Misplaced Pages

User talk:VirtualSteve: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:50, 21 December 2008 editVirtualSteve (talk | contribs)24,139 edits →RE: TIGER M Article Deletion. Thanks For The Heads-up VirtualSteve!: response← Previous edit Revision as of 04:12, 22 December 2008 edit undoMccready (talk | contribs)3,705 edits →Premature archiving of topic ban discussionNext edit →
Line 427: Line 427:
I'd be grateful if you would reopen the discussion and allow Guy and Gladys time to make considered responses.] (]) 05:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC) I'd be grateful if you would reopen the discussion and allow Guy and Gladys time to make considered responses.] (]) 05:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
*Mcready, have a look at the actual final responses of both Gladys and Guy. Also have a look at their talk pages (something I checked first) which clearly shows they had considered your requests at those places and in turn their responses. In my view they are final responses and the consensus is that you remain topic banned - I appreciate that that result p*sses you off a little but like life, that's the breaks sometimes. That said I have a feeling with your obvious energy you will come back (in terms of this topic ban) in a couple of weeks, wiser and even more likely to add to the topic rather than the drama. Believe me the topic, the article and the editors will still be here in 14 days. Of course how you come back is up to you but I hope that positive and more learned is the end result. Thanks for stopping by, best wishes.--] <sup>]</sup> 06:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) *Mcready, have a look at the actual final responses of both Gladys and Guy. Also have a look at their talk pages (something I checked first) which clearly shows they had considered your requests at those places and in turn their responses. In my view they are final responses and the consensus is that you remain topic banned - I appreciate that that result p*sses you off a little but like life, that's the breaks sometimes. That said I have a feeling with your obvious energy you will come back (in terms of this topic ban) in a couple of weeks, wiser and even more likely to add to the topic rather than the drama. Believe me the topic, the article and the editors will still be here in 14 days. Of course how you come back is up to you but I hope that positive and more learned is the end result. Thanks for stopping by, best wishes.--] <sup>]</sup> 06:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks Steve. Although Guy and Gladys haven't responded to my followups it doesn't look like they intend to at this stage. I'm not pissed off, but I would have hoped admins, once they engage, follow through thoroughly and particularly respond to questions about their reasoning. So I accept your closing of the discussion and your advice to wait a little longer. I must say the quick solution I have proposed all along hasn't been addressed. This would have avoided all this hassle. ie Why not lift the topic ban and reinstate if needed. Hopefully that can be done soon as you intimate.] (]) 04:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


==RE: TIGER M Article Deletion. Thanks For The Heads-up VirtualSteve!== ==RE: TIGER M Article Deletion. Thanks For The Heads-up VirtualSteve!==

Revision as of 04:12, 22 December 2008

User:VirtualSteve/Status

My local time: January 2025 20 Monday 8:47 am EST 21:47 UTC My local time: January 2025 20 Monday 8:47 am EST 21:47 UTC
Conversations will be continued on this talk page when they are started here.
Please be polite,assume good faith & do not leave a personal attack. Please sign and date your posts
This user has been an admin for
17 years, 6 months and 23 days.
This administrator can and will make difficult blocks if needed.
This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 2 months and 3 days.


Archive

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10


Metalfest Australia

VS Just a quick message to say we have recovered the relevant access codes for the MetalFest Australia website (after the event coordinator went west on us prior to abandoning it last year). We will be making a new Misplaced Pages page when dates and venues are confirmed and the home website updated. Thanks for your understanding, advice and good work. Cheers, Hardrush (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Kel @ Hardrush

ACE2008

I see your votes matched mine, so presumably you think that a Risker + Davies + Fat Man model would move ArbCom forward. If so, is there anything you think we should do (100% fair play only) to promote this point of view? - Pointillist (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Well Pointillist I must confess I had no idea that my votes (for these three candidates) matched yours. I have voted across the board (oppose or support as the case may be) for all candidates. My general view is to let the community decide without too much more input - with my over-riding feeling being "what will be will be". Trust you understand - thanks for stopping by.--VS 02:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Pointillist (I don't think you have intruded). However to make it clear - I have a positive view that positive change will occur BUT I do not have any agenda just a firm belief that the world tends to make itself right as a part of the natural order of things.--VS 02:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Block of Kidz13

Thanks for the block of this user and his IP address. I couldn't keep up with him! - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:Photograph award.

Thanks. :) Was good to see whats changed around some areas that I've not been past for awhile as well as getting fit (I'm no Olympic champion! ;) ) but I must say In my high school days Mt Austin High never had any air conditioning in the class rooms or the hall!. Only buildings/rooms to have aircon was the Admin building and the staff rooms! Bidgee (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Block of Kikbguy

I noticed you blocked Kikbguy (talk · contribs) for 31 hours, and I'd just like you to consider a longer block due to his admitting using an open IP to evade the block, and continued disruption. There is an open sockpuppet case and a thread at ANI as well. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim 23:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi ZZB - I did notice the sock puppet thread and read through the relevant parts of the post. I guess I had suspected as much with my footnote under Kikbguy's block notice but did not at that time think any more of it other than perhaps they had failed to login. My view on sockpuppetry is on the record as indefinite blocking when it is obviously manipulative and more than just accidental disruption. Given the evidence on display at the Sock puppet thread that I have now read I will be happy for you with your admin button to extend the block - or if you prefer for any reason I can go back and adjust. Please come back here and let me know either way. Best wishes--VS 23:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Just came back on and saw your actions. Cheers. --ZimZalaBim 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (outdent) Thanks for taking care of the block. For now I don't see any merit in going after the IPs, as he is changing frequently and most of them are registered public IP addresses that have other people using them (of the ones that weren't, at least one of them has already been blocked for a year for being an open proxy). Most of his IP edits now are just adding links to his bad articles to the See also sections of other articles, and I've put a couple of his usual targets on my watchlist, so when I see an IP adding those links I can just roll them all back. So anyway, for now I think we should have it under control without resorting to blocking the IPs...but I'll be sure to let you know if anything changes. Thanks again, —Politizer /contribs 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry I ended up egging him on more after the unblock request; I originally told myself I was just not going to respond because he's so obviously wrong that a response isn't even necessary, but then I went to clarify for him why he was blocked (since he seemed to think it was "mysterious") and ended up losing sight of myself and getting caught up in the whole thing again. Thanks for protecting the page. —Politizer /contribs 03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Maldek2

Hey VS, looks like User:Maldek2 is circumventing your 3 month block by editing anonymously as 75.38.80.151. I noticed his edit on Freedom Tower looked familiar, as he insists on listing various proposed skyscrapers apparently against editorial consensus. And his edit summaries ("Revert Vandalism") are identical to some of those when he was logged in. I apologize in advance if I should be reporting this elsewhere. Fletcher (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • No need to apologise for coming here. I have checked the edits and yes I think your observation is quite correct. It appears that he has cut and paste the previous edits from his history as the anon IP. Evasion of a block by Maldek2 has resulted in an indefinite block. Evasion of the block by the IP has resulted in a 1 year exclusion. Thank you for stopping by. Best wishes. --VS 02:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Appreciate the help.  :-)

Hi Steve, I noticed you have extended the block on Maldek2. Could you consider applying the same block to the user's previous username, Maldek (talk · contribs) ? He has not made any edits as Maldek since 24 July 2008 (he claims to have lost the password and therefore created Maldek2) but I suppose he could have a flash of inspiration, remember the password again and be right back in there with his unconstructive edits. Many thanks. Astronaut (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Morning to you Astronaut. I prefer not to block original Maldek at this stage but I will be happy to block (and set up a sockpuppetry accusation) if that flash of inspiration occurs and he remembers his password and starts similar editing. Please come back here if that occurs and I will assist.--VS 21:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again VS, I wanted to let you know our friend User:Maldek2 is continuing under a different IP, 75.15.246.220, redoing the same edits you reverted yesterday. I've reverted the four he's made as of my writing. Do we have a good way to block people on dynamic IPs? Fletcher (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I see my world is full of socks at this moment - anyway I have given this guy the boot also. No easy way for dynamic IP's just continue with this plan at this stage. I don't mind you coming here for assistance at any time and if we only RBI and don't feed the trolls then they go away eventually.--VS 02:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One more apparent Maldek2 sockpuppet: 75.15.250.146. Same types of edits to the same pages as before. Fredwerner (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Kikbguy sock

Hey Steve, the blocked user Kikbguy is socking again, do you have any recommendations for a special course of action or should I just do the same as I have been doing (warning, and revert if he edits in article namespace)? —Politizer /contribs 16:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the sock IP for one year. I have on this occasion struck through all of his edits at that AfD discussion page and left a note for the closing administrator. Other than that just keep coming here or elsewhere as necessary to report any future socks and they will be dealt with.--VS
    • Another sock: 128.230.124.76. I've reported it at AIV, so maybe it'll be blocked by the time you get this message (or maybe not; I don't know how receptive AIV watchers are to sock reports, but I figured in this case it was pretty clearly disruptive behavior). The user is unreceptive to your and Mike Rosoft's edits, and seems to think socking is the only way he can get justice for himself...might it be useful to get him in touch off-wiki with arbitration or something like that? I have hesitated to bring that up because a) people like that have better things to do than deal with this idiot; and b) chances are if they don't say what he wants to hear, he'll just label them as non-neutral and corrupt as well, and continue his abuse. But if you think it would help, then who knows.
    • And by the way, thank you for being willing to do all this dirty work! —Politizer /contribs 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, he's been blocked. He started using another IP immediately after (which I have reported as well), but the good news is, the people at AIV seem willing to make the blocks; Blueboy96 blocked the first IP within seconds. —Politizer /contribs 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay - I step away for a few minutes and there you go. Yes keep letting me know but post with references and diffs to AIV and I'm sure that other admins will act similarly if I don't beat them to it.--VS 22:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New one: Kikbguy2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). Unbelievable. --ZimZalaBim 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) While my first AIV report of one of his IP socks was responded to quickly, the second one wasn't—Cirt said it was too complicated for AIV. So from now on, I think it might be easier if I report his IP socks directly to you (if I catch them while he they are active, that is). —Politizer /contribs 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

  • No problems - although (even though it might appear otherwise) I am not here all the time so you may get frustrated by the sockpuppeteer if you have to wait for my response. PS is the second IP you posted at AIV the one I dealt with anyway?--VS 01:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope, the IP you blocked is one that you got to before I even noticed him editing. My second IP posted was 74.79.166.241, who started editing yesterday and was one of the first to be blocked in this whole thing...his block ended a couple hours ago and he promptly went back to the usual edits (inserting that same paragraph into the AfDs). He hasn't been blocked, but he hasn't edited in like two hours or something so it's probably not necessary to do anything about it right now...although if you want to block him I certainly won't complain! —Politizer /contribs 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK)

You seem to of deleted the Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK) article and although this page has been deleted earlier the series has been confirmed now and I would appreciate it if you re-mended the article. In23065 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


Confusion On Edits In Radio List Article (Australia)

G'day, I've been editing the list of Australian Radio Stations article for some time now, obviously not as a registered user, and have never had a problem with any external linking of such before, until the other day where one station, in a network that is listed on the page, has been unable to have an external link, presumably due to some sort of spam problem?

I'm not totally clear on the reasoning here, but there are a lot of stations on the list that are external linked that dont have any problems, and have had no response from the person who pulled the link off, so I'm unsure of the current situation 58.175.41.204 (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Hello my anonymous friend. I am of course trying to read the mind of the person who removed the link. I think it is probably removed because our guide on external links to be avoided states that Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising should be avoided. I noted then with regards the link that you placed that it did have a good quantity of adverstising on it. Of course you can pose the question on the talk page of the article and get another opinion. In relation then to the second part of your question - I do note that there are a lot other external links. I have not checked (nor do I intend to) each of these but I would say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander so if you discover through observation followed by discussion that the other links are not ones that meet the above criteria, then clearly yours (if it is of similar quality and content) has the same rights of placement (or alternatively none of them do). I hope that helps - but to reiterate you should post onto the talk page of the article itself and given the goodly amount of editors that watch that page I think you will have an answer from the community quite soon. Best wishes.--VS 06:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

. Cheers, Tiptoety 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

TIGER M Musician Page Deleted. A Little Help When You Get Some Time. Please Take Your Time

Hey there buddy! =)

How's it going?

As I am sure you can see, This profile is very new. =)

If you would be--as I will be to you-- Please be kind. =)

I am personally very new to the Misplaced Pages Community as well. :) For two years, I've enjoyed it as a knowledge source, But just recently found reason to Become part of the community.

Thank you for having me. *Kindly Bows*

Please be kind to me? ^^;

Now to the matter at hand yes?

From what I understand the profile for the Club/Dance musician "TIGER M" has been taken down.

We got an "A7 Speedy Deletion" as the "Online Officer" code goes. :)

From what I understand--this means that the reason this specific article was taken down was because:

"...it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant."

I re-read the article personally and can see why your system tagged this.

There are indeed citations in this article that do seem to have validity.

However, I am sure an album or some song references wouldn't hurt Regarding this artist's endeavors. =)

So I guess we should have put

page is in the middle of an expansion or major revampingThis user talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user talk page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template.
If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use. This page was last edited by Mccready (talk | contribs) 16 years ago. (Update timer)

atop the page eh? =)

Please allow me say that I fully understand that wikipedia Is about sharing information--not promoting and the likes There are plenty of websites for that .

I respect that Wiki-P is not one of them.

When I was informed that the "TIGER M" article was taken down I really was surprised.

Sources were collected for over a week preparing that article For wikipedia. I am glad to see we didn't get a 'citations needed' notice. ^^;

Besides the sources, We based it off of several high quality wikipedia profiles That seem to stand the test of time (we see that even "Moby" and "Hampster Dance" are tagged with 'wiki-challenges' So personally--and speaking only for me--I don't think our 'new account status' Is being challenged like some do here ^^;).

Including some of the many articles researched:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Team9 http://en.wikipedia.org/Gackt http://en.wikipedia.org/Ayumi_Hamasaki http://en.wikipedia.org/Aphex_Twin (I see the picture was recently taken down... wow... Wiki doesn't play!) http://en.wikipedia.org/Idiocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/DM_Ashura (Interesting tag at the end of this one... O.O But well.. it's sourced!)

To name a few.

My humble question to you this...

What would you have us to do so our article is "verifiable?"

Until we get more "music sources" and "album releases" posted to Misplaced Pages (Because I see that "Myspace" and the artist's perosnal website don't count)

Should we just go with a basic, basic profile like my buddy Mr. Fukumoto?

http://en.wikipedia.org/Kan_Fukumoto

TIGER M is a live dance/DJ act just like "The Chemical Brothers," "Carl Cox" and "Fatboy Slim."

We and the artist own all of the copyrights to everything Posted... (And even ran the image through the GNU before posting) so that shouldn't be a problem.

If so, please let us know.

We're currently in the process of getting data uploaded to Misplaced Pages (not to mention elsewhere online) regarding this DJ/Musician.

Do sources regarding this artist need to be linked back to this artist (That is a song, a scan of a published interview outside of the web, etc.?) Please just let me know! =)

My apologies if this inquiry was too lengthy! Sincerest, -Angel Arc Publishing, Yosashi Time: 11:17 PM Date: 12/12/2008 Day: Friday Deleted Article In Question Posted: Thursday

  • Response to user:AngelArcPublishing Okay Thank you for dropping by. That is a pretty lengthy question. I will pick the two or three most important parts out and answer. You should be patient with yourself and understand that wikipedia is a complex community - of which no-one can learn all the rules without the benefit of time and experience.
  1. The first obvious problem with the article is that you appear to be editing from a conflict of interest perspective - when you say We and the artist own all of the copyrights to everything - when you read through the link you will understand the problems with such editing.
  2. The second thing is that the article is written from self involved or original research perspective - for example in the article (and there are numerous examples) After a love relationship that ended violently; Tiger began to study Psychology and Eventually, the young boy would sneak outside of his father’s vinyl record collection and listen to his step-brothers' “secret” contemporary music collections of CDs and Cassette Tapes. To get this and indeed any article to our standards you should carefully write in encyclopedic terms and style.
  3. References are very poor (as you have already detailed) and there is no obvious claim to notability as required here. The article is also stylistically difficult as you have not following our style guide in most of the content.
So all of that considered, and being kind, you should probably read carefully the detailed contained at this link and then consider writing your article to this page user:AngelArcPublishing/Tiger M- which I have created for you, and then come back here or to other new friends you make here for their input. Once the article is in better condition, meeting all of our guidelines, it can be moved by me to the mainspace. Above all keep editing and you will find that you will soon learn enough to get you well and truly on the right track.
I hope that assists? --VS 05:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Boy Did You Earn This: Ref: Tiger (M)

The Guidance Barnstar
I copied that response to use as a model for future responses. Perfect. digitalmischief (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well thank you very much - appreciate your appreciation. Happy my words seems helpful (and I hope they are to this new editor).--VS 05:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wagga Wagga RAAF Museum

Got some good news about the Wagga Wagga RAAF Museum today and also photo inside the building. Also Rebekah Holliday (A reporter for the The Daily Advertiser) is going to help out on some past newspaper stories so I can expand the article as well as sourcing it. I hope it's raining your way ATM (Raining on and off here.). Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Raining off and on here too my friend. What good news? I assume that the RAAF are going to fund its reopening? I know Rebekah - a good source for such information by the sound of it. Good luck with the re-write.--VS 05:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well best to keep it as a press release then explain but yes it will re-open but it still has some time to go yet to find out when it will open. You know Rebekah? but yes its great to have someone who is passionate about their local area (She's currently reporting about the RAAF but also the Hosptial Redelv and the closing of the Police Comms in Wagga) and she's also a very nice person to talk to. Bidgee (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay mum's word for now. Yes I know Rebekah but she wouldn't know me from a bar of soap in terms of wikipedia :) I did read her story re the Police Comms - I also know one of the fellows on the front page very, very well - but again he doesn't know me (in terms of wikipedia) at all.--VS 05:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again

Can you block User:Codyfinke1995? Obvious sock of banned user Codyfinke. thanks Enigma 04:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Based on name only or are there 1 or 3 similar/edits you can point me to? I say this because all of Codyfinke's other socks are anon IP's?--VS 10:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Both make a bunch edits to articles on radio stations, for one. Enigma 16:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I've been watching this editor - seems like an obvious block based on name but no current vandalising so maybe just the same editor turning over a new leaf? Your thoughts?--VS 21:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Whatever you think is best. I came across this when I reported a vandal to AIV and noticed that a different user's report of this editor was rejected because AIV is not SSP. The user never did file a SSP report. I suppose that would've been futile anyway because of the huge backlog there. *hint hint* If you have free time. Enigma 21:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Riverina

Hi VS, did you know about this at all? -- Mattinbgn\ 06:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  • No I had no idea - I just logged in saw the main page, and was literally about to go to your page to leave you a similar message. Lovely to see our work up on display for the world to see.--VS 10:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • PS Have also noticed the work you have done today protecting, fixing etc. So sorry I have been out most of the day. --VS 10:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No need to apologise, I was out of town most of the afternoon as well. I haven't done a lot so far but I suspect it will take a battering tonight. There has been some positive edits too, so its all good. I had no idea it was up for consideration: I only realised it was on the main page after noticing that, all of a sudden, the article was getting heavily vandalised for no reason I could tell. After a while, I went to the talk page and saw the notice about the main page listing! Only then did I actually go and take a look at the article in all its main page glory. As a postscript, another article I have been a part of writing—Clem Hill—has been queued for 19 December 2008! Once again, I knew nothing until I took a look through the queue. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ 10:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you think it has taken a big enough battering for a 1 day protection from new and anon editors? (Also nice to have a second one on the list coming up).--VS 10:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually having said that - isn't it the norm to have main page articles semi-protected for the day?--VS 10:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite the opposite in fact. Unless the article is being hit really hard (and it has got off reasonably lightly) it is seen as preferable to leave the article unprotected: to promote Misplaced Pages as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". See Misplaced Pages:Main Page featured article protection for more information. When on the main page, it has a lot of eyeballs on it so it should be reasonably safe. I left a note at WP:AWNB to ask for some extra sets of eyes on it as well. Cheers, Mattinbgn\
  • Fair enough - thanks for the informative response. I (we) will awake to see the changes - will be interesting. Speak again soon.--VS 11:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. After cleaning the little so-and-sos off the car for a few weeks, I thought writing an article was the least I could do! Like you, I was surprised that there was no article in the first place so in the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT, I did. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ 02:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

autoblock disabled

Hi, I accidentally duplicated your block of 76.167.57.222 (talk · contribs), and to undo that I wanted to make sure the block had all the same parameters as yours. However, I notice that my blocks don't have "autoblock disabled". Misplaced Pages:Autoblock says there should be a checkbox for that on the block page, but I'm only getting "Block anonymous users only", 'Prevent account creation", "Watch this user's user and talk pages", and "Allow user to edit own talk page.". Could you tell me what I'm missing? Thanks. --fvw* 11:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  • G'day - I went into check and I also do not have "autoblock disabled" available today - not sure why, other than there is some back room work being undertaken by wiki's IT team. Alternatively it might have something to do with the UK IP blocking problem that was recently posted to ANI?--VS 20:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message!

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge Talk, 17:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Graysen98

Thanks for this. I wouldn't even have bothered leaving a message to inform him about the block ;-) - Cheers, DVdm (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. I always leave a block message - part of the/my system but also keeps me unattached to the vandal (in other words I don't stoop to their petty level) best method is always Revert Block Ignore. Keep up the good work!--VS 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Wise words - nice reminder. Likewise, DVdm (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

CC Sabathia

Could you full-protect this article for a day or so? Lots of edit-warring because reports came out a few days ago that he had signed a contract, but it hasn't been officially signed yet. The reason there hasn't been more is because the article was semi-protected for a few days. The last 100+ edits have simply been edit-warring, with people changing his details and being reverted. Enigma 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Eigenzeitt

Sorry to be a pain but I was checking AIV and was about to block this user for a day or two for his vandalism. However, you beat me to the punch and blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I'm not sure that's a correct assessment as he has previously made good contributions but seems to have flipped out over some image taggings. Would you mind looking again? CIreland (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, forget it. He's gone too far now. Sorry for being a pain. CIreland (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No problems - appreciate your interest. Yes I thought he had gone a bit too far also hence the indef (I mean how many people does he want really want to inform that he has an interest in copulating with wikipedia :) ) --VS 05:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Buckacre

I declined the speedy and I was working on categorizing and linking it shortly before you deleted it. You literally deleted my edits seconds after I made them. Since this article claims they made two albums with a notable label, I think it deserves a full AFD to determine if it can be properly verified (which based on the label is quite likely, I just didn't have the time for it yet). Of course, if we could get the original creator to drop in a source that would be even better. Do you think you can hold off on re-deletion until I contacted them and explained it all? - Mgm| 11:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

Thanks for blocking User:Lil RuRu. Any chance you could axe Andrew rapoza? And maybe salt it, so that he can't come back with a sock? Templarion (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jakejoby1

Just letting you know that I unblocked the above user. I know he was blocked for recreating the article, but I think it's more effective for the project if I salted the page he keeps recreating, and encouraging him to go to the corresponding Wikia wiki. If he refuses to follow up and creates the same article under another name, you can block him --w 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

“ Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined." ”
— Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, #Review and discussion of blocks

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008

The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks

Dear Virtualsteve, first it was wikihounding here, now he's back attacking me. . Michellecrisp (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

and it's a wonder how he can still have this page. Bidgee (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
wow, that's defintely a violation of WP:NPA, the whole page is an attempt to defame other editors. not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Read your complaint Michelle - have gone through the history and have applied a lengthy block. I doubt Gene will be able to understand that he has erred but he may yet surprise everyone.--VS 07:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pooviyoor

Kindly explain why supply of alcoholic drinks, cigarettes, etc. in a temple (place of worship) is NOT considered an attack? Would the same mentioned against any other place of worship be allowed? Talk page was updated with above complaint as well. Thanks. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove that part of the content from the article VasuVR and you will have removed the part you find offensive - such an action by you will cease the need to remove the fact of the location as detailed in the article, which is not made speedily deletable by the offensive content. Put another way if we deleted every article that ever contained something offensive we would have no articles left at this project. Best wishes--VS 12:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Noted. Completed this change and questioned 2 other slightly negative points in the article. The 2 or 3 of the declined deletes have been a learning experience, out of the 200+ I had marked so far. Noted your comments on my talk page as well. Thank you. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Guess what! There is already a stub called Puviyur, which was created in 2005! An IP had vandalized it on 20th October, 2008. And someone else (or maybe same person) copied it and created with the alternate spelling of Pooviyoor, which I have now made into a redirect to Puviyur. Hope that is OK. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole block discussion

Where was the discussion that led to the long block? You mention other admins discussing and suggesting an indef block, but I can't find anything on your talk page, his talk page, AN or ANI...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Good morning George. I was referring Gene to the previous similar behavior of September 29 this year (indeed stemming from the same types of edits now displayed) where a discussion at ANI titled Block on User:Gene Poole included comments suggesting indefinite block by fellow administrators were posted. Also see my archive 9 for two threads and the enormous disdain created as a result of Gene's behavior.--VS 21:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I think the block was sound. I fall into the camp that thinks he should be indef. blocked, but respect there are those who would like to see him clean up his act and remain on the project. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Hiberniantears - I can understand why many are in the same camp of "indefinite block" but I am hoping that a 3 month block will bring him back around - as a last chance plea that he come back to the project with a positive good faith view towards his fellow contributors.--VS 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean this thread?
I don't see much support there for an indef, no. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Combine that post and the archive talk page thread, plus comments in the history such as the one above and you see that many people are reaching final views on Gene. However as I have noted above and in the block post, I think there is still a possibility of "saving" him hence a reference only to other's thoughts of indef block and my block of considerably less. I note that Gene has simply removed the block post from his talk page (adding a poorly worded edit summary) and that he is not requesting unblock at this time.--VS 22:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel nothing will change but I'm always hoping he clears up he attitude towards other editors but his removal of comments on his talk page isn't helping him to stay as an Misplaced Pages editor. delete rant by abusive admin and delete trolling/personal attack by michellecrisp. Bidgee (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This dif, as well as this earlier one do not seem to indicate that things will change much. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, upon further investigation, disregard this. Those were socks of a different editor. Egg... meet face. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a general comment as I haven't looked into this current case extensively (and sorry for the length of this), but taking all the comments here at face value, if Gene has been blocked for behavioural issues and then returns from that block to POINTily resume the same behaviour that got him blocked last time and resume targeting the same users, then it's pretty much standard operating procedure to reblock with escalating blocks, and I'd support such a re-block.

George, I've worked with you a lot over the last few years, both on and off-site, on unblock-en-l, OTRS, cyberstalking-l etc and I'm sincere when I say that this is said with respect, but I've noticed before that you always challenge blocks and other interventions applied to Gene, to such an extent that any time I see that Gene has been blocked again, I think "It won't be long until George takes up that block". I don't recall ever seeing you support any administrative intervention against him and given his disruptive behaviour and your tendency to be a no-nonsense admin who won't abide abuse and harassment, particularly in trying to enforce blocks equitably and wont brook users being harassed on the project and so it always stuns me when you "lead the charge" on questioning and disagreeing with sanctions; what's up with that? Are you and Gene friends or something? If so it might be an idea to leave him to other admins who don't have any sort of bias either way?

I've found Gene's behaviour outrageous since I first became aware of him in 2005-2006, particularly when he used a sockpuppet, User:Centauri to double-support Elonka's RFA and was accused of using socks since mid-2004. At the time of the RFA I was amazed that he wasn't given a lengthy block as others would have been in the same situation. Looking at Gene's and Cetauri's accounts now, I see that you've been interacting with him and supporting him since back then and that you even supported his RfA in January/February 2006. Since then you've advocated on his behalf frequently and I'm really not convinced that you're looking at him as you would if he were any other user. I consider Steve a personal friend and it's possible that my point of view is shaded by that, but my opinions of Gene and his behaviour have not since I first encountered him, long before I became an admin and before I even knew Steve. And so it would just be nice if you could acknowledge any friendship or bias in favour of Gene instead of leaping to his defense each time an administrator tries to hold him to policy and guidelines as though you're a neutral outside observer.

I hope Gene accepts the block now, goes away and thinks about why he was blocked (and no, it's not because he is being victimised by an "abusive admin") and then comes back in the new year and appeals the block. Knowing Steve, I am sure he doesn't want Gene to be blocked, but just wants him to stop his disruptive behaviour and to protect other editors from abuse and harassment. The irony in this is that this is exactly what I usually see you doing to the extent that you put your own bit on the line doing so. I hope in the interests of the project that instead of rejecting sanctions of him, you might reach out and encourage him to agree to stop disruptive behaviour and particularly to avoid the editors he does not get along with. Otherwise I'm sure that a new RFC#Gene and a proposal for community enforced sanctions or another arbitration#Gene are just a heartbeat away. Sarah 04:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Also George, sorry for another post, but since you seem to have Gene's ear, I ask you to review and address this User_talk:Gene_Poole/attackrants which is essentially a copy of these deleted pages - User talk:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil and User:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil, also, MFD - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil and this one - Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive92#Gene_Pool, User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Jun#Storm_in_a_teacup and this one where you asked him to stop provoking the named user - User_talk:Gene_Poole/archive_4#User_talk:Gene_Poole.2Fgenepooleisevil. Please also see the edit summary from Brad on the delete page that he would delete the page himself if the comment regarding a certain user was restored, and note that that very edit was restored on the current version posted by Gene. This is patent POINT violation, disruption and mocking of the community and holding it in contempt. As an admin who repeatedly takes up this user's causes and defends him, I ask you, please, would you address this matter. Given the amount of distress these pages have caused to these users and the and disruption to the community in general I find him quietly reposting the page months and months later a blatant and deliberate POINT violation. Sarah 05:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is my block removal request being declined?

Hi there, I'm not sure if this is where I come to to ask about this block removal but cos I saw your name as the blocking admin thing in the msg that got displayed telling me that I got blocked because of vandalism from some other user whom apparently I might share an IP add with I guess I should give it a try...

Ok first of all I don't quite understand how this whole thing works. I'm quite confused even with the user talk page - how do I reply somebody on the same page, or send them a msg or something like that? Apparently somebody commented that it seems too much of a coincidence that this user having the same IP add as me got blocked and immediately I ask for the block to be removed, especially when the last time I edited anything was about a year ago. I'm not exactly new to Misplaced Pages, I've been reading articles here for a long time already and Wiki is indefinitely useful for almost everything, but as to editing I've to admit that I'm really pretty much foreign to it.

The first and only time that I edited something was on a Pride and Prej page where I corrected a fact the person who put up had apparently gotten wrong. There was no vandalism no abuse no anything of that sort, just an honest edit for an error. I am very angry about the fact now that I'm being blocked as a 'sockpuppet' and that other users have left things on my talk pg like 'am I kidding' and that 'it is too much of a coincidence'. I don't think I've to edit every page I come across right, esp. when there is nothing wrong with them. I don't know in what way is it a coincidence and I'm definitely not kidding about getting my block removed because while I don't often bother with editing, I'm not happy about being blocked (and now for an indefinite amount of time for being a 'sockpuppet'!) for some apparently 'vandalism' which I don't even know of or understand.

May I know if you can assist in anyway or help me get this block removed? I'm quite badly affected by this because I've always trusted Wiki and unfortunately still have to use it for research purposes and knowing that I'm being blocked and snubbed rather unfairly in others' comments is making me rather miserable.

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrocheese (talk • contribs) 16:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Firstly I have never blocked you as Afrocheese or as IP 218.186.12.219 - indeed the latter IP does not appear to be blocked and you obviously were not blocked as Afrocheese before you came to my talk page to ask me to unblock you. Secondly I note that you have posted an unblock message with my name as the blocking admininistrator by copying an unblock request from the user talk page of Stmgmg (another sock of Cheesetree) - not too convincing when you think on it, is it?--VS 20:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Dumb as a brick

but made me chuckle :-) Guy (Help!) 20:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback?

Please consider me as someone who would handle the rollback privilege with reluctance and care. I'm proud of the work I've been doing here (although I hope I'm not goithing to the fall), and think I could be trusted with it. Thanks for considering me. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Always go slow! Don't think I'll need it much, but will probably save me a bunch of time down the line. Thanks Steve Pastor (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Donor EBM

Hi Steve, Thank you very much for keeping the article Donor EBM, and not deleting it, I would like to keep an interesting fact in it. --173.88.145.154 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Premature archiving of topic ban discussion

Steve

  1. When you archived the discussion at AN/I Guy had not responded to my post "With due respect Guy I think you are mistaken. Personal feelings don't enter the equation. Good science and good wikipeida articles do. Correct me if I'm wrong but your principal argument is that I am unable to work productively with people with an opposing viewpoint. How many diffs would you require to change your mind? Have you seen the strenuous efforts I have made on the acupuncture talkpage and other talkpages to gain consensus from true believers (often as the lone science editor)? Do you know what my ratio of discussion to mainspace edits is? I also don't understand your threat "carry on as you are". Am I not entitled to be judged on evidence? Am I not entitled to put the evidence? This issue is at root a content dispute about acupuncture with an editor who now insists his claims on acupuncture are supported by WHO. I'd be grateful for your considered response.Mccready (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"
  2. Gladys had not responded.
  3. Nihonjoe had not responded in substance.

I'd be grateful if you would reopen the discussion and allow Guy and Gladys time to make considered responses.Mccready (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Mcready, have a look at the actual final responses of both Gladys and Guy. Also have a look at their talk pages (something I checked first) which clearly shows they had considered your requests at those places and in turn their responses. In my view they are final responses and the consensus is that you remain topic banned - I appreciate that that result p*sses you off a little but like life, that's the breaks sometimes. That said I have a feeling with your obvious energy you will come back (in terms of this topic ban) in a couple of weeks, wiser and even more likely to add to the topic rather than the drama. Believe me the topic, the article and the editors will still be here in 14 days. Of course how you come back is up to you but I hope that positive and more learned is the end result. Thanks for stopping by, best wishes.--VS 06:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Steve. Although Guy and Gladys haven't responded to my followups it doesn't look like they intend to at this stage. I'm not pissed off, but I would have hoped admins, once they engage, follow through thoroughly and particularly respond to questions about their reasoning. So I accept your closing of the discussion and your advice to wait a little longer. I must say the quick solution I have proposed all along hasn't been addressed. This would have avoided all this hassle. ie Why not lift the topic ban and reinstate if needed. Hopefully that can be done soon as you intimate.Mccready (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: TIGER M Article Deletion. Thanks For The Heads-up VirtualSteve!

Thanks Steve!

Sorry to take so long to respond.

Thank you for being so kind.

Cool beans! =)

We'll get on revamping the article as soon as all possible

After registering better sources

(That is getting an album and 'reason for' set of sources up).

The ending article probably will end up looking something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Kan_Fukumoto

Until this place is better understood. =)

And since it is that anyone can edit most pages here,

why not just let other users "do their thing" with it after its up eh? =)

We'll make the article more neutral.

Oh! Speaking of which so we don't make the same mistake again

(or get tagged for a different "Wiki-offense"):

What is this about "This article's neutrality is disputed" tag on some articles here.

Do we want to make it not "too neutral" or something?

Any link for how to avoid this 'publication citation'

Thanks.

-Angel Arc Publishing Sunday, December, 21, 2008 Minawa, Y. 10:31 AM

  • No problems. Also when you see the tag "This article's neutrality is disputed" it is just someone questioning whether a particular article is written from a Neutral Point of View. The link to this information is here. Best wishes. --VS 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:
User talk:VirtualSteve: Difference between revisions Add topic