Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:11, 21 June 2006

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, vfd comments

Katefan0

It looks like Katefan0 has left wikipedia, because of this It's a sad day for wikipedia. I went to Jimbo Wales talk page and stated my thoughts there, but I just previewed it, I didn't save it. I don't know if there's anything he could or would do about it. We've lost a dedicated admin. I hope she comes back, despite this attack from an outside source. Mytwocents 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Points-paying

Care to elaborate on why you don't think it should be merged? "I don't think it should be" generally doesn't cut it. Recury 01:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but they're given points per race and then at the end of a season the points are totalled up and whoever has the most wins. Recury 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly a different concept than what is discussed in the current Score (gaming) article, but I think it would make sense include a section there that discusses standings, etc. as those are ways of keeping score as well, just over a longer period of time. Recury 04:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'm going to put the merge tag back on the article to see if we can get anyone elses opinion. I don't feel real comfortable using the whole "argue with people until they get bored and give up" technique that Misplaced Pages sort of requires at times. Recury 16:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NLP

Hi, I noticed an ingoing dispute over the validity of NLP. I have personally been witness to individuals applying NLP with increased sex in interpersonal attraction of the opposite sex. I used qualatitive research and group interviewed four individuals who explained to me the processes of 'negging' and 'anchoring' and 'indicators of interest'. I may be a casual Wikipedian reader but If pushed I want to assert the validity of NLP as I know it works. Of course, as my interviews were unstructured and I haven't yet completed my Psychology course and still ongoing there is considerable delay before I take this further. Instead, I offer the advice that any strong member on the NLP page to review the claims Ross Jeffries has made. has video torrents outlining his seduction technique in full detail, and also videos where the techniques have been used publicly with success. Thanks for hearing me out --213.106.102.178 10:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian now targeting Falkland Islands

It seems nowadays Gibraltarian is targeting the article Falkland Islands. The article was protected by Katefan0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) twice, the most recent time with an instruction "please contact me before unprotecting...", but both times, Voice_of_All (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) later unprotected the article unilaterally, saying "been long enough...", but that's not true - unprotection caused G to reactivate both times, and now that Katefan0 has announced her departure, I'd like you to monitor this page and if necessary, protect the page and tell VoA to contact you before unprotecting. 00:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

He is targeting San Roque, Cádiz too. Please help if you can. Thanks, E Asterion 23:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And Algeciras too. This guy is a neverending nightmare! E Asterion 20:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

IP addresses used by banned user Gibraltarian

Please do something about this. He is the same the same articles twice a day and taking up the time of many wikipedians. Could you please semi-protect the Articles Algeciras and San Roque. Thank you.

• 212.120.226.45
• 212.120.226.248
• 212.120.225.13
• 212.120.224.80
• 212.120.224.159
• 212.120.225.86
• 212.120.225.215
• 212.120.224.36
• 212.120.237.110
• 212.120.236.198
• 212.120.236.253
• 212.120.224.134
• 212.120.224.126
• 212.120.224.229
• 212.120.225.125
• 212.120.227.109
• 195.244.200.39
• 212.120.224.218
• 212.120.237.180

request

Wow, they got kate too? She was the best. I can't imagine why anyone would be angry with her. With my paranoia meter at full now, would you zap this and this? Lord knows there are enough nuts out there whom I've crossed. I'm a nobody, but who needs a stalker? Thanks much for all. Derex 17:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll just re-create it. It has a unique fingerprint in the history. Such that a BD, or possibly a Rex (though I think he's probably harmless), could track me down with a little effort. Thanks again, and sorry about Kate. Brandt is crowing about it over on Misplaced Pages Review. Sick bastard. Derex 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User SuperDeng

I request that you do something again'st him. He doesn't stop stalking me. He reverts practically EVERYTHING I do as vandalism and does not provide a reason for doing so. He just says things like "sneaky vandalism, spreading of misinformation".

See history of the Second Battle of the Atlantic. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic&action=history I had requested the editors to talk about the term "Decisive Allied Victory" at the talk page. Everything was going OK until Deng came and started editing while the debate was still going on.

Similiar thing happened at the Polish September Campaing article e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Polish_September_Campaign&action=history

You are free to look at my contributions.

Kurt.

VoABot2

I am about to make VoABot2, which will watch pages where arbcom or several admins block reccuring banned users. I'll just enter the IP range data, and it will watch the history and autorevert anyone from that range. It is kind of like protection against specific IPs for a specific article. What do you think of this idea? If it makes you uneasy, then I'll just do it for arbcomed users.Voice-of-All 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it may be easier to just have VoABot do those.Voice-of-All 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Behave myself?

If the merits of your arguments against me are so powerful, why don't you get me unblocked, so I can discuss them with ArbComm? 216.239.38.136 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you remove 216.239.38.136's comments from Merecat's userpage? I believe it doesn't belong there. DGX 05:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I guess if he wants to get them unblocked hard enough, I guess he'll attract an admins attention and eventually wear himself out from failing so often. ;-) But seriously, I don't think he should be unblocked. DGX 05:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That must have been a hellish night, eh? Yeah, I would agree with that block, he hasn't been doing us any favors tonight. Cheers! DGX 05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wish I had IRC working on my computer, it sounds interesting. And oh, I do know. ;-) I used to have an account on Misplaced Pages before. I ended up in a conflict with a user that lasted over 6 months. It would still be ongoing if I hadn't abandoned the account. Don't worry, I wasn't one of the bad ones ;-) Darn shame I left my old account though, never had a single block to my name. Oh well.. DGX 05:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. sorry if the above comment freaked you out any. DGX 05:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Know what you mean about the past chances. I tried to give my personal vandal the benefit of the doubt and actually agreed to allow him to stay on Misplaced Pages but then he turned around and vandalized my userpage for no reason whatsoever. Needless to say, I don't have to worry about him anymore. ;-) Nope, not a bad guy, actually I think I racked up somewhere around your total number of edits before I left. DGX 06:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I was somewhere around 21,000 when I left. :s Thats why it so hard to leave my past account. I was so well known as my past name and all my hard work went down the gutter. Oh well, it was worth it to leave my vandal behind. DGX 06:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's going on 3:00 a.m. where I am, so I' going off now. Good chatting with you! Cheers! DGX 06:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Privacy Protection

Hi Woohookitty. I heard about Kate. Well, at the very least for selfish reasons, I just hope we get someone as helpful as her for the NLP and related articles. Certainly from the responses I see, she's contributed a great deal to Misplaced Pages. I understand her leaving though. In fact I reckon there should be very clear cautionary statements for anyone wishing to administer or edit. Threats of legal action, violence, abuse or even simple verbal threats both explicit an implied are hard to cope with. Anonymity is always quite transparent when networks are concerned. Anyway, do you know of anything being done about this kind of issue within Misplaced Pages? My wife is a legal expert and a barrister, and I have some legal knowledge also concerning privacy laws and regs. I'd like to see if I can contribute something. Bookmain 09:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

page protection

Thanks Woohookitty, for protecting Kosovo page. It's been a center of attacks by several sockpuppets, meatpuppets, anonymous IP's changing all the time, NPOV pushers, etc. It would be maybe nice to keep it so for some time. 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Woohookitty. I bet we are all missing Katefan now... I feel really bad as I was about to give her a barnstar for her superb job in the page protection noticeboard. Nonetheless, I emailed her with my support, the sad thing is that she has done no wrong and that guy who is stalking her can't even understand wikipedia rules: he seems to think she was endorsing some sort of whitewashing, when the only thing she was doing was protecting an article. On a different matter, to the user who left the comment above, it was me who requested the protection. I have been keeping a close eye on the article for a while. I would like to remind you that the finality of the Protection Status is to stop edit wars and reach consensus, not to endorse any given version. It would make me very glad to see some constructive efforts by all parties involved in that sense. Regards, E Asterion 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yo, Asterion, I just thanked the guy. "The user who left the comment above", is that how you address me from now on? Since you did request this protection, then thank you, too. Gosh..ilir_pz 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I'm a Swedish user with keen interest in European issues (and a MSc in European Studies). My aim is for Misplaced Pages articles to be well written, concise and NPOV (including free of selective 'evidence', emotional language, etc). Sadly, a lot of the articles on topics related to ex Yugoslavia don't fill these criteria but rather tend to serve as arenas for pushing various political agendas and victimization.

A recent example of this is the Kosovo article where a number of Kosovar Albanians don't like to hear that Kosovo is still formally considered a province of Serbia, although administered by the UN.

In order to break the deadlock I have suggested the wording used by the US Council on Foreign Relations on Kosovo (the website is quite good overall). It says, under the heading "What is Kosovo's political status?":

"Since NATO forces occupied Kosovo in 1999, the province has been a protectorate of the United Nations, with broad administrative responsibility under a mission called UNMIK. Technically, Kosovo remains a province of Serbia."

A January 2006 US Congressional Research Service special report also states this saying (page 2):

"UNSC Resolution 1244 provides little insight into how the status issue should be resolved, saying only that it should be determined by an unspecified “political process.” However, the resolution explicitly confirms the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (consisting of Serbia and neighboring Montenegro) and calls for “substantial autonomy” for Kosovo “within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” The FRY was dissolved in February 2003, replaced with a looser “state union” entitled “Serbia and Montenegro.” Kosovars believe that the dissolution of the FRY invalidates this portion of UNSC Resolution 1244, while the international community views Kosovo as part of Serbia." (my emphasis added).

Now, since UNSCR 1244 confirmed the territorial integrity of what was then Yugoslavia and the UN, EU Commission, UNMIK, US government and all other describe Kosovo as a province of Serbia shouldn't also Misplaced Pages do this regardless of the political ambitions of various Kosovar Albanian users?

I don't see how you can compromise on the facts. Osli73 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The compromise can be found in the resolution 1244, where it is clearly stated that Kosovo will be formally considered as a part of FRY, and the UN interim admin there will lead the process to define its status (hint: there is no status until then). Osli73, referring to non-partisan organisations resarch groups and several old maps is trying to impose his NPOV on an article, and at the same time refusing to quote the documents with the highest importance in Kosovo, 1244 Resolution and Kosovo's . Ignoring these two important documents, and instead referring to sites of convenience to NPOV push is not appreciated in Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, no need to accuse Kosovar Albanian wikipedians, for inisting in these internationally recognized, and most important documents valid in Kosovo as of now. Regards, ilir_pz 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this on my talk page. Thanks. --Woohookitty 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir,

1. Yes, UNSCR 1244 confirms the territorial integrity of FRY (now SCG, soon only Serbia).

2. According to the Constitution of SCG Kosovo is a province of Serbia. Ergo, Kosovo is a province of Serbia.

3. The EU, UN, the US and all countries in Europe (except maybe Albania) obviously se Kosovo as province of Serbia, as shown by my references.

4. When respected media organizations like the BBC present Kosovo to its readers (see my previous link) it defines Kosovo as a province of Serbia.

5. Albanian nationalists (and you do define yourself as one on your user page) prefer to see Kosovo as a province of FRY with unclear legal status since it would imply that Serbia has no legal claim on Kosovo. Osli73 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bravo

You did the right thing DMorpheus 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And again. DMorpheus 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I admire your willingness to take this on since I know there was a lot of disagreement last time you tried to manage this. I don't know why he is allowed to edit at all; IMHO he should be banned. He contributes very little value, and disrupts constantly. DMorpheus 14:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My speedies

Thanks :) Betacommand 07:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Randy121

Sorry I should've made it more clear, he was blocked before for three hours then returned and proceeded to do the same thing. I didn't warn him again because I thought the previous blocking would've been sufficent. This was asking to block the user for the new nonsense that happened since the last block. --- Lid 09:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian and semi-protection

Hi, saw you semi-protected Falkland Islands and was wondering if you'd mind doing the same to Algeciras and San Roque, Cádiz. The recent edit histories are almost entirely reverts of User:Gibraltarian's edits. Cheers, — ceejayoz 16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is absolutely necessary...--Burgas00 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng again.

This isn't going anywhere. You can ban me and him again if you wish, but that doesn't solve the problem. He says that practically everything I do is vandalism. It seems that he is too lazy to do research. E.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic

SuperDeng: "rv, the removeing of vital information"

What I altered was this.

"Vice Admiral Karl Dönitz, commander of German U-boats (BdU, 1935-1943), Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy, 1943-1945; at war's end, Hitler's successor as Führer."

Dönitz was only Reichspräsident, his title was not Führer (but it seems that Deng doesn't realise even this. I have said this many times and he could find it out by simply looking at Karl Dönitz article), and I truly don't think that information regarding his presidency is relevant in the article.

My form.

"Karl Dönitz, commander of the German U-boat fleet between 1935 and 1943, and Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy from January 1943 to May 1945."

Another good example is the Winter War article (see it yourself). I suggested that people would discus about the change I did in the battle box at the talk page, but he rejected this offer and reverted, his only justification apparently being the RFC. That is no justification, you have said this yourself.

I would like to solve this "peacefully", I truly would.

Kurt.

Others revert you on many articles for example the battle of the netherlands and winter war which proves that you are a vandal. You remove sourced numbers and alter real facts. And you insert only vandalism into articles for example finland is not part of scandinavia therefore it can not have a scandinavian winter, but it is part of the north and can have a nordic winter. Respond to your rfc and explain your acts of mass vandalism instead of vandalizing even more pages. And respond in the proper field and in a coherent fashion (Deng 09:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

If you wanna solve this peacefully, stop making edits like this. -- Grafikm 10:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Hello Woohookitty,

User Ecemaml has told us to ask you for help with a problem me and a number of users, including Ecemaml, have had with the article on Gibraltar. Perhaps you could provide some form of arbitration. Over the past few months, user Gibnews has imposed his POV version of the article on the vast majority of users. Other opinions backed with acceptable sources are dismissed by him as pro-Spanish. He also seems to convey a sense of irrational hostility towards Spain and Spaniards which are reflected in his edits. If you check the history of the talk page, he has driven away a number of users over the past few months. He is now engaged in disputes regarding articles on "San Roque" and "Algeciras" (cities close to the British territory of Gibraltar.) Permanently banned user "Gibraltarian" has recently returned to support him as an unregistered user signing as "yanito". On the other side of the debate, the only user showing a (Pro Spanish POV) tendentious and aggressive behaviour is User Ismael76, although he seems to have got bored of the issue and left the debate.

I was wondering if you could give us some advice on what we should do with Gibnews and the article in general. It is sad when users appropriate articles as their own to express their POVs.

Please have a look at the following:

Thanks alot

Ok but can u at leas block User: Gibraltarian who is permanently banned and is now continuing to vandalise a number of pages with IP address 195.244.194.29 . I think even User: Gibnews (whith whom I often argue) will agree to this.

Cheers!--Burgas00 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00.

Hello I have seen you have semi protected San Roque. You have forgotten to semiprotect Algeciras which is still being vandalised. I also recommend you Semi-protect Gibraltar, after consulting with Gibnews.

RFCU Abuse

When you get a chance I would appreciate it if you can see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Rex071404.2FUser:Merecat The user User:RyanFreisling has added my name to the RFCU without citing any evidence other then my support for user Merecat, same for 2 other IP's added by User:Nescio which is in violation of RFCU policy. User:RyanFreisling is using it as an intimidation tactic to get me to drop support for a look into merecat/rex's case. Using RFCU for this purpose is obviously a punishable offense. --zero faults 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The above user has now resorted to personal attacks in violation of WP:PA --zero faults 15:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added his name because of his 1) absolute refusal to answer the question 'Are you Rex' and 2) because his behavior consists almost entirely of Merecat-related disputes, in which he carries on the lies of his prior self. This is a valid CU, and this user needs to cease his disruptive and evasive behavior. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce: Bill James

I have added the entry for Bill James to your desk because you have listed an interest in baseball. Please check your desk and either accept or pass (let me know if you'd like me to reassigned it). Thank you. RJFJR 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser complete

You made a request for a Checkuser to be run, which has now been completed. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser#Completed_requests for the results. the wub "?!" 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Way to be strong

in the face of this. . Apparently it was a bad joke. Very bad. Take care. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably more of an in joke. --Woohookitty 05:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Deng

I am happy, you have reconsidered. OK, I will try to control Deng, hope Irpen and Tyres will help us too. Maybe we can swap, you try to mentor User:AlexPU and I will try my chances with Deng. Both will return in a month. abakharev 05:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible user:RabbitHead = user:SuperDeng? There is a similar style, same words spelled wrong in the same way, same sources cited in similar fashion. Similar edit comments and rapid-fire reverts in the Georgy Zhukov article. Rabbithead was created a few days after Deng's block started. Just a possibility. Remember user:Victory_Day? DMorpheus 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry for questioning your guess with the matter. You were right and I was wrong. I have doubled the block time to Deng (hope it works this time) and permablocked the RabbitHead. abakharev 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

VoABot

I think I finally fixed the 2nd heading bug that caused the "unprotection" requests section to not show correctly for some reason (due to a single extra character). It can be fixed with null edits, and the bot is programmed to make them (if nothing changes then there will be no edit) just in case. Keep an eye out though would you? I watch it while I can, though I am tired now.

Also, do you have any suggestions for it? Thanks.Voice-of-All 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

711 hours, lol

In case you weren't aware, you can also specify an exact expiration time, such as "23:59 August 19, 2009" or "next Wednesday", etc., which would most likely be easier than breaking out the calculator, it's pretty user-friendly in that respect. — Jun. 6, '06 <freak|talk>

As for block conflicts, the system should, at a minimum, warn you like it does for an edit conflict, or when you attempt to move one page on top of another. Something like, "User:$1 is already blocked by User:$2, with an expiry time of $3 (reason: $4)" with choices: "change block duration to " and "cancel", or something... — Jun. 6, '06 <freak|talk>

Helen Wu

I feel awful being "worse than Woohookitty". Isn't it interesting how many cynics there are just in one block. FT2 (Talk) 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Añoranza

I think this user might have been unfairly blocked. Zerofault's made an incident report since he didn't like Anoranza's edits. Then Zerofault's makes another incident report and then an admin blocks Anoranza for a week apparently because he questioned the motives of an admin by saying: "You block me because you cannot count up to three, in spite of being involved in the conflict yourself, then your threaten me instead of apologizing, and now you complain about incivility? I'd call that barefaced." The drastic action taken against Anoranza strikes me as particularly odd given that not long ago Nomen Nescio made an incident report about Zerofault's altering his comments and it was ignored. I could be wrong though. -- Mr. Tibbs 04:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the incident report, Nescio is stating I would not let him edit his own comments, not that I edited them. He was attempting to edit comments on the talk page that I already replied to. Even he admits that much, I dont understand why you are carrying this on. --zero faults 10:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Me either since I'm not going to get involved. So take it somewhere else please. --Woohookitty 10:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:UNFORGIVEN

There's one on his account here. In wikimedia he's uploaded two - and both of those are definately fake copyright to me. - Lid 05:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

RFCU

Your checkuser on Hylas Chung is complete. Thatcher131 16:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Kosovo (A minor template change)

I noticed that you protected the article, Kosovo so I figured I would ask you this request. I was hoping that you could remove the template "more" from the article, and replace it with template "morepolitics" as the previous template has been moved to the latter as the new name better describes the actual function of the template. Thanks for the help.--SomeStranger 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous

Is he really blocked? And why did his user page end up on that version? This edit seemed quite civil: . Stephen B Streater 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well ... yeah; and what the hell happened to my user page? There was some stuff there, I seem to remember, and now it's gone. Not that it was of any real import, and I can understand someone screwing up and blocking the wrong person, but any chance it'll get restored? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 05:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding restoring my userpage: yes, duh! I forgot there was history. Still, I think it would have been nice if you had restored it, since you (mistakenly) messed it up. No big deal, but it would have been nice. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kurt

Thanks a lot for your block. BTW, I do not understand that is going on, why he is able to work after been blocked. I never have had this situation before. Thanks again.

Please sometime check the situation with Kurt vs. Deng. I had some E-mail exchanges with Deng and I am afraid I could subconsciously took Deng's side in his battle instead of modifying his behavior abakharev 12:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advise. You are right in every word you wrote. abakharev 13:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kitty

How's the Razz playin' goin? Do you play it often... I wouldn't even know where to look for a live game or an online game!! :-)

Anyway I was hoping you could help out and protect a page... (not sure if this is the proper way to ask, I just know you're an admin)... the page Serial Box if you go through the edit history, you will see that a link to a site called "codez4mac.com" is constantly reinsterted... CONSTANTLY... I can't even count the number of times. The site codez4mac appears to be some sort of discusison forum (which requires registration, hence contrary to link policy) and a co-sysop is trying to get traffic to the site. (He told me that when I tried to warn once of his puppets once).

Please protect, or advise.

- Abscissa 05:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Block of Kurt Leyman

According to SPUI, who posted a comment to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kurt Leyman, 193.185.55.253 (talk · contribs) is a company proxy and the block is preventing another editor from editing. Whois says it's registered to ABB_Ltd. in Finland. I don't know how to prove/disprove that it is a shared IP, I merely bring this to your attention. Cheers. Thatcher131 11:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppett

How do I report a sock puppett? Pls respond on my page. Thanks. Rlevse 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Email

You have email.

Please let me know if it doesn't arrive.
Otherwise if it does, email reply please.

All the best,
FT2

24.118.64.237

The admin vandal page indicates you blocked this user, but it doesn't show up on his talk page. Thanks for blocking him. I reported with VP, but someone beat me to it. Thanks. Rlevse 10:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce

I added 4Kids Entertainment to your deak. I need an opinion on its status and you listed wikification as a major interest. Someone may have tried to close the entry and erred in the procedure. First thing to do is decide if it needs more work and second is to figure out what it needs. Let me know if you'd like to be reassigned to someone else. Did you get a chance to look at the Bill James article also on your desk? If it's outside your interests let me know and I'll reassign it. Thank you. RJFJR 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. RJFJR 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Status on WP:AIV

Hi Woohookitty, before I post a request for a permanent link to the blocklist on AIV, could you please share with me your objection to the idea? Cheers, Netsnipe 09:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC).

Zero?

I saw you delisted Zero from the vandal page. However, since my comments were deleted (today, yesterday, the day before) and he apparently feels free to keep deleting them I am curious as to what exactly I can do. Could you at least explain to him this is not acceptable or can editors freely delete other editors comments? Nomen Nescio 10:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NLP articles

I thought it was best to drop a note and ensure there weren't any crossed wires on this area. I know you said you plan to let it go, but I would hate to see you feel it was left in a mess, so I'd like to discuss a cleanup approach briefly if you are willing, to ensure it's left in a better state.

Background

The heart of the problem (as I see it) is this: We know there is an "opposing view" and some people speak strongly, some less strong. The problem is, that those who have presented that opposinbg view, also grossly misrepresented it. This included forged cites and credentials, wilful misreadings, selecting the negatives from each research rather than the balanced conclusions, and so on. So although we know there is likely to be a strong negative view, we don't know exactly the details, nor how representative it truly is. I attempted to get around this by research, and that took about 2 weeks solid. But most of what I found was weak-supportive. The negative reports were often from out-of-context sources. In other words, editorials, skeptical writings, and so on. Scientific research seemed to be much more weak-positive, weak-supportive, or "needs more research", and end user reports (from credible bodies not associated with NLP) were almost entirely positive.

Approach to editing articles

I've attempted to move out bulk material to sub-articles where appropriate. Thus History of NLP is one, and Principles of NLP another. By agreement, I left Comaze and GregA completely alone to clean up presuppositions, fundamentals, principles etc, to synchronize all citations, and to summarize only in the main article with a {{main|Principles of NLP}} section link. This was to avoid "too many cooks" issues. I have avoided being involved in that area since, but I agree, what should be a simple cleanup has not happened. So you are right. I'll take a look at that area myself.

The "list of users" has a history to it. It would usually have been simply footnoted as support for the statement "NLP is widely used by credible bodies", and as a footnote would have been fine. But when research showing that it is widely treated as credible, is repeatedly deleted or trashed by Vandal & Co. as being faked, it seemed the obvious solution to list the large number of known credible users and let readers form their own decision. That may not be typical. Usually you can cite a few examples and the subject is agreed. In this case, that wasn't working, and only a list of many many credible users seemed to stand a chance of sorting out the meatpuppet vandalism. Right or wrong, that was the purpose of that article.

Articles where re-checking the "skeptic view" has been less of an issue, such as History of NLP, Representational systems (NLP), Submodality (NLP) etc, which I worked on, have been notably less problematic. I still need to complete adding relevant cites to the latter though.

NLP and science I still need the "opposing view" for. I've asked, and I don't have any answers. I know there is one, what I don't know is if those researchers quoted by HeadleyDown & Co. were actually quoted accurately or representatively. Others I checked were not. I have asked for source material to verify for myself their findings, but have not had luck yet. Can you suggest how to frame the opposing view in these circumstances? I'd appreciate advice.

Summary

Hope this is okay for you. I'm sorry if you feel frustrated. if it's any use, I do too. Given access to the actual research papers cited by HD I could finish it up easily. But all I have is what HD says they said... and on various occasions HD was untruthful about research findings of valid research. So I have a problem whether or not to trust apparently valid citical cites, when added. Nonetheless, give me till the weekend, I'll try to get that article more into shape. If you are agreeable, I will probably prioritize as follows:

1. Clean up the fundamentals and presuppositions area (today/tomorrow). Target for a presentable cleanup, Wednesday /Thursday this week. This section at least should be easy (doesn't need much further research) and it's a big mess, which is why I suggest to hit it first.
2. Have another go at researching the "opposing cites" on NLP, progress note for you and discussion by the end of the week (but may slip a day or 2 if problematic).
3. NLP and Science rough filling in of missing sections over the weekend.

Let me know if this is okay, and any other suggestions? Thanks. FT2 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re your note -- that makes sense... I'm sorry. I really am. I'll try to do what i can for it. But i think it needs aggressive patrolling and that's not really the wiki spirit we tend to prefer. * hugs * and thanks for your efforts and see you on other articles... :) FT2 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome :-)

Howdy! Thanks for the warm welcome, I really appreciate it. We are working on making stubsensor even more accurate with AI. With the new system, the more the stubs get cleaned up, the more accurate stubsensor will be. On top of that, we are changing things in the software to make it more accurate too. You are always a pleasure to work with! Take care, Triddle 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: 207.200.116

Apparently User:207.200.116.0/24 is not blocked yet and I am still reverting vandal coming from that range --WinHunter 08:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The block works like a charm. ^_^ --WinHunter 08:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Biff loman9

Sorry to have seen the vandalism that this user committed on your user page. Save the thought that this user's age may find them in a the classification of minors, I think an indef block may soon be in order. Take it easy. Netscott 14:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the block as long as you want. I can create as many new accounts as I need. This one has served it's purpose. You're too dumb to be able to stop me. 70.49.240.232 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Welp, looks like it's time to hit the indef. button there. If you do you may want to post a block review on WP:AN or WP:ANI. Take it easy. Netscott 23:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)