User talk:MuZemike

Or: The War Room

We all know what we can and cannot do in the War Room, correct, gentlemen? A question... Might THIS be removed since the investigation was closed and archived as no need to punish Varbas? I admire how this editor digs to find sources and am willing to give him guidence in proper cleanup of articles and in inter-wiki diplomacy, but the stigma of having that comment remain could act negatively in future interactions with editors against what future improvements he might achieve. And hopefully this latest will not get him blocked (for too long). I see potential for great improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I'll AGF and assume, at least for now, that Varbas isn't a sock of Azviz/Esasus/et al. (However, I still have a feeling of deja vu as I did the exact same thing with Esasus; I still have some suspicion that the actions are very similar to the abovementioned sock, hence the SPI.) Otherwise, if the user wants to remove the sock tag, that's OK with me. I hope that I was wrong here, and that you can help him out. Thank you for letting me know, MuZemike 04:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I will inform him. I have begun a dialog, that hopefully will let him know (much I was shown 16 months ago) that there are those willing to take the time to help newcomers learn the vageries. Funny too that you should mention ARS, as the squad (at least before the major distraction of the MfD) had been specifically discussing ways to help ease newcomers into the "fast lanes" without them being side-swiped, honked at, or invloved in a multi-car pile-up with other drivers whizzing by them at full speed. I know far too well what a daunting place this can be. And hopefully I will be able to get him too cool his jets a just a bit and so proceed down the road in safety. Thanks much, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I'm hoping that THIS is not related to the ANI, as it is an request about what actions "might" be taken... but was made a couple hours AFTER someone else already took them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC) I don't know, Mike. That was the IP's first comment and certainly is a cause for concern. I'm hoping someone comes out that they edited while accidentally logged out. MuZemike 14:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Personal attacks Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't realize I may be close to crossing a line with that...I will make a point of being careful in the future...TreadingWater (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC) You're welcome. Sometimes, just take a step back and cool off a bit if you think you're going to type something you may regret later on. No problem. MuZemike 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneercourthouse I see that bozo has found some other articles to infect with his nonsense about the homeless. If you have not already done so, you might want to request page protection on those other two pages. How many freakin' pages does Pioneer Courthouse Square need, anyway? Three articles about one city block in Portland? Oy! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC) I've sent Pioneer Place to RFPP to request indefinite semi-protection; Pioneer Courthouse is already indefinitely semi-protected, and Pioneer Courthouse Square has already been fully-protected for 1 month. MuZemike 05:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC) ...and already indefinitely semi-protected (see log). Thanks, MuZemike 05:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (ec)Pioneer Place and also Pioneer Square, Seattle, the known subjects of his attacks tonight, are now protected. I had posted an RFPP and then rescinded it when I saw an admin had already done it. Short-term protection, though, is inappropriate. He's been at this since October 2006, and every time protection has been lifted or compromised, he's on it within a day. It's some sort of stupid ongoing game he's playing, and he's not going to stop. It's like that idiot that forced the Rick Reilly article into indefinite protection. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (ec) That's why you never take chances with users who say stuff like you are hereby warned that this is your FINAL chance to do the right thing... In this case, the user followed through. Now no-one can edit one article, and only autoconfirmed users can edit the others. MuZemike 05:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC) This is a serious flaw in wikipedia that no one seems to have an answer to - that one belligerent vandal can hold an article hostage, the "dog in the manger" kind of thing, and because he's using a computer at a business or a library, they can't do a sufficient rangeblock without instigating mass punishment. What they ought to do is post on the IP talk pages that this one guy is the reason they can't edit, and maybe they can find him and do something about it. There's nothing like peer pressure to get action. However, wikipedia doesn't have the guts to do something like that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination) I have rewritten Andy Wisne in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion. I hope you can take a look at it and reevaluate your position at the AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I'll take a look at it tomorrow. MuZemike 09:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Personal attack my hump Pointing out facts isn't a personal attack. That user attacked me saying my resorting the deletion policy they tried to circumvent was due to the baised love of an album I've never even listened to. Look at that page's history- someone put a deletion request and before any conclusion was reached (and DAYS before a verdict was supposed to occour) they deleted the page's content and changed it to a redirect. I simply wanted the deletion policy to be followed and pointed out the hipocracy of someone claiming *I* wasn't following policy when they were violating it themselves. Where is your warning to WLU for that?? Where is your warning for their derogatory assault on non-registered users? Per WP we're to be treated as equals- where is your warning to WLU for that?? I demand you apply policy evenly. This is the only warning you will receive. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)