User talk:GofG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| User Page | User Talk | Contributions |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Here
"Yes, the joke is getting old. Stephen Colbert's request that everyone say that the population of elephants has tripled... So many people editing wikipedia that the servers crashed. I ask you not do it again. GofG ||| Contribs 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)"
According to == http://tawker.com/2006/08/01/i-blocked-stephen-colbert-on-wikipedia/ ==, the database overload was unrelated to Colbert's prank.Yappa 08:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Oops
Thanks for the note. I'm registered as Noroton, but I had some computer problems and didn't notice I wasn't signed in when I made some contribs. Thanks.Noroton 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] hi i am chrisbrownwifey06
i am just leaving you a message plase get at me i have 300 edits and this is my first day shinemygrillz is my older brother--Chrisbrownwifey06 04:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
Hello GofG,
Could you please explain to me what the procedure is, and when and where I am to respond to the charges, if indeed that is protocol? Thank you, TewfikTalk 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to why you moved the mediation to the article. You mentioned that it was an issue of civility, and I'm not sure that a large, content-driven debate will solve any etiquette problems on either my or Cerejota's part. Please let me know. TewfikTalk 21:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I should also mention that I don't think either of the topics listed for discussion are actually still being debated. The missles issue was resolved as well as anything on a fast-moving page could be, and the numbers issue continues as the conflict does, and is subject to its own set of problems. I do not believe that these problems are relevant to the problems between Cerejota and myself. TewfikTalk 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well yes, all of our debates revolved around the article, but despite editing that was a bit choppy at times, that's not what I have taken issue with, and it doesn't seem to be be what he has taken issue with (especially per his complaint on the mediation page, and my response). Rather, the communication surrounding the article, in his opinion harassment and uncivil, and in mine, well, also harassment and incivility, is what seems to be problematic. I have no problem engaging in a content debate, but I haven't had one with this user for a [relative] while, and thus I'm not sure how productive this direction will ultimately be. While I'm not sure if the issues you have chosen are relevant per se, I do not think they are relevant to us. Cheers, TewfikTalk 23:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem :-). TewfikTalk 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] this is chrisbrownwifey06
you need to mind your own business my brother wrote the 300 edits so dont talk if you dont know now shut your mouth. if you want to sy something say it to my page.--that raw bi%$! 00:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just so you know
If you and GofG on IRC are the same person...
!quit makes WineSteward leave the channel. There is only one person who can make him return and that is xyr. Please be absolutely sure that's what you want to do before issuing that command as we have to wait for xyr to get online before the bot can be brought back to the channel.
Alternately, you can ask someone like me, or Where, or xyr (who have access to the bot) if the bot is malfunctioning and we can do something about it.
Or perhaps you didn't know what the command did when you typed it. Regardless, it makes the bot leave the channel. To stop the game, ask me or another channel member how to stop the game before randomly typing commands, hoping that the bot will respond to one of them. Thanks. — Nathan (talk) / 05:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tewfik
Hello, is it possible to lodge evidence of the behaviour of Tewfik in the Tewfik/Cerejota mediation? I believe Tewfik is demonstrating the same attitude and wilful pursuit of edit warfare at article Military and economic aid in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.
Despite being given numerous examples of evidence backing up the case for inclusion of detail on aid to Israel and despite having this corroborated as a necessary balance in the article by other interested editors he persists in deleting the detail or reverting its inclusion. He acts if he has explicit domain over the entire article. I believe this attitude may have bearing on the problems Cerejota appears to have also run into via the accusation of Tewfik wikilawyering. An attitude on Tewfik's part which can only be described as "bloody mindedness".
Given my experience of Tewfik I feel there is no other way but to take this matter to arbitration and have lodged a request for assistance here. Tewfik continues to act unilaterally despite other editors asking him to stop and protesting his reversions of detail in the article. Please advise. RandomGalen 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your message
Thanks for your message. I hope you enjoy editting Wikipedia --BostonMA 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tallest structures
Good morning. I've just noticed the "refactoring" statement at the top of the mediation page - yesterday I had moved comments out of/back to the "comments on references" section - my goal here was to keep the discussion coherent, but I see now that I shouldn't have made this move. Unfortunately since another editor had extracted his comments (without their reply) to paste them down below again - and carried on the conversation there. Now the "references" and "comments on references" section are drowned in commentary having nothing to do with reference. In short, it's a mess.
Can I ask you to move everything below my last reply to ALoan - "PS: ALoan's examples were made in good faith, I do not suggest we remove those. THEPROMENADER 09:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)" - as the comment following and everything after has nothing to do with reference - up to the comments section please? This would re-unify the discussion from its present split state, and make room for later references and comments thereof. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 08:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Paris skyscrapers mediation
Hi there. You haven't said a word at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 List of Tallest buildings and structures in Paris since two days ago. Are you still mediating this? I just left a message there because someone has bypassed mediation. Could you have a look? Thank you. Hardouin 00:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please be aware that User:Grcampbell has again bypassed the mediation and unilaterally decided to split the List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris into one list for towers inside the City of Paris and another list for towers outside the City of Paris (which he left both inside the same article). If you don't stop this user there can be no trust in the current mediation. I am reverting his changes and remerging both lists as they existed at the start of the mediation. There's a great deal of chance that Grcampbell will revert me and separate the lists again? Can you check this? Thanks. Hardouin 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wahhhhhhhh! I haven't heard someone cry so much since I left the kids off this morning, I referenced the change on the mediation page!! --Bob 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
GofG, the mediation has again been bypassed today, this time by User:ThePromenader, who argues that La Défense and the 18 skyscrapers articles edited unilaterally by Grcampbell 2 days ago are not the subject of mediation and therefore can be edited at will. The problem is that the points that have been edited in these articles are precisely the language points that mediation is supposed to decide upon (whether "Paris" is used only for the City of Paris or more largely for the Paris urban area). These unilateral edits, which assume that "Paris" is used only for the City of Paris, are bypassing the mediation. I am once again reverting these articles to how they stood at the start of mediation, but there's little doubt that this will be reverted again either by ThePromenader or Grcampbell. Can you intervene? If you're too busy with other things, can you recommend another mediator to take care of this mediation? As things go at the moment, the mediator needs to intervene several times a day. Hardouin 14:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Pardon my French, but what the &$%^$& do the articles Hardouin is reverting have to do with our mediation case? None of the pages concerned are under mediation, or have even been indicated anywhere within! Since a year now this fellow will go to any lengths at all to "protect" what would seem, by his behaviour, to be "his" creations - but these last days have been simply astounding.
- By all means, GofG please do drop by - your objective view is greatly needed. THEPROMENADER 17:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 68.156.179.102
There was actually a 1 month block on this address issued on September 20. Check the block log when in doubt in future (get there via User contributions -> Block log). I've converted the remainder of that block to affect anonymous editors only so can you login and continue to edit at school. Next time, please follow the instructions given to you on your block page concerning {{unblock-auto}} to request the lifting of an autoblock. -- Netsnipe ► 19:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] thanks for the note
Actually, my user name is User:Noroton. This shows up only when I'm editing so furiously that I go off the Wikipedia site while on other sites and don't realize that I need to sign in again. Thanks for the compliment though!Noroton 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, your note came up on a User page I came to -- a user with a bunch of numbers for the name. I thought it was the user page created when I mistakenly start editing when I haven't signed on yet. Now I don't know whether it was or not, because I can't get my way back to the page. You would have sent the message pretty recently. It doesn't matter anyway.Noroton 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Howdy
Well, I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction :). If you need help, drop me a line at my talk page User talk:GofG or Lost's, as I see you've already spoke with him. Vale! GofG ||| Contribs 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed you have! I very much appreciate the courtesy and depth of attention that you have given me, and your encouragement. I have been away for some time, as life has accelerated here, so I wanted to let you know that I have both received the love (in the form of polite and specific answers to my questions) and do plan to recycle it responsibly within this community and elsewhere (I will go places :)), though my presence may be more sporadic than my enthusiasm. Thank you again. WeaselADAPT 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
