Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheShadowCrow (talk | contribs) at 19:13, 29 July 2013 (→Now then..). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Unless otherwise requested, I will respond on this page. Please include links to pertinent page(s). Click New section on the top right to start a new topic.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution.

brian hutchison

hi brian hutchison here...my first time attempting to self update for about a year or two... i liked the resume aspect on the site which was accurate... i defer to your editing expertise completely, but i can attest that i am this brian hutchsion ( formerly brickpiper on here) and also that any updates i did today were correct ( i.e. MY actual credits) i understand a comment you made about wiki pages not being reliable, but i thought the page for my character on person of interest ( saic brian moss) seemed to be created by the network CBS, so i added the link... again, im sure i didnt do it all correctly, but if you are able to reinstate any of the info i added i appreciate it

thanks brian hutchison bhutch3@mac.com www.bhutch3.com

Near East University

The source of the newly added material is the link of university, already given under the text. The new info, which was about the names of faculties and number of research centres, is verifiable from the link of the university web page, already given as a source. There is no reason to move the newly added content. Besides, the newly added information is just a regular information, nothing else. Once the link of the university used, this information can easily be seen on the official web site of the university. If you are going to challange such an information, you must be reasonable in your challange and put forth `really reasonable` arguments.

ANI

Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

FYI

You warned Memills last night at 01:18 (UTC). Within 6 minutes he made this post to WP:NPOVN followed by this. The whole conversation is worth a read through for context. These posts are targeted at SLP1 and are not just about Evolutionary psychology as evidently Memills wants to cast aspersions about SLP1 generally and in relation to other "topics" ("Let me suggest that an underlying motive, per the above, of these editors is a strong, very strong, antipathy toward certain topics"). Their other interaction is at the Men's rights movement page. He's dragging that issue to NPOVN to poison the well--Cailil 14:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And that is all followed by this today and this wherein he explicitly links Slp1's disputes with him on the Men's rights pages to the current issue--Cailil 21:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of all the edits on Memills's talk page as it's on my watchlist, but thanks for the pointer to WP:NPOVN, which is now on my watchlist. I need to think about this some.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

There's further abf today. Accusing a "group of like-minded editors" of censorship. He is also insisting on comparing Evolutionary Psychology article's and Men's Rights Movement article's to the Feminism article's structure (specifically what HE sees as the criticism section - which is not a criticism section, criticism is included throughout that article). This is part of a consistent attempt to ghettoize sources Memill's defines as negative. In the above NPOVN Mathsci and in the last ANi thread about Memills actions at Evolutionary psychology] there are serious issues with WP:OWN evidenced. Memills has attempted to spuriously identify editors he opposes, and Slp1 in particular, as POV warriors, without evidence and seemingly to poison the well for any dispute resolution attempt. Something needs to be done here, but if you're not comfortable acting I understand--Cailil 09:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry if I was clear as mud on the TSC case - what ever you do I'm sure it'll be fine. As regards the above see this (and the talk page announcement) by Memills. An edit contra to policy and unless I'm am very much mistaken without consensus.
  More problematically it was reverted by Mathsci who is in conflict with Memills on other articles (i.e Evolutionary psychology). This could start to spiral. Again if you're uncomfortable acting no worries (I can see how this whole issue is a head wrecker and that you've got other things on your plate)--Cailil 18:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good decision on revdel discussion. The comments were obnoxious, but no need to wipe them off the record. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Yokesh.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel López (racing driver)

This article was deleted in an AfD in 2010, but I believe the subject is notable. The deleting admin is no longer a sysop (which I discovered after querying this with them), so I was wondering if you could move the article to my userspace? That way, we retain the page history, and I (possibly) can sort it out with less effort/time taken. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. It's at User:Lukeno94/Juan Manuel López (racing driver).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fantastic, thanks. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• In case you're interested, I've finished the re-write and republished it. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your rewrite looks quite different from the original. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• There was basically nothing there, but the history is intact, and that's the main thing :) Notability should be well and truly established now! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Andrew Bromley

I must add that he also was a teen jeopardy winner and very famous is south florida. Is there anyway you could re-instate the page and I will add to it first thing tomorrow all of the important thing? Or at least give me what was written so I can work on it on my subpage?

Why was this page deleted? It is very possible he will be a noble laureate at the end of this year, and youngest individual to do so for his work with the Newly discovered t-nitroaminyl section of the ras cancer protein. I was working on the page but I am still adding to it each day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbmiami08 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he may become. It matters what he is now. If you want to add to it each day, you should do so in non-article space. For example, you can create a subpage in your user space and work on it there until you think it's sufficiently notable to be moved to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I must add that he also was a teen jeopardy winner and very famous is south florida. Is there anyway you could re-instate the page and I will add to it first thing tomorrow all of the important thing? Or at least give me what was written so I can work on it on my subpage?

I'm not inclined to WP:USERFY it for you. It reads almost like a joke, at least what was there before it was deleted. And what's this picture about? Regardless of the ridiculousness of the picture, it doesn't even purport to be Bromley.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hi Bbb23. There's a thread that mentions you at the WP:Dramaboard. Tis already closed, but I thought you should know. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a good think I go off-wiki occasionally. That way, things can go boom and unboom before I'm back.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment The initial block looks sound, and the EW on Fairy Guy is obvious, but I don't think he needed blocking for that. I read Archcaster's failed WP:SPEEDY as a good-faith attempt to self-revert the page. He realized that his edits weren't working, and self-rev under those circumstances seems like a perfectly reasonable response. Unfortunately, {{db-a3}} is not the way to do it, especially when others are contesting.--R.S. Peale (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

to be clear, I support your BLOCK for his earlier edit warring, and that you didn't actually block for the later, apparently rendered moot with his retirement.--R.S. Peale (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are. Perhaps you've edited at Misplaced Pages before but using a different account? Anyway, the speedy tagging (twice) looked spiteful to me, and it still does.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dave Phillips

Hello, I'm a Newcomer to Misplaced Pages who is a fan of the maze work of Dave Phillips. I was hoping to improve his Wiki page and realize that to do so properly I will need to learn so much more about reliable sources, etc, and in general, how exactly Wiki works. It's a little overwhelming at the moment and disheartening to find contributions removed without information as to the reasons, how to avoid future issues, or at least a link to follow to read instructions or guidance.

Would you please point me in the right direction with some guidance and/or suggested Wiki reading so I can further my understanding? I'm not exactly sure why all of the book citations were removed. I am beginning to better understand how a source is reliable or not but examples or comparisons would help and I suspect that Wiki has already covered this somewhere on the site and that I only need to continue to become more familiar with content.

Danachully (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons I asked you about your relationship to Phillips is that you created your account right on the heels of Phillips's wife creating an account and editing the article in a very similar fashion. I apologize if my suspicions are ill-founded, but after a fair amount of experience at Misplaced Pages, sometimes it's easy to get a bit jaded. Assuming it's coincidence, I suggest you use the article talk page to suggest specific changes. It will be easier to answer your questions when the context is concrete rather than in an abstract, policy-driven manner. That said, R.S. Peale's comments below are helpful..--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not Bbb23, but I suspect the reason the book cites were removed were that they were not acting as meaningful reference to the text they were citing (basic biographical material). They're simply books that the subject has published. A good source would be one written by a third party, discussing the subject. This would be one example: A decent (though not great) source would be one written by the subject discussing his work and maze design as a whole. Something like this: . A book containing a collection of mazes he has created without substantial commentary wouldn't be very helpful, unless there were no other sources available. And for Dave, there are other, better sources. The Misplaced Pages policy on reliable sources is here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. For a more in-depth discussion of usable vs unusable sources (and picking apart borderline cases), you can check out the Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Those tend to be disputed cases, but you can get a better idea of what other Misplaced Pages editors consider good sources.--R.S. Peale (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Backhanded compliment

I must admit that it took me a moment to parse "misusing his tools properly".—Kww(talk) 16:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's like someone who's proficient at committing crimes, as opposed to your run-of-the-mill stupid criminal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

The appeal got granted. Thank you for all your help. :) --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I could facilitate a happy ending, but the person who truly deserves your thanks is User:Bwilkins. He went to bat for you. I just helped out procedurally and monitored your talk page. As for the future, my recommendation is if you're in doubt about something that might arguably violate your topic ban, ask User:Sandstein before you do it, or another knowledgeable admin if Sandstein is unavailable. And pay attention to Sandstein's advice at AE. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.William Jockusch (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your warning to Badmintonhist. If he continues stalking me, should I come straight to you, or post at ANI again? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You can come to me. If I'm not available, you can go to another admin, preferably someone who's familiar with the history like User:Black Kite. If no one's around (I can't speak for others but occasionally I delude myself into thinking I have a real life), you can open a new topic at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I must say that I disagree with your statement on the Men's Rights Movement article Talk page here. In particular, you accuse me and another editor of

" ...defying consensus as to what should and should not be included in these articles and pushing an agenda that is clear on its face. Their defense that the "other side" is pushing their own agenda is unsupported by any objective measure."

Honestly, the purpose of the Talk Page is to openly exchange opinions. The issues under discussion have come up repeatedly by a host of new editors, many of whom have been hounded/wikilawered by a handful of editors until they leave. There is no clear consensus on these issues -- exactly what would be expected for an article on a controversial topic.

What is most disconcerting is that Multiple Editor Ownership seems to apply here:

" ...(an article) will often be on the watchlists of only a small handful of editors who revert on sight any changes proposed by newcomers while insisting quite forcefully that their version is "consensus". If the newcomer persists in editing the page, they may be accused of edit warring or disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, targeted with spurious complaints to administrators, threatened with blocks or bans and bluntly told (sometimes even in the edit summary of a revert) to drop the stick. ...A small group thereby could succeed, largely unnoticed, in intimidating a new editor into avoiding one specific encyclopaedic subject or into leaving Misplaced Pages entirely."

I will solicit some neutral 3rd opinions at WP:3 in the hope of resolving these issues without resorting to bans or censorship. Memills (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The probation applies to WP:3 as well. In any event, your request there was declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Q

Bbb23, do you know a thing Wikimedia communities need currently, or in a foreseeable future? I see users who make useful things and users who make useless things: it is easily distinguishable. But what is more important at the moment? Who needs my help the most? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reverting the IP on my talk page. I didn't mean to ignore your question from yesterday, but I really wasn't sure how to answer it, so I put it off. Editors at Misplaced Pages are expected to contribute constructively to the project. However, that can be done in many different ways. We are all volunteers, so we should do what we want to do, as long as it benefits the project in some fashion. Personally, I think we are happier at Misplaced Pages if we do what we enjoy. So, for some, that's creating new content, for others it's proofreading and correcting errors, for some it's reverting obvious vandalism, and the list goes on. What do you enjoy doing most at Misplaced Pages?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to excuse: I do not ask simple questions, and I am accustomed to wait for a reaction. I enjoy to work together with editors who improve the project. I enjoy to make things that other users cannot do or are reluctant. I enjoy to bash useless editors who mainly create a noise, make a waste in an industrial scale, and engage in pettifogging; you do not like this my answer, but it is true. I enjoy to help users to become helpful ones, of course. Recently I “lost” a dispute at Commons, but I am not embittered about this. I found guys that are more competent that me in these domains.

I feel that the community, unfortunately, wastes its resources for a chaff. A plenty of attention is poured to the glitchy VisualEditor, whereas an extremely useful ArticleFeedbackv5 is next to abandoned. The people produced and still produce miles of discussions on insignificant amendments to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, whereas my idea of labelling many redirects as “unsafe” is virtually ignored (example), and many users create more and more links that eventually may become dabs; nobody cares that it will make significant problems in the future. Hundreds of man-hours were spent in discussing various “RfA reforms”, whereas quality-related problems receive only a limited feedback. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI thread closure

Just a minor clarification - at WP:ANI#Legal threats by User:Wordsindustry, the closure says "Utterer of legal threats indeffed and threats redacted by User:Barek."

However, I didn't redact anything. The threat at the help desk was redacted by Looie496, and the disputed material in the two pages brought up by the maker of the threat was redacted by Canoe1967. However, their threat still remains on the named user-account talk page at user talk:Wordsindustry. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more careful. I've corrected it; let me know if it's not okay now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Like I said, a minor thing. Just wanted to be accurate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, precision is a good thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC notices

Hi Bbb. I responded to your remark on the ANI page regarding your view that my RfC notices were non-neutral. Owing to my regard for you, I am interested in hearing specifically why you think that (but don't want to clutter the ANI thread with OT remarks). Feel free to respond on my talk page. Even if we don't agree that it was non-neutral, I expect your remarks will be helpful in some respect. Steeletrap (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment here is more helpful than your comment at ANI, which I just responded to with some asperity. Why don't you take a look at WP:CANVASSING and, playing devil's advocate, see if you can guess what I think is wrong with the notice?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment article

Which template is the right one to notify editors to check talk before editing an article that is entered for dispute resolution?Wzrd1 (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. You haven't taken the article to dispute resolution. What do you believe is disputed in the article? Generally warning people to go to the talk page before editing the article is kind of odd, and I don't know of a template that does that. Nor does it make a great deal of sense unless the article is subject some kind of sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's up on the dispute noticeboard now, awaiting attention. Meanwhile, there were edit attempts that quickly were reverted. Rather than confusing uninvolved editors, it would be good to have them know up front that there is a dispute in progress. As for the wrong template, WP:Oops Defense.  :) Wzrd1 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a template, {{DRN}}, that is intended to be placed on the article talk page to let people know about the discussion, but it's not intended to be used in the article itself. I've put it on the talk page, though, FWIW, although it's not particularly helpful in my view (I don't like the way it reads). Also, you can't link to the discussion, as far as I can tell, since DRN changed the way they structure discussions (from a TOC of threads to separate pages).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the DRN template on the talk page, somehow I missed that one when looking for it. Should it also be on the article or is it sufficient on the talk page? The reason I tried it on the article is in my earliest days editing, I got bit upon when the article was in DRN and I failed to read the talk page first.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As the template itself says, as well as the language it produces, it can't go in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Got that from your response. Looks like we were editing close to the same time. I wonder if the template can be changed to reflect the way the discussions are structured now? I'll have to play with it a bit to see on my test wiki.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

LOCKED

Hi Bbb23. I hope everything is well with you and yours. I apologise for the disturbance but I wanted to ask you if you know what "LOCKED" means when applied to a user. More specifically, when I hover over the user link of MilesMoney, pop ups come up describing the account thus. What is the reason? Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  17:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You're never a disturbance, Dr.K. I have no idea whu you're seeing locked when you hold your mouse over the link. I don't see it. Nor does it make any sense to me. Maybe one of my talk page stalkers knows. If not, you could ask at the Help Desk. Many of the editors who assist there are very knowledgeable about technical issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Dr.K is not referring to his account, but MilesMoney's account is Locked. New account. Dave Dial (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Dave, I'm not following you. I know Dr.K. was talking about the Miles account, but he said he got an unusual pop-up when he hovered over the Miles link. I don't see any pop-up that says locked; only a pop-up that shows User:MilesMoney. The Miles account is relatively new, but it's auto-confirmed. What does "locked" mean in this context, and why does Dr.K. see it and I don't?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• This sometimes shows up when you hover over a link to a user's user page or user talk link (you must have the navigation pop-ups gadget enabled). It means the account is under a global lock - the account is basically completely disabled on all Wikimedia projects (even from logging in), and the action is usually done in the case of cross-wiki abuse. Only stewards can perform locks.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This particular case appears to be a mistake. I talked with the stewards about it and the account was unlocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@bbb23, I see the "Locked" popup too, but I have no idea why you don't. @Jasper Deng, thanks for the explanation. I thought it had something to do with the IP the account was using being locked from the projects. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Thank you very much Bbb23 for your welcome. :) FWIW this is the output of the pop ups (I have them enabled):

User:MilesMoney ⋅ actions edit history most recent edit move page what links here related changes unwatch talk page edit talk new topic ⋅ user ⋅ popups 21 bytes, 0 wikiLinks, 0 images,0 categories, 16 hours old LOCKED, 164 edits since: 2013-07-16

"LOCKED" is in italics. I will ask at the pump. Take care Bbb23. It is always a pleasure talking to you. Δρ.Κ.  19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, as I was editing the above reply the "LOCKED" disappeared. Δρ.Κ.  19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Post (edit conflict). Many thanks go to Jasper for his assistance. That was some fast work. Thank you again Jasper. Δρ.Κ.  19:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. No idea how or why it happened and didn't even notice. MilesMoney (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad it didn't last long. Best regards. Δρ.Κ.  21:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand everything everyone has said (I've been off-wiki) except one thing. When Miles's account was globally locked, how was he able to log in to Misplaced Pages (he said he didn't even notice)?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Miles returned to editing today at 21:13 UTC. According to Jasper the unlocking happened prior to 19:31 UTC. Δρ.Κ.  22:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

According to his history, he edited at 06:58 and then at 21:12. So, the lock and unlock must have both occurred during that gap.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. :) Δρ.Κ.  22:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

This is authentic irony/Martha Stewart

We have had many arguments about the fates of Joan Gerber, Philip L. Clarke. BTW, most recently Valentin De Vargas has joined this list, because he died on June 10, 2013, and guess you will not accept his death reference either as it is find-a-grave.com. Won't argue about the either one of them because you have not provided Misplaced Pages with one hard piece of evidence that these people are alive. You reverted the Talkin Toons podcast where Rob Paulsen and Nancy Cartwright mentioned Joan Gerber's passing, you reverted the Jack angel announcement concearning Philip L. Clarke's passing and you will surely revert the find-a-grave reference about Valentin De Vargas' passing.

But, would like to direct your attention at the strange case of Martha Stewart, the actress who about a year ago had a article from reliable source published saying that he had passed away, however facts have risen supporting her being still alive.

Please comment. Irony is complicating our editing Misplaced Pages. Radiohist (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the remnants of her unreliably sourced death from the article. As far as I can tell, the source used was a blog post that has since been removed from the website.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Now then..

Let's talk removing the AA ban as a whole. As was said on AE, these types of bans are supposed to be simple, and this issue simply isn't. Let's look at my history. Disregard the last block; it was a joke. Before that, well, you know the whole story with Sandstein's ban. It was the result of reporting someone who broke the same ban. That's not what the AA is for. And, like this, it was removed early due to good intentions.

Now that we got those out of the way, I will point at that I went 9 months without an AA2 issue. And the ban has been in place for over a year. Since 25 July 2013. Ironically, Snowy blocked me on the date of my AA2 ban anniversary. Perhaps it means something. When the ban was first place, there was need for it, I won't lie. And now it's just a joke. Serves no purpose, no need. I have been doing my best to contribute under sanctions for over a year. Now I want to do so freely. Will you grant me my freedom, Bbb23? TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to give a brief overview of my three AA2 "violations" in the past year.

1. The recent one. We've been over this, it was horseshit.

2. Sandstein's. As we have already been over, not only did I not know that it violates the rules, but this also fits what Coop was saying in AE, about how bans are supposed to serve simple purposes and confusing edges. I think we can infer the ban currently isn't serving it's intend purpose anymore.

3. For calling User:E4024 a racist and a vandal. However, he in fact turned out to be both of those things and created a huge resume of over 100 violations of such before he was finally banned and blocked. Coops still owes me an apology to this very day. And if that isn't good enough for ya, well, it was seven months ago, which exceeds the amount of time you want to wait.

Overall, I have not ever been truly given a chance to prove myself as an editor in over a year ever since the ban was turned indef by Coop (at the recommendation of a hostile editor, not Coop's own idea). I say give me that opportunity and let me show how much I've changed. You shouldn't judge me for how I react to getting blocked over 2 weeks old bans. That will piss anyone off. Removing the ban gives me the first opportunity I need to show how I've changed since it was first given. Going away for another half a year won't. I've more than served my time. If I cannot edit AA2 articles, I have no reason to be here. You might as well block me for that long. And there we go again, getting blocked for no reason. I'm not the problem anymore. The ban is. Get rid of it, and everything will be solved. TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Re; Edit Warring

Hi fellow editor, Thanks for your comments on the edit warring regarding Diet in Sikhism. I think I may have reported in him in haste however. I've been editing Sikh related and other India related articles for a while now and they are a tortuos process. The problem I come up against (as with any religious based articles) are the differences between those people who are motivated by dogma and people like me who are trying to get the article encyclopaedic and based on WP:Reliable references. With India related articles there is another major issue, and that of WP:Competence. Many of the contributors have English as a second language. Although I spend a lot of time in India, I was educated in the UK, so understand the problems a lot of these contributors have. This does not help however, in trying to get article up to a Misplaced Pages standards. I do have other administrators to help me from time to time, but they lose patience with the articles for the above reasons I have highlighted, however, I'm pretty determined to hold up the standards of wikipedia. Many editors from the Indian subcontinent want to WP:Censor the articles, but I strongly believe in the guiding principles of wikipedia and WP:NPOV being central. Damdami Taksal is an example of this. Therefore, I would appreciate any help from administrators like yourself in ensuring standards are maintained. Thanks SH 11:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I was born and raised in Canada but I also understand the Guru Granth Sahib in Gurmukhi I do cite all my resources and I am open to change and compromises why do you have a problem with me? Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

1. "Maze Designer Coming to a Farm Near You", Vegetable Growers News, October 17, 2008, http://vegetablegrowersnews.com/index.php/magazine/article/Maze-Designer-Coming-to-a-Farm-Near-You
2. Phillips, Dave (2009). The Zen of the Labyrinth, Mazes For The Connoisseur. Sterling Publishing Co., Inc. ISBN 978-14027-5987-1