Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.126.40.74 (talk) at 21:40, 3 November 2006 (→Please unblock me). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

On Userboxes in userspace

First of all, I apologize if my previous comments had any sharp tones to it, but I tend to react allergic to Userbox deletions after I witnessed the userbox wars. Also I fully support your deletion of the blatant attack userbox User:Nightmare X/Userbox/JEWSDIDWTC under (I assume) CSD:G10. As to whether User:The Ministry of Truth was a sockpuppet or not, I do not know, if (s)he was an abusive sock I cannot hold against your decision, though I must admit I view your decision to delete all the userboxes (s)he created in userspace as not that well - if the boxes themselves were permissable (no blatant advertising, personal attacks etc.) it might have been a better move to allow other users to adopt them - this is userspace after all. Finally your deletion of the other userboxes, e.g. User:Winhunter/Userboxes/CCP as divisive (T1) is, honestly said, worrysome to me. Many templates in templatespace (amongst them templates that declared the user to be a Furry or a Atheist or Straight) were deleted citing CSD:T1 during the userbox wars (which, I hope explains my strong reaction to the deletions). I would like to invite you over to WP:UBM which covers the compromise we found to solve the userbox issue to join the discussion. CharonX/talk 01:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The ones I deleted were all supporting one political party or another. —Centrx→talk • 02:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You would make a great politician because you've so far ignored every single question that's been asked of you. Great political two-step. 1. T1 doesn't apply to userspace. 2. Supporting a political party is not a)a crime or b)a speedy deletion criterion. 3. There has been mention of some discussion on ANI, but no link/evidence that it exists. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

T1 applies to templates; these are templates. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and its user pages are to that end; Misplaced Pages is not a platform for political advertisement or declaring oneself a partisan adherent. I have mentioned nothing about ANI. I don't know if you intend to be insulting or flippant, but you should stop. —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, hi. I tend to agree with you about userboxes. A template is a template, no matter where it's located, and userboxes supporting political parties are basically inappropriate in a project like this. I have to ask though, do you disagree with Jimbo's suggestion that we let people basically do what they want in userspace and simply keep POV userboxes out of templatespace, while trying to use reason and dialogue to persuade people not to use Misplaced Pages for politics? I ask because your recent deletions seem to go directly against this suggestion, and I haven't been able to find a link to the discussion where you're explained why Jimbo is wrong, and why deleting political userboxes from userspace where they were moved by compromise is worth the trouble it seems to stir up. Can you help me understand your position here? In particular, are you coming out against Jimbo's suggestion, and have you discussed why you disagree with the approach he advised? Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus 05:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted them in the process of doing something else and now that they are deleted I see no reason to restore them. Separately, I am responding to some incorrect arguments and a few utterly bogus statements. —Centrx→talk • 05:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really clearer on your position now. I mean, I would agree with you, except that I think drama-avoidance is more important than keeping the Wiki free of userboxes in this particular case, and I think of this issue as a potential drama-storm, which can be rather destructive. You didn't answer the direct question I asked you; that's a little bit frustrating. :/ I've put a fair amount of work into the "German solution", and I'm sort of keen that it not be undermined after Jimbo and so many others have been supporting it. Which part of what I'm saying do you disagree with, or can I clarify anything for you, as to why I see this deletion as a bad idea that should be reversed? -GTBacchus 06:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So undelete them. The Ministry of Truth ones were deleted for a different reason though and should not be restored. Anyway, how long is this "convincing" supposed to take? Despite Jimbo's statements that it is not "normal and accepted" and not "endorsed", I don't see it becoming any more discouraged, I see it becoming more entrenched and 'normal', and there are an absurd number of {{helpme}} requests from brand-new users with no encyclopedia contributions whose first question is not "How do I add links to an article" but "How do I create a userbox". —Centrx→talk • 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Centrx, I'm not going to just step in and undelete something you deleted. I'll let DRV do its work. As for how long the "convincing" is supposed to take, it won't get done if nobody's working on it. I would hope that those of us opposed to political userboxes are engaging others in conversations about it. Otherwise, we've dropped the ball, and aren't in a very good position to complain. That's the trouble with reason and dialogue - it doesn't happen on its own. If we haven't got the energy for that dialogue, and want to give up and go back to mass deletions, with all the joys they entail, then we should at least say so. That's how I see it, anyway. -GTBacchus 06:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The deletion was only mass with respect to the empty account, which is a separate matter. —Centrx→talk • 06:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

PLANS, etc.

Thank you for hearing me out. I do have a new concern about that article. I believe that editors Pete K and DianaW have some kind of relationship to PLANS, which is the subject of the article. Pete K claims to be in contact with one of its officers, and after promising to do so for some time, today brings to the article talk pages statements purportedly made by the PLANS officer. 1 2 3 4. Today DianaW (who admitted she is a former officer of PLANS) is obviously trying to intimidate me for contributing some of the 'oppositional' views of PLANS. When PeteK asked for fact checks, I provided some quotes from the source materials used in what I wrote for the article, and also found a verification of some statement he challenged which was contributed by another editor. DianaK has reacted as if the statements were attacks directly made by me instead of these different sources, and has come after me personally with teeth bared. It feels like this is more than just an instance of editor temper tantrums. Their connection to PLANS makes me concerned there's more to it. a b c d Professor marginalia 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated many times, I am not connected to or affiliated with PLANS - and I will further add - or any persons who are affiliated with PLANS. I participate on a discussion list sponsored by PLANS. I have one Waldorf graduate and two children currently in Waldorf. PLANS is an organization critical of Waldorf education and specifically concerned with questioning the separation of church and state with regard to Waldorf public schools (charter schools). This would make anyone affiliated with Waldorf biased against PLANS. Shouldn't we ask the affiliation of each editor to determine if they are connected to or affiliated with Waldorf education? Unlike some people who edit here - I use my name, and so does Diana - I am Pete Karaiskos, and Diana is Diana Winters. Our affiliations can be checked and verified and we sign our names to what we have written here. People who use aliases, however, are free from this type of scrutiny and accountability as Professor marginalia is. Pete K 03:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing - because I participate on a list sponsored by PLANS, I am able to contact people from PLANS - just like anyone else can - even Professor marginalia. Because I also am involved in Waldorf, I am able to contact people involved in Waldorf - like Eugene Schwartz, master Waldorf teacher. My ability to contact people mentioned in this article for comment about the validity of what is being said about them should not, in any way, hinder my credibility - in fact it should enhance it. That I can communicate directly with the people involved in these activities and that I am willing to do so to get to the facts is a great opportunity to get at the truth - if indeed, anyone is interested in the truth. Pete K 04:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Diana weighing in. This is why I use my real name. There is no secret about who I am or what I do or why. I am not affiliated with PLANS in any official way though I was at one time, and I have participated in their mailing list for years. All of my contributions are public and posted in my name, it is Diana Winters. Being affiliated with PLANS, however, is not a suspicious or strange thing. (They are an organization that is suing two school districts for running Waldorf-methods schools, claiming Waldorf is religious and doesn't belong in public schools for constitutional reasons.) What is "professor marginalia's" name and what are her organizational affiliations? There is no sense in which I "admit" to being affiliated with PLANS as if this were something I would be ashamed of. I state my views, and I state who I am wherever I go. There is absolutely no chance she can make a case that I should not be contributing to that article. IMO, trying to edit the article without revealing organizational affiliations would be less than ethically impressive - but you don't find me suggesting she herself doesn't have a right. There is a marked history of Waldorf supporters and anthroposophists attempting just what she is attempting here - to have critics removed from Internet forums for the sole reason that they would prefer that people were not able to hear what we have to say. There is nothing I have written, there or anywhere else, ever, that will appear as "intimidation." There are no bared teeth. The reverse is true as this process occurring right here makes clear. I do not run to administrators and attempt to have someone removed online because they are writing things I disagree with. This is what is aggressive - not disagreement on talk pages. It always kills me that these people think to run to administrators long before it occurs to me!

Of course Pete K. is "in contact with" PLANS officers. This is public. PLANS is a public entity. Follow the discussion at www.waldorfcritics.org. I am also in daily contact with these people (at least as often as PLANS-affiliated people post to their mailing list). This is no secret and not disqualifying for editing the article at wikipedia.

And finally, just to back up Pete, yes, anyone can contact the officers of PLANS. All this information is available on their web site. Their mailing list is public and can be read by anyone even without subscribing. Being in contact with members of PLANS is not suspicious behavior. Thank you.DianaW 05:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

None of my comments to Professor Marginalia there can be described as "teeth bared." I suggest the admin review them. They are substantive. They raise questions about sources, and about criteria for determining what the official position might be from PLANS, from various sources. She has responded to none of these issues - no wonder, she decided to come over here and complain instead. Her note to you is disingenuous, claiming to have "concerns" about who Pete and I might be - we make no secret of who we are and she fully knows who we are.DianaW 05:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me also add, through years of these types of discussions on various forums and lists, we know who she is as well - and that her affiliations, if revealed, would throw a completely different light on this topic. Pete K 14:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Some editors on the PLANS article are signing their names to their contributions and opinions, making any and all affiliations, inclinations, or biases instantly known to anyone familiar with the controversy. Others are anonymous. What does that tell you? At least one other editor of the PLANS page - "thebee" - is a founding member of an organization founded primarily to antagonize PLANS - and yet never explained this on the talk pages or in edit summaries. Critics deliberately leave ourselves open to this endless "Aha! You're with PLANS!", with all the guilt-by-association that comes from their constant demonizing of PLANS. I could just as well have started to edit the PLANS article calling myself Elvis Presley but I think the integrity of the discussion matters, so I say who I am, and everyone who deals with me knows where I'm coming from.DianaW

So here, in Professor marginalia and TheBee we have two of the five people who call themselves "Americans for Waldorf Education" - who feel it is appropriate to smear the organization PLANS by calling it a "hate group" - heavily editing the PLANS article. Here's one of many examples of them adding this inflamatory and defamatory language . It is a smear campaign and nothing more - and a quick peek at what they have been doing to the article in the last couple of days will give you an idea of their agenda. Nothing more really needs to be said here - their signature, though disguised in aliases, is unmistakenly evident in their work. Pete K 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting how the original complaint has now disappeared. Just gone. Altering the record later is typical. Pete and Diana ranting about nothing again LOL.DianaW 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Diana - I put the original complaint back for clarity. I think Centrx moved this section down and perhaps forgot to bring the original remarks. Pete K 14:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks much for the Sprotect at Alcoholism; yer a good cob :) --Doc Tropics 05:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Please unblock me: Tannim

I did not do the 3RR others did, notably KittenKlub.

Edit warring is not acceptable whether you pass the electric fence of 3RR or not. You have engaged in edit warring across all or nearly all articles in which you have been involved, merely staying within the limit of 3RR. Misplaced Pages is a neutral encyclopedia, not a war game to push your point of view. —Centrx→talk • 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling Hezbollah a terrorist group is not neutral?

You should be well aware that is not the only assertion you have added, and even were I to suppose that every one of your additions were neutral and verifiable in reliable sources, edit warring is regardless unacceptable. Simply, do not revert at all. Discuss your changes on on the relevant talk page. You should never be doing a complete revert more than once, and only then if it is a new, previously undiscussed change, and the revert should be with a full edit summary that would reasonably convince other editors that the edit was incorrect. Except in such special case, do not make any reverts in a content dispute. You should realize that aside from being blocked, it is simply not productive. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by reverting. You must convince other editors. —Centrx→talk • 16:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight because KittenKlub and Count Iblis both started reverting me I am at fault? I used Rueters,AP and Fox News 3 well recognized sources. You have two Chavez followers complain about those edits. You also never tried to comminicate with me. And I have yet to see you or any other administrator block the P.C police KittenKlub and Iblis

I have already explained this. Do not edit war. If you edit war, you will be prevented from doing so. —Centrx→talk • 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Alfred A. Tomatis

Hi.

Why was the article on Alfred A. Tomatis deleted the 27th of October?

Cheers Runar Punar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punar1 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This article had no reliable sources, was not written in the neutral form of an encyclopedia article, and did not establish the notability of its subject. Importantly, these problems have gone unfixed since the creation of the article in March 2006. If you would like to fix the article, I would be happy to restore it, but see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Notability, and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources first. —Centrx→talk • 15:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Any search for Tomatis on Google will show that the method he developed is still widely used. I could mention this in the article. I also had links there to two sites which again had references to their sources (one was to Quackwatch, the other one, I can't remember unfortunately, and finding it on the internet again is like looking for a needle in a stack of salespersons). punar 12:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored it. Please improve the article. —Centrx→talk • 15:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Marsiliano

You were right about this editor. In the space of less than an hour I've extended the 48 hour block to one week and then one month. Looks like he switches to a variable IP range - could you check the range paramaters and perform the block there? Durova 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I changed the block to indefinite also. —Centrx→talk • 00:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PeteK revert at PLANS

He just won't stop it. I'm demanded to identify every source to the nth degree, so I do. The source is completely legit. So then he removes both statement and footnote with it, without discussion. diff. My response on PLANS talk page: diff2 Professor marginalia 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. He put it back after reading my response calling him on it. Professor marginalia 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. It was a mistake. I said so immediately and tried to put it back. The article is protected now. Pete K 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Shoot on Sight

If this request doesn't violate procedure, would you take a look at Cartooncartoon? I just happened to notice you Deleting something, so I thought I'd ask. Thanks! --Doc Tropics 05:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are fast. Thanks CentRx, I'll try not to become a thorn in your side (or a lost-puppy-dog underfoot), but you've been immensely helpful recently and I really appreciate it. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 05:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. —Centrx→talk • 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Helium protection

See . Femto 14:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

LTTE page

Hi, you had blocked me for reverting deletions on the LTTE page. Some of the other users are engaged in censoring the article to give a pro-LTTE stance. They have deleted material which has been there for several months

Since I dont want to be blocked again, can you advise me on how to handle censorship on the LTTE page Dutugemunu 14:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the block, you were blocked for edit warring. Simply, do not revert unless it is with an explanation that will actually convince others why they are incorrect. Reverting is not going to cause the revision you want to be implemented. Regarding content disputes, please thoroughly read Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. —Centrx→talk • 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you decline my request for unprotection?

There are several people who would like to post on the site and I don't really see any reason that it should be protected, to be honest. I'd like to know your reasoning for continuing to protect the page, since I think it is in the article's best interest to allow the public access to it.Boogafish 17:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any. It will be unprotected in due time. Do not edit war, do not circumvent blocks, do not remove warnings from your talk page. If you continue in this manner, you will be banned. —Centrx→talk • 17:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you haven't seen them, but I assure you there are. I have a couple of friends who are new to wikipedia and I told them to post and they say that there's no way to edit it at all.

And it seems to me by your previous post that you're not acting in wikipedia's best interests simply because of my behavior on my own user page. I certainly hope that's not the case here, but that's how it looks.

Furthermore, I was unaware that I'm not allowed to edit the content on my own user page. The reason I've blanked my content on there is because Trueblood keeps asking me questions and is really pissing me off, and instead of giving him a personal attack, I've chosen to ignore him. Instead he is reverting my page. Well, now I know I'm not allowed to change the content on my page, but I figure you might want to warn him not to revert everything I do simply because he doesn't agree with it. Because his harassment and his following me around and reverting me is really beginning to piss me off. Boogafish 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not your user page. It is a page which you are allowed to use to facilitate contributing to the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 00:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Longpagewarning

"Okay. Don't do a wholesale revert though, there were clearly other changes which are unrelated to your objection. Productive or collaborative editing does not work with full reverts."

Looks like it worked to me. The page is now written in a way we both like. — Omegatron 17:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I could only guess at what you meant though. It seemed perfectly clear and didn't use any Misplaced Pages jargon (such as "subpage"); it's quite clear what "archive" means and it directs the reader to the page with instruction about it. You know what you meant, so you should have changed it yourself in the way you meant. The only reason it "worked" is because I did not do a full revert, I replaced the changes I made and kept what I think you were objecting to. —Centrx→talk • 17:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really know what I wanted it to say, though, and didn't have time to fix it that second. Since it's a Mediawiki message, and quite important to be clear on the multitude of pages it will appear on, I just reverted. You then wrote a better version, and everything is fine now. — Omegatron 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me.

Hi there, you recently decline my requests for page protection and the reason quite surprised me. " Just don't make contested changes and just don't revert". No offence but when we're both involved in an arbcom case and have 1 Revert paroles, and he implements his contested (so contested that the pages were reverted, protected and he was blocked) version (once more) which I revert (1 revert) and he reverts (1 revert) his flawed version stands. He refuses to participate in dispute resolution and barely discusses his edits. Why are you , as an admin, letting this behaviour pass?Rex 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is a problem with any one user, it can be blocked. That does not require preventing any and all other people from editing the page. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see the protection policy. Also, if a user in an arbitration case is a problem, you can also take it up with the people dealing with that case who would be much more familiar with the situation than I. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I already did that, point is that there are now 4 articles which rarely are edited and have false information which I can't restore.Rex 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you requested that an injunction be put on the parties to the case or that the disputed pages be protected, and the arbitrators did not see fit to do so, I am not going to protect them; that's not how Misplaced Pages works. —Centrx→talk • 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Shoedeals4u

I just noticed this user page User:Shoedeals4u and it seems to be nothing but spam. Should it be marked as such or some action taken on it? -WarthogDemon 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with. —Centrx→talk • 00:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:203.144.160.246

Hey, there. I'm trying to look into this user's unblock request; I'm guessing there's a rangeblock in place, but if it is, I haven't found it, yet. Given the block summary, I was hoping you might be able to shed some light on this? Luna Santin 20:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The block is on 203.144.160.0/24 (See m:Range blocks). Someone was adding commercial links to a bunch of articles and had been doing so since August. —Centrx→talk • 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gah. Could've sworn I checked the /24, first thing. Silly me. Luna Santin 05:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Day of the Dead

Hi there. I noticed that you listed Day of the Dead for semi-protection, but it appeared to never actually go through. Is this because the article was listed on the main page? -- Tim D 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I forgot to protect it. It was previously unprotected by another admin for being on the Main Page, which is generally vaguely discouraged because the Main Page is intended to be a portal to the common Misplaced Pages, which is not protected, but it is not required. Since the day is over and there hasn't been any vandalism for a while, it currently does not warrant protection. —Centrx→talk • 00:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Hanson-Young

Hi, you recently declined unprotect of Sarah Hanson-Young (deleted page) on grounds of crystal ball. But the recent media activity surrounding her clearly shows that she is a current notable figure, and as such, a bio article is not speculative. Zzymurgy 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

These sources are not sufficient for making an article on the person. Most of them are about the Green Party in general, or include a half-sentence quote, etc. Information that is important to the Australian Greens party can and should be added to that article, but that does not mean there should be a separate article. —Centrx→talk • 00:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

IPvandal 217.65.149.50 Abuse report

Hi, I just saw you delete my abuse report for the above mentioned IP without any more explanation. Could you please explain why? Bfg 00:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the IP (anonymous only so someone with an account can use it) until August 2007 (actually I accidentally blocked it until August 2006 but I have now corrected that). I don't think there is a need to contact the school (there are thousands of schools which have this sort of problem) as it is just common vandalism from kids joking around (rather than death threats or a long-term abuser or something like that), and often when a school is contacted the result is they simply ask us to block the IP. —Centrx→talk • 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Is this generally accepted policy? - If so, should your argument perhaps be repeated at the abuse project page in order to prevent people like me reporting it? All I could find was Make sure that the IP in question has been blocked at least five times in recent history. What I'm looking for is basically some guidelines on what an appropriate target for an abuse report is. Bfg 20:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for two other talk pages to be semi-protected

Unfortunately, as User:JB196's usual targets get semi-protected to keep him from spamming templates on them, he finds new places to add them. Could you look at semi-protecting Talk: Death Valley Driver Video Review and User Talk: SirFozzie (I don't understand what he thinks he's getting out of putting notability and importance templates on a User's Talk Page, but, wow..) SirFozzie 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Centrx→talk • 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Gracias! SirFozzie 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory user page and "jews did WTC"

Please explain how expressing a personal belief such as jewish involvement in the 9/11 attacks more inflammatory than say, an userbox that says "this user is a capitalist". I thought wikipedia was not censored. Nightmare X 01:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A template that says "this user is a capitalist" is a statement about oneself; that is divisive, but not inflammatory. Neither are ultimately acceptable on Misplaced Pages—your user page is to facilitate contributions to the encyclopedia—but a host of established, productive users enjoy them; the problems they cause are indirect, their use is discouraged and tended downward but not currently forbidden. Attacking statements on user pages, however, are. —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Egypt

Hi! Could you fix Egypt? For some reason, when you applied page protection, the article no longer shows up on my watchlist? Thanks. — · ☥ 02:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That shouldn't happen. It shows up on mine. It would be a bug that should be reported at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) or on the MediaWiki bug server. —Centrx→talk • 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, now it's working again 8) — · ☥ 02:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi. Can you remove the guideline tag from WP:Reliable sources? I can't without violating WP:3RR, and you've protected it, so you should have been the one to do it. It's not a guideline until after consensus is reached; see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Guideline_or_not.3F. — Omegatron 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not getting involved in this dispute. Discuss it on the talk page. You should not be edit warring. It is not a big deal if there is or is not erroneously a guideline tag on the page for a few days. Also, with sysops being involved in the dispute, it is especially important that there not be some divination as to m:The Wrong Version, which could instigate a wheel war. —Centrx→talk • 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Erect Penis

I'm going to put the erect penis everywhere on wikipedia. You are POWERLESS to stop me! A worthy cause 15:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a waste of time. —Centrx→talk • 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Swell (band) deletion query

I\'ve noticed that you recently deleted the Swell (band) page at Misplaced Pages. I\'d be grateful if you could explain the reason behind this, as Swell are/were a legitimate band, with a fanbase, signed to respected labels in the UK and US, and therefore warrant interest from both fans of the band and interested newcomers to their music.

I\'d like to urge you to reverse this decision, as Swell (band) is a legitimate subject for a Misplaced Pages entry, as opposed to the plethora of flamebait/graffiti that plagues other pages.

Thanks

Karl

The article needs to reference reliable sources and include information that would attest to its warranting inclusion in the encyclopedia. See Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Notability (music). It may not warrant inclusion. If after perusing these guidelines you still think it can be included, I will restore it but note that it will be deleted again if it is not improved. —Centrx→\'\'talk\'\' • 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock me

Please unblock me!!

To tell you the truth, I was a wonderful contributor to articles in Misplaced Pages \\\"Yu-Gi-OH and Pokemon\\\". The story began when a user named Mitsumasa began creating and upload Pokemon images and articles.

After about 5 months after the start of the articles the PCP began merging the articles (A Man in Black, Ryulong, Interrobamf) i tried talking to them, and the PCP but they did\\\'nt listen. I even tried to leave a committ on their usertalk pages but A Man in Black is the only one that responds to my committ. I gave up until recently students ( Jene\', Jessica, Aaron ) at my school \\\"The Learning Community School\\\" began bullying me, they knew that I was a contributor at the site \\\"Misplaced Pages\\\", so they told my teacher that they logged in some accounts and began vandalizing the articles that I personattly was currently having problems with you. My teacher Mrs. Lisa Mercato talked to the students Jene\\\', Jessica, Aaron and restricted them from using the school computer.

To tell you that I\\\'m not some of those user names I merged some of the articles that i clamied I did.

1. 17:20, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) The Pokemon Center is Very Busy! (Redirecting to List of Pokémon: Battle Frontier episodes) (top)
2. 17:20, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Mean With Envy (Redirecting to List of Pokémon: Advanced Battle episodes) (top)
3. 17:17, 28 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Find Pikachu! Route 202! (Redirecting to List of Pokémon: Diamond and Pearl episodes) (top)

I\\\'m very sorry.

May you please unblock me and my IP address 72.177.68.38