Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:17, 7 November 2007

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15	Archive 16

Hi,

Sorry for the delay, I responded back to your suggestion in mediation case. Also an inclusion of a short sentence about the incident of CU (with a link to the full transcript.) doesn't hurt anyone, what is your idea? Cheers--Pejman47 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Evening/Morning

You are one of the best editors on this systems and I find your judgments very well done. However I find that the edit you did on Idearcmedia ( removing the link of a complaint site ) might be unjustified. I am willing to stand by your edit and not undo it. It should be addressed and I would like further clarification if possible ( both links you have provided as wiki edit guidelines have enough leeway to grant me the opportunity to keep the link but I am deferring to your judgment of possible solution ) Sincerely - Onepoint —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onepoint (talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

update : your ruling stands, since your explaination is authoritative and correct, I think wiki should have a section for company complaint links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onepoint (talk • contribs) 12:56, October 29, 2007 (UTC)

MA

Till it is shown that that keeping the the article locked has/doesn't have the consensus (the process may take lots of time); would you please as you suggested add the "it is disputed" to the lead. Cheers.--Pejman47 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello?--Pejman47 07:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Hello, a user-page has once again been created for me against my will and I'm trying to get it deleted, since I don't want one... Can you delete it for me again? Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel 19:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Range blocking

Hi. I spoke to you a while ago about an IP that was continually vandalising (87.167.xxx.x) and you performed a one month range block. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have deterred him/her from vandalising further as they have finished their block (on the 26th) and returned to make the exact same vandal edits. They have vandalised every day since their block finished, with changing IPs every day (list below). Could you perform another range block?

• 87.167.226.29
• 87.167.208.54
• 87.167.221.5
• 87.167.212.63
• 87.167.239.182

Thanks.

Seraphim 12:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. There are countless issues with this user. The behaviour their main account was blocked for was, abusing other editors, edit warring, abusive use of sock puppetry and 3rr violations. Now their behaviour is more an attempt to be disruptive and less directed at specific editors like it used to be.

The main actions that this vandal is performing are, slow edit wars by disruptively changing the genre without discussion (inserting their own POV as to what the genre should be), often removing any sources that are present , changes the capitalisation of the genre's names to antagonise people e.g Alternative metal → Alternative Metal, despite the fact that people have explained numerous times to s/he the reasons why this is wrong , ) and changes the way the genres are separated e.g Alternative Metal, Rock, → Alternative metal <br> Rock <br>. This is despite the fact that people have also explained why this isn't correct.

These IP addresses all come from the indefinately blocked sockpuppeteer, AFI-PUNK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). All edits from this person have been considered vandalism up until this point, but I do respect your wish to question why this is vandalism since you haven't dealt with this user before and you are being asked to perform a range block, and I do understand that it is a very serious preventative measure.

If you would like some more diffs to reinforce my rationale, please don't hesitate to ask and I'll provide you with some more. Thanks!

Seraphim 14:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you very much! In the kindest way possible, hopefully you won't have to hear from me again in three months :).

Seraphim 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Elaine Bloom

At one point the article said that she was a politician, or a former politician. When the article was short, her opinion was one of only a few that was quoted in the article. Now that the article is loaded with quotes from people who are qualified to judge the professional merits of Abu El-Haj's work, I don't think the opinion of an alumna with no known anthropology or archaeology expertise is necessary. If you disagree, of course, you can restore Bloom's views and her statement that she might stop contributing to Barnard. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Curlin

When re-examining the entry for Curlin I believe you had omitted factual details I have had to restore several times now. Specifically disbarred Gallion and Cunningham Jr. being in jail in northern Kentucky. Is there a reason as to why this action was taken?

I have had to restate that information, again, subsequently. There is a material reason as to why that relates to Curlin aside from them being the original owners and 20% stake holders: a Kentucky Judge on Nov 1, 2007 awarded their 20% stake to the 400+ class action members Misers Gallion and Cunningham defrauded. Ugly as it is that is the circumstances today. Accordingly the "why" they are in jail is fully relevant as it will most likely trigger the sale of Curlin and he won't race again. I hope you can understand why I've restored it. --Kellsboro Jack 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you erasing my updates on Curlin so that his Misplaced Pages entry is devoid of what is reported by The Associated Press, BloodHorse, Thoroughbred Times, Lexington Herald-Leader and others. Not really worth my time I suppose, but I have cited in the refences section all sources but did not use a footnote designation, e.g.BloodHorse November 1, 2007 "Judge Rules Interest In Curlin Turned Over to Plaintiffs" Since I won't be contributing further to that horse's entry I'll simply say "you win". Cheers --Kellsboro Jack 16:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish canon or Bible Canon

Hi Avi: I just came across the Jewish canon article. What to make of it is the big question. It draws partially from the Jewish Encyclopedia article. Maybe the entire Jewish Encyclopedia BIBLE CANON article should just be reproduced in its entirety? I will pose this question to the sages @ WP:JUDAISM. Thanks, IZAK 06:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

Weeks'n'weeks ago you proposed closure to a CSN on me with "I would think that some form of mentorship/guidance, if only in how to stifle ones own frustrations at the apparent inequities in the project (and believe you me, EVERY editor sees the nefarious hand of SOME cabal when their edits are adjusted -- whether it be true or not) and contribute positively".

It struck me as quite an odd solution, it was not frustration that had led me to make an ill-advised CoI challenge and offend the subject. However, it seemed acceptable to everyone, and I was perfectly happy to be mentored. It would save me having to deal directly with personal accusations (often showing exceedingly dubious reasoning) and it would save the community regular head-scratching. If I was unintentionally guilty of persistent low-level disruptive behavior then it could be identified/dealt with, not subsumed under what might look like Islamophobic opposition to my every contribution.

However, this (innovative) scheme seems to have been a total disaster. Two of my three mentors have been sanctioned fairly severely within days, and the only semi-effective one had her life made a misery, in private and in public. I should emphasise that none of this had anything to do with me - natural modesty prevents me claiming to be a model mentoree, but you know what I mean.

I wonder whether you'd had any thoughts. I should point out that the harassment perpetrated on these good people is only an extension of the ideologically unpleasant treatment of virtually everyone attempting to have a collegiate relationship with me (even extends to some people I was never likely to agree with - even to you?). The current situation is that there's almost nobody without a clear record of opposing my edits (and even participation) will dare to come forwards - is that what you intended? Your "mentorship" proposal might have been a subterfuge to get others to muzzle me - but I don't believe that was your intention. I think the thing has simply gone very wrong, with the cooperation you intended now buried under mountains of personal abuse. I wonder if you'd care to comment. PR 13:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you misread a reasonable question so badly, I thought you'd appreciate the heads-up. I specifically cleared you of any possibility that you'd proposed mentoring as a means to muzzle me. I thought you'd be interested to know (in case you'd not noticed) that the mentoring (which I've treated with accept good faith and even enthusiasm) has clearly gone badly wrong. But it's not me that has embarked on a reign of terror on each of the brave people who've offered their services - and I contacted you hoping for comment on what was torpedoing the process. PR 15:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about block

Hi Avi,

When I tried to edit on November 3, I was told that I couldn't because "Your IP address is 66.167.144.6, and your block has been set to expire: indefinite" because of "Tor router phrenograph". I was logged in, and according to my block log my account hadn't been blocked, but I left an {{unblock}} message and Yamla unblocked me.

I'm trying to understand what happened and I was wondering if you could help. Why would my IP be blocked, and why would that block me even though I'm a registered editor? Is there someplace where I can read more about it? Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It makes sense now. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman

Hi! I have a question about this article. I do not understand why this article was speedy-deleted after appearing on AfD for a brief time and with input from only one other editor. It makes a clear claim of arguable notability -- it states that he is a member of the Badatz, the Council of Haredi Communities' (Edah HaChareidis) court of Jewish Law. This assertion gives a reason, good or bad, why this individual has more notability than simply an ordinary synagogue rabbi, and thus makes a notability claim sufficient to defeat WP:CSD and require an AfD to determine its adequacy based on input from other users. The claim may or may not be adequate, there may or may not be sources to support it, the article may or may not ultimately be kept, but the comment you made upon deletion that this individual is just an ordinary rabbi has clearly been factually contested within the article. I see no basis for avoiding the AfD process. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)