User talk:SpyMagician/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Reply from my talk page

I'm not sure what tags I am obsessively adding. I believe that I was actually asking Future Fun Jumper (TIC) to ease up on the tags needing references for almost every sentence. IrishGuy talk 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Future Fun Jumper (TIC) is an idiot. He's been busted and now he's taken to "moving" his "talk" page to an "artchive" undoubtedly to make sure others don't see what he's done in the past. Pathetic and very much not in the spirit of the Wiki. SpyMagician 09:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(reposted here from my talk page) Wow. OK. SpyMagician, calling someone and idiot is a violation of WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK. If you are Jack Szwergold, FFJ is correct, you really shouldn't be editing that article per WP:COI. FFJ isn't hiding his talk page by archiving it as long as he has a link to the archived page. Now, all that being said, FFJ, you probably could ease up a little on being so black and white about some of the notability guidelines. At bare minimum, a little discussion on the article's talk pages before adding numerous tags might be helpful to other editors. But seriously, guys this fighting isn't helping anything. IrishGuy talk 21:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you Jack Szwergold?

If you are Jack Szwergold, please do not remove the {{Notable Wikipedian}} template from your article's talk page; you should be open and honest about any conflicts of interest you have, and removing this template does not give that impression. In fact, please try not to edit articles involving you or the Onion. I don't know what your relationship with Maria Schneider is, but I am not sure how NPOV this edit is. If you have any questions or comments about this, I am available to help you with this. Incidentally, I really liked the work you did on the Onion site, and I agree with your opinion that the Onion got caught up a little in being relevant after 9/11. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mommy's sweater

[Repinted from User talk:ChrisGriswold]

"The red sweater, knitted by his late mother, was donated to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History by Fred Rogers on Nov. 20, 1984."[1] This fact was discovered within a 2 second Google search for 'Fred Rogers Sweater'. Rather than simply smack down users—and discouraging contributions—can you set a good example by at least attempting to be constructive? --SpyMagician 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, man. Is this how you respond every time someone criticizes you? You seriously looked for some way to turn the tables on me?
Look, I have seen the way you follow Future Whatever around from article to article, and it doesn't look good. Drop it and move on. You shouldn't have been editing articles related to you. You might not agree with what the user is doing, but it looks to me like he's found agreement on a large number of deletions, so it seems to me that what he's doing has been getting approval. So don't lecture me on discouraging contributions because I'm not stalking another user. Instead, I've actively made more than 20,000 constructive edits, and I watch articles like Mister Rogers for recurring vandalism and misinformed contributions. While I try to look into some, I don't have time to research every uncited claim editors add.
Plus, the only one I see "smacking someone down" is you, with your excessive criticisms of other editors' work, such as this one. I just make corrections civilly. And if you want to brag about how easy it is to find a citation for something, you should at least find something that supports the uncited claim. Take another look: The sweater in the Smithsonian was made by Rogers' mother, but it says nothing about the majority of them being made by her. Thanks for trying, even if it seems like you were just trying to make me look bad.
Please try to be more civil in dealing with other editors who are actually working on the encyclopedia and don't stalk other editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sweaters

According to imdb.com, many of the sweaters Fred wore on the show were made by his mother.

When writing on someone's talk page, please create a new section at the page's bottom and sign your name. As for your comment, the IMDb is not a credible source; it is a wiki, just like Wikipedia, which means that there is not a decent editorial process. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"The red sweater, knitted by his late mother, was donated to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History by Fred Rogers on Nov. 20, 1984."[2] This fact was discovered within a 2 second Google search for 'Fred Rogers Sweater'. Rather than simply smack down users—and discouraging contributions—can you set a good example by at least attempting to be constructive? --SpyMagician 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, man. Is this how you respond every time someone criticizes you? You seriously looked for some way to turn the tables on me?
Look, I have seen the way you follow Future Whatever around from article to article, and it doesn't look good. Drop it and move on. You shouldn't have been editing articles related to you. You might not agree with what the user is doing, but it looks to me like he's found agreement on a large number of deletions, so it seems to me that what he's doing has been getting approval. So don't lecture me on discouraging contributions because I'm not stalking another user. Instead, I've actively made more than 20,000 constructive edits, and I watch articles like Mister Rogers for recurring vandalism and misinformed contributions. While I try to look into some, I don't have time to research every uncited claim editors add.
Plus, the only one I see "smacking someone down" is you, with your excessive criticisms of other editors' work, such as this one. I just make corrections civilly. And if you want to brag about how easy it is to find a citation for something, you should at least find something that supports the uncited claim. Take another look: The sweater in the Smithsonian was made by Rogers' mother, but it says nothing about the majority of them being made by her. Thanks for trying, even if it seems like you were just trying to make me look bad.
Please try to be more civil in dealing with other editors who are actually working on the encyclopedia and don't stalk other editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Chris, the comments on this page responding to your edits speaks volumes towards how people feel about your work. It seems to me like you're taking this all too personally. And in the case of the Fred Rogers sweater, your reaction in response to overwhelming valid evidence—such as the Smithsonian Institution—is baffling. I wasn't looking for anything, but rather saw a reference to Fred Rogers, am a fan of his work, and was baffled by your response and the lack of a constructive citation on the story. Is there some particular reason you seem so happy to dish it out, but not take it? The big comfort I have in my favor is despite whatever petty issues you have with me on Wikipedia, I know for a solid fact I've contributed a lot more to the real world of comedy than you have done. Please continue to delete and harass other comedy and improv listings on Wiki to your heart's content and claim supposed COI on things you barely know about. Can anyone claim COI in your loving stewardship of the questionable Friday Nite Improvs page? Or will merely thinking that invoke your abusive wrath? I've been involved in comedy for quite a while, but have never heard of them before. Please continue to claim thousands of edits as a statement of validity to your judgement, because we all know that that quantity trumps quality every day, right? --SpyMagician 03:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know why you want to continue this. I have seen your harassment of other editors, and I would appreciate not receiving the same. The difference between some improv group articles and others is that some have been written about and others have not. Yes, the Friday Nite Improvs article was a conflict of interest. It was the first thing I edited on Wikipedia, much like the vanity articles many editors create when they first edit here. But I read WP:COI and then focused on making sure the article is NPOV and backing it up with claims. Additionally, I edit with my own name, so I am upfront about any such conflicts of interest. The article has been brought up for deletion before, and it has survived because it is emblematic of Pittsburgh improv.
Your statements about your contributions to the world of comedy vs. mine were unnecessary and inappropriate. Please take a look at your behavior on Wikipedia and question whether it is constructive or needlessly harsh.
As for the comment about quantity vs. quality, Nobody gets to 20,000 edits if they're making bad edits. Additionally, they don't become an administrator, which, admittedly, is not a big deal, but it means I get more whining on my talk page than a regular user because I have to make some decisions that will make people unhappy. So that's really not a good indicator of the quality of my edits.
I believe this whole conversation started with me asking you politely to be open about conflicts of interest and complimenting you on your work on the Onion. How does that come to this? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you reread my explanation as to why I didn't answer to begin with. And don't you mean, "Why don't I bow down to your 20,000 edits and realize your view is more valid than mine?" And after you do that, please look over the words you write to others—and the violent edits you make—and take a step back and realize that your behavior often-times warrants this response. And happily in the case of the Fred Rogers' sweater nonsense, your petty decision to smack down my edit was revereted by another editor less than 30 minutes later with even more proof of the claim. I would still like to know why you are so violent in your edits of practically any other comedy entry on Wikipedia but barely cast half the doubt you do on Friday Nite Improvs. Even with the level of citations that article has, it still doesn't explain why similar articles get the stink-eye from you while you allow the page you have a clear COI on to thrive. It's very clearly a COI. And as for your trite "I believe this whole conversation started with me asking you politely to be open about conflicts of interest and complimenting you on your work on the Onion.", again please realize your tone is very condescending and wreaks of smugness.
Please continue to edit Wikipedia and shape the articles in the way you see fit to do and violently lash out at anyone who dares to say anything against you. Also, I probably will never get 20,000 edits or admin status because I have this thing called a 'life'. Is that out of line to say that? Maybe. But perhaps Wiki editors like you who seem to be OCD in the level of edits you make should be a bit more accomodating towards others who contribute, but do not have any plans on going into the unpaid business of maintaining Wikipedia. It's a well known fact Wiki editors are frowned down upon nowadays because of their overzealousness over ridiculous topics and their constant air of suspicion. Welcome to the club Chris. --SpyMagician 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility + personal attacks

If you are going to edit at Wikipedia, at least try to mask your contempt and try to get along with other editors. I don't really need the grief yuou are giving me. I edit Wikipedia as a distraction, something to do while I am doing something else, and I think you are taking certain aspects of it way too seriously and personally while not fully understanding how the encyclopedia works. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If the 20,000 edits you're constantly bragging about are simply a "distraction" I'd seek some professional help now. Take care, chief. Your record stands for itself. --SpyMagician 06:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page blanking

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:SpyMagician. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Personal attacks may be removed. Do not remove conversations discussing your conflicts of interest, disputes with other editors, or incivility. This is Wikipedia's talk page, and it is here for the use of all editors. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

David O. Russell

Yeah, he's been known to be a bit of a nutbag on set. I like his movies, but the stories I've read about the Huckabees shoot are crazy. Pele Merengue 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Keep up trolling Chris Griswold, and you will be blocked from editing. He's already asked to be desysopped and can't be resysopped without going through RfA. I don't agree with what he did, but it's not your place to "punish" him or kick him while he's down. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for doing that if it offends you or goes against Wiki policy, but can you at least see my perspective of not logging in—or contributing for months—to Wikipedia based on the behavior of what I thought was two users and then login in find that both of them are the same person? I agree that kicking someone when they are down is bad, but considering the damage Chris Griswold did, I feel saying that I am 'trolling' him is a harsh assesment of what I said on his talk page. He's causes stress and contention for no good reason to dozens. And he's even been interviewed in the press as an example of a 'good' Wiki editor. And now this? I will not post again, but I hope there isn't a Wiki rule against me watching his behavior in the future. I'm sure others will as well. —SpyMagician 09:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course I wouldn't object to anyone keeping an eye in the future, and I would likely be one of them. But as it stands now, the ArbCom has already dealt with the situation, and the community has pretty clearly expressed its disapproval. People do make mistakes, and he made a pretty big one, but once those are dealt with, there comes a time to drop them and move along. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is Chris Griswold and Ned Scott taking off the {{sockpuppeteerproven}} template at the top of his user page? As far as I know, he has no justification. That's the WP:SOCK policy!!!--T-man, the wise 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's because of the same reason Chris Griswold used sock puppets as an admin; bad judgement and an abuse of power. I too think it's hypocritical and have placed requests with other admins informing them of this behavior. Ultimately I think people are giving him th 'benefit of the doubt'. But I think it's clear if he can't even 'wear' the tag he deserves, it shows he barely understands the depth of what he did and why it was unacceptable. —SpyMagician 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you help me by putting {{sockpuppeteerproven}} back at the top of his user page as indicated in WP:SOCK, reporting the issue to the notice board or whatever the formal procedure is?? That template might help prevent him from becoming an administrator again.--T-man, the wise 07:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I just gave you my full support in [3]. Keep me informed if you need any help in the matter.--T-man, the wise 08:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

Okay, why was T-man, the Wise Scarecrow blocked? I almost feel simply asking will cause issues, but I'm baffled at the gang-up that occured on his page when he simply came around to asking about tags on an ex-admins page. —SpyMagician 09:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I explained the block to T-man on his user talk page. --bainer (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand to an extent, but given the timing and way it was done—and the way this happened here [4] and [5]—I'm a bit baffled. Two wrongs make a right? Doesn't seem right that right in the middle of complaining about how an ex-admin refuses to have a tag placed on their page, his tag is removed and then replaced 15 minutes later and then blocked beyond that. —SpyMagician 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about those diffs. Daniel removed the tag in what I presume was an attempt to de-escalate the dispute. --bainer (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

templates

Thank you for your work vandal fighting. Please remember to substitute when using warning templates: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 03:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mariah Carey Edits

I was removing original research about Carey's vocal abilities/profile - surely that counts as "[contributing] constructively to our encyclopedia". Read the discussion on the talk page - some editors seem to think YouTube videos, concert mp3s, message board posts and their own opinions are reliable sources when they most certainly aren't. 80.0.72.76 18:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Due to your continued harassment of User:ChrisGriswold despite being warned numerous times about this behaviour, I have blocked your account for a period of 48 hours. When you return from your block, I seriously suggest you let the matter drop. Regards. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Baffling. I was never formally warned anywhere. And while there were heated discussions, nobody posted a personal comment about this. I will be contesting this. —SpyMagician 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
You may use {{unblock|your reason for unblock}} ~~~~ if you wish someone else to review the block. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm an involved party in that I've expressed my exasperation with SpyMaster's behavior on several pages (three threads on ANI, the talkpage of the checkuser case, my talk, and Bishonen's talk). I strongly deprecate the flamboyant and excessive vehemence of the user's language in some of his posts as well as the multiple efforts at forum-shopping. I am also disappointed that the reason for the block has been mischaracterized, just as I thought it would be. Having said all that, I would have no problem with unblocking given the user's representation that he accepts the decisions that have been made. Newyorkbrad 20:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I do not accept you reasons that this was an invalid block, but I admit it may have been punitive. I hope that you will let this matter drop immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Request handled by: Ryan Postlethwaite 20:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I've removed your autoblock as well, so if you weren't able to edit, you should be able to now. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Oasis members

My advise to you is not to contribute to articles, before you get some faint idea of what the article is all about. Otherwise it looks like shit.

Regards: Painbearer 08:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Please don't make comments like this. I went out of my way to assist in getting you unblocked but your unblock hinged upon you leaving Chris alone. You know that I agree with the substance of your argument...but the more you engage him, the more likely it is that another admin will block you for trolling. Please just accept that he has been de-sysoped and leave it be. If you would like to discuss it more, feel free to contact me. But honestly, you should just let it go. IrishGuy talk 09:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know that comment was teetering on 'pushing it' but the ANI was hinged on an outright lie. And I just didn't feel I should let that pass. I'm gone as far as commenting on the issue ever again, but I will be around editing and doing other positive things on Wikipedia. Thanks. SpyMagician 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism, but please do not forget to issue warnings

Hello. I'm in agreement with the recent revert you made to Virgin Radio Airplay Chart. You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce

I see you've managed to get a discussion kept on BS's talk page, as an editor he does one thing, and that is blank with out warning, citing Wales and BLP are his two favourite things. Be cafeful he has na admin on side who lock up pages BS reverts. Darrenhusted 23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV report of 69.210.6.106

Thanks for reporting 69.210.6.106 (talk · contribs) to WP:AIV, they have been blocked. In the future, please use the standardized reporting format

*{{ipvandal|aa.bb.cc.dd}} ~~~~

as it makes it easier to check your report. —dgiestc 07:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page - twice! Much appreciated :) – Rianaऋ 10:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


The odd edit to KRIV

Thanks for catching this one. An indefblocked/community-banned user, Mmbabies, is IP surfing to avoid his block and continues to make nonsense edits to Houston TV stations, among others. -- Gridlock Joe 03:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Re: FYI

Thanks for the heads up. I'm still debating if it's worth getting the page I created for Secret Pants unlocked or not. I can't stand battling elitists.Thedanberg 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I did, actually. I used the stuff the troupe had listed on this page: http://www.secretpants.net/press.html They told me these were unreliable and deleted most of them from the original page I had created. Also, when I had presented this to the user who enforced the deletion, I was ignored.Thedanberg 04:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

James Weldon Johnson

Hey! Thanks for your additions to this article! - I just noticed that some IP deleted most of them, giving no reason at all. Which is why I just reverted the article to your version. Keep up the good work. --Albrecht Conz 01:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks but I never actually added anything to the James Weldon Johnson article. What I did was revert blankings someone else did while checking for recent changes on the site. --SpyMagician 02:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Regarding edits made during June 26, 2007 (UTC) to Shabbaton

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 17:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)