See Archive 1 for April-July.

August

Ban request

Plz ban User:Omgwtf for being a furfag vandal. Totensiediefurfag 17:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, if you say so. Totensiediefurfag 20:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see why now. Totensiediefurfag 20:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

underage users?

Why would they even be allowed on here? You'd think you'd ban them or something eh? As for posting CP, does the 2d fictional loli type stuff count? Ty 08:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it's illegal in most parts of the civilized world. I would feel more comfortable if we didn't host it, and DEFINITELY not anything hard core. --zaiger (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. To answer your first question, we don't allow anyone under 13 years of age here. This is in accordance with COPPA. If bans are necessary to keep 12-years-old's off this website, then that's what we'll have to do. --JuniusThaddeus 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm okay, but even if they can edit, is it right to give minors positions of authority when they're going to pick fights about baw about it later? ^Ty

_Talk 02:07, 3 September 2011 (CEST)

Not hosting it means we can't do shit like showing Bart fucking Lisa, not to mention our current depictions of things that are awwright. I mean, that's pretty much the gold standard of what offends people. ^Ty

_Talk 02:07, 3 September 2011 (CEST)

sup

good to see you here. of course, youre on every wiki ever. :D -hipcrime 20:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No contents

I'd like to ask you to check on this page, I wrote it myself and a few others, but anyone else who tries to access it says the page is entirely empty of text. Thanks. --CastleBravo 12:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that ED users have no trouble seeing it, but those who do not have an ED account can't see any text, the page just says the article has no text in it. It's weird, normally I use Opera and I'm always logged on here, so I can see it just fine, but when I accessed the page via IE, it gave me the same thing. It's very weird, and I remember having similar problems when I edited the Half-Life article. --CastleBravo 12:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't help much, after I purge it takes me to the latest revision, but after I go away and go back directly it keeps on giving out the same thing. --CastleBravo 13:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time anyway, hopefully it'll resolve itself over time. --CastleBravo 15:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

zomg halp

I'm glad I caught you while you were on. this faggot has been piping in a link to a gay website on every article he can find. Is there any way to do one mass rollback? TylerRosenow º Ӕ talk º ✉ 12:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikichan articles

Would full protection be a good idea? Seeing as they really need not be edited. 13:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes. The reason being many NORPfags like myself have no idea that's what they're supposed to be, and see it, instead, as a poorly written ED article. TylerRosenow º Ӕ talk º ✉ 13:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
To add to that, perhaps a template, like "This is a series on WikiChan" or something, instead of that small, easy-to-miss category. TylerRosenow º Ӕ talk º ✉ 13:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea

13:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do later when I have the time. Should we also make a Wikichan template? 16:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

How is this?

23:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

^ Short, sweet, and to the point. TylerRosenow º Ӕ talk º ✉ 23:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It works for now but I just restored articles at random, template may need adding to in the future. ^Ty

_Talk 07:40, 27 August 2011 (CEST)

Re: Thanking Me

You're welcome. TylerRosenow º Ӕ talk º ✉ 00:49, 27 August 2011 (CEST)

lolololol JK, I wish everyone were as robotic as you, JT. Your wiki addiction makes you cute. TylerRosenow º Ӕ talk º ✉ 00:49, 27 August 2011 (CEST)

Community?

No idea what you're referring to (I'm on IRC if you want to come explain), but what about what Meep added Aug4 and what Armucat added Aug5? Clearly also underage images. Considering the DA is linked people could go and see that stuff on their own. It's actually more creepy that someone linked a facebook image, tbh. Anyway, that doesn't explain the loli sketch removal which wasn't a real person. At least you left the furry stuff though, that's what the majority of the work went into archiving. ^Ty_Talk 07:40, 27 August 2011 (CEST)

Edits should be judged by the edits themselves and not who makes them. Pictures of children being hosted here is alarming regardless of who adds them. I think it's pretty much the fact that articles like the one in question are in and of themselves alarming. Even if contributors lack notoriety, people will make assumptions about anonymous editors' motivations or the use to which articles could be put.
The point I'm trying to make here: I think we should take down the other 2 real images too. More recent images are more potentially dangerous to people's lives than old pictures because old pictures just aren't as relevant. For example I'd be a lot more at risk of harm posting a picture of how I look today than posting one of how I looked at 13. As for the 2 I added: they were hosted on DeviantArt and the article links to it. So ED is still providing access to that information, unless she takes them down as a result of this, in which case, I've done a service in bringing awareness to the importance of privacy, and I didn't even have to fap to anything.
As far as the labels go, I don't view myself as an advocate, nor you as some enabler. Fact is, I've never called myself a pedophile and have read enough about it to know I don't fit the diagnostic criteria. Any newspaper that decided to call me any of the prior things would be at risk of a libel suit. It's too bad certain Wikipedia moderators don't have enough cash to make that worthwhile. ^Ty_Talk 03:58, 28 August 2011 (CEST)

Hey

Can you please get Tyciol to leave me alone? I've got better things to do than deal with his harassment. Equivamp^talk^{(Troll me here)} 06:09, 28 August 2011 (CEST)

In fact I'd appreciate it if he could not edit Equivamp anymore.

Equivamp^talk^{(Troll me here)} 06:10, 28 August 2011 (CEST)

Thank you. ^^

Equivamp^talk^{(Troll me here)} 17:07, 28 August 2011 (CEST)

Lol this is funny since she initiated the harassment. I won't post on her talk page if she quits leaving me messages and talking about me on other user pages. Basically what I've been doing on here is simply replying. As far as her article, have I done much besides add more images of the fursonas? That was all I could think of contributing anyway. If I get the inclination in the future to make further changes I'll run them past you first to get permission, though I don't think it'd come up. ^Ty_Talk 20:56, 28 August 2011 (CEST)

September

Re: TGcomix

I did think it was pretty ironic that he was in support of someone like Ty lol. Equivamp^talk 04:20, 12 September 2011 (CEST)

Dude, this is the lamest arch-enemyship I have ever seen. Anyway I don't like the idea of being used as a tool, that guy's kinda entertaining (have spoken with him before on HF). I don't understand his interest in writing an article about EV though. I think you're a lamefag for nominating ANY image for deletion on the Commons though, that place should be full of everything. Same for chasing people off a wiki, though I'm not sure about his editing history, if he was vandalizing or something then yeah that's fine.
I actually wasn't even monitoring my wikifur account so would not have seen the link to his new wiki if not for your pointing it out on EV's talk. I don't in particular have any interest in building that, but I do tend to dip my pen on every page. I'll stick to the standard cursory 'removing space that nobody can see except in source' type of thing regarding that until I get feedback about what she'd like. I don't particularly like people who make articles about people with an intent to victimize them as both ED and TW seem to do, just sayin'. ^Ty-c_Talk 05:27, 15 September 2011 (CEST)

His promotional images are generally hilarious, so while I might not risk an account's reputation by trying to impede the deletion of his stuff, I wouldn't be motivated to initiate or support the proceedings either. After reviewing his wiki and having some fun editing it, I see your point about the low quality of his articles and how he's using them for grudges, so I agree with you on that point. I've said as much in the edit summaries there and I hope he can take the criticism constructively and improve as a result of it. I expect he feels singled out and upset and wishes to lash out, it's a feeling I understand though I haven't acted on it to the petty degree I witnessed there. I think feedback could potentially be taken more positively coming from someone who admires his artwork? I dunno. I do appreciate the warning, I doubt I can remain uninvolved in this, but I plan to be a critic and supporter of all sides whenever justice demands it. "You know they're all about Justice." -Rob from YJ. ^Ty-c

_Talk 07:28, 19 September 2011 (CEST)

File got broken after recent down

This file got broken when after recently ED got down. Any clue on how to retrieve it? What's bad is that I have no idea how this image looked like, google cache didn't save it either. Cirnofag 14:30, 12 September 2011 (CEST)

an apology

Hi, it's me Drmusic2.

I'd just like to say i'm sorry for the way I have been acting, it was so wrong of me to try and vandalize other people's pages and to complain about my own article.

I really should have just ignored you guys in the first place, that would have been the right thing to do.

What i am trying to say is that...I'm sorry. user:darklatenightking 03:58, 15 September 2011 (CEST)

RE:

I have tried signing up six times over the past few years and got rejected every time but now ;_;

Oh well, lol at least I finally got approved. 01:31, 23 September 2011 (CEST)

we have butthurt

Man the bancannons! - Vinland 14:08, 27 September 2011 (CEST)

October

Some html halp

I'm trying to modify the Perez Hilton#More and more article section so that the pedobear .gif appears over the text, and I haven't had any success using <div style="position:fixed;left:0;top:0"> All I can do is have it follow the scrollbar, and I want it to stay in place in that section. I've tried removing the "fixed" thing in there, but that just seems to null the whole thing. This is html, right? I'm not terribly good with computers. Thanks for any help you might provide.---brxbrx 15:44, 1 October 2011 (CEST)

That sorta works, but now any value other than zero is ignored.--

-brxbrx 17:55, 1 October 2011 (CEST)

Thanks, I got it now. Looks great!--

-brxbrx 15:44, 2 October 2011 (CEST)

EDitor

Danke ser. ◔ᴗ◔ 09:52, 17 October 2011 (CEST)

Hey

There is now a TrikiWiki.org article, I'll let you decide if it stays. 02:42, 24 October 2011 (CEST)

The pedo scum revision is quite funny, and I don't know if you already know, but TG runs this.

03:52, 25 October 2011 (CEST)

Well, I think we already know that he's not the type to just let things go :p

14:50, 25 October 2011 (CEST)

I find the notability of that site pretty questionable, but perhaps he'd cheer up if he got more of the attention he seems to want. ^Ty-c

_al 07:16, 29 October 2011 (CEST)

Here's my reply to Meepsheep if you had missed it. --JuniusThaddeus 20:06, 29 October 2011 (CEST)

Wikipedia review

This goes out to both you Junius/Michael and Meep, firstly thank you for asking pertinent questions on the thread you linked to and also asking for and confirming my inquiry. Secondly, please whenever possible if it appeals to you, feel free to remind the staff of WR (I think name is AntiCabal, that's the e-mail they list for contact) that they a cowardly faggots for not allowing me to post on their forums, seeing as how I had a membership, and was blocked while not actually breaking any rules. Just to poke at their egos, I basically see that as a sort of fear, one they manage via censorship of rebuttals from competents they target. I expect they only allow feedback from people they are confident they can out-argue. ^Ty-c_al 07:16, 29 October 2011 (CEST)

thx bro

<3 H64 20:48, 30 October 2011 (CET)

template:saranwrap

hi junius: several weeks ago, i recreated template:saranwrap, more or less from memory i think. an editor has expressed a concern about the template. would you plz have a look at the template, and make any corrections? you might need to use keyboard shortcuts to edit it, but frankly i have no idea what the concerned editor expects, nor what problem s/he has with it. thanks JT. -hipcrime 02:52, 31 October 2011 (CET)

many thanks bro. -hipcrime

04:21, 1 November 2011 (CET)

November

Editor thinghy

Thanks, but I believe I can not fit the role - I may have the time to pop in here once in a while (I have not logged in here for more than three months) but I can not guarantee a continuous presence (e.g. maintaining a section-portal-anything); also I do have very different “editorial” (let's call it this way) approaches in non-wikis, policies probably ought to be different. Since I cannot share what e.g. zaiger or equi-"hurr I'm a furry hoarse"-vamp left on h64 talk page, I assume that I'd have incompatible "moods" (e.g. I would possibly roll-back, possibly lock a page that is targeted by a new user, and immediately fill user's page with kittens. "First rape (to the greatest possible sadistic extent), then talk". I saw great patience and mediation techniques instead, for example I saw Mu patiently attempt to dialogue with a vandal. He did a great job, but I'd have behaved differently).

I cannot criticize and I do not want to criticize, I'm sure that it's the best way to run a wiki and this wiki specifically, and I'll continue to support at the best I can - I hate those red links. If (Talk) 10:27, 9 November 2011 (CET)

RE:Country articles

Done Esther❥Nguyen 02:45, 17 November 2011 (CET)

Global block policy

Wow, it seems like ages ago I dealt with that. It's certainly just like Wikipedia/media to actually come up for policies to regulate and retroactively justify their actions years after doing them on a whim. Naturally they'll try to pretend that they had such policies from the beginning and gave everyone a fair hearing, which is their fiction. Based on what I'm reading, "Global bans reflect a general community consensus" is also a feel-good lie. Consensus is something we really should make a page on for all the bullshit it represents. Clearly these actions are the results of decisions of people obsessed with infrastructure to promote their own ideals, which involves banning people they dislike and constructing policies and supporting fictions to support that.

"Global bans are exclusively applied where multiple independent communities have previously elected to ban a user for a pattern of abuse." Is something that does not apply to me (it may to Meep) though they will argue that it does. I did not abuse any of the projects I was a member of. I obeyed the rules, made edits in good faith, and was very constructive. In all cases, my independent blocks from multiple projects are a result of first getting blocked on Wikipedia, and then people using sites like Wikipedia Review or canvassing other projects (Wikimedia Commons, Wikiversity, the Simples) to attack me as a reaction to that. Not a single ban was a response to my actual edits, simply here-say about my character and motivations.

"clear documentation of the reasons for banning should be available" is something they will all avoid acknowledging they have broken their new rule by not providing documentation of reasons. This can be seen on the wikipedia blog log, postlethwaite's initial BS reason is now "(edit summary removed)" thanks to the ArbCom. All subsequent ban modifications only state the terms and not any reason in the summary.

"bans must be the result of a community discussion process (e.g., consensus among administrators on a noticeboard, a request for comment, arbitration etc)." is something they have added enough weasel words to for it to be justified for me. My bans were not actually based on community consensi, but rather individuals or private cabals. I was not open to public discussion on noticeboards or request for comment, and the only admins who got a say were ArbCom elects. They added "arbitration" in there though, so they can dishonestly imply that the ArbCom counts as a 'community' rather than a secretive board that lacks accountability.

"A user has been informed about appropriate behaviors. These projects need to have demonstrated a good faith attempt to explain acceptable practices and behaviors that are consistent with their mission and scope. This criterion is to ensure users reasonably know what is expected and have had ample opportunity to appropriately address concerns." is of course bullshit in regards to me. Not only is my ban not a result of any behaviours, but I was given no warnings or chance to discuss this.

"A user has demonstrated a current pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam." Is totally not me since I've never been shown in any of my edits to be abusing wikiprojects.

I do not fit any of the 4 'past reasons for requesting a global ban'. I have not harassed/threatened anyone (though they might weasel and say I harass ArbCom because I send their mailing list an e-mail every couple of months or so, usually when I see someone new on the Ban Appeals Committee, asking they review my case and summarize my reasons for being blocked). I have not done fraud or ID theft. I never had CheckUser or Oversight so could not abuse that, nor would I. I have not violated a privacy policy. I do not think I've violated any policies, but I will not underestimate their creativity.

I do not fulfill the "Consensus for a global ban is conducted through the requests for comment process on Meta." criteria. I was globally banned by a single moderator who no longer even has an account. There was no discussion or consensus achieved. I did bring it to the RfC but did not get a consensus to remove the ban, but that's a guilty until proven innocent approach.

So basically, the guidelines seem okay, but seeing as how I have been censored, I don't think anyone will speak up for and rescind my global lock. Furthermore, these policies do not seem to affect the frivalous ways moderators on individual projects can ban people, so all it would do is let me continue to edit on the few projects I am not banned from. However, I could at least regain the ability to converse on the main site where I appealed my lock, and communicate people who could request reviews of my blocks on other projects.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, though I do not know what I can do with it. I am no longer able to edit Meta.Wikimedia anymore. Kylu is gone, he's the guy who banned me and the guy I was e-mailing to convey my messages. He had this thickheaded stance that he wouldn't reverse his own lock even though it was groundless.

I don't suppose you'd open up a request for comment, JT? Basically point out that in regards to this new policy, there was never a RfC consensus to institute my lock, so Kylu's lock should be rescinded? If so, I think a direct appeal to the Stewards here would be cool. Basically reason is "there was never consensus". You can see on the talk page I linked to, the first consensus was NOT to lock me. ^Ty-c_al 06:57, 19 November 2011 (CET)

Can you flush these files?

Please, flush all the unused files [of here], the 98% percent of that files are unused and retarded crap. They were linked to Category:Race Mixing, meepsheep flushed that category for well uhm...useless shit. 卐卐卐 17:02, 27 November 2011 (CET)

December

I'm offended

Just noticed this. I feel left out :( Based on the FAQ you need at least five threads about you to qualify. I found:

Besides those, there have been been frequent mentions in other threads, over 2 pages when searched from the main directory.

I think Ottava might also qualify (example 1, 2). That guy has caused enough drama we really should have an ED on him, any idea where to start? [^Ty-c_al 15:51, 3 December 2011 (CET)

Alrighty, I went through everything I searched and posted some of the juicier quotes (naturally out of context to be more entertaining), could that do something? Also I did not know about that 'upright' tag for thumbnail photos, I should try and remember it. Is there somewhere that explains how it works? ^Ty-c_al 18:46, 3 December 2011 (CET)

Girlfriend

My memory's bad, was MDS you? If so, please steal CMLItC's girlfriend, because he is a douchebag. ^Ty-c_al 18:34, 6 December 2011 (CET)

Also are you on IRC often? ^Ty-c_al 19:07, 6 December 2011 (CET)

Yes, mostly regarding some edits I regard as vandalism on Wikipedia. He's quitting this month so there's another open seat for his girlfriend. She seems pleasant enough, but based on the negative impression I have of him, I must view negatively anyone who would choose to continue a relationship with'm. Stealing things also takes work too... anywho do you use Pidgin? ^Ty-c_al 20:20, 6 December 2011 (CET)

Jimbo and Rachel Marsden

I noticed you uploaded that pic of their chat. I saw File:Jimmy new boat.png in TJC and was thinking, do you think that would be cool to make something like that for his sex plane? Also I am wondering if you could review Apps changes and tell me if you think the conflict of interest (Cav's girlfriend running for a position he abandoned due to conflict of interest with his new job) is similar to that between Jimbo using his editing powers to protect his girlfriend's article from the media? ^Ty-c_al

Waifu

Quitter! Clearly you've never heard of infidelity! Anyway, that only enhances the conflict of interest here doesn't it? ^Ty-c_al 01:12, 17 December 2011 (CET)

Election

Unfortunately it looks like the Cabal members re-running got their seats back. Risker/Roger in particular are people who shouldn't be in office due to being among those actively abusing their powers by my observation, though all incumbent ArbCom members who received and ignored my complaints are at least guilty of negligence. People should move to put term limitations like America has on its presidency. Considering how few people end up voting in these elections, the fact these guys can easily ban people who might vote for their competition or oppose their election is very critical. For example, even if I'm barred from editing, since I am not a vandal and edited constructively, I should've been able to vote in this election. Obviously one vote would not have been enough to change the result, but I doubt I'm the only person who has been a victim of ArbCom power abuse.

These people clearly have cart-blanche to ban whoever they like with "contact arb com" put in place of a valid reason supporting them. They can use this so remove the voting abilities of any who might disagree with their actions, and cement their powers indefinitely. Elections clearly do not last long enough. Campaigning and voting should be a year-long event constantly brought to all Wikipedians' attention to foster more review of their actions and to give intermittant editors a chance to vote and review those running. What do you think of these ideas? I doubt I'm the first to think of them, these seem common-sense enough that they must have been proposed by someone on Wikipedia already. ^Ty-c_al 18:54, 20 December 2011 (CET)

Maja Schmidt

hi. i went ahead and undid my addition. <3 -hipcrime 00:58, 12 December 2011 (CET)

Oh thank you

You restored the map, ty. ☭☭☭ 04:02, 14 December 2011 (CET)

thanxz

.. for the clarification. it seemed odd at the time. :) -hipcrime 14:32, 17 December 2011 (CET)

Ohai

HEY THERE!
Hey, JuniusThaddeus/Archive2! I saw what you did with unprotecting and deleting and other shit.
I just wanted to say keep up the good work.

TKN 21:31, 17 December 2011 (CET)

Digitilsoul redirect

hi JT... that redirect was blanked while the article was still absent. fortunately it was restored, but the redirect was overlooked. -hipcrime 03:19, 27 December 2011 (CET)

any time. -hipcrime 05:05, 27 December 2011 (CET)

IRC

I was wondering, I'm familiar with the Freenode network, but would you happen to know if Wikipedia Review has any IRC chatrooms? I would like to converse with the members and ask them why they're so afraid of letting me talk on their forums. Short of that, all I can think is to hang out on ED IRC and I know I'm annoying there. ^Ty-c_al 23:43, 27 December 2011 (CET)

You are invited to be a participant in the Wikimedia Revue. You seem more in the know about who would be interesting folks. I was wondering if you could invite any ED guys on WikipRevi to chat on WikimRevu? I'm trying to think of some good issues to get the subforum rolling, unfortunately my perspective is pretty narrow and I don't want to initiate it with personal drama if that's avoidable (though is eventually a major thing I want to bring up). ^Ty-c_al 23:27, 28 December 2011 (CET)

I think topic 35970 might be private and only visible to people who are logged in. ^Ty-c

_al 07:48, 30 December 2011 (CET)

User talk:JuniusThaddeus/Archive2