User:Shoessss/Archive Aug 2007
"black child is a nigga" - You spelt 'nigger' wrong and you made a racist personal attack on someone. As you know, this is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please take your racism elsewhere and contribute positively to Wikipedia. Thankyou. ScarianTalk 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa there Scarian, did you look at the edit history involved or just jump the gun here. To point you to the facts; first I reverted the edit when I realized that this was not vandalism as noted here [1]. Second, after I reverted my edits I “Apologized” to the editor involved as noted here [2]. Before accusing another editor of racism best get your facts straight by reviewing the edit histories involved and look at the individuals edit history you are accusing of this, as per Wikipedia policy before make this type of allegation. Thank you. Shoessss | Chat 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, my apologies, it may not have been you that put the racism there in the first place, but you did put it back in saying: "this is not vand." What the hell is that? You put the "black child is a nigger" back into the article. Why? Apart from not being written properly, what purpose and context does it serve? This is the change that you made, putting the said quote BACK into the article [3]. And this is the edit comparison of User:The-G-Unit-Boss removing the vandalism [4]. You want to explain this to me? 'Cause I'll be honest with you, I'm pretty darned stumped as to why an established user would call a random racist quote "...not vand." ScarianTalk 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- First of all my apologies Scarian I should not have come off as having the higher ground. In re-reading the edits made, I too jumped the gun! Yes, you are right, in that my reverts do come across as racism, and sorry to say I now have to explain why. As you noted, my first revert would have been appropriate in that it eliminated the sentence in question and if you look at the edit history on the page of 72.53.69.26 as posted here [5], you will notice I gave him/her a final warning for the edit. However, something made me rethink the warning and the post and I went back and reviewed the article. Sorry to say the category just under the area I edited was the paragraph on DJ Khaled and to be honest, thought his/her edit was an explanation on the term nigga. Thus, I reverted my original edit as non-vand . Hope this explains what happened. Again my sincere apologies. Shoessss | Chat 01:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, my apologies, it may not have been you that put the racism there in the first place, but you did put it back in saying: "this is not vand." What the hell is that? You put the "black child is a nigger" back into the article. Why? Apart from not being written properly, what purpose and context does it serve? This is the change that you made, putting the said quote BACK into the article [3]. And this is the edit comparison of User:The-G-Unit-Boss removing the vandalism [4]. You want to explain this to me? 'Cause I'll be honest with you, I'm pretty darned stumped as to why an established user would call a random racist quote "...not vand." ScarianTalk 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Buddy, no worries mate. Apologies also for my angry reply. It just seemed totally strange that this had occured. But don't worry, it's all over now. Have a good day. Take care. Pat. ScarianTalk 02:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding User:JoshEdgar
[edit]I noticed you recently revered User:JoshEdgar's user page to a version edited by User:24.126.26.172. If I may inquire -- how did you verify that they were the same person? Thanks! Ratiocinate (t • c) 02:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind; User:JoshEdgar logged in. Cheers! Ratiocinate (t • c) 02:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Ratiocinate (t • c) I came across this situation by accident when on vandal petrol. After following up on the reverts and discussion page edits, involving more than a few people I realized, and yes I did and IP check, they where one in the same. However, I do agree with you, they should have logged in! Hope this explains the situation. Shoessss | Chat 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- At least you're rationale and make sense. Ratiocinate couldn't admin for Wiki to save his life. JoshEdgar 02:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Ratiocinate (t • c) I came across this situation by accident when on vandal petrol. After following up on the reverts and discussion page edits, involving more than a few people I realized, and yes I did and IP check, they where one in the same. However, I do agree with you, they should have logged in! Hope this explains the situation. Shoessss | Chat 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind; User:JoshEdgar logged in. Cheers! Ratiocinate (t • c) 02:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Shoessss, did you see my messages on his talk page? I don't understand why he would attack me after I reverted my mistake and after I had apologised on his talk page. What a quandary! ScarianTalk 05:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I only saw his apology straight after I messaged you, apologies. Yes, he did seem to be having a bad day! hehe, take care. ScarianTalk 03:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Block
[edit]Sorry about that, but I blocked you briefly since I got the wrong entry on a history list when I was blocking a particularly nasty vandal. You should be unblocked now. Tim Vickers 01:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- LOL Tim Vickers. If this is the worst thing that happens to me in life, I’ll count myself lucky. No problems! Have a great day/night. Shoessss | Chat
Thanks for the message
[edit]There's still six days to go, like I said I will think about it. Of course I understand your perspective, but there's some things to be considered. Make sure you read up on the policies and guidlines a bit further. To toot my own horn, I have an essay available: User:Keegan/On administrators. I'll be in touch. Keegantalk 06:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
RfA closed
[edit]Hello, I've closed your request for adminship early as per the snow clause at (0/8/2) and it would not have succeeded, please dont let this discourage you from editing or trying again in later months and please try to take on board the constructive comments there; good luck :-). Ds.mt 10:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hey - better luck next time. I think it was your answer to Q4 that ruined you. Better luck next time around. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Siganture
[edit].. nice sig (cough cough) !!! Pedro | Chat 14:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- LOL I believe the saying; goes “…imitation is the highest form of flattery”. Please take it that way or if it does bother you, I have no problems changing. You did have it first :-). Have a great day. Shoessss | Chat 14:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Rachel Scott AfD
[edit]Hah. No worries. It's not that I felt abused, but it just seemed like people weren't actually reading what I was writing and that can be frustrating. Thanks for the note. -Chunky Rice 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Instamatic Karma Deletion
[edit]You put in for a deletion, I could understand it might be a premature listing however there is a website for the book so it should stay.
Anonymous editing
[edit]Shoessss, I'd like to apologize for my attitude a few evenings ago where I lost my temper at Wikipedians for simply doing their jobs and causing trouble here on WP. I was already a little upset and I lost my temper, which was wrong. Please accept my apology. JoshEdgar 21:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits to Race and crime
[edit]
This is your only warning.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Race and crime, you will be blocked from editing. Please use Articles for Deletion if you feel the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Race and crime
[edit]Hi there.
Nihonjoe made a valid closure, there was consensus that the topic was encyclopedic and should be cleaned up. You can renominate the article for deletion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (second nomination) if you feel its warranted. Keegantalk 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)