Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:36, 3 November 2006

Click here to start a new talk section.

• Archive - May 06
• Archive - June 06
• Archive - July 06
• Archive - August 06
• Archive - September 06
• Archive - October 06

Thanks for the new Ref Citation code

Much appreciated. I'm still very weak when it comes to formating references but this will help me so much. I was making the reference list manually on some articles. This will be a big help. I'm working on becoming a stronger editor but I have a long way to go. Lisapollison 14:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper deletion

Hi please take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Turkic&action=history Does the article have to be properly deleted or it can just be blanketed by the original creator? I was not sure about the wiki-procedure so I just revert it with the deletion tag. --alidoostzadeh 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention How can tell them to go to the Talk Page?User:Gamer322

Thanks!!Appreciated!User:Gamer322

My "civility"

Was that "incivil"? Well, maybe I was a bit impatient and it was unnecessary at that moment. I'll try and keep my cool more in future. But do you know what it is like to be in such a situation? Did you look at what was happening on that page? I came to that article, as a brand-new editor, and make a small rewrite for neutrality . Explained it on talk page too . One user immediately reverts it with a totally irrelevant, ignorant reason . I explain to him on talk . I restore my edit, as his objections were clearly invalid , and provide more references. The other guy inserts his ignorant remarks into the article without even an edit summary . I explain again patiently and turn his information into something that makes sense . Then ManiF turns up, blindly reverts all of my work , and pretends in his edit summary he's only doing "copyediting". What a lie. At the same time, he slams a note on my page claiming I'm a "sockpuppet", with no reason whatsoever. I protest. At least he puts back a few pieces of information in the article from what I wrote. The first guy puts his ignorant stuff back in , again, I turn it into something that makes sense . Again, I explain that patiently on the talk page . Next morning, a third guy turns up and again reverts everything I did without the slightest attempt at a justification . Then he brazenly puts in another completely made-up claim, clearly false and without a source . I correct it and make a few other minor improvements. Again, everything explained on talk page. He reverts immediately, only saying that it's "my POV" (whatever on earth that means! it seems to be their blanket justification when they have no arguments to counter) Next, I don't revert, I just put in some marks noting what I find dubious . ManiF reverts me again . I ask him to leave the dispute tags in and restore my uncontroversial improvements which had blindly removed together with the rest . He reverts again . I make another few minor improvements. The next day, I'd found the time of actually going to a library and researching the matter. I come back with a few books and do a real big, good rewrite of the whole thing. Now the article has real sources for the very first time and is like about 200% better . I even give quotations for the little details they had been blindly reverting without paying attention to them . Suddenly, a fourth guy pops out of nowhere, someone who I later find out only ever appears every few weeks to help out ManiF and his friends in revert-warring (he does nothing else), and reverts me again. . Just so that ManiF is spared the necessity of doing it himself. At that point I really am exasperated, and do another revert myself . And about that time I made that remark you found objectionable. Then ManiF starts expanding the article himself (without all of my material) with some blatantly propaganda stuff he plagiarised from a website, citing bogus "sources" that didn't even say what he claimed they said. Then I can't help myself but revert him again. And I'm still the only one who discusses anything about the matter itself on the talk page, all my arguments have remained unanswered to this day . Then reverting helpers number five and six pop out of nowhere. At that point, I'm really at the end of my tether. At last, one of them shows some understanding and makes a halfway decent compromise version including back some of my work.

So, the upshot is: These people work together with friends and helpers they call in from somewhere to help them reverting - but it's me that gets accused of being a sockpuppet. I spend the time in libraries doing actual research, they just blindly revert - but it's me that gets accused of "undoing the work of others". I patiently give explanations on the talk page - but it's me that gets accused of being "impatient" and "not leaving room for discussion". I ask admins for help - but nobody can be bothered. I'm told to "follow dispute resolution" - but when I make an "RFC" nobody answers. I get treated like garbage - but it's me that's accused of incivility. The cynicism of it all. And they say somewhere that "newbies shouldn't be bitten". Well, I'm still recovering from my first days on Misplaced Pages. I must say it was quite some experience.

Well, sorry for giving you such a long story, but I think you should know what's going on. And while you're at it telling people of for incivility, you might look at this other guy, "Azerbaijani": Do you find that civil? Calling me a "Pan-Arab" when I have actually nothing in the world to do with Arabs ? Accusing me of lying, just because I state who and what I am ? I can assure you, I am really not that Arab guy they think I am. But apparently, in their world, anybody who ever suggests that an Arab point of view might perhaaaaaaps merit inclusion in Misplaced Pages simply must be him, LOL. I still don't know what the poor guy did to make them so mad at him. FellFairy 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject idea

The Council talk page might be a halfway decent place, I suppose; or we could just discuss it privately, if that's what you prefer. The important point for any new idea is actual adoption by projects; where it's discussed before that tends not to matter too much. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First, some extreme pedantry: the prevailing terminology seems to be that a "task force" is a sub-group that works on a more narrow scope, while a component of the project that does some particular task is a "department". ;-)

As far as the actual idea goes, I suspect it wouldn't be too effective with such a setup. In my experience, editor participation decreases quite sharply as you move away from the main project page (which tends to be the most bustling area). So, an "RFC department" subpage would only be visited by a fraction of the people seeing the project page; and only a fraction of those would follow the next link to the actual RFC page. At this point, the numbers will be so low that burnout (a major factor when intervening in disputes) will be a substantial problem.

The flip side of this, incidentally, is that (informal) requests on the project's main talk page tend to attract much more attention than out-of-the-way RFC listings. So there are two obvious things that could be done:

1. The more minor option: have a system where RFC listings would be cross-posted to the relevant project's talk pages. This would mean a lot of extra messages, but would allow the RFC listing to stay in place.
2. The more drastic option: dispense with the RFC listings entirely and have RFCs be made on the project's talk pages directly. This would remove the extra work in option 1, and would be fairly easy to arrange because the existing talk page tags would provide easy links to whichever projects had an interest in the article, but would, obviously, lose the central listing.

Which of these is better, I'm not sure. Personally, I don't think the central listing is really useful; but some people would probably be upset if it were to disappear completely. Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me with Calton attacks?

Hi InShaneee,

I have had som problems with Calton for a while now, and its getting worst. I feel I have done everything that is in Wiki policy and I have tried to keep cool and to contribute with usfull information and articles but he is insulting me, deleting fully valid external links Ecological Economics http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ecological_economics&action=history --Swedenborg 07:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

Certain editors are having a problem with User:Khosrow II.. He is being disruptive and unconstructive in my opinion, but what worries me is that he sees Wiki as turf war: Every time hes gets into an edit-war, he puts messages on the Misplaced Pages:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board, he is practically the only one saying things like this is once again under attack by pan-turkists, anti-iranianism has become a disease, please help etc. See that page's history .. The whole notices there seem to be inflammatory eg Azerbaijani national heroes - Full of POV and propaganda - it looks like a place to get meatpuppets.. I don't know whether that article is full of POV and propaganda, but it is an extremely wrong attitude, they were warned by other impartial users as well.. In all his edit summaries he accuses people of being pan-this, pan-that, racist, not knowing anything etc.. I was wondering what could be done to stop such disruptive behavior, particularly with respects to the noticeboard issue.. Cheers! Baristarim 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That is what the Iranians notice board is there for. Its not a secret buddy. Also, it is not I who starts the revert wars, it is you and the other pan Turkists that you muster up. You have been accused of pan Turkism, not just by me, but other users. You continuously make baseless and ridiculous assertions without facts.Khosrow II 01:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it, there should be no problems now. If the user reverts again, you need to take care of him. Thanks.Khosrow II 01:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant if he reverts my changes, which should make everything ok now, then you would have reason to block him for disruption right? I for one will not be doing anything for the time being.Khosrow II 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Could you mediate something for us? I took a bunch of reliable maps and basically combined them into one to make up for a map that cannot be found on the internet. This usesr claims its OR just because I had to combine several maps. The map this user insists on using is greatly exaggerating Turkic groups in Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East.Khosrow II 01:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at this: Khosrow II 01:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you see what I mean? EVERY single time I make a change he uses the word pan-turkist, this is really getting old.. I see your point, I will try to take it easy, but you must understand how nerving it is to be called a vandal and pan-turkist and eg You continuously make baseless and ridiculous assertions without facts, other pan Turkists that you muster up.. I hadn't see your post when I wrote that edit summary.. Sorry about that.. But surely you must see that it is not easy to take it easy when even legitimate edits are reversed - an hour before this episode, i made this edit to calm a revert war and right after I was reverted like this  !! How would you feel if that edit summary was directed at you? honestly? I am really trying to take it easy, but it is really NOT easy like this, I hope that you understand that.. Regards.. Baristarim 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We wont call you pan Turkic if you stop acting like one. Supporting your fellow pan Turk in saying that Arabic and Iranian culture had nothing to do with the Ottomans is propaganda. Claiming that my map which is based on several reliable sources is not right and your preferring an exaggerated map is propaganda. I can continue even more.Khosrow II 01:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you go Inshahee: :Turkic people. See the discussion page.Khosrow II 01:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Inshanee, please see this .. You are giving me a warning because of my edit summary, but it is ok for him to say things like other pan-turkists that you muster up??.. I never claimed in my above edit in question that Persian and Arabic cultures had no influences, before my involvement there was an edit war because there were many nations that were mentioned, so I replaced them with Byzantine culture and cultures of Islam, that way noone would have reason to start an edit war again.. I fail to see how that is propaganda.. There is absolutely no assumption of good faith, seriously.. I reported this user for 3RR a week ago, I think this is the only reason why he is making this fuss.. In any case, please do something Inshanee, I also dont think it is right that he calls me pan-turkist EVERY single time, I hope that u understand, if my edit summary is unconstructive, which I accept, than this must also be considered as such.. Baristarim 02:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I understand what you are saying, but the number of my inflammatory edit summaries dont come as near as his, in EVERY single edit summary he uses the term pan-turkist or vandal, not that it makes me angry coz I can shake it off, but it is still not cool.. You warned him, but even after your warning, in every single one of his edits he is still speaking with the same tone - see this , this was some time after your warning.. What happened to comment on content and not the user?? I got angry for a moment, I also said sorry for my edit summary that intervened after your warning that I hadnt seen at the moment, but please take a look at his edits, every single time he says vandal, pan-turkist etc.. What is going on?? I also have a right to not be insulted.. Please do something about this.. As for my edit to the OE article you mentioned, I was really trying to find a solution, I was never claiming that COE didnt have this or that influence, what I wrote was much more encyclopedic, what happened to the assumption of good faith? regards Baristarim 02:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

? I told you I agree with what u said earlier.. What do you expect me to do? And I don't understand why u say i dont have a right to anything at all on wiki, thats way too much wikilawyering, you missed the spirit of what I was trying to say: I am subjected to repeated insults and degradation, that is not cool either.. I hope that u understand this.. All the users have/dont have the same rights, so you could have phrased your last post in a better way.. So after all this, u r telling me that it is basically ok for him to keep on repeatedly calling me pan-turkist or vandal since he has done so after your warnings? In any case, it is still wikilawyering to say that anyone can put any post on a WP page as long as no specific course of action is encouraged: what counts is the spirit of the rule: i dont have to write a specific course of action to be taken as long as there is one implied eg full of POV and propaganda, attacked by pan-turkists or attacked by russians, instead of simply writing POV issues, surely as an admin you can see that? In any case, I am not interested in continuing this any furher, I have wasted enough time already.. Baristarim 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that this is a private website :).. Please be my guest and keep an eye on me, I would like that, I have nothing to hide. All I am trying to do is contribute to Wiki, I am not here to only push agendas, I am actively creating and rewriting articles in the fields of my specialisation.. If u r not happy with that, u have a right to have that opinion. I know what the noticeboards r for, I wasnt complaining about anyone putting any messages, I only said that the way certain posts are put also push people to act in a certain way, thus violating that policy.. On the other hand, pls see my point about Khosrow having a bone with me, I reported him for 3RR a week ago, he did the same just twenty mins ago for me, in a case where my last edit was a correction of the edit directly three mintues before, which was also mine. I was honestly trying to revert my last edit and unfortunately I was looking at a wrong version when I did my last edit. See what I mean? I sense a lot of bad faith there bordering on harassment. He even replied to my explanation on the 3RR page, so what can I say? Baristarim 05:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I didnt even know that you reported me. Second of all, I reported you for 3RR because you broke the rule. I would have done it to any other person. You reverted 4 times, and your last revert was not a re-revert, you simply reverted to an older version of the article basically. The way you re-revert is to revert back to the version before your reverted in the first place. You did not do that, and you had a long time to do so.Khosrow II 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please post your posts to me, and not to Inshanee, to my talk page, I think he would appreciate that, this is my last reply to you on his talk page.. As for 3RR, in my fourth edit I was honestly trying to revert my last edit as I explained above.. I wasn't aware of any older version, believe me. In any case, that's the truth, I can't do much if others wish to believe in a different version of events.. Baristarim 05:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaparojdik

Hi, I see you just blocked Zaparojdik . I just reported him for violating the 3RR - if you're not going to lift his block later on, you may want to specify that he's already blocked there; it may confuse other administrators.--Tekleni 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. --InShaneee 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Turkey and EU

I realy wonder why you found the user template about the users supporting Turkey's joining to the EU divisive. Although there are lots of templates and also some articles which are more divisive and subjective than this template, please inform me why you deleted it. I think it is really nonsense to delete a temlate which is about a country's quest to join an internatinal organization. There are lots of templates that you should work for, which are about independencies of regions in some countries, therefore extremely divisive. If you are against, you did not have to delete it. Everybody has ideas and can state freely but if you let people to do so. CrashMex 20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so why don't you start to work on templates or articles that are exteremely divisive and subjective. Please tell me the point to choose specificly this template to delete while there are much more divisive templates. Also, on the user pages of wikipedia there are freedom of speech. If I write "Turkey should join the EU" on my user page will you delete it too? CrashMex 20:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there is this one. It is very divisive about Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. "This user supports the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" Please work on this! Also, please can you tell me why you find Turkey EU template divisive. It is just a wish about Turkey and the EU relations. CrashMex 20:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But it is not a debate to have point. It is about a new member of the EU and that joining will be realized in 10 years by 90 percent probability. Of course there can be unexpected consequences but that is what will be in the future: TURKEY IN the EU CrashMex 20:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How come you have right to monitor my messages to other Wikipedians? Of course you can read they are not hided but YOU CERTAINLY NOT HAVE RIGHT TO THREATEN ME in any case because you are just an admin. CrashMex 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RuthieK and List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars

Hi InShaneee, I noticed you blocked RuthieK recently and I was wondering what your opinion was on List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars. This article was created by RuthieK before his block. It is almost an exact copy of List of Arab scientists and scholars, an article that was recently protected because of alot of revert warring (which included RuthieK's edits). As you can see by Talk:List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars, Ruthie's first comments on the talk saying "This list was created because there is a group of people determined not to follow the self-description of the list arab scientists and scholars...". It seems to me like he created this article to get around the protection of the other article. By the history of the new article, another user thought the same thing I do, and I was wondering if you think me redirecting List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars to List of Arab scientists and scholars was proper given the situation? — Moe 20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I thought too. I wasn't really sure what to think when I first saw the title of the two articles. I'm not sure what the difference between a Arab and an Ethinic-Arab is, so unless there is a difference, I would keep the redirect. If there is a difference, I would delete it and add {{deleted}} to it so no furthur reverting can occur. — Moe 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Shall you do the nuking? :) — Moe 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nuke :p Regards — Moe 21:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Help Prevent an edit/revert war

User Grandmaster keeps removing a sourced section from the Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic articles (See history). He sites POV and spam for the removal, but: 1) I changed those sections to summarize the neutral and consensus version of the main article (History of the name Azerbaijan, which we finally corrected after about a month of debating. You can see now that the page protect has been taken off and so far everything is fine. Grandmaster was heavily invovled in the creation of the nuetral version of the main article, and the summary is directly summarizing the main article. So I dont know why GM says its POV (read the article, and then read the summary, whats POV about it?). I am openly telling you that you can check both the summary and the main article and you will see that they are in agreement with eachother. I personally took the POV out myself. 2)GM says I am spamming, however, the section is both relevant to the Azerbaijan article and the ADR article.

Please help resolve this dispute.Khosrow II 04:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I will be going to sleep now, so I ask that the admins not make a decision until I can come back and make a better case tomorrow (as I believe GM and I are in different time zones, he has the opportunity right now to bring up his case, while I do not). In the mean time, I ask that you read the main article and the summary, and decide for yourself whether they are in agreement or not (now I remind you that the main article is a consensus version acheived with GM's participation). Also, I urge you to consider that the Azerbaijan and ADR articles are relevant places to post this information. I'll say good night for now and I will talk to you tomorrow. Thanks adn I hope you are able to resolve this dispute. For now however, since the sections are sourced, I think they should stay in the respective articles until a final decision is made.Khosrow II 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. With regard to the last posting of Khosrow, this person is trying to mislead you. There was no agreement on him spamming all the articles about Azerbaijan with the same repetitive section. On the contrary, it was agreed that the articles will be just linked to the main article about the name of Azerbaijan. Khosrow was even warned by another admin that his actions are not appropriate, but despite that he keeps on spamming the articles about Azerbaijan with his POV interpretations of the history. Regards, Grandmaster 05:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to both of you, but this is out of my area of expertise. I'd recommend that you try an RfC or mediation, though I do ask that you stop using the term 'spamming', GM. --InShaneee 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Grandmaster 06:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as I suspected what would happen, it has happened. GM got the Azerbaijan protected, and he got the List of Azerbaijanis page protected. GM continually starts edit wars, has a double standard, and is a very big POV pusher. Read the below and everything should be crystal clear. (see here, where I discussed all of my edits and reasons with an admin first, and tried to prevent an edit/revert war, but as usual, GM thinks hes right all the time, refuses to compromise... and then eventually he tricks an admin into taking his side. Notice how he asks El_C for a lock first, but ends up getting it from another admin later! )

Now regarding the Azerbaijan article:

• GM keeps claiming its POV, yet he does not say whats POV about it.
• GM believes he is the only one that is rigth all the time. He refuses to compromise, I am the one always having to resort to compromising, now why is that?
• I did not break any Misplaced Pages rules by merging the sections. I shortened it, I stopped "spamming", and I myself conformed the summary to the main article. What did GM do? Nothing but repeatedly deleting a sourced section.
• Again, I will remind you that this is a sourced section.
• Get the page unprotected because it is very evident that the only POV pusher here is GM. This cannot be denied anymore, its write here infront of you.

Now regarding the List of Azerbaijani's article:

• If it is not a list based on ethnicity, then why is it called List of Azerbaijani's? Last I checked, Azerbaijani is an ethnic group. This is like have a list called "List of Turks" and having Kurds on it, just because Kurds live in the same region as Turks from Turkey.
• A significant amount of the people named on that list are from Iran, with nothing to do with the R. of Azerbaijan. So why are they on there? Last I checked, Mexican's dont claim famous people from the state of New Mexico as Mexican.
• The region of Iranian Azerbaijan, the real Azerbaijan, and the R. of "Azerbaijan (see: History of the name Azerbaijan) have nothing to do with each other at all. This whole thing was started by pan Turkists in 1918 with the aim of claiming North Western Iran.
• Having those ancient figures on that list is like saying that Avicenna was Uzbek, Sitting Bull was American (as in USA), Heraclius was Turkish, etc... That doesnt make sense does it? This is clearly a POV push by GM.
• Also, maybe we should update the List of Persian's page to include everyone from Iran, regardless of ethnicity, because according to GM, list's of people are not based on ethnicity, but by region... and since Persians make up the majority in the region of Iran, that would make everyone Persian. (by GM's logic).

This is GM's tactic. He starts revert wars citing ludicrous reasons. Ignores discussions on talk pages as much as he can. Then goes to admins to get pages locked. Please unblock these pages. Thanks.Khosrow II 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I don't know the slightest thing about this topic, so I am in no position to say who is right. Secondly, the history shows that there was heavy back-and-forth editing, so there is no way that I'm going to unprotect it. You think something doesn't belong there? Take it to the talk page. Additionally, these accusations and name calling against grandmaster need to stop. --InShaneee 21:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

He uses the same words. Also, its not important whether you know enough about the subject or not, you can still read both our arguments and decide for yourself who makes more sense.Khosrow II 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the admin's job to say who's right and who's wrong in a content debate. And I don't care what words he uses, I'm telling YOU to be civil. --InShaneee 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, but can you please tell him also. Thanks.Khosrow II 21:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Curses, and the Project's scope

Get ready for length...

I understand where you're coming from on the issue of curses; at the same time, however, sources ranging Coast to Coast AM to numerous paranormal literary volumes have extensively referenced the subject, especially two of the most famous (at least to the West) cases of "genuine" curses, or cases of misfortune continually befalling individuals connected to a given thing, those two being the matters surrounding Hope and Tutankhamun, respectively. At the same time, however, I realize the difficulty of being able to recognize "if a curse is active," "was" active, if one was ever involved, or in turn if curses are even real: misfortune does happen, but when is it enough to invoke the c-word?
The notion of curses is an ancient one; in our modern society, they have suffered under what I term the intellectual flippancy of our times: seemingly regular loss of sporting competitions are quantified as curses, even though the old system of using the word involved spirituality, occasionally demons and other dark things, and always either maiming or death. To compare the two as co-equal is as if to compare soap-box racing to the Indianapolis 500...both are racing (or in this case, "misfortune"), but the scale difference is immeasurable.
Thus, our struggle is with the society we're in, not with the notion of Curses. George Noory has had individual shows about curses on Coast to Coast...tales of total devastation of people's lives being attributed to them is rare, but definitely there. Curses are a paranormal subject; bringing them up in sports is almost always not.
...though with rare exceptions: ask me about a curse involving the number nine at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and you'll hear about a story of death striking on the track, with clocklike regularity, for over half a century. In the end, I suppose our task is to find a way to make clear the differentiation between the jokes and the brutally serious. --Chr.K. 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My first offer, then: we put Curse on the Project list (have now done so) of articles needing expansion (and especially clarification, since the article suffers from the same problems I mentioned earlier, of 'playing loose' with the word's definition), and make a vote for Project members as to whether to include the Hope Diamond as a viable example of a cursed artifact...or what I'm now thinking is best, creating a individual curse page for each example such as the Hope. --Chr.K. 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In policy of what to include, I say we go simply by the references: if a book has been written on the subject of a given curse, and has made reasonably clear its intentions to be taken as paranormal literature (Curse of the Bambino references obviously do not withstand such scrutiny), we include it. Hope and Tutankhamun, two of the most famous, pass such a test. In writing them up, however, all the more emphasis must be placed on those references, to differentiate from faux curses. --Chr.K. 21:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone get critically injured or DIE from the purported Curse? Real curses should involve maiming or carnage, to say it grotesquely, otherwise they're not really a curse in the antiquian sense. Though, admittedly, I've long since seen your point, that the only way to solve this is to write up my own articles elsewhere and in official journals as to what a Curse actually is supposed to be, scientifically. --Chr.K. 21:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me?

I want to install WERDNABOT on my talkpage to archive older stuff but I am simply flummoxed by the method. If you would be so kind as to help figure it out or better yet, show me how to plug in my own info to the formula exactly as you have it set up, I'd e ever so grateful. if you want to just do it on my talkpage you can but then I guess I wouldn't learn much. The part I don't get is how to create and link to a page. I was gonna just cut and paste but the archiving talk instructions say that isn't a good way. I don't have as big a talk page as you do, so it's not a huge priority, I just like the idea of clearing the decks every month for new discussions. Lisapollison 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear InShaneee

What you consider to vandalizing by someone recently introduced to Misplaced Pages is absurd. Try stopping those who vandalize in inappropriate ways rather than stopping someone who tries to provide information. I hope that you will read this and think about your actions. Thank you.

Potomac Senior High School

The article I am talking about has references to a particular person that I would really like to have removed. I would appreciate it if you could have that history file removed. Thank you. John R G 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that it is not in the actual article but it is in the history files and that is why I would like you to remove that particular article because I dont want anyone to see that even if it is in the history files. If you do this I would really appreciate this. Thank you very much. John R G 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a response from someone else on this subject because I really want that one history file deleted and I am trying to do this the right way. Can you please talk to someone else and get the history file deleted. Thank you. John R G 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Heads up.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Supreme_Cmdr_2. JBKramer 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: I was shocked as well. JBKramer 20:28, 13 October 2006

(UTC)

teen titans external links

on this part of i put an external link to a website about teen titans and other but you keep getting rid of it any reasons??? signed anonomous

Personal Attack

See here: Khosrow II 02:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Laurentdion

Hi, I'm here on behalf of the blocked user Laurentdion. I see that you have blocked him indefinately for "personal attacks, legal threats". I think that we should divide this into two seperate issues. Firstly, the issue of legal threats. I think that it is clearly incorrect to say that the description of something as "slander" or "libel" is a legal threat. If he had said "That is libel, so take it down now before I sue you!", then that would have been a legal threat. However, since he did not say that, looking at WP:NLT will confirm that a complaint that something is libel is not a legal threat.

Secondly, the personal attacks issue. I agree with you that a block was appropriate, but would ask that you reconsider its length. Common sense says that an indef duration is somewhat excessive for a first block. I would suggest that you consider reducing the ban to, say, a week, to enforce a cooling-off and reflection period for the user, so he can return to the Wiki refreshed and ready to address the dispute in a calmer manner, but without driving him away for ever. Thanks, David Mestel 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi InShaneee!

I have also been contacted by Laurentdion. As a member of the WP:AMA, I'd like to help a user who got off on the wrong foot, if possible. No one's saying you're a bad admin or anything, but I can only echo what David Mestel says above: an indef block for the first block might have been excessive. For the record, I did see this user's last contributions, and they were certainly totally out of line. However, in his e-mails, he has stated he will not use such clorful language again, and he says he just wants the "right to disapear" on his original account.

He has asked to be unblocked, but I will never undo the block of an admin working in good faith, such as yourself. Are you willing to suspend the indef block while we straighten out the mess? Would you prefer to discuss this privately, or would you rather we discuss this on your talk page?

Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, InShanee. I appreciate your time. You've stated the user has no edits in articlespace. Actually, he had several edits on one article, which was deleted (for blatant advertising), which is what caused him to react badly in the first place. Edits like ("Richard, I appreciate your suggestion.") show he really can be civil. I don't deny he got out of hand, but he has stated he wants the right to vanish. You've stated this was impossible ( "delete every mention of him and his former article from the history of every page in which they have appeared"), but there are currently only 5 pages which link to user:Laurentdion, including this one. Do we want this user to leave permanantly? If we want this user to "leave with his pride and dignity intact", shouldn't we facilitate that process, if possible? Like I say, you're clearly a good admin, and I would certainly have blocked this user given the circumstances, but I'm not sure an indefinite block for a first block was appropriate in this case. Since this user can be civil, however, and did try to contribute to Misplaced Pages before being blocked indefinitely, I would argue that perhaps David's proposal, reducing to a week-long block, might allow the user to cool off so the situation can be handled in a calmer manner, without driving away a potentially good user. Again, I'll never undo the block of another admin acting in good faith, so I hope maybe you will maybe possibly think about reconsidering the block length. Whatever you decide (or have already decided), thanks for at least listening. :) Take care! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:PARA again

I've made a (rather crude) change that will give it the result you're looking for; there's probably a cleaner way to do it with a second switch block, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. (Most larger projects don't have a central category, actually, because it would quickly become unusably large; so there isn't really any standard code to copy in this case.) Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 04:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Discussion

No one, in the entire time I've used this site, has been civil with me. All I've ever gotten is told repeatedly that any info I add, can and will be deleted for whatever reason they can find. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that viewpoint, but that's what I've experienced. And after talking with even more users today, it's quite clear that nothing I submit will ever be accepted onto this website. JohnQ.Public 15:14, 16 October 2006

Wiki Paranormal Thing

Hi InShaneee

Please think through this indiscriminant labelling of all sort of anomalous albeit preternatural (not supernatural) phenomena as "paranormal" on talk pages. Whilst for example some cryptozoological putative animals have been labelled as paranormal by some people, many haven't, including the gigantic octopus, the sea monk etc etc. For example the St Augustine monster was a big smelly carcass, nothing paranormal there and no one has ever suggested otherwise. Anomalous is NOT a synonym for paranormal. thanks Tullimonstrum 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This user raises an interesting question: where does anomalistics and paranormal no longer coincide, and is there an overarching term that incorporates both? Wikiproject Strange would be a strange name, indeed...but when people get extremely pet-peevishish on THIS being The Truth but THAT being a Bald-Faced LIE...strangely named überprojects sometimes seem to be the only way to restore civility (or at least order). As it stands, I suggest subdividing the Project into two "kingdoms," Anomalistics and Parapsychology.--Chr.K. 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

subProjects

I think we need two automatically, Wikiproject Cryptozoology and Wikiproject Ufology, what with how many of both kinds of pages there are. Problem is, if we just go straight from WPParanormal to WPCryptozoology, I have a feeling the pet-peeves are going to lash out, as Cryptozoology is considered by many (see Anomalistics) as not paranormal per se. As it stands, I regularly read much of the latter, but have nowhere near the interaction with them historically as I do with the UFOs and Bermuda Triangles of the world; if it were a complete project and not subject to being confused with such things as FBI investigations, I'd also think to include unexplained disappearances as well, given how many I've found that need to be put in. --Chr.K. 15:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Then with that as the case, our Project's name is flawed, as the pet-peevers will simply never stop coming...and argument amongst project participants, or those working on the pages regardless of affiliation with the project, will only assist the irrationally skeptical editors. --Chr.K. 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Community Ban

Thank you for taking the time to realize the degree of disruption involved in Brya's participation in Misplaced Pages. KP Botany 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

InShaneee, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Request for arbitration

You is officially informed about this Berton 00:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment and help

Hello, could you please help resolve a long running problem regarding User:Caligvla's conduct by commenting on Talk:Armenia. Thank you.--Eupator 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal information

I'm taking care of it with oversight. Jayjg 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RfAr

I repaired a mistake, my apologies. Berton 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions? See: User:Khorshid/Misconceptions

I do not think a userpage is for that stuff... --Cat out 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's strictly innapropriate, though I'm not pleased that it already exists on its own subpage, as well. Have you considered MfD? --InShaneee 15:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting for your review before seeking any kind of action. I do not want to make the nomination myself. How should I proceed? --Cat out 16:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it to MfD, mention why it was removed from wherever it was removed from, and point out that it already has its own subpage in his userspace. --InShaneee 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. See: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khorshid/Misconceptions --Cat out 18:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with my user page? I thought users are allowed to put "userfy" certain things? I dont see anything wrong with it, its just a list of misconceptions, its not going to kill anyone or start any arguments or anything. I understand it was deleted but its on a User page now, it has no influence in Misplaced Pages as an encyclopaedia if thats what your worried about.Khosrow II 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey InShaneee, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Laurentdion proposal

Would you perhaps feel more comfortable with giving Laurentdion a second chance if he agreed that actions and discussions on pages about him or his work would be undertaken through me or some other suitable person? David Mestel 08:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to check with him, of course, but it sounds reasonable. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that he makes all his edits through me - just those relating to himself or his work. David Mestel 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I was more thinking of his work as an artist. David Mestel 08:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking Mustafa

Hi, there's an emerging consensus at WP:AN#Requesting consensus to unblock Mustafa Akalp that he should be given second chance (but kept on an informal "probation"). I plan to unblock him soon, but I wanted to notify you first, as the blocking admin. Please comment at WP:AN if you wish. 08:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The homage to Neon Genesis Evangelion

OK, people seriously need to stop editing out my adding the fact that they did an homage to NGE in "Hamstergeddon". They explicitly say so in the commentary track for the episode. Anyone with the DVDs can go and check it out!

--FallenAngelII 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but...

I'm getting a bit sick of dealing with things around here. No matter what username I choose, or what page I create, it's deleted or blocked(!)Camp For Troubled Teens Mentor 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RKO Industries, Inc.

I found a reference so as to establish notability for the article RKO Industries, Inc. which you deleted. I recreated the article, but it's still not much more than a stub. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Community Probation for ]

Hi InShanee, thanks for your help in working out something to do with User:Heqwm. There seems to be consensus at WP:ANI for putting him on Misplaced Pages:Community probation. Would you be willing to notify User:Heqwm of the probation? I think it should be done by a neutral party such as yourself. Hopefully, the one month community probation will give time for the mediation to proceed successfully, or to fail. Either way, we should know if he can be channeled into productive contributions or not. I hope you will be able to provide the notice. Thanks very much, Johntex\ 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Phillip Ramsey

Shane - I think Phillip Ramsey may have been deleted too quickly. I couldn't find any support for the existence of the person (I think I was the original PROD, before the speedy delete was added). But it looks like the name was just mis-spelled in the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/atl/reviews/06122004msp.shtml refers to a Philip Ramsey (one "L"). I'm not saying that this Ramsey person is notable (I can't find much other information on them, so I don't know) - only that there's the possibility. I'll leave it up to you, but maybe it should be revived for discussion? Other people might know more about him and be able to add insight. Thanks. --TheOtherBob 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not my article (I've got no idea who the bloke is) - I just flagged it for Proposed Deletion while on RC Patrol, and may have been in error in doing so. (It then got speedied). If the person who created it wants to re-create it...that's fine with me. (I've got no idea who the author was, though - hence the e-mail to you.) --TheOtherBob 22:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, it was me that wrote the article. This is my first article (I've only tidied up other things) so sorry if I hadn't enough information in it. I have checked some more facts about Phillip Ramsey - is the original story in here anywhere or do I need to write it from scratch again? Thanks, --Samwise7 23:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Shane, I've fixed it - Bob was right, the spelling was wrong.--Samwise7 18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Khalilak

Hey, I'm trying to look into this user's current unblock request, and saw you blocked them as a sockpuppet. A cursory (keyword cursory) look over the history of the page they edited didn't make it too obvious; any comment or thoughts to elucidate the situation? :) Luna Santin 22:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm. After some more thought on this one, I'm leaning towards an AGF unblock, if you don't object -- they seem to be putting more thought/effort into this than the average throwaway account. Most sockpuppeteers would just register a new account to keep at it, no? Luna Santin 04:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers instead of dots

Numbers don't only count, but can also indicate ranking. If you must insist that an alphabetical list needs numbers, then please remove my name from the list. Moriori 19:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"hit list"

Hi, I am User:Dc76. You have some objections about my user page, similar to those rased to me by User:Khoikhoi a few minutes ago. How about the current version? If there is something inapropriate, please tell me, I will change it. I have ears and I have common sense. There is no need to do the edit. At least not with me, I listen to people.

P.S. I left this in my user page:

Vandals: (I will wait one week before having to add someone knows who here, he knows very well what he has to do.) !---If you worry that I will add a name here, please know I will not! I just want him/her and me to know that an appology was sronbgly due and was or not found. The reality is, the time for appology is never expired.---

Reason? Because I said already that I will wait one week, it would be ilogical to revert my own word. But I am absolutely free not to take any action when there is not appology. This is the same reason I refrained from naming him/her in the first place: if he/she does something wrong, I can be better, and not respond the same way.

Dc76 22:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You left this on my page:

No, you can't. If he wants to apologize, he will, and yes, that is the polite thing for him to do. However, if he doesn't, that is his prerogative, and we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Thank you, though, for your cooperation here. --InShaneee 00:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. I will do nothing about him, God have mercy on his soul. Yes, talking about this issue distracts my working on Misplaced Pages artciles, too, and I am consequently stuck with old ones, and cannot move to new domains and articles. Good luck, and take care:Dc76 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

Regarding the note you left on my userpage, please explain how any editor can have "a very, very unpleasant time here" simply because they choose not to have their name on a list. Moriori 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a public project. My name's on your talk page now, and yours is on mine. "Yahoos" are going to edit the things you write, and their names will appear right next to, and eventually above, your in the history. People are going to draw associations about you simply by being here; I'm just saying that if you're uncomfortable not having the correct number in front of your name on a page that less than 2 dozen people see, then I firmly believe that you're going to find things getting far worse as you go on. --InShaneee 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been around here long enough to recognise bullying when I see it. Your subsequent attempt to sidetrack says volumes about you. I mentioned only a particular list, nothjng more, and certainly none of the irrelevancies you have replied with. A simple "gee, I shouldn't have said that" would have been a principled response, but no, you tried to sidetrack. I expected much more of an admin. Incidentally, I left the same query on your talk page, so am copying your response, and mine, over there. Moriori 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I noted that you requested some information on how to merge the paranormal project with the rational skepticism project. There is a page at Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers, where you can propose what might be controversial mergers, but I am far from convinced that that would be the way to go here. Getting one side or the other to voluntarily give up on their project unilaterally would probably be difficult, if not impossible. If I might make a suggestion, it might work to change the name of the paranormal project to something like WikiProject: Claims of the Paranormal or WikiProject: Paranormal Investigation, making it clear that the project welcomes both pro- and con- within its scope, and then propose a merger. Or, alternately, propose on the rational skepticism project page that both projects in effect merge into a project with a similar name. Hope that helps a little. Badbilltucker 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Block threat

Please do not make idle threats to block me for something that is not against policy. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user. I don't know where you got 48 hours for talking about an RfC on WP:CVG from, nor do I understand why you then doubled the block when ALTTP got a little testy (understandably so considering you blocked him outside of blocking policy) and then cited incivility. Though ALTTP can be abrasive at times, he certainly didn't cross the boundary that merits a 48 hour block -- nor does it make sense to use a block as some sort of punishment, as you seem to be doing, as opposed to a preventative measure. If you have any questions please direct them at my talk page or the e-mail user form. Thanks. Andre (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, please let us shift the discuss here to the Wiki. IRC should not be a place for discussions of this nature. Andre (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't we start by addressing the rationale I had for unblocking to begin with? Basically, that discussing an RfC on an inappropriate page and then reverting when someone tries to remove it is grounds for a block. It's not, and nowhere in the blocking policy does it enable you to block (48 hours, no less!) for that. And I think you doubled the block because he rubbed you the wrong way -- which of course is not allowed under blocking policy either. Andre (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly not trolling. Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages. To characterize the recruiting of opinions for an RfC on a talk page associated loosely with that user as trolling is assuming bad faith, pure and simple. At any rate, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of blocking. "Offenses" do not merit blocks like punishments - they are purely preventative measures designed to stop the encyclopedia from being disrupted. In this case, 96 hours is not only excessive, but punitive. Andre (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm going to sleep now, but please direct all correspondence to my talk page and I'll see it tomorrow. Andre (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My Editor Review

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on my edits. If you have the time could you possibly leave a review or comment on Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Jersey Devil. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to the Past

I personally suggest unblocking Link and letting him run his RFC. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, it would allow a formal venue for Link to get his complaints shown, and hopefully also help conclude the argument on List of Animal Crossing characters that started this mess. Secondly, it would prevent the appearance of paranoid clamp-down that this block undoubtably gives to Link at present.

Essentially, a block at this point is doing more harm than good, and the page protection especially appears to not be a well thought response. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I was contacted by ALinktothePast to unblock, and I had to inform him that I would not do so. Encouraging further campaigning of the kind he was engaged in, and further incivility, would really not have been okay. Demi /_C 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could give me the reasons for the block, i'll take up the RfC if you won't let Link to the Past do it, thanks

†he Bread 06:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignored? Of course not. However, seeing as at least one other admin and myself both have criticized this block, I believe it would be the more prudent course to at the least unprotect his talk page. The disruption which Link could cause on his talk page is minimal, the damage to the encyclopedia nonexistant, the potential damage caused inestimable. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 07:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your extension of his block was purely vindictive. I don't care how annoying he is, you don't double a block's length just because someone gets a little snippy. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You could almost see some abuse of admin privillages here, I too condem this block, I also belive this may be a reaction to the fact that it was AMIB who is going to be RfCed

†he Bread 07:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I, too, disagree with the block - particularly the doubling of it when he disagreed with you. I do believe you were making the block in good faith. However, the first impression that I got when I came across it was that you were using administrative powers to punish, rather than to protect. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but it seemed vindictive. Stepping back from it, I do believe that the block was made in good faith, because I've seen your work to make Misplaced Pages better and I know you're committed to doing so. So I think you were making a good faith attempt to deal with a problem - but I also think this was the wrong way to approach it. --TheOtherBob 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I discussed this block with at least half a dozen admins both before and after the block. They all agreed at the very least that this was a judgement call, not a case of right or wrong. Most endorsed a block of some sort for his behavior before, during, and after the block, as well. --InShaneee 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's a judgment call for a block at all, then a 96 hour block is most definitely not justified. Andre (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I've now reduced it to the original 48 hours as a compromise. --InShaneee 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'm glad of that at least, but even 48 hours for a borderline case is excessive. Also, protecting the talk page is 100% inappropriate. Andre (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What's innapropriate was his comments there. Disrespect of that caliber is not tolerated here. --InShaneee 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Disrespect"? No single user inherently deserves respect any more than any other user. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Indignation is not the same as a personal attack or incivility, and it is well within the realm of reasonable speech. Silencing his disagreement with you is not protecting anyone, it's just punishing him. Andre (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And please modulate the pomposity of your tone. We are admins, not kings. Andre (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of merely saying "ditto" to what Andre and tjstrf have said, I'd say that no one owes any particular respect to anyone just because they're an admin. "Administrator" is a responsibility, not a rank.--TheOtherBob 23:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've now also protected his talk page to prevent further comment by the blocked user. I haven't seen him commit anything that could be called "vandalism" there, nor have I seen him remove anything, which are the typical reasons for blocking the talk page. Is there a reason you did that? Again, Shane, as much as you think this is an appropriate block, to a third party it really does start to look like you have it "out" for the guy. You applied a fairly long block, then doubled it when he spoke up in opposition - which looked punitive and excessive to at least a couple of people who have spoken up here. You then accused other admins of "wheel warring" when they disagreed and unblocked him. Then when people started complaining about it on the talk page, you protected that. I know you mean well, but it is starting to look bad - it's starting to reflect more on you than on him. I'm just a third party to all this mess - but it's something to consider. Thanks. --TheOtherBob 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment below. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ---

Dear InShaneee, I dont know that,why you are so opposite to me and you use unsuitable/unpolite language in your statements as below?

If he doesn't think he did anything wrong, he'll just do it again once unblocked. We CANNOT let this guy back if he's blatantly not going to care about policy. --InShaneee 13:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There are three arguments in your comment above;
1-If he doesn't think he did anything wrong; is not correct. I am accepting my wrong,At first moment,after first warning.I put my apologies in related talk pages(including Khoikhoi, with my congrats)The way that I choose was not correct according to wiki rules,as I learned, I had no detailed info about rules at that time and I am trying to learn.
2-he'll just do it again once unblocked;also is not correct since I stopped my efforts(to sending messages) after first warning.This is very prejudistic allege without any evidence.
3-he's blatantly not going to care about policy;also prejudistic and contain unpolite words.There are many evidence on my care about wiki rules.For my last case, I already explained what is what.Considering the unpolite word"blatantly"; there is a saying in Turkish; Kötü söz sahibine aittir- Bad word suits to the owner.
You most certainly do not have the right to demand apologies from anyone, for any reason. --InShaneee 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC);Anybody most certainly do not have the right to affront to anyone, for any reason.

You are admin in enwiki, and its normal to wait more neutrality from an admin.

Sincerely

Mustafa Akalp 15:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I also thought from day 1 that it was a mistake to let you back, and your activity is proving me right with each second that goes by. Instead of admitting to a terribly poor contributing behaviour that you'd be willing to improve, you've got the nerve to ask from people to apologise to you. You actually expect editors to invite you back to wikipedia and admit their mistake of having you banned you in the first place. And as if that wasn't enough, you're actually pursuing people's apologies by leaving them messages in their Talk pages, I'm mean this is just laughable. I just feel sorry about the admins and editors that will have too deal with you again in the near future. Miskin 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You Don't Know Jack

You Don't Know Jack - I have added a neutrality discussion section to this entry, based on your tag - I would appreciate it if you were to give your reasons, or further details, so that corrections may be made to the article. Elcondor 13:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Caligvla

Please see this: . You have warned him for personal attacks in the past.--Eupator 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see below, Eupator calls me a racist for no legitimate reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/Portal:Armenia/Armenia-related_Wikipedia_notice_board --Caligvla 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring while accusing others of wheel warring is still wheel warring.

Title and should say it all, really. If other admins are presenting rational oppositions to your administrative actions, you should not be redoing them without addressing their opposition. Furthermore, to accuse these individuals of wheel-warring when you yourself are also doing so by reverting their changes is not only bad form, but downright absurd. You may wish to notice this, from WP:WHEEL

• As a rule, administrators should not undo each other's admin actions. If you disagree with an admin's action, discuss the issue with him/her.

The unblocking administrators have undone you, but they have each given a valid reason for doing so. Additionally, you will notice that the wording here states that this is a general rule. There will be exceptions.

So, their behaviour may have been slight suboptimal. However, looking one line further down the wheel warring page:

• If your action is reverted, you may not re-revert it: you must either discuss it or allow some other admin to take the action.

You have broken this definitely worded rule no less than 4 times and are wheel-warring against 2 other admins, all the while decrying the sin of wheel warring. This is both hypocritical and flies directly in the face of policy. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then do something about it. I welcome review from a broad audience, not ranting. --InShaneee 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a moment. Sixteen hours after another admin unblocked, the original block, which otherwise would have been halfway to expiring by now, is reinstated? Irrespective of the merits of the original block (the user's behavior was certainly not exemplary), this situation is now totally unfair to the user in question, who must be hopelessly confused. I suggest taking this to ANI. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, my mistake; I should have recalculated the original block. I'll attempt that now and adjust the block down. --InShaneee 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the posting of a policy explanation being characterized as ranting. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And I dislike policy being dictated back to me like a newbie. --InShaneee 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Friend haven't to you in a Good Minute.

InShaneee, i got a problem. Every time i try to edit a page a little box show talkin 'bout i need to save something What should i do?Gamer322

Don't shoot the messenger ;)

Hey there, InShaneee. I posted an RfC on behalf of a user who asked around on IRC if someone would post it for him, as he's blocked at the moment. I've no real knowledge of the situation; that is, I didn't create the RfC, I just posted it. Anyways, here's the link: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee. I hope it all works out! Cheers hoopydink 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

I just thought you would like to know that I responded to your response on your RfC (on the talk page). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you removed the Frank Grimes thing as an example of disruption. My creating that user page article disrupts nothing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've commented (at much greater length than I intended) on the RfC. I hope my comments are helpful. I also think that this is a dispute to be moved on from and that for the two of you to interact in this manner indefinitely is not going to do anyone any good. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a dispute - InShaneee abused his authority, and if I have anything to say about it, he's going to get some form of punishment. Hell, the least he should get is a significant block - he violated some major, important policies. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Users - administrators or not - don't get blocked for making mistakes in judgment, and an RfC is not a vehicle for seeking any remedy other than comments from the community. As you will see from my extensive comment on the RfC, I believe this situation was badly mishandled, and I think the RfC comments reflect that others agree with that, but you are not going to impress anybody by running around screaming for vengeance, either. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not calling for "vengeance". Pretty much everything InShaneee did with the exception of one compromise after tons of admins got on his case were things that no admin should do. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is improvement of the situation going forward, which your RfC may help achieve, not obtaining "some form of punishment." The irony of your username notwithstanding, in this instance, we look to the future, not to the past. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well what am I supposed to think? He still believes what he did was okay, which isn't going to help with the future. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: What about the Frank Grimes' article on my user page violates any existing guideline or policy? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A reminder: I am still waiting for you to respond. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └  / talk  13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't it's a computer popup that says " Save,Open or Cancel".Gamer322

im not trying to advertise

hello InShaneee i just made a first star online 2 wiki page and you deleted it due to advertisement. but i am not trying to advertise it. im just putting information of the game on wikipedia. like items and skills. so please reconsider not deleting my page. thanks :)

-mossman95

When creating articles about gyms...

How come you cannot create an article about a Ironworks Gym? I mean, Gold's Gym has an article and so does many other gyms. Ironworks gym was supposed to be an article arguing why private gyms are better than commercialized, corporate gyms. That was what the meat of the article was about, but you deleted it as advertisement.

User Shervink

Hello InShanee. Im having a problem with user shervink and i was hoping you could help. He has removing sourced content from the Mohammed Mossadegh page (please see the page history). I have given him four warnings at his talk page () but he keeps removing sourced content. He removed the texts "Mohammed Mossadegh was.. democratically elected" and "British and U.S. funded CIA coup" . He then backed away from removing the text "democratically elected" but instead changed "CIA coup" to plot and completely removed that the "coup was led by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr." and that it was "known as Operation Ajax". All of this has been referenced and i explicitly moved the references to right after the texts being deleted to make this clear (see this edit ). However this was removed again by shervink . This user has made this kind of edits before and they were discussed at the talk page here and here but he left the discussion by writing "'m tired of discussing obvious matters".

I hope this can be resolved quickly.. thanks --- Melca 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:

That's not an accusation though. He did use actual nazi literature(it's not an analogy), and the characterization of the literature as nazi literature was made by your colleague not me. I'll dig up the diffs if you want. --Eupator 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Colleague=another admin.

Read this: . That's about his source. This is where your colleague agrees that it was indeed nazi literature after I showed him the above link.. I think you owe me an apology, for calling this "trolling" especially when you once blocked me for calling someones edit "trolling". Ironic?--Eupator 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)