Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hello Shell :) How are you? Thank you for your massage and im sorry If I gave you any wrong impressions or offended you in any way with uploaded images. I already responded to Miss FloNight, here . But you are free to do anything which you think is right. You may ban me and delete my images. Its fine with me. Thank you again and all the best :) BTW I love Dogs too. Please join Photography club for animals I contribute my work there sometimes. Cheers. Luis. ] 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Shell :) How are you? Thank you for your massage and im sorry If I gave you any wrong impressions or offended you in any way with uploaded images. I already responded to Miss FloNight, here . But you are free to do anything which you think is right. You may ban me and delete my images. Its fine with me. Thank you again and all the best :) BTW I love Dogs too. Please join Photography club for animals I contribute my work there sometimes. Cheers. Luis. ] 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
: Hi Shell, Can you please explain who claimed to own my work and of which photographs do you say that I copied from tripod and geocities? I assure you that my intentions are not to steal other people’s work and claim otherwise. I never copied any work from geocities or tripod. I own many photo materials since 1992 and I only contributed since I joined Misplaced Pages. Most of my photographs and the ones which I purchased were available for sale and presentation at Getty. As my agent at Getty claims, some people copied my images and I can’t track who did what to them. Again, most of the images I claim to be mine are mine and some are purchased. Now I am willing to fax you my paper work to conform this. As for the photo which I uploaded today. The work is by Dr Andrew Andersen, long time friend, who gave me permission long time ago to publish his maps not only in Misplaced Pages. I can send you his email too. Than I will do the following, due to the fact that it really concerns you and to conform again that my intentions are good. I’ll stop contributing and uploading any photographs from my collection or from other sources. I will forward those rare photos to Mr Jimbo Walse and I will ask him to upload them and properly tag them, because as I see im not really qualified in tagging. I’m sorry for that. Actually some images which you deleted were also under my name and I could have sold them and made profit (I tried that before but many people on Misplaced Pages complained that I was only profiting from photos instead of sharing them with the public). So for now on im stopping uploading images. I already gave contact information to the other user which was involved in this too and I gave her contact information for my agent at Getty. Im sorry to have troubled you . Wishing you all the best. Thanks again. Luis ] 22:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for all of the warm wishes and generally nice thoughts sent in my direction. I have retired from all Wikimedia projects and turned in all my extra tools as a security measure (we all appreciate those now, don't we?). For those few of you who were disappointed at not getting a whole ton of gossip out of my explanation for leaving (and didn't think to ask me privately, duh) I can only offer this cartoon as penance. Best of luck to all of you and feel free to keep in touch (see above). Shell11:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I had given chance to Shell to proove that earlier warnings were Bogus which he failed to do.As far as Hkelkar is concerned he deserves not only warning but a permaban surely baka too deserves the same. Ikon |no-blast08:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
Hi. Your recommendation on WP:PAIN concerning dispute resolution are excellent and I am taking it to heart.I have been on irc today and have used that and AMA to resolve disputes on Cheema and Tipu Sultan. Third parties have intervened and I am doing my level best to cooperate with these good faith mediators.However, I fear that one of the editors from the other side of the debate (actually a jihad of sorts) User:Mujeerkhan has been trying to engage in a witch hunt and has attempted to recruit a coterie of Muslim Guild editors to ty to "get banned" (his own words) per this:
I have responded with what I feel are comments on the content of such edits and the pbvious bias and somewhat inarticulate intimidation tactics of this user. If you feel that they (either his edits or mine) are not proper then please let me know and I will remunerate accordingly. Bear in mind that I have always followed canonical wikipedia policies of WP:RS and ] regarding my disputes which, I feel, are the result of bad faith edits (bogus references, POV trash etc.) by (IMHO) partisan hacks. I would like to notify you in advance and let you know that any advice that you have to offer will be taken to heart by myself.
I was only editing it as it contents false asertions: Joomla! does not have blogs, forums, calendars, and language internationalization. Those features are available as extensions (Third Part Developer Extensions, such jd-wordpress, simple machine forums, gigcalendar or joomfish)and are not part of the application.
Anyway, thanks for letting me know. The next time I will post an edit or open a discussion. See you.
Hello. Regarding the personal attacks against me and DrL by Byrgenwulf and Anville, you wrote "reports by Asmodeus, larger content dispute already in dispute resolution". However, DrL and I are not involved in any form of dispute resolution with Byrgenwulf or Anville. These users have reacted to my requests and warnings with sheer contempt and noncompliance, giving no indication that they will respect any agreement reached in the Hillman case. Thus, there is no reason to believe that a resolution of the Hillman dispute will automatically resolve disputes involving them. After all, the main issue in the Hillman case is disclosure of personal information; Byrgenwulf is not only guilty of disclosing personal information, but of insult, prevarication, and intentional disruption of the very negotiations you cite. I'll grant that if the Hillman case leads to a general ruling, it would be binding on Byrgenwulf and Anville as well. But isn't that a lot to expect from negotiations intended to defuse the (Hillman) situation before such a general ruling becomes necessary? Tying the Byrgenwulf and Anville cases to the Hillman case would force DrL and I to resist any resolution applying to the Hillman case alone, thus aiding Byrgenwulf's disruptive agenda. Can you explain your reasoning in a bit more detail? Thanks, Asmodeus05:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
What you're reporting are not clear cut cases of personal attacks, but a much larger issue that is not covered by the scope of WP:PAIN. The case is in dispute resolution since an RFC was brought against you by Byrgenwulf and Anville. I suggest you participate in the RfC. I would also like to note that I do not consider the Byrgenwulf's page an attack page - the ArbCom has ruled before that documentation of ongoing dispute is an acceptable use of user space. Shell14:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Then you deny that the page contains personal slurs which violate WP:CIV? We're not talking about mere documentation here. As the victim of these slurs, I object to being classified as somebody who needs to defend himself against idiotic trumped-up procedures initiated by the attacker to cover his ass. Are you sure that your ruling is justified under these circumstances? Asmodeus15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If the RfC is "trumped-up" just calmly state your side of the story and back it up with diffs - editors who respond to RfCs will see through attempts by either side to inflate or distort the issue. It doesn't matter which party started the RfC, its still a healthy part of the dispute resolution process and can help resolve the problems you're experiencing. Shell17:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes...well, with all due respect, the page about which I have complained contains a good deal more than simple "documentation of a dispute", and therefore remains a personal attack. (In fact, it is merely the latest installment in a series of attacks by its author; please see my remarks in this RfC.) If it were mere "documentation", then it would not contain personal slurs, falsehoods, and pejorative speculations regarding the motives and mental states of its targets. Now, it may well be that personal attacks are fine here at Misplaced Pages as long as a little "documentation" is thrown in for good measure; however, I strongly doubt that, because that kind of material has no proper place in an encyclopedia. The attacker has already used your opinion as a justification for refusing to cooperate with one of those he has been stalking; that's unfortunate. But if this wasn't your intention, and you really want to be of help, could you at least direct me to the specific ArbCom ruling(s) that (in your opinion) justify or condone the sort of vitriolic, mendacious "documentation" in which User Byrgenwulf has indulged? Thanks, Asmodeus21:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. Though it has long been accepted practice to allow the creation of user subpages detailing disputes currently in some process of resolution, the ArbCom specifically ruled on it in August of this year. Perhaps if you could be more specific about which passages you feel contain personal attacks? The entire page certainly doesn't qualify. Shell21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer! The ArbCom ruling you cite reads as follows:
"It is acceptable to make a subpage to keep notes which document another user's behavior. Care should be taken to keep a factual record which avoids personal attacks on your own part."
In other words, a user can track another user's edits and make note of any discernable patterns without committing personal attacks of his own.
Clearly, the ruling contains no license to wander into motivations, mental states, and character attributes at the expense of other aspects of WP. Byrgenwulf's entire screed wanders into these areas, none of which are covered by the notion of "documentation of behavior". What Byrgenwulf is "documenting" are mainly his suspicions, negative inferences, and other departures from the assumption of good faith. If he were to remove his negative insinuations and other subjective tangents, the page would shrink to a tiny fraction of its current size.
By all means, if Byrgenwulf feels a need to follow the behavior of another user, compile a neutrally-worded report, and let other users draw their own conclusions, fine. But this is clearly not what he is doing. Here are a few salient examples:
I think you get the picture. Most of Byrgenwulf's screed has nothing to do with the calm, neutral, objective tracking of behavior. It's all about negative judgments, unkind opinions, and other subjective tripe. I simply can't imagine how anyone could think that this sort of nonsense contributes or in any way conduces to an atmosphere of collegiality and cooperation here at Misplaced Pages.
I have already requested that he review the page and remove any opinionated statements since, as you said, the ruling allows factual representations and clearly states that anything resembling personal attacks should be avoided. I am awaiting a response. Shell00:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I should also note that Misplaced Pages has a hard, fast policy called WP:LIVING. I quote: "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages." Christopher Langan falls under the protection of this policy, not just in his bio, but on other pages of Misplaced Pages as well...after all, members of the public can get to Misplaced Pages's user pages just as easily as they can get to biographical articles. Byrgenwulf will therefore need to get rid of any hostile remarks, unproven allegations, or derogatory quotations about Mr. Langan, who is prominently targeted in the attack. Asmodeus01:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Shell, but Byrgenwulf's changes won't be sufficient to address my concerns. In fact, the changes themselves are unacceptable, for much the same reasons given above. Furthermore, I don't want this page left where it can be accessed - as User Anville's disruptive links to past versions of it have shown, it really needs to be removed. (As nearly as I can determine, WP is quite clear on this matter, and giving this user the option to insincerely tweak and putter around with his own venomous diatribe only seems to be encouraging further abuse.) Thanks, Asmodeus11:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Eek. She's apparently not following the directions she's received from several people on how to change her username. She's concerned about having things connected to her real name, which is why I blanked the page for the time being. There's absolutely no reason that the page should have been moved into article space :( Shell14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
She already did that yesterday, and I got the page speedy deleted. Once more she has removed all the talk page info, and she continues to sign herself with Protector which is another user name. She seems to have a history of confusion and obfuscation. --ArmadilloFromHell14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be more lack of understanding than intentional malice. I'll try one last time to get through to her about how to change her name to protect her identity. If that doesn't work, I'll protect the page from moves until she desists. Shell14:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shell, I'm one of the "several people" that's been trying to patiently help this user for a while now. She's established a new user name, Salmon1, and I think she got confused with the move issue. If I understand things right, she wants to archive the talk page from her old account on her new page. To help with this, I helped create the archive sub-page User_talk:Salmon1/Herskovic_archive, but I did this before I realized that you were also involved. It was my intention to explain that the way to archive it there would be to 1) move the talk page to the new archive link, thereby also moving the history; 2) then, on the old talk page, where the redirect was created by the move, revert to the last edit, thereby reestablishing the old talk page for historical purposes. Is this an acceptable practice? Thanks! Akradecki15:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be absolutely fantastic. I wasn't aware she'd already created a new username :) Thanks for the assist! Shell15:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand your frustration with the articles problems, but please do not call the insertion of links vandalism. This could be construed as a personal attack and will likely escalate the hostility. I've tried to explain to the editor why they do not need multiple links to the same site and warned them that they are in danger of violating the three revert rule - please note that you're close to violating it yourself. If discussions with this editor haven't been working, please try using other forms of dispute resolution. Shell babelfish 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The first warning that was given was in regard to vandalism involved the editor's removal of a link. As near as I can tell, the unwarranted removal of content/links qualifies as vandalism. Is that interpretation incorrect? The contributor Julia Havey replaced the http address for a link with a commercial spam link on October 7 and again on October 8. According to Misplaced Pages guidlelines, this does qualify as vandalism, and the editor was given the appropriate vandalism warning. The next warning that was given was for the insertion of spam/commerical links that were already listed on the page (i.e. Juice Plus coporate page), which seems appropriate to Misplaced Pages policy. In addition, since this contributor sells the product in question, their repeated vandalism and insertion of spam links should be closely scrutinized. This is also not the first time that this editor has been warned for wanton spamming and vandalism, so it cannot be argued that they are unaware of Misplaced Pages's policies. Lastly, as I understand it, the 3R rule does not apply to reverts of vandalism or spamming. I look forward to your opinions and clarification on this matter. Rhode Island Red18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I was actually referring to your most recent revert in which you removed the duplicate links, but the edit summary was "rv vandalism"; given the editor's history I don't think thats far from the truth, but I didn't want to see you set yourself up for a legitimate complaint. Its stretching it a bit to call these spam links - the link she's inserting is already contained in the external links section. We certainly don't need more than one copy of the link and I've left notes on her talk page about it; hopefully she'll understand, but given the long ranting emails I've received from her, I doubt it :( Its possible that others might see what you're doing as reverting simple vandalism, but just in case, I wanted to make sure you were aware. Shell19:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, according to the deletion log, you deleted the page "United States military nuclear incident terminology" with the edit summary "a5, transwikied to another project". Deleting this page left several broken links (see What links here. I am trying to find out why it was deleted (I can't find a discussion at WP:AFD) where it was moved to, and what to change the links to, if anything. Was the material on this page decided not to be encyclopedic or notable? If that wasn't the reason, then we should probably at least disperse the content to elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Shouldn't this action have been discussed, or at least explained somewhere? -- Renesis (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the page was a list of definitions and not an encylopedia article, each definition was moved to Wiktionary - when this was completed, the article was deleted. If you believe that the article should still exist at Misplaced Pages, please explain and request discussion at Deletion Review. Shell20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot17:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Your removal of my complaint
I am being harassed by a Wikipedian and you removed my request for help (at PAIN). You asked me to resolve this in an RfC that my harasser opened on another user. This does not make sense. Please help me and tell me how I can get this obsessed stalker off my back. --DrL21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The page you consider harassment is based on long standing tradition and an ArbCom ruling - its is acceptable to keep evidence in cases of ongoing disputes. I have asked Byrgenwulf to review one section I felt deviated from fact and more into opinion, which contravenes the above mentioned ruling. If you can explain what specific problems you have with the page, I would be happy to address them, but there is no call for simply deleting the entire page. Since the incident is not a series of personal attacks for which a person has been properly warned, it cannot be dealt with on WP:PAIN.
Since Byrgenwulf opened the RfC, you are quite welcome to comment on his behavior as it relates to the situation in that same RfC. If you would prefer, you can open a seperate RfC to discuss any of his behavior that you feel is inappropriate. It would be a good idea to refrain from personal attacks yourself when requesting relief from them - calling someone an obsessed stalker without showing any evidence doesn't lead much credibility to your claim. Shell22:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: your message to me
"Your edits to Star of Bethlehem and User talk:Kauffner "
(Begin message) Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Shell babelfish 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (end of message)
I am giving you a copy of my reply. There was absolutely no personal attack upon Kauffner and any attempts to characterize my postings as such cannot be supported by reading the posts. I have included (below) my message to Konstable as he severely warned Kauffner earlier that any more editorial hi-jacking would not be tolerated. I simply reminded Kauffner of his recurring issue. This will only take 2 minutes to read and it encompasses the entireity of the problem including taking exclusive credit for writing the Star of Bethlehem article on his personal page and then reverting changes (additions, reinserting deleted text) to his postings. Thank you.
RE: Some concerns I have
Hello Konstable - Once you issued a stern warning to member/User Kauffner ] about edits that amounted to vandalism. On his talk page he (as of yesterday, they have since been buried under inconsequential self-alterations to his page) takes credit for writing the Star of Bethelehem article and then reverted my attempts to edit his posts. He failed to make use of the discussions page and has been acting very militant. I reminded him of your warning and he then incorrectly accused me of pretending to pose as an editor. I have tried to resolve this matter in a civil way. The jist of the matter is immediately below. My apologies for troubling you with this matter but it seems that you are already familiar with the tactics involved. John Charles Webb02:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) The indented notes are my reply to his posting on my talk page. On his page ] line #58 changed and buried since yesterday he takes credit for authoring The Star of Bethlehem main article(?). His response to edits was to revert the text. It's OK if it is I who am wrong in this instance but I do not believe that I am.
(Kauffner's message, my replies are indented) I would appreciate it if you could address certain concerns that I have:
Please stop editing anonymously in such a way as to pretend that you are more than one user, or to pretend that you are an administrator. (No one is fooled.)
Note: I used my IP identifier which is linked to my registered name to avoid issues with Google searches because I use my real full name. The intention was not to pretend because clicking on the IP address identifies the poster if the poster is a registered member.
Please stop threatening me (with blocking, copyright law, filing reports, etc.) on my talk page and elsewhere. Your "heart and soul" copyright doctrine is completely bogus. The law is that you cannot copyright an idea, only its expression.
Note: I was reminding you of a 'promise that ] made to you (by Konstable) because of previous admonitions regarding your editing practices.
re; copyright infringement - I suggest that you take a look at Misplaced Pages's 'fair use' policy. To recount the conclusions of a published author's work is thought to diminish the market value of a published work. The text (my opinion) duplicating Molner's research (as written in his book) goes beyond Fair Use and (again an opinion) diminishes the salability of his book because it provides some essential information. I am no fan of his conclusions but I do respect his financial stake.
Please stop trying to use the Star of Bethlehem article as an advertising vehicle for your Web site.
Note: My site is not a commercial site. The work is new research and not subject (rightly so) for any extended inclusion (other than what is there presently) in the main article. The astrology reference and link is a matter that took place over (I think) a year ago. You (it seems), without discussion, simple deleted the reference and (it seems) altered the linking text. You have been notified earlier (see above on this page) about failing to use the discussion page to discuss your 'reasons' for deletions. The work is offered for free and is unique in all of The Star of Bethlehem cosmology because it provides an actual verifiable chart for the star.
I look forward to resolving these concerns with you in an amicable manner in the near future.Kauffner 12:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Note: Yes, I enjoy amicable manners. My only concern is that the reference to the astrology stuff (as discussed and identified above) not be, off-handedly, deleted. The work has been reviewed by virtually thousands of people (worldwide) and has earned a nomination for a Templeton Prize in Religion.
Additional Note: I agree with your motivations (presumably?) that The Star of Bethlehem article was a wreck and needed an overhaul. It had three main problems: 1) bethlehemstar.net (a seeming commercial site giving presentations) using unreferenced content and based upon Martin's (academically unaccepted) claiming that a transcription error in the 1400's changed Herod's death from 4 BC to 1 BC. 2) Martin's work of trying to alter the date of Herod's death to fit his (opinion) planetary configuration of 1 BC and 3) extensive use of Molner's work (I know this person) including a FAQ that seems to be a commercial and an attempt to sell his book (and is based upon very bad astrology).
There is an additional issue regarding astrology generally (as taboo in religious circles) despite that fact that a star announcing 'a birth' is an astrological item and a general avoidance of looking at ancient astrology because it (astrology) and astronomy were the principal 'sciences' at the time of the birth of Christ. Astronomers, generally have usurped the Star stuff and ridicule ancient astrology because planetarium Christmas shows make a great deal of money and any discussion of 'astrology' (they think) alienates people from attending the shows on religious grounds.
So, I am at peace with this stuff, however, without good reason to delete them, I believe that the astrological references should remain in the main article.
From my point-of-view you took credit for authoring the Star of Bethlehem article and 'reverted' any attempt to alter your writing. You have since 'tempered' your earlier published comments ] and this ] line #58 which provoked a negative reaction, especially in light of your reverting pages that edited your postings. John Charles Webb 02:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)John Charles Webb03:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Amanda Carpenter
Why are you blocking even attempts on the discussion page to question the notability of the subject of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.203.117 (talk • contribs)
Would you take a look at the notes on Talk:Free Hugs Campaign and consider undeleting your speedy of this article? I saw the Google cache and think there's some salvageable material there, though it definitely needed better sourcing, and would rather have the old edits in place for GFDL purposes. Feel free to respond here or on the article talk page, thanks. -- nae'blis14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your time. However I'm a bit confused as to my next step. I know you suggested dispute resolution, however what method? Request an advocate? Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment? I have already used Misplaced Pages:Third opinion for a specific dispute and I have raised the issue at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts but been referred to Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Any avenue seems to be a method of raising a specific dispute, however while I have specific disputes with this user my concern is the user's attitude in general. I have been called a vandal many many times by this user, been told I have "a problem with reality and do not understand English, logic, and/or reality. ", been called a "wiki-stalker" twice, told to "find a new hobby" and told that constructive edits were only made to "mes up the wiki". I'm not thin-skinned, I've taken abuse before, but this takes it to a whole new level. This user has persistently ignored requests to stop personal attacks but is continuing to get away with them. Mark8319:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Your'e absolutely correct, he's definately gone over the line with personal attacks. Since he has been more than fully warned, you're welcome to drop a quick note on my talk page if he starts up again after the block is over. Unforunately, the WP:PAIN is really only for stopping attacks in progress, much like the vandal noticeboard is for vandals in progress; its not really designed for long term cases like these. In the meantime, I'd suggest starting a Request for Comment on his behavior - if this doesn't stop his incivility, you can file a request to the ArbCom, who may put the editor on personal attack parole or something similar. Shell19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I've opened a Request for Comment (RfC/Ernham). As the editor who closed the WP:PAIN I wondered if you'd like to comment as you agreed his personal attacks were a concern. Thank you. Mark8315:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Shel, the new version of the JP page is up. I think it's a much better, more NPOV page than what it was before all this started. Much more Wiki-looking too. As you may be gathering by now, it has been quite a challenge protecting the page from blatant vandalism and in reconciling some of the extreme positions. I will probably tinker a bit over the next few days but I will probably tread lightly and see how things look as the dust settles. I look foward to your comments. Rhode Island Red01:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you did some fantastic work. The article is much more concise and yet covers a wealth of information; as you said, its written in a much more neutral fashion. Its always difficult to work with articles when people who have an interest in the subject get involved - its often difficult to reach a compromise and still follow Misplaced Pages policies. Thanks for sticking with it and keeping a civil head! :) Shell02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Controversial block
The Requests for arbitration on "Pseudoscience" has started on the Evidence page. It is suggested on the Workshop page that the block on ScienceApologist was "unilateral". I was under the impression from the following block discussion that you did "did talk to other administrators about the issue", and so it wasn't unilateral. If that is the case, could you clarify the statement. --Iantresman09:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Shell :- ) I saw your comment on the workshop page. I need to clarify a few points. I'm going to clarify the first point on your talk page and the rest by email. I recused from working as an arbitration clerk for this particular RFAr per policy because I had a conflict of interest. Recusal does not disallow a clerk from giving evidence or editing workshop pages like any other user. Since I am the only clerk that regularly opens and closes cases, I usually do not offer proposals on workshop pages where I'm not recused to avoid confusion about my role. It is okay for anyone including non-recused or recused clerks to edit workshop pages. Sorry for any confusion about this matter. If you have questions about my role, contact me on my talk page or by email. Look for an email from me today about the rest. My Adelphia mail is not working now so it may be a few hours before it arrives. Take care, FloNight20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
My apologies - I was unaware that area was for anyone, involved or not to make suggestions. I've struck out the comment. Shell21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Shell
Hello Shell :) How are you? Thank you for your massage and im sorry If I gave you any wrong impressions or offended you in any way with uploaded images. I already responded to Miss FloNight, here . But you are free to do anything which you think is right. You may ban me and delete my images. Its fine with me. Thank you again and all the best :) BTW I love Dogs too. Please join Photography club for animals I contribute my work there sometimes. Cheers. Luis. Ldingley14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shell, Can you please explain who claimed to own my work and of which photographs do you say that I copied from tripod and geocities? I assure you that my intentions are not to steal other people’s work and claim otherwise. I never copied any work from geocities or tripod. I own many photo materials since 1992 and I only contributed since I joined Misplaced Pages. Most of my photographs and the ones which I purchased were available for sale and presentation at Getty. As my agent at Getty claims, some people copied my images and I can’t track who did what to them. Again, most of the images I claim to be mine are mine and some are purchased. Now I am willing to fax you my paper work to conform this. As for the photo which I uploaded today. The work is by Dr Andrew Andersen, long time friend, who gave me permission long time ago to publish his maps not only in Misplaced Pages. I can send you his email too. Than I will do the following, due to the fact that it really concerns you and to conform again that my intentions are good. I’ll stop contributing and uploading any photographs from my collection or from other sources. I will forward those rare photos to Mr Jimbo Walse and I will ask him to upload them and properly tag them, because as I see im not really qualified in tagging. I’m sorry for that. Actually some images which you deleted were also under my name and I could have sold them and made profit (I tried that before but many people on Misplaced Pages complained that I was only profiting from photos instead of sharing them with the public). So for now on im stopping uploading images. I already gave contact information to the other user which was involved in this too and I gave her contact information for my agent at Getty. Im sorry to have troubled you . Wishing you all the best. Thanks again. Luis Ldingley22:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
One Question
It seems that you deleted pending open reports from the PAIN boards without an explanation. I am wondering if PAIN is not the proper forum for a user who consistently accuses others of bad faith edits and being government agents, what other recourse is there? This is the diff I am referring to, specifically as it pertains to User:RPJ.Ramsquire21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That was my fault - unanswered reports should still be under the New Reports section and I didn't notice that it didn't have a resolution. I've reviewed the issue and more recent comments by User:RPJ - given his history and previous four blocks over the same issue, I've blocked the account for a week. I'm not sure if you've opened an RfC on his behavior or not, but you might want to consider it as a quick step on the way to ArbCom since he doesn't seem to be interested in changing his behavior. Shell21:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
gmail.com
