Misplaced Pages

By the way, vandalism creates spiritual turbulence, resulting in misfortune. DON'T BE OFFENSIVE! Older discussions are found here: 1st Floor, 2nd F, 3rd F, 4th F, 5th F, 6th F, 7th F, 8th F, 9th F, 10th F, 11th F, 12th F, 13th F, 14th F, 15th F, 16th F, 17th F, 18th F, 19th F, 20th F, 21st F, 22nd F, 23rd F, 24th F, 25th F, 26th F, 27th F, 28th F, 29th F, 30th F, 31th F, 32th F If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond here. If you leave a message for me here, I will respond there and here as well. BABEL This user contributes to Wikimedia Commons. 40,000 This user has over 40,000 edits on the English Misplaced Pages. This user participates in Pages needing translation into English. This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks. This user is a participant of WikiProject Countering systemic bias. This user is a participant in WikiProject Morocco. This user is a member of WikiProject Military history. This user is a participant in WikiProject Spain. This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English. اللغة الام لهذا المستخدم هي العربية. Cet utilisateur parle français à un niveau comparable à la langue maternelle. Este usario puede contribuir con un nivel avanzado en Español. Ĉi tiu uzanto povas komuniki per baza nivelo de Esperanto. Questo utente può contribuire con un italiano di livello semplice. This user is Moroccan. ind This user is politically independent. This user is a Citizen of the World (Terra, ⊕). C# This user can program in C#. 33 This user is 33 years old. This user BOINCs. This user supports moral equality amongst great apes and humans. This user is car-free. This user owns one or more Siamese cats.

Sarkozy

What do you mean you "haven't paid attention to the fact that categories were involved"? You were the person who inserted the categories, no-one else did, including Category:French Jews. Did your fingers just type in those categories without your noticing? Jayjg 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The "haven't paid attention to the fact that categories were involved" means that it wasn't me who did insert them. It was the "new user being blocked" who did that. -- FayssalF - 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, you can't have it both ways. Either you were supporting the now-blocked tendentious new editor, or you were deliberately inserting those categories. Now, it looks to me like you were just supporting the blocked editor, by reverting for him. If I were you I'd just leave it at that. Jayjg 03:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I only can have it my way, maybe not in the colour you prefer. however, it wasn't neither for your first claim nor for the second. The fact that you haven't paid attention to whom he did insert that proves that we liked the same colour; the colour of being a bit in a rush w/o having enough time to breathe. I've already talked a couple of days ago about the fact that not only me who is having problems. Please take it easy Jay and assume good faith again and again. -- FayssalF - 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume the it was me who did insert those cats. Doesn't the person who falls into my "favourite human" category (there is only him indeed!) is contained in similar categories? So what's your point exactly? -- FayssalF - 03:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Request your opinion on proper use of article Talk Pages

This is probably a borderline case and not a huge abuse but, since I started it, I may as well finish it.

There is a perennial "Marvin was a hero" discussion over at Talk:Marvin Heemeyer. It comes up about once a month or so. I just recently deleted the latest incarnation with an edit summary warning that article talk pages are not to be used as a discussion forum per WP:NOT. Another editor reverted my deletion which I reverted back and he reverted yet again. It's obviously time to stop this since it is a nascent edit war.

So, I seek your advice. Should this sort of discussion be allowed to take place on article Talk Pages? I admit that I've seen much worse abuse on other article Talk Pages. I guess part of the issue is the perennial and futile nature of this thread. Nobody will ever convince anybody and it really is unrelated to the editing of the article.

What are your thoughts?

--Richard 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard, it would have been much more polite (instead of merely reverting) to actually attempt dialogue regarding this matter- especially given the alternative of dumping it into the laps of several otherwise uninvolved people. The discussion at hand isn't just a "Marvin was a hero" piece of cruft- a user had some rather serious complaints about the tone of the article, which was what his post was regarding. Statements like "How can you not take this into account in the way the article is written?" and "This article does no justice for a man" might betray a lack of NPOV on the editors account, but do convey a legitimate question as to whether or not the article has followed the proper point of view. The edit certainly wasn't vandalism, and it also wasn't off-topic- the user posed a question on the talk page that was ABOUT THE ARTICLE. I would be more than happy to discuss this with you, if you want to, despite the fact that I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't try to talk to me about it before bringing in uninvolved outside folk. Ex-Nintendo Employee 07:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To Ex-Nintendo Employee, I understand your feeling that I should have opened a dialogue with you. It was late at night and I was about to go to bed. I figured I'd sleep on it, ask for advice and deal with it in the morning.

If you wanted a dialoge, you could have left a message on my Talk Page and opened the dialogue yourself. I asked FayssalF for his opinion because I could see that this was getting disputatious and needed some advice as to what would be a good way to proceed. FayssalF is my "admin coach" and so I thought it absolutely proper to ask him and another admin that I respect (User:JoanneB) for advice about whether I was concerned about something important or being overly and obnoxiously rigid about the rules and guidelines for article Talk Pages. I was trying to restrain myself before I got disputatious about something that might not be all that important.

--Richard 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

SAADI

On what ground have you reverted my changes in the Persian Poet SAADI? 207.253.110.64 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

FayssalF, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Funnypop12/User:Albertbrown80, User:Dhanmondi

Hi Fayssal, I have two abusive users I'd like to bring to your attention.
First, Funnypop12/Albertbrown80, who continues the same blanking he's been doing for six months now. He's ignored all the warnings and blocks directed his way. I think it's time for an indef as a vandalism-only SPA. It seems like a waste of time to bring this to WP:ANI, but I suppose I will do so if you recommend it.
The other is a new user User:Dhanmondi. This is a spam-only SPA. While there hasn't been too much activity yet, I can't see the purpose of giving him a second chance, as there's not really any "him" there, just spam. I have seen spammers blocked incrementally before, it doesn't work: at best, they wait until the block expires and resume. If User wants to return under some other name and participate normally, nothing really stops him from doing so.
In both cases, users have been unwisely encouraged by third parties, User:ALM scientist and Matt57 respectively. That these disruptive users have are allowed to persist sends the wrong message to established editors; conversely, indefs in both cases might prove therapeutic to members of our community who we would rather see on the right track.Proabivouac 07:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pro. It seems Funnypop12 is back but i like process and will file a CU request today and sort this out once and for all. As per, Dhanmondi, the next time they would do it again it would be indef. I've just left them the final warning. -- FayssalF - 09:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dhanmondi

Dear Fayssal I got your message I am a new user so have to know many rules regarding editing wikipedia. But I think the link I put in Dr.Zakir Naiks article is completely right because I think wikipedia stands for non-bias information not for advertisenment for some people.In Dr.zakir naik page if you put his fan club link or link to his selling materials its ok but if you put any link which is critical against his view it is not ok what kind of regulation this is!.In wikipedia every kind of view should provided to its user. It will increase the acceptablity and popularity of wikipedia I suggest you please visit opus Deiin this site you will find that in the External links both kind of Sites supporting Opus Dei and Sites critical of Opus Dei are included so why editing Dr.zakir naiks biography should be different!!!!. If editing muslim or Islam relating articles need to follow different kinds of rules Please informed me . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhanmondi (talk • contribs) 06:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

It is not about having a balance. You are posting the same website on a dozen of articles which is unacceptable as it is considered spamming. If it was concerning one specific article it would have been another case. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM carefully. -- FayssalF - 10:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The LTTE article is not based on good sources

Hi, I am trying to get some interest to the article about LTTE. The problem is that part of the article is not based on good sources and/or the sources are used for more than what they actually state when you read them. I have tried to work it out on the article's discussion page, alas in vain - as it in my opinion more or less has been taken over by one side in the conflict.

I have also posted a message about it on the Village pump and I have placed a 100 USD bounty for anyone who put in some serious work on it. I passed by your userpage and thought I may give you a word about it as well. My critic of the current state of the article can be read on it's discussion page. Ulflarsen 09:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ulflarsen. I'll deal w/ that w/in 24h. You can refer to Chemical weapons in the Rif War to have an idea about how to use good sources especially for big claims. I'll come back to you very soon. Cheers. -- FayssalF - 09:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for using time on this article. I do hope your comments can have some impact. Best regards! Ulflarsen 09:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk 17:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi FayssalF, thanks for your support in my RfA, which passed unopposed. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(presumably) Jean-Claude Ducasse again

Is 31 hours the standard blocking time for horrific personal attacks from a user? This one really is unbelievable: (even with my terrible French it looks bad), against his son Fabrice. nadav 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll w/ the case tomorrow Nadav. No worries. -- FayssalF - 01:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sabah Al Khair, Fayssalf, I see you speak Arabic. Please, Look at www. alwatan.com and see the type of person that jean-Claude continually slanders in his posts. Sh. Ali Khalifa Al-Sabah has been one of the powers for democratization and women's rights in Kuwait. While that has bought some enemies, it also means that the propensity of info about him is very positive (Kuwait has woman's suffrage now.) It would seem to me that people would notice from jean_claude's posts what our problem is. While JCD paints this problem as one where his children (and the members of his board) has backed MDSAmerica. In actuality it is MDSA (the largest investor) that has supported his children and board members in trying to bring some sort of sanity to MDSI. 09:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To Fayssalf

Remember Mr Faysall you edit yourself lies in the talk of MDSAmerica against Myself when you said in French that I said you and this are what you said on this Talk Pages. This are easy to you to remove the evidences of your lies to help fabrice and MDSAmerica but fortunately and Daily the bailliff make copies of your pages. About Sh. Ali Khalifa Al-Sabah has been one of the powers for democratization and women's please look the CIAO Report the European Parlament reports the Llyods case with KOTC agains the Gentleme this are not from reliable sources Look also Irak Al Fawares withe the AlSAbah newspaper problems But You lie in talk pages when you said in French what you said against us §

Explain to me Why you do this ?

I just see this in your pages by a link from MDSAmerica to your site:

Please review my comment. I think you were a bit too quick to act on MiFeinberg's word alone. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

MDS international

Bonjour, un investisseur arabe (Sh Ali khalifah al Sabah) a investit 3 millions de $ dans MDSi il y a quelques années. Un jour il a demandé à voir les comptes de la société. Comme nous avons refusé que cet arabe prétentieux se mêle de nos affaires, celui-ci a décidé de nous faire un procès aux USA. Maintenant, ils veulent mettre la décision de justice à notre encontre sur le site MDS international de Misplaced Pages et nous ne sommes pas d'accord.

L'investisseur est également propriétaire de la société MDS america. Toutes ces personnes sont recherché par la CIA et la DST pour meurtres et détournement de fons.

Concernant le logiciel Xingtech que le site xingtech.info nous accuse d'avoir piraté, nous n'avons fait que changer le nom pour le commercialiser sous notre nom. Comme nous sommes une société française, les américains ne viendrons pas nous chercher et nous poursuivre. --Jeanclauduc 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU MAKE THIS FALSE MESSAGE FROM MDSINTERNATIONAL ? YOU ARE PAID FOR THIS ? THIS SMELL AGAIN FABRICE DUCASSE SAME THE FALSE XINGTECH WEB SITE! Do you think that we are not so stupid to said ourselves false things ? do you know that we have a mosquee inside our factory for the use of our visitors staying in MDSi for the training ( technicians From Emirates Saudi Arabia, Lybia ? do you need contacts with this visitors and MDSi clients to know what we are ?) we nevers said any judgment to any same I can read on your pages ! I can said about fabrice my son what I said all of the story are producted by the Mind of fabrice and MDSamerica and others sons are so stupid to follow the lies ! 89.224.154.130 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Est-ce possible d'arrêter d'utiliser des IPs. Tu as ce compte là alsors pourquoi ne pas l'utiliser? Aussi, tu peut communiquer en français pour qu'on puisse s'entendre? Merci. -- FayssalF - 19:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

adding www.torahforme.com link to Maimonidies article

Re: No big deals. I only have one concern. I am not an expert so if it is not directly related to Maimonides than please don't insert it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The site has classes and oral reading of Maimonidies works, (so it is directly related) but doesn't have subpages, so it is impossible to tailor the URL to the relevant subpage - however anyone who comes to that page will see the classes and oral readings of Maimonidies text at first glance, is it still ok to post the link? Thank you Samson Ben-Manoach 01:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case it would be difficult to be approved as it would be in contradiction w/ some clauses at WP:EL. However, you can try to get some other opinions from people who may know better than i do in terms of the Torah. Try to leave a message at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism. -- FayssalF - 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your block of User:TechnoFaye

While I don't condone physical threats, your timing on this is not very considerate. He wrote the threat on the 2nd, and it wasn't reported until the 15th. On top of that, the Arbitration was opened on the 13th, therefore your block may effectively prevent him from presenting any evidence. Just thought that I'd let you know the situation. - Penwhale | 07:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Please read this. Cheers. -- FayssalF - 10:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I did read it. Thanks. - Penwhale | 16:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice Cube

Hey, you know about the facts in Ice Cube which i removed? I do it because it has happened same thing in Snoop Dogg, Nas, 50 Cent and i wanna have same way in Ice Cube too. Because the things are already written on the Ice Cube discography and i want that same way like Jay-Z, Nas and even Snoop Dogg has it. That's my reason to removing them and i told Mel Etetis about that. Football 7 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. -- FayssalF - 14:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

KAC

I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I need someone to check my article King Armored Car to see if it could be raised to Start-Class Status. I noticed that you were the one who put the notice up on the talk page for the article, so I was wondering if you could check it out; it would be unethical for me to do it. --MKnight9989 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Well, let's go step by step according to the "Start" critereon:

1. The article has a meaningful amount of good content? --> Yes. It talks about who used it first. Where, etc...
2. But it is still weak in many areas. --> True. Referencing. Only one reference is used. We need more. It needs a {{Infobox Weapon}}.
3. it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:

• A particularly useful picture or graphic. ---> Yes.
• Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic. --> Not enough.
• A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic. --> Nope.
• Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article. --> Nope.

In brief, it should look somehow like this article. Just make a small effort and you could reach the "Start" quality. Cheers. -- FayssalF - 15:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ice Cube

sorry i meant do not edit the Ice Cube discography but the main page Ice Cube. So keep the album covers etc... there! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Football 7 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Ice Cube

I'm a bit surprised to see you reverting perfectly correct edits to this article, which included removing copyright-violating images and bringing it into line with the WikiProjext and the MoS. What happened? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mel, i thought it was something to do w/ vandalism when i had spotted a large amount of edits being removed and a table deconstructed. I can't know what's going on the wikiproject you are referring to. I also had no idea that images copyright problems were at play. Please read my convo w/ Football 7 after he explained to me what he's been doing. I hope it is clear. -- FayssalF - 23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation with regard to fair-use images of album covers, etc., is that they can be used only in articles on the albums, etc., not to illustrate articles on people, to pretty up discographies, etc. (in such cases they're simply copyvios). With regard to tables, the Music WikiProjects (and the MoS) use bulleted lists for things like track listings; there's a large number of editors whose interest (to put it mildly) is popular music of one kind or another, and who want to add every available bell and whistle to articles in that area, and who have no knowledge of or interest in Misplaced Pages style, guidelines or policy. They want everything to be in complex, often multi-coloured, tables, cramming in information that belongs (if anywhere) in doscographies or articles on the releases themselves.

Football7 saw their work, and took it to be the standard, correct way of doing things; unlike most, when his edits were reverted and he discovered the true situation he adopted the correct approach — which is why having his edits reverted in the opposite direction must have been an unpleasant surprise for him. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree w/ you and F7. I had already understood what s/he was doing and that is fair enough. I'm keeping an eye on similar articles anyway. Cheers. FayssalF - 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Beer battery

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Beer battery, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dicklyon 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dick. Thanks for the notice. I am not sure if you have had a look at this interesting reference at HowStuffWorks as well as the informative BBC article about Foster's beer. Whatever is the case, i believe an AfD is the most appropriate place for it. Please comment. -- FayssalF - 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at Lemon battery for comparaison. -- FayssalF - 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Duraiappa stadium mass grave

Request I made mistake that assuming, I am “Reverting to PaladinWhite version” of this,I wrongly reverted to this. Please unlock or revert to what I intended.Lustead 12:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Request rejected - I understand that it was a mistake but i am sorry. We have to understand that "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version". Editors should not ask for a specific version of a page to be protected or, if it has already been protected, reverted to a different version. Instead, editors should attempt to resolve the dispute. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Content disputes for more details.

To further explain my desicion i'd invite you to read this. You'd also find a label about the "wrong version" at the bottom of my userpage. Please try to communicate and resolve the dispute as i haven't seen any comment from anyone since the page was protected 2 days ago. -- FayssalF - 12:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I brought to the Administration's attention to involve in resolving the issue based on this edit. But I made mistake leaving the subcategory Mass grave out and I believe that that S.Category well fit for that. I never expected you would ptotect the Page either. So I had to express my opinion which I originally intended. Now I cleared the contradictary statement in the Edit Summary and the Edit actually I did on the Page.Lustead 14:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for KAC

Thanks for the pointers man. I'll do that real soon. --MKnight9989 12:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice on improving my edits

"Blocking Jeanclauduc indef would not fix the problem as we have the COI stuff going on here w/ employees of a company are editing many related topics.-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)"

I've been working on understanding Misplaced Pages policies and have been trying to ensure that any edits I do have been both fully COI-disclosed and properly NPOV. I've also talked to all the MDSA people that have been doing edits. I'm not the boss so I can't order them, but I thought that there was good improvement.

Obviously, from your comments, I see that you are still concerned about some of the edits by myself or my co-workers. Do you think you could make some suggestions or identify article edits you feel are inappropriate?

Thanks. Bhimaji 13:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bhimaji and your efforts are appreciated. I have one major concern and it is related to WP:COI. If we read through the policy we'd find the following:

So that is my main concern and i am talking about all editors in direct relation w/ the subjects on hand. -- FayssalF - 13:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I just double checked with the CEO, and he confirmed to me that there are no ongoing court cases. The court case between MDSi and MDSA ended in a sealed agreement (I have not seen the agreement, or any other non-public legal documents). At some point after the agreement, MDSA went back to the judge and requested sanctions because we felt that MDSi was not fulfilling their part of the agreement. The judge issued a public ruling, finding MDSi in contempt of court. There are no pending court proceedings of any kind between MDSi and MDSA in any country. I am most definitely aware of the risks of irritating judges during proceedings, which is why I avoid commenting on them.

Regarding the generic WP:COI issues, I understand your concern and that is one of the reasons that I have been minimizing my edits and trying to focus on putting information into the talk pages that can assist others in writing appropriate articles. If you wish, I could add a disclosure at the top of the talk page, referencing the accounts that I know are MDSA employees, so new people joining the discussion can take that into account.Bhimaji 20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sent you an email, hoping to calm things down short of a full Arbcom case. EdJohnston 19:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent block of 76.109.17.236

Please look more carefully at the logs and edit history. The refactored comment was one that this person posted, but when connected to the wrong network. He changed the posting IP because he wanted to avoid confusion. If you look here: you can see that he has signed his comments with his primary IP when he's been using his other IP address. I've suggested to him that he would be better off registering, but I can't force him to.

Given that the offense happened 11 days ago, I'm surprised that the block is happening now, and is for 73 hours, as opposed to the block of 31 hours for User_talk:83.206.63.250, who has written extremely distasteful and insulting material. Can you explain your reasoning? Bhimaji 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)