Jump to content

User talk:Rjd0060

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.131.214.171 (talk) at 13:51, 28 July 2008 (→SOCOM II: U.S. Navy SEALs protection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
I will usually reply to messages left here on this page so check back for a response.



Archive
Archives
2015
/Archives for a full archive

Holywell, Swords

The article relating to the community where I and 2000 other people live was deleted as a non-notable housing estate on 23 April. I disagree with this interpretation of the Holywell community and if I had been aware of the proposal for deletion I would have made my views known and discuses with the proposers. I would be very grateful if you could please reinstate the article so that I can view the comments and address any issues or concerns people have. Dvdgraham (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2008

It's an attack page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think I said I wasn't going to discuss this further. You should really start assuming some good faith; makes things around here more enjoyable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MARussellPESE is a WP:ATP, and I'm the victim. You might want to glance at the user pages mentioned in these before you "correct" them. Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on! Did you look at the contribs of the "suspected" socks and the accuser? You really shouldn't take the word of day old accounts over the edit trails of two users that have been here for years.
By the way the accuser is a documented sock. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that the accuser had already filled in the conclusions? So, if I get this straight. The word of a days old SPA account is given the same weight as that of two seasoned editors who've never crossed paths before? And an accusation that already fills in the conclusion is not an attack. Thanks. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not when I've been victimized by this sockpuppeteer in this exact fashion before. AGF isn't limitless. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. You resolved the IR concluding that this was not an attack page. When people come to administrators, we're looking for a little more discrimination than house-keeping.

Evidence:

  1. The accuser filled in the conclusions themselves[1]
  2. The accuser is a days-old and obviously an SPA account[2]
  3. The two accused are years-old and have entirely different editing patterns[3][4]

Disappointing. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grazie

I think the measure of a person's integrity is whether, in the face of contradictory evidence, they're willing to reconsider issues they think are closed. That's even harder to do in a public forum. Nicely done. MARussellPESE (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread

I made this change to a "resolved" statement you placed on an AN/I thread here. Please revert it or let me know if that change was in error. It seemed a little odd. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for J. Dean McClain

An editor has asked for a deletion review of J. Dean McClain. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou!

Thankyou for helping me with the un-protection of the Ben Alekzsander Williams page; we'll see what happens! CrackersTeam User talk:CrackersTeam 00:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Alekzsander Williams

This one was also created as Ben Alekzsander Williams (Singer) and as Ben Williams (Singer) by CrackersTeam, who seems to be attempting to publicize this guy and his group The Comics (band). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing evidence of new 3RR violation

Hello Rjd0060, yesterday you mentioned on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR that if the anonymous user with IP address 86.83.155.44 would continue with edit warring it would result in a block. You wrote there:

"If the user resumes edit warring, he'll be blocked." [5]

Well, he did continue as several users mentioned on that page. My evidence of a new 3RR violation was removed for 3 times by him

By doing so 3 times within 30 minutes this resulted in yet yet another edit war. I cannot undo that anymore since that would mean I also was violating the 3RR. Please take some action. - Robotje (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...

I hope you take the protection off soon. I just wanted some fun. Ah well. Rules are rules, so be it. I want to regain control again soon. I'm kinda sad :'-(. I think I'll take a wikibreak. By the time I'm back, I hope I get my rights back. A little fun. All I wanted. <sniffs> My God.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 17:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was fighting for my fun. I understand what I did was wrong, slap me on the wrist, smack on the bum. It will never return. I'm still going on Wikibreak tho, I'm off to Bulgaria. PEACE OUT Y'ALL! :P--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Article

I would like to contest a deletion and ask for the article to be restored. The page is "Mountain Hardwear", and it appears to have been deleted on May 28, 2008. This is a legitimate clothing and outdoor equipment brand/maufacturer, and should be available on Wikipedia. Thank you very much. [[9]] --Antares48 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GBlock Script

The next in a long line of developments: 

addOnloadHook(function() {
    if(UrlParameters["addtemplate"] == "gblock" && UrlParameters["duration"] > "" && UrlParameters["reason"] > "" && UrlParameters["action"] == "edit") {
        document.editform.wpTextbox1.value += "\{\{subst:GBlock\|" + decodeURIComponent(UrlParameters["reason"]) + "\|" + decodeURIComponent(UrlParameters["duration"]) + "\}\}";
        document.editform.wpSummary.value = "You have been blocked for " + decodeURIComponent(UrlParameters["duration"]) + ".";
        document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = true;
        document.editform.submit();
    }
});

function getGBlockData() {
    var duration = prompt("Duration:");
    var reason = prompt("Reason:");
    location.href = wgServer + wgScript + "?title=" + wgPageName + "&action=edit&addtemplate=gblock&duration=" + encodeURIComponent(duration) + "&reason=" + encodeURIComponent(reason);
}

addOnloadHook(function() {
    if(wgNamespaceNumber == 3 && !UrlParameters["addtemplate"]) {
        addPortletLink("p-cactions", "javascript:getGBlockData()", "gblock", "ca-gblock");
    }
});

Enjoy. —Animum (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason O'Toole Deletion Contested

I respectfully contest your deletion of the article "Jason O'Toole" which you deleted on May 18th. (Note: the page has since been recreated but refers to a different individual, in un-wikified format). The statements in the article you deleted can be verified online. SONORAMA (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Friendly note

Thanks for letting me know. ... discospinster talk 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FORCED PAGE PROTECTION ACHEIVED

67.40.211.121 forces page protection of user talk:67.40.211.121. The win goes to 67.40.211.121. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.82.43 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Min Chen

Hi. Ok, I know the article was deleted due to a PROD, but since I have no idea who put up the PROD, I will ask here. Compare the murder of Alicia Ross, an incident of similar media coverage in Canada, with a similar outcome (murderer convicted of second-degree), and thus, in theory, have similar notability. "Single incident coverage", how is that different from the Alicia Ross case, other than the fact that the victim in this case was a minor? Also, what specific BLP concerns were raised? Apparently we must get the article right, but a search for "Cecilia Zhang" finds thousands of potential news sources. If an article is not warranted, should there not be a brief mention in a particular related article? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 15:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOCOM II: U.S. Navy SEALs protection

Hi,

We've ironed out our differences on this one; can we have it unprotected? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cached Entity has exited his block and resumed his insistence on adding controvesial information from an unrealiable source. Despite efforts to enlighten him on what constitutes a reliable source (on his talk page and on the article's discussion page), he remains insistent without explanation on his source. I am wary on getting into an edit war and inadvertently violating WP:3RR. Any recommendations? Jappalang (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


He needs to be dealt with. He will not be swayed from putting that information in again and again. The stuff I really cared about is gone, so I'm more or less fine. However, the insistence of him to keep up this laughable debate and his unwillingness to even have a reasonable debate about the subject...it's very bad. He doesn't need to be blocked for 24-48 hours, he needs to be on indefinite block IMHO. Either that or the article needs to be protected from now until the end of time. - Shane

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjd0060&oldid=228391565"