User talk:Mirv/Archive 7: Difference between revisions

Archives by date
archive1 (27/01/04)
archive2 (pre-12/04/04 history)
archive3 (04/12–07/29/04)
archive4 (07/29–20/09/04)
archive5 (20/09–26/09/04)
archive6 (27/09–03/11/04)
archive7 (03/11–22/11/04)
archive8 (22/11–05/12/04)
archive9 (05/12–17/12/04)
archive10 (17/12/04–11/01/05)
archive11 (11/01/05–24/7/05)
archive12 (24/7/05–12/12/05)
archive13 (12/12/05–25/4/06)
Others
rubbish bin
AOL-using lawyer
Arbcom election
User talk:Mirv

Messages left here may not be seen for months. Use e-mail if you absolutely must contact me.

Administrator powers

If I have misused my magic powers in any way, this is the place to tell me.

Protection

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

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

Rollback

Did I use the admin "rollback" feature on one of your edits without warning or explanation? Then I probably thought you were vandalizing, spamming, or otherwise editing in malice, and chances are good that you were: most of my rollbacks are of such edits. If you want to know why I reverted your edit, append your question to the end of this talk page.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pokemorphs

Please read the revised nomination remarks and see if you still think the page should be deleted. Gazpacho 07:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Templete:Welcome

This is my mistake. Please forgive me. Rantaro 13:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thank you very much for your work on Economy of Africa, without your improvements I doubt that it would have been chosen by Danny's contest. - SimonP 17:55, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Lost episodes

Please restore Confidence Man (Lost episode) and The Moth (Lost episode) - I was merging those into Lost (TV series). Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

Done. Those were valid CSDs, though; they lacked any context or definition. —No-One Jones ^(m) 02:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"What links here" would have shown the context. They were (at the time) linked from the Lost (TV series) page, which is how I knew what they were. Thanks for the restore. -- Netoholic @ 02:44, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

Hi there. I thought I had unprotected the page around 6 PM, then was surprised to see later when I added the recent news that the page was still protected. What a mess! David.Monniaux 19:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reverts and lagging database servers

Wow. Annoying, that! Thanks. Terrapin 21:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts

complaints about protection on the wrong version binned

Thank you for agreeing to help at Dedham, Massachusetts. You are a super guy! 216.153.214.94 04:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why?

Hi Mirv again why did you remove my addition to Occupation of the Palestinian territories ? It's not POV I swear.--198 04:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your additions stated an opinion as fact and were therefore POV. I could (but won't) just as easily write "The reason why Palestine remains occupied is the racist colonialism on which the state of Israel was founded and rests today", which would be roughly equivalent: stating a hotly-disputed opinion as a fact. —No-One Jones ^(m) 04:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I was being a little hard headed but that's the reason why they're being occupied, however if I say a minority of Palestinians would that sound better?--198 04:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it would still be POV. Sorry. —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:40, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some other users like Ed Poor (Is that his name?) agree with me though, I did see the point you made. I do want to work with you to fix this article.--198 00:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain

hey Mirv, you did a rv "Reverted edits by 80.58.0.109 to last version by Blankfaze" for an added external link, link was not an advertisement, and contained valid content. Is there a particular reason you removed it? Alkivar 00:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason. I'm very suspicious of anonymous IPs who spread links to the same site over dozens of different articles, which is what 80.58.0.109 was doing. Such editors are usually spammers trying to raise the profile of an insignificant website; see for example the contributions (which I've since reverted) of 67.9.101.114. That said, if you want to replace any of the links, I will not object. —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Alkivar 01:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian capitalism

Thanks for protecting Libertarian socialism, but I'm afraid the edit war has just moved to Libertarian capitalism, see also User_talk:Solitude#Libertarian_socialism. This seems to be a long-running conflict, I am not sure how to proceed, they both seem to require a cool down period. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 14:02, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

User:AaronSw/Song lyrics

What is the copyright status of these lyrics? —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Yes Men's work is under a Creative Commons license.

Regarding Ron paul

Just to inform you ron paul was blocked because of an already blocked user's vandalism of it - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy/Evidence#Temporary_block_of_Reithy. I really don't think you should leave his protected verison obviously vandalized verison of it up, just compare verisons(I mean look at the picture) Chuck F 03:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ron Paul was protected (by me) because of an edit war. I see now that one of the versions was highly POV, but that does not constitute vandalism; in fact, it is explicitly stated that such editing is not vandalism. Furthermore, Reithy was blocked (by me, again) for tampering with the evidence in his arbitration case; his article-space edits are a different matter and I haven't been looking into them closely. —No-One Jones ^(m) 03:44, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well besides the fact that verison is factually wrong. I really think it sets a bad precedent to allow a blocked user to come in avoid the ban and create sockpuppets enange in edit wars, then get thier veison of the page protected, and unable to be edited for days. Aka I think if a page is protected because of a blocked user edit warring in it, the page should be reverted back to the last non-blocked person to edit it. otherwise it leads to blocked users just creating accounts to purpoesly get thier verison of the page protected. Not only that but it encourages block-evading.

Let me be clear: My block of Reithy was for tampering with the arbitration proceedings against him, which I considered extremely malicious vandalism, and was not an official ban. If I block a user for vandalizing an important page (like his own arbitration case, say, or the main page) I'm not going to pursue all of his other edits: those are a different matter, one which the arbitration committee should handle, not me. —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

so Just for checking, it's perfectly fine for a blocked user to continue editing articles under a different named when they are blocked? and thus causing thoese pages to get protected to thier verison of the page? what's the point of a block then? (aka Reithy's sockpuppets after you blocked him were the reason the page was potect) Chuck F 05:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not bans; it's a subtle distinction, but it exists. If a vandal is blocked for vandalism, yes, it's perfectly fine if he goes and edits something else, as long as he doesn't continue vandalizing—and Reithy's sockpuppet edits on Ron Paul were not vandalism. On the other hand, if a block is made as enforcement of a ban, then any new aliases need to be blocked as well, but Reithy isn't (yet) banned. —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-->Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence

aww come on now he even admits it was vandalism --- I think it's proper to revert back to the other verison of the page, also he's started up on michael Badnarik (although just really stupid minor stuff so far) with his different accounts Chuck F 16:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Many thanks for your contribution to the evidence on Gzornenplatz. Does it remind you of anyone in particular? --Michael Snow 18:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one. Some notes are available at User:Mirv/gzp if you've seen anything worth adding to them. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Was unprotected six hours ago. Looks like it requires protection again - User:Weaselwords and User:Trexgrrr, presumably sockpuppets of User:Reithy and/or User:Chuck F, are bombarding it with POV.

Some I've missed

True enough. Jayjg 18:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)