I refer you to
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject."
Please restore the deletia.
Bustter (
talk) 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)reply
However, this reference is valuable because the blog hosts the scanned image of Ed's 1966 artwork. I have confirmed with another reliable source, a collector of this title (Mister
Stephen Bissette) that this image actually does appear in Modern Monsters #1. The reference refers to this utterly reliable image, not to text.
Bustter (
talk) 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)reply
SJP Bio
Where would you get a reference to someone's specific diploma from a given school? I can't imagine any source of such a thing, (due to privacy of information laws)and then you would create a catch 22, you have no degree after your name without a source and there is no source other then a copy of the degree, which we won't allow?Д-рСДжП,ДС 22:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)reply
No, they're MY degrees! I earned them, so I know I have them. Thus I have a right to have them on my own website, and this is how the writer of my bio got to link to them for the bio. :) Д-рСДжП,ДС 00:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Whoaa.... I didn't write my own Bio. This was an effort that started that way, but I merely provide all the information, and OTHERS finally moved the bio to live space. DigitalC, Kelapstick, DGG, etc. etc., all had input on this, and Platiumphotographer moved the article from my sandbox, where it was developing to a page. I was ONLY speaking of the citations for the Diplomas. This is NOT self promotion or COI. There was information like the diplomas that only I had access to. Check before you act, please. It was not I who decided that I deserved that article.
LOOK at the history before you accuse me.Д-рСДжП,ДС 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
No, problem, I will be glad to look at your edit history, the article history, Platinumphotographer's edit history, including his user page which you wrote for him. Not a problem, glad to look whenever anyone gets nasty and invites me to. --
IP69.226.103.13 (
talk) 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I am most decidedly NOT Platinumphotographer. I understand what sockpuppetry is. Are we clear now? Д-рСДжП,ДС 00:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Hello, IP69.226.103.13. You have new messages at
Drsjpdc's talk page. You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Kudos to Alison and J.delanoy for their huge, immensely damaging rangeblock of all at&t DSL IPs in the entire San Francisco Bay Area
[1][2]. What was never considered at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John254, however, was that I can edit right through their rangeblock. Nice try :)
StephenBrown167 (
talk) 01:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Lol. You are one hell of a lot more fun than any other sock puppet I've encountered on wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know. --
IP69.226.103.13 (
talk) 01:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
email
You have email, though I guess most of it is superfluous now. -
2/0 (
cont.) 02:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I started one
here for Drsjpdc. Feel free to comment as I feel that this will be quite contentious.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 19:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Oh, I hear ya on that one. I have a feeling though that this will get ugly, so feel free to add some more evidence.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 19:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
It's already gotten ugly, his meat puppets are going after me now. --
IP69.226.103.13 (
talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
DigitalC seems to be related from the looks of it.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 20:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Certainly he's here to add more meat to the article, at least. --
IP69.226.103.13 (
talk) 20:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm prepared to add him to the SPI if you think that they are that closely related.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 20:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I think the SPI will flush out however many socks there are. I seriously think that Drsjpdc and Platinumphotographer are sock puppets, and there may be others, but getting rid of the doctor means the article can actually be written as a clean BLP, and it will also warn him off of more sock and meat puppetry. Also, frankly, I'd have to look for the proof on DigitalC and I'm really tired of looking at Stephen J. Press's ego. Aren't you? --
IP69.226.103.13 (
talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Haha, my day's only begun. I've noticed less interaction between Digital and Sjd, but there is still a lot of Digital on Stephen's page itself. They both edit chiropractic related articles, but Digital is more diverse on what he edits here. I'm all for it though. I just got your e-mail, but as you said earlier on this page, they really are starting to get hilarious.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 20:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Good, you have a sense of humor. I keep losing mine on wikipedia. That's not good. Especially when it's this funny. --
IP69.226.103.13 (
talk) 20:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Phew, it's over. I was just about to add more evidence to the fire.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Wikipedians are not as dumb as the good doctor and his sock and meat army think we are. It's not like it's the first time anyone has tried this set of ploys on wikipedia. --
IP69.226.103.13 (
talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
There are some new developments on the page.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 21:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
He just copied some information from the dr's talk page, but it was evidence already considered by Alison, so I removed it. The case needs to just be closed up, the dr and his sock blocked, the article cleaned up, then done with, don't you think? --
IP69.226.103.13 (
talk) 21:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Except that he isn't blocked! He should be. The sockmaster is always blocked, but often for a shorter time, which is odd in my book. --
Brangifer (
talk) 03:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
That's actually okay. It's a discretionary decision on the part of the blocking admin based on the events that have happened. With drsjpdc's behavior, he'll be getting himself blocked in no time, so don't worry about it. --
IP69.226.103.13 (
talk) 04:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Might as well, but I wouldn't remove the information for fear of starting an edit war.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 21:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Nevermind, Allison responded with support to you.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I couldn't explain it in the post, sorry. This is some really aggressive editing on the doctor's behalf. The only time I've seen anything this hostile was about a minor actress and her "movie," and that and her whole sock and meat factory were eventually closed down. This is just too much. --
IP69.226.103.13 (
talk) 22:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
So could you explain it to me here or on my talk page? I agree with you, was just trying to help, and am still mystified as to why you and Alison objected.
TRANSPORTERMAN (
TALK) 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
RFA
[3] Oops - my apologies - you have every right to make a comment and the indent was incorrect - as was my support of it - mislead by the discussion and not reading close enough. My apologies. Pedro :
Chat 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Hello, IP69.226.103.13. You have new messages at
Pedro's talk page. You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You've been given a
cookie, because of your becoming the newest Third Opinion Wikipedian. Bon appétit,
TRANSPORTERMAN (
TALK) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{
subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{
subst:munch}}!
I replied. : )
Tim1357 (
talk) 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Tim, I love what you are trying to do here, but I think you are missing the point
Love,
Kim
Your signature
It seems that there is no link from your signature to either your user page or your talk page. This is against policy. Please amend your signature to link to at least one of the above.
Mjroots (
talk) 15:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Hey! At least you got a handwritten message and not a templated warning. Thanks for fixing the signature. Happy New year!
Mjroots (
talk) 17:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golconda Express
Thank you for participating at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golconda Express. When you comment at an
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, it is helpful to explain why you want to keep or delete an article, rather than just saying "Keep" or "Delete". Nonetheless, I am grateful for the "Keep" from you, since I was the one who added some references to the article. -
Eastmain (
talk) 21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I agree that it's a lousy image -- it's just that it's lousy whether it's big or small, and if it's bigger at least it doesn't look like a postage stamp. I've got no strong feelings about it one way or the other and, like you, I'm not sure the guy is really notable anyway.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 23:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Maybe I'll split the difference and see if we can both live with it.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 23:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I've pretty much done all the cleanup I've intended to do on the article. At this point I'm just monitoring it.
I'm rather surprised no one's brought it to AFD on notability grounds, but if it does go, I don't want anything like deleting his publications to contribute to the assessment, which should be based on whether he's notable or not.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 02:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Issue
Are you ready for ANI here? Also, thanks for defending my actions on my talk page, but he is starting to go to far here.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 05:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Wow, that amazes me, but yet doesn't suprise me at all. Can you provide evidence of this, as this is rather shocking.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 05:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Ah, that makes sense. I kinda just glossed over that part. Thanks for all the help though, if this doesn't go any further.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Hello, IP69.226.103.13. You have new messages at
MWOAP's talk page. Message added 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC). You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.reply
I confess I got, perhaps, disproportionately pissed off about the whole situation. I appreciate what you said. -
FisherQueen (
talk ·
contribs) 18:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)reply
U R awesome
They may not like it, but I'm here to help. Their rules tie them in knots they cannot even see, and so they trap themselves. I try to help them see the trap. If they fall in it, I didn't push. =) --
Neptunerover (
talk) 05:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Talkback
Hello, IP69.226.103.13. You have new messages at
NuclearWarfare's talk page. Message added 21:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC). You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.reply
for constant vandalistic harrassment at the SJP bio.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hello, IP69.226.103.13. You have new messages just for you from
Smithers7. Go over to
his talkpage and check it out!
Once you have read and/or replied to the message, you can take this template down by simply removing the {{user:Smithers7/tb}} from
your talkpage.
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.
It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).
As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!
Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.
I misunderstood it and thought you were the one swearing. My sincerest apologies. -
Zhang He (
talk) 17:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)reply
RFA
Hello IP69.226.103.13. You are receiving this notice because you have either supported or posted constructive suggestions during my recent self-nominated
RFA, submitted on 18-01-2010. Please do spend a few minutes to
read my comments on the nomination, and feel free to respond on the relevant
talkpage for any further comments or questions. Thank you for participating. Regards.
Rehman(
+) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)reply
My RfA
I forgot to say thank you for the wonderful suggestions you made following my RfA. I am correcting that oversight now.
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)reply
you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent
Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically
de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised
here.
3) How to help:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
The article will be discussed at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Barnes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Gbawden (
talk) 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Category:Team physicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the
categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the
categories for discussion page. Thank you.
Rathfelder (
talk) 20:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)reply
