Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mccready (talk | contribs) at 04:34, 4 December 2009 (→Topic ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:VirtualSteve/WAM

This user has been an admin for 17 years, 6 months and 23 days.

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years, 2 months and 3 days.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Happy Birthday to me

4 years young today. Still smiling.--VirtualSteve 09:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Wiki Birthday! Bidgee (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks fella's - I wasn't fishing but it was nice of you both to come to my party. Four years have gone so damn quick!--VirtualSteve 10:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like yesterday!!! Four years of voluntary service deserves recognition. Thanks. -- Mattinbgn\ 10:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Matt & Rjanag. I appreciate working here surrounded by such great company.--VirtualSteve 20:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, happy birthday! So very, very happy that you've stayed around this long. There is no doubt in my mind that Misplaced Pages is much better off with you. :-) 144.124.16.28 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers buddy. Hope the study is going well. Will talk to you via alternate method again shortly. All my best wishes.--VirtualSteve 12:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there STEVE, VASCO from Portugal here, hope all's fine with you,

What can we do about this vandal? He's been removing important info in player infoboxes (here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Guti_Hern%C3%A1ndez&diff=prev&oldid=325657405, here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Antonio_Barrag%C3%A1n&diff=prev&oldid=320265044 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Andoni_Zubizarreta&diff=prev&oldid=324533902 for example), and the IP seems quite dynamic to me ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/83.108.143.34), my only doubt is if it is the same person behind all those edits, although ALL of them consist of soccer! The person has been warned already, yet continues.

Would greatly appreciate your input, keep up the good work,

Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Vasco - I have been watching the user and I see that they have now been blocked.--VirtualSteve 19:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Abidreh

He's requesting unblock and says he can behave. What do you think? Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not adverse to give him a third chance (he has been given a second and went straight back to attacking). Perhaps he could be started on a probationary - with a limit on his editing contributions away from those related topics where he disagreed with and attacked almost every opposing editor? His last attack was upon Yellow Monkey (ethnicity by memory) so a question to him might assist?--VirtualSteve 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

YM said OK. I will unblock and monitor. Strike three, and he's out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No problems - I'll be watching too. Thanks for letting me know.--VirtualSteve 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Janelle Pierzina

FYI, there's once more disruption at Janelle Pierzina. Please refer to this post at WP:BLPN. Thanks for your attention. Ohconfucius 13:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually I have just blocked that IP for edit warring and the attack comment in his edit summary.--VirtualSteve 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice clock

I've just pinched it for my user pages. ;-) Ohconfucius 13:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy.--VirtualSteve 21:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

user:Inuit18 not participating in the discussion

Hi Steve. Once again user:Inuit18 is not participating in the discussion and adding controversial material and using a very week source. He is intentionally forcing other users to break the WP:3RR rule (it looks like user:Tajik is once again helping him in this case). I would really appreciate it if you try to take a look at the following article and discussion when you have time Talk:Kabul_Province#NPS_tribal_map. I am sorry for my 4th revert within 24 hours. I thought it was 3 reverts per date not 24 hours. However, I had no option but to automatically remove false information. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

I clearly gave you my explanation on the talk page. You are clearly using your own POV in that article and this is not acceptable to Misplaced Pages. NPS gives many academic and governmental references and we (me and you) have used this source on other articles. This again shows you are bias by using it in one article and removing it in another article.--Inuit18 (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article - it is a small world, offer peace and the please discuss together your consideration of what edits should or should not be accepted so that you reach an accurate neutral version. Please then return here when you have reached such an agreement.--VirtualSteve 06:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have provided few (not one) valid reasons on why the tribal maps provided by NPS should not be used as a source in those specific articles. Fully protecting the article will not help solve the problem in hand. The reason why we contact an admin or another member (neutral of course) is to get a second opinion. The issue has been posted in the admin's noticeboard as well, however, no admin has replied yet. Are there any other admins/members or noticeboards where we can request for a second opinion? I would still appreciate it if you take a look at the map and the discussion whenever you have a 5-10 minute of free time. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

Fully protecting the article stops the edit warring that is going on between the two of you. Whilst asking a neutral member to assist is a valid approach if you can get someone willing to conciliate - that is not something that you are doing here. Rather you are both hell bent on trying to display your own reasons for inclusion of this and that in the article in question - and with respect whilst I am happy to try and stop the bickering and edit warring I do not have the time to sort through who is right or wrong on each and every edit the two of you are intent on making in action against the other. You either need to agree to move to different articles than each other; agree to accept a certain level of editing by the other; move away from wikipedia; or learn to work together for the purposes of the project. This last one is hard but it can be achieved.--VirtualSteve 10:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I haven't talked to you in a while. How are you doing? It's me, Andrew.

Anyway, I was hoping you could delete this. Nothing else. Hopefully, that won't take too much time out of your day. :)

That's all for now. Unless you reply to this within like half an hour, I'll be fast asleep. Cheers AndrewEnns (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Andrew. I am well but busy so sorry I haven't replied with the time frame. I hope you are sleeping well. Deletion requested is now completed. Cheers.--VirtualSteve 10:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Thanks for your offer which I'd like to accept since User:Kevin has withdrawn. I found this on my system: “McCready has recently come to my talk page to discuss his topic ban. A lengthy discussion lasting a couple of weeks (with another's input) ensued. That discussion has been archived but is linked here in full. At the conclusion of that discussion I decided not to remove McReady's topic ban. I note that topic ban only has about 30 more days to run at this time.--VS talk 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)” March 2009 and now it's December. The intent of your message was to say he'd be OK after 30 days. Surely my behaviour and contributions since the flawed banning (I was unable to defend myself, "the community" was exposed to a misleading block log and some admins spoke in my defence) and since March 2009 deserve merit? Kevin McCready (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked at the extent of your latest conversations and complaints regarding this matter. I note that you always argue that you are in the right and that the community is in the wrong. Indeed you have very poor form in relation to the accepting of any decision and your sour grapes running off to ANI in recent days when again you do not gain a decision in the terms you want is a very good example of this also. In short I am unwilling to look further into your current topic ban. I also do not appreciate you taking my words of some time ago out of context from the full set of diffs relating to your topic ban. To reiterate the words of another reasonable editor who recently commented on this issue .... What part of "Take this to ARBCOM" are you not understanding? --VirtualSteve 09:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The task was to review the decision was it not? Your invitation was "If you would like assistance with your assessment, or a second opinion Kevin please come to my talk page at any time." But hey, thanks for your abuse because given your past form I really didn't expect anything different. Taking you at your word was obviously a mistake. Just for the record, wasn't it you who acknowledged the block record was misleading or irrelevant (despite it being made much of during the decision to ban)? Do you seriously think "the community" was represented in the decision when admins spoke against it? As for "sour grapes", if it's sour grapes to ask for a logical and coherent approach then I'm guilty. If it's sour grapes to accept your invitation then I'm guilty. Sorry you reacted so badly to having your own words played back to you. Once again, unfortunately, another example of the type of admin I have come to know on wikipedia. Enjoy yourself, you make a wonderful contribution to the project with actions like this. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Read my words more carefully and play your hyperbole somewhere else. I am offering Kevin and not Kevin McCready a second opinion. Kevin was the admin who tried to support your request but who you then lambasted at ANI (that is the sour grapes I am referring to) and who you even took a somewhat cowardly dig at with regards his personal unfortunate circumstances. Kevin has my second opinion - it is "you are not ready for a topic ban adjustment". Indeed you need to stop with the tendentious replies and activities else you will receive a wider block than just a topic ban. --VirtualSteve 20:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I now see you were talking to Kevin the admin not to me. But when you and Kevin are asked to justify yourselves and give logical reasons for your opinions you claim I am being tendentious. Nice twist. You also assume wrongly that I take a cowardly dig. Nice insult. In fact I think I said I felt sorry that he had been fired. Once again you have proved your worth - wrong assumptions, refusal to discuss, dismissing other people with insults and now a threat. Well done. Kevin McCready (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages administrators willing to grant rollback requests
• Misplaced Pages administrators willing to make difficult blocks