User talk:InShaneee - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Khosrow II (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 8 October 2006 (→Disruptive behavior). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:39, 8 October 2006 by Khosrow II (talk | contribs) (→Disruptive behavior)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Dec06. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

Click here to start a new talk section.

My Question

An answer to my question would be nice. Why was I blocked but not the other offending party? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My Talk Page

It's my own damned Talk Page page, and I'll disenvowel whomever I damned well please. If you don't understand what's going on, don't criticize it. --Calton | Talk 15:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the link above -- and since you responded so quickly, it's clear you didn't. Try remembering the point of not altering comments. Read the link again. Notice the difference? --Calton | Talk 15:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You're trying to cleverly insult him. Don't do it again. Your mind-reading skills are falling short. I do it because it leaves the bogus comments without my being forced to read them -- which is certainly more honest than deleting them outright, which is what he does. Any suggestion otherwise is projection on your part. --Calton | Talk 16:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The next time you display such incivility, regardless of what any other user may or may not being doing, you're going to get a time out. What part of I do it because it leaves the bogus comments without my being forced to read them did you miss? What part of that is reliant upon or rationalized by the clause that follows? I believe deleting comments from one's Talk Pages is dishonest and I don't do it, no matter how stupid or insulting they are, but I'll be damned if I'll be forced to read them every time I have to go to my own talk page. Calling it "incivility" is flatly wrong, no matter how you handwave about it. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

Ok, I actually see what you're talking about. But it's hard to deal with somebody putting down every single idea he reads. Check that page up, every single project is put down by that nobody*. And by "nobody"* I mean anybody. I just realized he is just a regular editor like me, but he acts like he calls the shots contributing to nothig but criticism (and I don't mean the good healthy kind).

In another article I relyed in my memory because I felt sure and put wrong some missing data, I corrected it myself as soon as somebody commented it. And he tells me "please don't rely on your memeory". Firstly, it wasn't that big a deal, seconly I research a lot, thirdly I haven't seen him contributing with info yet, and finally I don't know about him but I'm not a machine. He is such a jerk. I don't like what I did or my tone right now, that's why I haven't been writting a lot latelly, but I understand howcome I had sch moment of weakness.

I dont get him, what's his goal? I don't think he'll be happy until wikipedia is a blanc page with absolutely no info at all. Who the hell is he to judge me? I promess to behave, you can keep an aye on me, but tell him to please be more consederate to people. For what's worth, I'm sorry.--The Judge 20:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I give up, I can't handle that guy. I'll just ignore him.--The Judge 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of attacks Chris does, "I'm really trying to understand your writing. No offnse intended, but is English your second language?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC) "...like the memory thing, technically he is right, but he is mean. I wrote the English thing at the top of my page. Of course he intends the ofense.--The Judge 22:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Ruzgar

I do not see any racist slurs and etc at this diff. The page protection is unwarranted in my opinion (strictly based on that diff, didnt look too deep). He is also complaining about his block.

I'll translate the discussion on that diff for you (I will overly simplify it too). Basicaly Ruzgar's inclusion of the POV image was a reaction to the existance of similar images on Armenian Genocide. He was violating WP:POINT in that sense.

Regarding the incident: While I agree that Kurdistan Workers Party article should not have such pov images, I further feel same standard should be applied to Armenian Genocide and other similar articles.

--Cat out 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact is, not only did the user continuously and knowingly disrupted that article with that image, and even after being blocked, encouraged others to continue in his stead. That's what I consider trolling. --InShaneee 17:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Even so, his ISP has a semi-dynamic ip so the block is causing collateral damage. I am not compaining about the existance of the block, I am complaining about the length of the block. I also feel that the protection of the talk page is unnecesary. After all, he can simply IRC/email for that, this only prevents me from talking to him.

I feel the user is frustrated with his inability to work on Armenian Genocide article (a frustration I share) and that this WP:POINT violation is steming from that. I feel what he seeks is right (removal of pov images from Armenian Genocide article), just that his method is completely wrong (attempt to force pov images to Kurdistan Workers Party article).

--Cat out 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My block just expired can you unlock my talk page. Ruzgar 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

User Lutherian

How long do we have to tolerate Lutherian and his disurbances?

Ass wipe? Gay devil worshippers? Provocative racist? --Eupator 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, that covers the "provocative racist", what about the other two?--Eupator 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a blanket warning. He's been warned. --InShaneee 14:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Please do not remove individual posts, the anon is a newbie, don't bite the newbies.Hypnosadist 21:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Cease editing my comments on the talk page.Hypnosadist 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility: stop editing other peoples post for MINOR reasons. There are real civility issues out there like

I am keeping this bit of filth for evidence and show.http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FHis_excellency%2FEvidence&diff=69701704&oldid=69699623

In my own defense: A man has a right to his opinion. I do feel Timothy Usher is a bigot. I do feel that Jews are screwing up the planet (though admittedly Muslims, by far, surpass the Jews in their capacity to destroy things). Look at history. Only recently has it become the norm to like Jews. That only came about after certain countries (eg America) adopted them as the collective dame-in-distress needing shelter and protection. Sort of the precursor to the chihuahua. Before then, Jews were hated in Europe and America alike..And everywhere else. We all know Jews were once banished from most culturally superior European countries. The only reason why Poland took them in was that they had loads of money. Probably the same reason why Washington panders to the now. Point is, alot of people dislike Jews. I'm entitled to, so long as I don't demonstrate that dislike on articles dealing with the topic of Jews. We don't penalize people for not liking things, do we? His Excellency... 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So how about dealing with things like that. PS this user is not perminently banned!Hypnosadist 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't Edit peoples posts! Admin privilages do not give you cart-blanche. Deleting an anon editors posts on talk without giving a reason is not going to make them get a login is it. Don't bite the newbies!Hypnosadist 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing someones reply even off topic is something i have never seen especially as such talks are common (too common you're right) but as i say why not start with people who do it alot! I gave you info on an editor that does that and you say a make a personal attack? Lots of people have told him about it and its the nature of the content thats the problem. Rants and Conspiracy theories, do something about it or don't, don't matter to me. And in the part of the world i'm from the phrasing "If you cannot act civil, YOU will be dealt with accordingly, like it or not" indicates a threat, because of good faith i don't take it that way.Hypnosadist 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not said how my edit is a personal attack, it is a comment on a users negative editing. It was just an idea for you if you are bothered about chatting on a talk page, if not thats ok. But why is the FSM page specially picked out for this kind of editing? Try Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot insted! Lots of chat for you to edit!Hypnosadist 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks! :) —Khoikhoi 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Would you please take a look at these ,. Thanks.Heja Helweda 05:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the above user does not have access to the unabridged Merriam Webster's dictionary. So she deleted words that she did not find in the non-unabridged version. Despite the hardwork that has gone in finding these words. Also some of her edits are very unscholarly and she should not delete from enteries which she did not do enough research on and instead concentrate on enteries where she has put up unreliable material. --alidoostzadeh 05:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For example she deleted this term: ;Zerda: Etymology: Arabic zerdaw, probably of Persian origin. Fennec. .. whereas I have given full reference which is available for any subscriber to merriam-websters unabridged dictionary. But she deleted it with no valid reason: . Deleting materials that are soundly references is unacceptable. Some other words where also deleted although they were soundly referenced. This is actually vandalism of content as proper sources that are reliable (Merriam-Websters dictionary) were given. Also my reference to Assyrian/Armenian genocide is that in the article she edits, she does not mention them for political reasons, although I am not interested in her articles. But I do consider removing primary sources like Merriam-Websters unabridged dictionary (which needs subscription) as vandalism. --alidoostzadeh 06:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

hey Shane

please check your e-mail. thank you! ITAQALLAH 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

This is your final warning to stop Wikistalking me. Further action will brought to the arbitration comittee.

Sarastro777 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

DND Campaign

You can go ahead and boot my articles. I had already copied my articles before I even bothered to protest, foreseeing the inevitable.Broken Piece 17:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User Lutherian

Naturally, I'm tolerant of others' opposing views and always assume good faith, but how much more do we have to put up with comments like these , ? --MarshallBagramyan 18:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Stargate SG-1

In your edit summary you said "This has been discussed elsewhere to this conclusion." Could you provide a link to this discussion? The only discussion I know of is on the talk page, and if any concensus was reached, it was that the main campaign is noteworthy. --Tango 19:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see the straw poll on Talk:Stargate SG-1 about the fan campaign and give your opinion there. Thanks! --Tango 10:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikiproject Paranormal

I'd be happy to help you, but you'll need to be a bit more specific about what you want me to do. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good for a regular template; you might want to shorten the initial text a bit, though, since people have been complaining about crowded talk pages.

As far as the other stuff, I can help you add that if you want. If you'd like to experiment on your own, though, here is some annotated code from {{WPMILHIST}} for the things you need:

{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
| ]
| This {{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|non-article page|article}} is within the scope of the ''']'''.  If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the ''']'''.

The base message. If you get heavily into assessments, writing up a FAQ for visitors might be helpful, but it's not required.

|-
{{#if:{{{class|}}}| {{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|
{{!}} {{{{{class}}}-Class}}
{{!}} This page is not an article and does not require a ''']'''.
|
{{!}} {{{{{class}}}-Class}}
{{!}} This article has been ''']''' as '''{{{class}}}-Class''' on the ].
}}
|
{{!}} {{-Class}}
{{!}} This article has not yet ''']''' on the ].
}}

The first part of the assessment code, which displays the rating in the banner.

{{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|A|
{{#ifeq:{{{A-Class|}}}|pass||
<includeonly>]</includeonly>
}}
}}

Support for a more formal system for assigning A-Class ratings, if you want to go down that road. This may be too much process for a smaller project, though.

|-
{{#if:{{{portal|}}}
{{{attention|}}}
{{{needs-infobox|}}}
{{{A-Class|}}}
{{{peer-review|}}}
{{{old-peer-review|}}}
{{{collaboration-candidate|}}}
{{{past-collaboration|}}}
{{{ACW-task-force|}}}
{{{Ancient-Near-East-task-force|}}}
{{{Australian-task-force|}}}
{{{Aviation-task-force|}}}
{{{British-task-force|}}}
{{{Canadian-task-force|}}}
{{{Chinese-task-force|}}}
{{{Classical-task-force|}}}
{{{Dutch-task-force|}}}
{{{Early-Modern-task-force|}}}
{{{French-task-force|}}}
{{{German-task-force|}}}
{{{Indian-task-force|}}}
{{{Italian-task-force|}}}
{{{Japanese-task-force|}}}
{{{Maritime-task-force|}}}
{{{Memorials-task-force|}}}
{{{Middle-Ages-task-force|}}}
{{{Napoleonic-task-force|}}}
{{{Polish-task-force|}}}
{{{US-task-force|}}}
{{{Weaponry-task-force|}}}
{{{WWI-task-force|}}}
{{{WWII-task-force|}}}|
{{!}} colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;" {{!}}
<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px; "><div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px; "><div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px; "><div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px; "><div class="NavHead" style="background: wheat; font-size: 120%; text-align: left;">More information about this {{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|non-article page|article}}...</div><div class="NavContent" style="text-align: left; font-size: 120%;">
{{{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}} style="width: 43px;" {{!}}
{{!}}

This produces the show/hide box for everything else in the banner. The big list of parameters matches everything else that can appear in the template; obviously, you should remove any that don't apply in your case.

{{!}}-
{{#ifeq:{{{peer-review|}}}|yes|
{{!}} style="background: gainsboro;" align="center" {{!}} ''']'''
{{!}} A ''']''' for this {{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|non-article page|article}} to be ] by the project.<includeonly>]</includeonly>
}}
{{!}}-
{{#ifeq:{{{old-peer-review|}}}|yes|
{{!}} style="background: gainsboro;" align="center" {{!}} ''']'''
{{!}} This {{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|non-article page|article}} has had a ] which has now been ''']'''.<includeonly>]</includeonly>
}}

The peer review lines.

{{!}}-
{{#ifeq:{{{collaboration-candidate|}}}|yes|
{{!}} style="background: gainsboro;" {{!}} ]
{{!}} This {{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|non-article page|article}} is a ''']''' to be the project's ].<includeonly>]</includeonly>
}}
{{!}}-
{{#if:{{{past-collaboration|}}}|
{{!}} style="background: gainsboro;" {{!}} ]
{{!}} This {{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|non-article page|article}} was the project's ''']''' ({{{past-collaboration|}}}).<includeonly>]</includeonly>
}}

The collaboration lines.

...

Any other parameters you want to include can be done as the above peer review/collaboration ones.

{{!}}}
</div></div></div></div></div>
}}
|}

The end of the banner layout, closing off the tables and show/hide divs.

<includeonly>{{#switch:{{{class}}}
|FA=]
|A=]
|GA=]
|B=]
|Start
|start=]
|Stub
|stub=] {{#ifeq:{{{auto|}}}|yes|
{{{!}} class="messagebox standard-talk" 
{{!}}-
{{!}} ]
{{!}} This article has been ''automatically'' ] as '''Stub-Class''' by the ''']''' because it uses a ].
* If you '''agree''' with the assessment, please remove <code>{{!}}auto=yes</code> from the {{tl|WPMILHIST}} template above.
* If you '''disagree''' with the assessment, please change it by editing the <code>{{!}}class=</code> parameter in the {{tl|WPMILHIST}} template above and removing the stub template from the article.
{{!}}} ]
}}
|NA = ]
|#default=]
}}</includeonly>

The second part of the assessment code, which produces the actual categories for bot-parsing. Note that the "Stub" rating includes support for auto-tagging by bot (the whole #if block in that rating); if you're not planning to use bots for rating, you probably don't need this.

Hopefully this will be somehow useful; if you have any other questions or requests, please don't hesitate to ask! Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at it. As far as the project-side implementation, you might want to take a look at WP:PROJGUIDE (which isn't complete yet, but should still be useful); but feel free to borrow chunks of WP:MILHIST infrastructure if you need. :-) Kirill Lokshin 21:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a few stray links and the show/hide code, but everything else seems to work. Is there some reason you didn't include the first part of the assessment code, which actually shows the assessment in the banner, as well as the old peer review/collaboration categories?

As a side note, you may want to move the project page to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal (which is the standard capitalization convention for WikiProjects) before you gather too many subpages. Kirill Lokshin 22:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, done. I've created an example here that shows what the template looks like with some parameters set. Kirill Lokshin 22:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Only the first table (the current counts) is bot-generated; the monthly statistics have to be computed by hand. It's just a bit of time with a calculator once a month, though, so I think it's doable. Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Once the bot picks up the assessment categories, it should create the page automatically. Make sure that you put Category:Paranormal articles by quality in Category:Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessments, though, or the bot won't find it. Kirill Lokshin 22:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! :-) Kirill Lokshin 23:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Exile and the Kingdom (Lyrics)

You speedily deleted this article (and rightfully so), but there's currently an AFD for it that needs to be closed. Thanks! -- Merope 19:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my userpage. The user B&W Anime Fan has been cited before for vandalism, and was twice blocked previously for vandalizing Misplaced Pages (specifically my userpage :P) I don't know why he continued his vandalism, especially because since he apologized to me for it after his block period expired. Perhaps he has lapsed into his old habits. Anyways, thanks once more for your sharp eyes! =) –- kungming·2 | · 00:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

q for you

you deleted my mario contestabile entry, why?

I didn't mean to deliver offense, I just meant to point out that he has to follow closely a dispute before having an opinion. Miskin 22:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Blainetologist

Hello, please see this diff - User:Blainetologist has continued attacking me despite my previous warning to him .

Human Potential Movement

I've been wondering why you consider the Human Potential Movement to be an example of the paranormal (since you rated it for the Paranormal Project I assume you consider it to be part of the paranormal). I find several of its assemptions and claims to be preposterous, but I don't think anyone's invoking paranormal phenomena. But perhaps you can enlighten me. John FitzGerald 19:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'd say parapsychology plays little if any part in the human potential movement. The most influential writers in the field all seem devoted to the idea that realizing one's potential is an entirely normal affair. I beleive that's one of the reasons for its popularity. John FitzGerald 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the tag off. I see the source of the confusion now. As a result of this discussion I'm now interested in your Paranormal project. You seem to have some productive debate going on on those pages. I may be checking back later. John FitzGerald 16:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Cauld Lad stub

Hi Shane. I'm intrigued as to why you have categorised Cauld Lad of Hylton as a stub? It lacks a few headings, and an illustration, but apart from copying the story vebatim from a published source, there is probably very little more that could be said on the subject! I was responsible for expanding it to its present length, about a year ago. What more do you think should be added? SiGarb | Talk 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern

Thanks for your concern, but pointing out someone's biases and inappropriate conduct is not incivil. I see that he's lied about me up above. As for your comment on edit wars, I already have a policy that I do not edit the content of Ahmadinejad's page myself, becuase Khorshid and his fellows started an edit war themselves the last time I did that. Blainetologist 15:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your threat to me: please stop deliberately misconstruing policy. I have studied it quite thoroughly after earlier disagreements I have had.

I consider your threats to me to be incivil behavior. Blainetologist 17:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

And thanks for the heads up about the banner, I had assumed that it need the whole syntax to work correctly. Should I go back over the other articles I marked up and correct them?--Tascio 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Blainetologist

Blainetologist just did the same thing to me he's been doing to you: after he unfairly called Antaeus Feldspar a stalker, I left a "no personal attacks" warning on Blainetologist's talk page. He just responded and claimed I have "threatened" him by doing so, and somehow thinks I was "uncivil" by calling him on his own uncivil behavior. Clearly, this editor is just trying to be disruptive. Can something be done? wikipediatrix 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I called Antaeus Feldspar a stalker because he hunted down ALL edits I made in a period and removed them without even bothering to read them, and falsely claimed I inserted unsourced material. That is stalking behavior. Blainetologist 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're psychic, there is no way you can claim to know that he didn't read them. I agree with his reversion of your edits and would have done the same thing myself had I seen them at the time. wikipediatrix 23:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

regarding Blainetologist

InShaneee, hi. I wonder if you could let me know where Blainetologist "vowed to continue incivility and edit warring", as you indicated here. I'm just beginning to look into the situation, at Blainetologist's request, and I'd appreciate any clarification you can provide. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus 22:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NPA and vandalism

Is this kind of stalking behaviour something that wikipedia permits?

And the list goes on, from a different member of my fan club . I should post this on the AN too. Miskin 23:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why you Block me? I did say word and you gonna block me, I should report you to the creater of this whole Internet Site. Sense I'm a nice guy I'm not gonna do that! Please unblock me.-Gamer322 8:40, 28 September 2006

O.K. How you do that cause I'm new here I stared probably The 1 or 2nd week of June of 2006-Gamer322

Thanks you a great friend or pal whatever you thank I am. Let me ask you a question Can I still edit the page and then go to the disscussion page?Gamer322

Stop editing other peoples comments on FSM talk

Stop editing other peoples comments on FSM talk this post was discusing with me if FSM is just a parody religion. Given that there is this notice on the top of the page which says "From time to time, editors argue that FSM is a real religion. This has been suggested several times, and consensus has always been to call FSM a parody. If you disagree, please read the archives and use this Talk page, before editing the article." it is insane to delete comments talking about just that. I consider this vandalism and as such not subject to 3RR and i will revert your removal of valid talk page contributions.Hypnosadist 12:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Now here's a warning for you using personal attacks in the edit summery. You said "don't be a douche, douche". This is very definately a personal attack, are you going to block yourself for 24hours?Hypnosadist 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Blainetologist sockpuppet?

User:Xvidme is a brand-new user who immediately jumped into making the very same changes to the very same articles that User:Blainetologist was doing before he was blocked. wikipediatrix 14:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

thank you about (re: block User:Supreme_Cmdr) Lordkazan 20:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:JBKramer blanked my warnings from User_Talk:Supreme_Cmdr - see this diff Lordkazan 20:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:JBKramer has now filed an RFC against me http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lordkazan Lordkazan 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Derek Smart

You blocked someone for "blanking" that was actually a content dispute. Please review the alleged blanking. Please respond ASAP. Thanks! JBKramer 20:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could I ask you to review your block of Supreme_Cmdr (talk · contribs · logs), who is an established Wikipedian engaged in a content dispute. Thanks, Addhoc 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Slightly disappointed you haven't responded. Could you give an indication of your view... Addhoc 23:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice that it's clearly content blanking of cited content. Yes it's a content dispute, but it's also blanking since there are source citations there which several of us have established to be valid. The FreeSpace section needs a bit of cleanup (it's new, just put in this morning), but that's no reason to blank it. Lordkazan 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you would encourage JBKramer to withdraw this RFC on Lordkazan's actions. I've spoken to both users. I've seen diffs demonstrating incivility on both sides. I've seen a clear desire on Lordkazan's part to make amends. I have tried to mediate this, but as I am not an administrator I cannot speak with very much authority. I would really appreciate it if you'd lend your opinion on the RFC. I added my signature to the RFC certifying that there was a basis for the dispute, but I now consider the dispute over Lordkazan's behavior resolved. Cheers, DRK 05:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I very appreciated!!

Suggestion for material removed from WP:HD

Hi Inshaneee, I noticed (via an edit conflict) that you removed, via rollback, a user's post to the Help Desk, which was an article draft mistakently posted there. It appears to have been the new user's first attempt at an article, and I would imagine that he would be surprised to see it simply vanish from the page, with only a rollback-style edit summary, and probably does not know how to use the History function to recover the text. What I did, and suggest as a more useful practice, was to userfy the text and leave a message with a pointer to it, along with newbie advice pointing to the tutorial and "Your first article", etc. Thanks, --MCB 17:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush family conspiracy theory

Bush family conspiracy theory could you please restore this page ? Bush family conspiracy theory I realy need/want to read it ? Freedomspeechman 15:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

another Blainetologist sock?

Another brand-new account, User:ScienoSitter, immediately jumps right into making the exact same "test is rigged" insertions as User:Blainetologist: wikipediatrix 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the new Ref Citation code

Much appreciated. I'm still very weak when it comes to formating references but this will help me so much. I was making the reference list manually on some articles. This will be a big help. I'm working on becoming a stronger editor but I have a long way to go. Lisapollison 14:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper deletion

Hi please take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Turkic&action=history Does the article have to be properly deleted or it can just be blanketed by the original creator? I was not sure about the wiki-procedure so I just revert it with the deletion tag. --alidoostzadeh 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention How can tell them to go to the Talk Page?User:Gamer322

Thanks!!Appreciated!User:Gamer322

My "civility"

Was that "incivil"? Well, maybe I was a bit impatient and it was unnecessary at that moment. I'll try and keep my cool more in future. But do you know what it is like to be in such a situation? Did you look at what was happening on that page? I came to that article, as a brand-new editor, and make a small rewrite for neutrality . Explained it on talk page too . One user immediately reverts it with a totally irrelevant, ignorant reason . I explain to him on talk . I restore my edit, as his objections were clearly invalid , and provide more references. The other guy inserts his ignorant remarks into the article without even an edit summary . I explain again patiently and turn his information into something that makes sense . Then ManiF turns up, blindly reverts all of my work , and pretends in his edit summary he's only doing "copyediting". What a lie. At the same time, he slams a note on my page claiming I'm a "sockpuppet", with no reason whatsoever. I protest. At least he puts back a few pieces of information in the article from what I wrote. The first guy puts his ignorant stuff back in , again, I turn it into something that makes sense . Again, I explain that patiently on the talk page . Next morning, a third guy turns up and again reverts everything I did without the slightest attempt at a justification . Then he brazenly puts in another completely made-up claim, clearly false and without a source . I correct it and make a few other minor improvements. Again, everything explained on talk page. He reverts immediately, only saying that it's "my POV" (whatever on earth that means! it seems to be their blanket justification when they have no arguments to counter) Next, I don't revert, I just put in some marks noting what I find dubious . ManiF reverts me again . I ask him to leave the dispute tags in and restore my uncontroversial improvements which had blindly removed together with the rest . He reverts again . I make another few minor improvements. The next day, I'd found the time of actually going to a library and researching the matter. I come back with a few books and do a real big, good rewrite of the whole thing. Now the article has real sources for the very first time and is like about 200% better . I even give quotations for the little details they had been blindly reverting without paying attention to them . Suddenly, a fourth guy pops out of nowhere, someone who I later find out only ever appears every few weeks to help out ManiF and his friends in revert-warring (he does nothing else), and reverts me again. . Just so that ManiF is spared the necessity of doing it himself. At that point I really am exasperated, and do another revert myself . And about that time I made that remark you found objectionable. Then ManiF starts expanding the article himself (without all of my material) with some blatantly propaganda stuff he plagiarised from a website, citing bogus "sources" that didn't even say what he claimed they said. Then I can't help myself but revert him again. And I'm still the only one who discusses anything about the matter itself on the talk page, all my arguments have remained unanswered to this day . Then reverting helpers number five and six pop out of nowhere. At that point, I'm really at the end of my tether. At last, one of them shows some understanding and makes a halfway decent compromise version including back some of my work.

So, the upshot is: These people work together with friends and helpers they call in from somewhere to help them reverting - but it's me that gets accused of being a sockpuppet. I spend the time in libraries doing actual research, they just blindly revert - but it's me that gets accused of "undoing the work of others". I patiently give explanations on the talk page - but it's me that gets accused of being "impatient" and "not leaving room for discussion". I ask admins for help - but nobody can be bothered. I'm told to "follow dispute resolution" - but when I make an "RFC" nobody answers. I get treated like garbage - but it's me that's accused of incivility. The cynicism of it all. And they say somewhere that "newbies shouldn't be bitten". Well, I'm still recovering from my first days on Misplaced Pages. I must say it was quite some experience.

Well, sorry for giving you such a long story, but I think you should know what's going on. And while you're at it telling people of for incivility, you might look at this other guy, "Azerbaijani": Do you find that civil? Calling me a "Pan-Arab" when I have actually nothing in the world to do with Arabs ? Accusing me of lying, just because I state who and what I am ? I can assure you, I am really not that Arab guy they think I am. But apparently, in their world, anybody who ever suggests that an Arab point of view might perhaaaaaaps merit inclusion in Misplaced Pages simply must be him, LOL. I still don't know what the poor guy did to make them so mad at him. FellFairy 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject idea

The Council talk page might be a halfway decent place, I suppose; or we could just discuss it privately, if that's what you prefer. The important point for any new idea is actual adoption by projects; where it's discussed before that tends not to matter too much. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First, some extreme pedantry: the prevailing terminology seems to be that a "task force" is a sub-group that works on a more narrow scope, while a component of the project that does some particular task is a "department". ;-)

As far as the actual idea goes, I suspect it wouldn't be too effective with such a setup. In my experience, editor participation decreases quite sharply as you move away from the main project page (which tends to be the most bustling area). So, an "RFC department" subpage would only be visited by a fraction of the people seeing the project page; and only a fraction of those would follow the next link to the actual RFC page. At this point, the numbers will be so low that burnout (a major factor when intervening in disputes) will be a substantial problem.

The flip side of this, incidentally, is that (informal) requests on the project's main talk page tend to attract much more attention than out-of-the-way RFC listings. So there are two obvious things that could be done:

The more minor option: have a system where RFC listings would be cross-posted to the relevant project's talk pages. This would mean a lot of extra messages, but would allow the RFC listing to stay in place.
The more drastic option: dispense with the RFC listings entirely and have RFCs be made on the project's talk pages directly. This would remove the extra work in option 1, and would be fairly easy to arrange because the existing talk page tags would provide easy links to whichever projects had an interest in the article, but would, obviously, lose the central listing.

Which of these is better, I'm not sure. Personally, I don't think the central listing is really useful; but some people would probably be upset if it were to disappear completely. Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me with Calton attacks?

Hi InShaneee,

I have had som problems with Calton for a while now, and its getting worst. I feel I have done everything that is in Wiki policy and I have tried to keep cool and to contribute with usfull information and articles but he is insulting me, deleting fully valid external links Ecological Economics http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ecological_economics&action=history --Swedenborg 07:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

Certain editors are having a problem with User:Khosrow II.. He is being disruptive and unconstructive in my opinion, but what worries me is that he sees Wiki as turf war: Every time hes gets into an edit-war, he puts messages on the Misplaced Pages:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board, he is practically the only one saying things like this is once again under attack by pan-turkists, anti-iranianism has become a disease, please help etc. See that page's history .. The whole notices there seem to be inflammatory eg Azerbaijani national heroes - Full of POV and propaganda - it looks like a place to get meatpuppets.. I don't know whether that article is full of POV and propaganda, but it is an extremely wrong attitude, they were warned by other impartial users as well.. In all his edit summaries he accuses people of being pan-this, pan-that, racist, not knowing anything etc.. I was wondering what could be done to stop such disruptive behavior, particularly with respects to the noticeboard issue.. Cheers! Baristarim 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That is what the Iranians notice board is there for. Its not a secret buddy. Also, it is not I who starts the revert wars, it is you and the other pan Turkists that you muster up. You have been accused of pan Turkism, not just by me, but other users. You continuously make baseless and ridiculous assertions without facts.Khosrow II 01:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it, there should be no problems now. If the user reverts again, you need to take care of him. Thanks.Khosrow II 01:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant if he reverts my changes, which should make everything ok now, then you would have reason to block him for disruption right? I for one will not be doing anything for the time being.Khosrow II 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Could you mediate something for us? I took a bunch of reliable maps and basically combined them into one to make up for a map that cannot be found on the internet. This usesr claims its OR just because I had to combine several maps. The map this user insists on using is greatly exaggerating Turkic groups in Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East.Khosrow II 01:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"zerda." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (12 Sep. 2006).