Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erachima (talk | contribs) at 09:23, 17 November 2006 (→You've had your little bit of fun: minor addition after looking at this a little more). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to start a new talk section.

• Archive - May 06
• Archive - June 06
• Archive - July 06
• Archive - August 06
• Archive - September 06
• Archive - October 06

Dear InShaneee

What you consider to vandalizing by someone recently introduced to Misplaced Pages is absurd. Try stopping those who vandalize in inappropriate ways rather than stopping someone who tries to provide information. I hope that you will read this and think about your actions. Thank you.

teen titans external links

on this part of i put an external link to a website about teen titans and other but you keep getting rid of it any reasons??? signed anonomous

Laurentdion

Hi, I'm here on behalf of the blocked user Laurentdion. I see that you have blocked him indefinately for "personal attacks, legal threats". I think that we should divide this into two seperate issues. Firstly, the issue of legal threats. I think that it is clearly incorrect to say that the description of something as "slander" or "libel" is a legal threat. If he had said "That is libel, so take it down now before I sue you!", then that would have been a legal threat. However, since he did not say that, looking at WP:NLT will confirm that a complaint that something is libel is not a legal threat.

Secondly, the personal attacks issue. I agree with you that a block was appropriate, but would ask that you reconsider its length. Common sense says that an indef duration is somewhat excessive for a first block. I would suggest that you consider reducing the ban to, say, a week, to enforce a cooling-off and reflection period for the user, so he can return to the Wiki refreshed and ready to address the dispute in a calmer manner, but without driving him away for ever. Thanks, David Mestel 19:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi InShaneee!

I have also been contacted by Laurentdion. As a member of the WP:AMA, I'd like to help a user who got off on the wrong foot, if possible. No one's saying you're a bad admin or anything, but I can only echo what David Mestel says above: an indef block for the first block might have been excessive. For the record, I did see this user's last contributions, and they were certainly totally out of line. However, in his e-mails, he has stated he will not use such clorful language again, and he says he just wants the "right to disapear" on his original account.

He has asked to be unblocked, but I will never undo the block of an admin working in good faith, such as yourself. Are you willing to suspend the indef block while we straighten out the mess? Would you prefer to discuss this privately, or would you rather we discuss this on your talk page?

Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, InShanee. I appreciate your time. You've stated the user has no edits in articlespace. Actually, he had several edits on one article, which was deleted (for blatant advertising), which is what caused him to react badly in the first place. Edits like ("Richard, I appreciate your suggestion.") show he really can be civil. I don't deny he got out of hand, but he has stated he wants the right to vanish. You've stated this was impossible ( "delete every mention of him and his former article from the history of every page in which they have appeared"), but there are currently only 5 pages which link to user:Laurentdion, including this one. Do we want this user to leave permanantly? If we want this user to "leave with his pride and dignity intact", shouldn't we facilitate that process, if possible? Like I say, you're clearly a good admin, and I would certainly have blocked this user given the circumstances, but I'm not sure an indefinite block for a first block was appropriate in this case. Since this user can be civil, however, and did try to contribute to Misplaced Pages before being blocked indefinitely, I would argue that perhaps David's proposal, reducing to a week-long block, might allow the user to cool off so the situation can be handled in a calmer manner, without driving away a potentially good user. Again, I'll never undo the block of another admin acting in good faith, so I hope maybe you will maybe possibly think about reconsidering the block length. Whatever you decide (or have already decided), thanks for at least listening. :) Take care! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, he's agreed to your proposal, and suggest that you either reduce the block to a finite period straightaway, or, if you want confirmation out of his own mouth, you can unprotect his talk page, and I will ask him to leave a message their agreeing to the conditions. David Mestel 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I really hope this works out. David Mestel 18:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Discussion

No one, in the entire time I've used this site, has been civil with me. All I've ever gotten is told repeatedly that any info I add, can and will be deleted for whatever reason they can find. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that viewpoint, but that's what I've experienced. And after talking with even more users today, it's quite clear that nothing I submit will ever be accepted onto this website. JohnQ.Public 15:14, 16 October 2006

Wiki Paranormal Thing

Hi InShaneee

Please think through this indiscriminant labelling of all sort of anomalous albeit preternatural (not supernatural) phenomena as "paranormal" on talk pages. Whilst for example some cryptozoological putative animals have been labelled as paranormal by some people, many haven't, including the gigantic octopus, the sea monk etc etc. For example the St Augustine monster was a big smelly carcass, nothing paranormal there and no one has ever suggested otherwise. Anomalous is NOT a synonym for paranormal. thanks Tullimonstrum 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This user raises an interesting question: where does anomalistics and paranormal no longer coincide, and is there an overarching term that incorporates both? Wikiproject Strange would be a strange name, indeed...but when people get extremely pet-peevishish on THIS being The Truth but THAT being a Bald-Faced LIE...strangely named überprojects sometimes seem to be the only way to restore civility (or at least order). As it stands, I suggest subdividing the Project into two "kingdoms," Anomalistics and Parapsychology.--Chr.K. 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

subProjects

I think we need two automatically, Wikiproject Cryptozoology and Wikiproject Ufology, what with how many of both kinds of pages there are. Problem is, if we just go straight from WPParanormal to WPCryptozoology, I have a feeling the pet-peeves are going to lash out, as Cryptozoology is considered by many (see Anomalistics) as not paranormal per se. As it stands, I regularly read much of the latter, but have nowhere near the interaction with them historically as I do with the UFOs and Bermuda Triangles of the world; if it were a complete project and not subject to being confused with such things as FBI investigations, I'd also think to include unexplained disappearances as well, given how many I've found that need to be put in. --Chr.K. 15:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Then with that as the case, our Project's name is flawed, as the pet-peevers will simply never stop coming...and argument amongst project participants, or those working on the pages regardless of affiliation with the project, will only assist the irrationally skeptical editors. --Chr.K. 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Community Ban

Thank you for taking the time to realize the degree of disruption involved in Brya's participation in Misplaced Pages. KP Botany 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

InShaneee, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Request for arbitration

You is officially informed about this Berton 00:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment and help

Hello, could you please help resolve a long running problem regarding User:Caligvla's conduct by commenting on Talk:Armenia. Thank you.--Eupator 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal information

I'm taking care of it with oversight. Jayjg 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RfAr

I repaired a mistake, my apologies. Berton 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions? See: User:Khorshid/Misconceptions

I do not think a userpage is for that stuff... --Cat out 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's strictly innapropriate, though I'm not pleased that it already exists on its own subpage, as well. Have you considered MfD? --InShaneee 15:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting for your review before seeking any kind of action. I do not want to make the nomination myself. How should I proceed? --Cat out 16:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it to MfD, mention why it was removed from wherever it was removed from, and point out that it already has its own subpage in his userspace. --InShaneee 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. See: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khorshid/Misconceptions --Cat out 18:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with my user page? I thought users are allowed to put "userfy" certain things? I dont see anything wrong with it, its just a list of misconceptions, its not going to kill anyone or start any arguments or anything. I understand it was deleted but its on a User page now, it has no influence in Misplaced Pages as an encyclopaedia if thats what your worried about.Khosrow II 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey InShaneee, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Laurentdion proposal

Would you perhaps feel more comfortable with giving Laurentdion a second chance if he agreed that actions and discussions on pages about him or his work would be undertaken through me or some other suitable person? David Mestel 08:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to check with him, of course, but it sounds reasonable. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that he makes all his edits through me - just those relating to himself or his work. David Mestel 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I was more thinking of his work as an artist. David Mestel 08:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking Mustafa

Hi, there's an emerging consensus at WP:AN#Requesting consensus to unblock Mustafa Akalp that he should be given second chance (but kept on an informal "probation"). I plan to unblock him soon, but I wanted to notify you first, as the blocking admin. Please comment at WP:AN if you wish. 08:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The homage to Neon Genesis Evangelion

OK, people seriously need to stop editing out my adding the fact that they did an homage to NGE in "Hamstergeddon". They explicitly say so in the commentary track for the episode. Anyone with the DVDs can go and check it out!

--FallenAngelII 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but...

I'm getting a bit sick of dealing with things around here. No matter what username I choose, or what page I create, it's deleted or blocked(!)Camp For Troubled Teens Mentor 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RKO Industries, Inc.

I found a reference so as to establish notability for the article RKO Industries, Inc. which you deleted. I recreated the article, but it's still not much more than a stub. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Community Probation for ]

Hi InShanee, thanks for your help in working out something to do with User:Heqwm. There seems to be consensus at WP:ANI for putting him on Misplaced Pages:Community probation. Would you be willing to notify User:Heqwm of the probation? I think it should be done by a neutral party such as yourself. Hopefully, the one month community probation will give time for the mediation to proceed successfully, or to fail. Either way, we should know if he can be channeled into productive contributions or not. I hope you will be able to provide the notice. Thanks very much, Johntex\ 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Phillip Ramsey

Shane - I think Phillip Ramsey may have been deleted too quickly. I couldn't find any support for the existence of the person (I think I was the original PROD, before the speedy delete was added). But it looks like the name was just mis-spelled in the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/atl/reviews/06122004msp.shtml refers to a Philip Ramsey (one "L"). I'm not saying that this Ramsey person is notable (I can't find much other information on them, so I don't know) - only that there's the possibility. I'll leave it up to you, but maybe it should be revived for discussion? Other people might know more about him and be able to add insight. Thanks. --TheOtherBob 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not my article (I've got no idea who the bloke is) - I just flagged it for Proposed Deletion while on RC Patrol, and may have been in error in doing so. (It then got speedied). If the person who created it wants to re-create it...that's fine with me. (I've got no idea who the author was, though - hence the e-mail to you.) --TheOtherBob 22:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, it was me that wrote the article. This is my first article (I've only tidied up other things) so sorry if I hadn't enough information in it. I have checked some more facts about Phillip Ramsey - is the original story in here anywhere or do I need to write it from scratch again? Thanks, --Samwise7 23:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Shane, I've fixed it - Bob was right, the spelling was wrong.--Samwise7 18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Khalilak

Hey, I'm trying to look into this user's current unblock request, and saw you blocked them as a sockpuppet. A cursory (keyword cursory) look over the history of the page they edited didn't make it too obvious; any comment or thoughts to elucidate the situation? :) Luna Santin 22:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm. After some more thought on this one, I'm leaning towards an AGF unblock, if you don't object -- they seem to be putting more thought/effort into this than the average throwaway account. Most sockpuppeteers would just register a new account to keep at it, no? Luna Santin 04:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers instead of dots

Numbers don't only count, but can also indicate ranking. If you must insist that an alphabetical list needs numbers, then please remove my name from the list. Moriori 19:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"hit list"

Hi, I am User:Dc76. You have some objections about my user page, similar to those rased to me by User:Khoikhoi a few minutes ago. How about the current version? If there is something inapropriate, please tell me, I will change it. I have ears and I have common sense. There is no need to do the edit. At least not with me, I listen to people.

P.S. I left this in my user page:

Vandals: (I will wait one week before having to add someone knows who here, he knows very well what he has to do.) !---If you worry that I will add a name here, please know I will not! I just want him/her and me to know that an appology was sronbgly due and was or not found. The reality is, the time for appology is never expired.---

Reason? Because I said already that I will wait one week, it would be ilogical to revert my own word. But I am absolutely free not to take any action when there is not appology. This is the same reason I refrained from naming him/her in the first place: if he/she does something wrong, I can be better, and not respond the same way.

Dc76 22:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You left this on my page:

No, you can't. If he wants to apologize, he will, and yes, that is the polite thing for him to do. However, if he doesn't, that is his prerogative, and we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Thank you, though, for your cooperation here. --InShaneee 00:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. I will do nothing about him, God have mercy on his soul. Yes, talking about this issue distracts my working on Misplaced Pages artciles, too, and I am consequently stuck with old ones, and cannot move to new domains and articles. Good luck, and take care:Dc76 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

Regarding the note you left on my userpage, please explain how any editor can have "a very, very unpleasant time here" simply because they choose not to have their name on a list. Moriori 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a public project. My name's on your talk page now, and yours is on mine. "Yahoos" are going to edit the things you write, and their names will appear right next to, and eventually above, your in the history. People are going to draw associations about you simply by being here; I'm just saying that if you're uncomfortable not having the correct number in front of your name on a page that less than 2 dozen people see, then I firmly believe that you're going to find things getting far worse as you go on. --InShaneee 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been around here long enough to recognise bullying when I see it. Your subsequent attempt to sidetrack says volumes about you. I mentioned only a particular list, nothjng more, and certainly none of the irrelevancies you have replied with. A simple "gee, I shouldn't have said that" would have been a principled response, but no, you tried to sidetrack. I expected much more of an admin. Incidentally, I left the same query on your talk page, so am copying your response, and mine, over there. Moriori 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I noted that you requested some information on how to merge the paranormal project with the rational skepticism project. There is a page at Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers, where you can propose what might be controversial mergers, but I am far from convinced that that would be the way to go here. Getting one side or the other to voluntarily give up on their project unilaterally would probably be difficult, if not impossible. If I might make a suggestion, it might work to change the name of the paranormal project to something like WikiProject: Claims of the Paranormal or WikiProject: Paranormal Investigation, making it clear that the project welcomes both pro- and con- within its scope, and then propose a merger. Or, alternately, propose on the rational skepticism project page that both projects in effect merge into a project with a similar name. Hope that helps a little. Badbilltucker 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Block threat

Please do not make idle threats to block me for something that is not against policy. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user. I don't know where you got 48 hours for talking about an RfC on WP:CVG from, nor do I understand why you then doubled the block when ALTTP got a little testy (understandably so considering you blocked him outside of blocking policy) and then cited incivility. Though ALTTP can be abrasive at times, he certainly didn't cross the boundary that merits a 48 hour block -- nor does it make sense to use a block as some sort of punishment, as you seem to be doing, as opposed to a preventative measure. If you have any questions please direct them at my talk page or the e-mail user form. Thanks. Andre (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, please let us shift the discuss here to the Wiki. IRC should not be a place for discussions of this nature. Andre (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, why don't we start by addressing the rationale I had for unblocking to begin with? Basically, that discussing an RfC on an inappropriate page and then reverting when someone tries to remove it is grounds for a block. It's not, and nowhere in the blocking policy does it enable you to block (48 hours, no less!) for that. And I think you doubled the block because he rubbed you the wrong way -- which of course is not allowed under blocking policy either. Andre (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly not trolling. Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages. To characterize the recruiting of opinions for an RfC on a talk page associated loosely with that user as trolling is assuming bad faith, pure and simple. At any rate, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of blocking. "Offenses" do not merit blocks like punishments - they are purely preventative measures designed to stop the encyclopedia from being disrupted. In this case, 96 hours is not only excessive, but punitive. Andre (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm going to sleep now, but please direct all correspondence to my talk page and I'll see it tomorrow. Andre (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My Editor Review

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on my edits. If you have the time could you possibly leave a review or comment on Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Jersey Devil. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to the Past

I personally suggest unblocking Link and letting him run his RFC. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, it would allow a formal venue for Link to get his complaints shown, and hopefully also help conclude the argument on List of Animal Crossing characters that started this mess. Secondly, it would prevent the appearance of paranoid clamp-down that this block undoubtably gives to Link at present.

Essentially, a block at this point is doing more harm than good, and the page protection especially appears to not be a well thought response. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I was contacted by ALinktothePast to unblock, and I had to inform him that I would not do so. Encouraging further campaigning of the kind he was engaged in, and further incivility, would really not have been okay. Demi /_C 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could give me the reasons for the block, i'll take up the RfC if you won't let Link to the Past do it, thanks

†he Bread 06:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignored? Of course not. However, seeing as at least one other admin and myself both have criticized this block, I believe it would be the more prudent course to at the least unprotect his talk page. The disruption which Link could cause on his talk page is minimal, the damage to the encyclopedia nonexistant, the potential damage caused inestimable. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 07:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your extension of his block was purely vindictive. I don't care how annoying he is, you don't double a block's length just because someone gets a little snippy. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You could almost see some abuse of admin privillages here, I too condem this block, I also belive this may be a reaction to the fact that it was AMIB who is going to be RfCed

†he Bread 07:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I, too, disagree with the block - particularly the doubling of it when he disagreed with you. I do believe you were making the block in good faith. However, the first impression that I got when I came across it was that you were using administrative powers to punish, rather than to protect. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but it seemed vindictive. Stepping back from it, I do believe that the block was made in good faith, because I've seen your work to make Misplaced Pages better and I know you're committed to doing so. So I think you were making a good faith attempt to deal with a problem - but I also think this was the wrong way to approach it. --TheOtherBob 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I discussed this block with at least half a dozen admins both before and after the block. They all agreed at the very least that this was a judgement call, not a case of right or wrong. Most endorsed a block of some sort for his behavior before, during, and after the block, as well. --InShaneee 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's a judgment call for a block at all, then a 96 hour block is most definitely not justified. Andre (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I've now reduced it to the original 48 hours as a compromise. --InShaneee 23:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'm glad of that at least, but even 48 hours for a borderline case is excessive. Also, protecting the talk page is 100% inappropriate. Andre (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What's innapropriate was his comments there. Disrespect of that caliber is not tolerated here. --InShaneee 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Disrespect"? No single user inherently deserves respect any more than any other user. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Indignation is not the same as a personal attack or incivility, and it is well within the realm of reasonable speech. Silencing his disagreement with you is not protecting anyone, it's just punishing him. Andre (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And please modulate the pomposity of your tone. We are admins, not kings. Andre (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of merely saying "ditto" to what Andre and tjstrf have said, I'd say that no one owes any particular respect to anyone just because they're an admin. "Administrator" is a responsibility, not a rank.--TheOtherBob 23:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've now also protected his talk page to prevent further comment by the blocked user. I haven't seen him commit anything that could be called "vandalism" there, nor have I seen him remove anything, which are the typical reasons for blocking the talk page. Is there a reason you did that? Again, Shane, as much as you think this is an appropriate block, to a third party it really does start to look like you have it "out" for the guy. You applied a fairly long block, then doubled it when he spoke up in opposition - which looked punitive and excessive to at least a couple of people who have spoken up here. You then accused other admins of "wheel warring" when they disagreed and unblocked him. Then when people started complaining about it on the talk page, you protected that. I know you mean well, but it is starting to look bad - it's starting to reflect more on you than on him. I'm just a third party to all this mess - but it's something to consider. Thanks. --TheOtherBob 23:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment below. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ---

Dear InShaneee, I dont know that,why you are so opposite to me and you use unsuitable/unpolite language in your statements as below?

If he doesn't think he did anything wrong, he'll just do it again once unblocked. We CANNOT let this guy back if he's blatantly not going to care about policy. --InShaneee 13:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There are three arguments in your comment above;
1-If he doesn't think he did anything wrong; is not correct. I am accepting my wrong,At first moment,after first warning.I put my apologies in related talk pages(including Khoikhoi, with my congrats)The way that I choose was not correct according to wiki rules,as I learned, I had no detailed info about rules at that time and I am trying to learn.
2-he'll just do it again once unblocked;also is not correct since I stopped my efforts(to sending messages) after first warning.This is very prejudistic allege without any evidence.
3-he's blatantly not going to care about policy;also prejudistic and contain unpolite words.There are many evidence on my care about wiki rules.For my last case, I already explained what is what.Considering the unpolite word"blatantly"; there is a saying in Turkish; Kötü söz sahibine aittir- Bad word suits to the owner.
You most certainly do not have the right to demand apologies from anyone, for any reason. --InShaneee 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC);Anybody most certainly do not have the right to affront to anyone, for any reason.

You are admin in enwiki, and its normal to wait more neutrality from an admin.

Sincerely

Mustafa Akalp 15:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I also thought from day 1 that it was a mistake to let you back, and your activity is proving me right with each second that goes by. Instead of admitting to a terribly poor contributing behaviour that you'd be willing to improve, you've got the nerve to ask from people to apologise to you. You actually expect editors to invite you back to wikipedia and admit their mistake of having you banned you in the first place. And as if that wasn't enough, you're actually pursuing people's apologies by leaving them messages in their Talk pages, I'm mean this is just laughable. I just feel sorry about the admins and editors that will have too deal with you again in the near future. Miskin 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You Don't Know Jack

You Don't Know Jack - I have added a neutrality discussion section to this entry, based on your tag - I would appreciate it if you were to give your reasons, or further details, so that corrections may be made to the article. Elcondor 13:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Caligvla

Please see this: . You have warned him for personal attacks in the past.--Eupator 18:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see below, Eupator calls me a racist for no legitimate reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/Portal:Armenia/Armenia-related_Wikipedia_notice_board --Caligvla 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring while accusing others of wheel warring is still wheel warring.

Title and should say it all, really. If other admins are presenting rational oppositions to your administrative actions, you should not be redoing them without addressing their opposition. Furthermore, to accuse these individuals of wheel-warring when you yourself are also doing so by reverting their changes is not only bad form, but downright absurd. You may wish to notice this, from WP:WHEEL

• As a rule, administrators should not undo each other's admin actions. If you disagree with an admin's action, discuss the issue with him/her.

The unblocking administrators have undone you, but they have each given a valid reason for doing so. Additionally, you will notice that the wording here states that this is a general rule. There will be exceptions.

So, their behaviour may have been slight suboptimal. However, looking one line further down the wheel warring page:

• If your action is reverted, you may not re-revert it: you must either discuss it or allow some other admin to take the action.

You have broken this definitely worded rule no less than 4 times and are wheel-warring against 2 other admins, all the while decrying the sin of wheel warring. This is both hypocritical and flies directly in the face of policy. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then do something about it. I welcome review from a broad audience, not ranting. --InShaneee 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a moment. Sixteen hours after another admin unblocked, the original block, which otherwise would have been halfway to expiring by now, is reinstated? Irrespective of the merits of the original block (the user's behavior was certainly not exemplary), this situation is now totally unfair to the user in question, who must be hopelessly confused. I suggest taking this to ANI. Newyorkbrad 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, my mistake; I should have recalculated the original block. I'll attempt that now and adjust the block down. --InShaneee 03:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the posting of a policy explanation being characterized as ranting. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And I dislike policy being dictated back to me like a newbie. --InShaneee 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Friend haven't to you in a Good Minute.

InShaneee, i got a problem. Every time i try to edit a page a little box show talkin 'bout i need to save something What should i do?Gamer322

Don't shoot the messenger ;)

Hey there, InShaneee. I posted an RfC on behalf of a user who asked around on IRC if someone would post it for him, as he's blocked at the moment. I've no real knowledge of the situation; that is, I didn't create the RfC, I just posted it. Anyways, here's the link: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee. I hope it all works out! Cheers hoopydink 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Response

I just thought you would like to know that I responded to your response on your RfC (on the talk page). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you removed the Frank Grimes thing as an example of disruption. My creating that user page article disrupts nothing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've commented (at much greater length than I intended) on the RfC. I hope my comments are helpful. I also think that this is a dispute to be moved on from and that for the two of you to interact in this manner indefinitely is not going to do anyone any good. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a dispute - InShaneee abused his authority, and if I have anything to say about it, he's going to get some form of punishment. Hell, the least he should get is a significant block - he violated some major, important policies. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Users - administrators or not - don't get blocked for making mistakes in judgment, and an RfC is not a vehicle for seeking any remedy other than comments from the community. As you will see from my extensive comment on the RfC, I believe this situation was badly mishandled, and I think the RfC comments reflect that others agree with that, but you are not going to impress anybody by running around screaming for vengeance, either. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not calling for "vengeance". Pretty much everything InShaneee did with the exception of one compromise after tons of admins got on his case were things that no admin should do. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is improvement of the situation going forward, which your RfC may help achieve, not obtaining "some form of punishment." The irony of your username notwithstanding, in this instance, we look to the future, not to the past. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well what am I supposed to think? He still believes what he did was okay, which isn't going to help with the future. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: What about the Frank Grimes' article on my user page violates any existing guideline or policy? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A reminder: I am still waiting for you to respond. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA. I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it. Again, thanks; └  / talk  13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't it's a computer popup that says " Save,Open or Cancel".Gamer322

im not trying to advertise

hello InShaneee i just made a first star online 2 wiki page and you deleted it due to advertisement. but i am not trying to advertise it. im just putting information of the game on wikipedia. like items and skills. so please reconsider not deleting my page. thanks :)

-mossman95

When creating articles about gyms...

How come you cannot create an article about a Ironworks Gym? I mean, Gold's Gym has an article and so does many other gyms. Ironworks gym was supposed to be an article arguing why private gyms are better than commercialized, corporate gyms. That was what the meat of the article was about, but you deleted it as advertisement.

User Shervink

Hello InShanee. Im having a problem with user shervink and i was hoping you could help. He has removing sourced content from the Mohammed Mossadegh page (please see the page history). I have given him four warnings at his talk page () but he keeps removing sourced content. He removed the texts "Mohammed Mossadegh was.. democratically elected" and "British and U.S. funded CIA coup" . He then backed away from removing the text "democratically elected" but instead changed "CIA coup" to plot and completely removed that the "coup was led by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr." and that it was "known as Operation Ajax". All of this has been referenced and i explicitly moved the references to right after the texts being deleted to make this clear (see this edit ). However this was removed again by shervink . This user has made this kind of edits before and they were discussed at the talk page here and here but he left the discussion by writing "'m tired of discussing obvious matters".

I hope this can be resolved quickly.. thanks --- Melca 14:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:

That's not an accusation though. He did use actual nazi literature(it's not an analogy), and the characterization of the literature as nazi literature was made by your colleague not me. I'll dig up the diffs if you want. --Eupator 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Colleague=another admin.

Read this: . That's about his source. This is where your colleague agrees that it was indeed nazi literature after I showed him the above link.. I think you owe me an apology, for calling this "trolling" especially when you once blocked me for calling someones edit "trolling". Ironic?--Eupator 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you implying that eugenics programs and racial classifications of the third reich were accurate? Of course i'm trying to smear it and every other racist junk that came ouf the third reich, so is everyone else!--Eupator 17:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine even though it's not like I called him a nazi, it was a valid and cited description of his source, but trolling? I mean come on, that's out of line.--Eupator 17:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's subjective. Even so, I haven't been "going around" or "running around" informing people of that fact. It was in that user's talk page relative to the conversation at hand (which was not initiated by me), in order to demonstrate the motivation behind the dispute.--Eupator 18:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Normally not, like one shouldn't go and say "Hey what is your motivation for making an article about X" etc, but if there is a clear pattern that points to something it should be exposed. For example isn't WP:POINT entirely based on a users motive? How do you know that someone violated WP:POINT? By showing his motivation for doing so no?--Eupator 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And I don't focus on an articles content? 90% of all my edits are on articles. There are other areas on Misplaced Pages besides articles. User space, mainspace, project space etc. Besides that last line could be interpreted as a veiled threat, so I wont ask any more questions.--Eupator 20:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record I have never used any NAZI propaganda. The images in question were published in 1911, long before anyone heard of the NAZIs, see here http://dienekes.angeltowns.net/pictures/asiaminor/ I posted a pictured in the Armeians article of an Armenian, the gang didn't like the picture, so I found photos from an academic scholarly work on the Antrhopology of people from Asia Minor. I have posted this information many times and Eupator knows it, why his edits claim this is a Nazi photo I have no idea.

He has also wikistalked me here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Countries_of_Europe#Outside_review and started spreading more personal attacks. When will this end?--Caligvla 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also see, http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Khoikhoi#User_Inshaneee --Caligvla 05:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Abuse

Dear InShanee, A new User:Large_Barge is declared himself as admin and member of arbitration commitee. He vandalise some users with temporary block tag. Please see;Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse. Regards Mustafa Akalp 20:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

first star online 2

Hello I was going to add to a page about first star online 2. When I reached the page it was blocked. The game is an online RPG and people could use a good guide. I was wondering if you could unblock it so I could add to it. Thanks.

-RedSoxRule

Invitation to WikiProject Paranormal

Thanks for the invitation. However, i think most people involved with Ufology would find me a bit of a party-pooper. My interest in Area 51 is for the military aircraft testing aspect only, not the ufo/illuminati/black helicopter-type of claims. Flabreque 04:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuck on the Beach

I rewrote this article here. If it meets your aproval I would like to have the original article unprotected.Seizurebot1011 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"perso-nazi"

Personal attack by User karcha, see here: He has also made similar comments elsewhere. He also criticizes the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam as Iranian and Islamic "propaganda". He wont even bother to read the Wiki articles on those to see what they actually are. He also says things like we shouldnt edit "Turkic related" articles at all. I am reporting his behavior to you.Khosrow II 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Perso-nazi is not a personal attack. It's only your real attitude.--Karcha 22:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop blanking comments that aren't vandalism.

It's pointless, incivil, and leads to conflict escalation rather than conflict resolution. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

He's just baiting me. He wants a war, and I've got better things to do. --InShaneee 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To quote you, "Focus on content, not the contributor." His questions were valid, and I believe he wants answers more than he does a "war". --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue was discussed repeatedly in the past, and I don't think his sudden appearance on the only CVG page on my watchlist was a coincidence. Whatever he wants, for the moment, I just want to get on with my own business. --InShaneee 23:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Savvy

You deleted entries for Savvy.com and Savvy Girls. How is it that this is not relevant, yet you have entries for Playboy, Playmates, etc.? Is this just arbitrary based on whether you have heard of something? Please help me to understand.

Please contribute to improve Misplaced Pages

Hi, user Tajik is systematically searching and changing Turkish related articles with wrong and unsourced informations. WikiArticles are not improving because of his/her wrongly editings. He/She is searching 'turk' or "turkic" words in an article and deleting or deforming sentence or changing with 'persian' word in a baseless way. And he generally makes this secretly. He/She is making these changes with 'minor edits'.
A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. By contrast, a major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors. Therefore, any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word.
However, Tajik's systematically minor editings hardly affects of articles. And he/she always uses this illegal method. Please have a look at his/her contributions;<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ferdowsi&diff=78165928&oldid=78165559<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Category:Ghaznavid_Empire&action=history<br|> http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hephthalite&action=history (Almost all of the minor editings by Tajik)<br|>

Actually, these are the ones that i could see. Please look at Contr. ;http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Tajik<br|> Secondly, if he/she is frustrated in editing he/she is inviting to article other wikipedians. What can be the evidence for teamworking else. He/she is not seeing wikipedia as an culture and information organization. He always deforms sourced turkic related articles and infos. He/she could has problems with other nations and races but is here true platform to solve his/her nation-based problems? Please help to improve Misplaced Pages...--Karcha 01:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

David Hartwig

Why did you delete the article about David Hartwig? He is Skidboot's owner. They have been on Oprah, Leno, Letterman, Pet Star, several news stories, etc. Jay Leno said, "Skidboot is the smartest dog I've ever seen." A video about Skidboot currently ranks number nine on Google Video. I think David and his dog qualify as notable enough for Misplaced Pages articles. I was about to contest the speedy deletion tagging, but by the time I clicked on "edit", the page was gone.

- JNeal 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Maps

The second one is for backup. ;-) Khoikhoi 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am reporting myself

Fad (ix) 03:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 04:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

71.162.66.250

A user you recently blocked has put in an unblock request, see here, thought you'd like to know. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of the article on Forocoches

I have just found that a few months ago you deleted the article on Spanish popular internet forum Forocoches, on the argument that it supposedly is "non-notable" (you added "on the English Misplaced Pages", which is not a valid argument because something is either notable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages or it is not, and notability cannot be dependent on the user/interface language/culture, because otherwise notable topics of non-anglophone culture would be left out of the English Misplaced Pages because they may seem "non-notable" to anglophones). Well, before making unsupported judgements about the "non-notability" of an internet forum, I think that at the very least one should have cared to first check some objective measure of how notable that forum actually is, rather than going by one's subjective impression or prejudice. One such measure you can find at the Big Boards database, which offers statistics for 1,797 internet forums worldwide. Among those, Forocoches currently ranks #38, being the largest Spanish and Spanish-language forum in the ranking (which alone would suffice to make it notable). As a reference, the hugely popular Slashdot ranks #36 in the list. Therefore, I hereby request the undeletion of Forocoches on the grounds of inappropriate reason for deletion. Uaxuctum 07:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Forocoches on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Forocoches. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Uaxuctum 20:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Paranormal

so, how do ya join da WikiProject Paranormal?Idon'texist 03:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Bubblebuster appealing block

Bubblebuster (talk ·  contribs) is appealing his block. When you block someone for sockpuppetry next time, please at least tag their user page or state who the puppeteer is in the block reason to save the time those who work CAT:RFU. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case

Some created a RFAr against you and didn't bother informing you of it. So I guess I am officially notifying you of it. semper fi — Moe 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the user and the case was reverted. semper fi — Moe 04:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Racist comments by User:NisarKand

Please take some time to have a look at this. Your opinion may help to solve the problem.

Thank you.

Tājik 22:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not know why our article keeps deleted.

Hi Gurch,

I have been added "Ozura Mobile" articles several times to Misplaced Pages. However, our site keep deleting by Misplaced Pages as stated that we did not cite all the sources. I am wondering what kind of information that we are compulsory to cite? Kindly let me know what can we do with it.

Thanks. Regards, Jessie

Use of "dumbly" in discussions

InShanee, you are right about the politeness, but I used the term "dumb" just to mean "without words". Maybe, used as an adverb, it has a stronger meaning than I think. --Cantalamessa 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Roswell

I find it difficult to work with someone who won't ever respond to the point of a statement I make. Non-sequiturs, strawman and ad hominem make my brain hurt. Canada Jack is the workhorse of that article anyway.

I'll stick around... but don't expect me to make much of a response to anything Moriori says. ---J.S (t|c) 00:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You've had your little bit of fun

InShanee, OK, how, how about we get on with editing Misplaced Pages. Every wikipedia editor has the right to edit any unprotected page, as I did when adding (someone else's) article to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal. You are incorrect where you stated the project "should only be edited by members" when you reverted my addition. There is no such Misplaced Pages policy. I advised you of this when restoring my addition by saying in the edit summary "Inshanee, please read Misplaced Pages policy, especially where it says "Misplaced Pages is a Wiki, which means that anyone can easily edit any unprotected page"." You have nonetheless reverted again which is a disruption of Misplaced Pages. Please don't do it again. Moriori 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well, you have chosen to revert again, meaning you have deliberately breached 3RR (1, 2 and 3), so I am blocking you from editing for 24 hours. I am amazed that you as an admin would consciously do this. As well as the 3RR violation you are making wild inaccurate claims that are not in the best interest of the Misplaced Pages community. It is not true, as you asserted, that a Wiki-project page "should only be edited by members". It is not true that I "don't have a 'right' to do anything here" as you say here. Policy gives me the right to edit any page in Misplaced Pages, and I for one reject your posturing where you say (we) "do not like non-members editing our spaces. Do not do it again". If you want to put your "non-member" assertion to the test, be my guest. In light of your current Rfc here, I would have thought you would have taken a lower profile. Moriori 08:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You need to revert 4 times to violate the 3rr. And it's fairly bad form to block someone your in a conflict with. In addition, you had no consensus to add that article to the list. (in fact, the very act of another editor removing it shows there is at least the doubt that there is consensus for it to be in place.) ---J.S (t|c) 08:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, your point on 3RR is taken, and I will (actually already have) obviously unblock him (as well as having been apporached by User:Gadfium). That aside, I fail to see how it can be "fairly bad form" to block someone who hides behind non existent Misplaced Pages policy. I don't care who or what InShanee thinks he is, I am working here for a better Misplaced Pages. You are advocating the same non existent policy as he is. I and other Misplaced Pages editors do not need consensus from you or InShaneee to add a newly created paranormal article to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal‎. And please, get real, the "another editor" you mention who removed it is InShanee. I am replacing Paranormal vision on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal‎. If anyone removes it they need to understand they will have to argue their case elsewhere. Moriori 08:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All _due_ respect intended, this... is a sad situation and shouldn't have ever happened. Moriori, admin tool usage in a personal conflict aside for a second, the proper course of action for any editor should have been to take the issue to the talk page, maybe revert one time if that.

Inshaneee, I don't know where you got the idea that only project members may contribute to a project's page, but please read WP:OWN, and indeed the section of WikiProject Paranormal where it says that not all articles need to be from project members. (And yes, I'm aware you coordinate WP:PARA. It's still a violation.) You also could have taken this to a talk page (Moriori's, the WikiProject's, whatever) rather than reverting another contributor in good standing who has given no sign that they are making anything but a good faith contribution.

Why on earth do a pair of admins need reminded of basic policy anyway? Not edit warring is something we teach people on their second day here, not 2 and 3 year Misplaced Pages veterans. --tjstrf talk 09:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)