Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tajik (talk | contribs) at 23:47, 18 November 2006 (→Thanks for your support!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Anonymous poster continuing to vandalize Depauw and Monon Bell

Unfortunately, the user is back under a different IP, http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.17.205.34. He's been making multiple edits to DePauw University and Monon Bell along the same lines that he had done under the other IP address. RPH 20:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks a lot! RPH 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, this guy isn't a very good advertisement for Wabash College. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=161.32.228.36 RPH 08:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Steel

Thankyou Steel for that. This guy is driving me insane. He is currently using sockpuppets and a dynamic IP to avoid a ne week block from Pschemp for using sockpuppets to file a spurious RfC against me. Thanks for seeing through the RFPP attempts (I just wish everyone did). Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your take on the Lifespring dispute

I find it odd that you consider Freely's deletion of multiply sourced paragraph to be a "good faith" edit. I note that the anon IP who made exactly the same edits has been blocked for nuisance vandalism. I did get a chuckle from your comment on Freely's talk page, suggesting s/he discuss the changes on the article talk page. While I admire your Utopian vision of how Wiki should work, I must say I find you naive. If this vandalism continues, my next step is to seek mediation. Jeffpw 18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• If the page was semi-protected, then no edits could occur by unregistered users, and (hopefully) a discussion would ensue on the talk page. I am not opposed to changes in the text; I just don't want people editing out entire paragraphs with FIVE sources listed, simply because they don't care for what is written (no matter how accurate it is). As things stand one anon IP and Freely (who I think are one and the same) are deleting to push a POV. I want to talk it out with them directly, and work together to make a good NPOV article. That can't happen without discussion.

One thing I don't understand: Freely has no user page. Does this mean they are not really registered? Jeffpw 19:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My photo

I don't mind losing when the nominator was doing it under good faith. I do mind when this is not the case. Kingjeff 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So, you're a lawyer now? Kingjeff 21:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, the photo was taken in Germany and uploaded in Canada. Kingjeff 21:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get over bad faith editing that well. Especially when it involves me. Kingjeff 21:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Locking off of the Deir Yassin Massacre page

Congratulations - you've caught this page at a point that is in a relatively acceptable condition.

I don't know how to advance this part of the project, the details of this business are fairly well known, the village was friendly, there was a massacre. I cannot understand why otherwise well-intentioned people keep trying to insert "battle" when the word "attack" is so much more a match. Some of these revisionist edits are still in there, but fairly well concealed.

PalestineRemembered 00:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't "catch" it anywhere... of course it was a battle from a an iraqi/syrian outpost and all this will be changed. Amoruso 12:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

why was the skill calculator deleted

the one in the MKDS board thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessmaster3 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC) (Arbitrary date added to ensure archival -- Steel)

David Westerfield

You have protected the Westerfield article at the request of “Fighting for Justice” due to edit warring between myself and him. This is a repeat of the situation in April, when Howcheng protected the same article, at the request of TripleH1976, due to edit warring between myself and him. Both TripleH1976 and “Fighting for Justice” are vandals who indulge in personal attacks - see the “Fighting for Justice” Talk page for proof. They could almost be twin brothers. (In fact I suspect that “Fighting for Justice” IS TripleH1976.) Yet in both cases it was the VANDAL’s version of the article that was protected in preference to mine. TripleH1976 was eventually indefinitely blocked, and rightly so. If there is any justice in this world, then “Fighting for Justice” will soon suffer the same well-deserved fate.

Let us compare his version of the Westerfield article, with mine. Basically, his version states that Westerfield possessed child porn. My version points out that, according to some members of Law Enforcement, it WASN’T child porn -.and I give supporting references. Although legally only a misdemeanor, this is an extremely serious charge in the public’s mind: people think it utterly disgusting and get highly emotional about it. In fairness to Westerfield (and the article IS a biography of a living person), and to comply with Misplaced Pages’s policy of neutrality, don’t you think this contrary - and expert - opinion should be included in the article?

To me, this is a no-brainer, and I can only assume that “Fighting for Justice” isn’t familiar with the impartiality required in academic work. Please firmly explain it to him.196.15.168.40 04:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The words, "some members" is considered weasel words around here. The article does not need more neutrality. It's got plenty of it. 196.15.168.40 is a vehement supporter of David Westerfield. He came to wikipedia on a crusade to defend him. I know this because: a. he does not edit any article besides the DW one. and b. for every negative thing against DW he has to counter with something positive. Misplaced Pages is like a court room to them. I don't know how well you know about this case Steel359. But let me tell you the evidence against Westerfield was overwhelming, all be it circumstantial, but still overwhelming.

You would have to believe in conspiracies and horrible bad luck to think he is innocent. The so-called "supporting references" from 196.15.168.40 are in fact defense spin. He deliberately abuses primary sources. He very rarely gives any secondary sources. His reference for the detective saying it wasn't child porn is flimsy at best. The transcript does not quote him, but we're told what he said through hearsay from the judge. Misplaced Pages policy is that primary sources must have a secondary source to interpret them. Well, 196's secondary source is himself. He likes to provide the commentary.

For example, he gives his own interpretation for discrepancies. He talks about the media; pointing out inconsistencies as if to justify his defense for David Westerfield.. Then to negate the powerful evidence of Westerfield's rape videos, he includes the fact that some still images were really innocent. And that his ex-girlfriend found nothing sexual about the images. All right, well, what does that have to do with the rape video? Are we to think rape videos are ok, so long as you own innocent looking still images? It is little things like these that 196 enjoys doing. As if the wikipedia article is his forum. But, now, onto this law enforcement guy. His statement should not be in the article, because it is BIASED. Now only that it is highly controversial, because Westerfield was convicted of child porn possession. The judge threw out the opinion and stated the jury would decide if it was child porn or not.

My version of the article simply affirms the jury's finding. It is not my imagination, it's a fact - the jury convicted him. 196 wants this ignored as much as possible. It never says it was the right verdict. That's what all wikipedia article should have to do. It is not wikipedia's duty to make it seem like the jury got it wrong. The article does not need anymore statements from either Detective Armstrong or the nameless U.S. Attorney. The transcripts you provide give no name to this Attorney, not only that there is a mountain of pages to go through if one would like to find his name. People don't have enough time for reading so many pages. Enough positive spin is included for his pornography. The article mentions that many of his photos were legitimate. The article is not a mouth piece for the defense. If you don't like the fact he was convicted then make him a website. Don't come to wikipedia and expect people to jump on your Westerfield is innocent bandwagon. 196's goal is to make the article the most positive article for Westerfield at any cost. He does not care if it requires twisting, spinning, misrepresenting, or adding frivolous information. The article is extremely fair to DW. I understand wikipedia's article have to be neutral. We kneed to strive for that, however, it does not require articles to reach perfect neutrality. Just how neutral do you have to reach for a biography on a death row inmate? They are not in prison for winning an outstanding citizenship award. As for me being TripleH, let me tell you, I am not him and I don't appreciate your accusations. ] 09:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reading all this. Keep your comments concise. -- Steel 11:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All right. I'm sorry. All you need to know is that 196.15.168.40 is an individual with a crusade. A crusade to change public opinion on David Westerfield. His edits are ALL in bad faith. And so long as he has access to edit in wikipedia the Westerfield article should remain protected. For he will alter it the first opportunity he gets. I hope that is concise. ] 17:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Fighting for Justice’s response:

This shows you what I’ve had to put up with for weeks. (MONTHS if you include TripleH1976.) Yet it’s very simple, really. Is there (authoritative, verifiable) contrary evidence? Yes, there is. Then it SHOULD be included in the article. Is this an important topic? Yes, it is. Then the contrary evidence MUST be included. End of story. (I‘m also not going to read all of his long diatribe against me. I used to patiently reply but it doesn’t do any good, I just get more of the same in return.)196.15.168.40 03:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No it does not. You have a terrible misconception about wikipedia then. Misplaced Pages isn't a court room. Go make David Westerfield a website, you'll do him much more of a favor with a website then being a disturbance on wikipedia. ] 04:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for un-semi-protecting the Dragonballz game page, I was having a hard time putting it on the list for pages that need unprotecting. It's such a long title and if you forget an uppercase letter the link breaks.Simondrake 16:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

EssjayBot III

I've set the bot up with the template you provided; please check this diff to be sure everything worked correctly. If you ever need to make any changes to the setup, please let me know on my talk page. And as always, thank you for shopping EssjayBot. ;) Essjay (Talk) 17:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Essjay)

For some reason it ignored the top section dated 29th October. -- Steel 17:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's odd; I'll ask Misza13 (the programmer) to offer an opinion on why. Essjay (Talk) 17:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd indeed - this may have something to do with the large amount of code preceeding the first message. Ping my talk if it happens again, and I'll have a closer look. Misza13 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Protecting

Thanks for protecting Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad, as it seems you think that it could helps article to better article. But have you read my comments below the request? Thanks. --Hossein.ir 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Kofun Period

The version of Room218 that repeats Revert without doing Talk is protected. Please return it to the state before Romm218 participates. And, please mediate to Room218 to participate in Talk. --ShinjukuXYZ 21:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC) The version that you protected is a personal edit of Room218. (As for it, a bold edit without the source is done. )Please look at the history. A lot of users have rejected the edit of Room218. (And, Room218 never participates in Talk. )--ShinjukuXYZ 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Steel, regarding your protection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one of the editors who was reverting posted what he thinks is another editor's real name in an edit summary. I therefore did an administrative delete of that edit, but the effect of that was also to delete your protection (I had to delete every version that had the edit summary in it, which meant every version after he had posted it, and that included the version you protected). I was going to redo the protection, but the deletion means it's now on a different version to the one you protected, and I don't want to mix up my reasons for the deletion with the content dispute. I'm therefore going to leave it to you to decide whether page protection is still needed. My apologies for the confusion. SlimVirgin 01:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

With that editor now community banned (and being one of the primary warring editors) , I'm not so sure that the protection is further needed. (→Netscott) 02:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

There' still some of this "history's greatest villain" stuff going on, but I tend to favor unprotected articles, so I'm fine with you unprotecting it again. Best, Gwernol 10:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. --SB_Johnny||_books 13:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Joseon Dynasty

Image:Korea-arms2.gif was deleted from commons for not having a source however I am unable to unlink it as per protection. I am deleting the image now and ask you to remove it from Joseon Dynasty infobox. --Cat out 13:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The lowly little janitor sends her thanks!

Hey Steel, thank you very much for keeping an eye on my talk page. My friend has posted that piece of trolling has about five times in the last couple of days...Hopefully he'll get bored soon. Thanks again for reverting; I really appreciate it. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian exodus

I know protected versions aren't endorsements of version but you still shouldn't have protected the version which blanked out so much sourced material IMO. Cheers. Amoruso 09:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You've done it again and I think it's wrong despite the "wrong version" policy. You can see here that User:Zero0000 deleted mass material which is sourced and provided no reasons for this except for one quote in the discussion page. I think something needs to be done as the protected versions for some reasons protect this obvious vandalism. It's not content dispute when he doesn't explain why. Amoruso 12:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to self

Template:Philosophy navigation. -- Sock of Steel 13:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for help/advice

Hi - maybe you can help me. I've been working on Rodney Mullen to cleanup various POV issues and uncited material. You can see on the talk page Talk:Rodney Mullen where I raise various issues. Recently another user has been reverting back to a far older edit that he made. You can see on his user page: User talk:72.177.206.131 where I raise some issues of POV. My question is, how should I proceed? The older version is heavily POV and that's why I edited in the first place, but I don't want to start an edit war. Thanks in advance. Steve-g 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Steve-g 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I think it's this version just before I cleaned it up: ]. Although the user isn't signing in, I think he used to be User:Nominay. Steve-g 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I managed to get the user onto the talk page, although it wasn't construcive: Talk:Rodney Mullen Steve-g 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Block on The End (A Series of Unfortunate Events)

Thank you for protecting it from editing. The other editor and I had different ideas on how to seperate the page and were very stubborn. When we tried to discuss it, we didn't listen to each other or try to compromise. The protection will let someone else decide. Thank you. Clamster5 00:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused about your response. Since the page is blocked from editing, an actual decision about the formatting will have to be reached before it can be editing it again. Clamster5 00:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to get a concencus? At this point, I'm very against working with this editor. Clamster5 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A concencus on the talk page from other editors, especially those involved with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events. I posted the beginnings of a discussion there, but I am not going to take part in it and I'm asking the other user to do the same. Clamster5 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ingria

Thanks! :D Khoikhoi 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Request to unprotect

May u please unprotect this page S. Jithesh and allow to recreate the article with more references and sources...? Nileena joseph  17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But a second Afd was like this.Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/S. Jithesh (2nd nomination) The first article was created by someone without proper references or sources. Nileena joseph  17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. Thanks in advance. --Mardavich 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for protecting the pages Seljuqs, Khwarezm Shahs, etc. Please also protect the pages Babur and Timurid dynasty, until the problems are solved. Thanks! Tājik 21:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kofun Period

Please release protecting in the Kofun Period. It is a Korea version that you protects. (The root in Japan is Korea. )　The South Korea version doesn't have the source. And, they are running away from the discussion. Please release protecting that insults Japan early. 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (Note: This message was unsigned. An arbitrary date has been added to ensure archival)

An injustice

Thanks for ur reply and advice. The matter is discusssed in the talk pageTalk:S. Jithesh of the deleted article by Kerala wikipedians. The deletion was against the opinion of all native wikipedians.Please have a look..? Nileena joseph  03:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help... over the past few weeks or so, I've had to ask for semi-protection for a series of astronomy-related pages that seem to continually bring out streams of trolls and vandals. It is somewhat disconcerting to have to restrict editing in any form, but in the case of those articles it has really helped to reduce the "noise" so that editors can focus on improving the content. Cheers! --Ckatz_spy 03:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for seeing to the Schizophrenia article. I will leave you a message if problems persist. Regards. --Muchness 05:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:209.80.152.109

Only 48 hours? It's the third blockade, after many warnings. Xx236 15:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese pretender

In the page Hilda Toledano why you protect this page in favour of a vandal ( user:195.93.21.41 ) that continue to libel this pretender as "impostor pretender" ??? Please if you want insert this category in this article put here the impartial source of this your affirmation, at the contrary this is only a personal point of view of this vandal and a libel and in this encyclopedia has no value. Jackind 15:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This anon user and the registered name he is signing as are sockpuppets of a banned vandal named Manuel de Sousa. Charles 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Babur Protection

You recently protected the page Babur, but I can't find the RFP on the WP:RfP page. I do note that you posted a comment to User:Tajik about this protection, where it seems that you protected it in response to a request from him, although you also advise him to go through channels regarding another page he requests be protected. I appreciate that you advised him to go through normal processes on the other edit, however, I don't agree with protecting his edits, as he has clearly indicated in his discussion on the Babur talk page, and on other talk pages, such as the one for , that he is unwilling to discuss the issue in a civil manner with other editors. If he continues to act uncivil, this will result in his essentially getting his edits protected. I am concerned that this user engages in edit wars, then requests his edits to be protected, without going through the RfP process, then essentially locks in his edits by his refusal to engage in civil discussions. I would simply like you and other administrators to become aware of this situation. Thank you, KP Botany 18:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with KP, Steel. I noticed you have protected several pages that Tajik and E104421 have been revert-warring on. Instead of protecting articles they get in arguements over, I suggest you try to talk to them individually and remind them of WP:AGF, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. I urge you to unprotect the articles in which they are the only two revert warriors, and then post a message urging them strongly to cease revert warring and engage in civil debate. If they persist in acting in the disruptive manner they have clearly been acting, perhaps an enforced cool-down period in the form of a block is in order. Let me remind you that you have protected Babur, Timurid Dynasty, Seljuq dynasty, Mughal Empire, Khwarezmian Empire, Template:Turkish History Brief, among several others. -- tariqabjotu 19:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You definitely make a good point, but the six articles you linked to had more than just E104421 and Tajik edit warring on them. Can you link me to one where it was just those two edit warring? -- Steel 19:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that Babur was really just an edit war between those two. Regardless, perhaps a request for mediation is in order to try to organize all the parties involved in this together. Since the Mediation Committee is really tied up at the moment, maybe a couple neutral parties could try to resolve the dispute. -- tariqabjotu 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to pester you, but why was Template:History of Iran protected? -- tariqabjotu 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Timurid dynasty

Hello, you protected that page. I just wanted to let you know that certain users are trying to insert racial templates into several articles. Racial templates, such as the history of Turks which is currently on that Timurid page, are inaccurate and misleading. First of, different Turkic peoples have completely different histories. For example, the Huns had nothing to do with the Timurids. Secondly, grouping a bunch of people like that is also inaccurate, as the Huns were by minority Turkic, and the Mughals were mixed. National templates, such as the history of Russia or the history of Iran templates, are not racial, and are about different historical periods within a nation. This attempt to make a racial template is unacceptable, what if there was a History of Aryans template? Please remove that template from the protected page.Khosrow II 23:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version. -- Steel 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the article m:The Wrong Version and its comment, "There are no reports of a sysop ever having protected the 'right' version." Any time my version of a page has been protected it has always been the 'right' version. This will always be true. KP Botany 01:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As usual, many thanks

Thanks again Steele, for the vandal revert on my user page. Best as always, Gwernol 00:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you block American Football

This page is not that big and needs to be edited (Out Of Date) please tell me on my talk page Cocoaguy 03:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

! , for in , which passed with a final tally of . I plan to and . If you or want to provide any , feel free to .

Because people often complain that RfA thank-you messages are impersonal, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to create your own. -- tariqabjotu 03:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

AIV

Hello. Could you take a look at this, please, and tell me why I shouldn't have reported them straight after the blatant warning was given. I thought that was the whole point of the blatant warning? Not being funny, just trying to get things straight. :) Cheers. Bubba hotep 15:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave the bv after the attack to my user page. But the point is, I could have given tests 2-4 prior to this and my userpage would have been the one after the final warning. From what I can reason, giving a blatant vandal warning means just that - they should be reported whether or not they vandalise after? Maybe I'm wrong. Just seems a bit strange. I'm trying to stop these people doing damage and it gets taken off AIV. Bubba hotep 16:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I'll bother in future. Or I'll go through the pointless rigmarole of issuing tests 2-4. Thanks for the clarification. Bubba hotep 16:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ramapough Mountain Indians

Thank you for controlling the editing on this page. This will now either force them to discuss and/or stop them from continuing their spread of lies. Ramapoughnative1 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Neofascism Article

It was protected at version x, then unprotected, then reportected at version y. Please revert back to the version x prior to the recent edit war. It was protected because of contentious edits regarding Israel pending mediation. They were all taken out in the brief window of unprotection. Supposedly it was unprotected because of inactivity of mediation. We have all been patiently waiting for a mediator to show up. In light of Avigodor Lieberman's inclusion in the Israeli cabinet it is just ridiculous for every country in the middle east to be listed as neofascist except for Israel.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FULL, m:The Wrong Version. -- Steel 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My block ...

It's interesting that in Misplaced Pages, certain people - like User:NisarKand - are allowed to insult an entire nationality by calling them "rats", while others like me are blocked because of criticizing knwon POV-pushers (like E104421). Just take a look at the talk pages of Hephthalites as well as Babur and Timurids. It's not me who is insulting an entire nationality, it is not me who is insulting leading scholars, and it is not me who is pushing for unsourced POV. Yet, out of all, you had to block me, while NisarKand is still editing pages, and while User:Karcha and E104421 continue their agenda. That's really sad.

Tājik 01:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the all seeing eyes of God. If others are making personal attacks, feel free to point them out. -- Steel 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:E104421 and User:Karcha

Are you sure these two users are sockpuppets of each other? I know E104421's contributions reasonably well and he always seems to be a holder of a moderate Pro-Turkish POV who always played by the rules. I do not know Karcha well but he looks like a bearer of much stronger Turkish POV. They look to me like distinctively different personalities and I would be surprised if they are just the multiple accounts of the same person. Obviously as bearers of the same POV they are often on the same side in editorial conflicts. Both have a reasonable amount of edits for new users (Karcha - 227 since October; E104421 - 1100 since August).

What evidence do you have to suggest they are the same people? I have noticed that you have pasted SockpuppetCheckUser template on the Karcha's user page but I failed to find any checkuser requests for these users. Alex Bakharev 03:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. E104421 maintain that they are two different people on the same campus. I suggested him to Email directly to Dmcdevit. Dmc has the Checkuser facilities and we do not Alex Bakharev 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Shamir1

Hi, for your information I have complained about User:Shamir1 at WP:ANI#Violation of good faith by user Shamir1 concerning his recent page protection stunt that involved you. Cheers. --Zero 05:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign

Hi,

How are you?

I am proposing that the following article: Release Lillywhite Recordings Campaign be deleted. There is no proof that this campaign led to the recording of Busted Stuff, or was acknowledged by the DMB or RCA people. While the campaign was mentioned in Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly, I don't think that is grounds enough to have a separate article. Please comment on the Talk page. Thanks. Milchama 17:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ian Pitchford was unblocked for Palestine

and it won't help because others are there too battling it. I think you should re-consider. Thanks. Amoruso 21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Misplaced Pages Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 22:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Misplaced Pages as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again for your kind words, I hope I won't disappoint you! ReyBrujo 22:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

POV template

Sorry for bothering you once again, but please take some time to look at this: Tājik 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)