User talk:Mirv/Archive 5
Messages left here may not be seen for months. Use e-mail if you absolutely must contact me.
Administrator powers
[edit]If I have misused my magic powers in any way, this is the place to tell me.
Protection
[edit]Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from the list. Thanks.
If I accidentally protected a page to which I have made substantive edits, tell me here. I will unprotect it immediately.
Deletion
[edit]Did I speedy-delete something that wasn't a candidate? Did I delete something for which there was no consensus to delete? Tell me here.
Blocking
[edit]"WikiWatch Foundation"
[edit]active thread restored from archive 4
This wiki is in direct violation of the policies of the WikiWatch foundation. The specific citations are:
- Failure to remove all British spelling on a U.S.-based project.
- Failure to remove foreign news from the main page of a U.S.-based project.
- Blocking users permanently without first giving a 24-hour block.
- Locking the logo to prevent the “direct violation” notice from being uploaded.
- Deleting an attempt to let upload the “direct violation” notice.
- Utilizing an edit bar that encourages users to use "--" instead of an em-dash.
- Needlessly removing a user's nomination for adminship.
- Lack of a proper defense for users permanently blocked.
These issues must be dealt with or I guarantee action will be taken. WikiWatch 12:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Mm-hmm. That's nice. However, since the "WikiWatch foundation"—I don't suppose it has a website, or a mailing address, or a phone number—has no authority over Wikipedia's internal policies, said "WikiWatch foundation" is kindly invited to cram it with walnuts. —No-One Jones (m) 21:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm sorry you don't believe in the WikiWatch Foundation, although I can provide its mailing address:
[cut]
- This is a residential address on a small side street. It seems that four people live there.
And the phone number:
United States: [cut]
- This appears to be a personal phone—in any case, phone records say nothing of a "WikiWatch Foundation" owning this number.
The website is currently down, due to some security issues and upgrades.
- Sure it is.
But you're welcome to contact the WikiWatch foundation via mail.
- Why not by phone? I can call the U.S. on the cheap.
If that's enough for you, I'd like to let you know that the Foundation can take legal action. Just to let you know. — i386 | Talk 14:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- the Foundation can take legal action—Really. On what grounds? Would you care to cite the applicable laws? —No-One Jones (m) 22:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hello, I just removed the (presumably accidental) duplication of your talk page by 33451. Incidentally, isn't the Ohio connection just amazing? The WikiWatch Foundation is in Ohio, 33451 identifies with an IP address in Ohio, he used two more Ohio IPs to vandalize Template:In the news. Would anybody like to guess what an IP check would show for User:WikiWatch, User:Shquid, User:Totally Nude, User:Silver Proxy, and probably others besides? --Michael Snow 18:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- He also claims to have been User:Mr. Grinch. RickK 18:58, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
The IP of 33451 is 156.63.193.62 This resoves to a virual school. Ie a school that you acess at home. I don't know much about education in ohio but i assume that this sort of school is for pupils who have been expelled from other schools plus those with special needs tha\t can't attend an normal school plus those who parents choose home schooling.The pupils all access the school via the internet and all presumably go through the same proxy. I think blocking the IP for a year is the best way to stop the vandalism from all of Tyler ***** accounts (He's revealed his real name in full on wikipedia but i won't repeat it because he is a minor). Perhaps in a year's time he will have matured enough to edit sensibly. I've warned him on the anon talk page, that any more vandalism will result in a block. Is this too severe? Does everyone else support this idea? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 11:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I support the idea—though contacting his parents first might be a good idea as well, since he's giving out what might be his own address and phone number, and his real name, over the Internet. Perhaps we need to add "Wikipedia is not an asylum" to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. —No-One Jones (m) 12:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Blocking that IP for a year is absurd. How about just deleting everything associated with this account and letting me start over? — i386 (Talk) 14:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Also his school teacher. He's used a dialup account to vandalize as well. [[User talk:216.255.48.112 and probably others in that IP range. Tyler if you are reading this putting your real name home adress and home phone number on the web is really really stupid. The are a lot of bad people in the world who harm children. Although I would like to stop them reading Wikipedia I cannot. Never Never Never reveal personal infromation about yourself online until you reach 18 and be very careful about doing it after that. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 12:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I will try the number he gave. If it is his own I can have a word with his parents and see if that does any good; if it belongs to one of his neighbors (nobody sharing Tyler's last name lives at the address he gave, but there's a couple with the appropriate name a few doors down) perhaps they'll be able to give me the correct information. —No-One Jones (m) 12:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh I see you've seen his last name as well. Ignore my email then. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 12:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The number is currently being "checked for trouble"; I'll try it again later. In the meantime I'll contact William and Cynthia ***** (the aforementioned couple). —No-One Jones (m) 12:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- OK I've contacted the dean of students at his school. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 13:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You must have my wrong last name because everyone in this house has the same name and the "William and Cynthia" are people whom I've never heard of. — i386 (Talk) 14:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- They're your neighbors, or they were until fairly recently (the directory I used might have been out of date). They have the same last name as you. Maybe you've heard of them, maybe you haven't. —No-One Jones (m) 17:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No we have your correct last name. Don't worry about that. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Because I usually give a fake name of Brent Davis, and I notice you guys have been typing five asterisks: D-A-V-I-S. That's an alias. i386 (Talk) 14:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- LOL what are you planning to do? Braodcast your real name to all and sundry one letter at a time? I never thought for one moment it was Davis. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 15:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Because I usually give a fake name of Brent Davis, and I notice you guys have been typing five asterisks: D-A-V-I-S. That's an alias. i386 (Talk) 14:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've already emailed your school. I expect they will know how best to contact your parents. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 15:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I tried the WikiWatch Foundation's number again; I got the voice-mailbox of "the ***** [same as above] family", so I guess it was 33451's home number, or possibly a cell phone. —No-One Jones (m) 16:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good for you, Wiki Watch Foundation! This place is as corrupt as the Ayatollah of Iran's nutsack! They NEED someone watching over them and making sure they're doing what they're SUPPOSED TO be doing! Keep up the good fight, Tyler! Could I have some more info on the foundation though? I'd love to become a member myself. I am a prominent lawyer in my county and seek to take legal action not necessarily against this project itself but against the corrupt cabal of people who've perverted it. Please, let me know more. Thank you.205.188.117.18 01:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The WikiWatch Foundation is nonexistent; it is no more than a silly joke by an obnoxious young adolescent.
- Are you perhaps a bit ageist?205.188.117.18 18:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- He might welcome you to it but I, for one, think you'd be wasting your time. If you have issues with the way Wikipedia is run there are better ways to handle them; joining the mailing list is the first that springs to mind. —No-One Jones (m) 02:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Good *idea*--the only problem being that I have never used a login name. Hence, I am not permitted to email any of the various loons that run around this place acting as though they own it. Were I, trust you me, I'd have done so by now. They can't deny having read a personal email; they can't delete it and pretend it never existed. This place's bias against users who refuse to "log in" is horrifying! It pisses me off all the more, given that I am more respected, older, more educated, more intelligent, and have seniority here over most everyone who has gone out of his way to assault and harass me! If they hadn't their "special privileges" or I had, their "arguments" would fall apart in an instant! They have no sense of logic or reason, and are, overall, the stupidest lot of people I've ever met, online or off-, depending on their (abuses of) "power" to "win" their fights. We'll see who wins in the always-impartial court of law.205.188.117.18 18:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You can still join the mailing list (which is archived publicly): all you need for that is a working e-mail address. —No-One Jones (m) 20:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S., I do not appreciate your whitewashing of my frank and honest comments. If it's a piece of shit, then let's call it a piece of shit! Normally, I would simply revert back to my uncensored text, since I should not have to go through the process of correcting *your* mistake. However, as you at least appear to be somewhat rational and reasonable (though, I know, appearances here are often deceiving), I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and *not* simply revert everything since you censored me.205.188.117.18 18:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- My talk page is for sending me messages; I think flamewars with other users just get in the way when they're carried on here, and they can always be conducted elsewhere. —No-One Jones (m) 20:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Follow up No need to contact the kid's parents, I got an email from the school. They are dealing with it. They asked me to block the school IP, which I have done for a year. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 10:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I shall represent the "kid". Even "minors" have American rights to justice and freedom!205.188.117.18 18:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maps
[edit]OK I'll try to "minor" them. Rgds 213.48.182.7 20:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lance6Wins blocking
[edit]Not at all. Zero0000 blocked my account (please see [Talk:Refusal to serve in the Israeli military]). Perhaps you could shed light on the blocking policy vis a vis Zero0000s action. It does not seem to be in accordance with the policy. Abu Ala 20:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I did not know that RickK unblocked me. Could you shed some light on the blocking policy and Zero0000's behavior? Lance6Wins 21:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe. Zero may or may not be able to argue that you were inserting misinformation, which is a type of Wikipedia:Vandalism. If he did make the case, then the block would be technically improper but would probably be upheld as doing the right thing in the wrong way; if he didn't, then he would probably be reprimanded for abuse of administrator powers. —No-One Jones (m) 21:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. Your honesty is deeply appreciated. It appears to be rare here. I do try, attempt, or intend to misinform. I hope to obtain a copy of the book in Hebrew (a language which Zero0000 asks Danny to translate for him) and be able to quote the book directly on that page. Lance6Wins 21:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, I am sure he could argue it ;) People make all kinds of claims and statements...some more valid and better supported by facts than others. Lance6Wins 21:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You mentioned "Don't think that I unblocked you because I agree with what you're dong."
- Removing Wikipedia content because it does not fit a POV is damage to Wikipedia. That is exactly NOT what I am doing. What I am doing is adding material that expands the point of view of Wikipedia by including information is that some would rather see deleted. One example is the current FBI investigation of Yasser Arafat for ordering the murders of two US diplomats and a Belgian in March 1973. There are those who wish to bury or ignore this. The FBI may drop its investigation, it may not. The decision will have a political component. Wikipedia should be able to report the investigation and its results without malice or predjudice (sp?). Similarly for the statements of HaAretz reporter Amos Harel that Hamas members have told him (Harel) that division with Israeli society, as shown by the pilots letter, provided support and incentive to Hamas to continue its campaign of suicide bombing.
- Do you disagree with these additions? We could discuss the matter. Discussion is something that Zero0000 has never entered into, preferring to revert, protect, go to ArbCom and block. I would like to discuss the matter with you and any other person here at Wikipedia. Lance6Wins 14:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"wrong version protected"
[edit]With regard to Anti-American sentiment I am not sure if I think the protection you executed gave the contributors the wished impression. Let me first of all state that I, exceptionally, here had made an attempt to contribute to an article within VV's domain of dominance. It seemed to work out well for a short time, but since September 6th, VV retreated into two of his old habits, namely dogged reversion to his own version of the text, and defamations and other (verbal) aggressions on edit-sumaries and the talk-page. This is nothing I wish to be part of, which is why I since then have tried to play a secondary role (or a tertiary) in the editing of that page.
However, a set of editors challenged the wisdom of VV's perpetual dismissal of the work of others. Traces of that are found both in the edit sumary from Sept 7th and forth, aswell as under
- Talk:Anti-American sentiment#"Foreign"
- Talk:Anti-American sentiment#who owns the text
- Talk:Anti-American sentiment#Herta Däubler-Gmelin
According to my perception, Cadr, Tuomas, Kevin Baas, Trilobite, Get-back-world-respect and pir have all (at one time or many) restored the version that "the community" of them (and a few others) continued to work on, and/or opposed VV's reversions at the talk page, and also I did so at one or a few occasions after September 6th.
It may also be worth to note that there has been no development at the talk page in the discussion on the differences between VV's version and "the other version". Another discussion has taken place, but only pir (and VV) of the editors mentioned above, have taken part in that discussion.
I do not at all lack understanding for the difficulties of protecting pages, but I guess that you in this case might want to revise the effects of protecting "the wrong version". It doesn't help if it's unintended, if it gives seven active contributors (that's including me) and an unknown number of quiet spectators the impression that Wikipedia's policies are less worth than aggressive attitudes and enduring stubbornness.
Regards!
Ruhrjung 07:06, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
- You're preaching to the choir; Mirv already despises me. He may believe your deceptions and inflated list of opponents. But, you could complement mention of my "defamations" and "aggressions" by noting again that I fight for my "delusions" with more jealousy than wit. Then note your membership in the Harmonious editing club, so that in your "secondary (or tertiary) role" you clearly could not have been "pereptually dismissing" my edits with "reversions". At least unlike GBWR you're not crying "vandalism" at every turn. VV 14:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In this case, as is my wont, I didn't read the diffs and edit history until after protecting the page. I don't like to protect the wrong version, but neither do I like to take sides in edit wars; switching the protected version now would be tantamount to joining in the edit war myself, and while sysops have that option when one editor is repeatedly reverting seven others (wikipedia talk:revert#The protection option), I'm not fond of that rule. How about a {{twoversions}} message instead? —No-One Jones (m) 13:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- How should I say? This is unfortunately less about content and more about behavior. I have no strong opinions about two-versions messages, neither here nor anywhere else, but I would advice against using it in this kind of situations.
- Well, OK, I made a try. I can't do much more.
- --Ruhrjung 20:48, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
- You can try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Other than that, yes, there's not much you can do. —No-One Jones (m) 20:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Get out of my comics shop
[edit]I dont catch the reference? John Cusacks' High Fidelity comes to mind but that was a record shop. ??? Lance6Wins 14:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It is an obligatory reference to The Simpsons; Comic Book Guy says it at some point. —No-One Jones (m) 15:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
beta Systemic Bias section
[edit]Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systematic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 03:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- While I think efforts to counteract the systemic bias of Wikipedia are all well and good, and I would contribute to them if I were able, I see no point in this kind of ostentatiousness. Let me know when the beta version is ready, okay? —No-One Jones (m) 04:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Cease And Desist
[edit]moved to User talk:Mirv/AOL lawyer because:
This conversation is getting unwieldy. If you want to continue it via e-mail you can reach me at what would be ac.lligcm.liam@seldop.selrahc if you reversed it. —No-One Jones (m) 22:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I would continue via email, however I am reluctant to reveal my permanent email address to anyone here. I have, however, recently created a "Treason" email address at Yahoo, which I am using solely for the purpose of rallying legitimate internet "trolls" behind my cause and encouraging them to deface this site. I will email you from that address, if you wish, or if you think an email conversation will be my best bet at combatting these vandals (i.e., my having my ability to say what needs to be said WITHOUT fear of having my unflattering, but accurate, comments immediately deleted--thus far, that has not happened at THIS page, and that shows to me that you are far more committed to the reliability and integrity of this site than the average "admin" is). However, were I to email you with my "Treason" name, I would expect that it be understood that it is NOT my permanent email address and has only been created in response to the harassing pseudonym that these trolls have given me, against my will.172.130.105.30 19:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Any and all details of any e-mails you sent me would be kept in strict confidence unless you gave permission to do otherwise. So if you were to use your permanent e-mail address (which I would appreciate; I've given you mine), I would reveal nothing of it, or anything I might be able to learn from it, to anyone here or elsewhere. —No-One Jones (m) 19:41, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I do not see why I couldn't contact you via my permanent email address. You do seem genuine and trustworthy, however I have just met you. Based on my past experiences here, the truly honest and open people present here are few and far between. I've also been duped in the past by somebody who appeared to be impartial and sincere, only to later learn that she had, all along, been colluding with the corrupt group who continually goes out of its way to create trouble with me. I will have to think about this a bit. However, out of curiosity, why do you care which email address I communicate to you with?172.130.105.30 20:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Using your permanent e-mail address would be a gesture of good will, but you needn't feel obliged to do so. —No-One Jones (m) 20:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- P.S., I hope you have noticed the censorship of my comments from your very page. Surely you must not appreciate other people's "policing" the conversations on your own talk page?172.130.105.30 20:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I have, and I'm not pleased with it, though I know how and why they do it: sysops can and do roll back edits sight unseen, so if you edited my talk page in the midst of a vandalism spree, whoever reverted that edit probably just didn't bother to check if it was vandalism—so I'm not worried that anyone's trying to "police" my conversations. —No-One Jones (m) 20:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No--this is INEXCUSABLE! Mirv, you are now also condoning the rote reversion of any edits that are *suspected* of having been performed by a vandal? That is absurd! Any "sysops" who do what Catboy is doing are, themselves, VANDALISING this project in removing pertinent information from its pages. The "Talk" pages are the least of the problem; what if he had done the same thing to an ARTICLE page? To boot, I am *not* currently vandlising this page, as my dialogue with you has (had?) ever-so-slightly reaffirmed my faith in this project and in the nobility of at least a small section of its administrative body.
- Was I, perhaps, wrong in assuming that an honest soul remains in a position of power here? Catboy has it all wrong; he's purposely manipulating people because he does not like me.
- I doubt Evercat even knows who you are. —No-One Jones (m)
- As we all know, I only vandalise other people's work if they insist on vandlising and censoring mine--an eye for an eye. Better to have the whole world be blind than to have the whole world be reading the falsifications that pervade this entire project! Catboy clearly says he'll "let" me edit HERE in the future. First of all, he has no right to disallow me to do a damn thing here! Secondly, he is not saying he will leave my contributions intact--he's only specifying my contributions to THIS (meaningless) page. What about his rote removal of FACTS that I have added to several articles? If he does so again, I will have no choice but to undo all of my thousands of edits to this page. I'm not "allowed" to do that because I've submitted my writing freely?
- Well, you're allowed to do it; since your versions of pages are released under GFDL, anyone else is allowed to restore them. I won't worry about it, though; I'd prefer to conduct this conversation via e-mail anyway. —No-One Jones (m)
- Tough shit! I submitted my writings to an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not to a chatroom or a political lobby! 205.188.117.18 21:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Bush/Kerry vandal
[edit]The persistent vandal 66.134.204.114 has been warned, to no effect. Is there any reason not to block the IP? JamesMLane 23:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No. I'll take care of it. —No-One Jones (m) 23:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks! FYI, s/he was also vandalizing John Kerry. I'll go make sure everything's OK at Ralph Nader. JamesMLane 23:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pointed words
[edit]So quit bitching and do something about it already. Make the list of articles that you think would help counteract the systemic bias; start it at User:Xed/Anti-Systemic-bias list and see if you can get consensus for including it on the community portal. Then go work on the articles yourself. —No-One Jones (m) 19:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You may not be able to do it all yourself but you can at least make a start. If you aren't willing to put forth even that minimal effort then I suggest you quit your whinging. —No-One Jones (m) 20:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The response would be a lot friendlier if you'd quit whinging, quit trying to pick fights, and get to work on the problem. Obviously. —No-One Jones (m) 00:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words. The project can be found at User:Xed/CROSSBOW
page moves
[edit]thanks for the tip. is that also how one archives talk pages? a couple times i've made archives, the talk page disappears entirely (right now Talk:Bill Clinton is that way)(it came back). Other times, cut & paste Talk archives work fine.Wolfman 20:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- When creating talk archives, one can either c&p stuff to an archive or move the page; the latter method keeps the edit history shorter, which is why I prefer it—it's the method I use for this talk page, for example. It's not required, though; the c&p method is just as valid. For articles, however, it's necessary (for GFDL attribution purposes) to move the page, thus keeping the edit history intact. —No-One Jones (m) 21:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
More Proof Of Trolling:
[edit]Please tell your friend, Texture, to stop reverting to your vandalized version of my User and Talk pages. I am currently compiling the court documentation for whatever charges I am preparing to file against him. He is only damning himself by continuing his policy of aggession against me.205.188.117.18 21:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
TfT
[edit]Texans for Truth is currenlty protected. Along with that, a number of editors there are fixated on the proposition that they need my explicit and detailed "flaws" analysis prior to requesting unprotect. I have made clear to them that I have no intent of re-stoking any prior edit wars there. This however, does not satisfy them and there is much hand-wringing going on. Since my side of the edit war was populated only by me, my un-protect request ought to count for 50%. That said, with my 50%, I hereby officially request that you un-protect that page. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 
]] 00:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mr Treason
[edit]I'll try to keep an eye out for his edits to your pages and not hit the revert button on them. I tend to do it almost mechanically at this point, so if I occasionally revert one, I apologize in advance. Snowspinner 23:54, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
- You had best not be getting involved in reverting *anything* that I take the time and effort to post, with the exception of vandalism! As I've said, my acts of vandalism will cease were *YOUR* acts of unilateral aggression to cease, Snowblower!172.145.159.139 03:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Juan and Henry
[edit]I've already warned these two, and it's even less funny now than it was when they started. I say the next time it happens, we block whichever does it, then unprotect Henry. I'll be around for a few hours. Pakaran. 23:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)