Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:33, 12 November 2009

Archives

Pre-March March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 Nov/December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April/May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009

If you leave a message here, I'll reply here. The same applies to you. If I leave a message on your page, I keep it watchlisted and I'll see when you reply. Thank you.

Template:WPPJ-BLP

Minor thing

Hi Enigmaman, I had not seen the other NPAs otherwise I would have considered a longer block (was a bit rushed and thought an immediate response was good) but just so you know your comment on the block log: (01:31, 4 November 2009 Enigmaman (talk | contribs | block) blocked Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: repeated personal attacks after block. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Cptnono&oldid=323559877#My_friend.2C_you_are_a_fool and more) (unblock | change block)) implies the personal attacks at Cptnono's page were after the NPA block when in fact they were before it. After your second block he did indeed make more personal attacks at you on his talk page so whatever the niceties the outcome of a weeks block looks right. --BozMo talk 21:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the first block should've been longer. He could've been blocked for his actions after the return from the first block, but it would've have been nearly as long if just for that. He attacked two different users with a variety of names in the linked exchange alone. Enigma 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

UNBLOCK REQUEST FROM EARLIER TODAY

Hey, it's OK. Don't bother yourselves too much about unblocking that library IP. I was at the library earlier today. Am back home now. Thanks for your help and attention. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Stadium of Light

The world famous "stadium of light" is a football ground in Portugal. A name Benfica FC have used for their stadiums since 1952.

Sunderland AFC used the same name for their stadium in 1997. Why on earth, when people search for “stadium of light” do they get the Sunderland version?

Sunderland fans have completely taken ownership of the English translation, and have crudely differentiated their page from the actual “stadium of light” as they use the English translation and the original ground use a Portugese translation.

The fact being, the names are the same. And English speaking fans have referred to the portugese ground as “stadium of light” since the 1950s.

It’s reprehensible. Say, someone decided to create a building in Madrid with a Spanish translation of the words “grace” and “land”, and then take ownership of the word in Spain, on the basis that theirs is newer and is the local translation? And say “oh, your version isn’t the same, as yours is in a foreign language. Spanish people should be diverted to this version, even if they are looking for the vastly more famous building”.

The fact that fans are being diverted to the stadium who frankly nicked the name – just by claiming that Portugese people use the portugese translation, is reprehensible.

What about the billion English speakers, who use the English translation. Why divert us to Sunderland!?

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but what do I have to do with this? I edited the page a few times some months ago, and that's it. Enigma 17:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: You should not have moved it without discussion. That's out of line. Clearly, there are people who disagree with you. You moved it and then came here to complain about it? 1)I have little to do with this. 2)You already moved it. What are you complaining about now? Enigma 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you're interested...

ANI thread on that RFA courtesy blanking edit war on which you commented. Steve Smith (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, had his talk watchlisted. Thanks. I don't really have anything to say beyond my initial comment. Enigma 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding the drama boards is generally a wise strategy; cheers. Steve Smith (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. One more comment, though: I'm convinced that Shalom is still socking at the present time. Not sure if people want to do anything about it. Enigma 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't shock me. Steve Smith (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick search reveals this one, and it seems he's been using another account for his "other" editing. Enigma 18:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

You should know, judging by how long you've been here, that I have the right to remove any or all messages from my talk page. Removing them from my talk page signifies that I have read them. You're an administrator. You should know this. If you don't, please read here. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 15:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this, and I never said you didn't have the right. But removing the messages, especially with rollback, is extremely rude. Enigma 16:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's extremely rude because, frankly, I could care less for you at this point in time. Sorry. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 16:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's "couldn't care less". At least use proper English if you're going to be unnecessarily rude to other editors. Enigma 16:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Both are correct, the former is slang relying on sarcasm. --King Öomie 16:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. It's not proper English. Most people say it because they simply don't think about what they're saying, not because they intend to be sarcastic. Enigma 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As for your "last comment" on my talk page, do not make assumptions about me. You don't know me. Now, I would appreciate it if you would leave me alone and refrain from adding more comments to my talk page. Thank you. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make any assumptions. I asked you nicely to stop making improper reports at AIV. It just makes a mess for me to clean up, which I did. I warned both users for you. I also thought you might get along well with another user who reverts messages left for him. Enigma 17:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you don't want people leaving messages for you, you should consider not leaving messages for them. You've now edited my talk page four times. Enigma 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Edit War: The Pirate Bay

Well I was just changing the status of the website to "temporarily offline" because it was offline at that time! A user named JeremyWJ kept on undoing my changes. What have I done wrong? The fact that he kept undoing my changes made me furious to keep on undoing his changes. Moreover, who is JeremyWJ? It's not like he's the keeper of this website. Anyone can change any information on Misplaced Pages as long as it's not vandalism and if you start blocking people for that, I don't have anything left to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orcadas (talk • contribs) 08:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Understand that wikipedia is not a place where we update on the status of something every time it changes for a little bit. With that logic we would have to edit, for example, every article of stores, restaurants, and such each night when they close for 5-6 hours at night. You misunderstand the meaning of "status". It is -not- about where the site is online right here and now, but its overall status. For sites that are still going (despite temporary downtime) they are considered Active/Online. All website articles through Misplaced Pages use this same rule. Again, refer to the talk page of The Pirate Bay, the talk page for the Website article template, and you can even check out WP:NOTNEWS for policy on this. Also this is not the place to discuss this, but I responded since you already started it here. As for who I am, I am just a normal user like you. I'm very active in the Pirate Bay and other file sharing articles. Just understand that although I see why you think it should have been changed when it was offline, you were going against general consensus, along with Misplaced Pages policy by doing so. As for why we -both- were almost blocked was because of WP:3RR. You are only allowed 3 reverts per article per 24 hours by policy. We both got out of hand, but I've been trying very very hard to keep that article from being changed to offline when it does go out. Understand that this site is nearing its final days and when people change it to anything saying offline they think the site is gone for good (with good reason because that is what it would should mean). JeremyWJ (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not up to me to decide who is "right" and who is "wrong". In the end, you're both wrong for gross violations of the three revert rule and can consider yourselves fortunate that you weren't blocked. Enigma 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

:(

Alf left. RoryReloaded 11:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maximo V. Lorenzo article

Thank you for putting a block on the users vandalizing! However just after you placed the block, it was attacked by the same ip,

The specific ips/name attacking are-

Username: Hucastlaz "76.93.171.168" "74.105.38.24" "98.18.50.1" "98.18.38.11" "98.194.14.79" "24.218.151.129" "173.33.105.34"

I actually know who these people are, and they will get friends to vandalize the site, the main effort is by the 98 ip in georgia. I'm actually not good at this sort of thing so i appreciate your help!

ComicArticle (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Protected for a week. Enigma 23:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it, but this has been the same people for months ( and i don't talk to them or instigate anyway ) so after the protection goes down, and new vandalism arises, I will ask for a more perm protection....Thank you for your work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComicArticle (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Before yesterday, the article had only been edited four times since July. Enigma 23:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Xapxapxap

Any chance you could comment on this user's current unblock request? Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. Enigma 02:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans, thanks for having a look. I'll try to keep an eye on them, since they seem prone to edit warring. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

He shouldn't have been reported to AIV, but obviously it's my fault for placing an improper block. I saw the warnings and the edits, but I didn't look carefully enough at the edits, and I didn't notice just about all the warnings were from one person. I wish people would use AIV for what it was intended for. Enigma 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate you re-instating my account. I wasn't trying to vandalize. I also think Z's latest edit, removing all reference to MJ's push off on Byron Russell, is foolish. Most people visiting the Byron Russell page, this far after his retirement, will be doing so because of that play, which is one of the most iconic plays in league history. Anyway thanks for re-instating me. -Xapxapxap

Enigmaman, do you believe that we should assert, as a fact, that Jordan pushed off Russell? Maybe I should have tried some sort of dispute resolution process, but I'm pretty confident that Xapxapxap's wording wouldn't pass muster at a GA or FA discussion. (Not to imply that the article has ever been close to that level of quality, regardless of that sentence.)

In any case, I would appreciate it if you could at least put the page on your watchlist. Someone just made this edit to the page, but I don't want to end up blocked. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a very famous play. There are reliable sources talking about it. If it were up to me, it'd be in the article. If not to say that he actually pushed off, at least to point out that many believe a foul should have been called. Enigma 05:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the edit, I don't see a problem with it. You have to understand, Russell is remembered by the casual fan mostly for that play. Enigma 05:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, and I've never disputed that people believe that Jordan pushed off Russell. We could mention that in the article, if presented in an appropriate fashion. The issue is this: should we state, as an unqualified fact, that Jordan did push off Russell? Even though there was no foul called? The last edit says, "Jordan started to dribble right, then crossed over to his left, pushing off Russell." Zagalejo^^^ 05:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and before someone says something, I'm not User Team. People are free to run a checkuser on me to verify that. Zagalejo^^^ 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there will be a checkuser run. :) I think most would agree he pushed off, but I would say it shouldn't be worded that way. Maybe "appeared" to push off, which caused a lot of controversy in the aftermath, or something to that effect. Enigma 06:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Overturned speedies

Yeah. You want to do it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 04:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly. I just noticed the DRV and saw several of the participants say it should be overturned and sent to AfD. Enigma 04:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually admins take care of those if there's consensus to take to afd. If one doesn't, I'll either ask one to do so, or do it myself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 04:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV not the right venue?

I see you very quickly removed my report without suggesting an alternative venue. Where should it go? Astronaut (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP, but I handled it for you, so you don't have to bother. You shouldn't report those to AIV. AIV is for blocking. The IP can't be blocked anyway because it hasn't edited in days. Enigma 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)