Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guanaco (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 4 July 2004 (→152.163.252.102: rm more nastiness). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See /Archive 1 and /Archive 2 for past messages.

Clitoris picture

May I know who deleted the clitoris picture ? Where is the discussion and consensus over this deletion? thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• There was no such consensus. This is a unilateral action of censorship by Guanaco. Completely unacceptable IMHO and it leads me to question his competency as an admin. blankfaze | •­• 08:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have not yet succeeded to understand if the picture was deleted out of censorship, or if it was a mistake in trying to fix a bug. I hope for clarification, and I am currently of the opinion it was a honnest mistake :-) Meanwhile, JamesDay - who fortunately still had the picture in his cache - restored it. SweetLittleFluffyThing

This was neither a mistake nor an act of censorship. All copies of the image are at Image:ClitorisNewLoc.jpg. Therefore, since Image:Clitoris.jpg is buggy and unused, it is a candidate for speedy deletion. Guanaco 16:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• OKAY. HENCEFORTH, I solemnly SWEAR not to be on the Misplaced Pages during bouts of INSOMNIA. Apparently sleep deprivation affects my judgement and leads me to believe gossip and come to conclusions too quickly. I'm really off-base about this, Guanaco, and I hope you can forgive me, but at the time I wrote it, (most) everyone in IRC thought it was censorship, and my sleep-deprived-3AM-stupidity caused me to overreact. and react wrongly. i was CRAZY, INSANE, just weird last night. blankfaze | •­• 02:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About the edit to James Madison that you reverted

I saw this edited and didn't know whether to interpret as vandalism. I even wrote a True or false problem on this user's talk page. All comments please put them on that user's talk page, not mine. 66.245.14.250 01:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the information on his appearance on the $5000 is absolutely correct as I stated it. See www.currencygallery.org -Levente (209.213.....)

Danny Rosenblatt

I've received this email. I don't know why I got it but there's something you should know:

From: Al-Awda at myafgha@myafghan.com

I'm outraged at what has gone on at this "encylopedia". Not only has my ability to edit and contribute been removed, but every single picture I uploaded and contributed has been blanked. This is absurd. Some "administrator" named guanaco is responisble. I hope something is done to remedy this. I'm willing to forget the whole thing if the editing block is removed the the pictures restored. I'll provide a full explanation afterwards. If not, you'll see some real vandalism, not what Colin did. This is a friendly warning.

Could you take care of this and tell this person to stop emailing me? Mike H 21:48, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

I got a delivery failure notice when I replied. Apparently I've been blocked from sending him anything. The email back says the IP from which his email is originating is 63.119.175.14, if that helps. Mike H 21:53, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

I searched for Al-Awda and apparently it's the Palestinian Right to Return organization. A nice pun to mirror returning to Misplaced Pages? Either way, I am not amused. Mike H 22:02, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

He should be treated like any other vandal/copyvio poster. We don't need to worry about this, and we especially don't need to give into his threats. I have spent enough of my time dealing with these people. Guanaco 22:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not appreciate being emailed randomly. I have taken measures so he cannot email me again, and quite frankly, I don't like the "There's nothing we can do" attitude. Especially when this email is directed at me and not at you. Mike H 22:21, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do yet. We should go about our business editing, and if there is any vandalism related to this threat, post a note to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress, and someone will block the IP or username. We have survived worse threats and vandalism with little harm actually done to Misplaced Pages. Guanaco 22:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Guanaco. I got three e-mails from the guy. One was kind of threatening (whoopie) and the other two took on a more pleading tone. I didn't bother to answer him and I simply blocked the IP. Thought you should know. - Lucky 6.9 23:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I did the same, but the emails were sent from Misplaced Pages, so I highly doubt that the person who sent them had been blocked. Mike H 23:33, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

According to MediaWiki:Blockedtext, emails can be sent via Misplaced Pages by blocked users. Guanaco 23:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, and Danny Rosenblatt's profile had said he liked extremist websites, and I think POV aside, Al-Awda could be labeled "extremist." Makes sense now. What a turd. Mike H 23:40, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you here that I swear that no more vandalism will occur. I really apologize for all of the ridiculous stuff that went on before. I am extremely ashamed of being put at the top of the list of vandals. What happened actually started out as a joke, and I wasn't serious for most of that time. Thankyou very much for allowing me to edit again. I would like to confer with Guanaco on what he believed were copyright infringements with my pictures. I don't believe there were any. I would welcome a discussion. I will wait until we have discussed the matter to put the pictures back up. Thankyou again for putting up with me. I will move on to a constructive career here at wikipedia.

Why aren't you at User:Colinrorr? Mike H 01:38, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I switched to a different user to see if that would have any effect when I was attempting to restore some pictures that were taken down (guanaco assumed they were copyright infringments based on the behavior he saw). I didn't realize the IP address was being blocked.

I think you'll be fine. I'd take the stuff down from BJAODN but I don't know if there is consensus. Mike H 01:43, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the BJAODN?

The bad jokes and other deleted nonsense page. I put the transcript of the delete log for Danny Rosenblatt up there yesterday. I'll remove it since you seem very intent on reforming. It's going back if you screw up again, though. Mike H 01:46, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking it down. You could even leave it up if you want to, since in retrospect it could be entertaining. It probably will damage my future reputation though.

No need to worry; I removed it. Mike H 01:49, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for your help. Not to ask too much, but the one thing I would like to be removed from is being listed as the #1 vandal for wikipedia. Thankyou again

Now that is something that is beyond my capacity. Mike H 01:52, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

The vandalism listing will eventually drop down and be archived as time passes and more vandals are listed. Guanaco 01:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

O.K. Who should I ask about that?

Guanaco, and since this is his talk page, he will see this. He'll have a comment shortly, I'm sure. Mike H 01:55, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Alright. I'll wait and see what he says. Thankyou again.

Guanaco, most of the pictures can be found here: http://www.albasrah.net/images/moqawama/index1.htm and here: http://ppoopp.host.sk/war/index.htm The rest are Associated Press that can be located on reuters or yahoo news. It was my assessment that they could be posted with difficulties with copyright infringement. What do you think?

The Anti-Semitism article

Simonides has been bothering Adam Carr and others in other Judaism related articles, he is not just causing trouble with me in the anti-Semitism article. His shtick is that he deletes the sources that people add, then cries "There are no sources; it is just the unproven opinion of the Jews". Then when I add back the deleted sources, and add yet more authoritative sources, he deletes most of the sources again, and basically claims "This is just opinion; there are no studies!" This kind of lying-to-your-face is unacceptable in any communal project, let alone an encyclopedia. We can't allow him to edit out sources, claim no sources exist, and then revert everyone else's edits! RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Here are some more sources I was going to add; I understand that Simonides would just have reverted the article again and remove them, but the sources we have added are not for him; rather, the sources were for anyone reading the article. I feel that it is important that when big claims are made, multiple sources should be used if possible. Interestingly, the resurgence in anti-Semitism that Simonides denies exist is a fact that the EU, the Secretary General of the UN, and the ADL all agree on. RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

The sources are now included in the list of external links. Guanaco 01:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as, being a substantive edit to a protected page, it was in clear violation of Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Editing protected pages. I hope you'll understand. —No-One Jones 20:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish magazine, Tikkun, ran a series of article on the resurgence of anti-Semitism across the world.

Editing protected pages

I would be very careful about editing protected pages. The protect policy very clearly states that no edits should be done, save a few, which your edit is not covered under in IMHO. Just unprotect the page and let the wiki magic take effect. If the wiki badness takes over, then reprotect, but you are compromising your integrity as an admin by editing a page when only admins can. Remember, you are not here to solve disputes. Burgundavia 21:09, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've already unprotected it. Guanaco 21:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Guanaco, I just wanted to say thanks for stepping in, and sorry if it landed you in any hot water. In my opinion the protection was timely and appropriate. -- Simonides 02:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good job on old copyvios

I just wanted to say that I notice and appreciate the cleaning up of old copyvios that I'm too ignorant or timid to make a decision on or too lazy to do the complex removing of copyvio while leaving legitimate article work. moink 03:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lir, Michael, and Saddam

Since it's Lir intentionally violating the 3 revert rule, why not block him as well? RickK 05:04, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your blocking and unblocking policy just leaves me lightheaded. What ARE you doing? RickK 05:46, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

It was found out that those sockpuppet accounts were not Lir, but actually Michael. So Lir didn't do anything but add the dispute three times. I think my blocks were exactly what Michael wanted. Guanaco 05:49, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lir apparently listed you at the now-defunct WP:RFROAA regarding this, and I moved it to WP:RFC. You may wish to respond there, or not. It is possible, perhaps likely, that the dispute will fail to meet the various criteria and be removed by someone else. Best regards, UninvitedCompany 16:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unblocking

Guanaco, PLEASE stop unblocking indefinitely-blocked Users without discussing it! RickK 18:55, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Why is it so important that all of Michael's accounts be blocked? He is free to create as many as he wants as often as he wants. Would you rather him edit anonymously, forcing us to dig through RC for his edits? That is exactly what happens when he is blocked. Guanaco 20:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because it makes it even a second more difficult for him. And it lets us keep track of the style of editing that he has used before. And by unblocking him it gives him the idea that it's okay if he does what he's been doing. And why is it such a big deal for you? RickK 20:14, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

A second more difficult for him? Yes, it does take a second of his time to log out and begin editing anonymously, making it harder for us to watch him. If we want to keep track of his style of editing, we can use the list on User:Michael. Michael knows what he is doing is wrong, and will continue to do it whether we block him or unblock him. So why is it such a big deal for you? Guanaco 03:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because it sends a message to your friends the vandals that vandalism is okay. Why is it such a big deal for you that they be unblocked? RickK 05:53, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Dugout (smoking)

OK, I can see you un-deleting it. I still think it's pointless - perhaps it could be a component of some other article, but nothing more IMHO - but you're right that it didn't fall into speedy-delete territory. Maybe you could wikify it a bit? - DavidWBrooks 19:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hard ban

Why did you unblock hard banned user Bird? --H. CHENEY 02:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bird is hard banned? He seems to have only been permablocked. If you have any evidence of a formal ban, I'll be happy to reblock him. Guanaco 02:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Elyaqim

I'm just curious, why did you create Elyaqim's user page even thought it is blank? --Merovingian✍Talk 06:23, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)