| Revision as of 01:27, 29 December 2008 editIslander (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,083 edits →Input requested over on Betacommand's talk page...← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:33, 30 December 2008 edit undoLessHeard vanU (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users33,613 edits →Betacommands current status: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
| Hi Ryan. I was talking to MBisanz on his talk page and he mentioned that he thought you had used or warned someone once under the BLPSE (BLP Special Enforcement) provisions. See ]. I've listed some examples ]. If you did issue a warning or block under those provisions, would you be able to list it there? Thanks. ] (]) 14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC) | Hi Ryan. I was talking to MBisanz on his talk page and he mentioned that he thought you had used or warned someone once under the BLPSE (BLP Special Enforcement) provisions. See ]. I've listed some examples ]. If you did issue a warning or block under those provisions, would you be able to list it there? Thanks. ] (]) 14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Betacommands current status == | |||
| Hi, I have just dropped the following at User talk:Jayron32<blockquote>''I have been reviewing the discussion, and see that we have generally moved into the realms of "how can we accommodate BC in future/how to we get BC to comply with restrictions" - which is all well and good, but I don't see a consensus that he should be unblocked! I see almost no opposes against my original indefinite block, and the unblock discussion promoted by you was closed as no consensus; therefore I think a consensus was established for the current block. Subsequently BC made his statement, and a good number of people argued that an unblock should be considered but not (in my view) sufficient to change the recently established consensus.<br> | |||
| To allow the discussion regarding the terms under which Betacommand may return to editing to develop to a consensus, I think there has to be a determination given that BC remains under indefinite block pending a change in consensus ''and that this needs to be stated clearly at WP:ANI''. I think that it might be best if it were to be made by you, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite (who I will be copying this message) than by me as the blocking admin. This would allow the community to focus on how BC may be allowed to return (I favour the status quo; the restrictions worked because only by the block was BC forced to reconsider his actions) and BC to address the issues. As the block is indefinite, then when a sysop is prepared to unblock they can bring the matter to ANI and present their case, and enact the unblock upon reaching consensus. | |||
| If you, together with Ryan if considered necessary, feel that a "resolved, Betacommand indefinitely blocked" template should be placed upon the matter please do not feel it necessary to confirm to me - but I am otherwise open to discuss anything arising from this suggestion. Cheers. (LessHeard vanU)</blockquote> As someone involved in trying to resolve this, I have put this here for your comments. Regards ] (]) 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:33, 30 December 2008
Thank-you so much Ryan. I hope it doesn't sound wierd, but being able to do this and reach people he knew kinda makes me feel close to him. And I know he'd want me to try and do this. He lived so far away from us and now he's gone forever. Did I do this right? Jeffssister (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)jeffssister
Archive
Editor amok
Recently you have taken an interest in allowing for a fair representation of an LDS author named Chris Heimerdinger. An editor named Ronz has taken it upon himself to delete a large part of the content of these articles in a manner that seems prejudiced against the faith of the subject represented. Certainly Misplaced Pages does not wish to have a reputation that is influenced by religious prejudice. Ronz's tirade in requesting sourced material seems innocent on the surface, but has gotten to the point of using this as excuse to potentially delete full articles (like Passage to Zarahemla) as well as trim to the point that the article really offers little interesting information. And it seems this is entirely for fear that parties, including the subject himself, are promoting rather than treating the subject in an encyclopedic manner. He seems to have gone much beyond whatever authority is offered to editors in this matter. This author, a movie associated with him, as well as other featured articles related to his career, are being unduly cut and slashed with apparent prejudice. The discussion page on the subject of Passage to Zarahemla goes over these issues with more detail. I have read many articles on Misplaced Pages, including an article recently on a British character actor named Kenneth Cope, that offers much interesting information without any references at all. The spirit of Misplaced Pages, it would seem, is to offer more info than can be found in other resources. Many people have gone out of their way to offer legitimate resource info to justify certain items in the these articles, only to have such postings "undone" by Ronz. From your other edits you appeared to have the ability to take a neutral approach to this matter, disallowing promoters as well as detractors. Please involve yourself again to return such articles back to a balance that is not so unduly weighted toward detractors. Georgia.
Thanks for the co-nom!
|
The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar | |
| Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. |
Not another cheap christmas wishes!
|
Merry Christmas to you! | 
|
| Have a very merry Christmas and Frosted christcakes! And a great new year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Regards (and Season's Greetings!) from --Mixwell! 13:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC) |
Piotrus 2 needing closure
See User talk:AGK#Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Proposed decision - table of votes: Piotrus 2—the case for which you are the designated Clerk—is now ready for closure.
Festive greetings; hope you're well.
Thanks!
AGK 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ah thanks, I did email the list about 6 weeks ago because I'd been ill saying someone else would have to take over the case and I'd presumed someone else had. I'm busy at the minute, but at about 23:00 UTC tonight I'll close it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I either missed the email or had forgotten about it.
- Sorry about that!
- AGK 19:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Input requested over on Betacommand's talk page...
Hey Ryan, if you have a moment, could you take a look at this discussion over on Betacommand's talk page? I think I'm right (Pascal.Tesson has just agreed), but I wonder if you could clarify your stance, seeings as you're heavily involved in this? Cheers, and have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year ;). TalkIslander 20:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you have the time, could you pop over and take another look? I'd be very grateful - Hammersoft is disagreeing left, right and center, and Betacommand has again started threatening to take those that cross him to arbcom. Any help in diffusing the situation would be greatly appreciated :). TalkIslander 01:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Banned user is back
Banned user John celona is back. Please take a look at the edit history for this IP address. From 1/7/08 through at least 6/14/08, Celona edited occasionally from this IP address when he failed to log in. Later, he claimed these edits. For example, here.
Now someone at this same IP address is doing this sort of thing at David Cicilline. And even worse, this sort of thing. I would normally bring this to Sarcastic Idealist, who dealt with Celona a lot before he was banned. But SI's on break and you've dealt with him in the past too. Can you help? David in DC (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that David - it was fairly clear cut so I've blocked the IP for a month. Even if it wasn't John, it was pure trolling. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!
|
Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC) |
| Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke... |
- Have a great Christmas, man. Don't drink too much and keep it "gloved". ;-) Scarian 16:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, thanks mate. Just about to head out now for christmas eve shenanigans (is that how you spell it?) - going to be rough tomorrow! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
Merry Christmas! | |
Template:Sound sample box align right
 Problems playing this file? See media help. Template:Sample box end Ryan Postlethwaite, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho 00:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
Curious
Btw, I think User_talk:Lokyz was not notified of the outcome, despite there being some remedies applicable to him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I'll sort it out in the xmas morning ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think this also applies to some other users, I didn't check everyone.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy holidays
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which ones were which!
Best, Risker (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
;) I see someone's minding the store. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The Pig
There's a current ANI discussion involving User:ForesticPig over his claimed socking and its attendant potential problems. I saw you briefly addressed this before and you might want to join the current discussion. I personally find it alarming that such socking, used to avoid scrutiny and accountability, is ever allowed, particularly so in pedophilia articles. Merry Christmas.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Feliz Navidad
Have a good one, that Caribbean pic, well its like that here. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
Happy holidays, Ryan!
May your holidays be filled with family, friends, and fun, and may the new year bring you much joy. Ariel♥Gold 21:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
As with many designs on Misplaced Pages, this one was of course, inspired by the wonderfully talented Phaedriel, the "design Obi Wan".
Use of BLPSE
Hi Ryan. I was talking to MBisanz on his talk page and he mentioned that he thought you had used or warned someone once under the BLPSE (BLP Special Enforcement) provisions. See here. I've listed some examples here. If you did issue a warning or block under those provisions, would you be able to list it there? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Betacommands current status
Hi, I have just dropped the following at User talk:Jayron32
I have been reviewing the discussion, and see that we have generally moved into the realms of "how can we accommodate BC in future/how to we get BC to comply with restrictions" - which is all well and good, but I don't see a consensus that he should be unblocked! I see almost no opposes against my original indefinite block, and the unblock discussion promoted by you was closed as no consensus; therefore I think a consensus was established for the current block. Subsequently BC made his statement, and a good number of people argued that an unblock should be considered but not (in my view) sufficient to change the recently established consensus.
To allow the discussion regarding the terms under which Betacommand may return to editing to develop to a consensus, I think there has to be a determination given that BC remains under indefinite block pending a change in consensus and that this needs to be stated clearly at WP:ANI. I think that it might be best if it were to be made by you, and/or Ryan Postlethwaite (who I will be copying this message) than by me as the blocking admin. This would allow the community to focus on how BC may be allowed to return (I favour the status quo; the restrictions worked because only by the block was BC forced to reconsider his actions) and BC to address the issues. As the block is indefinite, then when a sysop is prepared to unblock they can bring the matter to ANI and present their case, and enact the unblock upon reaching consensus.
If you, together with Ryan if considered necessary, feel that a "resolved, Betacommand indefinitely blocked" template should be placed upon the matter please do not feel it necessary to confirm to me - but I am otherwise open to discuss anything arising from this suggestion. Cheers. (LessHeard vanU)
As someone involved in trying to resolve this, I have put this here for your comments. Regards LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)