Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:21, 19 March 2006

• Archive: A-1

Jacqueline Carey

Just FYI, the Carey who won the fellowship is the one who wrote the Crossley Baby, who does not have an article yet. --Etacar11 20:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Tod Sloan, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks Ted Wilkes!

Thank you for your contributions to the Edgar Ray Killen article. I saw all those contributions you had made from your user page...I think its about time you gain a barnstar so I posted one here.

Take care, Dbraceyrules 06:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Tireless

I, V. Molotov, hereby give you this Working Man's Barnstar for the several thousands of contributions you have made to Misplaced Pages.

Take care, Molotov (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Appreciation.

Just a note of sheer gratitude for your endless creations and additions to the biographies of silent film actors and actresses. It's very much appreciated by me, and your articles are always well-written and researched. Keep up the fantastic work, please! ExRat 09:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Silent Film contributions

I second ExRat's emotion. I just noticed your recategorizations on Borden & De Putti this morning (great idea, by the way) and was notably impressed by your other contributions. I don't have the credibility to award medals or anything, but still thought I'd let you know your contributions are appreciated. Also, if you have a list of articles that you're waiting to start, feel free to post them either here or on my talk page, as it would be great to better organize the handful of wikipedians currently working on silent film. Or, alternatively, I can just sort through the stubs. Happy editing! Wencer 16:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Misplaced Pages:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 02:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Convicted liar Onefortyone on probation

Re your comments on my Talk page] concerning Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He continues inserting text out of context to deliberately misrepresent the writing of others so as to promote his single Agenda that Elvis Presly was gay. Since the Administrators have done nothing, if Onefortyone continues, you will have to ensure that the Arbitration Committee takes action. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing for you to do is avoid getting involved in this area, let other editors deal with him. If an article is wrong for a while, it is not an earthshaking event. As the subject is not obscure others will take up the slack if you turn to other things. Lots of Elvis fans to contradict him and if a fuss results it will come to the attention of the administrators. We need to let the wiki process work. Fred Bauder 02:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fred here. Particularly given that you've made edits recently that certainly stretch the limits of your probation. Ral315 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Onefortyone is correct that you are violating Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes,_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Ted_Wilkes_and_Wyss_banned_from_making_homosexuality.2Fbisexuality_edits. Just let it go, there are thousands of others available to rein in Onefortyone. Fred Bauder 16:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from for breaches of WP:Point including posting deliberate mispresentation of an arbcom ruling, edit warring, accusations of lying against multiple users (including calling one user a "convicted liar" and other misbehaviours. You are on probation. If you continue to behave in this manner the the extent of your probation may be extended. FearÉIREANN\ 03:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Cannonballadderley.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cannonballadderley.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl

You stated above:

• "You have been temporarily blocked from for breaches of WP:Point including posting deliberate mispresentation of an arbcom ruling, edit warring, accusations of lying against multiple users (including calling one user a "convicted liar" and other misbehaviours. You are on probation. If you continue to behave in this manner the the extent of your probation may be extended."

You previously banned me twice for what you claimed were violations of my Misplaced Pages:Probation, a probation based on an ArbCom ruling instituted by User:RedWolf24 that denies me the right to edit homosexuality in articles. Your accusations were unilateral and unsupported. Please provide the precise details to support these broad accusation.

Thank you.

Dr. Jtdirl Ph.D.: Please provide your proof that I breached WP:Point and that I was "posting deliberate mispresentation of an arbcom ruling," (whatever "mispresentation" means) that I was "edit warring," and detail your unbelievable use of the broad term "other misbehaviours."

For the record: User:Onefortyone was in fact convicted by the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee of lying.

Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 14:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The arbcom has made it quite clear in response to your posting of that claim that it is factually incorrect. Firstly WP does not describe anyone of being convicted. Secondly the arbcom ruled that he was using inadequate sourcing. They never said, and have subsequently repeated it, that they never accused him of lying. As per subsequent discussions with arbcom members, if you post the accusation in that form again you will be instantly banned. As per the arbcom ruling a group of admins have been empowered to broaden the terms of your prohibition. That will be done if you do not stop posting abuse on talk pages and making claims as to what the arbcom supposed concluded about another user.

It has also been alleged that you have used sockpuppets to try to circumvent the conditions of your probation. If that is shown to be the case all breaches of the probation carried out by sockpuppets will count against your account. You are currently two breaches away from a one year ban. If you are or have used sockpuppets in that form and they breached the probation more than two times you will be instantly banned from Misplaced Pages for one year.

Finally it has been alleged that you are in fact a previously hardbanned user. That is being investigated. If it turns out that you are then you have no right to edit Misplaced Pages and will be subject to the ruling of Jimbo Wales regarding that individual, namely that he is permanently banned from editing this site and that all of his sockpuppets are to subject to the same instant permanent ban. FearÉIREANN\ 22:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Chick Bowen

Please note that banning someone "while we work this out" doesn’t appear to be a legitimate reason. Please quote the authority that allows such action. - Ted Wilkes 14:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that administrator discretion in handling allegations is implied by your arbcom ruling. If you'd like clarification of that, I suggest you take it up with arbcom. If you wanted to appeal your block while it was ongoing, you could have placed {{unblock}} on your talk page or e-mailed me. Since you didn't, I had no way to know you'd left me a message here. Again, if you require clarification of any of this, I urge you to request it from arbcom. Thank you. Chick Bowen 16:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my actions. If you're not satisfied with my explanation, you may file an RFC or request clarification from arbcom. Chick Bowen 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The image is not a copyright violation. It was painted in the United States between 1915 and 1916, as is indicated at the source from which I took it, which is a scholarly journal. Since no reason to think that it was a copyvio was given, I have removed the notice. Chick Bowen 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Posting personal details, whether true or false, about another editor is a blockable offence. I suggest that if you have a genuine question, you ask it without trying to publicize what you believe to be the real name of an editor. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ted, I'm not really interested in whether the claim is true or false. If someone changes from his real name to a username, perhaps wishing for greater privacy, there will remain a record of the old name in old Wikiepdia pages. Nevertheless, I have known of other cases where users were blocked, even indefinitely, for posting another editor's real (or perhaps not real) name on Misplaced Pages, based on information available on old Misplaced Pages pages or through Google search engines etc.

I honestly don't know what his real name is. Nor do I want to know. In fact, I consider it in rather bad taste to want to know something that is being kept private, and in worse taste to want to publicize it. Is it possible for you to repost your question without those gratuitous details? Would your question lose its meaning if you omitted them? And please don't try to convince me about the truth of your claims. I'm not remotely interested in his name. I don't agree with you and I don't disagree with you. The point of my message to you was to tell you that it's not appropriate to publicize the real name of a user, even if such information can be retrieved through search engines, etc. I wasn't trying to tell you that you're mistaken about his identity. I honestly have no opinion on the subject.

And by the way, he is not required to answer anything. And yes, you could be blocked for posting his name. I suggest you repost your question without the personal details, that is, assuming that your question is one that you want answered, and is not just an ostensible reason for making a post with what you claim to be his name. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. And no, I wasn't referring to your posting conduct in general, just to one particular post. Nice to see you've created so many new articles. Anyway, the editor in question was stalked because of someone's wish to publicize his name, so I wouldn't want to do anything to facilitate or encourage that. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your name

I hate to sound nosy, but your name sounds very very...Southern. I'm from the South too, so I was wondering where you're from (if you're from there at all). Mike H. That's hot 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a Rebel! ....and I always thought I was Serbian. - Ted Wilkes

What? Are you trying to be sarcastic, because really, it was an honest question. Mike H. That's hot 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Image:JackandMaryBenny.gif

I just wanted to let you know that the link to www.digitaldeliftp.com is now working, however. It's directly reconnecting to this site. Besides I have tagged {{fairusein2}} and {{fairusereview}} to the image page for you, so you don't have to be concerned anymore. Thank you. - adnghiem501 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked

Hi, you were put on probation on December 24, 2005, and after that date you repeatedly violated the ArbCom decisions. A CheckUser has confirmed that you are the same as User:Danny B. and User:Karl Schalike: you used these sockpuppets in edit wars to circumvent WP:3RR and to attack other users (see this discussion at AN/I for evidence), and this can't be tolerated. For these reasons I have blocked you for one month. Mushroom (Talk) 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)