Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.156.149.252 (talk) at 03:23, 22 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to add your messages below. Messages that are not stamped by registered users will be deleted My talk page has been vandalized in the past so I am starting a running count starting at zero of how many times it is vandalized. --JohnnyCanuck 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of times this page has been vandalized: 4

Hi, Johnny. I've unprotected this page and removed all previous comments. Feel free to use this nice clean sheet. Please don't use it to claim that people have "vandalized" the page, though! That's a very serious accusation and a personal attack. Please read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism to see that good-faith edits are not vandalism. It's insulting to call an editor a vandal, and it gets people's backs up, so it's important to think carefully before you do it. I hope you won't restore your "vandalism counter": to the best of my belief, this page has actually never been vandalized. Your work here will probably run a lot more smoothly if you stop using the word at all; at least, please don't use it as your favorite word for any message you don't like.
If you have anything you'd like to say to me, write it on this page, I'll be watching it. If you're ready to edit more constructively, I'll unblock you. Please feel free to remove this post when you've read it. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC).

Your Warning on my Page

• Johnny, as you'll notice, my last edit on the IHHOF page was on April 2nd, furthermore that edit was supported, and made again (after you reverted it) by an admin. Regardless, the edits for which you have accused me of vandalism can simply not be construed as such under any Misplaced Pages policy, as I was removing a mirror site that you had used as a reference. I will be removing the warning from my page, as it is wholly unsubstantiated. If you disagree with my assesment, I suggest you post your complaint at WP:ANI and a neutral admin can deal with the problem. As well, while I won't give you a formal template warning for removing my "vandal counter" from my talk page, I strongly encourage you to not remove content from my page again unless you have a good reason. Thanks. pm_shef 17:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Never mind, it seems that as I was writing this, an Admin already reverted your edits for me. Thanks anyways. pm_shef 17:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Block warning

Yes, I reverted them. Johnny, I'm sorry to see my appeal to your better side of nature fall so flat. :-( Returning from your block, your first edits were to delete Pm shef's vandalism counter on his page. Of course you're aware that you have no business deleting anything whatever on his page. And when it's to remove a feature that you've just restored on your own page, against appeals and advice — well, I'm speechless. According to your userpage you'd like to be an admin. You'll have to behave pretty differently for that ever to happen. And consider this a warning: leave Pm shef's userpages alone if you don't want to get blocked again. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

Elliott Frankl

If you're not going to pursue the rewrite, then yeah, I can redo the redirect — it just wasn't appropriate to do that while the neverending AFD/DRV debate was open. If you've decided not to pursue having the new draft moved back into articlespace, let me know and I'll change the page back to a redirect. Bearcat 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry if there was any confusion — back when the discussion of rewriting started, I had indicated that under the circumstances, I'd prefer if a neutral administrator, someone who hadn't already been involved in the prior dispute, was the one to make the final judgement as to whether the article was suitable or not. I'd actually missed your most recent comment that the article was done. I'll contact a neutral party to review it, but for the sake of objectivity I think I shouldn't make the final call myself since my judgement could be a bit too clouded by the way this whole dispute has taken place. Bearcat 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bearcat mentioned that you were done with the draft of the new Elliot Frankl article. Do you want me to have a look at it? I can suggest someone else if you want. Mangojuice 02:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mangojuice please have a look at the article and if you think it deserves an articel then put it back up or if you don't then redirect it to the vaughan election page, please note that my original account has been mistakenly blocked --JohnnyCanuck2 23:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is much better written and sourced than it had been. However, it makes it clear that this guy's only real claim to fame is being a candidate in a municipal election; the IHHOF thing is auxiliary, and not surprising, nor a claim of notability. Mangojuice 23:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

1, 2, 3...

Just a bit of friendly advice...you're really not doing yourself any favours by making new allegations of sockpuppetry against pm_shef while this is under debate. I'd advise you to just leave him alone and refrain from making political allegations; if you post another personal attack against him then I'll be the one to block your next new account. You can still edit your own user page and talk page from your original account; I strongly suggest you do that rather than creating another puppet account. Bearcat 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate your advice, but false slanderous and malicious accusations coming from pm_shef and his sockpuppet must be stoped. pm_shef should be kicked off of wiki for good. He caused all the problems--JohnnyCanuck 01:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Even after everything was done and we were finalizing what to re-wrtie or re-direct the article, pm_shef continuries to try to get me blocked.--JohnnyCanuck 01:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• If you're going to accuse me of "false slanderous and malicious accusations", please provide diffs to prove it, cause I certainly don't remember making any. And in terms of trying to get you blocked, no, I haven't, the nice administrators who reverted your vandalism to my Talk page did that. pm_shef 01:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

pm_shef, first of all most of your edits are unquestionably politically motivated and every user that disagrees with you call a sockpuppet and somehow get then blocked. How dare you keep calling me a sockpuppet and getting me blocked for no reason. I was not even invloved in the Vaughan region debates other than the one article that I was trying to clearup with bearcat but while I was doing this I got blocked again for no reason. Even out side of vaughan you make false accusations like you did on the Beatrice Ice Gardens debate. If you are not going to edit in good faith then you have no business being on wiki--JohnnyCanuck 02:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm still waiting for you to provide even one piece of evidence to back up your claims against me. If you are unable to provide such evidence, I suggest you stop making these unfounded and slanderous claims against me. - pm_shef 02:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, please cool it. Pm_shef: there's a difference between slander and a negative opinion. Johnny: Recently, User:Leotardo and a bunch of other sockpuppet accounts were blocked as abusively used sockpuppets of User:VaughanWatch; see WP:ANI if you want to look it up. I personally don't think you're the same user as all of those, but only you know for sure. However, the fact that you have tried to force the same edits that Leotardo and his gang did does not look good. If you stop doing it, and you get unblocked, you should be okay. Mangojuice 03:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And while we're at it, Johnny: Look at WP:RFCU and you'll see that checkuser has been run on pm_shef / Theonlyedge and the result was inconclusive. RFCU is very good at confirming two users are the same, and less good at confirming they're different, especially among different people who edit (for instance) from the same university. At this point, the matter is pretty well closed, and the allegations should stop. Also, if you want me to post an RFCU on you vs. VaughanWatch, use the Misplaced Pages email feature to email me and I'll do it. Mangojuice 03:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mangojuice, first things first. I would first like to get the Frankl article cleared up before anything either a redirect or relisted, your choice. Please do a RFCU on me against VaughanWatch or any other user for that matter. I can't understand how pm_shef and his sockpuppet theonlyedge gets away with the things they do on here. Just becasue I disagree with pm_shefs politially motivated edits does not mean I am a sockpuppet, unlike pm_shef, I edit in good faith, look through all my past edits. --JohnnyCanuck 04:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I made it a redirect; as I said above, I don't think Elliot Frankl is notable enough; he's only a municipal election candidate, and his being on the board of the IHHOF doesn't change that. I'll put up an RFCU on you vs. VaughanWatch; they probably won't blanket-check you for no good reason. As for pm_shef and Theonlyedge, I was maybe not being direct enough. They're not sockpuppets, RFCU has confirmed this as much as is possible, so please stop calling them sockpuppets of each other. Mangojuice 04:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good Faith Johnny? You continue to accuse me of bias, political motivations, personal attacks, and some unknown power that gets users i dont like blocked and yet you still haven't shown any proof. - pm_shef 04:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Pm_shef had nothing to do with your blocking; Curps was methodically blocking VaughanWatch's 50 (so far) known sockpuppets and possibly blocked you in error in the process. Pm_shef had no involvement in the matter at all. And they weren't blocked because people made assumptions just because they disagreed with pm_shef; the sysops with checkuser privileges actually confirmed that those 50 nicks were all connected to the same IP.

To review the larger situation, about 10 administrators have gotten involved in the process so far, and not a single one of us has viewed pm_shef as the primary problem in the matter. Which isn't to say he's been perfect; he has been warned a couple of times to be careful or to change his behaviour. But in constant monitoring of the situation by 10 different administrators, not one person judged pm_shef to have committed a blockable offense. And it's not because any of us were biased — this was overseen by editors who have no vested interest in or knowledge of Vaughan politics, meaning that all we could go on was what we could see people doing on Misplaced Pages. And on that basis, VaughanWatch and his puppets were clearly the ones being disruptive and biased.

And as for the current shef/edge sockpuppetry allegations, the checkuser team didn't find any compelling proof that they were the same person, and the whole thing is based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence and selective application of facts. The fact that the overlap in their edit histories happened to coincide with the articles that were already under dispute, for example, entirely misses the fact that outside of the disputed overlap, Edge's edits have mostly been related to business, the military, European politics and iPods, while shef's have overwhelmingly been education-related — meaning that even their fields of interest aren't really all that similar once you get away from GTA politicians (a topic which, after all, has a potential audience of about five million or so.) And there are times when they were both editing at the same time, which would take almost superhuman feats of skill if they were the same person. There really hasn't been that much behaviour from either of them that would ping an experienced administrator's warning bells.

I do stand by what I said originally: I don't think you're a sockpuppet of VaughanWatch. But you have let yourself be used by VW in a way that made at least one administrator think you were one, and you really need to accept responsibility for that. And if you're genuinely interested in becoming a Misplaced Pages administrator yourself, I hope you're able to learn from the experience so that the next time a dispute of this type comes up, you're able to be more neutral and less likely to fall in line with people who are being disruptive.

I'm pretty confident that checkuser will clear your name, and before this whole thing began you did make some pretty valuable contributions relating to hockey (I sure as hell didn't know Howie Meeker had been an MP!), so I'm willing to unblock you on the following condition: there will be no further edits from you to either shef's or edge's user pages, or their talk pages, and no more allegations of sockpuppetry or bias in regards to either of them. If you have a legitimate concern about an edit by either one of them, raise it with a neutral administrator, and we will review the situation and deal with it as appropriate. If you're willing to abide by that, I'll happily lift the editblock, but if you post any further personal attacks — or if checkuser comes back with a surprise — then the block goes back on.

So whaddaya say — is it a deal you can live with? Bearcat 06:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Mangojuice, the redirect you did was the incorrect spelling you redirected Elliot Frankl should have been (two t’s) Elliott Frankl (the deletion page is still up under this correct spelling) 2) Bearcat, I’m not even on wiki that often, I was on for the past few days to try to clearup the frankl article. My knowledge of Vaughan politics is limited but I am involved in politics in general as well as hockey and have heard many many stories of whats going on in Vaughan region and heard stories how shefman was elected but I won't go in to that. Its just a matter of time before the truth comes out in the media. But I really don’t care, the only article that I contributed to from Vaughan was the frankl article and the only reason I contributed to this article is because I was contacted by eyeovaughan to add info. to the frankl article as he saw I kept the IHHOF article updated with frankl as a director. 3) Bearcat, I was blocked because pm_shef keeps saying I am a sockpuppet, listing me in some list of eyeonvaughan/vaughanwatch list of sockpuppets. If you really want I could compile a list of pm_shef violations and I am convinced that theonlyedge is his sockpuppet. 4) Bearcat, it’s a deal! I won’t edit pm_shef/theonlyedge pages anymore and I won’t accuse them of sockpuppetry unless you want me to compile a list as I mentioned above. If you could get me unblocked as soon as possible that would be great.--"Good Faith Johnny"JohnnyCanuck 07:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've unblocked you for now. I'd actually prefer if you didn't compile me a big list of evidence that shef and edge are sockpuppets of each other. For your own sake as well as everyone else's, it'd really be best if you stay as clear of that whole mess as possible, because you may get yourself into trouble again if you start going down that road. I'm sure if one of them does something wrong it'll come to our attention somehow anyway. Bearcat 07:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And I've applied the redirect to the correct double-t spelling. Bearcat 07:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mensa Members

I responded to your comment about Mensa Members on my own page so the discussion would all be in one place. Jwolfe 08:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

False Accusations

They're not just saying that you're a sockpuppet of vaughanwatch, but others too. Go to the deletion review. 02:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

International Hockey Hall of Fame

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We appreciate your contributions to the International Hockey Hall of Fame article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! JamesTeterenko 05:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to?--JohnnyCanuck 06:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

JamesTeterenko, If you feel there is a copyright problem please follow proper procedure, what you are doing is considered vandalism--JohnnyCanuck 06:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I followed the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems#Instructions quite closely. Listing a page as a possible copyright violation is not vandalism. If you disagree with my assessment, you can discuss it on the copyright violation page. If you are going to accuse me of vandalism, you should read the policy about it to understand it a bit better. -- JamesTeterenko 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not supposed to take down the page--JohnnyCanuck 06:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The very first instruction is "Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can." That is exactly what I did. -- JamesTeterenko 06:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific on the copyright problems, you have not stated that--JohnnyCanuck 06:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This edit, which is the basis of the pre-reverted article, is filled with text that is nearly identical to the information on the web site. As an example, the section "Future Explansion" is a nearly verbatim copy of this page. The only thing that is different is that you changed it from being written in the first persion (e.g. "We are...") to being written in the third person (e.g. "The International Hockey Hall of Fame and Museum is...") -- JamesTeterenko 06:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

JohnnyCanuck, could you please try to argue with people without accusing them of "vandalism"? As you've been repeatedly told, calling good-faith edits vandalism is a personal attack. Personal attacks poison the wiki climate. Try to find different, better, words to express disagreement. Please. Bishonen | talk 06:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

• Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Please note both you and User:JamesTeterenko have been warned. - pm_shef 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NHLers involved in politics

you could add Peter Stastny to your list of NHLers that went into politics. Stastny won the 2004 federal election in Slovakia as a European People's Party candidate --69.156.149.252 03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)