This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pilotguy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You wrote "Mzoli's Meats is a restaurant that is no different than the McDonald's down the street. Having someone supposedly famous eat there does not make it notable. Assuming that the place has been in the press does not make it notable. Performing original research and making the assumption that the place is well-known (I've certainly never heard of it) does not make it notable. Having a nice experience at said restaurant does not make it notable. This is simply a case of Wikipedia's own founder abusing his own site, attacking others, and setting a bad example, in order to gain publicity for friends of his. There has been way too much of that going on since the beginning"
I am very unhappy with that entire statement. First, Mzoli's Meats is not a restaurant "no different than the McDonald's down the street" -- it is a notable establishment which has had an impact on race relations in Cape Town, because it is a restaurant which is visited by all races, in Guguletu. It has received substantial news coverage for this. "I've certainly never heard of it"? Are you kidding me? "to gain publicity for friends of his"? What friends would those be?--Jimbo Wales02:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
God help us if we can't do articles on establishments you personally havent heard of. As an encyclopedia we are here to educate people so if you hadn't heard of it you have now. We dont just do notable American places as we are an international encyclopedia and thus we do Africa. If you have a poor knowledge of Africa you can learn more from wikipedia but dont try to shut down articles merely because they a\re about places you are ignorant of, SqueakBox18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you give a hint as to what the trouble was? I'd like to put some of that paragraph back, but since I have no idea what the complaint was, I don't even know what to be cautious of. I'm surprised ... it looks like a pretty innocuous paragraph.Kww16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That paragraph does not seem to contain ANYTHING that would be unverifiable or even objectionable. --Blue Tie20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot10:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for preventing vandalism on my userpage. It's a pretty bad situation for me, as everytime he gets blocked, he comes up with a new IP to terrorize me again. Ilyushka8820:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot14:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You un-indefinitified this address's block. But I don't like that address anymore. So could you please re-indefinitify it please? 124.176.148.14811:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that your speedy deletion because of being an attack article is an exaggeration. I propose that it is re-instated. Andries18:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Block of 12.206.33.125
The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thanks for blocking 12.206.33.125, who has been vandalizing random pages by replacing them with disgusting image, which totally grossed me out. You blocked that IP with the reason "that's enough", which made me smile a lot. That's why I'm giving you the barnstar of good humor. NHRHS2010 talk 02:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315»04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)(I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)
Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
you are a good person,
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
This is for the random act that you shwed on my talk page a am greatly apreciated for you'r kindness BJ (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The owner of the images has been dead for many, many years. Whoever contacted you on OTRS has no right to make whatever claim they did. Can I ask why this person makes one outrageous claim by email, and that instantly overrides me? I request that you restore the images (alternatively, I could do it myself, but then I suspect you would try to portray me as a villain) and run them through IfD. Alternatively, contact someone who can tell this person to bugger off with a little authority, as they have already been told by me, to no avail. Oh, and for the record, I am fucking seething. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thankyou. I've taken a minute, calmed myself down, and, though I'm no copyright lawyer, I know my way around Wikipedia, and, as far as I am aware, nothing on Wikipedia says that these images are not allowed. I apologise for getting agitated- I was annoyed because it bugs me that some anonymous emailer seems to hold more precedence on Wikipedia than me and our policies. Can I ask- did his/her claim seem to hold water for you? Why did you take their word for it, rather than looking in to the matter yourself? J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, for tickets like otrs:1622184 when someone has attached a photo to their email, you should move them to the photosubmission queue instead of sending the "How to upload" canned response. Thanks. howcheng {chat}21:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest that you check a users contributions history before you block them indefinitely as a vandalism only account ;) You trashed my perfectly clean block log -.- -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 20:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
That was a seriously unwise move. There are two declined unblock requests on his talk page, and several editors endorsing the current block on AN/I. Your unblock is very poorly thought out. - auburnpilottalk01:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Very poorly thought out. You're unblock summary, misses the fact the there was consensus that the block itself was justified. There was general agreement that the admin who actually carried out the block should have let someone else do it, but the block itself was (and continues to be) quite valid. Please reblock for the duration. In addition, your unilateral action made without taking part in an ongoing conversation at AN/I is even worse and unbecoming of an admin. RxS (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Further, please take note of previous Arbcom cases. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee states, "Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova states, "Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner." I eagerly await your explanation at AN/I. - auburnpilottalk01:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely with the concerns above. Whatever you think of the propriety of the blocking administrator, the block was legitimate, and was in the process of being discussed fully at AN/I. I respectfully ask that you restore the block, until a consensus to overturn it can be established. S.DeanJameson01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are for prevention, not punishment. Betacommand has not continued the edit war which the block was created to prevent, as such the unblock would appear appropriate at this time. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"Betacommand has not continued the edit war which the block was created to prevent". Seriously? Do you think maybe that's because he is blocked and incapable of continuing? He's clearly stated on his talk page that he will continue if unblocked (check his response to my initial offer to unblock}. Pilotguy is way out of line here. - auburnpilottalk02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
That fact has nothing to do with whether you should be blocked right now. Pilotguy was in error in not even attempting to join the discussion before lifting the 3RR block. As AP said, way out of line. S.DeanJameson02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Your interpretation of NFCC is not shared in this case, you are not exempt from 3RR. You are not the sole arbiter of NFCC, you need to understand that. RxS (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
you need to check your facts, and the archives of WT:NFCC and AN/ANI for the countless discussions about the same issue that support my position. βcommand02:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
BC's position does seem to be supported by the standing practice with respect to lists. ::shrugs:: ... but this isn't the place to continue this argument. If you must, move it to my talk page.--Gmaxwell (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
BC, It isn't subject to WP:3RR but if you're going to carry out non-productive edit wars against multiple users due to that fact we might well remove that free-pass. The work you do is important, but not so urgent that we should tolerate a big disruption over it. Take a break, let other people deal with this one... life will go on. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
AuburnPilot, again, blocks are not punitive. BC isn't continuing the disputed and disruptive action now. You've stated your position, now please give the complaints a break: You're effectively harassing Pilotguy at this point, and the dispute with BC does not need any more fuel added to it. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't "punitive", it was preventative. BC made it clear he would continue to edit-war to enforce his view of NFCC. That's unacceptable, and certainly blockable, according to policy as I read it. S.DeanJameson02:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
He's not continuing the activity now, so continued blocking would not be preventing anything, except perhaps BC's ability to speak in his own defense. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
But at the time he was unblocked, the only indications we had were that he would definitely continue to edit war to enforce his views if given the opportunity. The fact that he wasn't was only because he was blocked. That's what blocks are for: prevention of disruption. S.DeanJameson02:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
How so? You argued that there was no reason to think BC wouldn't continue. Okay, I don't even want to try to refute it, but if it is true then Pilotguy must either have ESP or be really lucky guesser (or ..perhaps.. he just, you know, asked BC not to continue it?). We're arguing past each other. You're pointing out that at the moment of the block it was a disputable action, I'm countering that time demonstrated it to be a reasonable decision. Both positions can be right, but I'd argue that mine is more relevant to our immediate future. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't "argue" that BC would continue, he stated explicitly that he would continue edit-warring to enforce his veiw of policy, because he thinks he's right. And PG's "explanation" cited consensus that didn't exist for a decision that simply should not have been made. And looking at BC's block log makes it very clear that he returns again and again to his old ways. The block was preventative, and the unblock was a terrible use of tools by PG. It really is as simple as that. S.DeanJameson03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Harassment? Don't you dare accuse me of harassment. Pilotguy's actions were out of line, and nothing I've said amounts to harassment. I ask you to take back such an absurd assertion. Ridiculous. - auburnpilottalk02:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Read what you just wrote to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your tone, but the intensity in even your reply to me seems entirely unreasonable and unjustified. You don't agree with Pilotguy's action. We get it. You don't have to edit his talk page 7 times to say it. If I were him I'd feel that your continued aggressive arguments were at least a bit harassing. I understand that you don't intend to be harassing, which is why I pointed it out rather than warning you. :) We all mean well here. I beg you to take a breath and wait to see how things pan out. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to take a breathe, so please refrain from being condescending. Pilotguy's actions were unacceptable, and I was more than happy to leave it at that, until you make unfounded accusations of harassment. That get's my blood boiling. - auburnpilottalk02:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
For the record, has done nothing that violates the spirit or the letter of our policies on harassment. Is he frustrated? Certainly, and he has every right to be. Pilotguy was certainly FAR outside the bounds of process with regards to the unblock. And he's refusing to discuss the unblock, which fans the flames of frustration that those attempting to dialogue with him about it feel. S.DeanJameson02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me just say that if you are going to jump into this sort of issue with both feet, you at least need to be around to discuss your actions. I can certainly sympathize with administrators who are largely inactive, but they need to leave contested blocks/deletions to others who are more capable of engaging in the discussion that such actions are bound to generate. Christopher Parham(talk)02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a big difference between explaining yourself in a one-off edit and engaging in discussion. This is my personal view only, but I think it is incivil (in the general sense) to take actions which are bound to occasion debate when you are unable or unwilling to participate in the discussion of your actions. Administrators are discouraged from undoing others' actions without discussion; the logical flip side of this is that administrators should be available to discuss their actions. Administrators who describe themselves as "mainly inactive" should limit themselves to uncontroversial actions only. Christopher Parham(talk)03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Bad move, you moved on your own, against consensus. ""01:17, July 6, 2008 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Betacommand (Talk | contribs)" (Agreement forming that previous block wasn't justified)." There was no agreement. The consensus was clearly to leave the 31-hour inplace, not unblock, not ban. Not only did he violate his arb restriction, you condoned his further incivil attitude and are teaching him that is okay and it's okay to cause more drama when he is blocked. We don't need this. The only reason I'm not re-blocking him is to avoid more drama. Rewarding bad behavior only causes more bad behavior. The fact he has lots lots of tools for wiki does not make his behavior okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
". His behavior will not continue and he has assured myself as well as fellow admins of that fact." Pilotguy, you have got to be kidding. BC's said this before and keeps being incivil. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Trivia
Trivia should be discouraged under wikipedia guidelines. Please try to help improve Wikipedia pages. Reverting back to bullet lists does not help. It would be better if the unnecessary information is not included. If you feel that trivia is necessary, then please write in an acceptable manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.222.219.192 (talk • contribs)
A couple of bullet points:
Trivia sectionsshould be discouraged, according to a guideline. That doesn't mean they must be, or that such discouragement applies in every case.
It's perhaps the most demonstrably false statement on Wikipedia to say that Pilotguy hasn't tried to help improve Wikipedia pages. Well, except for any edits suggested by Stephen Colbert.
Whether information is necessary or unnecessary is a matter for editorial consensus to decide, not you individually. The same goes for what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable writing.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}