User talk:Misou/Archive/Archive-Jul2007

Heads up

I read in this page: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard Someone accusing you of being in the same computer server as COFS. If they are lying it should be dealt with. Bravehartbear 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravehartbear, it would probably help calm down the situation if Misou didn't get involved. The fact is, at one point he did edit from the same IP as COFS, because he was at a COS location that uses the same proxy that COFS uses. The thread is about COFS, not Misou. The socks issue has been dealt with, regardless of how many times some editors want to bring it back up. Lsi john 23:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree thanks. Disregard Misou. Is all taken care of.Bravehartbear 04:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

~~I got an issue in the main Scientology page. In the talk area.~~ Bravehartbear 03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Should Scientologists be allowed to edit on Wikipedia? Or so...

Hi bear, I know you are fed up dealing with the propaganda machines here but check this out. May take some hours to get through but... well, I believe that you would not want to allow that Wikipedia gets corrupted any further. Best, COFS 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lady. The dweebload on here is still too high, sorry. Will see to find some time this week, at least for some corrections. Misou 05:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:RookZERO

Please don't make comments like you did at User talk:RookZERO anymore. Please at least try to assume good faith when your in an content dispute with an editor. And yes, that is what this is, a content dispute, not vandalism or an attempt to take away credibility from Wikipedia. — Moe ε 02:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just set a new standard. It is OK now to remove 5k of genuine text from articles because someone disagrees with it, it is ok now to remove neutral citations, it is ok now to 4RR and it is ok now to mess up lead sections with half-sentences and garble. Something is veeeery wrong here, Moe Epsilon, and I wonder if you took the time to look at the background of the matter. Misou 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the diffs for the 4RR, or 5 reverts in under 24 hours, please. This is a content dispute and no matter how much you may disagree with it, it's not vandalism. — Moe ε 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did already in the very beginning of this thread when I posted RZ to AN/I which - remember - brought you into this. And again thanks for setting a new standard. So if I disagree with content I just delete it, even if it is more than two pages text. Saves the trouble of a Talk page discussion and thus a lot of time. Yes, I am cynical about this and I strongly recommend that you look at the whole picture. Misou 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL violations, now three of them right under your eyes, to the AN/I. Per the new standard I am allowed to call him names now, right? Misou 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a close look to your own "edit warring behaviour". Especially now! Good Night! -- Stan_talk 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious he should not be calling you a "cult vandal", and left him a message about it. Don't continue with your combative behavior at his talk as well. Suggest you take a break from editing if you can't. And it was confirmed you were using multiple accounts here, so I wouldn't nessecarily call him a liar. — Moe ε 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will go get some food for a bit. And he is a liar, he just might not be a aware of that. A shared IP is not "multiple accounts" and I have never ever had more than one account at WP but seem to share an IP with some other Wikipedians. That's thin ice and pandora's box, if you really want to go on it (goes on since months allover Admin boards). Misou 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moe, that checkuser did NOT confirm Misou was using multiple accounts. Please do not make such strong statements with fully doing your research. That checkuser confirmed a COMMON IP and the case is currently in arbitration. Peace.Lsi john 00:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the one involving you was confirmed, but the other ones were, and Jpgordan said the accounts were confirmed over multiple IP's, seems rather conclusive to me. — Moe ε 01:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou, I told you to stop with the unproductive comments on RookZERO's talk page. Start up again there and I'll start handing out warnings to you for being disruptive as well. — Moe ε 01:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm taking back the request for 3RR violation to be looked at. You obviously don't get what 3RR means, so let me care to explain. Editors cannot revert more than 3 times within 24 hours Those 4 reverts are within nearly two days, which by policy, is OK. I'm not condoning edit warring and people can get blocked for the sheer amount of reverting they do like that, but its not a techinical 3RR. If either of you keep revert warring, I'm requesting the page be protected and neither of you are going to edit it.. — Moe ε 02:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can't count then, but it looks 24hrs to me. How about deleting two full pages sourced text without talk page consensus but a nice NPA in the edit summary. Is it still ok to do this? Misou 03:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say it was ok to do that? No I didn't, did I warn him like I said I did, I did. — Moe ε 03:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11:30 p.m., but yes, I'm still awake. The page has been protected. — Moe ε 03:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that, it might be better that way. Can't we do this with all Scientology stuff and assign a babysitter Admin to approve changes? I'd support something like that. Misou 03:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adults don't need babysitters, adults need to behave like adults. And if they can't act like an adult, Wikipedia can't help them. — Moe ε 03:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adults, yes, Wikipedians, not sure, Wikipedians editing Scientology articles, damn sure no. Misou 03:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again: 3RR only applies when 4 reverts are made within 24 hours. All of his reverts were made wihin two complete days or so, even now. Each time he hits save doesn't count as another revert, only the times hes reverting another user. He has done this 6 times. Three times on the 17th, Once on the 18th, Twice on the 19th. It has to be 4 times in one day. — Moe ε 03:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..., ok you are right. Missed by some minutes and one time Stan En came out of the coffin for him. Settled. Misou 03:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:3RR, users who consistently hit an 'electronic fence' of 3-reverts are in violation and can be blocked. Revert is not an editing 'tool' and, more importantly, not a 'right' to consistently revert up to 3 times per day and then stop. Three times on two consecutive days, and then twice on the third, seems to be treding dangerously close to violating the spirit of the rule and thus in violation. Though I'm basing my observations entirely on this conversation and haven't looked at RockZERO's block log to see how many 3RR violations he has in order to know how well aware of the rule he is. Peace.Lsi john 12:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RookZERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2x 3RR & 1x Abusing multiple accounts. Certainly more research should be done before using these as prima facia evidence, but it could safely be assumed that he's well aware of the rules for 3RR and operating Sock accounts abusively. Peace.Lsi john 12:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re: intentional?

No, not intentional. I didn't see the paragraph at the bottom of the diff. My mistake, sorry. Foobaz·o< 05:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Scientology

You've breached it. Another reversion and it would be foolish not to file a report. Lets discuss the proposed additions at talk:Scientology. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I give up. That's it. Bye. Misou 05:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have apparently wandered into a long-standing argument and you seem exasperated. Sorry for adding to the stress. I await your comments on the talk page if you are up for discussing your additions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Scientology

You violated the 3RR rule on this page this morning, but since you stopped editing after being warned, there'd be little point in blocking you. I'd appreciate it if you backed away from this page for a while, so as to make it clear you understand the guidelines. Are there any other subjects out there that interest you? We've got everything here. Thanks, yandman 08:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]