Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:37, 11 August 2006

• Jan 2006 to Mar 2006
• Mar 2006 to Apr 2006
• Apr 2006 to May 2006
• May 2006 to Jun 2006
• Jun 2006 to Jul 2006
• Jul 2006 to Aug 2006

User:Richardcavell

Thanks for protecting the page. I spent a fair bit of time on WP:AIAV yesterday, and no doubt rubbed some vandals up the wrong way. - Richardcavell 22:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Review me

Hello Samir. If you get some time can you add your remarks here. Thanks. Take care. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman

No way, I woulda done it, but I got into trouble with protection a little while ago and wanted to stay away. Staxringold _talk 04:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Indian religions fracas

Hello Samir. I'm just wondering if you might want to take a quick look into this. There has been a lot of arguing on my talk page involving User:BhaiSaab, Holywarrior and Bakasuprman as well. Even Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bakasuprman is now up and running. There seems to be a lot of hostility on both sides, there are some definite personal attacks, but I am wondering what to make of some strong and irrelevant religious commentary (christian vs hindu) at Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy about Popes, inquisitions, Holocaust, anti-semitism and Dalits etc on the other side of the ledge. I thinking of trying to give an amnesty for somethings where both parties opened fire and ask them to sign up to a kind of informal parole condition for conduct on talk pages. Thanks again, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Looks like these guys have very strong religious opinions, and towards other religions, and their display of their thoughts on these things when they were supposed to be discussing the content has lead to some bad blood.

• Holywarrior got into an argument on Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy irrelevant to the content. An general debate on the politics of religion occurred, possibly leading to his blacklisting on those lists. He is also on a list at User_talk:Subhash bose. (Late July)
• Dangerous-Boy uses the term "bible-thumper" while debating on the same page with a person who is self-declared as a high-ranking member of a missionary organisation. Despite the obvious conflict of interest, this is an unfortunate usage of language.
• The list is discovered, and in the course of the debate, many users inappropriately cite others' religion during the debate, rather than the appropriateness of the list. This occurs in a few AfDs also.
• Hostilities break out......lots of accusations... which I have investigated for subsequent stuff and will prepare my findings on my talk page.

I don't really think there is any rule against users debating religion unless they make jibes about the religion or insults against other users based on that, but we can see why it isn't a good idea to parade religious opinions. I don't think I can do anything about that, if the users have difficulty working with each other because of their known differences in religious ideology I don't think there's anything one can do to change their outlook, since we aren't psychologists or the like... so I think I can only comment on the subsequent clashes and niggling. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Star Collection.jpg

Many thanks for sorting this. TerriersFan 04:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

You are most welcome to peek at my contribs any time you wish, my dear Samir - and I'm glad you like it :) Everything's fine over here, and it's great to see that the Too Much Talk is not getting you stressed anymore, like I said at my card ;) Take care! Hugs Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 06:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage reverts

Thanks for the reverts! Though the part about getting into Yale didn't sound all that bad. ;) Luna Santin 06:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Yep, it needs to be done again in 6 hours, there are heaps of suggestions. --Peta 07:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IntheGhetto06

I have already added a checkuser request for this user. If I discover that this user is definitely a sockpuppet of Shakim67, I'm blocking the lot of them indefinitely. That is, unless you or another admin figures this is a bad idea. --Yamla 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hemorrhoid

Have you seen this discussion at the hemorrhoid talk page? Your image might just be what was needed here.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 22:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

more User:01001 OR

Hey Samir, since you were the voice of sanity last time... I've reverted the OR artist User:01001 again (note the excellent edit summaries) . I supplied references to counter the arguments several days ago at Talk:Hair#It is pretty obvious that people have lost their hair because of clothes.. Pete.Hurd 06:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Images on some articles

Hey Samir, just wanted to let you know that I noticed that a user has been uploading a lot of pictures on various articles, (and I think) wrongly claiming copyright on them by using the self tag. I just saw it on Tamil films history, so thought I'd let you know. Cheers. - Cribananda 06:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to have fun with Striver

He would probably laugh...he creates these articles simply to be a pain...a kind of adolescent pain...so I added a couple of members so he didn't feel lonely...Striver is a nice person, but a bit misguided...he means well and he is needed on shia muslim articles because sometimes he does get it right there.--MONGO 07:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA Question

Sure. Thanks for the comment.

I've been editing and reviewing NYCT articles for a while and have seen I.M. Rich's many contributions throughout them. He has basically started a lot of our best articles. Until those actions, I'd hardly characterize him as a troll. I'd characterize him as someone who does not consider the implications of his statements before he makes them.

All that said, those edits, and particularly the summaries, were very, very unacceptable. I conveyed that in my responses. When I looked at I.M. Rich's edits, I saw things that are socially acceptable within some parts of New York Society, yet wrong for this site (and personally offensive to me). Sadly, comments like that in real life are often made without consideration of their impact. They're often laughed off, but are still ridiculous and innapropriate.

Hindsight is 20/20 and bliss, and I don't agree with my original comment. Certainly a long term block was in order, and, looking back on the situation, I would now support a longer one. I wouldn't, though, support an indefinite ban. IMHO, it has to be reserved for the worst of the worst.

Over however many edits I have, I do admit to having made mistakes, and standing behind him (and admitting I found something he said amusing) so much was definitely one of them. It was wrong and stupid. If I were presented with a similar situation now, I would likely take a much more hard-line approach. If I were an admin, he would most definitely be blocked for a long (but not indefinite) term.

I'd encourage you to look beyond that one situation in forming your RfA opinion, but certainly respect your right to oppose me on its grounds. I totally appreciate you keeping me in the loop. Let me know if you'd like further clarification or want to discuss this further. By the way, you won't get a response for a little bit (sleep). alphaChimp 07:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)