Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tijuana Brass (talk | contribs) at 22:26, 16 December 2007 (→Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarah Kreager: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Plenty of reasons why. Most of all, it just isn't fun anymore. I'll save the lengthy analysis of what is wrong with wikipedia for another time.

See yall round.

Justforasecond 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Arb request

I think you have a misunderstanding about the sockpuppet, checkuser and privacy policies. There are many reasons that alternate accounts might be blocked, including trolling and other forms of disruption. Regardless, the accounts blocked by Jayjg need to be listed so that the arbitrators can evaluate the appropriateness of the individual blocks and use of checkuser. For example, if one account was being disruptive, this might justify a checkuser that would uncover the other accounts. On the other hand, if all the accounts were behaving within Misplaced Pages norms, there might be an argument that checkuser was inappropriate. It looks however, like they would prefer a direct complaint to arbcom-L at wikipedia dot org. Thatcher131 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-labeling the accounts is fine. Read the comments of the arbitrators so far. If the request is rejected, which seems likely, the next step would be either a complaint to the noticeboard or an admin-conduct RFC. Your best argument either way would be to say that you are not a banned user, that the accounts were never used for a banned purpose (such as vote stacking or false consensus on an article talk page) and that the edits that probably triggered the check (to Jews for Jesus) were not disruptive enough to justify checkusering you--therefore Jayjg's actions were inappropriate. I haven't checked the contribs of Enlightening so I don't know how good of an argument you are likely to be able to make. I also see you were caught using sockpuppets for a banned purpose back in February, so this will hurt your chances this time around. Thatcher131 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments

This stuff is tedious, isn't it? Mackan79 06:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just, you might want to remove your retirement banners on your user and user talk pages... Homestarmy 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Siripongs art.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Siripongs art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for notable references

In a discussion at Talk:Jews for Jesus#non-notable references making wikitext unreadable on 8 March 2007, you said: "Please review the guidelines for notable references." Are these different from the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources? I hadn't heard of notability for references before. Can you provide a citation for me? Thanks. --Bejnar 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retirement notice

Hello, Justforasecond. I removed the retirement notices from your user and user talk pages, since it looks like you've returned and they're therefore a bit misleading. Feel free to return them should you decide to leave the project again. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have mistaken my months. I restored (and updated) the notice. My apologies. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Amenemhet III.jpg

I thought this was unkind

Please don't refer to the things I write as "chatter." It is demeaning and rude, especially after, in the RfC, I had specifically explained that I found that rude when Dbachmann did it earlier. Second, please try to keep your comments on all talk pages and RfCs focused on the matter at hand and refrain from bringing up unrelated matters or old vendettas. This RfC is not about Deeceevoice, it is about many users who feel they have been treated with no respect by Dbachmann, including myself. I found your interjection off topic and unhelpful. If you do have something to add, can you do it in such a way that's more calm and constructive? I'm also letting you know that you made me angry, but I'm trying to be non-confrontational about it. futurebird (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Justforasecond, I noticed that you opposed my arbitration candidacy on the basis that, as I'm a checkuser ombudsperson, I "monitor arbcom" and this would create a conflict of interest. I'm just a bit confused about this - because I said in my candidate statement that if it was felt that it would be a COI to hold the two roles I would gladly step down as an ombudsperson. Rebecca 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be a bit confused about the role of the ombudsperson. They don't actually have anything to do with the arbitration committee or blocking - their only role is to investigate complaints about CheckUser data being disclosed in breach of the privacy policy. Rebecca 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarah Kreager

For starters, keep in mind that AfD isn't a numerical vote; consensus is based upon editors bringing up reasons according to Misplaced Pages guidelines for a keep or delete. In this case, the reasons to keep the article were primarily based upon predictions that it may become a long-lasting news item of notability, which isn't an acceptable reason (WP:NOT#NEWS applies here, among other reasons). Perhaps more importantly, though, the Baltimore bus beating article paralleled the same content while focusing on the larger (and more notable) issue, drawing in all parties involved; keeping both articles would just duplicate information.

You can bring up the issue at Deletion Review if you disagree; I won't take it personally. I would instead suggest focusing on working on the Baltimore article, however, as there's not a need to have two articles with the same content. Cheers, Tijuana Brass (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)