Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:59, 8 April 2016

GeneralizationsAreBad uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken.

If I have made a mistake of any kind, please let me know so we can discuss it.

I swing between periods of extreme activity and inactivity on Misplaced Pages. My apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.

i confused with you

I have heard from many sources that valwood is hated.

it is not irrelevant and you had no right to take it down.

@Cailloudabeast: Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV, two integral Misplaced Pages policies. We need reliable sources, not just hearsay, before we can insert information into articles. Moreover, calling schools "snobby," "obnoxious," "stuck up," and "racist" is a clear breach of the latter policy which I cited above. If someone simply wrote that about another person, it would also be considered insulting, and would have to be taken down; that would fall under the WP:BLP policy. Thanks, GAB 22:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Dragonfruit

I agree with you, broadly speaking, that generalizations are bad. However, dragonfruit is excessively nasty and that's the generalization that proves the rule. Please have mercy. Bad Dragonfruit Yuck (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bad Dragonfruit Yuck: I like your name, but please use your editing powers for good rather than adding joke content. Thanks. GAB 22:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I resent the implication that my fiery denunciation of dragonfruit was anything less than gravely serious and almost morbidly sincere in its convictions. That said, how about we compromise and call it "provocative content"? Bad Dragonfruit Yuck (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that seems fair enough. If you could add some less-provocative, sourced content to the article to improve it, however, I'm sure it would be appreciated. GAB 22:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Worth persuing?

Hi GAB. Thanks for adding that evidence to the The kyle 3 SPI. Since you seem to be good at that sort of thing, do you think you could have a look at the edits of another, more subtle potential sockpuppet whom I've been watching quietly bias a whole bunch of articles for a while now?

The suspected sockpuppeteer here is a well-known Palestine-Israel POV-pusher and system-gamer and the recipient of a whole bunch of sanctions in this area. Unusually, the master is neither blocked nor sanctioned and I suspect this is either a new sock created to avoid previous scrutiny, or a throwaway sock intended to eventually end up topic banned without affecting the master account.

The suspected sockpuppeteer has been accused of sockpuppetry several times in the past. He is a technically inclined user who undoubtedly has the ability to evade a basic CheckUser. Thus I wanted to run the behavioural evidence past you to ensure it holds water before I submit an SPI. Do you think this is worth persuing? AnotherNewAccount (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@AnotherNewAccount: Thanks for asking me, I'm honored. I'm about to take a look now. One thing I would like to say is that this subject area is doubtless frequented by a number of different masters... so any account that looks suspicious may indeed be a sock, but the actual master may be obscure. I am also not so well-versed on this account, and reading up on the background may take a while. I would also recommend you seek another editor's input besides my own, just to get a sense of how others see it. Anyhow, I'll elaborate on these particular fellows in a bit. GAB 20:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm digging the nice box, too; I should really try doing that in the future :) GAB 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I have reviewed the edits provided between the two suspects (columns 1 and 2), and I'm not sure if they are operated by the same person. While there may be a connection, I can't immediately discern it from the edits. The standard for behavioral evidence in SPI is fairly high -- and with good reason, too. You may want to get a second opinion, though. I recommend you consider a few different questions:

• Which editors do each tend to quarrel with or insult?
• What specific views are they most engaged in promoting?
• What unique spelling quirks do each demonstrate?
• What specific pages do they overlap on?

You also may want to look at noticeboard and talk page posts, as well as the reverts done by each editor (which can be very illustrative). Keep in mind that the sheer contentiousness of the subject area means that there will be lots of problematic editors arguing for any one POV... and yet they may be totally unrelated. Wishing you good luck, GAB 22:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

ANI

Howdy, indeed IPs are allowed. But in time, you'll discover that that IP is a ban evader. Anyways, I'll leave it with you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm sorry, may I ask what you were referring to? Sorry. GAB 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had restored the banned editors post at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think that was an edit conflict. Whoops. Thanks anyways. GAB 17:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Okie doke. FWIW, the IP-in-question is likely a banned editor. Its first edits being at ANI, are quite odd. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I've long supported a generic "up to no good" rationale for quickly blocking accounts and IPs whose first edits are to ANI causing trouble :) GAB 17:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My appeal to reason is doubtless troublesome. I'd even ended on a lighthearted joke; a true mark of a shit-stirrer. As for that being my first edit, my IP is dynamic... I'd much appreciate it if you were to stop snickering between yourselves about me. I might not edit under a name, but I still have such things as 'feelings'. 31.153.35.116 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For correctly identifying the amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny!

bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)