Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) at 06:44, 19 February 2010 (Cleaned up using AutoEd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk to The Joker

Multiple sigs

FYI, use of multiple sigs could be interpreted as a form of sock puppetry, as it aids in creating the impression that you are trying to hide that your edits are being done by the same person. It would look like different people unless one clicked on the links. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I know some of my stuff may cause problems, but I never thought the sigs would look like sock puppetry. Thanks for the heads up, I'll add an identifier in the sig somewhere. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig 06:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspected you might not have thought about it. Look forward to seeing your article edits. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Signature

The transclusion of templates is forbidden in signatures. Please use the standard signature, or some variation of it. Thanks, Blurpeace 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Image Switcher

A tag has been placed on User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Image Switcher requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section U3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it contains a gallery in the userspace which consist chiefly of fair use or non-free images. For legal reasons, we cannot allow non-free and copyrighted images to be used on user pages, and user pages containing galleries of such images may be eligible for speedy deletion.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Blurpeace 21:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

masking the MediaWiki UI

I've removed div-elements from your user page and talk header; please do not restore them. They interfere with the site's user interface. Enjoy the code of mine you've reused. I note you changed a 1% to 10% and rather expect you've no idea why that's even there ;) Jack Merridew 07:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't know why thats there. I changed it to see what it did, and noticed no change, so I left it alone, rather than wasting another edit to do nothing. But did it really interfere with the interface? It seemed to only cover the title of the page. Is that the only problem, or was there some button that I covered as well? User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 07:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The height: 1%; is not the disruptive part (nor is your having changed it to 10%, although that's wrong); the *div* was quite deliberately obscuring interfering with the user interface; don't feign ignorance as I'm not buying any.

This: User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig is highly disruptive, too; please cease using it and refactor all uses or I'll take it to the next step. You're certainly not fooling me. Jack Merridew 07:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't very clear last time. I was not feigning ignorance. I was asking about the 1% (what it did, etc.), and then asking why the div was so disruptive. Was it just that it covered the title, or was there more to it?

I have refactored my sig as well. It is down to 255 characters, and subst'd. However I have a feeling it still won't be satisfactory, and am willing to fully change it if this isn't acceptable. User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig/Joseph "Joe" Kerr 07:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've actually protected that user template. You can't use templates for signatures at all! As I can't delete the template, I approve of what Jack has done to simplify it and I've protected this and taken my action for review at WP:AN/I#Disruptive signature. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok... That was drastic. I've been completely compliant in refactoring my sig (which I began subst'ing as well, instead of transcluding it), and expressed an intent to refactor it further if it was still unacceptable. And I told you transclusion wasn't allowed! User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 08:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi, it looks like you editred through an edit-conflict here , which accidentally removed another editor's comment. DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad, but now my comment is gone. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's back now, someone else reverted your edit, then restored your comment in a subsequent edit. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. I ec'd with them, trying to do the same thing. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

Your signature does not conform with policy. It must contain a link to either your user page, your talk page or your contributions page at minimum. Your signature currently has no links, please amend this so that it conforms with WP:SIG#Links. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong good sir. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits

A few days ago created an article which was cut and pasted from a Citizendium article that was primarily written in 2009. Citizendium operates under a CC-by-sa 3.0 license which you failed to attribute. There are several editors to that citizendium article. The most frequent name among them is Drew R. Smith, which appears to be User:Drew R. Smith. Drew R. Smith acquired a colorful block history last year and was nearly community banned with the following closure statement:

While many users have expressed support for an indefinite ban, no clear consensus has been achieved. Drew has been reblocked for 30 days, with the understanding that once his block expires, he will be under close scrutiny. Any further misbehavior, or the revelation of non-confessed past behavior, will result in an immediate indef block/defacto ban. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew R. Smith's most recent edit occurred on 29 January 2010. So in all probability a checkuser could confirm whether Drew R. Smith is you. I'm willing to be reasonable if you're willing too; is there anything you want to tell me? Durova 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oooo… three point shot ;) Jack Merridew 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  (ec) On second thought I'm going ahead and requesting a checkuser. This paragraph is falsely attributed to a source that doesn't substantiate its content at all. The text is a cut and paste from Citizendium--except that Citizendium hadn't attributed a specific source for that statement. Deliberate falsification of a source was what brought Drew R. Smith to the verge of a siteban. The addition of a misleading and irrelevant reference is more serious than mere failure to attribute. If you see this note please respond promptly. Durova 22:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to comment here. Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Drew R. Smith. If you'd also like to discuss this with me at my user talk, please do. I'm willing to be reasonable if you are. Durova 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification

You may wish to comment here. Durova 05:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)