Misplaced Pages

Template:NotJudaism

How crazy was that template or maybe its just me? MetsFan76 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MetsFan, you can stop now. The template is deleted and, besides, Humus is not doing anything wrong; he is entitled to his opinion. Something that is not a good idea, however, is badgering those who disagree with you. -- tariqabjotu 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me..I wasn't badgering anyone. I was making a point at how silly this was. Anyway, its over. MetsFan76 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No; you clearly were. On the template for deletion page, as well as on Humus sapiens's talk page. Please do not do that in the future. -- tariqabjotu 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Second time....I was trying to figure out what the deal was with that template b/c I found it very insulting which is why I contacted Humus. Good night. MetsFan76 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I contributed to the confusion with my comment. No, it wasn't about you. Only after I posted my comment I realized that it could be misunderstood but it was too late. I feel that the whole thing is a huge misunderstanding. ←Humus sapiens 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Current Affairs Portal

Jo,

Can you have a look at the current affairs portal? For some reason, it is showing today as yesterday.

Regards

Capitalistroadster 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone had vandalized the page. -- tariqabjotu 11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to Beit Hanoun article

Striver got an admin to undelete the two pictures. No actual discussion of the matter took place. You may want to talk to the admin and/or Striver. The idea that one of these pictures is fair use has some minimal plausibility (incorrect but I can see why soemoen might think it) but the idea that both of them are fair use in the same article is laughable. JoshuaZ 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The allegation that Striver just talked to an admin is not correct. I responded on the talk page for the article. -- tariqabjotu 16:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that clarification. JoshuaZ 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun incident may need protecting again.

It seems like editors are back to fighting over whether to include the picture. JoshuaZ 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary, in my opinion. We ought to warn them about the 3RR (because this isn't really coming from all ends), and block them if they persist. -- tariqabjotu 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who the "we" is in that sentence. At this point I'm a bit too involved an editor to be doing any blocking. I'll put a note on the talk page about 3RR which should get the point across. JoshuaZ 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, maybe just "an admin." I might be too involved in this now too. Nevertheless, I warned Striver he's close to violating it (his 12:07 (UTC) edit counts as well, correct?). -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're still uninvolved. I would see that as a revert also. I think I might actually be arguably at 3 reverts also. JoshuaZ 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And the edit warring is back with many parties. JoshuaZ 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Given and other recent comments I think a block of our favorite anon is in order. JoshuaZ 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry to bother you, but i'm not exactly an expert around here- I just noticed some vandalism to the sweatshop article, and i don't know how to undo it and warn whoever did it- 70.176.114.118 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hercule moveprotect

Just saw your re-add of the template and the note on PL(D)'s page (he/she needs to have a name that isn't an article name...). You are right that it's still moveprotected, but the page is no longer listed on Misplaced Pages:List of protected pages or Misplaced Pages:List of protected pages/Long-term protection. I believe this has caused the confusion. I've added a note there now. JRP 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin-warming gift

An early holiday birthday* gift for you has been placed under the tree here, for your review. I'm fascinated with the work that goes into the various calendars, etc. on WP, and used your August into September Current Events cal edit to come up with tomorrow's calendar (Dec 1, they almost match, since September also started on a Friday). It's quite a superb design that I understand you came up with. If this re-fit looks right, just copy and paste. Glad to help in a timely fashion, and see you next month perhaps, if not sooner ;) !

*Just missed Election Day, I see. Best wishes anyway!

 Schweiwikist   (talk)  20:20, 30 November 2006 (updated-corrected) (UTC)

Wonderful! One minor correction though... back in early September, the archive sub-pages were at Portal:Current events/Month year. They have since been moved to just Month year (e.g. November 2006), so that should be corrected. But, overall, I'm glad someone else has been able to decipher the monthly update (see also: Portal:Current events/How to archive the portal). -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Schweiwikist replies: Noted and implemented on my aforementioned page. I have already found this page, and I find it an enjoyable late-night read.
 Schweiwikist   (talk)  02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussions on Indian Caste System

I have discussed my edits endlessly. We need an outside mediator, and when we tried to get one, no one helped us. Please take a look at the discussions. BhaiSaab 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But revert-warring is still not the answer. It sounded like you wanted the article to be protected at your version. -- tariqabjotu 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't care which version you would have protected, even if it was the wrong one, because at least the parties would go back to answering my questions on the talk page. BhaiSaab 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening. BhaiSaab has been revert-warring for months on this article, misrepresenting sources, and hoping that the page will get protected to his version.I don't care about which version the page get's protected either (and I have no say on that matter anyways, as admins are required to protect at current version and not discriminate between "right" and "wrong" version, and the protection tag says that protection is not an endorsement of the current version anyways). I have made my points in the talk page. BhaiSaab has been imposing his references (which are partisan when verified, misrepresented when not) over the ones that I have cited (which are scholarly and non-partisan). I want BOTH views to be represented, but BhaiSaab has been repeatedly removing the scholarly references that present the situation in a more NPOV light. Hkelkar 17:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't want both views to be represented. It's only when I presented five sources that stated the same thing you realized that you couldn't get rid of the obvious. Then you went on and on trying to find sources that didn't say Muslim castes were influenced by Hinduism, and then when you find something you either misrepresent it or use your own interpretation to say something the source doesn't say. BhaiSaab 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

J., I would appreciate it if you mediated this matter. BhaiSaab 22:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone with enough courage to take this on. Thanks. BhaiSaab 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh

Will you please block this slow-speed vandal for me? He keeps inserting original research into Misplaced Pages despite warnings on his talk page and a massive discussion of the articles he's adding the text on, Grand Slam Champion and Triple Crown Champion (see history of articles). Consensus at the Pro Wrestling WikiProject and Policy state that unverified facts can't be inserted into Misplaced Pages. I've went through test4 with him (twice) and he still hasn't gotten the hint yet. semper fi — Moe 02:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to WP:ANI since this isn't an obvious vandalism incident, and since the issue isn't especially pressing. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Tried that, no one bothered to respond. semper fi — Moe 02:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Protection issue

Hi - I reprotected here, on WP:RFPP, after the requester noted that Jidan had re-commenced edit warring immediately after protection. For now, I've unprotected, though I'm skeptical as to how well this tactic will work. There is a post about Jidan on WP:ANI here. Thanks - Martinp23 13:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about

you are close to violating the three-revert rule for the article. There is no three revert rule for reverting vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know there is no 3RR for reverting vandalism. I did not see it as reverting vandalism, but obviously I'm in the minority. You are free to disagree, but I believe people and administrators are not always going to agree on their analyses of situations since they are not mass-produced robots. Sadly, disagreeing with you does not constitute obviously having no idea what one is talking about. -- tariqabjotu 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't think that repeated insertin of To a certain extent through heroic figures like Klaus Fuchs, the brilliant activities of the Soviet intelligence service resulted in the early loss of America's monopoly on the destructive atomic bomb. is not vandalism? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a POV to me; obviously not overt vandalism. If you want to make WP:DIFFICULT blocks, better gain consensus on the WP:ANI page. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Bibi Mubarika Yusufzay, which you prodded, has been recreated after deletion. I have undeleted the history and submitted it to AfD as a disputed prod. Cheers, - crz crztalk 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)