Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bitola (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 8 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
17 January 2006 – 19 February 2006 19 February 2006 – 17 March 2006 17 March 2006 – 2 April 2006

Thank you

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 19:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi!! :)) Bitola 18:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking...

A study was made by the best historians in Belgrade to research where we, Yugoslavs have made errors and how the Greeks superbly evaded all Balkan controversies, so much that Greece practicly isn't a Balkan country. And I was horrified by the result. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A short change of subject: quoted from Anti-Bosniak sentiment:

A May 2002 report for the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia regarding Islamophobia in the European Union noted that xenophobic expressions against Bosniaks had been recorded in Greece.

Is this correct? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 20:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Edwy. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Read the article history -- and note who first deleted the item. Read the item in question. Read the links to the alleged violations being "reported". If any of that is unclear after that, let me know. --Calton | Talk 11:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Further point: Nochop (talk · contribs), the bogus 3RR reporter and reverter, is also at 3 reverts. Yet, oddly, you did not see fit to warn him. Why would that be? --Calton | Talk 11:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail as well. --Avg 13:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Roitr

Well, thanks to Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/Roitr, all his bots are now summarily exec... I mean, banned ;) La-la-la... I keep watching the pages he's obsessed with, but it seems like his activity is fading and he's probably close to give it up.
I've actually come across your talk archive some days ago when I was searching "What links here" for User:Roitr/sockpuppetry etc., but decided not to disclose your identity because you probably had a reason to change it ;) --Dmitry 15:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Fictional species derived from humans

• I've created the "Category:Human-derived fictional species". -- Freemarket 01:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bosniak thingy

Yes, but the article refers about the presence... I think it's anti-Orthodox propaganda, but hey, what do I know? --HolyRomanEmperor 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Rajput, POINT

Dear Edwy,
Earlier today, you reverted the Rajput article back to the last version saved by User:ImpuMozhi, and you left a note in your edit summary that I think was meant to be directed at me. Your wrote "WP:POINT, Bhola". First of all, I'd like to know why you took ImpuMozhi's side in the revert and counter-revert ping-pong. And secondly, I'd like to know what you meant by your note to me. Were you accusing me of being disruptive to Misplaced Pages? If so, I'd like an explanation, because I don't believe that I deserve it. If it wasn't meant as an accusation, then just what did it mean?--Bhola 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback. I have no hard feelings. The reason that I used those tags was my hope that it would spur someone - anyone - to cite sources for all of the tendentious statements (many of which are dubious, and some of which I know are simply untrue) made in the article, if there were any. I don't know if you've been following the history of that article, but there's been a lot of disagreement among the editors, some of whom insist on using the page to push a slanted POV. The bulk of the article is heavily saturated with weasel statements and peacock expressions.

This is what I wrote on the Talk page of the article:

"It's been my understanding that one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages is Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which is an official policy and non-negotiable. Yet the vast bulk of this article, full of weasel words and peacock terms, has been written without any sources cited.

The official policy states:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

There are a many statements made on this page that have no source cited for them, and the official policy says that any editor is allowed to remove those statements altogether. But instead of just removing the unsourced statements, which wouln't have been improper of me, I just added tags to draw attention to the lack of sources, so that anyone else could add the citations if they had any."

Since you're an administrator who's already intervened in the editing of this article, I have a question for you: Do you think it would be all right if I just took the bold initiative to simply delete all the unsourced statements from the article?--Bhola 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again fo another quick reply. Your advice doesn't sound very different from what I was doing. I was trying to avoid being heavy-handed. As I said before, I put up those tags precisely in order to give other editors a chance to supply citations, but instead the other editor ImpuMozhi just deleted the tags and accused me of vandalism.--Bhola 21:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Should I place the {Welcome} tag to you?  NikoSilver  20:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Darn! I always like welcoming new users! Thank God this freakin' Latinus guy dissappeared, coz he used to spoil it for me, on the best ones!  NikoSilver  20:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Rajput

Hi, apropos your message to him, "rather new" User:Bhola is not: after 11 edits in July/05, he chose to vanish until Feb/17, exactly the day the arbcom decision was finalized, when he made a thundering return to take over the Rajput page and push his own agenda there, after the Singh trolls were banned. Obviously he was following events, and his facility with WP suggests experience; I am wondering whether you could get a sock test done on him. He has done very little indeed since returning, except troll the Rajput page, and he is proving a serious nuisance. I also urge you to continue to help limit his damage. This statement puts my position succinctly, I think it is fair, Bhola wants absolute statements in Misplaced Pages's voice, affirming his POV. Regards, ImpuMozhi 05:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Bitola 16:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)