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 11:22, 17 February 2009 editBidgee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,550 edits →Editor adding copyrighted text.← Previous edit Revision as of 17:39, 17 February 2009 edit undoMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,259 edits →Your input would be appreciated: commentsNext edit →
Line 303: Line 303:
::*I'll be back on this a little later Mccready as it will require a bit of time and consideration. Stay tuned, I will do my best to get back to you as soon as possible.--] <sup>]</sup> 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ::*I'll be back on this a little later Mccready as it will require a bit of time and consideration. Stay tuned, I will do my best to get back to you as soon as possible.--] <sup>]</sup> 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks Steve. To save you a lot of time perhaps it might be easier for you to agree ]ly that lifting the topic ban and reinstating if needed might be more economical. My feeling is that the community would not blame you if you were wrong. It seems a sensible risk. I can only assure you of my cooperation and ask you to Assume Good Faith. On numerous occasions the AGF principle has been denied me and I have virtually been called a liar. In particular I remember discovering the crime of canvassing. When I joined wikipedia the crime didn't exist and when I was told I had committed it I had no idea if was a crime, despite what my accusers said. I could go on but want to get back to editing which I enjoy. PS People call me Kevin (and do you know how I can change my signature block to reflect this?)] (]) 09:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) :::Thanks Steve. To save you a lot of time perhaps it might be easier for you to agree ]ly that lifting the topic ban and reinstating if needed might be more economical. My feeling is that the community would not blame you if you were wrong. It seems a sensible risk. I can only assure you of my cooperation and ask you to Assume Good Faith. On numerous occasions the AGF principle has been denied me and I have virtually been called a liar. In particular I remember discovering the crime of canvassing. When I joined wikipedia the crime didn't exist and when I was told I had committed it I had no idea if was a crime, despite what my accusers said. I could go on but want to get back to editing which I enjoy. PS People call me Kevin (and do you know how I can change my signature block to reflect this?)] (]) 09:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of material here to assimilate. Some comments:

* I don't think it would be appropriate for ''any'' admin to lift this without discussion at AN/I and clear community agreement that the topic ban is no longer necessary. VS himself closed the ] with the summary ''"Consensus clearly shows topic ban will not be lifted despite ardent attempts at intervention. This thread has no where else to go so archiving for posterity.--VS talk 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)"''.
* Prior to that discussion, Mccready ] with an IP edit. A similar episode in May 2008 was inconclusive. (see ])
* The topic ban on acupuncture and chiropractic is not "due to be lifted in May anyway", as Mccready suggested above. It is an ]. What expires in May is a general pseudoscience and alt-med probation, according to the above link.
* During the ] (see also preceding discussion ]) there was a .
* Mccready dismissed a block for 3RR with a personal attack on the blocking admin ("trigger happy ]"). That admin is not known for rashness, and the block appears sound.
Given the facts above, I think it would be inappropriate to lift the topic ban right now. Even assuming the best of intentions, in practice Mccready has repeatedly fallen into disruptive/tendentious editing and other patterns that have eroded the community's .

The pseudoscience and alt-med probation expires in May. Although Mccready has not used the probationary period to use talk pages in those areas, he now will be able to edit them fully (with the exception of the acupuncture and chiropractic topic ban areas). That will provide a venue for Mccready to rebuild the community's trust in his ability to work productively with editors that he has major disagreements with. Just my 2 cents, and my sincere best wishes. --] (]) 17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


== Help with Don Stewart (preacher) article == == Help with Don Stewart (preacher) article ==

Revision as of 17:39, 17 February 2009

User:VirtualSteve/Status

My local time: January 2025 20 Monday 3:08 am EST 16:08 UTC My local time: January 2025 20 Monday 3:08 am EST 16:08 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 11

Rick Warren

Hello. Do we really need full protection on that article? Most people seem to agree on contentious material being deleted. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

  • It's only been a day Phoenix - so yes I think we do for a bit longer. Let's see if all others can discuss without too much disruption or COI for a bit longer.--VS 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC) PSIndeed you only have to look at the discussion at the related article Saddleback Church to note that there is not a great deal of harmony between the editors.--VS 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this while I was away. I'm also inclined to leave the protection for a few days. Kevin (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • A pleasure Kevin. I'll be around for these articles particularly over the next few days and happy to work with you throughout.--VS 00:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey again. This is kinda funny and I feel like a 3rd rate Sherlock Holmes but since you seem to be the admin whos taking care of all this, I thought you might wanna know: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chrishpaytas Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment left at above linked page.--VS 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please note my important update regarding the deceitful practices of user Lyonscc (Chris Lyons). He has been a major player in the Rick Warren edit wars; his selective deception is only adding fuel to the chaos. Thank you. FYI-Alerter (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you may mean well FYI-Alerter but your anonymous call doesn't help much. For example in my office I am quite certain there have been, over the years, a number of wikipedian editors as I work in a very large office. We have never colaborated - ever - in fact I have never identified myself to any other editor, met them, or discussed wikipedia with them, but given we all work for the same organisation, come from similar educational backgrounds etc there may be some similarity in our interests. Okay so that doesn't mean that the two editors named here couldn't be sock, except of course when you say that he is correct to deny that both accounts are him - assuming you are correct, means they couldn't be socks, so they could only be meat puppets; however at this stage I still don't see evidence of that - so I still think that we should remain on watch only at this stage.--VS 11:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, please see: User_talk:Kevin#Rick_Warren Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Do what you have to.

After he made more attacks on me, I have again responded at taht AN/I thread. I made sure to make no accusations against him, only to ask peopel to observe for themselves. I note that you did nothing to watch him and tell him to focus on the reported case, nor to not keep poking, so I'll let you get caught up now. ThuranX (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • My concern was with your first lack of civility ThuranX - your latest response does not provide me with any further concern. I also understand that you have requested additional input from administrators - however I do not have the capacity to deal with that as well as the 2-3 other complex edit-warring matters I am dealing with elsewhere (the pay is not great for administrators at wikipedia and overtime money is absolutely impossible to achieve ;) ) I am sure other administrators will come to the page in due course (and I note that one has come to the discussion already today). I wish you well ThuranX and whilst you continue to make your point without attacking the editor I will have no recourse towards you.--VS 02:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

2MMM and User:Inirapsag

I've told User:Inirapsag that current schedules can't be added per WP:NOTDIRECTORY which is a policy but the user has gone and added it again. Can you deal with them as I don't want to be blocked for "edit warring". Bidgee (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)  Done--VS 04:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but your signatures often seem to end up as the first words in complaint threats when you place "resolved" tags. If that effect was deliberate, please ignore this message. :) In the case that isn't deliberate, you can avoid that problem by placing your signature immediately following your comment, so that it's inside the resolved tag. For example, {{Resolved|Warnings given, blocked, nothing to see here, blah blah blah. ~~~~}} as opposed to {{Resolved|Warnings given, blocked, nothing to see here, blah blah blah.}} ~~~~ It's probably better explained at Template:Resolved. :) Hope that makes sense (and apologies if this is/was unwanted). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Your always welcome here Ncmvocalist - apologies not required. Whilst it was my intention to sign as I did, your message makes it clear as to why the alternate approach is better - and I will use it next time.--VS 04:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about a block

An editor has raised a question about your block of 208.89.102.31 (talk · contribs) on AN/I. They've been advised to contact you directly, so I'm not sure a response will be needed there, but fyi. -- Vary Talk 06:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for stopping by Vary. I have read through the ANI question - and don't have much more to say - Gwen Gale (as she usually does) hits the nail on the head pretty well. Anyway I appreciate you letting me know about the thread - and I note the unusual interest by IPromise (of whom others also have brought up interesting comments).--VS 08:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Per your last removal of bad faith comment

I also thinking the same thing. Any article that Wizzzzman has edited you also see the 124.170.xx.xx (iinet) IP range showing up like the National Australia Bank's history shows. ATM I don't have a lot of free time to file a SSP as I'm currently backing-up 50+GB of photographs (No way I'm wanting to lose most of my work again) on top of a few other things. I'll see what I can do in the morning/afternoon. Bidgee (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Proper Way to Handle Disruptive Editing

VS - I got your note on my talk page. My apology for the error on my part. What is the proper way to handle a user who is following your edits, knows nothing of the subject matter, and just reverts them (in the specific case at hand, they were 95% formatting, cleanup and removal of dead links), with the appearance of it being out of spite for discussions on a completely unrelated page?--Lyonscc (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • You have a variety of ways - the general being a complaint to ANI, the specific being - coming to my talk page or another administrator to register a complaint about disruptive editing. Whether you take the first or the second you should come with clear, specific facts and diffs that immediately assist me/us the edits you question; without any unnecessary waffle. Of these two options I recommend coming to my talk page (somewhat to my personal concern considering the constant bickering that is going on at these three or four pages) because as you will have seen I have absolutely no interest in those articles and I currently appear to be the main/only administrator watching all editors and pages at this time. Further as the history shows, I am also completely willing to give any editor at these pages a short or long holiday if called for - because in my experience these things will eventually die down if all editors know that they are on a final warning and just try their best to deal with their personal biases and beliefs through discussion.--VS 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My typo in an AIV

How embarrassing, two typos in one simple but important posting! I left the last digit off the current IP. It should have been 61.69.3.106 along with 61.69.25.208. My apologies for causing you to have to chase me on this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Hey no problems - as you can see I found the right IP and acted accordingly. Thanks for stopping by to let me know you read my message. Cheers.--VS 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I right to think SSP?

I believed that User:S11.1 and User:Octyplay could be same editor (who edits on the 190.xx.xx.xx range). Maybe something to watch? BTW thanks for dealing with the other SSP. :) Bidgee (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest edit and locked down the article until consensus is formed. I have invited interested parties to append their comments under my new section header.--VS 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Bidgee (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Heatwave

Hey I like that - colour cooler to hot works well - easier to see graph and will work well as a thumb(ish) size. Thoughts ... (1) Maybe month detail under the place name ie: in this case Jan-Feb 2009; (2) name change to include the words min & max; (3) more location detail eg: are we talking about the BOM site at the airport in this case, middle of town etc.... just thoughts but hope they might be helpful.--VS 11:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of user talk page comments

I did not know that. Thanks for the posting the the bisket's talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Cyclonebiskit - anyone can get frustrated in real-life and most of us will understand that and even have the good grace to allow you time to reconsider any churlish actions as detailed above. Indeed when I saw you go on an immediate wikibreak I thought perhaps you were going to sort out other things and thoughts and come back refreshed. That said, you are mistaken if you think you have done nothing wrong, although I will accept that you have done nothing wrong on purpose - which did occur when you returned comments at Bidgee's talk page that he (not a she) removed. For that a simple comment along the lines of Sorry I didn't know an editor could remove comments from their talk page without responding would have sufficed to calm the situation down - rather than a comment of see how you like it when I tried to inform you of the facts of such communication. Inflaming things here again by coming back for another bite at the cherry regarding the original incident that has upset you does not exclude the fact that Bidgee is entitled to remove most comments whenever he feels like it - do you understand what I mean? Also just to be clear Scarian (as are most editors) is welcome here at any time or at the very least until I ask him to move away nothing to see - it is after all my talk page. I would appreciate your further thoughts on this if you feel it within yourself to accept that my initial advice to you was in fact correct.
@ Jason Rees - happy you decided to stop by but quite frankly I am not sure what you are referring to - more importantly does your question belong here or at Bidgee's page?--VS 03:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
To Cyclonebiskit. Thank you for not assuming good faith and again insult me. Also I made it a pointless controversy? I'm not the one stalling on not adding local time to have it along with UTC time in Australian based articles. It's not like I'm only just wanting local time and no UTC time.
To Jason Rees. Has it come to you that I'm busy and haven't seen your comment (I'm still yet to read it and will later)? It's pointless bring that up on another users talk page. Bidgee (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's best that the two of you stop clawing at each other. CB, you go that way ←. Bidgee, you go that way →. Problem solved. :) –Juliancolton 04:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A mini essay

  • Scarian, there certainly are a lot of highly emotional wikipedians around at the moment so I just try and do the job I get paid so handsomely for! I even have my own administrator's essay on it. Not long, soapy or wordy ... it goes like this .... under all circumstances be Polite, Helpful, Unattached and Kind = WP:PHUK - end of essay.--VS 11:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

triggerhappy ?

Hello there - you don't think you've been a little triggerhappy by blocking me ? Your allegation was "misleading edit" which I vehemently deny. I put up to new links to an article, one of which was a link to "youtube" which was taken off due to a rule I wasn't aware. Then, I went back in and added the non-youtube again. All these edits were done in good faith which I think would be obvious to a reasonable person actually comparing edits. Did you really look at them ? Thanks 124.170.178.60 (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Voting not started

Voting has not started. Your votes has been removed. Please read the directions. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A favor, if you have the time

I normally wouldn't ask, but I've tagged Be The Reformation for deletion four times now, and the creator keeps removing them. I'm tired of checking every few minutes to see if the tag is still there, so if you have a chance could you go by and take a look at it? I've tagged it as an A7, but I'm fairly sure it would also meet G11 without a problem. Templarion (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it gets taken care of in the same minute as I ask you. That's how my luck goes. Anyway, cheers Templarion (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Would've loved to have helped - but that bloody PMDrive1061 ;) beat me to it - damn I hate more efficient administrators than me. I'll have another look see from time to time to see if the editor attempts to recreate.--VS 04:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on it too. Thanks anyway! Templarion 愛 04:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've salted it! Man, I'm doing all of Steve's work today! He's going to be very bored when he comes back online. Scarian 13:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You're a bloody winner Pat - thanks.--VS 02:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Licensing breach, What can I do?

This website is using my image (As a header and banner) without any attribution nor is it appropriately distribute (IE: It's a CC-BY-SA licensed photograph). I've emailed them a few days ago and they've read the email but have failed to fix the issue nor reply. So you know of any other means to get them to appropriately attribute the image or force them to remove it since they have made the licensing conditions invaild since they breached the terms which is clearly stated on the image page? Bidgee (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's more of a legal problem that would require you to contact a solicitor (or lawyer, if you're a yank!) to get that sorted out. But I know that on Misplaced Pages, if a site is using material and not citing it under GFDL, then I think at least 2-3 notices are issued before contacting a legal representative. But please note, I may not know what I am talking about and I may be very wrong. So please do take what I have written with a pinch of salt, or, preferably, don't take it at all ;-) Scarian 13:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, seek advice from WP:IMAGE. But be aware that some people can get mightily stiff when it comes to legal questions. Scarian 13:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bidgee - Scarian's response is helpful (despite his shyness at saying so) - but I will also reply to your email with another strategy that I have already implemented on behalf of image owners. --VS 20:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both Scarian and VS for you help. I'll keep you updated if anything changes. Bidgee (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks like your idea worked VS. ;) Thanks for that, I owe you a beer or something! Bidgee (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to have helped Bidgee, but if I see you sitting at a bar somewhere and you get a tap on the shoulder and a hello then yep your shout first... File:Icon beer.gif--VS 06:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I rarely go to the pub! :P Well I'm looking at riding to Uranquinty tomorrow but yet to pick the route and see if it's smokey (If it's like today I'll do it) plus if I'm in the "mood". Bidgee (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Well ended up going today to the Uranquinty but I'm paying for it now (sun burnt and sore). One image uploaded is the power station. oh also the Dunns road has some bad Corrugations and the 3 hills were killers.Bidgee (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Also sad to see a lot of bare paddocks and dry dams. Bidgee (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheers - sorry I missed this activity somehow. Nice additional pics tho.--VS 09:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Males

Hi. Does this constitute further disruptive behaviour that you were talking about? BalkanFever 15:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • No - after his block he can say/ask these type of things - but if he should return to any page and disrupt via edits would you please come back and show me those diffs.--VS 20:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

unjustified block

I dont follow you: first you block me for fixing an edit error of mine (labelled as "misleading edit"), then when i raise this (after the block expired) !) you block me again for "block evasion". maybe there's something i dont get here but wikipedia is meant to be an open system.... 124.170.178.60 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Sockpuppet evasion is blockable at this project. I'm happy to keep blocking and especially so when you are continuing to be disruptive Wizzzzman. Thanks for stopping by.--VS 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

my talk

Hey again, thanks for the help. Can you unprotect or semiprotect my talkpage? cheers, Enigma 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppets

Can you indef block this and this? Thanks, Enigma 05:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: This

Look at his profession and then at the collapsed box. Advertising an NN much? I remember I've dealt with these before by just deleting the whole thing, but what would you recommend? Scarian 17:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bah, never mind. I checked it out more and the guy's article had been deleted so he thought he could bypass inclusion requirements. Also turns out he's an image thief; but he probably doesn't know the whole deal around that so I explained it to him. Scarian 17:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
G'day Pat, What you did is what I would have done too. Interesting that inclusionist put it up on his user page? Perhaps a sandbox page but why user page I wonder?--VS 20:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I've seen it before with kids' garage bands... they plug it on their userpage and say to their friends: "Hey! We've got an article!" - Another time this guy pasted months worth of blog postings to get additional viewers from the Wiki... They all think they're cashing in on Misplaced Pages's apparent giant traffic but pfft... Everyone knows these are the only articles that get traffic! Scarian 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Ha - that's right only because they get the spelling incorrect (or so they say) and get side tracked by all the things they can't get elsewhere and they can still tell their mom that they are only looking up something important on wikipedia.--VS 02:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian Naylor (broadcaster)

Now reported in the Herald Sun as a rumour only. Why people would think it appropriate to paste this on a bio when nothing but conjecture is known escapes me. The man has a family. Thanks for the semi-protect. -- Mattinbgn\ 09:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Agreed Matt - some people are a bit too keen. Also I have linked Steels Creek - I think this may be the place but I am a bit unsure (it is very close to Kingslake).--VS 09:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Brian Naylor

Should we add that Brian Naylor is currently missing? . Bidgee (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes mate - with that reference and besides I trust you to do so with appropriate wording. Go for it.--VS 09:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • PS If you do it I can stand back as an uninvolved admin and deal with problems as necessary.--VS 09:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I've added it to the article (Brian Naylor (broadcaster)). Bidgee (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Yep noted my friend; and also noted other helpful comments by new editors at the talk page. I think I will leave the protection run its 6 hour course though and hopefully the fact of this will be cleared up by then.--VS 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Noted that. Lets hope it's good news from now on but I somehow doubt it. Also happy that the "reported" fire on Willans Hill was controlled (Was on the crawl on WIN yet RFS had nothing) and the fire at Tarcutta is also under control. Bidgee (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
              • Yes I know - always eerie reading about fires etc and smelling it in the air so close - you can't help but go outside every 10 minutes to see if there is anything more than smoke recoloring the sun.--VS 10:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Naylor and his wife's death now confirmed. Has been adjusted on the page - very sad regarding all victims including Brian and Moiree.--VS 10:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Very sad indeed. What makes me heart broken is seeing vandals using the article for there own kicks. I'm off to try and get some sleep since I've been up for the past 2 days. Bidgee (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • You go get some Bidgee - I'll maintain as much watch as I can over today. I dealt immediately with the latest vandal (as you may have seen). Sleep well.--VS 21:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Blue

Can you looking into the removal of content at Virgin Blue? Bidgee (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reality Check, please

If you don't mind, please take a look at Oxted School article and make sure that I'm not crazy. In my view, the other editor is trying to force in a reference to a non-notable game that is held in one of the buildings. There's at least one other editor that disagrees, so I feel a little better, but I would always appreciate a third opinion to make sure I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. Templarion 愛 17:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're fine. It's just some student trying to write something that him and his friends can guffaw about. By the way, the article suffers from strong instances of POV. And unless someone can find sources for the fire; I wouldn't write about it. Scarian 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again Pat. Was just about to get to this message but was a bit caught up with the information regarding fires at this part of the world.--VS 20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, of course. Are you alright, mate? I hope you, your family, and everyone you know is safe and well, and I hope everyone else caught up in this pulls through. And if it really was arson, I really hope they catch the buggers. Terrible stuff. Scarian 12:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm nowhere near the fires Pat thanks for your concern. Two of my sisters are close but they're fine. Plenty of smoke in the south east of Australia to keep us a little alert but otherwise no worries. No-one is yet sure about arson lit fires, quite possible for one or two, others could also be the result of a variety of things, cigarette butts thrown out of a car/truck; lightning strikes; sun spotting through broken glass etc. A real tragedy however and we are all waiting and hoping for the escalating numbers of deaths to cease. Thanks for your kind thoughts.--VS 20:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

While I think the block was just fine, I would like to point out the user has asked you to reconsider. Good day. Chillum 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Spin

Can you please do something more than warn him? He is in infuriatingly uncivil on the talk page. View this diff from my last comment to his: . Thanks. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly refused to take a constructive approach to the material he simply wants to remove. I have asked him many times to enter a dialog as to how it could be made more to his acceptance and his response is basically to remove it. It is rather frustrating to deal with someone who simply wants to remove rather than improve.
I have just reported him for 3RR violation. --spin (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Spin, I've told you what needs to be done with it to make it acceptable, and you've taken no measures to do it. You want it included, the burden is on you to make it more than just your reading of the primary sources. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems this matter has been dealt with by William M Connelly whilst I was asleep; thank you William. For what it is worth I would have blocked also following your information above. Please come back here again as necessary - if I am on-line I will be happy to assist.--VS 21:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dog does not eat dog

I provided a response on my discussion page. My complaint for abuse of power by the administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise concerns his first blocking for "tendentious editing". This act, which I dispute, becomes a reason for my post disadvantaged in the situation.--Males (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • What in heavens name does dog not eat dog mean here?--VS 20:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • On a closer inspection you are clearly referring to Future Perfect at Sunrise. Look closely at your own block Males - whilst you do not agree with it, three separate administrators did agree with that action. You then returned to edit in the same way and were re-blocked, with further complaints but no request to be unblocked. I am not going to sit around whilst you refer to other editors as dogs and I have blocked you accordingly. Please read this detail about not attacking other editors.--VS 21:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your view, but for context, this is an old proverb that means that even low-life dogs will protect other low-life dogs. WikiProverbs page, answers.com page. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks Jack - thats the general impression I had hence my concern.--VS 21:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me then. I didn't want you to think it was a mistranslation or something. Using standard phrases to attack someone is still an attack, and I don't think this phrase is ever used to describe someone you held in any degree of respect. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your notification. In fairness, I wouldn't have held that expression against him. It's a somewhat clumsy translation of a foreign proverb, nothing more. I can't just now think of an English equivalent (In German we would say: "A crow won't put out another crow's eye"), simply meaning: people of the same group will stick together and not hurt each other even if they are in the wrong. I don't feel it is "likening me to a dog", and personally I don't feel insulted by it. Right or wrong, he means to criticise us admins for cliquishly defending each other's decisions. That's okay with me. – Personally, as far as I'm concerned, I would have no objections to seeing this block lifted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your return Fut.Perf. Given you are the offended party and have no objections I will lift the block. Best wishes.--VS 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
VS, I didn't expect that you will take this as insult. Actually, the first "dog" in the proverb were you and I really want to stress that I don't want to insult you or somebody else. My disagreements are generally in connection with politics of overconfide between some administrators. This English proverb describes the situation and for me is clearly that man who used it do not call "dog" anybody in the literal sense. So, I would like to ask for more confide to myself. I am not a "criminal" just because I am disappointed and keep criticizing. Regards, --Males (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As per your talk page I agree - tolerance means to be able to accept disagreement. Wise words for you to consider also when people have a disagreement with your edits. As for the proverb can I suggest that you write more carefully because it seems I and others at my talk page initially also came to the conclusion that "dog" appeared to be a slur reference towards other editors - my point being the English language is the medium used at this project to convey messages to others and if it is necessary for you to come back later to explain what you meant then you probably didn't make the best choice of words in the first instance. Make sense?--VS 22:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agreed here. Regards,--Males (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Doughney

I saw you tell someone on this page that they could bring a dispute to you. I'm inexperienced at this but could you help me or at least give me some advice with the following problem?

An editor named Mike Doughney has contributed to an article an undone 5 edits that I spent weeks researching. He made the following claim for undoing the edit,"07:32, 11 February 2009 Mike Doughney (Talk | contribs) (8,184 bytes) (Restoring verified material with citations to third parties in lieu of addition of self-published material from the article's subject)"

He undid at least 5 edits at one time, but hid at least 4 of his edits so it looks like he only did one. (How does he do that?) Aren't you only supposed to undo 3 at one time within 24 hours? He is using a non-NPOV web site to reference his edits, (Trinity Foundation), that only criticizes Pentecostal ministers. He says that random people like someone named G Richard Fisher are critical of Stewart, so what. Who is that guy, I guess it is like saying Joe the plumber is critical of Barack Obama. He added the name of some defrocked minister "VW Grant," trying to link him somehow to Stewart, but I can't find any link between the two except that they are both on TV. He took out a book Stewart wrote from the section, "Books by Stewart." I just reinserted the book "Only Believe," back into that section. The book is not self published It was authored by the subject, but published by an independent publisher well respected in the Christian community, ref(Destiny Image), Don Stewart, Only Believe Destiny Image P.O. Box 310 Shippensburg, PA 17257-0310 (1999) ISBN 156043340X. I also referenced Stewart's web site to support the point I was making.


The fact is that the article he is using as a reference from a Dallas paper, doesn't support the claims he is making that Stewart didn't write his letters about a Green Prayer cloth, (which Stewart is kind of famous for right now). The article just says that Stewart and a lot of other ministers hired this guy Ewing to write some fund raising letters for them. More importantly Stewart's prayer cloths aren't mail pieces anyway, they are give a ways on his web-site and TV show and I referenced Stewart's web-site to prove this. All this has been laid out on the discussion page for about a week with no objection. Doughney just jumped in and made these edits without discussion.

I'm just learning Misplaced Pages and am using this site to learn on, because it is such an obvious smear piece. Many of the articles in this piece are misquoted and or are only referenced with the negative things they say about Stewart, especially the things taken directly from the Trinity Foundation web-site. In the section "What Misplaced Pages is not,” it says something about people using Misplaced Pages as another web-site for themselves, I think the Trinity Foundation is doing this with Stewart and many of the ministers they don't like.

I learned about Stewart by reading the Only Believe Book. I'm doing a book on healing evangelists myself and this is the definitive one on the subject to date. Like I said I'm new here so maybe I'm wrong, but this just doesn't seem right. I could correct a lot of this article, but I am taking it slow to let others give their input. However, I don't like to see Misplaced Pages used to just smear someone even if they are kind of odd or unusual. The guy,(Stewart), actually has some historical significance being linked to AA Allen, Mahalia Jackson, and the civil rights movement in the 60’s & 70’s, but none of that is in the article. I would appreciate some help here, I really enjoy Misplaced Pages and hope I can be of some use, thanksHarvest09 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm having some difficulty with regards your fifth paragraph starting with the words I'm just learning Misplaced Pages and am using this site to learn on, because it is such an obvious smear piece because your interest seems to display more than just a random educational choice. That said (and no matter where your interests lie) I see that you have returned the book reference into the article. In terms of then what you say are smears, could you go to the talk page of the article and detail (in simple bullet format) what sentences/words you believe are incorrect and why. Then detail what you wish to change those sentences to say and why. Come back here and leave me a note and I will monitor the reaction to your post.--VS 06:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks I'll do that. It's not random, I read this guy's book and it was very well done, but I guess I was kind of shocked when I saw his page. There are many others much more significant than Stewart, in the faith healing world and if he gets this kind of treatment I didn't want to edit their pages because it might draw this kind of responce and I wouldn't know how to handle it. This seems to be a good experience for me. As to listing the information it will take a few days. Many of the articles sited in the Stewart piece you have to go to a service and pay for them, but I'll begin the process. ThanksHarvest09 (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I contacted the Stewart office and told them that they should have someone look into this and have them contribute. I interviewed people there last summer researching my book and got a lot of information on their history and charity work especially from their food bank people. Hopefully they will get involved. They said they have tried to do things in the past, but basically they didn’t have the time to learn the nuances of Misplaced Pages and gave up. They said a lot of the negative articles come from a take over attempt of the organization by a disgruntled former board member, dating back to 1987, (and I have found that indicated in many of the news articles). A lot of what I have on the subject would probably be original research, but misquotes and one sided use of the articles are something I’d like to learn how to correct anyway. So, give me a couple of days to put it together and I’ll post it on the discussion page. I’m not fond of the Trinity Foundation, because I feel they are biased against Pentecostals and ignore abuse by all other ministries who do the same things. I hope I’m getting better at this and am having a lot of fun learning Misplaced Pages (like using bullets). Thanks Harvest09 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess I should indent the bullets each time, but when I use the tab it sends me to the next section on the page? I didn't see bullets in the tutorials I'm looking at? Harvest09 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

Hi Steve, Scientizzle and I had been discussing my topic ban on his/her talkpage. He has not responded to my message of 5 Feb, probably for reasons he stated earlier, despite my explanation. I'd be very grateful for your input again, following your advice of December. I think I can make a good contribution in the topic ban area and hope to be able to do so. Mccready (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Best summary is by Scientizzle here, then his/her acknowledgement that block log relied on had questionable entries and "didn't weigh much". Scientizzle also said "blocks in 2006 don't much concern me". Since many cited this old questionable block log as their reason for voting I said the basis for the discussion was now seriously undermined. The simple question is why not lift the ban which is due to be lifted in May anyway and reinstate it if necessary. This started by my admittedly poor approach being a lone editor trying to prevent a group of acupuncturists dominating the page. I have been a strong science editor all along and have suffered the usual consequences. Hoping the answer to the simple question may short circuit a lot of time and drama. I'd rather be doing constructive editing than this, as I'm sure you would. Thanks. Mccready (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll be back on this a little later Mccready as it will require a bit of time and consideration. Stay tuned, I will do my best to get back to you as soon as possible.--VS 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Steve. To save you a lot of time perhaps it might be easier for you to agree boldly that lifting the topic ban and reinstating if needed might be more economical. My feeling is that the community would not blame you if you were wrong. It seems a sensible risk. I can only assure you of my cooperation and ask you to Assume Good Faith. On numerous occasions the AGF principle has been denied me and I have virtually been called a liar. In particular I remember discovering the crime of canvassing. When I joined wikipedia the crime didn't exist and when I was told I had committed it I had no idea if was a crime, despite what my accusers said. I could go on but want to get back to editing which I enjoy. PS People call me Kevin (and do you know how I can change my signature block to reflect this?)Mccready (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of material here to assimilate. Some comments:

  • I don't think it would be appropriate for any admin to lift this without discussion at AN/I and clear community agreement that the topic ban is no longer necessary. VS himself closed the most recent AN/I discussion with the summary "Consensus clearly shows topic ban will not be lifted despite ardent attempts at intervention. This thread has no where else to go so archiving for posterity.--VS talk 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)".
  • Prior to that discussion, Mccready violated the topic ban with an IP edit. A similar episode in May 2008 was inconclusive. (see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mccready)
  • The topic ban on acupuncture and chiropractic is not "due to be lifted in May anyway", as Mccready suggested above. It is an indefinite topic ban. What expires in May is a general pseudoscience and alt-med probation, according to the above link.
  • During the original topic ban discussion (see also preceding discussion here) there was a block for canvassing.
  • Mccready dismissed a block for 3RR with a personal attack on the blocking admin ("trigger happy MastCell"). That admin is not known for rashness, and the block appears sound.

Given the facts above, I think it would be inappropriate to lift the topic ban right now. Even assuming the best of intentions, in practice Mccready has repeatedly fallen into disruptive/tendentious editing and other patterns that have eroded the community's trust.

The pseudoscience and alt-med probation expires in May. Although Mccready has not used the probationary period to use talk pages in those areas, he now will be able to edit them fully (with the exception of the acupuncture and chiropractic topic ban areas). That will provide a venue for Mccready to rebuild the community's trust in his ability to work productively with editors that he has major disagreements with. Just my 2 cents, and my sincere best wishes. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with Don Stewart (preacher) article

I found the bullet thing it’s on the “Help: Formatting,” page. I just posted the first installment of what I think we should eliminate and include; on the Don Stewart (preacher) discussion page under; “Developing a consensus for the article and correcting mistakes.” Sorry this took so long, but I first tried to do the whole thing and it was just too much. I also had to stop to do my taxes and help college boy with his FAFSA. Do you have any college kids in the family? Its’ tough out there. They have a joke, “The good thing about FAFSA is you get your taxes done early, but the bad thing about FAFSA is you have to do your taxes early!” Think that’s NPOV? Take a look when you get a chance and let us know what you think? Thanks,Harvest09 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Well done. I prefer to stay neutral in terms of the content itself so that I can act as an administrator if required. I suggest that you wait a day or two to see if you get replies and comments from fellow editors first. Please come back here mid-week to remind me and I will provide you with some further advice at that time.--VS 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry to bother but there is something I think some administrator should look at on the bottom of the Stewart discussion page. I left a "note to administrator" about a recently added paragraph to the article; it is on a very controversial subject I know something about since it will be in my book. But this will be a real digression from what we are working on now if left and it could very well be libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvest09 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have reverted a portion of the recent edits to remove this area of concern and also left a message in the edit summary as to my reasons for reverting (administratively). Good luck with your discussions.--VS 21:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, shortly after leaving the message for administrative help my computer was hit with a virus making it impossible for me to access the internet. We are okay now, but my son-in-law isn't happy. Not sure what happened. Have a good one I'm going to go slow with this. I'll try to remember the edit summary. Harvest09 (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK favor

Hello. The DYKadminbot is dead, and the DYK template is overdue for an update. Would you be willing to do it? I can show you instructions. Shubinator (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Excellent, thanks. The next update queue works. Actually, since you took it from next update, can you change the bot queue number to 3? The timer looks fine. Oh, and the pic needs to be protected. Shubinator (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure. Thank you for doing the update. I'll do the credits and clear the queue...that one isn't protected. Again, thanks for your help! I may come back to you if the bot stays dead. Shubinator (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Further on spin

Don't know what you can/would want to do with it, but shortly before you blocked him he posted this on my talk page, accusing me of harassing him: . carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes I noted that earlier Carl. I won't extend his current block but I feel (hope ?) he understands that I will escalate his next block should he return to uncivil editing.--VS 01:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for missing where you noted it. And thank you, Steve. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A favor, if you don't mind......

Hey Steve, I'm going to be gone for a while (hopefully just a few days, but depends on what they find...) and I was wondering if you could keep an eye on Matt Smith (British actor) for me. Specifically, there's at least one person that constantly re-adds a non-free image to the article against policy. This one, or other copies of it, to be precise. An IP address did the same, and it stayed for quite a while. I'm hoping nothing gets added, but I'd rather be safe than sorry...Hope to talk to you soon. Templarion 善意 06:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor adding copyrighted text.

Millere08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding copyrighted text in which I warned them (for adding copyrighted text in the Melbourne rail network article) but have continued to do so with text copied from City of Melbourne() and also Future Melbourne(). Bidgee (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

and just added Future Melbourne again. Bidgee (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OD Sorry to annoy you again but the 190.xx.xx.xx IP has returned to the Avianca and adding 1919. . Bidgee (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Millere08's block has ended but seems that the editor has an POV against Connex in the Melbourne rail network article. Bidgee (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer

Hi; I basically agree with your block, but since it occurred as a result of an extended antagonistic interaction, can I suggest that you post a short notice about what you have done at AN, so that other admins can confirm it? I don't forsee any problem, I just think it's a good thing to do in general. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, block review was requested at AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 20:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Good morning to you both - have awoken just now to read your messages and have also read the review posted by ChildofMidnight at AN as well as the comment by Ncmvocalist. I will return to it later to see if there is anything more that needs to be said.--VS 20:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Category:
User talk:VirtualSteve: Difference between revisions Add topic