Archive-01 • Archive-02 • Archive-03 • Archive-04 • Archive-05
Hi Scott, This is Mystìc here, I've been blocked as a sockpuppet account of user:Lahiru_k, you've known me and you know for sure that my account is not a sockpuppet account. Please help me please.. 222.165.157.129 08:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I got it. It was the easy case, and seemed pretty straightforward. Please let me know if you find anything went wrong. Tom Harrison Talk 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Netscott,
Could you please have a look at this [1] --Aminz 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for moving that. --Aminz 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Their accusations is getting more and more annoying.
Can I open an RfC over the article rather than over particular editors? --Aminz 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I want to have 3 comment on users but all together, since they are related. I don't think I can do that. Can I? --Aminz 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I did. I didn't notice that. Thanks --Aminz 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Thanks. I'll start doing that. I need to gather the diffs. etc. etc. --Aminz 22:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
...is up at MfD. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NRen2k5. Thought you'd like to know. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You have NO right to post my ISP on MY userpage. It is totally unprovoked intimidation and probably illegal. You will be reported to Wiki Adminis immediately. Actions have consequences and you shall face them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.115.155 (talk • contribs)
The article Indian Caste System is doing injustice against all other religions becaue Hindus have a strong Caste system based on religion. In India Islam is polluted by Hindus who converted to Islam but carried their Hindu Caste. But there is major difference between the two religions. Islam and our Holy Bokks do not support Caste System. Hindu Religion and its texts preached caste system. So we need to separate the Indian Caste System according to religions.Iqbal123 19:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the basis for characterizing this as votestack spamming? In fact, I had already voted on the matter in question, but I don't see how anyone who didn't know me intimately could predict how I would have voted on this. Are you sure that this person was accessing only those he or she believed would be on one side of the issue? - Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't need you as my personal spam guard on my talk page, thankyou, and prefer to evaluate vote requests on a case-by-case basis. -- Kendrick7talk 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove postings from my talk page. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It is considered vandalism to do so. If you have something to say add it, don't delete what other people have written just because you disagree with it. Carlossuarez46 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Your updated version ((Tnavbar-header2)) actually looks like it fixed a bug in IE6 of ((Tnavbar-header)) -- I'm sure having to do with IE6's busted box model... :) Just never noticed since I primarily use FF. At work so only able to test with IE6 and FF2, but each example looks great right now with those browsers. // Laughing Man 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
... but am beginning to see the need for it. We haven't met before, I believe, but you might be interested in this and this. At least, I do hope you are. Hornplease 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi again NetScott,
I knew of ((Nobr)) but must've forgotten about it... so, I've now moved ((Nobr)) (and docs) to ((Nowrap)); hope Nobr's originator User:CesarB doesn't mind (have left him a pointer to here). Thanks for spotting, David Kernow (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
(copied) You must have User:Oblivious's talk page watchlisted or been tracking my edits... you didn't hesitate to jump on Template:V. LOL! Very nice... :-))) (→Netscott) 02:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Netscott, I tired to put this template into ((Fluid)) but I got one to many "Template:" text. In this version I had:
((view|talk|edit|template=((((PAGENAME))/Comments))))
but it just appeared as
[[Template:Template:Fluid dynamics/Comments|view]] • [[Template talk:Template:Fluid dynamics/Comments|talk]] • [((fullurl:Template:Template:Fluid dynamics/Comments|action=edit)) edit]
on this page. Not sure if using ((PAGENAME)) works. Any ideas? Rex the first talk | contribs 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hoyla. I just got a message about your wonderful "clarification image" - it needs some more info for copyright purposes. Since the picture is yours, could you go and claim it as your own? This should clear things up nicely.
Thanks, and take care,
THEPROMENADER 17:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. This was certainly needed by many and will give them the flexibility. I'll contribute to the template :) Nice work --Oblivious 20:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems good. I was thinking of filing conduct RfC; but "systematic bias" is another option. The problem is that these editors does not always remain civil. Some of them are also very inclined to edit-war. Not sure if "systematic bias" is precisely what we need. But on the other hand, I can find reliable sources explaining the roots of this bias.
I am still away from my hometown and can not be very active in wikipedia.
Cheers, --Aminz 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to see if you're still around editing the same article. Cheers. 128.122.253.196 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I find it difficult to appreciate that hiding away template parameters in other templates is "facilitating access". It also means watching two pagesinstead of one. But, while I don't think this is a great idea, I don't actively oppose it either (I imagine it was discussed on some ethnic group wikiproject?) dab (ᛏ) 10:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've made a lot of articles with the
syntax. I much prefer the contemporary reference notation we have (not because of the notation itself, but because it looks better at the bottom), but the whole convention is pretty opaque to me (it seems hard to use). If there's a way to convert these, I'd love to hear it. Thanks, ... aa:talk 01:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This issue has been known for a while, but I don't think anything will be done anytime soon. Probably best to work around it. That means either
In your case the template looks like it might be single-use. If so, couldn't you just put it into the article? Gimmetrow 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I have emailed you personally regarding the issue. I'm not sure if you received it or not. MetsFan76 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've responded on my talk page. you can reply there if you feel the need to. Taxico 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
per the use of yet another IP i have reported him on WP:ANI here. if you have any additional information available or any other contribution, please do participate. ITAQALLAH 18:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Netscott.....I had no clue where to post that but people need to hear about this one. I almost fell off my chair laughing. MetsFan76 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Netscott,
Please see my post to the "new antisemitism" talk page. Thanks --Aminz 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If my diatribes come across as "well balanced" compared to the other editors on the talk page, that is not a good sign. :) I'm a little too close to this one right now. I'm thinking I should take a look at it in a day or so, and if it's still nuts, maybe we could ask an admin to take a look. They won't jump right into content disputes, but one can go through an "arbitration" process to try to settle points of fact and other disputes. They can also take action against vandals, but I'm not sure this one quite qualifies, unless he's focused solely on this article. If that's the case, that fact could also be brought to an admin's attention. Wahkeenah 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. I am glad for all your edits and how you've been keeping a close eye trying to maintain the quality on the page by the way. I myself am already spending way more time on that article then I'd like to, but it seems as if everytime I check there's some sort of POV-pushing (from the anti-richards camp in the beginning, then of course primarily one pro-Richards user right now) or crazy edit that degrades the article more than it helps. It drives one nuts because I want to assume good faith and I do think the individual actually thinks he's contributing, but for whatever reason just don't get (or refuse to accept) what they're doing is inappropriate... It's good to see there're several others editors who share the same neutral fact-based perspective. Tendancer 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand fully what that red-linked user "Bus stop" is getting at, but the problem is he insists that his own uncited viewpoint is sufficient. It's a never-ending loop, which is why I think it's a game he's playing, more than anything else. Aside from reverting any attempts to re-post the "laughter" stuff (for which you can request a block from an admin if it comes to that), I think the best response at this point is "stony silence". If no one answers his lengthy and repetitive essays, he'll get bored and move on. That doesn't always work, but often it does. Wahkeenah 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
From the significant to the silly. I don't know French at all. Would I be safe in translating the expression "Tenez Les Cartes" as "Hold the Cards"? This is what they called the game in the latest James Bond film, which actually appears to be a brand of poker called "Texas Hold 'Em". Wahkeenah 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I read the three revert rule I was referred to, you said you agree with my assessment why don't you revert the page to reflect my edits or what is you opinion on this. Do you feel I'm in the wrong here?
I'm fairly new to making anything but minor typo edits to wikipedia and hope to stick around to make some real contributions but I don't want to get in trouble over this nonsense. Arch NME 05:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Scott. I just thought that the IP is being used by innocent people but i'll do next time as we got no other option. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My guess would be that he is talking about you because his description of your comments matches. BhaiSaab talk 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your logic makes sense. But, I would have a problem with the deletion of his article for these reasons:
That is quite a good suggestion. The only thing I'm worried about is that I might not even be here by that time, but I will follow your advice. BhaiSaab talk 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I just also found that Naik is the author of at least five books. I'm surprised that isn't mentioned in the article. BhaiSaab talk 05:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I will take that as a compliment. Yes I followed that. :D BhaiSaab talk 05:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Karl accused me of following CltFn to five articles...yet Karl just followed me to about 20 articles. BhaiSaab talk 12:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I forgot to add the banner. Thanks for catching that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Scott,
Noticed the recent addition-removal and suddenly realized some protection seemed appropriate; in case anyone does feel someone else should've protected the template, I'll ask someone else to pay a visit to confirm or unprotect. Yours, David (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it not AFD convention to put the vote results at the top of the page when the discussion is closed? If so then please restore the results that I added.--CltFn 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I am aware that I have made 3 reverts. Jayjg argued that Stillman's quote doesn't refer to antisemitism because new-antisemitism started 6 years ago among Muslims. That's a pretty informative comment. I really didn't know that. I am not edit warring. Slimvirgin said that there was a confusion otherwise I wouldn't have added it again.--Aminz 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Why? Do you think the comment was not true? It might be at least true according to some scholars. I am waiting for Jayjg's sources. But sure, I will not add it again before consensus has achieved. --Aminz 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, but there are people who are not really interested in reasoning. There are people who write things against the consensus of academic scholars. I am not saying they should be silenced but that's a pretty good term. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --Aminz 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Peace to you Netscott --
This Washington Post article suggests he had a connection in the early 1980s with a group called the "Church of Israel," seemingly a racist strain of Christian practice that served as a stepping stone to Christian Identity. He was, of course, eventually to become a "lone wolf," which means acting alone and practicing plausible denials if caught... peace out, BYT 03:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop reverting good faith edits on the Fallout and Fallout 2 articles. You are undermining the values of Wikipedia. Go revert some vandalism and stop wasting time. Air of reality 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverting good faith edits and undermining the values of Wikipedia based on the ability of users to edit pages and improve them. You have spent many hours wasting your time trying to revert my efforts when all I have wanted to do is improve wikipedia, and this all stemmed from the evidence that I "vandalized" the Michael Richards article, when I really wasn't. And by the way, Mactabbed and Maior aren't the same person. Nice try though. Ad hominem2 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
why did you revert my edit on the 12 angry men page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Muck Raker (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Why do you keep making pointless reverts on 12 Angry Men? It isn't vandalism. Are you reverting it *just* because you don't want anon's running around editing some pages? That's not making a lot of sense; are you really doing _any_ good by making insignificant reverts that are justifiable? Are you aware of what you're doing? Are you going to draw a line before this turns into a witch hunt, or are you going to keep this up?
Oh, yeah. Block me if you'd please; I'm not a sock puppet (nope! not Mactabbed! sorry, different person here, not your regular ip switch). I appreciate your comments on my willingness to participate (Michael Richards); I'm not a Wikipedia junkie, but I can write a decent response. I certainly don't appreciate how you assume an articulate response on a debated subject is a sockpuppet; there's this thing called 'innocence' that comes into play... TechJon 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you revert dozens of edits made to this page and why did you have it protected? I just watch the movie and want to update the plot summary, but I find that I am blocked from editting because my account isn't 4 days old? Why does the page, which is practically a stub, need to be protected? And why did you revert the edits made which expanded the plot summary? Rand Integer 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
How many hours a day do you spend on wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.114.66.92 (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Ad hominem2 was a sock of who? TYou provided a link at some point in that spree, but I lost it. ViridaeTalk 23:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for addoing the sprotected templates, I was wrting a notice at WP:ANI. ViridaeTalk 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going out. Wont respond for a while. ViridaeTalk 04:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have observed that there is a constant effort to introduce comporable language, using any contextual excuse, one consequence of which is to create very awkward English so as to preserve the "Islamic" meaning. The motive, so far as I can discern, is superstitious and existential: that to praise the prophet Muhammad, ideally while others are watching, is in itself to obtain rewards spiritual or in the afterlife. The proof that this is intended is found in the edit warring to preserve otherwise inexplicable strings of text, such as the one at issue. I am thusly inclined to eliminate any language which might reasonably be suspected as having been influenced or motivated by this trend.Proabivouac 10:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
See you in a year or so Mr. Stevenson, maybe. :) BhaiSaab talk 16:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Protected your user page. Looks like aeropagitica blocked the IP address. Let me know when you want the protection lifted. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you indef. Eclipse0468 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well? Ordinarily I'd ask User:Pschemp to do so as she's a bit more familiar with this user's pattern of behavior but I've been keeping her busy. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Now, done and tagged as a sock. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you please answer my one question? If there are total 100 people around and 80 out of them want to see the naked sisters of remaining 20. Will you show them? Where does this voting issue come about showing cartoons of Jyllands Posten? You are doing that same thing for which Jyllands Posten is being convicted by Muslims. Are you really fair? and why are you linking the cartoons to their huge hight resolution size? VirtualEye 18:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that page was something different--not anti-Islam. Sefringle is pretty new so I don't know what's going on--I haven't seen enough of his editing. My main interest is to keep this at least somewhat academic. By thinking 'criticism of Islam' sections don't belong doesn't necessarily mean I have any interest in not making Islam look bad. In fact, I think to represent any pre-modern religion it _is_ going to look bad in many respects. Modernity has given us a morality with values that differ greatly from the past. It has been a part of Islamic jurisprudence that you could have sex with slave girls you captured in battle. When that is reported it's going to look bad--that's how things go because we're judging the past based on our new morality. I think there is a tendency to make Islam look bad--and I'm not fully sure to what extent it's warranted. I know basic Catholic teaching so I will use my example as compared to Catholicism. In the middle ages Catholic teaching was pretty... interesting... in some ways. However, you get to the late 19th / mid 20th centuries and you get massive institutional reform. Rerum Novarum, Second Vatican Counsil--these were unambiguous moves into a new theology. They were also more theological than legal. Now, in Islam you have a much more legal framework. The rulings that get passed around are mostly fiqh rulings--and sometimes they get into awfully specific subjects. There also hasn't been such a break from the past as with Catholicism. My point is that the values of modernity came out of a Christian history. I mean--it's a really odd and complex relationship between the two... but, it's almost natural that the colonized people are going to develop an alternate morality... and most Muslim countries were colonized. So, in short: yes, we do have a problem with trying to make Islam look bad... but I think some Muslim (here and in general) do try to obfuscate--or feel a tension in some things that their co-religionists believe and preach. It's very hard and I do try to deal with these things neutrally... but I think some Muslim editors here see neutrality is making Islam look just as good as Christianity. Do you understand what I'm saying? and... do you agree that this may be the case? Or, do you just think I hate Muslims now :) In any case, I think these are serious issues that are very hard to judge... but, there are plenty of obviously non-neutral things that we should work on correcting. gren グレン 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism. KazakhPol 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making the Jesuit Secondary Education Association template pretty again. We couldn't seem to get it right. Eclectek C T 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for handling User:Everythin' But A Good Time. I've indef blocked him and deleted the redirects. Canderson7 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just going over the history of Template:911tm today, and I noticed that I mistakenly overwrote your changes to the template. I remember now wondering how the  's got in there, and I assumed that it was wiki formatting thing. Anyway I was looking at the history today because of a comment I received from Special:Contributions/67.180.110.244 where he claimed that he tried helping with the template. While I was trying to figure out where he tried to contribute (it looks as if he didn't), I noticed that I seem to have stepped right over your work. I'm sorry. Please come back when you have the time and help with the template. This template is being removed over and over again from the pages referenced in it by users claiming anything from "glaring" to improper content. I believe that a good navigation template adds value to the category that it was made for. Thanks again for helping with the template, and I'm sorry I messed with your contribution without noticing it. Umeboshi 19:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Netscott,
I have eventually decided to open us an RfC for User:Beit Or, User:Humus sapiens and User:Jayjg. I have just started the page here [3]. Feel free to edit it. Here was my last try [4]. Like everybody else, I value my time and don't want to waste it. RfC takes time but it is just once.
Cheers, Aminz.--Aminz 09:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Scott,
Re here, I guess I'm just too irked by the wasted space (and squeezed headings) in instances such as here. This, however, seems to work; what do you think...? (I can't figure out the code to remove those cell borders, though...) Yours, David Kernow (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Does it really matter if you think I'm a sock? I haven't vandalizsed, so just let me edit and improve wikipedia and peace. You are no longer trying to improvement wikipedia by getting a vandal banned, you are only trying to follow out a personal vendetta with no constructive benefits. Also, I will only continue to come back and edit wikipedia in a constructive manner again, so you're wasting your time. Made of people 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Can you please have a look at Banu Qurayza article? We are having problem with representation of sources. I presented relevant quotes from Caesar E. Farah and John Esposito. The first one is trivialized by comments like "this comment is made without any reference" and second comment was taken completely. How can we solve this problem! Any idea? Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 12:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello!
Regarding any problems with the article on Michael Richards it would be best if controversial edits can be discussed on the talk page first. Otherwise the page might end up being protected.
Sincerely, --Oden 11:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Szvest, could you block Abc3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Peruse this user's contibutions and you'll find that it is just a sock of User:DAde. Note the Qu'ran quotes and interest in Mormon topics. Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Szvest for the block of User:DAde's sockpuppet above. Got another request. Could you sprotect Michael Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There's an anonymous IP-hopping user that has been violating 3RR across several editors and tagging his edits as "rvv" while reverting to a lower quality / less sourced/cited POV pushing version of the article. I've requested semi protection but the response to my request appears to be a bit slow. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why would historian be a misnomer?? Not only is the use referenced but she meets the test for historian is most definitions. If she is not a historian then neither are Ibn Khaldun and countless other people deemed to be historians who had no advanced academic credentials in history beyond their own chronicles of events.--CltFn 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
re: In modern day usage the term historian is primarily used in academia. It is not neutral to refer to her as a "historian". (→Netscott) 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
re: You've got no consesus for your highly non-neutral utilization of that term for her. You can be sure that not only will I be reverting such wording but others will as well. (→Netscott) 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am very suspicious that 81.182.xxx.xxx, the anon user responsible for controversial edits and 3RR violations to the Michael Richards page is non other than User:Kgeza67. Almost the minute the article was semi-protected, Kgeza67 returned and began performing very similar edits to the anon user. Circumstantial evidence seems to support my suspicion. Is this enough reason for me to bring this to the attention of the admins who monitor Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Over here in Talk:Reforms under Islam (610-661) you said that "the word reformation doesn't mean inherently good.. there can be reforms that are bad as well " - you are completely wrong and I'm suspicious of your nuetrality by the confidence you said this. Reform is a positive word. See the dictionary here: "To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition.". More meanings here. I'm raising the issue again that the title of this article is POV. It puts a positive slant for Islam. If thats allowed then we should also allow "Bad stuff done under Islam". I dont think POV titles are allowed and I believe its the title of this article which is the root cause of its edit conflicts and I have talked about this in the Talk page at the bottom. In any case, the title should be nuetral and this one is clearly not.--Matt57 16:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes i will avoid making any more edits because i got blocked before due to tag team editing --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
He is know for being humble and not a capitalist, he is know for sincerity, he is a poor man, walks with the people and lives like the people, no pomp and glory, very simple person he is also loved for his stance on womens rights, most are not happy with the anti-Israeli thing because even if we dont like israel the statement is seriously poor from every angle. anyone who advocates killing innocent people jew or not is a problem.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
it is not correct, the problem with the world, is that news media is controlled by Mr X, who is not Muslim, isnt Arab, isnt African, isnt non-European, people report things of interest to them, We talk about World WAr, COlumbus discovered, the first European to... this is the legacy of imbalance. If it isnt on CNN and BBC it doesnt exist, in the COngo millions dead, but the news is on one mans statement. Our news and our people know about him outside of this, actually in Ethiopia if you asked about him no one knows about Israel they would say "ohh that guy that dresses like a normal person" he is known for his being for his people living like his people, have you ever seen where he lives? where his children go to school? even in poor ethiopia we dont have any politician as poor as him.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Africa is 800 Million, India is 1 billion, china is even more, i dont think he is know by the majority of people in the world for being antisemitic, most people wouldnt know him, media has made him know in the west for one reason. the power of minority lobbying groups to dominant world events. and in Nigeria he is know for the same thing. 1.5 billion Muslims dont know him for that. The point is either way we cannot make these statements "he is most know for.."--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
An editor has expressed to me in email their displeasure at your reverting of their edit.[6]
I understand that indefinitely blocked editors have their editing privileges revoked, and have absolutely no problem with that. But in looking over the removed copy (note: with no knowledge of whether this is part of another situation), it seems to be a moderately worthwhile addition to the article.
*shrug* I'm not sure what proper protocol is in this situation, but I thought I'd at least drop you a line, if for no other reason than to get both sides of the story. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Szvest, re-reading G4 apparently the spiting is permitted (per the userpage clause) however I'm thinking that G4 should be updated to disallow the usage of one's primary user page for recreation of deleted content. This reminds me of User:List of marijuana slang terms which was created to display this deleted content. (→Netscott) 14:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Please note that transcluded signatures such as yours are explicitly banned per WP:SIG. If you consent, I will use AWB to subst: all of your signatures this evening. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you make that request. Do you deny that the page is accurate? If so, please tell us where. If not, why do you object to stating that the page is accurate? >Radiant< 17:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been monitoring that category, so I wouldn't know what problems it has. I would not be too surprised if it suffers from the same constant POV-pushing. — coelacan talk — 02:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Netscott,
Happy New Year!!
As you know an RfC was recently filed on Anti-Semitism related articles which I believe shows the very existence of some dispute in that article if not that which party is right. Some editors are now disputing "the very existence of a dispute" on the Antisemitism article. Would you please have at the evidence provided here [7] and see if that testifies existence of at least some dispute over the neutrality of the article. Please sign your name if the evidences prove the existance of some sort of dispute over the neutrality. --Aminz 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have nominated Template:Current subject at WP:TFD to spur some discussion, since you created the template I figure you'd want to participate. Thanks. --W.marsh 15:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netscott, I liked your science contributions on the Levitron entry - however there are some posters insisting on trashing the article and turning it into a soap box. I posted my thoughts in the discussion area there. It's just one article, but it happens to be one of the many emailed to me by colleagues critical of Wikipedia accuracy. It's probably not your highest priority, but you are a highly regarded WP editor and perhaps your voice of reason will allow this article to remain junk free. TgSTheGreatScott 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netscott, I am getting more and more confused as all this is developing. Yesterday, a new member of WP Films got blocked for sockpuppetry. I was just doing Films gnoming work (adding infoboxes and such), as I noticed that Fistful of Questions had sorted wrong the list of films in 1948 in film. I dropped by to let him know I disagree just as he was being blocked. So he appealed for help. I had a look at Buttocks and, amused at the whole issue, I thought it must have been a misunderstanding. So I urged our young films admin Cbrown1023 to clear him. I am far from being a good sleuth, didn't look very deep into it, didn't see any admin markings on your page, but one way or the other I shouldn't have reacted as I did. I have apologized to all concerned for it and I apologize to you too. Whoever the user behind Fistful of Questions is, keeps emailing me that it's all a misunderstanding, appeals for help and insists he is innocent of sockpuppetry. I don't answer because I'm not sure what's going on. He also mentioned your reverting his edits in Somebody Up There Likes Me (film), so I checked and I am now more confused than ever. Ok, the flagicon and precise date of release in the infobox are not of my fancy, but it's usual practice for many Films members. The English language, however should be given. "Extenal links" is a section all film articles should have, as the IMDb link in the infobox shouldn't replace this section. Category:Films released on July 3rd is also not a category I like, but Category:Drama films definitely qualifies. I am trying to keep good faith in all directions, but don't understand this revert. Even if FofQ is indeed a sockpuppet, why revert the usefull part of his WP Films edits? I have spent some time deep in the night trying to find if the rest of his edits (as FofQ) are suspicious. The image tagging issue doesn't look good at all. But many of his other edits seemed acceptable. I am no self-appointed protector of film members and all this is taxing my time on project work. I would appreciate an answer about the revert. Hoverfish Talk 08:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you are continuously reverting, and not discussing at the policy trifecta. This is not conducive to forming a consensus in any way. Please do not make further changes, and instead discuss on the talk page. Thank you.
--Kim Bruning 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you please check Image:Gregmacgillivray.jpg. As said, I'm no good sleuth. Hoverfish Talk 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm thinking it may be time to start paring down the Michael Richards article a bit, as it is no longer a current event. I posted a note on the article's talk page. I wanted to get some modicum of concensus before rocking the boat. Please, weigh in! Cleo123 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm rather mystified about your concern for improper use of an edit tool. Is it not there for reverting edits as suggested by existence of the "undo" option? There has yet been no solution to the question of removing pictures of Muhammad from that article, so the picture you removed should rightly stay. Frotz661 18:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 17:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I was not harassing you at all: please accept that. I was simply alerting you in case you had violated it. Since my own violation of the three-revert rule over a month ago, I have tried to make sure that other users don't also violate it. Acalamari 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Netscott - I would like to ask you for your input in this - literally thousands of articles have been sloppily "Anglicised" already (changing "région" for "region", for example, without modifying the phrase around it in the least to provide the proper context/meaning of the term) without any prior discussion at all. For certain words whose most-known English meaning is different than its French counterpart, the French italicised style has been used from the start for for both its similarity to the English wordform yet precision of meaning - yet there has been no case to date made as to why these terms should be 'translated' - it was just done. As you are major contributor to France-topic articles, so your input in this case is even important. Please help. You can find the discussion here. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 06:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, see this message on my talk. I don't know what the whole story behind it is, although looking at your contributions I am getting an idea :), but the edit in question was a good edit though. Garion96 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey...I had removed it because the linked article was editorial commentary. (As a side issue, I also had a problem with where it was placed - at the very top of all the external links, even her official site.) That aside, we have already got a ton of links at the bottom of this page and there has to be some criteria for limiting them - Wikipedia is not a directory of links. In this case, rather than providing new information to the reader, I thought the link just led to a "me, too" opinion by an author who agrees with Hirsi Ali. If the deletion is controversial, we can discuss on the talk page of the article. {I will admit I could have been a little trigger-happy on the deletion - this page gets a lot of weird linkspam from IPs). If the link is ultimately included, should probably be in the "Other" link section at the bottom. But I think the links are currently fairly balanced - there are a ton of interviews with her, which should present her point of view without the "me, too" from Ms. Nasrin. Cheers - RJASE1 08:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Why aren't you an admin yet? 72.88.153.180 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
On the one hand, they use the same IP ranges, and are at least in contact with each other. On the other hand, they seem to have a slightly different "voice". It's a tough call. Jayjg (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You should let Jayjg know that he has incorrectly labeled this IP and this IP as His Excellency. He's wrong, those are me, BhaiSaab. I really don't have any intentions of abiding by this yearlong block, and I've already said on my userpage that the BhaiSaab account might as well be banned permanently. "If I were in your position and wanting to contribute I would do so in areas completely unrelated to my ArbCom ban." How do you know I'm not doing that already? Yes, I'm in contact with His Excellency but we're not the same person. Good luck with everything. 72.88.157.34 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW, if you have a yen against soapboxing, check out 2002 Gujarat Violence. Compare media reports (CNN, BBC, whatever) with the "Encylopedia anyone can edit". Where every other credible source describes the event as a massacre against the Muslim population, this WP article has it all framed as though the Muslims had it coming. I improved it some, so go into the histories. It's an article that needs a few neutral non-south asian eyes. Tereba 19:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hurry up please go edit this critique also:
Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, a tendency to cover topics in a detail disproportionate to their importance. Even the site's proponents admit to this flaw. In an interview with The Guardian, Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopædia Britannica, noted that "people write of things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. In the past, the entry on Hurricane Frances was more than five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on Coronation Street was twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."[1] [10]
Because this content is left which could criticize wikipedia. So you better remove this too so that wikipedia becomes totally POV bunch of articles. (no offense to you though, but you can contact an admin if you like).
Can you please tell me what is the ratio of Muslim editors here as compared to nonmuslims? Wikipeida can never ever ever be NPOV when you have 10000000000 eidtors at one side and half a dozen muslim editors at the other side. VirtualEye 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem! Khoikhoi 07:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
CloneGuard was actually User:Kgeza67, who, among other things, is obsessed with Michael Richards. The other two were indeed Mactabbed. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Netscott. Thanks for the welcome back. Good to see you're still here too. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was happenstance - I came across it through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Rictonilpog/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political fallout from seperation issues, and upon perusing the page I observed the contributions of various users that had voted, in order to determine their longevity, or lack thereof. FairNBalanced had voted in the kitty poll, and I happened upon his user page, was redirected to user talk, saw the inflammatory message, by what thus far seems to be a single-purpose account, checked out the page history, and removed it. Hypertext can get complicated :) ... that's about it, though. GracenotesT § 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please look at your latest edit to this article and see what it did to the formatting of the footnotes. I'm happy to rebuild the article with anything that has gone missing and which is not POV, but I had to revert back to the last version - before my most recent edits over the past couple of days - in order to restore some formatting that I inadvertently stuffed up (mea culpa on that). I explained the situation in my edit summary. If you go through the history you will see that most of the substantive changes since then were made by me. The others are mainly vandalism and reversions of vandalism. Your actions have unnecessarily complicated my attempt to build the article from the base it had a couple of days ago. I would appreciate being consulted before you revert actions of mine to some random version, unless of course you plan to go through and fix all the formatting yourself. More generally, it causes disruption whenever a well-established good-faith editor is treated like a troll or a vandal, which is more or less how you just treated me. Now, how do you propose to sort out the problem of the formatting of the footnotes? Can I assume that you are going to go through and find what has caused the problem and fix it up? Metamagician3000 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I just wanted to speak up on what I saw was some inexplicable rudeness, I couldn't believe one editor was attacking you when in the past you've repeatedly defended him (e.g. when I and Wahkeenah questioned his editing motives and you came to his defense). I think you summed up the situation perfectly that they are doing what they are doing now out of "loss of POV support" by appealing to banned sockpuppets, which's pretty shocking, and doesn't really reflect well on their objectivity as editors or even their character. Cheers. Tendancer 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: the unsourced edits. I see you've already expunged the "outrageous" section, and updated/re-updated the "return to apologize part", you're fast. :) I rewatched the entire video and the "outrageous" stuff is definitely a made-up claim: the other camp is probably not going to be happy because in their minds that is painting Richards in a bad light (or whatever other bizarre rationale), but facts are facts: I already did quite a bit of legwork to help source 1 of the 2 uncited claims for them. Cheers. Tendancer 19:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think I sincerely added that pic, maybe not in the correct section, but I thought it was necessary. Anyway, you are right about the use of the word BUM, I shouldn't have put it there. Cheers. -- Walter Humala Godsave him! (wanna Talk?) 05:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ummm ... No, it's not being actively discussed. It is being actively trolled, for lack of a better word. Yuser31415 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Scott,
My mistake; I must've thought it was off-center when I tried comparing the two versions. Hope you agree, though, that the new position overcomes the color problem. I think I'd recommend moving the Tnavbar there anyway, to avoid any sense of clutter in the titlebar.
As I'm here, I wonder what you'd make of the following (and whether you reckon other folk might be in favor): I was thinking of proposing that either the ((Navigation)) or ((Navbox generic)) format was phased out in favor of the other, for the sake of:
What do you think...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, please feel free to continue letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked User:Hugedummy for violation of 3RR. However, you are warned not to edit war as well. The following is the notice I left at the 3RR noticeboard:
User has been blocked for 24h as a result of 3RR. However, you are warned not to continue on the track that you are on: Take the dispute to the talk page, or you will be in danger of being blocked for disruption and edit warring. 3RR is not an entitlement, and although it has been over more than a period of 24 hours, you have reverted many more than 3 times and your reverts are every bit as much as contentious as User:Hugedummy's. -- Renesis (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is better than the or a. Good work. WilyD 14:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
One doesn't require consensus to edit (though recent discussion show more people support remove than oppose it), and I told them why having them is stupid in the edit summary, and if they put them back, I am not going to revert, but that is a decision they should make not you.
Also, many of the accounts where they were removed were old accounts with little current activity.
Dragons flight 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Despite an ongoing discussion in which this exact action on your part has been criticised, you're going out of your way to revert my banner removals on behalf of users who haven't complained (and might even approve of the removals). That seems far more like making a point than anything else that has occurred thus far. —David Levy 21:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to make a demonstration based upon how you respond to the following. Let's say that you are a proponent of circumcision but you'd never edited the article and you came in and boldly (and in good faith, let's say) introduced into the lead a line that said something like, "Circumcision is the best thing a parent can do for a child to reduce the chance for stds later on in life." thinking that you'd have consensus for this addition and then lets say that approx. 50% of the editors agree with that statement being in the lead while another 50% says no. Per wikipedia policy what happens? (→Netscott) 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For the 20+ reverts you made in the last day, restoring not only a "joke message bar" but freedom of speech to those cruelly silenced under the jackboot of Wiki Fascism. Jeffpw 21:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks for bringing that discussion to my attention. At this point I see a discussion where consensus has yet to be established, so IMO that user editing my adoptee's page was rude and uncalled for. I may join in that debate, but I'm not sure. I don't feel like getting involved in another argument where certain policies will agree with one side and others with another. It's too frustrating. I'll abide by whatever ruling is made, but until there is one I would appreciate it if my adoptee's page, which doesn't even have the yellow box, is not brought into the crossfire. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation. I've already added my disagreement with the rule on the 1st page. I'll think about the 2nd page. Kingjeff 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Peace dove | ||
I present this dove as a token of goodwill. No matter the dispute's outcome, I sincerely hope that there are no hard feelings between us and that we can work together for the project's betterment. —David Levy 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
Jeffpw is restoring the hoax banner. Could you please drop him a note along the lines of the one that I left for Dragons flight?
Wow, as I was typing the above, you read my mind and did it! Thanks! :-) —David Levy 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey and thanks for the help. I'm curious about the search system. Is there any way to add some sort of spell-checker addition to the searching tool? Google does this and it helps tremendously. The whole "did you mean..." extension, I've found, to be very effective. Often, I find myself spell-checking something by searching for it in Google, then copy and pasting the word or subject into Wikipedia.
Just a suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aceholiday (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC).