User talk:InShaneee: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:54, 5 January 2007 editDreadstar (talk \| contribs)53,180 editsm →Redirect wars: order change← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:46, 5 January 2007 edit undoDreadstar (talk \| contribs)53,180 edits →Redirect wars: re-titleNext edit →
Line 87:		Line 87:
	The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at ]. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. ] 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)		The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at ]. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. ] 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

			==User ignoring policy==
	==Redirect wars==
	Hi InShaneee, got a little situation going on, there’s been a dispute between four editors about the redirect of an article which had its contents moved to several other articles – the original article, now empty, had to be preserved for the 2 year old edit history.		Hi InShaneee, got a little situation going on, there’s been a dispute between four editors about the redirect of an article which had its contents moved to several other articles – the original article, now empty, had to be preserved for the 2 year old edit history.

Revision as of 18:46, 5 January 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Dec06. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

Click here to start a new talk section.

The illusion/Chao9999: I'd like some help on some issues.

Hey man. I'm here because I'm unable to move the article "Majora" to "Majora's Mask", as that article is a redirect article. I'd like your advice on this issue. I need to make the current "Majora's Mask" article become what "Majora" is, while "Majora" becomes a disambig. page which lists the game, and the character. Because of this, I'd like your assistance on what to do. Thanks in advance. -Chao9999 06:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, hey, can you get back to me on that? AIM would be a good thing, heh. -Chao9999 06:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotect The Matrix

I was wondering if its worthwhile sprotecting The Matrix. Regards, -- Jeff3000 15:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia the matrix semiprotects you! ---J.S 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

As an editor of the article "Jhonen Vasquez", you are invited to a Request for Comment (as suggested by Admin Luna Santin). Please see: Talk:Jhonen Vasquez#Request for Comment: Book format. -- Tenebrae 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Incivil comments

Dear InShaneee - I would like to report inappropriate behaviour of user Eupator. We have a long argument with him on page Paytakaran. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Paytakaran He insulted me several times. I ask you to interfere and block the page in the edition of Grandmaster or me.

I also would like to report that we have discussion with him and TigrantheGreat on page Urartu. The page was protected from editing but the current version is not satisfying for me. I proposed Eupator and TigranTheGreat to ask mediation agreement. They have not done that. I am trying to resolve the disputes with them in good spirit but it seems to be not sucessful. I thought that Urartu page was blocked by Nishkid64 - I asked him about interference to this and also Paytakaran issue. But he is perhaps busy and not responded.--Dacy69 14:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nishkid64 responded. I will not make further comments. People start accusing me - make please your own judgement who is wrong. Here is the list of pages where we conducted the dispute 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Paytakaran 2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Nishkid64#please_protect_a_page_Paytakaran_from_the_insults 3 - http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dacy69 --Dacy69 05:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jawbone Radio

You participated in the Jawbone Radio AfD a couple of weeks ago. It's now up for deletion review. Regards, Alphachimp 05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Throwing accusations around

You jumped in and told me "Calm down. Misplaced Pages does not allow you to simply throw around accusations anywhere and for any reason you please, and you can only harm the site if you're going to jump into debates to 'save the day'. --InShaneee 03:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC) But this is exactly what happens when Tajik is accused of anything, others are required to support their accusations, but administrators allow unsupported accusations against those accusing Tajik of anything. Here, for example, E104421 accuses Tajik of something, provides diffs and evidence, but another user who is a friend of Tajik's jumps in, just like they did against me, and accuses E104421 of stalking Tajik, with no diffs, no support, nothing, just throwing accusations around. As I said, when I provided diffs, when I supported my accusations, I was ignored by administrators, as is currently happening on WP:PAIN, and I was attacked by Tajik's supporters throwing around accusations anywhere and for any reason against anyone who asks for civil behaviour on the part of Tajik. And, again, administrators simply ignore supported accusations against Tajik--and seem to allow, and by allowing, encourage unsupported accusations against anyone who asks for civility from Tajik. This is exactly what happened to me, I provided evidence, I supported my accusations, I made a proper complaint, but Tajik simply uses a handy administrator, has friends accuse anyone who edits the same page as he does of stalking, and gets away with it time and again--Misplaced Pages does indeed allow editors, certain editors, to "simply throw around accusations anywhere and for any reason." The user who posted this stalking accusation against E104421 hasn't been told he's not allowed to throw around accusations, because it appears he is allowed to--in fact, anyone supporting Tajik is allowed to throw around accusations on Misplaced Pages. KP Botany 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Spiritualism rating

Hello InShanee. Please take a look at the talk pages on Spiritualism before replacing the rating again. Thanks Anthon.Eff 04:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And while we're at it, please also leave some knowledgable comments at the talk page for Reincarnation Research, as well, since you have chosen to provide the rating. Thanks Anthon.Eff 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the Talk:Spiritualism page for my response. If comments are not forthcoming in a few days, I will remove the paranormal banner, since so far it has just attracted editors who know almost nothing about the history of this religious movement. Anthon.Eff 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You do not have the right to do so, and you will treat other editors with respect. --InShaneee 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I left you one further response on Talk:Spiritualism, InShaneee. Anthon.Eff 05:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bikini Speedbandits

Actually, no need to tag the article, go ahead and delete it. I put the delete tag on a couple of weeks ago, outraged at the slur on my country, and then thought, what the heck, keep it, rewritten to inform people that the supposed traffic control policy was simply a satirical public relations campaign. You're the administrator, delete it. Anthon.Eff 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Just thought I should let you know about this discussion that concerns you. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Hello, InShaneee. As the blocking admin in this case, I'd like to request that you comment further in this post and this post, in order to clear up any confusion. Thank you. -Severa (!!!) 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to OGame (3RR)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Happy New Year Cocoaguy_contribs 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Block

You blocked me for 24 hours, stating as a reason 'vandalism'. Care to explain what I vandalised and when? Care to offer a reason why I shouldn't think it was an incredibly petty block because I removed your 'paranormal' tag from Red rain in Kerala? Suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, and also the bit in Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy about how admins are not allowed to block people they're having a content dispute with. 81.178.208.69 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

InShaneee, you should be aware that there is discussion on this block on the noticeboard here. Newyorkbrad 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Week

The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week#Misplaced Pages Week. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. Badbilltucker 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User ignoring policy

Hi InShaneee, got a little situation going on, there’s been a dispute between four editors about the redirect of an article which had its contents moved to several other articles – the original article, now empty, had to be preserved for the 2 year old edit history.

One editor (User:Jc37) believed the redirect should go to a “lists” or “disambiguation” page, while the other three thought the article should be redirected to the main name article where the most relevant content was moved to.

In the middle of the dispute, the one editor (User:Jc37) took pre-emptive action to move the old redirect article under dispute to a new article, then created a new article with the old name.

He did this over the objections of one of the disputing editors, (User:Goldfritha) and during a holiday Wikibreak of another disputing editor (me!). This completely contrary to spirit of the AfD findings, the talk page discussion on the redirect, and bypasses the entire ] process.

The original article was Wizard (fantasy), which was moved to List of wizards in fantasy, which is one of the articles we asked that it not be redirected to! Then he created a brand-new Wizard (fantasy) article with no edit history .

I’d like to see User:Jc37 warned, so he doesn’t ignore the dispute resolution process again, and if possible have the changes he made reversed until we all come to a final decision.

Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)