Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:53, 1 August 2006

User talk:Freakofnurture/header

Let's try this again

Please join the civil discussion on WT:WASH regarding naming conventions and the infobox so that we can get consensus and put this ugly mess behind us. -- NORTH 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ben Wallace, my two cents

Yeah, those scenarios are a bit out there, and I do understand that things happen, take Len Bias for example. However, the rule of thumb in sports is that once a player signs a contract with Team A, then he is officially IS a player for Team A. It would be hard for Ben to get out of his contract now anyways without the potential for multi-million dollar lawsuits. So despite the fact that we are still in the offseason and the regular season is still months away, Ben Wallace is a Chicago Bull. He is even listed now on the Bulls OFFICIAL team roster on their website. That should be proof anough that Big Ben is now a Bull. Dknights411 03:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tfd top template

After I reverted your change, I noticed that the deletion instructions had changed for TFD some time ago to place the template after the section header instead of before. When placed after the header I of course agree that the template is better without the margin. Pagrashtak 04:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hatnotes location

The page gives three distinct, valid arguments for placing the templates before initial images or boxes. I'll even throw in that, by keeping the start of the text and the box at the same level, it causes minimal visual alteration to the layout, not more. Circeus 18:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The extra whitespace is due to extra linebreaks after the {{cuisine}} template, and is not an issue found on on pages with hatnotes. Circeus 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are purposefully linking to an egregious misus of redirection templates. I was about to correct it to what the article actually uses before I noticed it is an older version. I can't see why an article would need more than a single line of hatnote. I'msorry, but I fail to see the point you aretrying tomake with this example. Circeus 18:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

is there an easy way to keep an infobox in the top right corner rather than below the linebreak(s) created by the disambiguation link(s)? For a given infobox, I can think of several, but on a large scale, I'm afraid that is virtually impossible. This is due to the chaotic nature of series and infobox templates creation and the multiple ways in which they are styled: some may use classes such as infobox which can be affected via MediaWiki.css, but many, many do not. There are also numerous infoboxes that are not even templatized and would have to be edited on a case by case basis. And then you'd have to consider the potential breaks in other skins...Circeus 19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

o.O Are you just being sarcastic? If not, then I wish you good luck. That's just a wee bit too embitious for me. Circeus 19:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding css: It happens so that, as far as I know, no screen readers actually *uses* the audio css defined by w3c.
• Regarding the auto-disambiguating infobox, the disambiguation is still pertinent in providing a quick link to the right article. Circeus 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The French Misplaced Pages actually places stubs (as well as categories and interwiki links in the source) at the top of articles, although I do not know whether that is the reason why. I do not know whether other wikis do that do either. Circeus 20:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 17 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Everybody Knows, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Grue  11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th

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. --Michael Snow 05:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sectional notice templates

Templates aimed at Sectional guidence notice rather than article guidence notice should not be formated with borders and background. See Template:Expandsect or Template:Sectfact. --Barberio 13:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

I'm looking for users how now something about anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is currently under featured article review. Any help in maintaining featured status would be appreciated. -- Vision Thing -- 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

== We need to solve the Ben Wallace problem NOW!!! ==

I already listed my reasons as to my stand on this issue, so please read my comments in the NBA Wikiproject's talk page. One way or another, this silly fight needs to be resolved NOW!!! This whole debate over this SMALL issue is not really make wikipedia look good. We can come up with something, right? Dknights411 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

daily boilerplate

I'm sure you thought you were helping (somehow), when you deleted the TfD daily boilerplate. That caused everybody else -- the ones that read, follow instructions, and cooperate -- to be inserted out of order throughout the rest of the day. Meaning that I had to re-order them by hand....

Of course, those are also the end of day instructions that advise folks to go to the new day. I'm sure that you were aware that Crypticbot used to insert them at the end of each day, but now they are included for more ease in doing the next day transitional work by hand. (They are cleanly and simply left in place when the NEW DISCUSSIONS section is deleted.)

Anyway, please don't do that again!

--William Allen Simpson 00:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

King's Highway (Ontario) → List of Ontario provincial highways on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of King's Highway (Ontario) → List of Ontario provincial highways. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.

Per freakofnurture's talk page rules, this info must be left here even by those that want to hide the truth

crucial information being kept from AFD. See removal here

This information of abuse has been reported on the notice boards and have been removed and the accounts banned. It is vital because it reports abuse.

Below are links to edits by multiple users. Because these users are administrators they will likely use the article delete power to hide them. All edits only going back the last 30 days or so.

MONGO blanks sections of talk pages that were not vandalism or personal attacks. WP:VAND considers this action vandalism.:

Makes threats of premeditated speedy deletion of Encyclopedia Dramatica article in edit summaries:

Modifies another user's talk page comment that was not a personal attack or vandalism:

Protected an article about twelve hours after two edits that he disagreed with were reverted:

Edited an article after protecting it removing many cited sources (see his words on why ) :

Admits he was fine with the older screenshot on Encyclopedia Dramatica:

User Kizzle uploads an image that is an attack image and unfree to MONGO's user talk page. Even fair use are not allowed there. MONGO, Tony Sidaway, and all the other admins leave it and do nothing, despite MONGO's previous quick deletion of images and quickness to protect articles:

User NoSeptember protects the image after someone tried to replace it with an image that wasn't illegal and restores the illegal image:

MONGO further endorses the illegal image:

MONGO removes any attempts of users he bans from communicating with him:

MONGO calls encyclopedia dramatica retarded as well as promising to remove protection and put the external link back (which he later refused to do at ):

MONGO refuses to put link back or unprotect the article Encyclopedia Dramatica:

MONGO engaging in personal attacks when giving block reasons:

TonySidaway engaging in personal attacks when giving block reasons:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:MONGO1 has made edits directly coinciding with MONGO on wikipedia first learning that he had an article on that site. The edits included vandalism and personal attacks:

Encyclopedia Dramatica Checkuser found the account came from 24.252.28.188 = ip24-252-28-188.om.om.cox.net

Proof that it is MONGO: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=60621470

Evidence of MONGO hiding edits from his IP on wikipedia:

Directly after the MONGO1 account was banned a new account arose, using the name "Ed Poor", potentialy impersonation. contributions that did more vandalism and personal attacks. This one used AOL IPs 205.188.116.196, 205.188.117.70, 205.188.117.74.

Ed Poor states it was not him.

Other IPs with associated vandalism afterward:

• 203.109.225.187 resolves to 203-109-225-187.bliink.ihug.co.nz
• 128.2.141.33 resolves to ERR.CYLAB.CMU.EDU

MONGO and Tony Sidaway removed the results -- In general psychology (from wikipedia's articles), if someone was innocent they would want it to stand as evidence whereas a guilty person would want to hide it: (example) all mention of it and banned the account for eternity that said it. MONGO protects the talk page where it was first mentioned. Tony Sidaway also hides the IP results

Another admin wishes to investigate this and MONGO reverts that admin twice:

MONGO hides the cox.net IP and claims it was only AOL. Is it because the cox.net IP is his?:

MONGO deletes the user and user talk page of someone mentioning this and MONGO makes personal attacks in the summary of why he deleted them:

MONGO tells someone to post to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, however he has reverted complaints about him there (see above):

MONGO says, "well the sight is supportive of calling African-Americans (and blcaks in general) by the "N" word...so if there was an article that used that word on the mainpage, that would not be worth linking to either.":

When asked if MONGO would spend the "spend the same amount of time and energy on that article" (being GNAA article), MONGO said:

MONGO deletes an image instead of reverted a changed version of it:

MONGO vandalizes the article again by removing the external link to the site:

MONGO removes links that quote his wiki edits in talk pages:

Other actions by MONGO:

• "Ah, I am not aware of them or their activities. I have worked very hard in the past to protect many wikipedians from off-wiki harassment by those that have posted at wikipediareview and hivemind. I can't be at all places at once, and I was alerted by someone about this stuff.--MONGO 08:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)" Guess what? He banned the person who helped him out.
• "What are you accusing me of? I see that you have had an account with us for a year and have less than 150 edits total and you want me to take your commentary seriously? I was alerted to this situation...I don't have the time to be everywhere, buddy. How about you go write one long well referenced article and stop your trolling.--MONGO 09:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) "
• After being asked why he targets the Encyclopedia Dramatica article and not GNAA, MONGO blanks the talk page, moving discussions from minutes ago into an archive so the entire talk page is blank.

• Mongo announces plans to destroy the article Encyclopedia Dramatica so it passes AFD.
• Then states that he continues this plan

Tony Sidaway examples of personal attacks:

• "I have blocked this editor becausae he's stupid"
• "he's an obvious nutter ... Let's just tell him to fuck off."
• "He's a troll. Our only appropriate words to him are "fuck off."
• "I sincerely suggest that "fuck off" is almost too kind for this pernicious and stupid troll."

Tony Sidaway also reverted someone's own messages in their talk page and protected it, claiming "they attempted to use their talk page."

Note troll is used as a personal attack. See WP:NPA. MONGO also uses the word retarded both for a personal attack on a user (first one in list below as well as for a website)

MONGO gives personal attacks in edits:

MONGO gives personal attacks in edit summaries:

Cedartooth 10:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My New Nickname

Lol, thanks for the new nickname. Only people on Misplaced Pages call me that, but hey, whatever works. :) Oh, PS, some cabalist deleted the thing, I made it up again. Karmafist 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PPS, I forgot, most can't see the hidden edits, so feel free to delete the article about me again and then start it again, the cabalists might try to say that I'm just trying to promote myself or something. That article really cheered me up, and i'd for their usual shit to damper that cheer. Karmafist 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought it would have something to do with notability. I was surprised that it had more to do with authorship. — Jul. 19, '06 <freak|talk>

Page Designs

God, I am so addicted to your userpage design. Would you mind if I stole and kinda re-designed some of your userpage designs for my userpage? Thanks. --S-man 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Remington

Excellent. Still, I'm going to make an attempt to contact that user, just in case. Surely there are other people named Remington. ;) Mangojuice 14:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note...

... to say you rock. That's it. Ifnord 21:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: my talk

I was willing to settle for that page that had the links to Costa Rica, the Czech Republic and the Cree language, but you reverted even that. +Hexagon1 10:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the solution we're talking about at the talk. +Hexagon1 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and PS: I didn't remove any entries from that disambig page, I only supported the user who did, as a cutdown, similar to what was done at "List of Internet slang" recently. But that was before I noticed things like Chromium and CR postal code. +Hexagon1 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Steely Dan

Hi, the categories that you re-added to Category:Steely Dan are already present in the Steely Dan article where they belong. Categories named after people/groups should not contain the same categories as the article as Steely Dan would appear in all those categories twice. Category:Categories named after musicians is sufficient. --musicpvm 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Freeway/motorway/whatever category

--SPUI (T - C) 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RFD discussion time

I've undone your change to the RFD header (shortening the discussion period from seven days to two) pending the outcome of the discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#RfD_discussion_time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

revert rollback abuse

Why did you revert me at Golden Boy (disambiguation)? The issue has been discussed, and user:Sean Black insists on restoring an item which fits no criteria of notability, contrary to the conventions for disambiguation pages (which he refers to as "some arcane, idiotic guideline"). Neither T-shirt, Seinfeld, nor The Marine Biologist are disambiguating terms for Golden Boy. I'm not going to continue arguing on the edit summary—I'm just going to revert a stubborn editor who insists on ignoring consensus guidelines. —Michael Z. 2006-07-22 16:23 Z

The lack of an article with a corresponding title is no valid reason to remove a link to a broader article discussing a topic. Take songs for example. Most song titles should exist as redirects to the album of original release, until fleshed into autonomous articles. Such an item should be listed on the disambiguation page regardless of its actual status, which is always subject to change, whether this MOSDAB-adherent butchery movement takes notice or not. — Jul. 22, '06 <freak|talk>

In this case, Golden Boy (T-shirt) or somesuch should clearly exist as a redirect to the Seinfeld episode. The current non-existance of said target article is not Sean Black's fault. Suspend your immediatism for a bit, somebody will write it. — Jul. 22, '06 <freak|talk>

A prop which is not even notable enough to be mentioned in the episode plot summary will never rate a Misplaced Pages article. It can't according to the arcane, idiotic Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction). These guidelines are important, or disambiguation pages would turn into unusable thesaurus pages. —Michael Z. 2006-07-22 16:46 Z

I didn't say the T-shirt would. The episode article, however, most likely will be written, at which time the T-shirt title shall redirect to it. — Jul. 22, '06 <freak|talk>

The episode is not called "Golden Boy". We don't redirect from every minor prop with a nickname in every episode of every television program. It won't have an article because it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria. Disambiguation pages aren't dumps of words relating to aricles, they are lists of disambiguating terms only. Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) before arguing at length.

By the way, "your logic also dictates the removal of Oscar de la Hoya and actor William Holden (actor)" is missing the point. These are both called Golden Boy, and are both notable. Your strawman argument puts them up against a link to Golden Boy (Seinfeld t-shirt), which is not even in question. —Michael Z. 2006-07-22 16:53 Z

Incidentally, I found the article The Marine Biologist (Seinfeld episode), which I moved to the simpler title.--SB | T 17:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. — Jul. 22, '06 <freak|talk>

Cshay talk page

Thanks for doing the move, I was just about to ask for help in preserving the history. --Ideogram 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 00:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th

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. --Michael Snow 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing RfDs early

I'm not sure why it is so common, and I don't see why some RfDs are closed so early. You closed WP:RFD#WP: Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. → Misplaced Pages:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man on the same day that it was put up on WP:RFD, somewhere in the seven hours I was asleep it was posted, deleted and the discussion was closed. Is there some other governing policy at work here? All I can find is "Policy suggests a week of discussion before closure. However, exceptions may be made for items qualifying for speedy deletion", from WP:DPR#Closing RfD nominations. Note that I'm not in favour of keeping this specific redirect, but no mention of its speediability was referenced and I don't want to see pointless, non-controversially deletable redirects come back through DRV. BigNate37_T·C 15:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Patent nonsense pretty much covers it, does it not? —freak(talk) 15:42, Jul. 25, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. If it is patent nonsense, it should have the proper db tag placed on it (by anyone in my opinion, regardless of RfD participation), deleted via CSD (not by the RfD admin), and then the RfD closure should mention somehow that the redirect was not deleted by RfD, i.e. as a speedy. Perhaps this is just a matter of an unclear note left behind on a closed RfD. BigNate37_T·C 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps, more sinisterly, allowing it to be dragged through DRV will further elucidate the spite and process wankery that fuels said venue. A dozen people saying "It's stupid and pointless but it should be re-listed so it can be deleted slowly", what's the point in that? —freak(talk) 15:52, Jul. 25, 2006 (UTC)

I'm not supporting the non-controversial deletions that come back through DRV (though technically they're not non-controversial in their deletion if they get put through DRV even if you and I think it's a no-brainer). It sounds like you're threatening to make a WP:POINT by deleting things early. That wouldn't really prove anything to me, if you have so much disdain for how RfD is operating perhaps it is time to take a break from the process? BigNate37_T·C 16:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, my disdain is for deletion review, in which I avoid participating whenever possible. —freak(talk) 16:04, Jul. 25, 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. In any event, DRV for the sake of DRV is a violation of WP:IAR, and I'd be glad to slap the db tag on our crazy-long "shortcut" if it does come back in spite of CSD criteria. BigNate37_T·C 16:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Undelete Userbox

I would like to make Userbox a redirect page to Misplaced Pages:Userbox. Can you undelete it? — The Mac Davis] ญƛ. 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to the wikipedia namespace from the article namespace aren't really allowed. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A question/request for a deletion guru like yourself

I've been reading over all of the deletion processes and policies and I feel like an idiot because I can't find anything about early closures. If there is such a thing, can you close this one early? Someone was supposed to turn the article into a redirect after they merged all the info into Internet slang, but they didn't, and now the article has been put on AfD. It's a useless AfD. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, generally, if somebody writes something at one title, and if there is a reasonable possibility that his or material has been copied to a different title, as in the case of merging small articles or splitting large ones, it's really not ethical to delete that person's edits. In rare cases where a redirect (from the title where the text was originally added, to the title where the text is later being used) isn't appropriate, there are other options such as moving the redirect (with the old edits still under it) to a better title, then deleting the resulting double redirect. But I don't think that's necessary in this case. —freak(talk) 18:22, Jul. 25, 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Tony Sidaway told about not listing the redirect for deletion once you merge two articles because of GFDL (or GDFL, I can't remember the acronym). Thank you for your concern though :-). I seem to be merging a lot of articles lately...some weird urge overtook me. I came across this article, which probably should be split instead of merged, eh? But enough of the topics in it cross over each other and whatnot that I'm leaving it as one article for now. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD

I have moved your comment on my talk page to Talk:AFD and placed my reply there. Thanks/wangi 19:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Eluchil404's RfA

Thank you for taking the time to express an opinion in my recent request for adminship. I have withdrawn my self-nomination because there seemed little prospect for further productive discussion or the formation of a consensus to promote. Many commentators offered constructive critisism that I will use to improve myself as a user. Others suggested that the nomination was premature and that a re-nom in a few months would be more likely to gain consensus. Thank you for your comment. I hadn't thought of my talk page contributions as limited before the RfA, but participating in the community is a part of being a model wikipedian. It is definitely somthing for me to work on as I strie to improve as an editor. Eluchil404 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of the question on my talk while I was gone .Dakota ~ 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

answered

Here --Dakota ~ 21:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I did

You have some too.--Dakota ~ 21:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

UNA Observatory

Actually, when I created all these observatory stubs, I used the offical Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Telescopes layout (I guess it isn't green anymore). There isn't a template on the page, but there probably should be one.--Rayc 04:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the talk page has Template:Infobox ground-based telescope, but that's not exactly the same.--Rayc 04:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That was right

Yes that was the right thing.--Dakota ~ 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and your vote

Hello again Mr. Nurture, Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. I appreciate an AfD expert like yourself complimenting my philosophy on AfD voting—I intend to become more active in commenting on deletions. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page. Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Your edit to User:O-TOWN'S AT

It seems clear on reviewing the pattern of edits of User:167.1.146.100 (particularly ) that this is a sock of the banned user. How do you think we should proceed? I have placed a sockpuppet template in the meantime. --Guinnog 15:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have k-lined the IP address, which appears to be static, based upon the contributions list and the ARIN data. If somebody screams collateral damage at a later date, I'll want the ISP to confirm that it's a different subscriber before unblocking. —freak(talk) 15:21, Jul. 29, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Guinnog 19:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

TFD: Legal disclaimer (Now Legally frivolous)

I changed the text so that this template is no longer a disclaimer -- it simply re-states that the argument have been found to be legally frivolous in the technical sense of that term, which is an NPOV statement that should be sourced in the artice. (I thought we had an article on the subject of legally frivolous arguments -- we should.) I also added an argument that can provide an appopriate geographic qualifier. Since there seems to be no consensus to delete, I changed the name to {{legally frivolous}} and placed the {{tfd}} on what is now a redirect. I wanted to call your attention to this so that if you feel I have acted improperly, you can revert in whole or in part. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Freakofnurture/Wikipedia_is_NOT_Classmates.com

Hi, welp I looked at your userpage and tried to view http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Freakofnurture/Wikipedia_is_NOT_Classmates.com and welp it's gone. I'd like to know what it said. It's a link on your userpage. Anomo 18:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I purged it when I realized it had a bit much in the way of personal information. Perhaps I'll repost a more prudent version in the future. —freak(talk) 18:52, Jul. 29, 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about the whole debate that was there. There's this wikipedia debate about keeping, deleting, or merging schools. Maybe you can do a new version with the personal info censored out? Anomo 19:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Topicbot

According to the blocklog you blocked this person/bot for being a "bad idea".

He is on IRC asking the reason/rationale. What should I tell him or is it possible to perhaps reverse the block since it wasn't a vandal bot or anything destructive.

--Cat out 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for checking an IP

Dear Freakofnurture,

There's an anon IP 222.146.155.168 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who is engaging in POV-pushing in an article on riots in Cronulla, Australia (and this charming personal attack). The IP is registered as coming from Japan, which doesn't seem like a likely place for someone posting only on the Cronulla riots. Could this be a open proxy? Thanks, Andjam 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st

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 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I was not coming here under the "IT's ME!!!" account to commit vandalism, I wanted to discuss the terms of my block. I have not exhausted community patience, this is a Fascist environment. I am sorry that you have such strong feelings against me, and feel the need to block off my account. Can we discuss this in a civil manner for once, and put all resentment aside? I am not trying to come back, I just want to end WIkiFascism. The addictions to my page by EnPSYCHOpedist and by Encyclofan were not my own. I am currently in the midst of problems unrelated to the Wiki, which have really taken a toll on my life. Sorry, Misplaced Pages really is Fascism - I actually have other accounts that you all don't know about, including an admin. account since the beginning of January. I have most probably made 30,000 contribs. with all my accounts combined, so I really don't care about this one. I plan to reveal myself from one of my most highly regarded accounts, and some other Wikiactivities. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider the block

Hello, I see you have shortened the block on User:Ed_g2s from one week to one day. I ask that you reconsider this action. Several editors have expressed their opinions on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:ed_g2s_reported_by_User:_User:MatthewFenton_.28Result:1_day.29 that the block be at least 3 days in order to show that admins are not getting special consideration when they violate 3RR. While blocked, Ed has posted to that page calling his block "utterly absurd". I think this is clear indication that he still does not see why he was wrong to behave unilaterally as he did. I request that you reconsider, and that you lengthen the block to at least 3 days. It is important that Ed see his behavior was wrong, and it is important for others to see that administrators are treated fairly but firmly when they step out of line. Johntex\ 18:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another opinion here (not commenting on the 3RR page because I'm not s big believer in 3RR): 24 hours seems far more reasonable to me than a week. Friday (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He exceeded three reverts on three different pages. Two of them were the removal of obvious copyright violations. To wit, several copyrighted sports team logos were repeatedly inserted (for solely decorative purposes) into articles not directly pertaining to the teams themselves. No fair use rationale could possibly justify the images' use in that context. The third was a screenshot from some movie, which may be a legitimate matter of dispute, depending on the availablity of free images depicting the actresses' likeness, which I have not investigated. So let me put this in simpler terms... there were three "3RR violations", thus the maximum reasonable block would likely be 72 hours, however two of the three were clearly bullshit, as removing obvious copyright violations is tantamount to reverting vandalism. The third one may also be bullshit. If it is, let me know, and I'll unblock outright. —freak(talk) 18:57, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are operating under a mistaken impression. The sports team logos are not copyright violations. These are trademarked images used alongside discussion of the teams they represent. By definition, no free alternative is available. They are not decorative, they are used along side discussion. Also, I find your tone offensive in calling these violations "bullshit". Clearly, multiple editors thought enough of Ed's offfenses to post them and to speak out in support of the block. Even if you still disagree they were violations, to characterize someone elses good faith complaint as "bullshit" is not very civil. Johntex\ 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

They are copyrighted images, and fair use would permit us to use them "to illustrate the object in question" meaning that a team's logo might appear in the upper-right corner of an article about that team. —freak(talk) 19:42, Aug. 1, 2006 (UTC)

Where the logo appears is not what is relevant. What is relevant is that the are used to illustrate the object in question. That can be on any article where the team is discussed. Since you apparently are choosing not to reconsider either your choice of words or your lowering of the block, I will request another admin to do increase the block. Johntex\ 19:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of copyrighted logos to decorate references to the entity owning the logo is not compatible with our copyright use policy. Specifically, the use of sports team logos to decorate references to the team in any article other than an article about the team is an impermissible use of unlicensed media. Such uses should be avoided, and removed when found. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)