User talk:Scarpy/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Scarpy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
February 2008
Note: This block is being discussed at WP:ANI#User:Craigtalbert blocked due to vandalism on Justine_Ezarik. Please look over the discussion before taking any action on this account. --wL<speak·check> 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Scarpy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Okay, I got a little carried away with this. I apologize. I've done a lot of good work on wikipedia, and a 30-day month block seems excessive.
Decline reason:
Since disruptive editing has occurred at other articles and this seems to be more than a one-off occasion, you seem to need a cooling-off period. You are welcome to return after your block expires, as long as you do not repeat the behavior. JERRY talk contribs 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Scarpy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have not made disruptive edits to other articles. I'm not sure what other incidents you are refering to. This is an isolated incident. I'm coming up on 6000 edits.
Decline reason:
I reviewed the AN/I. It seems that you do need a little cooling off, especially given the incident Orlady referred to. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Scarpy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Orlady and I have genuine disagreements, and I'm at a loss here because I can't respond to them directly. I have been very civil with her and our disagreements about reliable sources and weasel words are not related to disruptive editing. I never refered to her as a troll, rather if you look at the talk page for Schizophrenics Anonymous and the comments by Admiral Roo and Merkinsmum, you'll see what I was talking about in the AfD discussion. I apologize for not elaborating more in the AfD, but again, this is an unrelated issue.
Decline reason:
Consensus stands that your block remains. We may discuss the length of the block at the the Admin's noticeboard, as well as whether or not your dispute with Orlady will apply. It may not be 30 days in the end, but be noted that you have been warned about disrupting articles and that they not only hurt the subject, but Wikipedia as a whole. This is your third decline, so I must lock your page for the moment. --wL<speak·check> 06:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Old pages
Just to check, you want your old user and user talk pages undeleted and moved to your new name? Even though you changed names for privacy reasons? Just want to be sure... BencherliteTalk 23:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, will do. Give me a mo, though. BencherliteTalk 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's the job done. Your old user page has been restored and the history of your old talk page brought over here. Let me know if this hasn't worked out as you wanted. Regards, BencherliteTalk 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back
I saw that you started editing again, and wanted to say "Hay". Your insight has been missed on the AA page. Coffeepusher (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Right to vanish request
It looks like your user talk page was protected because you continued to post unblock templates despite your unblock requests being declined multiple times.
Blocks and page protections are not punitive. It would be wise to look at the history of your actions and learn from how your behavior has lead you to the situation you are now in. I'm going to unprotect your user talk page to give you a chance to post there asking to have your userpage deleted from your registered account -- I need you logged in to prove that you are who you say you are.
If you abuse this opportunity once again, do not be surprised if your future bleatings about how unfairly you are being treated fall on deaf ears.
--Ryan Delaney talk 17:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your comments. At this point I consider the matter closed. If there is something about my tone that you find disturbing, then I apologize and suggest that we put this behind us. Thanks, --Ryan Delaney talk 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Your 3RR Report
Your current 3RR report looks malformed. It looks like the editor in question only changed the article once, then reverted twice. So first of all, this is only 2 reverts, not 4, which would be breaking WP:3RR. Second, the diffs you have given aren't all the diffs by the editor in question, at least one is you reverting the other editor. Might want to clean that up, or withdraw it. Gwynand (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- hay, I have a question. do you know why I was tagged for the 3RR in this prossess. you know more about policies than I do, but I viewed the entire situation as vandalism and thought the 3RR didn't apply to that.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, it was a content dispute, although a closer reading of that user's edits would lean towards likely vandalism. You were template-warned over edit warring and the 3RR rule, but not punished for it, per se. Remember, 3RR is only an exception to the most simple and obvious vandalism, like page blanking or vulgar language. The other editors edits were more likely very POV, unsourced, and totally wrong, but technically not obvious vandalism. Just to be clear, I agree with you two on his edits being wrong, I'm just clarifying some things about the 3RR process. Gwynand (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I may have something to do with the diffs I included, I thought showing someone correcting a bad revert would be as good as showing the malicious revert. I don't know. It hate it when I report obvious vandalism, and the admins defend the vandal. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I replied on my talk page. Please assume good faith, I was just attempting to help you. Gwynand (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote of confidence along with the kind words. I am under the opinion that my appeal got pigonholed (and any further complaints by me will be just Beating a dead horce. I took a look at this admins talk page, and it appears there are alot of 3RR template appeals. This leads me to believe he may be quick on the draw, but also doing a thankless job. from that pov, I was able to calm down and let it be (although I still believe he was misguided in my case).Coffeepusher (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Scarpy - I think your most recent comment on my talk page was not meant for me. I never templated anyone, nor warned you or Cofeepusher for 3RR. Would you mind removing it (I'm assuming it was intended for the admin you were dealing with in this case). Gwynand (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that
My bad. I should really go to bed, I'm getting sloppy. ;-) delldot talk 05:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome
Thanks -- I thought it was an automated welcome at first but I guess you're a human. The more Wikipedia rules and conventions I read, the more daunted I am ... on the other hand it is kinda reassuring to see just how bad many article are. --Anonymaus (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your question about GROW in Australia: :We did have a GROW in Townsville, run through the Mental Illness Fellowship North Queensland [www.mifnq.org.au/], but it collapsed about a year ago because they were unable to recruit a paid coordinator. The GROW members went on to start their own group called "Hand Up" which uses similar principles but without any external support. It seems to be working well. It's interesting ... I'm sure the people at MIFNQ will tell you more if you ask them. --Anonymaus (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
you are a bully
Why do you love to change back things that people put much time into? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.47.241 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a big change: [1]. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
my edits
exactly what edits did I do that you found to be unhelpful? From reading the message you left on my talk page I get the impression you are accusing me of vandalism, and I do not appreciate that. 128.223.131.21 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The wording change wasn't supported by the citation, and was very suspiciously vandalesque. If you want to discuss the change, you should use the talk page for the article. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
NA Edits
This user Yobkcis will just not stop. It really is ridiculous at this point. Just letting you know. Thanks. J-Dog (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Help starrting med-org-stub
Scarpy:
Can you help me get a med-org-stub started for Awake In America, please?
Awake In America is a Pennsylvania-based national non-profit organization (501c3) focused on sleep, sleep-related issues, including sleep deprivation, shift work sleep disorder, insomnia, as well as sleep disorders, including sleep apnea, narcolepsy, restless legs syndrome, among other sleep disorders. Awake In America was incorporated on July 15, 2004.
The organization works with individuals and family members to share information about proper sleep and sleep hygiene, as well as treating sleep issues, and overcoming challenges related to therapies for sleep disorders. Awake In America also works with businesses to help accomodate employees with sleep-related issues. Without accomodation, many individuals would be fired for falling asleep in the workplace, or for what may be perceived by others as a lack of attention. With appropriate accomodations in place, employees get time for rest during the work day, but in exchange, work other times to make up for the rest breaks, which results in the employer keeping a valued employee and not having additional costs related to hiring and training a new employee, and possibly saving on unemployment benefits expenses.
Awake In America operates two (2) year-round relief programs, the Sleep Study Relief Program and the xPAP Donation and Relief Program, to assist American citizens who do not have health insurance, those who have inadequate health insurance (does not cover sleep studies and/or durable medical equipment), and those in financial straits.
In August 2005, Awake In America launched its premier direct-assist disaster relief program, Operation Restore CPAP, in response to Hurricane Katrina, and later expanded to cover victims from Hurricane Rita, and its devastation on the United States' Gulf Coast. In that instance, the program had been authorized by the Board to operate for 90 days. During that time, Awake In America shipped replacement equipment, with an estimated value of about $47,000, to 97 individuals who had relocated to nine states, without charge to the recipients. Awake In America is the only organization to have such a program in the United States.
User:Scoop0901 16:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:AIV
Just an explanation why I removed your AIV report; if the vandal has access to that many IP's, then playing whack-a-mole becomes a time sink; they just move to another IP. Another admin has semi-protected the article, so they can't disrupt it anymore. If it seems like this vandal simply moves on to another subject, then I suggest reporting it to WP:ANI, with an explanation, and asking for a range block. But we usually only do that for persistent vandals from a targeted range. Thanks for the report. --barneca (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome message
Thank you for your message! I've been wandering around here since June 2007 and that's the first message I got :) Thank you and have a nice time! --Maquesta (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikithanks
Wiki thanks for Americanising the contributions of this UK user! Dakinijones (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Obsessive Skin Pickers Anonymous
OSPA is a real 12 step program, started in 2004 that has recently gotten permission from Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc to incorporate AA literature and steps into their meetings. Stop deleting this 12 step group from the list of 12 step groups. This is a serious 12 step group, visible at http://www.stoppickingonme.com with official permission from AA. I had created a wiki page for it as a starter, which I intend to fill in with historical background and other information about the people involved, however it has been deleted, on the grounds that it does not constitute a group. This is a bonafide group, just like any other twelve step program listed. Zandnotz (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)zandnotz
"I have nothing against your organization," This is not my organization; I do not appreciate insinuations that this is my program or something I have instantiated and am now promulgating for vanity's sake. This is a group started by other people years ago, which I feel should be on Wikipedia. I would like to improve the Wikipedia listing about 12 step programs as a whole. But these are anonymous programs; they have traditions that preach anonymity from the public media: 'based on attraction rather than promotion.' Notable is definitely subjective. This organization is indeed referred to by third party sources, even if it has not been as clearly documented by anyone other than me. There are several psychologists who refer to the program.
Zandnotz (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)zandnotz
I have already read the page linked to on my talk page regarding notability, and I did find it to be subjective, if you can just casually delete official groups, because you don't think they're notable. OSPA is verifiable. There are very few twelve step programs documented by officiating sources that do not emanate from their own literature. Even original literature documenting AA, came from members of AA or letters of doctors who treated people in AA, which were initially published and disbursed through AA. Most third-party information about twelve step programs come from Internet websites which are considered to be verifiable on Wikipedia; but information as to what composes the twelve-steps can only be found in program literature. OSPA is also documented by Internet sites, no less reliable than for some other smaller twelve-step programs listed here. The program can be verified by AA, has gotten permission to execute its program literature and apply its twelve steps; AA is a third-party. Just because a lot of Wikipedians do not know OSPA exists, does not mean it does not exist. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to inform people. Zandnotz (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)zandnotz
You're not "agreeing with." That was not Karanacs' latest point; rather she was saying I should be able to post the group among other twelve step groups, where you have deleted it. My point is that OSPA should be on the list of twelve step programs, and should be alluded to in the article on dermatillomania, as SPOM (the official website for OSPA) has, by another Wikipedian. Note that COSLAA has no hits on Google Scholar, but this situation does not prevent the group from being listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_Love_Addicts_Anonymous; note that there is no third-party literature referencing COSLAA in the footnotes. The only sources for COSLAA are the webpages hosting the facilitation of the group itself. Please refrain from deleting OSPA from the list of 12 step groups. Thank you. Zandnotz (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)zandnotz