like how wikipedia has info on almost anything, and abhor poor grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I will check out those things you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgot the four tildes

Just forgot the tildes to sign last message.Ronar 01:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. By the way: I've stayed away from that area of editing, so I doubt that your comment will come true. :) - Penwhale | 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Flamarande - China - Can you help me?

Hy, it appears that the debate about "China" has reached a deadlock-stalemate situation. All my arguments are answered with "no consensus" and "NPOV concerns" or something similar. I honestly don't agree with any of these arguments but I do not intent to make the moves "against all opposition". You seem to a bit older and wiser in Misplaced Pages policies. Is there any way of getting a fair ruling in this matter? Where should I turn to? Flamarande 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No true hope then? Well, China and of Misplaced Pages are the true losers with the current situation. I have done my duty as a Wikipedian and presented my case at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Could you give a post when the naming issue flares up again? Flamarande 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hy again, could you help in "gathering evidence" for Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)? I think that we can, and should prove, our case to a considerable extent. I honestly don't know if the debate is going well for the "moving side" or not. As of now it seems to me to be a 50/50 split (deadlock). Flamarande 02:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want get on your nerves (you're probably more than tired of fighting agains windmills in the "China" issue) but I have read some wikipolicies (which are very vague in "how to change a policy" - I wonder why :) and it seems that we could request a "request for comment". But I seriously don't expect great justice; most administrators seem use the "unclear issue" and "NPOV" excuses alot these days. I'm not sure about it but I think it is possible that the the "traffic" of an article can be analyzed. I'm sure that most users go from the current China-article to the PROC-article. If this could be proven... Anyway give me a post when you can, and don't be afraid to tell me to simply drop the issue... for now. I truly think that a very small minority (with certain prejudices against the goverment of the PROC - something which is very hard to prove) is keeping the whole situation from being corrected. Flamarande 13:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC) If a journalist made an article making fun of this the whole situation would be over in 5 min. Wishful toughts.

thedeadmanandphenom chit chat

Do you go to TPMS? Thedeadmanandphenom —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Talk:MS-DOS/archive1

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Talk:MS-DOS/archive1. I do not think that Talk:MS-DOS/archive1 fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because not speedy criterion. I request that you consider not re-tagging Talk:MS-DOS/archive1 for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ringling Brothers

Thank you for stopping the senseless vandalism on Ringling Brothers Circus! Would you like to join Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Circus?--Hailey 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop.

Please do not remove others sections on WP:AN/I, especially when they are complaints about yourself. ⇒SWATJester 03:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments from banned users can be removed by anyone for any reason. SchmuckyTheCat

I see no evidence that this was a banned user. ⇒SWATJester 03:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Instantnood

Final warnings

This is your final warning. Stop your mass reverting of other users. There is no evidence whatsoever on the instantnood page that Kowlooner is the same person.⇒SWATJester 03:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the ANI talk page archives and my user talk page archives. Kowlooner shows up and instantly creates a complicated stub template, starts applying it, and making the EXACT SAME EDITS to the EXACT SAME articles where Instantnood and all of his previous sock armies did their revert warring? Figure it out. New users don't create stub templates as their second edit. Nor do they edit war over innane spelling differences, EXACTLY like Instantnood. Please see this article history: and then tell me this is not Instantnood, and please note all of his socks as well when examining it. SchmuckyTheCat

It's not convincing. The duty is on you to file a report at AIV, or Checkuser. Not to mass revert, especially in the middle of making incredibly POV category changes (which should probably merit a disruption block on their own). ⇒SWATJester 03:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom rulings have my back. I don't need to convince you. SchmuckyTheCat

Considering you have I believe 4 disruption/3RR blocks on your record, I believe you do. ⇒SWATJester 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't forget to read the apologies after I was proven right. SchmuckyTheCat

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24hrs for continuing to disrupt Misplaced Pages by mass reverting another user, wikistalking, etc. You've been given final warnings both here and on AN/I. It is your duty to provide actual evidence of the user being a sockpuppet of a banned user before mass reverting them. The evidence you provided is not compelling. You can file a checkuser, or complain at AIV or AN/I. The correct option is one of the above. NOT mass reverting another user. ⇒SWATJester 04:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

at least someone agrees with me.

Decline reason:

I'm only 90% sure that Kowlooner is Instantnood, but these aren't the edits of a new user, and you weren't totally alright in the way you acted, either. Once I get some sort of checkuser evidence, then there can be a more definitive answer here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If Ryulong really agrees with it, he can unblock then.⇒SWATJester 04:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, I'm talking to Ryulong about this. If Ryulong has compelling evidence to say that Kowlooner is Instanood, obviously there's no reason for the block anymore.⇒SWATJester 04:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

E-mail me with what's diagnostic of an Instantnood sock, because some data may be too old to check.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

E-mail forthcoming. But there are five diffs in this diff SchmuckyTheCat

{ec}

"Once I get some sort of checkuser evidence," There won't be any checkuser evidence. IP logs are deleted after a few weeks. You're welcome to create a new case here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Instantnood but note the archived statements and how many times I can smell his socks.

"you weren't totally alright in the way you acted, either." Well, what is the correct action? Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. SchmuckyTheCat

The correct action would have been to get the account blocked immediately, and THEN revert the edits, rather than doing so before any blocking had been done. ⇒SWATJester 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's obvious that it's him. He's repeated a lot of edits. The change from Macau to Macao with two different accounts is very telling. You've been unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and for the record, here goes some identifiers I was putting down in an edit conflict:

(ec)

ugh. Can't send email when you're blocked.

Diagnostic of an Instantnood sock

Edit wars over the "status" of Hong Kong/Macao in the structure of the PRC.

Insists that "mainland China" is a jurisdiction/political division at an equal level with Hong Kong/Macao. Those explanations he wrote on ANI about the political structure of China are his, no doubt ever about it.

Edit wars over "Taiwan" as never being a term that can be used interchangeably with "Republic of China", it only means the island.

Wiki-stalks myself and Huaiwei (note that this Kowlooner user, after seeing me make a correction, not a revert, to one of his recent changes, immediately edited a different article I had edited that he had not)

Insists on spelling Macao with an o, when Misplaced Pages long ago agreed to use Macau, with a u, for the sake of simple consistency.

Replaces "in China" categories with "by country" categories on HK/Macao articles

Replaces "China" stub types with "Asia" stub types on HK/Macao articles

Goes back to the same articles, repeatedly.

Has a particularly, and recognizably bad, version of HK English. Which results in either recognizable Instantnood grammar, or very, very short sentences.

Doesn't write much, but edits templates/stubs/categories. These affect huge numbers of articles without giving away his poor English.

Edits serially - makes the same edit to dozens of articles in a short amount of time.

revert wars - just redoes the same edit over and over when it is undone.

SchmuckyTheCat

For the record, I support the unblocking from what Ryulong has shown me; however I think you could have gone about it a different way the first time. ⇒SWATJester 06:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, a blocked user normally can send e-mails unless the blocking administrator checks a box to activate a newly implemented "block user from sending e-mail" capability. This is meant to be used only in serious abuse situations, and I suspect that Swatjester's checking that box in this instance was a mistake. (See also comments on my talk.) Newyorkbrad 12:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said to NY Brad, the email block was inadvertent. ⇒SWATJester 12:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

storage

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Craigengower_Cricket_Club

• Keep It's not "a bunch of chaps". It's an entire complex of sports facilities. For cricket, they were one of the first three cricket clubs in HK. It's not just a sports club either, the join fee is close to $80,000 of US dollars. The modern socialite papers track who comes and goes and with who. Historically, they are places where the elite met to make deals, or give the appearance to the populace during wartime that everything is ok (for instance, the governor came here to play at sports during a communist uprising in the '60s, which sent a political message that everything was under control and he wasn't paying attention to it) - as mentioned in one of the definitive books on the colonial history.

on an unrelated note

I deleted Itmfa-flag.png which you had uploaded (I came across it through Jeffpw's user page). You uploaded it under a public domain license; however I checked the link and found no release into the public domain, and no explicit licensing in a format compatible with Misplaced Pages. If you can get in touch with the copyright holder and have them send a statement of release into public domain to permissions@wikimedia.org, we can go ahead and put it back in; however such a release needs to be a) explicit, and b) come from the copyright holder themselves, not a third party such as yourself. If you need help with this, please let me know. ⇒SWATJester 08:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement of explicit release at bottom of page. Savage expressly did not copyright it. It's public domain. Jeffpw 08:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out my userpage: I made my own rainbow American flag with ITMFA as the thumbnail text. Not bad for a first try, though I do want the other one back. It's GDFL if you want to use it. Jeffpw 09:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

All images are automatically copyrighted unless released into the public domain. Since he did not explicitly release the image into the public domain, and his own misinterpretation of the law is inaccurate, it's still a copyrighted image. He can explicitly release it into the public domain, license it under a GFDL friendly license or you can simply make your own and do the same. ⇒SWATJester 10:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's all good.

Looks like a hell of a lot went on after I got off Wiki last night. Glad you're unblocked, and that you've been vindicated. While I had little particular doubt that you had properly assessed the situation, I still felt that the best way for you to get your side across and supported was to keep your head held high above kowlooner's muck. When there's a two person AN/I, he said/she said apathy gets there fast when both sides get tattle-talish and strident. Which ever one presents the calmer, more reasoned case,usually succeeds to convince more people. Had you taken a few minutes to put together the diff links BEFORE posting, I suspect that some of the admins would've backed you faster, esp. RyuLong and Denny. Both are pretty good at sorting out the gold from the dross. have a good one. ThuranX 13:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Security Section, Microsoft_windows

When did you totally remove the security section of Microsoft_windows? emacsuser 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. Take your accusations elsewhere. A vandal removed it a few weeks ago. Looking at the page history, it looks like the vandal deleted a section, then deleted another section while someone restored the old section, and the second blanking got lost. I restored it. Thanks for noticing it was gone. SchmuckyTheCat

ITMFA!

Sockpuppetry

FYI - I've started a sockpuppetry case against Peter zhou (talk · contribs) here, if you'd care to add any input. Thanks  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mainland China

I agree with some of what you say at your rant. However:

• While non-Mainland users may have an anti-Mainland slant, having large numbers of Mainland editors wouldn't necessarily make the situation that much better. For better or for worse, Mainlanders have been thoroughly indoctrinated in that country's ideology and are (in my experience) largely intolerant of other viewpoints. Just as one example, Taiwan/ROC is not an issue for Mainlanders. Taiwan is a part of China -- end of story. No nuances, no equivocation, no recognition of reality on the ground -- it IS a part of China, no argument, full stop. There are many other issues where the Mainland viewpoint is exceedingly hostile to objective analysis.

• We know that HK and Macau belong to the Mainland. But Deng Xiaoping did promise no change for 50 years, although that promise seems to be increasingly forgotten by many Chinese, who regard the transfer of sovereignty as the be-all and end-all. The attitude you increasingly see is: "They're now part of us; why should they presume to be different?" But the fact is that HK and Macau are quite different from the Mainland in many tangible ways. You hop on a plane from Beijing to HK and you get on an "international flight" (although airports carefully mark it as "international flights and flights to HK/Macau"), and you pay international fares. The currency is different. Remittances are international remittances, not domestic. The laws are different. The language is different. For copyright purposes, HK, Macau, and Taiwan are different territories. (I tried to buy Taiwanese translations of "Gone with the Wind" in HK, and found they are not available as a HK translation is available. This is an exception, however; for many books the copyright appears to be for Traditional Chinese, which covers Taiwan/HK/Macau).

So there is nothing strange about setting HK/Macau apart from Mainland China. The big issue with the Chinese is always the "sovereignty issue". And sovereignty is, of course, Chinese territorial claims based in their own view of history and what "rightfully" belongs to China. (Actually, this is shared by Mainlanders, HKnese, and Taiwanese, all of whom virtually are united by a dynastic view of history. The Taiwanese and others just don't recognise the legitimacy of the dynasty!) Still, just because the Chinese have this particular view of sovereignty and history doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages should follow it uncritically.

Just my two cents worth. Bathrobe 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That essay was unfinished and I'm not sure I actually got to the point of making a point in it. :)

It wouldn't make it better as an editing environment. Cuz, yeah, mainland Chinese are going to bring their biases, prejudices and jingoism as strong as anyone else. There are dozens of nationalist flare-ups on Misplaced Pages weekly from all over the globe and we can handle that. But the current wikiality we have about anything China was written by people who had their own agendas, to the point that you can't call China "China". If mainlanders could edit, somewhere in their throngs there would be eloquent editors who would abide by our policies and articulate that under-represented POV.

And yes, HK/MO are very different from the mainland but they are part of a whole which has 33 divisions, not 3. I'm very aware of the differences, crossing from HK to Shenzen is stranger than Seattle to Vancouver BC. There isn't anything strange about setting them apart, but there are HKers who would use that separation to elevate HK and/or denigrate the PRC - and that isn't correct. SchmuckyTheCat

Ringling Brothers

• I've started a circus Wikiproject and as much as dislike spam from animal rights groups, I can't believe they would keep vandalizing a defunt circus about animal abuse!--Hailey 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In the quick history of the last 50 edits, there hasn't been a single useful edit to that page. It's peculiar they choose that one so overwhelmingly. I bet there is a bit of activist e-mail that goes around that links to it. SchmuckyTheCat

Arbitration

I have added your name to involved parties in the MONGO 2 arbitration case as shown here.--MONGO (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)