Misplaced Pages

User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:35, 17 April 2016 editGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 editsm Reverted edits by Trumpald Don (talk) to last version by Gogo Dodo← Previous edit Revision as of 23:50, 18 April 2016 edit undoAndy M. Wank (talk | contribs)34 edits {{ek|spam and vandalism}} {{delete|cross-wiki vandalism}} {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} {{subst:uw-blockindef}}Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ek|spam and vandalism}}
{{WikibreakSwitch|ON}}
{{talkheader}}
{{tinc}}


{{delete|cross-wiki vandalism}}
{| class="tmbox mbox-small"
|-
| class="mbox-image" | ]
| class="mbox-text" | '''If I have made a mistake of any kind''', please let me know so we can discuss it.
|}
{| class="tmbox mbox-small"
|-
| class="mbox-image" | ]
| class="mbox-text" | I swing between periods of extreme activity and inactivity on Misplaced Pages. My apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.
|}


] This is your '''only warning'''; if you ] Misplaced Pages again, you may be '''] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism4im -->
== i confused with you ==


<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. </div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef -->
I have heard from many sources that valwood is hated.
it is not irrelevant and you had no right to take it down.
:{{reply to|Cailloudabeast}} Please read ] and ], two integral Misplaced Pages policies. We need ], 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 ] policy. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 22:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Bad Dragonfruit Yuck}} I like your name, but please use your editing powers for good rather than adding joke content. Thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 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"? ] (]) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Well, that seems fair enough. If you could add some ], ] content to the article to improve it, however, I'm sure it would be appreciated. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

== Worth persuing? ==

Hi GAB. Thanks for adding that evidence to the ]. 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.

{| class="wikitable"
|+Suspected sockpuppet table of evidence - selected examples
!
! Suspected sockpuppet
! Suspected sockmaster
! Known old/alt account
|-
! Similar edit summary style
|
|
| <!-- <small>''Rarely used full edit summaries''</small>
-->
|-
! Similar talk page discussion style
|
|
|
|-
! Tendency to start a new section to<br/>critique some aspect of an article
|
|
|
|}

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? ] (]) 14:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
:{{reply to|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. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::I'm digging the nice box, too; I should really try doing that in the future :) ]<sup>]</sup> 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, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
::::GAB, thanks for having a look and giving your honest opinion. I wanted an opinion from someone outside the subject area. I honestly don't feel much affinity with any of the current crop of editors there, I'd describe every one as "difficult".
::::On reflection, it seems I was mistaken to suggest the "alt" account was that of the suspected sockmaster (an SPI was opened, but a connection was never proven). Since the suspected sock's editing is closer to the "alt", I'll quietly drop the suggestion for now, unless I see a further smoking gun. Thanks for maintaining the discretion here: I wanted to be very sure my claim had merit before I started naming names and pointing fingers at over at SPI. Thanks. ] (]) 20:12, 11 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 ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:''The message was sent using the case's ]. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.''
<!-- Message sent by User:Kharkiv07@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/MassMessage_list&oldid=714240334 -->

== ANI ==

Howdy, indeed IPs are allowed. But in time, you'll discover that ''that'' IP is a ban ]. Anyways, I'll leave it with you :) ] (]) 17:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:{{reply to|GoodDay}} I'm sorry, may I ask what you were referring to? Sorry. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
::Sorry, I thought you had restored the banned editors post at ANI. ] (]) 17:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Oh, I think that was an edit conflict. Whoops. Thanks anyways. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 :) ]<sup>]</sup> 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 ]... 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 ']'. ] (]) 17:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::My apologies; was not aware of that. I am, perhaps, a little too quick to assume "sock." ]<sup>]</sup> 20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

== A kitten for you! ==

]
For correctly identifying the amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny!

'']'' <small>] ]</small> 17:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
<br style="clear: both;"/>

== Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariasfixing ==

You are hilarious .... I almost choked on my food reading your comment. :-D --] (]) 19:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
:Glad I could help. I need to stop loitering around SPI, though... ]<sup>]</sup> 19:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

== Sockpuppet ==

What do you think of ]? Same person? ] (]) 00:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Adam9007}} for sure, unless that very obvious vandalism style is more common than I thought. I actually think I know an earlier (blocked) master, but that was a while ago. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
::I've seen the SPIs but I don't know if that was the first one. ] (]) 00:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Adam9007}} It's not the first, but {{user links|Misplaced Pages is made798}} is rather similar. Next time the case is opened again, I might ask to have the case moved to them. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

== 2016 ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for the work that you do maintaining our encyclopedia. Regards, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
|}
:Thanks! Much appreciated, besides the whole "impersonation" part. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
::Um, this guy isn't me, he's a real impostor. ] (]) 00:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Yep, so I noticed :) ]<sup>]</sup> 00:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello: I see you were involved in bringing this article to GA some time ago. Recently, it has been undergoing some revamping and editing. You may want to take a look at the issues raised and work on the article accordingly. This is an important article, as you know, which receives a lot of views per year. ] (]) 13:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
:Hm. I will be out for much of this week, but I can take a look afterwards. I may not be able to add much material (my sources are not so extensive on this particular battle) but I am happy to work on copyediting, general content issues, etc. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry I picked such a poor time to step away. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

== A cup of tea for you! ==

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | because i can ] (]) 16:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 23:50, 18 April 2016

Template:Ek

This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion because: cross-wiki vandalism. For valid criteria, see CSD. cross-wiki+vandalismNA

If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.

Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.

Nominator: Please consider placing the template:
{{subst:db-reason-notice|User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|header=1|cross-wiki vandalism}} ~~~~
on the talk page of the author.
Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by Andy M. Wank (contribs | logs) at 23:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC) (8 years ago)

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.