Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 29 January 2007

I'm fairly busy in the Real World at the moment. Expect delays here... or not. But it's my excuse anyway...

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.

If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here & I'll go take a look. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. If I've blocked you for 3RR this applies particularly strongly: your arguments for unblock, unless for some odd reason particularly sensitive, should be made in public, on your talk page. See-also WMC:3RR.

In the dim and distant past were... /The archives. As of about 2006/06, I don't archive, just remove. Thats cos I realised I never looked in the archives.

Atmospheric circulation pic

Thanks for the pic you added to this article. It's very interesting, and I am intrigued by some of the anomalies it shows. Denni☯ 01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Denni. Thanks! All part of my very very slow atmospheric dynamics project... more to come... slowly... William M. Connolley 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

RRS John Biscoe

I've justed created a stub for this article and found you'd already done the same for her successor, the James Clark Ross. Great!  Do you have (access to) a Commons/Wikipedia-compliant photo of the Biscoe that could be used? Apologies in advance if my search failed to turn one up.
Best wishes, David Kernow 15:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't; I'll ask around a bit William M. Connolley 17:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If no joy, or too much hassle, I'm hopeful one or other of the Antarctica websites with photos might give permission or adopt a Commons/Wikipedia-friendly licence. David Kernow 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Trend Estimation with Auto-Correlated Data

William: This article you started is a great topic! I am just wondering if you have detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am facing this problem now, and am trying to get information from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, IMHO what to do with auto-correlated data is an ongoing research topic. Top tip: divide the ndof by something like (1+ac1) (or is it ac1^2...) if the autocorr isn't too extreme. There is some formula like (1+ac1^2+ac2^2+...) if its strongly auto-correlated... but... its a bit of a mess, I think. Err, thats why I never expanded that bit. The von Zstorch and Zwiers book covers it, somewhat. William M. Connolley 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to autoregressive moving average models JQ 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Linda Hall editor

User:204.56.7.1 has been blocked four times in the last month for 3RR (once by you). He is now performing wholsale reversions without comment (see at Radio ) This user as you probably know, has a long history of refusing to collaborate. He ignored my talk page request. Any suggestions? --Blainster 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that 204. is Reddi. Reddi is limited to 1R per week. Establishing the connection past doubt is difficult; but the edit patterns are very similar. You could post a WP:RFCU. Or you could just list 204. on the 3RR page together with the note of Reddis arbcomm parole and see if that does any good. Or maybe I'll just block it... shall I? Oh go on, yes I will... William M. Connolley 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My Reddimeter displays 8.5 on a scale from 0 to 10: Selection of topics. likes patents, likes templates. Only the tireless lamenting on article talk pages is missing. --Pjacobi 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Reddi apparently back

... with another sockpuppet KarlBunker 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there no stopping him? I've blocked that one; if he persists, will semi it William M. Connolley 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And to think

..I knew you when. Why didn't you mention this?

• KNOW IT ALL - Can Misplaced Pages conquer expertise? KillerChihuahua 16:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I did my best with them :-( William M. Connolley 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN3

• The few times that I've dabbled in WP:ANI/3RR, I've tried to be fair, but I universally get hit with a barrage of malcontents on my talk page and others that send me threatening e-mails. I don't know why you continue to take care of this for us, but thank you for doing so, as I know that I wouldn't be able to last more than a day at it. Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-) William M. Connolley 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Templeton Foundation

The Templeton Foundation used to provide grants for ID conferences and courses. According to The New York Times, Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, later asked ID proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Harper, and that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth."

I'd think that while individual members/beneficiaries of the Foundation's largess may embrace ID, the the Foundation itself is trying to distance itself from the ID movement, but keeping in mind that the Discovery Institute, the hub of the ID movement, actively tries to cultivate ambiguity around its own motives, actions and members with the aim of portraying ID as more substantial and more widely accepted than it actually is, as the Dover Trial ruling shows (it's worth reading). FeloniousMonk 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats interesting and useful William M. Connolley 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Improving the models

I find this to be a fascinating example of the improvement of weather models over time. Do you happen to know of any comparable quantitative metrics by which climate models can be seen to have improved over time? Dragons flight 07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice pic. The one I'm more used to seeing is the length-of-useful-forecast graph, which shows similar improvement. However... no I don't know comparable pics from climate models. The obvious problem would be that you can't do it year-on-year, climate models being far less frequent: the hadley center has arguably only had 3 model incarnations. They do have a "model index" which finds that hadgem1 is better than hadcm3, but I don't know if that was ever applied back to hadcm2, much less to other centres William M. Connolley 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

when you say 3 models, does that include or exclude improvements in spatial resolution as computing power has improved? Dragons flight 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant hadcm2, hadcm3 and hadgem1. There are others, but it could get complex. Do you want to include atmos-only models? Those are the "official" releases, sort of. There are various experiments with different spatial res, but its not clear if those were meant to be improvements... William M. Connolley 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well at the moment I am just sort of curious about what is being labeled a "model". I could see the term being used to refer to either a set of coupled differential equations (which might then be implemented on a variety of different grid sizes), or to a specific implementation on a specific grid size. Do you ever take your differential systems, and leaving them as is, try to increase the number of grid elements through the use of more powerful computers? Dragons flight 17:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. "GCM" means the full set of code, on the whole. Ie, big set of PDEs and params on top. But also, in general, it means a specific config and setup. "hadcm3" means a given code version, plus given ancils (e.g. land sea mask), plus a given resolution. You *can* run it at, say, higher rez; but there is no guarantee that its better. But yes, I know there were various projects with higher rez versions... the problem is that because of the about grid^3-4 dependency, you can't run much higher rez, if the model is anywhere close to state-of-the-art William M. Connolley 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider the edit below to be vandalism, exempt from 3RR?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Landmark_Education&curid=113183&diff=91946832&oldid=91916187 Sm1969 07:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Only marginally so, better dealt with by consensus of editors. Definitely not encyclopeadic, of course William M. Connolley 13:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

SPM

Can we give Summary for policymakers a decent burial? Or even an indecent one? Is there a protocol to follow, or can I just move the (very small amount of) useful information in the article somewhere else? It's been tagged for merger several months now. Raymond Arritt 04:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget what links to it...

Gack. Is there no automagic way of taking care of such things? Raymond Arritt 22:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you replaced it with a redirect to IPCC it would be transparent. I quite like the existence of a separate SPM page, myself William M. Connolley 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a comment on Mel Etitis' block

Doo dee doo

Hope that helps, William. Syrthiss 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - yes that helps. I should probably have put the comment up earlier, its good ot have 2nd and 3rd opinions in difficult cases William M. Connolley 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I've given you one before, but...

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For doing a task that makes me grind my teeth just thinking about it, this star is for you! Syrthiss 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks even more :-) William M. Connolley 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

)

Regarding my block due to violation of 3RR

Hey there. While I understand that I may have been in violation of 3RR, when there is a dispute over a page and socks are coming into play, doesn't 3RR become moot if sock edits are occurring?

No William M. Connolley 14:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I simply ask this because it just concerns me because it may vindicate this particular person. I can see that the individual did receive a block, but at the same time, I had no warnings against myself to discontinue and was reverting in more or less for motives that were not ill regard.

People get warnings if they might not know about 3RR. Clearly you did William M. Connolley 14:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The three hour block was minor and had no bearing on my editing (as I was asleep during the whole time), but I still cannot help but feel that it might have been unwarranted. Any comment? Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 13:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes: don't break 3RR and consider WP:1RR where possible William M. Connolley 14:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And removing blocks/warnings so quickly from your talk page is Bad Form William M. Connolley 14:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the block notice is on archive and the page was moved, so there is a record of somebody giving me the 3RR notice. I also thought that it was determined that if someone acknowledges the warning and message that it is deemed acceptable? Look, I am not here to argue per se, but I just wanted some clarification, as I spend more time removing vandal edits than anything else. I consider myself to be highly benign, so that is why I am feeling a bit sore over this. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a trail to your block; but its not one anyone will find unless looking for it. You should leave block messages, or reasonable warnings, up for a fair length of time - a few weeks at least. I appreciate that you don't think you merited a block, but you have one anyway William M. Connolley 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WMC, I agree with this (leaving warnings) but is it in a guideline anywhere? Someone asked me recently and I couldn't find it written. Thanks --BozMo talk 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is, but I dont know where. *Everyone* knows it... William M. Connolley 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is a clear guideline on this somewhere, I'll gladly return the notice to the page. I can assure you that it would be a very long time before another block would come my way if ever. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Baibars Revert war

Could you take a look at this, or give me some guidance on 3RR? It appears to be a pretty nasty and unfruitful revert war regarding "Christian massacre of Muslims" & vice versa, with several editors on both sides possibly violating 3RR just today. I'm not involved in the argument; I'm just not sure how to write this one up. Thanks for your assistance.-Robotam 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since at least one anon had shifting IP it seemed best to semi it. Using the new expiry feature, wow William M. Connolley 19:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. Thnx-Robotam 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: your question

On . As I have changed my user name, I'm also changing all links that direct to my old userpage. First of all in order to remove listing of my user's page from Google's cache, second - links are dead anyway, so redirecting them to new user name removes dead links. Is it a problem?--Bryndza 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That explains it. Editing old 3RR reports to swap users is suspicious, though. Or rather will *look* suspicious William M. Connolley 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Young and Strapping, I'm sure!

Well, I only answered based on CKeigher's story, hence my reccomendation to take a post-mortem to your talk page, to get a more balanced view. :-)

I guess the problem here is one person versus (possibly?) multiple socks. He could have indeed asked at least one other editor to come help him first. (Or have called in an admin.) You're quite right there.

On the gripping hand, if it was reported to you that there was a sockcheck requested against the other parties, it might have been a good idea to investigate first?

A 3 hour block is not a big deal I suppose. Was that based on the possibility that the other party was a group of socks?

--Kim Bruning 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Since the other party got 48h, based at least in part on the socks, I was fairly happy with the socks claim and indeed had investigated. I don't think there is a 3RR exception against socks (well the current policy definitely doesn't have one) presumably because there is no end to the revert war in that case. The socks need to be fixed first William M. Connolley 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what I am going to do about this (sorry, I watch any page I edit, so I am not stalking!) is that I am going to propose maybe a change in how 3RR is handled when you potential socks under investigation. Just to let you know, it was not directed at you, but more or less how 3RR is handled. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine. I was considering taking it to talk there myself, to get the situation clarified. I think you should; but I doubt you'll get what you want. In fact, I have just thought of a new argument: consider your best case, when the socks are positively identified. Which means as far as 3RR is concerned they count as one person. Fine: if the collection of socks breaks 3RR, they can be blocked as a whole. But that still doesn't give *you* the right to break 3RR: just as if you and one other person keep reverting endlessly, you both get blocked William M. Connolley 22:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hobbes

I thought it might be, so change it back by all means, but please keep the links...Andycjp 15:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored the language and left the links William M. Connolley 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Some help needed

Your name has previously surfaced in the Free Republic dispute. Some help and supervision, regarding the content dispute and incivility there, is desperately needed. Other admins who are more familiar with recent developments, having made the right call in getting me unblocked, have now recused themselves. Reported here and here on WP:ANI. Also reported here under .

The official finding of Unblock-en-l, found here, is that I am not a sockpuppet; and that I have been making good faith efforts to remove libelous material that exposes Misplaced Pages to civil liability. This is most definitely not a legal thtreat, but a pledge that I am only trying to prevent legal action. Can I get a little help here? There are a couple of people on my back and they won't get off. Dino 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked BB for 24h for incivility and warned FAAFA for same William M. Connolley 19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice re Dino

Thanks for the advice to 'drop' the investigation against Dino,

A good start

but

Oh dear a poor continuation. And anyway, my adivce was to close the matter of the sock accusations against Dino: this is now resolved in his favour

it's not in Misplaced Pages's best interest to do so. The site we're talking about has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....

The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire

More claims from this time period

And the owner of the site himself was so extreme that he threatened he would 'take up arms' and 'be ready for war' if Bush were elected, calling him a 'cokehead and a felon'. JimRob calls Bush cokehead and felon I have never added anything to the Free Republic article but documented claims from verifiable secondary sources. I will however wait until TJ Walker and American Politics Journal weigh in to verify or deny Dino's claims that TJ Walker admitted to him that he didn't write his July 06, 1999 article entitled 'Is FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com?' before persuing this "Dino' matter with more vigor, and I'll make sure not to break NPA or CIVIL. Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I note your intent to stay civil. Please be aware that repeatedly harping on this matter will count as a breach of same William M. Connolley 20:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that at least Mr Connelley: the brief block on one and a warning to the other. Perhaps they will modify their behavior; one can only hope. Fairness & Accuracy For All continues to defend libelous statements in the Free Republic article with a fanaticism not seen since Iwo Jima. His "documented claim from a verifiable secondary source" violates WP:BLP since the Free Republic article is, to a large extent, a biography of its founder: Jim Robinson, a living person. Maybe you'd like to take a look there as well.

Prior to mid-2001, Free Republic was not registered as a non-profit corporation. Under the law, it was a sole proprietorship. For that reason, libelous statements about FR in the period prior to mid-2001 were (and are) libelous statements about Robinson. The purported "TJ Walker" article in question was datelined in 1999. If he did write it, then it was self-published, which disqualifies it under WP:BLP. It was then republished at a partisan left-wing website called AmericanPolitics.com, which protected itself by using weasel words such as "TJ Walker claimed ..." This would also disqualify it under WP:BLP.

A few weeks ago, AmericanPolitics.com removed the article from its website and blanked the page because it was libelous. Undaunted, Fairness & Accuracy For All scoured the Internet and found an archived copy, and continued to claim that this is a "documented claim from a verifiable secondary source." This exposes Misplaced Pages (which claims NPOV) to civil liability ... even after a partisan left-wing website has been prudent enough to blank the page.

Robinson has already sued the City of Fresno for libel and won a $60,000 out of court settlement (and cost the city a small fortune in attorney's fees) for a press release that described Free Republic as a "hate group." Such litigious people must be handled with caution, not recklessness. Any mention of the libelous "TJ Walker" article must be eradicated from the article, as well as other articles that rely upon it (such as Salon) and all Misplaced Pages statements that rely on it.

Thanks for your kind attention to this matter; and I look forward to working with you to protect Misplaced Pages and make it a better resource. Dino 15:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Peak-coal-nonsense.JPG listed for deletion

If you created this media file and want to use it on Misplaced Pages, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Misplaced Pages, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

Regrettable, but OK. I thought just the tag was OK and forgot the rationale William M. Connolley 19:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User Blocks

John and Jaq (User:DashiKun and User:Miss Away) would like to know how to get their indefinite blocks removed. Although they rarely edit, they feel angry that they have been found guilty of sock puppetry without any recourse to prove their innocence. -Animesouth 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

One has 3 edits; one has 2; all to animesouth. One approach would be to throw away those accounts and get new ones. Another would be to stop *acting* like sockpuppets: ie, not simply blindly reverting your changes back in William M. Connolley 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The second option would probably work for them. Unfortunately, they cannot make any edits currently until their indefinite blocks are removed. -Animesouth 20:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Given the report just below, I'm not impressed William M. Connolley 21:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Animesouth is at it again

Animesouth has apparently not learned from the last time he was blocked as he immediately reverted List of anime conventions back to his version regardless of the existing consensus. --Farix (Talk) 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe that is grounds for a block. However, I believe that it is time that we take this through a dispute resolution process as it is apparent he is unwilling to cooperate. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

Sorry to bother you so soon after the last one, but he's at it again. Another BenBurch misrepresentation, virtually identical to one of the misrepresentations that led to his previous block, and just a couple of hours after that block expired.

Again, he's claiming that I've admitted to using a sockpuppet, when I've made no such admission.

Blocks are intended to protect Misplaced Pages from damage. I could be a constructive contributor to Misplaced Pages if I weren't forced to constantly respond to these mischaracterizations. Is there a long-term solution that you could provide? Thanks again for your time. Dino 00:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are about socks of Bryan. You're not Bryan (are you?). What are you complaining about? William M. Connolley 11:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Assistance request...

I can get diffs for all this, but I figured I'd outline this first as a matter of opinion only. I've got an issue with User:Dwain. He was requested to remove a polemical page which listed criticisms of Masonry, as well as a list of Masons on WP. He did, and linked it from his userpage to a page on GeoCities. He was again told to remove it, which he did, though the page still exists, as he has added it to various places (most recently a known Lightbringer vandal IP). Depending on who he talks to, Dwain's story changes: first he tells me a while ago that he has no problems with Masons and has a lot in his family (though he simply deleted the request for discussion I left on his talk page), then he's keeping the info "for fun, because he thoughtr it was interesting", and in other places, it's "material for future articles that was removed by Masons and anon editors" (which wasn't the case). I've left posts on WP:AN about these things, but is it worth pursuing action? MSJapan 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Replacing your user page with an article is weird and presumably WP:POINT. But... how important is any of this? William M. Connolley 16:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The block on User:Jerrypp772000

Hi, I saw that you blocked Jerrypp772000 for the 3RR violation. However, you should check the history of this article for more clarity; User:Nationalist might have been using sockpuppet User:Taiwanlove to evade the same violation. I have filed a checkuser request here, too. Please check if Jerrypp772000 was tricked into falling this trap by Nationalist, and, if possible, unblock him. Thanks. Vic226_(chat) 14:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no "I was tricked into it" defense. But if the CU works out, be sure to file a 3RR report William M. Connolley 16:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment from a user.

William,

I just happened to be browsing on what pages linked to my user page and I discovered that your talk page was one of the pages. I'm sorry to bother you but I now believe that this has become a clear case of harrassment by user:MSJapan. This user has been campaigning against me for awhile now am I am frankly tired of and don't think that Misplaced Pages should allow this user to abuse the rules of Misplaced Pages for his personal vendetta against me.

I am bringing this up to you because of his above distorted comments and complaints against me. He and an anonymous user attacked my user page and Freemasonry page where I collected some notes on masonry and quotes by masons and a list of various religions that opposed membership in the organization.

I further pointed out that the sworn oaths these people take strictly prohibit them from divulging much information about their group. Also, even if a lower level mason was to break his oath and tell about various meanings and such these lower level members information could be incorrect because they are misguided and lied to until they obtain a higher level. I couldn't help but notice that most of the agressive editors at Misplaced Pages who have been editing the pages relative to freemasonry have identified themselves as masons. It became apparent to me that a conflict of interest was arising. I listed the editors who claimed to be FM and listed on this page as well. I also had some links to pages that were not allowed by these editors in any of the articles. I repeat I quoted from masons like Albert Pike and others. From that time I have been the victim of a harrassment campaign led by MSJapan. He has been trolling my every edit, distorting the truth about me, complaining on the Admin Board about me every excuse he gets. It now seems that he has even gone so far as to attack me off Misplaced Pages on another site. He has lied on the Admins Board about and I have pointed this out.

My grandfather and other members of my family have been masons and I do not any animosity to people just because they are members of this group. I am a fan of people who were masons Oliver Hardy and Ernest Borgnine, but this does not excuse people like MSJapan propagating the masonic answers to various questions about this group. By changing articles to make them mason friendly is a form of vadalization. However, to avoid the wrath of several Wiki-masons, I have keeping away from tese distorted articles and have chosen to not edit them. I moved both my userpage and my freemasonry page off Misplaced Pages as it was suggested for me to do in the rules.

Now MSJapan is trying to get me banned from Misplaced Pages after successfully getting my Freemasonry page banned. I was not told I could have no links to my freemasonry page at all from Misplaced Pages but that I could not use Misplaced Pages for that page. However, there are no links to my Freemasonry page. When I gave the link to a possibly interested user. He erased it.

The fact of the matter is he is using tactics that have been reported to ave been used by masons against the groups enemies however this time e is using Misplaced Pages for these purposes.

As far as using my userpage as a sandbox, I don't know what the problem of that is? I further would like to point out that he has a similar note page concerning freemasonry connected to his user page. I have created and contributed to a wide range of articles on Misplaced Pages, under Dwain but more so under my original name MSJapan has almost exclusively been dealing with Freemasonry and blocking info he does not want into an article.

Please help with this problem as I am following the rules of Misplaced Pages and had been trying to ignore this person's attacks but I believe his goal is to get me permenently banned from Misplaced Pages. I show you this link as an example of this user and other Wiki-masons when their group is attacked in anyway.

My story has not changed like MSJapan said to you. I don't like these type of tactics. Thank you for your time and I am sorry to bother you with this matter. Dwain 22:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Using your user page as a sandox is bizarre and suspicious of WP:POINT. Why did you provide the list of Lightbringer socks? This is a suspicious edit. Anyway, please try to keep comments short William M. Connolley 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I clear my page from time to time. I changed my mind today. I have been informed by other admins that I do have the right to so. "Bizarre and suspicious?" I'm sorry you think that. As for why I linked to the page about Lightbringer. If you have to ask I'm afraid I spoke to the wrong person. I noticed you ad no comments too about being harrassed by the above mentioned user. Thanks anyway. Dwain 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Vlad_fedorov

Hi, William.

I was monitoring the edit war between User:Biophys and User:Vlad fedorov on Boris Stomakhin. I agree that both editors are quite tendentious and do not want to compromise, but honestly I do not see [[WP:BLP}} violations there. Boris Stomakhin was sentenced to 5 years of prison sentence for "hate speech" and "inciting violence". It is outrageous that such a sentence was given for Internet blogging and printing free leaflets but to be fair we need to mention that he did said crazy things.

All the Stomakin's citations are sourced both to the official court proceedings (WP:RS) and to Stomakhin's own website (WP:RS then they are about the author himself). Some citations are also sourced to the opinion piece by Maxim Sokolov in Izvestia: a respectful, reasonably neutral large Russian newspaper. Thus, the citations are referenced to 2 and some to 3 independent reliable sources. I cannot see WP:BLP violations there.

Unless I miss something I would recommend to unblock Vlad or block both him and biophys for the editwarring Alex Bakharev 12:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was relying on JKelly's determination and I think you need to take the issue up with him. Vf has been saying, in effect, how can you tell if I'm right given that my sources are in Russian and you don't speak Russian. This seems rather problematic. Perhaps we need an approved translation of the appropriate refs. For example, the "death to all russians" quote is sourced to this . Is it reliable? Who is it run by? What, even, does it say, and who is sayin it? Maybe this should be clarified at BLP William M. Connolley 12:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Wot_about_foreign_language_subjects_and_sources.3F William M. Connolley 12:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think that this was a good block. Let's take a look at some of the things being inserted into the article:

• "He also criticized Russian government in defamatory and obscene statements" -- entirely unsourced; is this Misplaced Pages's opinion?

  "No one human rights organization or non-governmental organization had supported Stomakhin at the trial, and no one organization sued the Russian Federation government for alleged by them abuses of Stomakhin, trial abuses or Stomakhin contention abuses." -- unsourced, almost certainly OR

  " also described statements by Boris Stomakhin as 'non-violent'. No one Jewish NGO in Russian Federation supported 's view though. Some of the facts in Statement of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews turned out to be false." -- unsourced, probably OR, who exactly are we calling liars here; I don't know, but we shouldn't be doing it.

That's without getting into the question of interpreting original court documents as the basis for an article, which would be dodgy anywhere.

I suggest that the best way forward, given the length of this edit war and the fact of block evasion, would be to radically stub the article and rebuild it using reliable secondary sources only. Jkelly 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR Ruling

Hi, I was blocked for 8 hours for violating 3rr. While I was unaware of the rule regarding 3rr, I did in fact violate it. While I was reading the helpful links (thanks for providing those, btw) about 3rr, I read that in the instances of a first violation, a warning is sent before an actual block takes place, Is there a reason why my block occurred without warning? Again, i am not saying that I am blameless in this matter; I am in fact not, and have learned more than a bit about it, I cannot respond to unreasonable users by cowboying up. Perhaps using the structures in place for essentailly the same effect is a better and more lasting method of fixing a prolem (editing or otherwise). Again, thanks for making the block fairly painless.Arcayne 14:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A warning is usual but not obligatory. I can't remember your exact circumstances William M. Connolley 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)