Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:12, 5 December 2006

Feel free to leave your questions, comments, or anything else below. You can do so by clicking this link! Please sign your comments with ~~~~.

There are a few guidelines for my talk page and, while I will never completely delete a comment made on this page, I may move it to another (probably sub-page) if it does not comply with these simple guidelines.

1. This is a safe space. You can say whatever you like on this page without fear of retribution or attack, from me or other users.
2. This is a constructive space. Positive criticisms designed to better the encyclopedia and its environment are welcome, but negative comments designed to belittle a person or point of view are not.
3. This is a free speech space. You can say whatever you like on this page without fear of being censored.
4. This is an open space. Anything may be discussed here.

This guidelines are hierarchised from top to bottom so, for instance, a personal attack against another user will not be covered under the "free speech" guideline and will be moved.

So please, leave a message or anything else here. I will always try to respond to your messages (excepting brief acknowledgements and the like which are simply responses to mine), and I will answer on your talk page, unless the thread on my page contains more than one user. In the case that I respond on your page, I will usually copyover your comment to preserve cohesion.

You may also want to read my note on pronouns.

archive as of July 2006
archive as of September 2006

qa

has been nominated for delection before, and survived, twice i think. its notable, some anonomous user just decided to fcuk with it.Guaguis 22:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

September Esperanza Newsletter

thanks for your kind words

Hello, and thank you for your kind words. I need to deal with things in my real life, and unfortunately this will force me to be away from Misplaced Pages. I do wish that we had met under better circumstances. Please take care. --Kyoko 23:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article

Hiya, welcome back from your holiday, I'm just letting people know that 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is currently under peer review at Peer review/Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I'm hoping it might one day become a featured article. So any comments on how it might be improved upon would be apprecitated. Thanks. -- Paxomen 18:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks also for the heads up. I'll take a look at what people are saying. I started to try and play with that article once ... it gave me a headache ;) - CheNuevara 20:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn right it's a headache. I hopefully improved the structure by dividing into only 6 key sections; 'Production', 'The show', 'Characters', 'Spinoffs', 'Cultural impact' and 'Series information'. -- Paxomen 00:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE - I nominated the article Buffy the Vampire Slayer to be featured.

Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Misplaced Pages main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Thought you might be interested in choosing to support/object and/or provide any ideas on how it needs to be improved to become featured.

Thanks -- Paxomen 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

random

i knew vin diesel personally. he was a homosexual man. next time you revert the truth you will be hunted down by the CIA. - 130.156.3.254 (14:49, 22 September 2006)

Username change

Thanks for the information.Freebird Jackson 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

moved to:

User:CheNuevara/brag

thank you once again

Hi there, thank you once again for your kind words and for reaching out to help a stranger. I had written, "I need to deal with things in my real life," and obviously what I did was not a productive manner of doing so (how is that for understatement?). Seriously, depression does hurt, though I have been in a curiously good mood over the past day. Rather unable to sleep, too. We'll see if that improves as I get adjusted to things. I love your username, BTW. Thanks again. --Kyoko 13:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cattle Draft

I've posted a second draft of the cult section underneath your draft. Overall its almost identical to what you wrote but with a few more background details like place names and some relevent details on Isis (was depicted as a cow etc), Could you look over it and give feedback.

If you're satisfied, we can get to work on the citation problem.

Could you also look over these two drafts for the related phenomena section and give me some feedback on them. Just content WP:OR, WP:POV WP:V,WP:RS right now. We'll worry about notability and weight later. I need to get good practice down first.

• black helicopters
• Human mutilations

perfectblue 11:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding our irc discussion concerning Cheema

Hi.Thanks for your attention to this matter.

I wanted to summarize the issues that I have with the article. The most recent edits by User:Street Scholar cite a reference which I can establish is nonexistent. The "book" that he cites does not include a publisher or an ISBN number. I went to my university library (http://www.lib.utexas.edu) and asked the librarian for it. She searched and found no such book in any library on campus or off campus in the National academic databases. The "online ref" that he cites is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/ is a Yahoo groups page that is not a peer-reviewed source and thus does not satisfy WP:RS. He also cites another book:Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakkur. Such a book does exist and I will look at it later today. Based on his bad faith edit of the previous nonexistent ref, Isuspect that he is mis-citing the reference.Plus, if you look at complaints against him here and his attacks against me in my talk page here you will see that the user seems to have an Islamist and anti-Hindu bias that I suspect is coloring his edits. Similar problems exist with Muhammad bin Qasim (which he has been editing with the same false refs).I tried to initiate discussion with him but he responded with threats and what I feel is incivility per WP:Civility (see above diff of my talk page).

That's my side of the issue anyway.Thanks again for your investigation into these matters and I hope that we can all reach a reasonable conclusion concerning this unfortunate matter. Regards.Hkelkar 18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. I have the book "Sindhi Culture" by Thakkur with me right now. The book is a University of Bombay Sociology Series No 9 publication and has a total of 250 pages (including index).It is divided into 5 Chapters. Cradle, People & Occupation, Human Relations, Religion, Spirit World, Rituals and Re-formation of society. I have run through the pages and

1. I have not found this sentence " Humiliating conditions were imposed on the Jats depriving them of many civil rights.This sentence is not there anywhere.

This sentence:Th Brahmim chamberlain who usurped the throne of Rajput King Sahasi II went to Brahmanabad, he enjoined upon the Jats and Lohanas not to carry swords, avoid velvet or silken cloth, ride horses without saddles and walk about bare-headed and bare-footed" anywhere" is there on page 14. However, it is ONE sentence that does not necessarily bolster the claim of systemic discrimination against the Jats.

1. In fact, several of MY assertions concerning Qasim are SUPPORTED by theis book viz pgs 14-15

Nasty little bugger wasn't he, eh?

There is more on p16 qbout forced conversions and other atrocities imflicted on Hindus.

Gee, thanks. I have a lot of stuff I can add in bin-Qasim from here :-).

1. I do not see any mention of atrocities inflicted on the Jats by Hindus in this book. The tone of the bok is positive to the pre-Islamic Jats, Hindus and Buddhists and is generally pejorative to the old Ay-Rabs.Hkelkar 21:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thus, I conclude that Street Scholar just practiced some good-old-fashioned "taqqiya" here by a little mis-citing ^__^.Hkelkar 21:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay. I'm sorry I became aggressive. However, my comments were not motivated by racialism. I'll stop per your request, though Street Scholar needs to stop also.Hkelkar 05:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to login...

The thing is, its not one file, the book is loads of sections in the files section on yahoo groups. They are translated works and are hard to find otherwise. Furthermore, some are in Hindi which you have to install fonts on your computer to read them. It would be best if you sign up or if you get get hold of the following books which are available more easily:

1.  The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham
2.  The peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky
3.  Arab-o-Hind ke Talluqat, By Sulaiman Nadvi.
4.  The Gazetteer of Pakistan: The Province of Sind, edited by T.H. Sorly
5.  Gazetteer of the Province of Sind, compiled by E.H. Aitkin
6.  Ancient Trade in Pakistan, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Pakistan Quarterly, Vol VII #1957
7.      Sindhj Culture, By U.T. Thakkur.
8.     Tareekh-Sind, By Manlana Syed Abu Zafar Nadvi.
9.  An Advanced History of India, Part II, By R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Roychandra and Kalikinkar Ditta
10.  The Land of five rivers and Sind, By David Ross
11.   Arab~o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Suiaiman Nadvi;
12.  Tareekh-e-Sind, Part I, By Ijaaul Haq Quddusi.
13.  Dr. Mohammad Ishaque in Journal of Pakistan Historical Society Vol 3 Part1
14.  A Study of History, Vol VII, By Arnold Toynbee.
15.    Ibid.
16.    Sind: A General Introduction, By M.T. Lambrick.
17.  A greater portion of the area now called Baluchistan was then known as Makran. The word Baluchistan came into vogue much later.
18.  Journal of Pakistan, Historical Society, Vol.111, Part 1
19.  Tauzeehat-e-Tareekh-e-Masoomi.
20.  Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, by Dr. I.H Qureshi
21.  Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, by Aijazul Haq Quddusi
22.  The Making of India, By Dr. Abdulla Yusuf Ali.
23.  Jaunat-us-Sind, By Maulai Shaidai.
24.  Imperial Gazetteer of India.
25.  Ibid.
26.  Indian Muslims, By Prof. M. Mujeeb.
27.  Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, By Aijazul Haq Quddusi.
28.  The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas Arnold
29.  Shias of India, By John Norman Hollister.
30.    Ibid.
31.    Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulaiman Nadvi
32.  Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakut.
33.  Tareekh-e-Sind, By Maulana Abu Zafar Nadvi.
34.  The Peoples of Pakistan, By. Yu. V. Gankovsky.
35.  Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulairnan Nadvi.

--Street Scholar 15:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

While I see that some of these refs are legitimate, I ask that SPECIFIC sources from the above be cited (and I will check them like I checked the UT Thakkur ref).I do not believe that all of them are non-partisanper WP:RS so plz show specific source. The yahoogroups site, in on itself, is worthless as a wikipedia source.Hkelkar 05:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura

(pasted from my talk section) Antonrojo 07:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We're currently working on mediation on a subpage of the talk page. Before making a whole lot of changes to the article, you might want to join the discussion. - Che Nuevara 06:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was about 90% through on the edits so I finished them off. If you could point me towards the subpage (I assume you don't mean the sections of the Talk page referring to mediation), I'll look it over and comment if appropriate. Antonrojo 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Exact same problem brewing on Muhammad bin Qasim

The same issues regarding the validity of the fake refs with Street Scholar are brewing on a related topic Muhammad bin Qasim with User:Siddiqui.Can you please advise him not to remove tags until disputes are resolved?Thanks.Hkelkar 15:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Another course of action regarding Cheema?

Shall I file an RfA?Hkelkar 17:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Street Scholar is back with his tendentious edits.For the record, could you drop him a note asking him one last time to discuss? If he refuses or ignores then I will RfC.11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Caption Competition

moved to:

User:CheNuevara/brag

PS. Where do you want your Coffee? Dfrg.msc 06:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on winning the prize with me! Who woulda thought we would tie considering mine weren't even as funny as yours?? Great work CN... Spawn Man 23:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura stuff

I don't think I've ever dealt with someone as hard to reason with as Whiffle. He's not interested in working anything out at all, but rather seems to be interested in talking about how much he knows and how stupid the rest of us are. I'm being a good admin, though, and letting him dig himself a hole he can't get out of before I do anything. Any ideas for how to reason with him? ···日本穣 18:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I didn't mean to intrude on or disrupt your mediation, which does look productive. I had noticed a long discussion recently over the propriety of editing while in mediation, followed by Whiffle's major edits, and altogether it seemed like a good idea to cut short the bickering and edit warring. If Whiffle is reasonable I'm sure the protection can be lifted quickly and if not a block may be called for. Either way, feel free to remove the protection yourself at any time, or you can ask me to do so. Thanks for mediating. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't see any new discussion since the protection was placed. Should we remove it? -Will Beback 00:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a bad idea, given Whiffle's attitude (as I see it). I thinnk the main reason the discussion there has died is because trying to discuss something with Whiffle is like trying to talk to a swarm of bees: sure, they may hear what you're syaing, but that doesn't stop them from buzzing all over and doing whatever they want. I've asked another admin to take a look at Whiffle's edits to determine what, if anything should be done about his less-than productive track record so far. He's only been here for a week, and nothing productive has come of anything he's done, as far as I can tell. ···日本穣 00:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Walter Andrew Stephenson

Please see BenBurch 00:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hello CheNuevara. I can see that you are busy, but I have a question, which I asked on the discussion page of the Mediation Cabal a couple of days ago. My question is, if I want to join the Cabal (if it exists that is) what do I have to do aside from adding the page to my watchlist. I read your arguments with Whiffle, and I'd like to help out; the problem is I don't know how. Here's a link to the discussion page of the Mediation Cabal in case you would rather answer there. | AndonicO Talk 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Che, for your message; it cleared a few things up. However, you said some people take cases and others take requests. What is the differance? I'll add my name to the list, but I think I'll just be reading for a while, in order to learn. I'd appreciate any occaisional help, but this is fine for now. Thanks! | AndonicO Talk 21:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, does "Active" mean I'm on the computer, or that I have a case? | AndonicO Talk 21:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the (much needed) help. I'll join as inactive. | AndonicO Talk 23:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

RfC

I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question.

I know you interaction has been breif but its also been neutral. --NuclearZer0 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to give you an update I have little to do with Democratic Underground and the issue with FAAFA that I have takes place mainly outside of that. I had compiled a page following what I felt were bad edits to a noticeboard and have kept it since, this was while he was editing under NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After he changed his name I kept the list of incidents and it just happens that many of the people coincide with that articles as they seem to know eachother off wiki, or butted heads in the past. That is why it seems odd that I am introducing it. I am not involved in the Democratic Underground debate at all, the issue stems from outside of it, but contains many of the same people. --NuclearZer0 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Attention

Your attention is requred at Talk:Democratic Underground. JBKramer 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

You are far too kind, CheNuevara. Your comments were so nice, thank you for them! -- Natalya 23:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for your unbiased input on the RfC, Che. I'm somewhat unfamiliar with these. Let me ask -- Is it helpful for me to point out the similar violations of my accusers, to illustrate that this was a two-way street?

Here for instance, is documentation of one editor and tormentor creating a sock puppet, solely to taunt and bait me, and even admitting to it.

tbeatty's taunting sock - Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 07:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was created in response to your special friends enemies list. You were lacking a Super Friends enemies list so I added a user to it.--Tbeatty 07:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you intend to deal with the dispute, or just the users slapping at eachoter? JBKramer 17:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

: Lol, Che. Nice to know that someone agrees with me occasionally. BTW, why are people so hung up about their edit counts? Get over 500/1000 - it all becomes are bit irrelevant, no? Also BTW, you might like to know that I voted for Kim (Bruning) in the board elections, so no hard memories of the minor scrap at your old RFA, right? Cheers, Moreschi 21:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Help and Advice on Starwood Mediation?

I sort of got a recommendation from User:Addhoc that you could possibly give some advice on the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival. Mediation seems rather stalled for the moment and we have no mediator in charge. Related to this is Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse as well. I'm uncertain whether we should move on to WP:RFAR or what. Since things seem to be heading to another edit war, I'd really like some input from a more experienced hand at this. We really need a help with this situation. If nothing else, we could use feedback on this situation if you have the time to do so. Also FYI, I'm also mentioning this to User:Ars Scriptor, another recommendation from Addhoc. Thanks. --Pigman (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Che -- I think the Starwood spamming is clear case of policy violation, therefore not a case for mediation. I think Ars Scriptor's comments about WP:BAND, and how that is a precedent for no internal links from perfomers/presenters to the festival, are relevant. I don't think this case should have ever gone to mediation. As I seriously doubt anyone who is familiar with WP linkspam policies would support this google bombing attempt, how could a "neutral" mediator who is also familiar with WP policy even be found? In addition to WP policy, I think the consensus on the charges against Matisse show community consensus that it was a clear-cut case of spamming. So, my question is, what's the best way to deal with the spammers at this point? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More on Starwood Mediation

Thank you for your offer to mediate the Starwood mediation (is that a proper sentence?) I would welcome you in that role. I am willing to attend in good faith. I won't throw tantrums. I'll listen to advice. I'll try to be civil at all times and will apologize if I overstep civil discourse. (Now if everyone would just agree to these things as well...) --Pigman (talk • contribs) 04:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Che - Just to clarify my statement above: I didn't mean to declare that the attempted mediation should be abandoned. Rather that, given some of what has (or has not) transpired, I question whether it was the most effective or appropriate approach to the situation. Perhaps the RfC should have been done first, and maybe the problem could have been taken care of that way. But if you think you can get mediation to work with the parties involved, I certainly welcome you to come on in as mediator :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer of mediation. Might I ask a question regarding how you might conduct the mediation? Will you insist that the mediation address current issues? What will be your policy toward parties who raise user conduct accusations that have already been list on WP:AN/I or in user conduct RfC's? Please let me know if you have plans to deal with such situations. Thanks. Sincerely --BostonMA 12:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be absolutely thrilled to have a mediator actually mediate the issues. —Hanuman Das 13:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your mediation is fine with me. Will you open a new mediation page for it? Will it be MedCab or MedCom? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Che - I would be happy to have you mediate the issue. Unlike BostonMa, however, I do believe that a look at the history of this issue is important, and the behavior of the people who have initiated it. I feel that my actions have been steered by the very people who turned around and objected to them, some of whom have made some rather nasty accusations and assumptions of bad faith, and now seem to want to set the bars much higher on the standards for inclusion of input than usual. Kathryn's statement above is an example: 3 statements on the futility or inappropriatness of the mediation, 3 accusations of spamming and one of "google-bombing" in a single paragraph! My attempts to find a middle-ground position and my removal of external links seem to only encourage this. I would welcome an objective view. Rosencomet 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes to WikiProject Buffyverse (aka When Info Goes Poof)

I discovered this is already being discussed. :) And there is also a more appropriate place for the discussion as well. Feel free to delete away. Not sure how to remove this completely from your talk page. Sorry for any inconvience. QuinnZadok 14:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Future of Adopt-a-user

Hi there - with Flameviper leaving Adopt-a-user for the next generation to take on, and your obvious interest in the project, I was hoping you would find to comment and help out with some suggestions for the future of the project. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Adopt-a-User. Many thanks Lethaniol 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)