Jump to content

User talk:JoeSperrazza/Archive 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not a picture of a friendly editor giving a good faith warning on your talk page after posting here.

Fair Warning - This page and my User page are monitored by any number of other editors. Some may revert vandalism, if it occurs, others may have other motives. Regardless, know that anything you do here "may be used against you". Joyful editing, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please:
    • Be civil, mature, and responsible in your comments
    • Assume good faith
    • Be polite, and remember the "Golden rule" — treat me as you would have someone you love be treated
    • Do not make personal attacks (including offering your opinions of what I am or am not suited for doing here in the Encyclopedia)
    • Do not lecture or be rude, sarcastic, disparaging, or "flame" (regardless of whether or not you are hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet[1] when you make your comments)
    • Do not harass
    • Do continue any conversation on the page where it was started
      • Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page, it is not necessary to post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
    • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
    • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
    • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
    • Initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
    • Sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • I reserve the right to mokusatsusuru (wikt:黙殺する) entries that, in my opinion, fail to meet any of the criteria above.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Palme, Jacob. "Anonymity on the Internet" (HTML). Retrieved 24 January 2009. ... anonymity can be used for offensive or disruptive communication. For example, some people use anonymity in order to say nasty things about other people. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Fort Hood

[edit]
Closing in lieu of discussion at Talk:Fort_Hood_shooting#Related_article_Terrorism_in_the_United_States
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It wasnt a comment war, and I dont see why I cant keep it. I have backup and proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.249.197 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will not edit it until it is officialized as Terror or a Crazy Gunmen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.249.197 (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Found something and thought I should ask you...

[edit]

I was looking at the "Clockwork Orange" disambiguation page, noted a link for a Clockwork Orange clothing store in Ireland, clicked the link, and it took me to a page that asked me if I wanted to create the page for Clockwork Orange clothing store in Ireland...

I don't know if this is unusual, though it's a first for me, I don't know if there is any kind of policy or whatever in response to this kind of a situation, or indeed, if it's considered a "situation" hereabouts.

You where so helpful the last time an "issue" came up, I thought I might be able to hit you up again for a little advise and basic 411 sort of thing.

Thanks for your time.

Take care,

James

Rampant unicorn (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alamanth

[edit]

Hi User:Alamanth is whizzing round irrationally butchering various psychology articles and without any prior discussion. Can you help ? --Penbat (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; User:Penbat is referring to my edits to articles which Penbat created within the past few weeks. These new articles are very short and are without appropriate context; I feel they represent content forks and that the information within them would better serve readers if conveyed through existing articles. I carefully merged the material to articles that seemed closest in topic to the articles Penbat created. Penbat is referring to my edits as "vandalism", but let me assure you that I have no intention to deface Wikipedia. Any help is appreciated; thanks. Alamanth (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, fellow editors. Thank you both for the note. I'll take a look, and offer my opinion. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Saturn

[edit]
Closed per WP:UNCIVIL & WP:DIS by an accused WP:SOCKpuppeteer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If you're not going to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion, then don't get involved. Your comments are not necessary. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider following the guidelines for talk page usage (new section, etc.). As for my contribution, I was noting that your contribution fails WP:DBF (as well as WP:NOTAFORUM, as an aside). Do not continue this conversation here. And consider not disrupting the article's talk page with further forum-like discussion. As previously requested, please be civil, and consider reviewing documentation regarding talk page usage and editing. Perhaps you should review WP:SOCK, based on recent revelations. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're just making yourself look bad. I have remained civil, the above action only demonstrates your own incivility. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were very explicitly asked to not continue the conversation here, and to follow talk page conventions. You have done neither (the latter being a continuing behavior). Revert your comments, above.
No. Why should I follow your orders? You are powerless. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]
Closed - Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note that you'll do a better job of pointing out problematic users and disruptive editors if you stay calm yourself. If you engage in battle with them, the waters are muddled and it just looks like you're both engaged in a tit-for-tat. henrik•talk 20:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I should not have responded to his false comments on the ANI notice.
  • Thanks for the warning you gave him.
  • What good is Article probation? The very topic of torture & waterboarding is what led to the FAQ being written and the probation being agreed to. Yet this editor was a party to the probation and is allowed to raise the topic again and again (raising the same arguments, and in some cases the same sources!).
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding#User:William_S._Saturn (and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding#Statement_by_Henrik)
  • Other editors (and some admins) on that very ANI page note he is pushing his POV - yet no action is taken - and see his talk page for other warnings he's gotten.
  • Finally, the WP:SOCKing is outrageous - and yet no one seems to care.
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive416#Case_of_good_hand.2Fbad_hand_sockpuppetry for original WP:SPI, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive195#William_S._Saturn for WP:BROTHER explanation of his return to editing from the sockfarm
Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the article probation has been very successful for the Waterboarding article: After the arbitration ruling, the disruption has largely stopped. Before it, the article was fully protected for months and the talk page was a veritable battle zone. (Just FYI, I was the one who filed the arbitration request and I wrote that FAQ)
But article probations are not meant to be an absolute stranglehold on discussion, and having a POV does not mean you're automatically excluded from the debate. Occasionally revisiting the matter is healthy, a check on whether the previous consensus is still valid. What it is meant to prevent are weeks or months of endless discussions where the participants are unable or unwilling to change their positions and are just trying to wage a war of attrition with the other side.
(I have not formed any judgment on the socking issue) henrik•talk 21:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair answer to both.
  • Regarding the former, you make the good point that "Occasionally revisiting the matter is healthy". My experience to date has been influenced by the Obama-related articles, where a steady parade of new and/or anonymous editors raise and re-raise points noted in the FAQ. Unless they offer a new view on an old issue, they generally are either reverted (not my style) or responded to and the conversation hatted (my preference). Its hard, then, to reconcile that process to avoid WP:DRAMA and WP:DIS with existing editors who, in some form (as noted) were involved in the discussions and probation decision and don't seem to be raising anything new. I need to think more on this.
  • Regarding the latter, I certainly accept your not having a position (its a big wiki world, with lots to do). My generalized concern is that I thought that some editing policies, like WP:3RR and WP:SOCK had "bright lines" of behavior that led to unquestioned sanctions. In practice, I've seen some 4+ edits swept under the rug, and this instance of WP:SOCK (and plenty of IP socking) not acted upon - yet both allow unparalleled disruption. Sigh.
Cheers, wherever in the world you are (I'm at 3,000 meters these days, and in the midst of a Blizzard#Whiteouts). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3RR and abusing multiple accounts are bright lines, but there's no mandatory minimum sentencing here. Admins frequently use discretion and judgment (as well as occasionally getting it wrong *grin*) to consider whether to impose any sanction. Blocks are often not imposed until someone willfully and continually refuses to get the point that their behavior doesn't work - arguments that got out of hand due to the heat of the moment, or very old violations when they're discovered, can often slide. They'll still have the effect of implicitly shortening a users leash though. If they engage in further bad behavior, and someone brings up problematic history, that is taken into account. Cheers. henrik•talk 21:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time. I like this, in particular: "implicitly shortening a users leash". <grin>. Cheers, --!4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Staley

[edit]

Hi, My name is Philip Harrison. I am a Masters Degree Student studying Business. Can you please explain to me why my case study; The Entrepreneur Stephen Staley, has been pulled. The work is my own copyright. Let me know your email or phone number and i will call. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipharrison (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did not delete the article, but I did note that someone else did, describing it as appropriate for speedy deletion due to it being blatant advertising.
Prior to it being deleted, I was going to leave this note on the talk page:

Hello. Thank you for your recent article Stephen Staley, and for marking it for review. I see one immediate problem that you can correct - at the bottom of the article, you have this text:

© Philip Harrison

As I understand the Wikipedia policy on copyright, your article could be deleted. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images. If you decide that your text is not copyrighted to you, then remove that line. You should also read Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you are amenable to open licensing for all of your contributions, you might consider adding someting like this to your user page (doing so is not required).
I'm not going to make any changes to the article until you resolve the copyright issue.

I do note that the article had been created, and similarly "speedy deleted", in December of last year.
So, to summarize, there are at least two issues with this article:
  • Other editors have concluded that the article is advertising. Do you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article? Who are you to him?
  • Wikipedia can't accept copyrighted materiel. Putting aside the potential WP:COI issue, you'll have to release any text or images you add from any copyright you control.
Regarding off-Wiki contact, there is no need to make such available. Wikipedia at large does have an email contact, for copyright and other such issues - read WP:OTRS if you need that sort of contact. I will note that the people who answer that email address won't be able to help you get your document restored.
Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i appreciate your comments. Where these words are mine, i dont mind taking them off for the article to be live. However, i have heard this from the guy that took the page down:

"I'm sorry, but the article was deleted because it was blatant advertising, which Wikipedia does not accept. TNXMan 20:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)"

I cant understand this, since, its not advertising the article is about Stephen Staley. Can you please help. Ive seen there is pages just on Amazon and Play.com???? but this is all about Stephen and i believe to be a fantastic page and a great inspiration to all budding entrepreneurs. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.127.45 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will look at it more closely in about an hour. It may have been only that the tone of the article made others think it was promotional. Putting that aside, there is an issue of having reliable sources and notable subjects for articles which are biographies of living people. I'll how the article, and the subject, stack up against these guidelines and leave you a note. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks its appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.83.180 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 4wajzkd02. Sure i can remove the copyright. This is my work. "I do note that the article had been created, and similarly "speedy deleted", in December of last year." This has nothing to do with this article or this person, it could just be that they had the same name.

Do you have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article? No Who are you to him? No one, he is my case study on my business masters degree course.

So now we have cleared this up, am i ok to restore the article and take off the copyright? Please confirm, its appreciated. If there is anything else i could call you or you call me? Please let me know its appreciated i want to get this cleared up. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipharrison (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses.
  • Regarding the copyright notice, great - removing it is all that is needed.
  • Regarding the previously deleted article, sorry for the confusion. As you said, there's surely more than one person named that way.
  • Regarding restoring it, there are two issues:
  1. An administrator salted the article to prevent re-creation (this is done when an article is created multiple times, to prevent abuse). I'll leave a note to the administrator and request he undo this.
  2. Most importantly, two other editors thought that the article was promotional due to some elements of the article (e.g., WP:PEACOCK language). I saw a note to you on this topic. I want to help, and here's what is needed. Rather than just re-creating the article in the article 'namespace', create it in your user space. Put the text you wrote there. I'll edit it to better fit the manual of style. It will also help to have an uninvolved editor, such as myself, apply edits to it. Once done, and you think it is acceptable, then you can move the document into the article space.
  • To create the article in your user space, just type "User:Philipharrison/article_name" in the Search field on any Wikipedia page, click Go, then click "Start the User:4Philipharrison/article name page" link.
Let me know when you've got the article created, and I'll edit it.
One caveat - there still may be an issue of notability - but we'll write the best article we can, and I'll document what I find with regards to notability on the article's talk page as well as in embedded references. You need to do your best with the latter (read WP:RS) - there need to be sufficient reliable sources to verify the notability of the biography. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the ability to (ultimately) re-create the document, see my request here. Regarding my suggestion that we edit it in your userspace and then bring it live, there are two reasons:
  • With the holiday in progress, if there are any delays in editing, we won't have an incomplete, new article "live", subject to other's scrutiny and possible deletion again.
  • It demonstrates good faith and collegiality with the editors involved in the deletion.
Sorry if this sounds like a lot of red-tape - it really isn't hard, but is a result of extra scrutiny being given to (a) new articles, (b) edits by new editors, and (c) biographies of living persons - this is all three.
Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help - ive put it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipharrison/Stephen_Staley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipharrison (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice - but you put it in the wrong place. It should be User:Philipharrison/Stephen_Staley - you created a page called Philipharrison with a subpage Philipharrison/Stephen_Staley. Fortunately, an adminstrator noticed and fixed things. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== thanks for doing this. What do you think?

happy holiday

[edit]
Closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

hi. just wanted to say HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!! sorry it's late the last 2 days have been quite busy. I hope you had a good thanksgiving.--The voice oɟ mud (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We had a wonderful T-day here, I hope you had one as well. --~~
Yup, we sure did--The voice of mud (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Happy Christmas" picture from User:William S. Saturn
Changed to thumb to reduce load time & page real estate

Happy Christmas. The preceding unsigned edit was made by William S. Saturn (talk) at 00:43, 2009 November 30 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you, and whatever other Holidays you celebrate. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian IPs

[edit]

Thanks for gathering all those IPs that have been tagging the Obama article. I've blocked the most recent for a week for evading my previous block. I'll try to keep an eye on the article. The IPs are easily diagnosed, so blocks on new IPs (or recycled old ones) will just get longer. Collateral damage doesn't appear to be much of an issue in this case.Acroterion (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure, and thank you very much for blocking the most recent for block evasion. I'll keep a running list, here, of the IPs, and update if more come along:
Best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any sign that a named account is associated with the edits? Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing the contribution history, maybe ([1]), but it would require a fishing expedition. I will say that the IP editor is trying very hard to appear as if English is not their primary language, but I have my doubts (there's a big expat community in Budapest). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some ways to fish without requiring the CU crystal ball; an IP hard block, for instance. Acroterion (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new signature

[edit]

I got a new signature.I is no longer The voice of mud (Talk). it is now ★The voice oɟ mud☛I am your voice!!☛my sandbox★. I just thought I'd let you know so you can recognize me cuz it's quite different.--★The voice oɟ mud☛I am your voice!!☛my sandbox★ 22:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I've seen some criticism of overly fancy signatures (as I recall, depending upon how formatted, some browsers won't render them properly), but its all good, as far as I'm concerned. Cheers --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer alone!

[edit]

Hello. The voice of mud sent me a welcome on my page. Through his page, I found yours. I decided to say hi. By the way, Throughout the year, you will see me in many different colors (just so you know it's me):

Paperfork--for February and Valentine's Day

Paperfork--for April and Easter

Paperfork--for November and my birthday (these are my favorite colors)

Paperfork--for December and Christmas

Paperfork--normal signature

That's all I wanted to say right now. See you! Or rather write you! Paperfork 23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hello to you, and welcome! I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. If you haven't edited already, a good way to start is to read articles that interest you, then see if there is something in of of them you can improve - from typo to grammar missing information. Regardless of how you use WP, I hope you enjoy your stay. Best regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoeSperrazza/Archive_2009&oldid=1138988879"