Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:50, 15 February 2008

Lawrence Cohen is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Archives

● 30 August 2007-17 January 2008 ● 17 January 2008-now

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

compare these diffs

Shibumi2 Dec 23 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Free_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=179902311

Justin88 March 15 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Free_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=115426946

209.221.240.193 January 5 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Free_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=98683310

BryanFromPalatine January 5, 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Free_Republic&diff=prev&oldid=98629804

Note that Bryan is the sole source in the internet connecting WyldCard with Chuy's Eschoir (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty damning. Post it to evidence. Lawrence Cohen 20:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. Thanks for stating your rationales why I should not be granted this time and I'll try my best to deal with it. I'll look forward working with you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Journal articles and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William Opdyke

Please see my comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William Opdyke. --Eastmain (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied there; thanks. Lawrence Cohen 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a new sig

I wanted one that was more functional. How is it? Lawrence § talk/edits 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm so fickle. Redone again. Lawrence § t/e 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't so much like it when the talk link is just a single character. Easier to miss! Lots of people do it, 'tho, and aesthetically it looks good. 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now perhaps we can get FR to remain on lock down until we have an RFA decision

Next time you need to revert the socks more than once, though, consider letting somebody else do it, or email me. We can't be getting into 3RR territory here without damaging our case. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have pushed it to the edge of 3rr that once, as I despise edit warring. Once I realized the sock parade was coming out to perform, I asked for the protection ASAP. Lawrence § t/e 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You done good. I've been to that verge and over it myself with this guy. --BenBurch (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quuiet locked down. It would be nice to continue for a few months. Any editing the sockpuppets want to do can be done on the sandbox version. Eschoir (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't miss this and the graph after it, and the last graf of Durova and the section after that. Eschoir (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm going nutz. Deep, deeply ripened sock? Both Neutral Good and Samurai COmmuter voted for MONGO for admin.Eschoir (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

thx

	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll to merge "Alternative terms for free software" to "Free and open source software"

Can you please comment at Talk:Alternative_terms_for_free_software#Survey. Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a couple days? My plate is pretty full and that one looks like it needs brain time to get a proper answer. If I don't post there in 3-5 days please remind me. Lawrence § t/e 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was a bit negligent in reminding you. It has been just about two weeks & there is currently no consensus & the merge tags were just removed. Feel free to weigh in, though! --Karnesky (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Something deeply deserved

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For staying calm, yet strong, in the face of relentless attacks. Truly above and beyond. henrik•talk 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Just hang in there for a little while longer and don't let it get to you, Lawrence. henrik•talk 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Henrik. It means a lot. Lawrence § t/e 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Fire at will" or "Whilred peas?"

Lawrence Cohen
While I might second your intentions in the IRC arbitration, at the current moment your passion might be in error. We've seen how fast the talk page can go off the rails, so I'd request that you have a good long think before putting pen to paper there again? Please feel free to tell me to get stuffed.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's fine, I just wanted to answer where I was seeing the feedback from the arbs and community as coming from. Lawrence § t/e 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The bracketing is fine, but spell my name right! :) Mackensen (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oy, I'm sorry. Look through my talk archives... I singularly am unable to get people's names right half the time. Sorry! I think I've probably misspelled yours at least thrice now, and have called Badagnani "Bagagnani" at least a dozen times so far. :( Lawrence § t/e 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just remind me never to tick you off. Odd what comments can prove motivational. Best, Risker (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm a teddy bear, and it takes a lot to get me worked up. Ask the fellows over at Talk:Waterboarding and the relevant RFAR that's ongoing. Strident denial of the obvious is a pet peeve of mine, and the shifting reasons for why the committee can't or shouldn't sanction him, from a lack of evidence, to a lack of proof that he's engaged the "Scoobies", to baldly stating he's not incivil (that one took my personal cake), to finally Misplaced Pages besmirching his name (!), made me say enough is enough. I just want the damn thing done with, because

a) I'm sick of looking at it

b) sick of all the gamesmanship and attempted failed wordplay--it's not even "varsity level" as some have said

c) I want the committee to wrap it up since nothing new evidence-wise has been offered until Phil basically goaded me into looking at his contributions

d) they can then hopefully address the other case that I'm sick of looking at after having been drawn into it

e) I can then just remove Misplaced Pages-space from my watchlist for a few months to finish a bunch of articles, which is all I personally want at this point.

I just don't enjoy dangling threads and like to see things through that I decide to shoulder. Lawrence § t/e 20:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is/isn't/maybe

It seems that in the last 2-3 weeks editors have been adding sources (mostly to the "is torture" column) to pages and sections other than the "Definitions" page that keeps tally--for example, some are adding them under the "Sources provided by X" section of the main talk page. Thus, there may be more than 148 saying that waterboarding "is" torture. I think all new sources stating the belief that waterboarding is, isn't, or maybe is/isn't torture should be included in the "Definitions" page list keeping tally. Could we do that? Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing the past week, the RFC has gotten buried among all the other chaos on there, and I've been sidetracked with other issues. It's going to take a pretty substantial amount of housekeeping to sort that all out (again), but yeah--it would be tremendously beneficial. I was thinking maybe doing a subpage that was just the list, and then including it both at the top of the main talk page and the RFC page. RFA style, so that people could edit it from either spot. Lawrence § t/e 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Explantion please

Your revert on the Tuja page requires an explanation. Anthon01 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Already had the talk page open there, was about to post. Lawrence § t/e 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which argument do you agree with? Anthon01 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please bring this up there on the talk page. I prefer to have article discussions whenever possible in as public a forum as possible. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 00:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

a thank you note

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been outstanding, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

...on my RfA. Any constructive feedback is greatly appreciated. However, I have some questions regarding your statement "dealing with and correctly blocking random vandals is a major part of what you'll have to do. You only have 11 posts so far to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism." I stated that I intended to be involved primarily with "WP:3RR and WP:SSP pages. I would also use admin privileges to prevent edit wars as much as possible through semi-protecting/protecting pages before they get too badly into such a conflict." In the case of WP:3RR and WP:SSP vandalism need not necessarily be apparent as much as disruption. While I have 11 edits in WP:AIV, I have warned lots of users and participated in other facets of WP:AN including WP:AfD, WP:IfD, WP:3RR, and WP:SSP. I humbly and respectfully ask that you look over my contributions in these areas. — BQZip01 —  07:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question. Thanks for your reconsideration. — BQZip01 —  08:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, But I wanted to thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, and such varied contributions too, Storm botnet is really fascinating! May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Lawrence § t/e 05:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DEGRADE

Reading some AFDs got me thinking, so I wrote Misplaced Pages:Notability does not degrade over time. Might be insane, but tossing it out for consideration. Is this a lunatic essay, or did I just describe practice that is policy? Lawrence § t/e 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Commented at WT:AFD. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw, thank you! Read the talk at WP:DEGRADE. How ironic. Lawrence § t/e 09:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent piece, thanks for writing it. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the Chanology AfD is nuts. I'm not sure I've ever seen an article with no meta implications get that many votes. 14:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your expertise

A computer security expert theorized that members of Project Chanology may have utilized some botnets. Any additional info you could find in WP:RS/WP:V sources on this for use in the article would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. The only source I can find is this one, that says,

"Ken Pappas, security strategist at intrusion prevention systems provider Top Layer Networks, told SCMagazineUS.com today that the hacker group likely is using botnets in the takedown operation."

It makes sense, since you need something huge like that to do a big attack. That particular source and passage would probably be worth noting, but there is nothing concrete or any other sources. That sort of thing is hard to find from what I've seen. I'll add that into the article. Lawrence § t/e 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone already added that source with that very passage. Lawrence § t/e 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

rfa requirements

Thank you for your comment at my RfA. Both for my future reference, and for discussion, could you clarify your request that I participate in the backend more? Your requirements would, based on my participation in the Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages:talk spaces, seem to be satisfied by my participation in the project to date. Are there particular areas of experience I am lacking? Thanks in advance for your input. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, nevermind about the editcounts for Misplaced Pages talk, as I thought the Administrator's Noticeboard was a Misplaced Pages talk: page, given the nature of discussion that typically takes place there. By the numbers, then, I am deficient. Thanks for your input, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's not so much the raw counts, which ultimately are meaningless. It just shows that you've been into and are familiar with all the random junk you'll have to deal with in time as an admin. :) Lawrence § t/e 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting requirements: At first glance, it seems like a catch-22: participating in administrative areas is for administrators; to become an administrator, one has to participate in their discussions. A year or two ago, I looked at some of these pages a few times, but there were people trying to do work, so seemed I would be unwelcome in the "backend" as a non-administrator. I participated in WP:IMAGE and created quite a bit of discussion about thumb size overrides, and got the distinct impression that this was an area primarily for more experienced editors. My 500+ contributions in the wikipedia: and wikipedia talk: namespaces were mostly to help editors with technical questions and problems. That seemed an obvious way to offload work from more senior contributors. Do you have any suggestions for aspiring administrators where best to participate—welcomely—in the backend? —EncMstr 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My thinking was that an admin should have exposure to multiple facets of WP, in multiple areas. Probably half of my Misplaced Pages space contributions for example are to various AFDs. When I wasn't feeling like contributing in articles as much with researching and that sort of work I'd pick a day in AFD, maybe 2-3 days old, and just start at the list and work my way down. Any article topic that sounded interesting, or where the AfD appeared contentious or split, I'd check out the article, dig around for sources, and then weigh in. Probably 500+ of my WP edits are there on AFDs if not more. Misplaced Pages:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates is another place I used to post to often, but not so much anymore. Beyond that I never really worried if I felt welcome. If I saw something interesting where I thought I could or ought to weigh in and thought I had something useful to add, I'd just sort of add it. My main thinking was that an admin should be exposed to as much as possible, just so they'd know what to expect. Noticeboards like Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard can always benefit from more eyes, too. Lawrence § t/e 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to let you know that I disagree with your requirements. You claim that administrators will be involved in these specific namespaces, but that is not necessarily true. I've been an editor for over three years now, and an admin since July 2006, and I still wouldn't even come close to your requirements. Please reconsider them, as an admin I don;t think they are indicative of standards which would be helpful in adminship discussions. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also please post replies to my talk page, I prefer to keep a very small watchlist. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Lawrence § t/e 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To extrapolate wrong data is not a crime, and honestly, I am quite heartened that you have changed the standards. Think nothing of it, we all make mistakes. Cheers, RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your requirements because there isn't necessarily any correlation between edit count and experience (especially now that editing aids that crank up one's edit count are so widely used). I probably failed three of your criteria when I became an admin, and I still don't have 1500 mainspace edits. The thing about accumulating such a large number of mainspace edits is that it can happen in one of two ways: editing a large number of articles after incredible amounts of research and discussion over the course of many months, or running a vandalism-reverting script for a few hours. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Probation

Wheatgrass has absolutely nothing to do with probation. Why was a tag placed on the page? Anthon01 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a homeopathy topic. All of those are on probation. You would need to take it up on WP:AN if you wanted to life probation. Lawrence § t/e 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a homeopathy topic or it shouldn't be if it has been listed as such. Quackwatch is absolutely nothing to do with Homeopathy. May be the topic needs to be alt-med instead. Anthon01 (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here, bring it up there. Lawrence § t/e 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good humour

Lawrence - When I woke up this morning, and found your post on my talk, I honestly laughed my head off - thanks for the giggle! signed....

		The I Just Posted Barnstar
		In recognition of this post you just read that I just posted, I award myself this barnstar for having posted it. Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Anthon01

I've blocked him (see log) for edit-warring and attempted harassment for 24 hours. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this now. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably for the best. The constant harassing of User:ScienceApologist seems incessant. Lawrence § t/e 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are complaints against ScienceApologist's behavior off-limits? Anthon01 (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is off limits unless the community decides it is because of the disruption it's causing. Actively and constantly badgering and hammering against another user when you have no support. An important caveat: if uninvolved people are telling you to knock it off, you're being disruptive. Case in point, East718's response to you on ANI yesterday:

"If you continue to carp on so, you may find the forthcoming probation enforcement to be to your displeasure. east.718 at 21:35, January 31, 2008"

You need to stop pestering uninvolved or barely involved users (like me and others) on their talk pages over this, and follow the Dispute Resolution process if you've got a problem with another user in a conflict. Lawrence § t/e 15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no AGF here. Do you realize that Bearian said it was fine to post it on the AN/I page? Your comment "Actively and constantly badgering and hammering against another" is IMO, an inaccurate summary. Your summary response to my AN/I contributed to my being blocked inappropriately. You keep claiming I am harassing SA when I am simply bringing up an issue I am looking for guidance and resolution of. These issues I am raising or not about DR but policy. From my understanding, the post on the template page has nothing to do with DR. It is a policy issue. Not to worry though, I will not post any notices on your talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your fine to post here with anything, a question, a hello, or what have you, I just don't want to be dragged into this massive Homeopathy War because I made the odd comment here and there and a grand total of one edit to one article. You have a fundamental disagreement with SA about interpretation of policy--that is not an administrator action to fix. Admins have no extra authority over any content issue that doesn't involve "violations" of policy or behavioral issues. They're simply regular editors with a few housekeeping buttons and tools. ANI is not the place to go for a content dispute. Read that dispute resolution link I gave you. It's your best friend. Read about mediation and article RFCs. Thats what you want. Lawrence § t/e 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't mean to drag you into anything. All am after is clarity and resolution. You believe that I need DR. I appreciate your input. Since you are involved in the homeopathy probation as an admin, I came to you. I was not asking for AN/I to resolve a content dispute but to act or clarify on what the article probation really means. Prior to the probation I would have reverted SA two reverts with a edit summary response explaining why. Now I won't touch the article page for fear of being unfairly treated with a block or a ban from an admin mislabeling me disruptive. Put another way, I feel like I am in the dark with no clear instructions. I am sure others fell that way to. Instead of a ban without clear guidelines, I think the addition of perhaps a 1RR limit which sets clear instructions would be helpful. Anthon01 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not an admin. But the 1rr thing is a good idea. I'll propose it. Lawrence § t/e 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Explaination of ehat was the page on your the cool stuffs mean

The page shows earthquakes or any other events that are related to earth happening and are real time and it had a English version too, click on the Britain flag and it would appear.--Quek157 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, excellent!! Their wasn't an English version when I'd found it originally looking for sourcing on an article. I'll fix the link on my page. That site is just incredibly neat. Lawrence § t/e 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RE BQZip01 RfA

I feel you may have over-interpreted my comments. I certainly don't advocate giving people adminship just because of their RL occupation, or giving them any extra privileges because of it. The opposers all have valid opinions, to which they're perfectly entitled. My objection was only on the grounds of phrasing - I think a more respectful term should be used than "immaturity", given who the candidate is. It was only a minor point, but one that's important to me personally. As I said, I have no quibble with the substantive grounds for Bearian's oppose (I disagree with him, but he has every right to oppose in good faith). Walton 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your points (even though we often seem to disagree!) are always incredibly well-reasoned and thoughtful. I just don't think it's a good idea to ever allow even the illusion of separate classes of editors to emerge, given what I've seen. Especially the idea that editors, based on their having disclosed their real name (me) or profession (BQZip) should have any rights or priviledges based on that. Everyone needs to be treated the same. Lawrence § t/e 19:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree, in general. Given the Essjay scandal, we should absolutely avoid giving people any privileges, whether formal or de facto, based on RL qualifications. And as I said, I would 100% oppose any suggestion that we should give adminship automatically to people from certain occupational backgrounds. For me, it was just a matter of wording - just a matter of showing a minimal level respect to those fighting for their country, even when criticising them (which everyone, of course, has a right to do). Btw, your posts are also well-reasoned and thoughtful, and I think our disagreements only lie in certain limited areas. Walton 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And I absolutely can't fault you on that reasoning; some of my best friends and family are active duty military, both as officers and enlisted. I agree, our disagreements are really stupidly specific, when we get into it. When pedants clash, eh? Lawrence § t/e 19:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)q

What is the problem?

I am already listed there, and I am not involved in content disputes. See WP:POINT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but I looked further at your contributions and you did have much more of an editing history on the homeopath article than you had stated. Lawrence § t/e 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are WP:POINT, as you probably are aware. I have not disrupted editing in any article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no point violation in any way, shape or form. Neither have all of the editors listed there; I see some are added who simply contributed. As you do actively edit the articles in question, I wanted to just follow procedure. Admins are bound by the article probation as well. Again, as an involved figure here, you may want to reconsider adding yourself as an admin for the probation purposes. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: homepathy error

Jossi is already listed here, which is the first bullet on that list. The list is not intended as a hit list but to keep track of who is aware of the probation conditions. It applies to everyone equally, including you and me. east.718 at 22:38, February 1, 2008

Yes, but as Jossi is demonstrably an editor involved in these articles, he is listed in the wrong section. Lawrence § t/e 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So you want to have him removed from the list of admins willing to provide enforcement? That's between you and him. east.718 at 22:40, February 1, 2008

No, the community can simply remove him. Lawrence § t/e 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

why?

1. Don't alter something I type. If you want to comment, please feel free to do so.
2. I included it there because that is the most applicable place (if he feels this way others might too). This can prevent future misunderstandings.
3. Accordingly, I'm moving it back. — BQZip01 —  07:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

At first glance late at night it seemed like the wrong place, but maybe it wasn't. OK. Lawrence § t/e 14:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the correction at Diran Kelekian! You can say its a minor edit but I think such a work you're doing is too much important for the Wiki. So good luck! And hope you will correct my other addings too:) They surely need it! Andranikpasha (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Privacy concerns.

How would you remind him that his good work on his user page is wasted unless he cleans up all his other information caches? I don't want personal information on-wiki either, so emailling is out of the question. Would you rather he went on just thinking he was now anonymous? Raving Nutter (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not, and I'm sure he's aware of it. Your comments to him read as mean spirited. Lawrence § t/e 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just that I find his reasoning about the "privacy concerns" disengenuous given that his user name, picture, etc, are all over the Internet, and there has been no activity anywhere else to clean it up. (Perhaps that will change now.) There had been questions asked about his veracity (none of which meant he could not have his page deleted, of course) but the righteousness of both the attackers and defenders made me curious. I did some checking. If he is serious then he does indeed have a lot of scrubbing to do. All that this drama on wiki has done is to make him the center of more attention, like mine. I wouldn't otherwise even have noticed him. Raving Nutter (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And would your main username happen to be, mysterious stranger that wandered onto Misplaced Pages just to comment on this one thing? Lawrence § t/e 23:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hardly "just happened to" anything. I would have to be very stupid myself or think you very stupid to deny something that obvious, though vandals try it on all the time. I am protecting my privacy. There is neither malice nor skullduggery in this. I opened the account several days ago. It will continue to be used for things I don't wanted related to my main account, but only for privacy reasons. If there are "death threats" involved, I want the other user reminded of his off-wiki exposure and the fewest possible links between us and our real lives. In the next few days, I will give an admin the names of the accounts I have established. If you feel you need confirmation that I have done so, I will ask the admin I choose to let you know that I have done so. I like the sound of "mysterious stranger". And now that I have answered your question, this can go into the delete file, too. Raving Nutter (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've had a questionable experience of late with what appeared to be roving bands of "new users", if you know what I mean. You can hash out where from my last 500 or so Misplaced Pages space contribs. "User:Mysterious Stranger" sounds better, by the way. Lawrence § t/e 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but you have outed the name and it is now too exposed for my purposes. Using a "hard" name is also an experiment I am running. Someone will be in touch. I am sorry about adding to your woes of "new" users. The timing was bad. Raving Nutter (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, don't worry about it. Lawrence § t/e 00:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What does an "admin review" as you have requested on AN/I mean to you? Is this a checkuser request? Raving Nutter (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That was posted after your first post to Squeak that El C removed. At the time you looked like a garden variety troll. Nothing personal! Lawrence § t/e 06:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		My RfA
		Thank you very much, Lawrence, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES  16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.

User:BQZip01/Comments

It now appears that he intends to track my contributions on that page and give his own subjective analysis for each. I don't think I'll be very helpful to the project with that level of scrutiny being given to my edits, so until such time that the page is deleted, I don't think I'll be making any further contributions. I am grateful for your support in the matter and I do appreciate the things you said. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a break for a few days. This'll sort itself out. If he keeps hammering that page so hard, and takes this to DR, you may want to be ready and assemble corresponding evidence. I'd do it off-wiki, if I were you. Lawrence § t/e 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Misc for deletion

A useful tool was provided for you on the subject page 70.4.248.49 (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't Vote

Thank you for the clarification. Being new, I would never have started(or known to delete)such a thing. My interest was in asking for clarification to what was presented as fact, but was clearly flawed. Thank you for the education on the matter.TomPhan (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I left you a note as well since your reply to the "tally" was removed as well. Lawrence § t/e 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Vann Nath photo

Could the editor proposing this be one of the Harvard law students who caused such a commotion at the discussion page a month or so ago? Badagnani (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they're an admin. Lawrence § t/e 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Re: your most recent warning to Momento (talk · contribs) on his talk page, you may wish to weigh in regarding his continued disruption, at this report on WP:ANI/3RR -- here. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say something to Nakon (talk · contribs)? I do not feel that full protection of the article is appropriate at this time, as there is only one disruptive party - Momento (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply wanted to say

That I was not aware of . I discovered it today. Anthere (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

MfD

• Thanks for calling that to my attention. I said the wrong thing. I did not the mean the MfD page. I meant the sub-page that was so controversial: User:BQZip01/Comments. I was offering to delete that, if BQ agrees. Sorry about the confusion. Johntex\ 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC deleted

I tagged for speedy, it's gone. It was a week old and uncertified. Lawrence § t/e 07:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it gets recreated or sent to DRV, or on ANI, please notify me as speedy tagger. I don't watch ANI, AN, or DRV on my watchlist routinely and only check them if I'm already involved in something. Lawrence § t/e 07:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I will do that, I am grateful for all of your help and support throughout this whole, difficult ordeal. Yours, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message but you are mistaken. "Two people" includes the person who files the RFC. That is clearly the interpretation that was being used during the discussion on the RFC. That discussion centered around whether or not I had certified it. If I, as the second person, was still insufficient to certify, then the conversation would have been completely different. It would have centered around whether a third person was stepping forward. Johntex\ 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree, and this needs wider review, on ANI. The harassment of Cumulous Clouds will be stopped no matter what. Lawrence § t/e 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank God. Thank you. Lawrence § t/e 14:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)