Misplaced Pages

My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to review my contributions and contribute to my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your feedback and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Misplaced Pages. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

deepthinka page???

--Deepthinka 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm hoping to get some sort of closure as to the un-notablity of a deepthinka page. I listed a long list of criterion based on your requirements, but that is no longer on the page, i believe i didnt time stamp it. i'd hope to not be ignored, i realize u may be up to your neck in deletion comments, etc; but if u take a short time out, i believe you'll find this label to be just as notable as the other mid level independents currently residing in the wikipedia community. I appreciate any attention you can give this request, and response you can provide, and I look forward to building a DeepThinka Misplaced Pages page in a manner consistent with the rules and regulations. Thanks! Peace.

Vandalism

Thanks for response, BUT I'm looking for assistance as I'm relatively new. I have noticed two separate IP addresses being responsible for serial vandalism...one is a repeat offender from way back and is now doing it continuously despite warnings. Another just started on 17 Jan and after a warning, accelerated the vandalism, which is mostly defamatory language inserted in articles, especially Tom Clancy. Am I supposed to be issuing warnings???? or what is the process...these users are out of control HJ 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, in both cases...most instances had been reverted, but no warnings left. When you went to their user page, it looked like a graffiti artists diary with nonstop vandalism and no warnings. Due to the crude language used, thought someone on admin side should be alerted.HJ 02:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There were two of the pranksters as mentioned above (two separate IP addresses) , I only mentioned the Tom Clancy one above, but reported both. The other character (164) seems to relish coming back and does more after being blocked, not less. Regardless...seems like warnings are working, ne c'est pas? HJ 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a soft blcok that would require the offender to register as an editor? Not sure if that would deter them, but it tie the IP to a specific user and then it wouldn't be hard to contact school and inform them of what was going on and monitor computer useage. This person wouldn't hard to catch in the act or chase down with an IT savvy person on that end. HJ 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, may be OBE for now, another ADMIN just blocked "164" for a month. Regardless, I've noticed several similar patterns of pranking/vandalism between the several IPs....if this person doesn't register, then the User page warnings are likely not even being seen and certainly not heeded. This person or persons is simply tarnishing all the collective work of contributors....not all the subtle pranks are discovered and they are turning some articles into graffiti billboards. Sigh. HJ 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of syndicated broadcasters of Futurama. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Suoerh2 07:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Hey. Can you help me with this? I made a report in AN/I but I didnt get any response. I'm not sure whether it is because it was too busy or whether my report was inactionable. Anyway, I remember you from PAIN so I hope you can tell me if I should take this to RfC?

About User:Wobble:

• Reported to PAIN before for things like calling me racialist and then saying "The sort of out of date racialist thinking that normal people (that's 99% of us) think only nutters believe any more." or calling me racist and then saying "There was a cite to "racial reality", a racist nazi site as far as I can see, with the reliability and accuracy one would expect from a bunch of neonazi thickos (who ever met an intelligent racist? Not me).", etc...

• Calling me racist again

• "Your POV pushing and total lack of any understanding of science is getting boring."

• Calling me pathetic along with other accusations:

• "I think this has got nothing to do with using swear words and everything to do with you and Lukas's attempts to undermine the integrity of Misplaced Pages by introducing your nasty racist POV."
• He seems to call anything that he disagrees with, racist

Talking about accusations, 99% of what he says is INCORRECT. For ex, he accused me (as usual) of distorting biomedical research and I asked him to provide examples and he provided me with a link of an edit that WAS NOT mine. Or like how he accuses me of "total lack of any understanding of science" considering I just explained and proved to him that technically white isnt a color (in physics) a couple minutes before his edit in question. Or his another accusation of me committing plagarism when I clearly attributed the work to the scientist by saying "A. W. F. Edwards claimed in 2003..." but forgot to put quotes. So, most of the time, he is not calling a spade a spade.

Anyway, besides those, there are also lots of other stuff that makes you roll your eyes, like calling me "Thukie Lulie" (one of above diffs) and "Thukas" (thickos?) , or "No, no shit. Shit is brown, though I'm sure you can concoct some cock and bull about how it smells of roses if it comes from Nordic people." , I think these are all incivil behaviour, for ex, I asked him to stop calling me Lukie, Thulie, etc. I also think I can find more examples of his too frequent unjustified accusations or incivil remarks or personal attacks but I'll stop here, this is already too long...Lukas19 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, some of these are recurring personal attacks and I think that requires admin attention, rather than RfC. He even admits that his behavior is wrong but blames all this on me by saying: "If you do not like people being nasty to you, then you could consider that they are only behaving towards you the same way you are behaving towards them." Lukas19 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He even deletes my option in RfC. This is just ridiculous. Lukas19 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Posted again. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Recurring_Personal_Attacks.2C_Admin_Attention_Requested. If you have time before you go out, can you write your opinion there? Lukas19 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thx man...Lukas19 00:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there is a certain amount of hypocricy here. Lukas is far from civil. He responds to me with the sarcastic comment "No shit", and so I am sarcastic back "No, no shit...." This is just tit for tat, it's a bit rich to complain about it when he is deliberatelly provoking other users. The first time I had any dealings with him he called me clueless, for which he never appologised. He has told me to "learn to read" several times, and has called me stupid several times. He always claims that he is calling my behaviour "stupid" and not me. It's odd because above he claims I call him pathetic, but it's his behaviour I call pathetic. Something of a double standard. This user has a long history of reporting people he has content disputes with, and he calls admins biased when they disagree with him. he has a long history of calling good faith editors "vandals" and of calling mild rebukes "personal attacks". (these just represent the first few he made when he was still User:Thulean, so from about the 7 Nov to 26 Nov, less than three weeks. Thulean incidentally refers to a racist ideology and organisation (Thule#.22Aryan_Thule.22, Thule Society). Here are a few more recent ones against me (for perfectly good edits). He has been warned for harrasing other editors by constantly posting vandalism and NPA warnings on their talk pages. He is never prepared to cooperate or to try to compromise, and he often calls other users stupid or idiots. I have several times considered reporting his behaviour or refering his behaviour to an RfC, but personally I do not think wikilawyering is the solution. I have tried in vain to build bridges with this user, but he continues with his obstropolous and agressive attitude. I do get angry with this guy, he is very agressive and quite nasty to other editors. My behaviour may not be perfect, but I have run out of good faith because of his constant POV pushing. Yes I think the guy is a racist, and yest I think he is a POV pusher. There is plenty of evidence to explain why I hold these oppionions. Not least his attempt to exclude Jewish people from the English people article, (where he calls me stupid again) or when he makes claims for scientific papers that the papers do not themselves make, this is a favourite one of his, he takes a research paper about genetics and uses it out of context to promote the concept of race, even if the paper doesn't even mention race. So yes there is plenty of evidence that this guy is a racist. He also turned up at the White people article at exactly the same time that the moronic nazis at Stormfront were trying to recruit people to come and edit this article from their point of view. Now don't get me wrong, if he did come via stormfront I really don't care, he is still entitled to edit here, but it is one of the reasons I think he has a pov to push and is a racist. Anyway a quick check of his edits proves that he is exactly what I say. I do not use the term in a pejorative way, he is entitled to his views, we all have a POV. I have been called a far leftist extremist. So what I say, I am not ashamed of my political opinions. We all have a POV, by saying what his POV is I am merely putting his edits into context. I do think that distorting scientific research to promote your own political point of view undermines the integrity of wikipedia and I do not think this editor is a good faith editor, I believe he has a specific POV to push, look at his edit history, he only ever edits about "race", and only ever from a single point of view. I have edited many and diverse articles and have always been interested in neutrality and verifiability.

• He even deletes my option in RfC.

This is typical of the half truths that this editor uses to paint another editor in the worst possible light for his own end. The truth is that this editor made a post on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex I found two problems with this, both to do with procedure. Firstly he had not made an RfC section on the relevant talk page, something that he should have done as per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Instructions, so I did this I also thought that his comment was not particularly neutral

Edit war on the relation of the term to the literal meaning of white prompted protection. In larger discussion, there is debate about whether (1) to describe white as literally inaccurate; (2) literally white refers only to white light as per definition in physics; (3) skin pigmentation/melanisation might be a better description; (4) the European historical context and/or Eurocentrism should be specified in the text; (5) whether color metaphors for race is an acceptable link since white might not be a color per (2)(It is not a color in physics ) and because of the fact that metaphor is misused in the title

I have highlighted the section I thought was not neutral. As for the comment about physics I really fail to see how any discussion about the concept of white in terms of physics has any bearing on the subject of white people whatsoever. This is hardly any sort of "attack" or "vandalism", indeed none the wordings up for discussion mentioned physics, so if it's not an option in the wordings being discussed, why would it occur in the lead section for the RfC? I'm really fed up with Lukas and his little wikilawyering games. If you would like to understnd this problem, then I suggest you talk to some other editors who have had dealings with him. User:Psychohistorian, User:Sugaar, User:LSLM, User:Filll, User:KillerChihuahua, User:Gwernol, User:Guinnog, User:Skapur. Alun 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Reconsideration

Hi Coredesat,

I see that the debate over deletion of the article on Beckham's move has been locked, and I urge you to reconsider. First, the event is not of mere temporary newsworthiness. It may be an example of the enduring lure of America even at a time when our image in the world is at an all-time low. Beckham stated that it was so important to him to foster soccer in America that he made the move. Second, the article's discussion of other motivating factors adds nuance and context not found elsewhere. It clarifies the complicated financial incentive as well as the 31-year-old Beckham's attractiveness to European teams. Finally, the insight the article gives into the potentially the largest athletic contract ever signed ($55 million/year) is alone sufficient ground to justify its retention. What harm is there in keeping it when the downside is that such knowledge will no longer be so readily available?

Happy editing,

p.s. I just read the entire deletion debate, and it's pretty clear that the discussion was dominated by people who saw the article on the front page, were annoyed, and then waited for it to come off the front so the discussion could begin (as one user stated explicitly and further evidenced by the fact that prior to its move to the front page no one had voted for deletion). There was selection bias in the sample of those contributing to the discussion because only those worked up by the article thought to come back. It surprises me that an article of sufficient merit to make it to the front page would get the axe after such quick debate. I don't gree that there was "consensus" -- a more balanced discussion would take place with more time.

p.p.s., thanks for the response and apologies for not noticing it earlier (I'm a newbie as you can tell) anonymous 19:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm out

You might as well drop this. I have put a great deal of effort into wikipedia over the last several years. I have contributed to the best of my ability. I think I have made some good contributions. Please see Rosalind Franklin, mostly my own work. But I am fed up with being hounded by this racist person. he constantly uses wikipedia policies designed to protect people in order to hound and humiliate people, with the conivance of admins like you wh do not check thr facts properly, but automatically stigmatise the acused person. Well I've had enough of this victimisation. If wikipedia is more interested in protecting POV pushing racist scum than in protecting long standing good faith editors with a lot of very good edits under their belt, then I am out. I am very unhappy with this situation. You have not handled it in at all a neutral manner and seem to accept a one sided argument completelly without even attempting to get any other point of view. My wife and children will be delighted that I have quit. Hope you can live with the fact that you favour people who want to compromise the integrity of this project over those who are only interested in making a good and neutral encyclopaedia. If you have any concience whatsoever I suggest you take a look through Lukas and Thulean's edit histories, his long history of persecuting other editors and of POV pushing and decide for yourself just who is the nasty piece of work here. This place seems to be displaying all of the symptoms of being too big, there is no community spirit any more. These processes are supposed to protect people, not persecute them. Nice job mate. Alun 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)