Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:17, 1 October 2009

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117
edit

Thank you

i appreciate very much your "unblocking me.' And thanks for the advice - regarding the "dispute resolution.' But I don't think I'll need it. Thanks again. (PS: I also feel I need to avoid being blocked again as an obligation to you for your judgment to un-block me. So I will not get involved in any disputes.) --Ludvikus (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've just experienced a problem of reversion to a prior status without any discussion. I would very much appreciate your advice. The editor who did the reversion - I think I had a confict with him before. Like I said, I do not wish to cause ANY disruption. Therefore, I would appreciate very much your advise on how I should handle the situation. The issue involves a reversion of my "stub," revisionist historians, particularly this version was effectively deleted, without discussion: . --Ludvikus (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue appears to have been resolved on it's own. So there's no need for assistance anymore. Again, thanks for your previous assistance. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If a similar issue arises in the future, and I'm not around, then you could try Editor Assistance. PhilKnight (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's also a good recommendation. I'll keep that in mind. In fact, I'll post it (the reference) on my User page. Have a very nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

user:Berthabollocks

Hi,

I originally warned this user about the choice of name. He's replied to my talk page with a reasonable rationale; I asked the admin who originally blocked, who said to go for a second opinion. Any thoughts? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I've commented at User talk:Tnxman307. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you check out something for me?

I know we've had some problems with a repeat RefDesk troll, known especially for starting racially motivated discussions, User:Taxa was, I believe, his latest incarnation. Could you look at the contributions of a few more to see if they seem similar? See this guy, especially this discussion. Here is a second suspicious character: , though he seems less likely to be our troll, as though he seems to post exclusively to the refdesks, his posts do not seem to be of the same subject matter. These two may be nothing, but since you seem to have knowledge of the prior case, I thought I would drop them on you for consideration. --Jayron32 05:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jayron32, I think Payneham can be blocked on the same grounds as Taxa. However, I'm less sure about Caltsar, who could be acting in good faith. PhilKnight (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User Ludvikus

We seem to be quickly getting back to the situation before his long block. Perhaps, as an administrator, you might want to check out the situation at Howard Zinn where Ludvikus has now reverted three different editors on the same language despite the fact that two editors have opposed his position on the discussion page (I have since come in as a 3rd). In light of his past record, it seems that an edit war has been initiated and there should not be the need to wait for a 3RR violation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with what this editor says about me. He seems to turn a editing dispute regarding content into an attack on my Misplaced Pages conduct. I do hope you advise me on how to handle such accusations. I'm shocked by this complaint - I've been extremely careful to avoid any disruption. And I do not understand why this editor - who clearly is unfair to me because he disagrees with my work - would like to see me gone from Misplaced Pages. Accordingly, I will listen to your advice with extreme dedication for the fairness that you've shown me. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but this editor User:North Shoreman is inaccurate regarding "consensus." Observe this comment from an editor supporting my position (which I reproduce for you here):

    "I've been watching Howard Zinn for a couple of days,
    waiting to see if I was going to leap in or not and am pretty satisfied,
    even happy about your resolution of the issue of revisionism.
    As far as wikipedia failing to do it's job,
    well it is folks like us who actually do that job and your article on American historical revisionism (yours right?)
    was an interesting and for me unexpected direction to go in.
    Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Since my return, this editor, User:North Shoreman, was the only one who engaged in a personal attack directed at me. Having disagreed with my editing (elsewhere I think) he commenced his discussion by making reference to my having been blocked for a long time. Accordingly, I think it would be good, and useful, if you look carefully at how this editor commenced his communication with a personal attack. I know of no other incident since my "return" except with this one editor. I think it very important for you to examine how he has behaved at Misplaced Pages. I believe what he is doing now constitutes WP:disruption. I understand this kind of reckless accusations against a well-meaning editor like myself - especially one who has had trouble in the past - constitutes conduct which requires that this accuser be appropriately disciplined in relation to Misplaced Pages policy. I certainly feel now "disrupted" and do not find myself capable of continuing my sincere work while this disruption against me goes un-addressed. As I said, I owe it to You that there be no grounds to discipline me - therefore I await your views on the matter. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that the issue at Howard Zinn involved the quality of the "revisionism" "stub" - so I proceeded to develop it before I returned to the Zinn article. In addition, it was settled that Zinn is a "revisionist historian." The issue thereafter was whether the expression "revisionist" belonged in the "lede." Furthermore, I received an extremely encouraging approval on my talk page by another editor, who now just "voted" to "keep" the term at issue. Clearly, the 3RR rule does not apply to me. I think the issue is merely "bad faith" on the part of User:North Shoreman by his reckless complaint against me here which I find extremely disruptive. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's more proof that my view is supported, contrary to User:North Shoreman's allegation:

    "Although I at first was taken back by the idea of Zinn as a revisionist,
    I agree with the use of the term here as it is linked to the newly created revisionist historians (American) article.
    Paul Buhle in the forward to Zinn's A Peoples History of American Empire (2008) says of Zinn,
    that he "set a new standard for the retelling (my emphasis) of the nation's story."
    "Retelling" is just another word for "revision."  I vote that the term be retained in this article.
    Whooops Carptrash (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do not wish to cause any disruption at Misplaced Pages. But reckless attacks on me by User:North Shoreman I find extremely upsetting and disruptive. I therefore seek your assistance, or advice, in how best to end this un-called for disruptive accusation against me by User:North Shoreman with whom I've had trouble prior to my return to Misplaced Pages thanks to your Fairness to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ludvikus, my advice, for what's it worth, is that you consider following the one-revert rule. I started doing this about 3 years ago now, and I've found it helps prevent situations from over-heating. Regarding the editing dispute, I suggest you consider a content request for comment. If you believe that editors are making inapropriate personal remarks, then I'd suggest getting filing a report at wikiquette alerts. PhilKnight (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million for your very constructive advice. But the only thing I do not understand is the first rule. The issue was whether Howard Zinn is a "historical revisionist" (of the good kind). And the Reverting editor complaint that the article (really "stub") to which a reference was made was inadequate, so I fixed that. And then proceeded to include the fact that Zinn is such a revisionist. Also, this editor was not a part of the discourse - I think he just wanted to get me so he could follow his own agenda - I'm talking about User:North Shoreman. He's the substantial author of historical revisionism and he bmerely wants his own POV to prevail. I think his view is "Original Research." Because I do not wish to cause Any "disruption" at Wkipedia I think I should pursue your advice regarding this improper conduct by this one editor. If you look, I've had many constructive exanges with other editors since my return. But this one - who I know from before is really interested in getting be banned. So I think I have no choice but to address this issue. I think I should heed all three of your recommendations. Thanks. But I would appreciate it if you keep on eye on my predicament with this one editor, User:North Shoreman. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for help as you recommended (since his incivility continues): . --Ludvikus (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've also followed your advise that I request comments: I hope you appreciate my hard work to avoid being accused of causing disruption. Unfortunately, I'm still being provoked by this Noth Shoreman user. But I'm trying as hard as I can to come out smelling like a rose - so you will not regret having terminated my ban early! --Ludvikus (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer

Dear Administrator Phil Knight,

Since my return to Misplaced Pages - thanks to you, I've had trouble with only one editor - the above.

Now he has done something which involves you. He has just posted comments on my Talk Page - pretending to be you. He apparently believes that I would be fooled by his posting into not knowing that the warning which appears to be made by you, was really made by him. I find that kind of conduct extremely disruptive and provocative. Accordingly, I urge you, please, to visit my page, confirm that you have not issued a "warning" to me, and consider taking the appropriate disciplinary action against this one editor. If you look at my editing since your un-block, you will find that I have had productive communications with many, many, other editors - except this one person. And notice how he deliberately attempts to engaging in a WP:Personal attack on me by using the fact of my previous block against me - just because he disagrees with my editing. Thanks for your consideration. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Correction. I just realize that this is a second editor. He's apparently a colleague of User:North Shoreman. Sorry for the confusion on that. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Help. Please advise me how to minimize any problems which might be misconstrued as due to me. It seems to me now that my writing has resulted in a problem with this editor of historical revisionism who is also an Administrator. So how do I avoid being accused of disruption? I do not know how to get out of this "confrontation" which appears to be due over a disagreement with an editor whose got the backing of an administrator. I certainly do not wish to turn a lit match into a forest fire. So your advice will receive a very heavy weight from me. Please let me know what I should do - or not do - so that I'm not "banned" again. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ludvikus September 2009 -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So what advise can you give me to minimize this situation I find myself in - which is a complete surprise to me? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ludvikus, sorry for the delay in replying, and thanks for your email. Given the comments on WP:ANI by long standing editors and admins such as BWilkins, BrownHairedGirl, and LessHeard vanU, I think you should accept the article ban. PhilKnight (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by accept? By "article ban" you must mean the four (4) items listed under the Section Restricted on my Talk page by Administrator PBS. I certainly will not touch those four (4) artcles until, or if, said ban is removed. But is there anything else I must do according to your word "accept"? --Ludvikus (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I just meant 'accept' in the sense of not contesting. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I find that extremely depression. But since I promised I'd give your advice great weight, I'll do my best not to contest the article ban - as hard as that is to do for bme in the context. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Phil, I have recommended that Ludvikus check with you as to whether or not he's allowed to at least make suggestions on the Talkpages on the articles in question. Agreeably, if the discussion gets heated, that would be bad. Thanks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

82.11.234.188

• 82.11.234.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You blocked this IP for 48 hours but when it expired he went right back and made the same edit again. Rees11 (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rees11, thanks for letting me know - I've given the user a longer block. PhilKnight (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Kamma People

Hi,I would like to know why this image file File:Kamma People.jpg has been marked for deletion.Please let me know if you need any aditional information for retaining that image.

Fort5000 (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fort5000, the image was deleted after being listed at Files for Deletion, because there should be source information for each of the individual photographs that make up the composite. The same situation applies to File:Telugu people.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

user:Zaeem asia 7

Phil; you indefblocked this editor for multiple - indeed, extreme multiple - coyright violations. He is asking for unblock, saying the images in question are his own work. And, to be fair, I think that they are, and he simply paid no attention to the large number of warnings he received. I have, of course, made no changes. But do you think a shortening of the block duration, with a warning to learn policy and heed warnings, may be appropriate? I think he's good faith editing. --Anthony.bradbury 14:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, thanks for informing me. I would prefer if Zaeem would provide assurances that in future he'll promptly respond to messages on his talk page, and provide source information - if he did so, I guess he could be unblocked immediately. Otherwise, I agree that he should be warned, and the block reduced. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User Yetii1234

I just deleted the user page as a G10. Would you double check that and let me know if I made an error? Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mjroots, good call. PhilKnight (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, taking adminship slowly at first :-) Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from NuVinci Continuously Variable Planetary Transmission

Hello PhilKnight, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to NuVinci Continuously Variable Planetary Transmission has been removed. It was removed by Ebarrios with the following edit summary '(Removed the noice of deletion and notability requirements, as the article has been edited to meet all the stated requirements.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Ebarrios before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Telugu People.jpg

Hi Phil,This is regarding the image Telugu People.jpg that has been put up on deletion notice.Can you please explain in detail on what more/additional information you might require in detail to retain that image.I would appriciate if you could hold back the deletion notice till things are sorted out.Thanks Fort5000 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Each of the individual images that makes up the composite should have source information, which clearly explains where you obtained the image. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)