→You owe me an apology: indent |
El Sandifer (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
:That block does seem out of line. The situation leading to the block can really only be described as a content dispute, and one you were directly involved in at that. An apology would go a long way here. ([[User:Until(1 == 2)|(<font color="blue">1 <font color="maroon">==</font> 2</font>)]] ? ([[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|('<font color="maroon">Stop</font>') : ('<font color="Green">Go</font>')]]) 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
:That block does seem out of line. The situation leading to the block can really only be described as a content dispute, and one you were directly involved in at that. An apology would go a long way here. ([[User:Until(1 == 2)|(<font color="blue">1 <font color="maroon">==</font> 2</font>)]] ? ([[User talk:Until(1 == 2)|('<font color="maroon">Stop</font>') : ('<font color="Green">Go</font>')]]) 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
Can't even respond, huh? What's up? Your ego? [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] 01:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
Can't even respond, huh? What's up? Your ego? [[User:Jeeny|Jeeny]] 01:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:I was thinking about responding and apologizing, actually, but suddenly I've decided against it. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 01:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:57, 28 September 2007
24-48 hour wikibreak as of this point - lost the entire fucking day to the Judd Bagley thing on Wednesday, and need to make up for that. Will probably still read messages here, but may decide to ignore them for a few days. May also end up violating this wikibreak, but if I do, don't assume I'm willing to do it again. Phil Sandifer 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Bagley
Edits such as this are against the following policies: Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Edit summary, Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons.--Rambutan (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Heads up, Phil. I'm sure you've seen it but for the record, User_talk:Rambutan#Your_comment. All the best, and thanks x 100 for letting me know! I'll be keeping tabs on his work for a while too. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
John Orman/Henshaw
Since Susan Henshaw has chosen to make an issue of her deaffiliation with the Connecticut for Lieberman party, here are the facts:
On June 12, 2007, Susan Henshaw changed her party affiliation with the Trumbull Registrar of Voters.
I received written confirmation of Sue Henshaw's deaffiliation with Connecticut for Lieberman from the Trumbull Registrar of Voters. Upon learning that I had discovered this, she went back and reaffiliated on June 22.
Sue tried to cover up the facts, and that coverup apparently included not telling John Orman the truth about what she did. The information on Sue Henshaw's affiliation shuttle is readily available to anyone. Contact Kathleen Mironti at Trumbull Town Hall.
Since Susan Henshaw is mentioned prominently in the article, information on her disaffilation with the party is relevant as well as factual and should be included.
In addition, Susan Henshaw's repeated vandalization of the Wikipedia articles on Connecticut for Lieberman and John Orman should not be tolerated by NPOV. Facts are facts, and are not malleable.Skorchin 00:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in the Henshaw issue. This has been an ongoing battle between Skorchin, Wiki volunteers and myself. If he's not editing under his own name, he finds friends or other computers to use. Henshaw has, in fact, never left the CFL party,and has informed Wiki, but this issue has become an obsession with Skorchin. Today I have asked that he, and any sockpuppets/IP addresses who misuse Henshaw's name, or change any documentable evidence about John Orman, or the other page Skorchin vandalizes (Connecticut for Lieberman) be blocked from Wikipedia. Please follow up on this; it has become a full time job for myself and other Wiki volunteers to deal with Skorchin.
Thank you.
Seraphim55, Sept. 10, 2007
- In reverting the latest edit to Connecticut for Lieberman by User:Skorchin, I've noted some relevant policies on Talk:Connecticut for Lieberman. In particular, in light of his WP:COI problem, I've suggested that he submit proposed edits on the talk page rather than making them himself. I suggest that no effort toward blocking him be made while we wait to see whether he heeds this warning. JamesMLane t c 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, both. I'll also submit any requests for changes to edits concerning my (Susan Henshaw's) party affiliation here and on the Orman page - should the need arise. --Seraphim55 10:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
OTRS
As I do not have OTRS access, would you mind letting me know what #2007090710008871 was (or at least the gist of it), either on my talk page or email (if it's not confidential information, of course)? Thank you. --Geniac 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ethics of Justin Berry article
Hi, Phil. I was thinking of proposing Justin Berry for deletion, on similar grounds to your deletion of the Masha Allen article earlier this year.
I was surprised to see that you are a contributor to the Justin Berry article. What ethical differences do you see between Masha Allen and Justin Berry? I am particularly astonished to see photographs of Berry in the article actually in the act of underage prostitution--one of the photos is actually a piece of advertising he once used. I am quite bewildered by this, but I'm sure there's a rationale behind it.
DanB†DanD 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- What evidence do you have to back up your claim that Berry (in a fully clothed photo taken at an international airport) was actually in the act of underage prostitution at the time that photo was taken? As to the inclusion of these photos, there is, as you say, a rationale behind it, but you have to look for it, since the context for the photos was "nuked" by Sandifer. Amazingly enough, the rationale has already been posted to the image pages and to the article's talk page. Your words seem to carry a sense of moral panic about the Justin Berry article. His story is bigger than Kurt Eichenwald. If the 600± edits that Phil Sandifer had "nuked" (his word for it) were available to you, you could see that the article once encompassed the entire story, not just the story of Eichenwald's involvement with Berry. Sandifer, though well-intentioned, has acted in such a way that the ethical and legal lapses on Berry's part have largely been obscured in favor of a more flattering image. --Ssbohio 17:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Phil, I apologize for the clumsy way I stumbled into what I now see is a longstanding and emotionally charged dispute. DanB†DanD 18:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually removed the image from Fathom (comics), another user put it back. I asked them about it at User_talk:Brian Boru_is awesome#Image:00 FADW-01c.jpg, but they haven't responded much. - Peregrine Fisher 01:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments on this page
Due to the high volume of IP vandalism/censorship/harassment on this page, I've requested one week's semi-protection.--Rambutan (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was denied.--Rambutan (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've done two thing with the image:
- Removed it from the article on 52 since, as a lone example of the treatment of the characters in the series, it is just arbitrary decoration.
- Added some clarification to the rational for the other 2 articled.
Could you please review and see if the tag is still needed?
Thanks, - J Greb 21:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I can see you POV with Isis, but that becomes an argument for the talk page of that article and doesn't invalidate to "Purpose of use" for the current image.
- The Black Adam article is another thing all together. It looks like an effort is being made to include cover art reflecting "key moments" in the characters current usage. Again, it becomes a topic for that articles talk page, though I can't see it having solid justification, 5 of the 7 images on the page are from the last 4 years, with 3 of those from with in 12 months. That being said, the image does represent 2 of the major elements from the series: Black Adam as monarch and Black Adam in love. At that, it becomes a situation where either the image gets pulled from the article, mooting the need to justify it, or the justification is enough for the current use. - J Greb 22:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Phil Sandifer. The arbitration case in which you are listed as a party to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Johann Hari page
Thanks for freezing it. I'm concerned that two users (one of whom has abused Hari in quite extreme terms in the past, calling him "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that") seem determined to insert allegations that are, as far as I know, the subject of legal action, and quite clearly don't meet BLP regulations. What should I do if the protection expires and they continue to insert information that leaves wikipedia vulnerable to legal action? Would it be possible for you to post on the page, reiterating the comments of other wiki administrators that the source they are trying to insert is unacceptable?
81.129.156.202 12:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Jodi Picoult
Hey... just curious about what you changed on the Jodi Picoult page. I tried to look up the differences, but nothing looked different to me...
Picoult
Ah, thank you! I did hit "diff" but for some reason it all looked exactly the same. ;) Just curious. :)
Tor (comics)
Hi, Phil. We can always add an image to showcase a Tor full-body pose, but this is historically significant as one of the very few 3D comics, and within that subset, a 3D comic starring a now-established character. I'd be hard put to say that Tor's starring in a 1950s 3D comic wasn't historically significant. --Tenebrae 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:17AlphaOnKaminoFinal.jpg
what is your problem?Why do you keep picking on the picture I uploaded and tried to varify? ?????????????????????????
Like I could actually find the title and page number? ahhahaha Thats like finding a needle in a hay stack
``` Good luck getting a response.
--67.81.203.193 20:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC) This guy has an ego the size of Russia. He is a disgrace to all admins that participate on Wikipedia and should be terminated.
--67.81.192.61 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Another perfect example of his abuse of power. Phil Blocked this user above and banned his IP with the comment of "Death Threat? How Fucking Christian of You". It is clear by his comment Phil S, that hie meaning of termination is that you should be fired from your job. Your actions just go to prove that he is correct. You are a disgrace.
Image:2099 Unlimited Jan3.jpg
You labeled this image as having no explanation. The subject of fair use is addressed by summary in conjunction with the comic book cover template. I'll paraphrase the licensing for you: "the use of low-resolution images of the cover of a comic book to illustrate... the copyrighted comic book character... on the cover of the issue in question." As indicated in the summary, it displays the character Hulk 2099. If you feel that the summary requires elaboration, please explain. --El benito 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I get where you're coming from now Phil, and I think I found something that will clear things up. This image [:Image:Bill Clinton.jpg] is used all over the place, but only has one description, as each usage is for the same purpose, which is illustrating the same person. By extension, one can fairly infer that Hulk 2099 does not need extra explanations. Redundant explanations is the type of cruft and busywork that Wikipedia doesn't need. This sort of 'letter of the law' issue is better addressed by refining [Help talk:Image page], not an image of an obscure character. As to whether the two pages should be merged, there was a vote before the creation of a separate page for addressing [alternate versions of the hulk]. At that time, it was a no merge, but feel free to revisit the issue. (PS, I chopped out a previous comment since I think I've got what you're saying now) --El benito 17:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Bill Clinton.jpg is a public domain image and is not being used under our non-free content policy. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- So in the end the article should say "Displays Hulk 2099. Displays Hulk 2099"? I'm not going to do that edit because I object. If it's that important to you, then either put the deletion template back in again or else do it yourself. This is childish and pointless adherence and I wash my hands of it. --El benito 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about the book. It is entirely appropriate that the contents of the book are discussed / outlined. There is no sense in which that can be called undue weight. Are you disputing the fact that the book discusses Lacan? Or is it that you just don't like the book?MarkAnthonyBoyle 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not interupt, I will get around to filling in the other authors as time permits. There is no reason to keep deleting this section. This is simply unhelpful.MarkAnthonyBoyle 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm working through the book in order. This will take some time if I am to be accurate.MarkAnthonyBoyle 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom/Attack sites
Sorry to bug you, but am I alone in getting the impression that this proceeding has been hi-jacked? I'm finding it hard to reconcile the current areas of discussion with the original request. This is my first ArbCom, so perhaps this is the norm? LessHeard vanU 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Johann Hari page
Hi Phil - I think you've misunderstood what David Gerrard was saying quite seriously. The allegations Felix wants to include were in fact from the front half, and if you look again you'll see David G explictly said this part of the magazine is unreliable and does not meet BLP criteria. Indeed, he said these allegations should be treated with "a very jaundiced eye and [we should be] looking for a better source." In other words, he was saying not to use precisely the charges Felix is determined to discuss.
Far from saying the source Felix is trying to use is reliable, as you suggest, he was suggesting it is totally unreliable. I'm sure if you contact him he'll be happy to reiterate that point.
If you could come over to the discussion and clarify that would be great.David r from meth productions 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Privatemusings
Privatemusings was right to do what he or she did. MessedRocker (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So was Phil, Messed. All is well. Privatemusings 01:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Dunno how far your interest in pop culture extends, but you might be interested in this discussion I started on the suppression of some quite significant information, mentioned in mainstream reviews, from due prominence in the article about BioShock. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You owe me an apology
If you don't see that, I can only surmise that you are what I wrote on my talk page, and much more. You were very wrong to block me for a content dispute that you were involved. That is abuse of power and conflict of interest. I request that you dig further in my history so that other admins do not hold the blocks against me in the future. The block was exessive and very much abusing of your power. I wonder if you deserve the power you have. You are unbecoming to an admin. Do the right thing. I am taking this further so another wayward admin cannot use the previous blocks agains me to extend the blocks. There are many more important violations to deal with than a snarky edit summary and calling a self-proclaimed racist an ugly racist who was banned by Jimbo Wales himself. Jeeny 05:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- That block does seem out of line. The situation leading to the block can really only be described as a content dispute, and one you were directly involved in at that. An apology would go a long way here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't even respond, huh? What's up? Your ego? Jeeny 01:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking about responding and apologizing, actually, but suddenly I've decided against it. Phil Sandifer 01:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)