Misplaced Pages

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

JohnnyAlbert10

Hi nice to meet you, thanks for the comments on my talk page. On the night of March 20, my brother showed up as User talk:512teking6, vandalized both my talk and user pages. And now he has my computer blocked my wikipedia soi have to use a laptop, and if he vandalizes wikipedia with this then i'm scrued. What do i do? Nice pages you got here, very creative. -- JohnnyAlbert10 2:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My password is something that he'll never figure out. But I guess this is the only way, he wants me out of wikipedia becuase they kicked him out in January so he don't want his little brother here. Thanks for the help. -- JohnnyAlbert10 2:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He's back and look at what he posted on my talk page, what do i do he's going to beat me up. -- JohnnyAlbert10 2:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The No Original Research Page Needs Admin Help

Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Proposed_Addition_to_the_Policy user:Lode Runner As you can see, the person is quite vulgar (snivling rules lawyers) and doesn't seem to want to improve Misplaced Pages, but instead edit the rules so he could "win" debates. Misplaced Pages isn't for debates, but for putting up verifiable information. However, that guy wants to get rid of verifiable information and wants it that way to "win." I don't think that guy ever took the proper steps to mediate nor contacted an admin to deal with issues. Instead, I believe that he just wants to edit things and do it all himself. I put forth his own words to show that I am not basing this on original research:

"Can we please just talk, discuss and debate the issue rationally and worry about the citation only when people start talking about making specific changes?"

But if you notice, how can you base changes on things that aren't even sourced? Wiki is not for talk or discussion. Its about posting verifiable information with consensus. I feel that the poster would best be suited in a chatroom and not in the talk areas of Wiki pages. SanchiTachi 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

They are now trying to cite IAR as a reason to get rid of a major rule, even though the WP:RFC page says "With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Misplaced Pages's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Misplaced Pages is not." and Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Exceptions says "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Misplaced Pages:Verifiability or Misplaced Pages:No original research)." SanchiTachi 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can some of these people be put on block or suspended for a few days until they realize that Wiki Rules do not allow for anarchy and that they don't have the right to spam up the talk page of rules in order to claim, without any proof, that Admin don't have the right to make any claims about rules as it would be OR? SanchiTachi 19:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_%28policy%29&curid=986140&action=history

Lode Runner just deleted my post and then also made four other posts on the topic. Is there some way he can be stopped or force to go on a break? I believe that he has shown enough (as on his own user page, non the less) that he is here only to wage a "war" on the "rules lawyers" and the rules as they were. User:Larry_Sanger "to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." That would fall under the definition of a wiki-anarchist. SanchiTachi 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Lode_Runner There is a response from Lode Runner on his talk page. SanchiTachi 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On Assuming Good Faith

Can we assume good faith when the user has "declared war" on people who he deems as "rules lawyers" and introduces generalized attacks upon them all? His page declaring such a war was made on " 03:35, 6 May 2007." It is currently May 8th.

• This was before:"04:05, 6 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:No original research (See talk page. semi-major addition, but I believe it is in the spirit of WP:NOR. There were no objections)" That was where he added in the talk page rule changes. As you can see, he put that "war" before he started the whole war.
• This was then followed by his posting on Wiki Talk:

"# 31 Perhaps a "STFU, this isn't the article itself" tag?"

• Then "Given the growing number of sniveling rule-lawyers who use WPs (and especially this WP:) to shout down opposition, I really think that this all needs to be spelled out." Which can all be found on the "Revision as of 04:19, 6 May 2007"

This was all before I ever entered into the conversation. As you can see from my contributions, I have been busy with contributions (some major, some minor) during this whole thing. I also had to deal with a few vandalism attacks on the Warhammer pages, and I helped user:Sojourner001 clean up his accidental mistake before he would be attacked for vandalism, and then helped come to terms with some of his conflicts about what happened to the Tyranids page so he would be comfortable with the changes since he departed (which resulted in a few other pages made/merged to tidy up the article and make it more readable).

If you still believe that my actions are inappropriate, then I will accept your decision. I only put the above as a defense of my character and my actions during this. SanchiTachi 06:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

05:38, 8 May 2007

We have to assume good faith until we have convincing evidence that to continue to do so will be detrimental to the encyclopedia. I'm not impugning your character, just saying you're getting a bit heated and you need to cool off a bit. Lode Runner was wrong too, and he was blocked for 24 hr for it. Still, that doesn't excuse incivility. Just cool off a bit and you'll be alright; this isn't a statement on your character. ⇒ SWATJester 06:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I also went ahead and conceded the debate on language and said they can do whatever they want about editing other people's language and that I will let other people deal with it. It was causing far too many problems. SanchiTachi 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

IAR

Hi Swatjester, just thought you might like to know the specifics of WP:IAR and its status as a 'policy'. According to its edit history, Jimbo changed the tag on the article on 19 August, 2006 from the one stating 'This concept is important to Misplaced Pages. The nature of the concept, however, makes pinning it down as "official policy" or a "guideline" unhelpful and possibly paradoxical. It has a long tradition, so please consider the reasons this page exists before editing it.' to the policy tag, whilst stating 'IAR is policy, always has been'. So I think that indicates that the concept has always been policy although it didn't always use the official policy tag due to its paradoxical nature. Cheers, Localzuk 14:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

While in August 19, jimbo did change it to guideline, it was disputed for some time afterwards.⇒ SWATJester 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just thought I'd let you know when it was done as you didn't seem to know. Cheers, Localzuk 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Walther P22 article/Virginia Tech massacre discussion

Hello Swatjester. Looking over the long argument regarding the Virginia Tech massacre dispute, I was wondering if perhaps the entire thing should be archived. Due to the nature of a discussion page, there will doubtless be further conversations and discussions on various features or events regarding the weapon further down the line. This will only serve to increase the article's already massive length even further, bt cannot be avoided. Were the bulk of the VTech discussion removed, it would drastically reduce the page's length and would seem a logical move. What do you think?

By the way, I'm not sure how to archive a discussion. I just thought that, as an administrator, you'd be likely to know how to go about such a thing should you decide to do so. Cheers. Gamer Junkie 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to put a note in the discussion so that anybody who might wish to contest such an action has the opportunity. If nobody has a problem with this in a couple of days, I'll have a shot at archiving it. Here's hoping Misplaced Pages doesn't blow up... Gamer Junkie 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey again. The dispute's been archived, just to let you know. Thanks for the archiving help. Gamer Junkie 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job. ⇒ SWATJester 07:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi Swatjester,

Regarding your point , while I agree that Kirby's diff did look like strange and specially for that reason, I think we should look back at the history of relation of these two users. Sometimes, there are hidden information/background. In many cases, the situation is not black and white. Let me just provide some one example about User:Matt57. If you take a look Islam and animals, you can see many images with apocryphal traditions attributed to Muhammad. These are all added by user:Matt57. For example, please take a look at this image: Here is the full quote from the source: "In a fashion similar to European medieval folklore, black dogs, in particular, were viewed ominously in the Islamic tradition. According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form. Although this report did reflect a part of pre-Islamic Arab mythology, it had a limited impact upon Islamic law. The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal." What is more is that User:Matt57 has hidden:" The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal" part. There is no mention of that in the article.

I just provided this example to show that the situation is somewhat more complex that what it may seem. Cheers, --Aminz 08:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not all that familiar with the issue at hand. I just felt like making a sarcastic remark about an argument I felt was dumb, and everytime I see coelacan's name I end up thinking about ocean creatures (it sounds like cetacean or cephalopod or something in my head).

My actual thoughts about Kirbytime, are that he's an extremely pro-palestinian, anti-israeli biased editor, who does not have a good civility record. However, interestingly enough all my experiences with him have been rather good, with the exception of some of his comments on AN/I about israel that I take exception to. However, I realize he's got a bad reputation and it's probably rightfully earned. I also realize that this argument is far more complex than it seems. That's why I'm not involved with it. I just felt like making a slight joke to lighten the mood a bit: I really don't care much about whatever it is they;re arguing over. Plus, my guess is that Kirbytime would not like my opinions regarding Islam.⇒ SWATJester 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

.

Unspecified source for Image:Lightsaberfun.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Lightsaberfun.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Iamunknown 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the vote of confidence. -Hit bull, win steak 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Vickers

Thank you, the rewritten page looks amazing and was far better then the first draft that I submitted. I am speechless that someone else took assistance for this article and I am very grateful. --Semper Fidelis 13:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I also replied on the Delta talk page about the HK416, I think this is an issue that merits good discussion and I await your reply. --Semper Fidelis 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

legal intern

Hello. I answered you here Anthere 21:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester

Can you look at User_talk:Sam_Blacketer#3RR_report, User:Sam_Blacketer has clearly made a mistake in his closing rational of the 3RR report. He doesn't appear to be online either, do I re-list the 3RR report? Can you please review the case? --Mardavich 05:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. But I don't think that block will last for long. If you notice, every other time Miskin has been blocked, someone has unblocked him within minutes or hours. This is mainly due to the fact that he's friends with several administrators.--Mardavich 06:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If they unblock me, I will reblock preventatively and post on AN/I, where it's sure to get consensus. Seven blocks for disruption on 300/persian war related articles (eight if you count my reblocking)? No admin can justify allowing that. ⇒ SWATJester 06:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)