Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.191.16.148 (talk) at 00:11, 19 November 2007 (→roman's block revisited: deleted irrelevant nonsense that is already duplicated in the archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thank you

Dearest Krimpet,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

CommonsHelper (CH²)

I love your CH² script. Do you think you would be able to move it over to en.wikibooks? I tried, but I couldn't get it to work :(. Thanks, Ρх₥α 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at porting it — check out b:User:Krimpet/CommonsHelper Helper and let me know if it works for you or not :) --krimpet⟲ 04:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete of page due to 'fairly strong consensus'.

No, it was a large minority group (last count 28 versus 15, or so). I protest against the decission of deleting the article Robert Young (longevity claims researcher).

I cannot imagine the Misplaced Pages Community standing behind a harassment campaign against Stan Primmer and his research foundation. As a Wikipedian I would strongly reject that. In my view, he is entitled freedom of speech.

I find some very disturbing underlying tendencies among some of the participants in the debate. Celvin11 04:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote; numbers are irrelevant (though even raw numbers were strongly in favor of deletion here). It is a discussion to determine consensus. Consensus clearly indicated that there was a lack of reliable sources upon which to base a verifiable article; even the few arguing for keep did not rebut this. Verifiability and no original research are core, non-negotiable policies here on Misplaced Pages. --krimpet⟲ 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as you were closing the discussion Stan Primmer ((founder of the Supercentenarian Research Foundation) actually posted a verification statement which was met with immature and bullying behaviour from Ms BrownHairedGirl and her gang.

Did nt you notice the agenda ?

Memberlist of Scientific Advisory Board of Primmer's research foundation is online here http://www.supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/SAB.htm

This surely isnt a great moment for Misplaced Pages. Celvin11 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankspam

User:Neranei/adminthanks

Deletion of Thich Nhat Hanh image

You've deleted the image for Thich Nhat Hanh, and I would like to reinstate that image. The image was indeed on WikiCommons, but inappropriately so and has since been deleted. This image is authorized for use on websites about Thich Nhat Hanh, the Order of Interbeing, and Plum Village, but is not authorized for other uses or alteration. It seems to me that this is a good example of fair use for an image and is used in the way the original author intends. I do have another image of Thich Nhat Hanh that I have specific permission to use, but I don't want to upload it until I know it won't be deleted for similar reasons. Thank you for your consideration. Nightngle 14:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and restored it for now - keep in mind, though, that if the license was inappropriate for Commons, it may likely be deleted here as well unless permission can be obtained :( --krimpet⟲ 16:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into obtaining permissions. Nightngle 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks suspicious

Your protection of NPA right after Viridae edited it looks suspicious. You do realize that Viridae is a contributor to wikipedia review, a website that has long permitted postings that seek to out the real life identities of our contibutors.--MONGO 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ha. Viridae 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the protected version. At the time I had the protection tab open, one of Crum375's reverts was actually the last revision; that Viridae edited again right before was a coincidence, though not surprising given all the sophomoric back-and-forth revert warring that was going on there. Please, take it to the talk page. --krimpet⟲ 06:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - my final addition wasnt edit warring, but adding the disputed tag. Viridae 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby 12:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Straw poll results2.jpg

Undelete this now, it is not the same map. I update it and I am not going to create an account on commons so I can update it since it changes so often. It should not be on commons because this is more of a statistic than an image. I also do not appreciate not being told that this was deleted or having my contribs taken away for all my hard work on the subject.--Southern Texas 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I appreciate it.--Southern Texas 05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

roman's block revisited

Why is someone whose userpage claims they have left Misplaced Pages issuing blocks? Where is the evidence that the page Ramon left his comment on belongs to a minor? On what planet is suggesting someone might upload a photo to their userpage "solicitation?" According to the documentation I've read, Arbcom is supposed to be a forum which resolves disputes which have not been able to be resolved by the community, and which have been taken to Arbcom for resolution. Arbcom seems to be issuing a lot of pre-emptive blocks these days, of editors no one else has suggested need to be blocked. Enrico Dirac 00:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The model can be 93 today, it si the age at the time the image was taken that is important. The girl herself gave her own age on her now deleted user page . The block is sound, just and very necessary. Giano 00:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom wasn't involved at all; I made this block out of my own discretion for the good of the project. "Ellis Raimbault" claimed to be a 14-year-old "childlove" activist (and was found to abusing an open proxy to do so). Mr. Czyborra directly asked her to post pictures of herself. This is creepy enough asking any woman to post pictures, but trying to solicit a young teen to post pictures of herself is sickening and borderline illegal, and we cannot tolerate this kind of behavior at all on this project. --krimpet⟲ 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously, we can't check things if people insist upon deleting them. I do, however, think you have "picture" confused with "sexually explicit picture," although I can understand how, in the current political climate, avoiding anything with "teen" and "picture" in the same sentence might seem to be prudent. Although you say Arbcom wasn't involved, there was a note left saying the block could only be appealed to Arbcom, as opposed to the usual requesting of an unblock by the blocking admin on the user's talk page. Since the photograph in question of Ramon is of an artistic nature, and involves simple nudity, age really isn't an issue, and I see nothing in the picture inconsistant with the model being 23. Just my observations. Enrico Dirac 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a very good block and I would have done the same. Thanks Krimpet. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that Ellis Raimbault did indeed state her age was under the age of consent. For the record, I do not believe that this person was actually a fourteen year old girl, as she evidently had knowledge of setting up anonymising proxies. But that is what she claimed, yes. And we must act on the assumption that that is fact, if it is what she stated. --Deskana (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, our AGF policies assume we believe such a statement even when open proxy use is a classic sign of sockpuppetry in this particular area of wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I checked the girl's log, and she stated that she was fourteen. She did not state that she was under the age of consent. Fourteen year old girls with a taste for the polemic are probably among the most adept at using proxies. Why else would every other proxy channel advertise itself with some kind of appeal to unblocking school filters?

Also, she did not claim to be a "childlove activist". Even if you cut this phrase in half, only one half applies. Never was the term "activist" typed by Ellis Raimbault, and only once did she use the word "childlove", claiming to be well endowed with knowledge thereof. digitalemotion 11:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block Ellis Raimbault, though I agree wholeheartedly with her blocking, especially considering the checkuser evidence provided. But please do not argue over the little details. Mr. Czyborra flirtatiously asked a user who claimed to be a 14-year-old girl to post pictures of herself. Given that he is active in "childlove" topics, had a nude picture of himself from when he was underage on his userpage, and that he was previously banned from the German Misplaced Pages, um, I connected the dots. And while the block was initially done at my own discretion, Deskana, acting on behalf of ArbCom, later announced that any appeals of this block must be made to ArbCom, effectively turning it into an ArbCom-enforced ban, making this discussion moot. It is well-established that Misplaced Pages is not a dating service, and it is emphatically not a place for pedophiles to court children. --krimpet⟲ 11:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

krimpet, have you totally lost your mind? roman has to abide by german jurisdiction and germany is since 1949 a much more democratic constitutional country than the united states of america. by german laws it is legal to flirt, it is legal to ask girls for pictures, it would even be legal to download, make or possess pornographic pictures of 14-year-olds (only pornography involving 13-year-olds and below is illegal) which he did not even ask for. you are slandering roman czyborra by calling him a pedophile which he is clearly not (he expressly outed himself as a happy bisexual teleiophile) and you have defaced konrad opitz's copyright protected work of art (source was http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~czyborra/naked.html if i remember correctly) slandering it ridiculously as child pornography when it was in fact a nude act of a 23-year-old who in all juristictions on this planet must be considered a grown-up adult of full age and with all rights to vote and express himself artistically and sexually. homophobes like you are usually only fighting their own personal lusts. please post or mail roman czyborra your personal contact details so he can sue you for damages and i urge you to resign from all wiki roles for your irresponsible abuse of administrative privileges immediately until you have made amends for your illegal deeds!!!! sincerely yours: 84.191.16.148 (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet. Dude. You're letting your emotions infringe on your logical capacities. For some reason you feel as if you have the right to make authoritative judgements based on the fact that an artist posts a naked picture of himself (naked = sexy = baaaaad) and that he has edited pedophile articles (interest = advocacy = inclination). Sloppy, hysterical and totally unverifiable.

You drew up the dots and then connected them for sure. Your unsupported and unusually sexualising assumption that Czyborra was flirting and that he is a pedophile, is not only irrational and speculative, but downright defamatory of a man who has now been gagged from defending himself. digitalemotion 18:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)