User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 23
The Return
[edit]Thanks for everyone's good wishes, I'm back.. I probably will ask for the mop back at some point soon (do not know if I will need a reconfirmation RfA or not).. My current situation has improved greatly. Thanks for all your good wishes.
Just a heads up, I'm not looking to get involved on Troubles-related issues, if you're asking me for assistance/discussion there, it'd probably be for the best if you seek other neutral folks to assist there. Thanks!
SirFozzie (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- welcome back, you don't need to reconfirm. ViridaeTalk 00:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Viridae. If any of the requisite folks happen to have this page on their watchlist, please consider this a formal request to restore my administrator rights on the English Language Wikipedia, per [1]. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Done Welcome back. -- Avi (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yays! :D J.delanoygabsadds 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, both of you. Really is much appreciated. :) SirFozzie (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yays! :D J.delanoygabsadds 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Viridae. If any of the requisite folks happen to have this page on their watchlist, please consider this a formal request to restore my administrator rights on the English Language Wikipedia, per [1]. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back! Now get to work! :) Kingturtle (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- God damn son, that may be the best news I've heard all week. Welcome back.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- LOL - welcome back indeed, friend :) - Alison ❤ 08:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back, I am glad you are doing better; take it slow and let me know if I can do anything for you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)wb
Nice to see you active again. :-) There's a never-ending supply of BLP-related work, as always, if you get bored. Not sure that's the best thing for anyone's health, though.... ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back. Good luck staying out of the Troubles ... I think you'll need it. Just wait, you'll be drawn back in eventually! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not if *I* have anything to say about it, thanks again everyone :)SirFozzie (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Update on NSS
[edit]You know, I checked out the BBC website and added in the language about the eight month test period. Then it occurred to me, when has the SEC ever said it could measure abusive naked shorting? Never. So I went to the statement itself issued by the SEC, and I saw nothing about NSS down 50% in a "test period," but rather fails to deliver down 57% and threshold securities down dramatically. I'm almost 100% sure that this is the source of the BBC reporting, so I subbed that. No one else has said what the BBC says, which further indicates the beeb simply misread the SEC press release. This is why I think it is best to stick with the SEC official pronouncements on things like this and to avoid media coverage.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your recent edits to NSS. I note you disagree with my removal of some content. I have placed my reasons for doing so in the appropriate section of the article talk page. I would appreciate your contributions. Beganlocal (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Breaking ref on Gen Con
[edit]Just a heads up: in this edit to Gen Con you broke a citation. uc2009 was being used elsewhere. I'll restore it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Alan, I didn't realize I had messed up a ref :) SirFozzie (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
eh
[edit]That appears to be a one-off vandalism rather than a co-ordinated attack. Don't think 24h is neccessary there. –xenotalk 17:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll give it 30 minutes or so.. considering ANI's constantly going back and forth on protection status, I think it was necessary as AN usually follows ANI on these attacks. SirFozzie (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah ok, I thought the ANI disruption had passed. –xenotalk 17:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, ANI is currently going to come off semi-prot shortly.. I did undo AN, so hopefully it was a one off. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- cheers, –xenotalk 18:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, ANI is currently going to come off semi-prot shortly.. I did undo AN, so hopefully it was a one off. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah ok, I thought the ANI disruption had passed. –xenotalk 17:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll give it 30 minutes or so.. considering ANI's constantly going back and forth on protection status, I think it was necessary as AN usually follows ANI on these attacks. SirFozzie (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: 2 things...
[edit]1- Not a problem. Just trying to defend a friend, but coming to the realization that I am in the losing corner and I can't defend him from this. Kinda one of those "you made your bed, now you gotta sleep in it" things.
2- Glad you like them. The orange one is my cat Flatsky and the white one is my cat Peppermint. Check my userpage for some more pet pictures in nonLOL form.
Take Care and it is very early morning here, just clicked over to 1am. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
As you participated at the above discussion (and made the proposal), this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- No problems at all. Thanks for the notice, Ncmvocalist :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
[edit]A request for arbitration to which you are an involved party has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Pigsonthewing_3. Erik9 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
How profound!
[edit]
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| Glad to see someone is making sure talentless self-promoters are kept off Wiki where they belong. 2 lines of K303 13:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) |
Lurk-o-meter
[edit]User:Jake Wartenberg/centijimbo Cheers, Durova318 04:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
On September 16, you re-imposed a topic ban on User:Historicist pertained to Israel-Palestine related articles, broadly construed ([2]). I should inform you that User:Historicist has recently violated this ban, on the page New antisemitism ([3], [4]). I wonder if further remedial action may be necessary. CJCurrie (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have blocked Historicist for 72 hours. SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
ANI
[edit]I'm rather surprised by your support of calling an editor a child porn support on ANI. I'd like you to reconsider your comment as I don't think (or at east hope) that isn't what you meant. Thanks, Verbal chat
- I'm not supporting it at all. I found it a horrible PA, and I was very tempted to block, and before you left me a message, I was writing up a note for the other user, saying that they are facing a lengthy block if they cross the line again (or even come near it) I just don't think you should take it upon yourself to remove the message yourself SirFozzie (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note, and as long as it is followed then I see no problem. I disagree about the talk page comments being acceptable, but that in no way excuses this editors (repeated) problematic behaviour. I'm a bit unsure as to what message you're reffering to, as prior to this I had no involvement with this user. Verbal chat 08:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was saying that when you left me the message at the top, I was already writing something on the other editor's page. And trust me, as I said, I don't find it acceptable. But I will give one chance for them to prove they can disagree without being disagreeable. We'll see how it goes. Thanks for listening to my explanation :) SirFozzie (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok no problem. Looking through their short history they seem to like using the word "racist" and "vandal" to characterise other editors, in comments and edit summaries (removing a welcome note with such a summary). This editor needs to change their style if they want to continue to contribute. Also: good grief, what's happened to my spelling? Verbal chat 09:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was saying that when you left me the message at the top, I was already writing something on the other editor's page. And trust me, as I said, I don't find it acceptable. But I will give one chance for them to prove they can disagree without being disagreeable. We'll see how it goes. Thanks for listening to my explanation :) SirFozzie (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note, and as long as it is followed then I see no problem. I disagree about the talk page comments being acceptable, but that in no way excuses this editors (repeated) problematic behaviour. I'm a bit unsure as to what message you're reffering to, as prior to this I had no involvement with this user. Verbal chat 08:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not supporting it at all. I found it a horrible PA, and I was very tempted to block, and before you left me a message, I was writing up a note for the other user, saying that they are facing a lengthy block if they cross the line again (or even come near it) I just don't think you should take it upon yourself to remove the message yourself SirFozzie (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
AN/I
[edit]Hello, SirFozzie. 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. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stealth_canvassing_on_Wikipedia_Review_in_AfD_discussion_:_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FMiriam_Sakewitz. Thank you. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice, I'm already replying there. Since you're here, may I ask why you are so vehemently defending this hit job of an article? SirFozzie (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I am defending the article because I think that deleting sourced and notable information for supposed "moral" reasons is well intentioned but plainly wrong and it is one of the most serious problem within WP. It really strikes me that articles about notable subjects like Brian Peppers have been deleted. If a subject is notable, his/her actions/existence public etc., the mere act of reporting informaton on WP, (provided obviously that no libel, defamation, unsourced negative info of any kind is put in the article) is completely morally neutral. What is not morally neutral in my opinion is instead censoring such information. There is a current pattern of people crying for BLPs to "default to delete", to "delete BLPs on subject request" etc., which is utterly counterproductive, in my own opinion, to the aim of building a general and detailed encyclopedia, and has serious chilling effects. (I hope to write on the subject in my userpage, so that such questions are answered once for all). Thanks for asking. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you think that the fact that Brian Peppers no longer has an article is one of the most serious problems that Wikipedia has, I really think we ARE facing a fundamental disconnect here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "disconnect" in this context? It's not Brian Peppers himself the problem. It's the logic behind the deletion of such articles. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- By fundamental disconnect, I mean our views are so fundamentally different that there's not much chance we're going to agree on anything regarding it. It's like a discussion where one speaks Latin and the other speaks Swedish.. you're going to look at the other person like they're talking complete gibberish. :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I can only say I think that dealing with vastly different POVs is one of the joys not only of WP, but life. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- By fundamental disconnect, I mean our views are so fundamentally different that there's not much chance we're going to agree on anything regarding it. It's like a discussion where one speaks Latin and the other speaks Swedish.. you're going to look at the other person like they're talking complete gibberish. :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "disconnect" in this context? It's not Brian Peppers himself the problem. It's the logic behind the deletion of such articles. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you think that the fact that Brian Peppers no longer has an article is one of the most serious problems that Wikipedia has, I really think we ARE facing a fundamental disconnect here. SirFozzie (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I am defending the article because I think that deleting sourced and notable information for supposed "moral" reasons is well intentioned but plainly wrong and it is one of the most serious problem within WP. It really strikes me that articles about notable subjects like Brian Peppers have been deleted. If a subject is notable, his/her actions/existence public etc., the mere act of reporting informaton on WP, (provided obviously that no libel, defamation, unsourced negative info of any kind is put in the article) is completely morally neutral. What is not morally neutral in my opinion is instead censoring such information. There is a current pattern of people crying for BLPs to "default to delete", to "delete BLPs on subject request" etc., which is utterly counterproductive, in my own opinion, to the aim of building a general and detailed encyclopedia, and has serious chilling effects. (I hope to write on the subject in my userpage, so that such questions are answered once for all). Thanks for asking. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)