Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:59, 26 September 2006

My talk page is currently fully protected, so send email if something is urgent.

Archives Archive 1 (January 2005 to June 2005) Archive 2 (July 2005 to October 2005) Archive 3 (November 2005) Archive 4 (December 2005) Archive 5 (January 2006) Archive 6 (February 2006) Archive 7 (March 2006) Archive 8 (April 2006) Archive 9 (May 2006) Archive 10 (June 2006) Archive 11 (July/August 2006) Archive 12 (September 2006)

Block

I've blocked you and XP for 12 hours per . You both went over 3RR and yours was particularly egregious since it is in fact normal to note previous AfD discussions. Even it if could have been done is a less loud fashion by XP that did not at all excuse your removal of it. And your use of the rollback tool was also uncalled for. JoshuaZ 02:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting his continued efforts to troll that afd. His last attempt to add a link to a previous discussion was also reverted by a third party. JosuaZ...did you bother to read the information, that thisother editor was also in violation on another page for 3RR/ Furthermore, why the late block? I haven't even been online for some time.--MONGO 03:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what good this block is supposed to do...I haven't been online in 10 hours almost and that 3RR report was from 12 hours before this block was applied. Did JoshuaZ bother to read that this other editor had also been edit warring on another article and in fact broke 3RR there as well...yet he gets the same block length? I've never noticed previous discussions from previous afd's posted on current afds...maybe this is routine, but that's news to me.--MONGO 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking over the relevant difs. One moment. In the meantime, note that two examples of where the previous discussions have been listed are here and here it is in fact very common on AfD and I can give you more examples if you want. JoshuaZ 04:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've unblocked you under the presumption that there will not be further edit warring over the matter. I am also unblocking XP because the block there also seems to be non-preventative in nature. JoshuaZ 04:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify one thing- I gave you the same block lengths since a) you used the rollback tool b) as an admin should have known better than to go over 3RR anyways even without rollback and c) as I pointed out above mentioning earlier AfDs is by itself a common practice. JoshuaZ 04:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email.--MONGO 04:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

|Autoblocked still:I can email my IP to an admin but will not post it here}}

You can post the block # and we can unblock with that. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll email my IP to you.--MONGO 06:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. 259213...can someone please reset this autoblock?--MONGO 06:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. 259213 hello....

Thanks.--MONGO 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mtnbox start

So I just finished converting all the articles that used the deprecated ]. I notice you are an admin. I was thinking it might be a good idea to fix it so no one is likely to use it if that is possible. It still appears on some user pages and some Misplaced Pages: type pages. I did not think I should take the liberty to edit those. You can see the pages I left on this Whatlinkshere page Note that there are two other similar templates on the To Do list that I have not worked on.--Droll 05:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Badly formatted article

The article Squaw's Tit besides being poorly written and offensive is very poorly formatted. Is there some template I could use to mark it. Thanks. --Droll 06:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would delete the entire section that starts with Squaw Tit, United States occurrences, leaving the last links and the categories if they are appropriate. I am not currently able to edit aside from this page so I can't help you much.--MONGO 06:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that section. Thanks for the speedy help. --Droll 07:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hey MONGO, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I've consulted an admin about your inexplicable warning after I contributed to a talk page, I would like to discuss what your problem is but judging by your immediate issue of a final warning, and removing my warning from your talk page about removing content, i doubt you would listen to me --Frogsprog 14:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your editing history and block log clearly indicate you are a troll. Buzz off.--MONGO 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

and thats a personal attack --Frogsprog 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep...I can't see any justice in supporting your trolling attempts by lying and stating that your edits are helpful. Go away.--MONGO 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Block of Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

Tbeatty's second statement was that Jones had been suspended for misrepresenting his research and the Daily Herald cited to support this. The article states:

School officials suspended Jones over concerns that his paper on the subject has not been published in traditional, peer-reviewed scientific journals

It does not say he misrepresented his research.

The article also says that Jones stated it had been peer-reviewed in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies". The university wished it to be reviewed elsewhere. There is no statement of misrepresentation. Indeed the conclusion of the article is:

They will determine if Jones's version of events is plausible or if he has been irresponsible in his research, either by going beyond his expertise or ignoring facts that contradicted his hypothesis.

This clearly states there is as yet no conclusion on misrepresentation or otherwise, since the purpose of the new review is to determine this.

Therefore Tbeatty's second statement is no more validated than his first.

Bearing in mind the first comment that Tbeatty made, and my response, I would have thought a sensible course would have been to have backed off, rather than made the trollish rephrasing of his initial statement with the words, "not to be confused with lying because lying is ... different", clearly implying that he thinks in this case there is no difference, i.e. essentially restating what he said before.

I hope this explains.

Tyrenius 06:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as defamatory comments go, I don't draw a great distinction where they are made, because of the Foundation sensitivity over this. As seen here google stores and retrieves user and user talk pages, and will bring up an individual's name. (The google lag means the latest comments have not been cached.) The block was preventative, but if you feel it was harsh (I don't) then I have no objection to you shortening or removing it. I think a stiff warning from you as well would be very helpful. Tyrenius 07:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Cheers. Tyrenius 07:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Hi, MONGO, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Earlier block

I'm a bit busy right now, so I will take a look again sometime today or tommorrow (if it turns out no 3RR occured and you want I'll add a 1-second block noting that so it will be permanently linked in the block record). However, as I understand 3RR, it doesn't matter that the material reverted was different only that 4 reversions occured in 24 hours. As to the 10 hour issue- while I agree I should have considered that while making the block that is an enforcement issue and thus not relevant to the issue of whether there is a problem with the block in the log. In any event, I'll look at the difs as soon as I get a chance. JoshuaZ 11:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)