User talk:Andrew Norman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

PoetryForEveryone linkspam

It is not spam

It is not spam. PoetryForEveryone 07:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is spam, and you will be blocked if you continue. Stop immediately. --ajn (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of stopping

It is not spam. Each link goes directly to the author's work plus the translations. There are over 79,000 documents in this archive that took over a year to put together. It is non-commercial and a useful project which betters the art. It is also a lot of work going through here and customizing each of these links. Just saying it is spam does not make it so. PoetryForEveryone 07:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Leave my edits alone

Leave my edits alone. You have no justification for your actions. PoetryForEveryone 08:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Helpful edit comments

I'm not getting involved in the spam/PoetryForEveryone issue, but it would help to have more clear edit comments then just revert when removing what on the surface appears to be a useful link.--Prosfilaes 08:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"On the surface" is the point. What has actually been going on is that dozens of links have been added to a site which is republishing copyrighted work by living authors. It's linkspam, and I've removed the links (hence the abbreviated edit summaries, or none at all in the case of rollbacks). If people are genuinely interested in poetry, they'll do more than just add links to their own website from an alphabetical list of poets. I might accept this as a genuine mistake if the person who had inserted all the links had any prior history of contributions to Wikipedia. --ajn (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But "on the surface" is the point. If the change is not obvious on the surface, then the edit comment needs to explain it; for instance, something like "Reverting systematic link-spam to pages of poets" people wouldn't have to chase down talk pages to understand why the revert was undertaken.--Prosfilaes 09:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As things stand, that would prevent me from using the rollback function which is intended to make removing this sort of systematic spamming far easier. It doesn't take a huge amount of effort for people to check the talk and contributions pages of User:PoetryForEveryone and myself if they are concerned. --ajn (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

so are they too spam?

As the previous poster said, the links are useful. There are not big translation initiatives out there. The project is sponsored by someone in the community and they are just as valid - if not more than any other archive link presently allowed. It is non-commercial, there are not even any banner ads.

None of your points address its being spam or not. There are collection and archive listings all through the poet pages now - so are they too spam? As far as the site ownership - every site is owned by someone, so what. Just because the links are being set at one time does not mean it is spam - it just means that months and months of work are finished and now people can be shown where the useful information is. As far as a .com address - you are really grasping for straws. Clearly you have no interest in poetry, but do not steal away from others informational opportunities you do not understand or care for. You are standing in the way of forward progress - please move. ~Chris PoetryForEveryone 08:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The project scrapes together a collection of in- and out-of-copyright poetry from other sources on the net. Checking a few poets at random, I can't find anything which hasn't been directly copied from plagiarist.com (the same seventeen poems by A. R. Ammons, the same forty by Allen Ginsberg, etc). Computer translation is nothing new, and is especially inappropriate when translating poetry. As far as I can tell the sole purpose of that collection of poems is to provide extra traffic to Bryant McGill's personal website, not to provide anything which isn't already available on the web (and which, in many cases, should not be available). If it's really a valuable resource, other people will link to it in their own time. It isn't, which is why they haven't been. --ajn (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you would say "Computer translation is nothing new," tells me you are ignorant of the project objectives. The purpose is to start building a directory of human translated works. And, there are no links to it yet because it is a new project and you have deleted them. You are a detriment to quality content. I just went through and looked at dozens of poet pages you are so "concerned" about that all point to truly frivolous archives of poetry that are slathered with ads promoting fraudulent poetry contests and deceptive sales materials that rip-off and steal money from unknowing aspiring artists. These sites are there for one purpose, to make the owners money. That is what Wikipedia is doing right now under your poor stewardship; aiding these people. You are helping these theives. Yet, when someone comes along who is trying to do something that could be beneficial, and with no commercial angles you will not allow it. You are simply wrong and are misusing your power. This is my final comment. ~Chris PoetryForEveryone 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

'Round Midnight

Nice work. I would like to add some good external links, particularly for the lyrics. If you know of any good sites, please add them. A discussion of some of the most popular renditions would also be helpful. --Viriditas 11:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to look up my nerdy database of jazz recordings tonight. Miles Davis is a really obvious one (Newport performance which revitalised his career, and naming his first Columbia album after the tune). But there are hundreds, maybe thousands - I happened to have a few CDs with me at work, and sure enough there are a couple with versions of the tune (Lee Konitz/ Brad Mehldau / Charlie Haden and Susanne Abbeuhl). --ajn (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A few of the most notable are fine. I'm also interested in listing the "best" recordings (and differences between versions, such as tempo) so people can go out and discover the song for themselves. --Viriditas 02:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

A Jaffa Cake for you from CLW!

Many thanks for your support during my RfA – following a 30/0/0 vote I’ve now been made an admin. Do have a Jaffa Cake! Cheers, CLW 13:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Andrew

Hello, I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me recruit as many neutral and well-intending editors to the page to counter the strong and manifest bias. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

I'm afraid after reading the talk page and the article, I don't see any NPOV problems which spill out into the article. There's a lot of discussion (some of it rather too heated, but generally on the right side of the line), but nothing which requires my assistance as an admin, and although I have a couple of books on the subject which I'll take a look at over the next few days, I'm not really knowledgeable enough in this area to contribute much. Keep talking, try to keep calm, and try to put your side of the case in a clear, concise manner without casting aspersions as to the motives of the "other side". If people have to read through pages and pages of text in which you're accusing them of bias, that isn't going to make them come round to your point of view. --ajn (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for deletion of account

Andrew, I had noticed you had restored the content of my username page after it had been vandalized by a fellow user whom I've come into conflict with, for which I'm very appreciative of your intervention. Please close my account as I'm weary of this negative conduct being directed at me. Thx. Missionary 21:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

John Tunnard

I have written the John Tunnard article myself virtually from scratch. All common information such as birthdates dates etc are widely available. I am annoyed that the Edward Bingham article was deleted since I wrote this myself; and I have no copy of it out side of Wikipedia.The ultimatum I was given to state my sources or copyright status etc was given over the Xmas holiday period; and I had no access to a computer at this time. I don't know how to put tags on. The photo of the Edward Bingham pot was taken by me. I am the owner of the pot in the photograph and I have some expertise in the area of Fine Art and ceramics.

Still, it does need explanation why the identical text about Edward Bingham appeared at the The Hysterical Historian weblog, April 10 2005, long before its appearance here on December 10 2005 as Edward Bingham (artist).

Your Leslie Hurry article also needs copyright scrutiny: compare with the British Council biography.

You really must take copyright seriously; repeated violations are eventual grounds for banning. Tearlach 14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: I am annoyed that the Edward Bingham article was deleted since I wrote this myself

No, you didn't. I just contacted Andrew Clarke, maintainer of the Hysterical Historian weblog, and find that he is the author (proof forwarded to afn). He has kindly given permission for its use ...

feel free to use the article under the GNU terms, and change it as much as you like. Our only interest is to promote knowledge about our local history. - Andrew Clarke

...but as he doesn't remember any particular sources, it will all need verification. Tearlach 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

User Delaney is vandalising the categorical imperative page

The changes recently affected by user Delaney comprise several passages, which were rejected by different user's as pow. Pleas read the talk page of "categorical imperative". The very beginning starts with a pow criticism about a topic that delaney reintroduces.

"Hi, I like your article a lot, however I feel that the part about abortion and animal rights expresses your personal point of view. I agree with this statement: "Only rational and autonomous beings are held to have intrinsic worth under this account, and objects or creatures that are not autonomous are held to have no moral worth at all" From this you conclude that animals and fetus have no intrinsic moral value. But this conclusion may only be drawn, if you knew for sure that animals and fetus are non-rational beings. How do you know? I'm sorry, but you really don't know. For a Kantian philosopher a human being acquires a moral status, once it becomes a rational being having a free will. But, when does this happen? Nobody really knows for sure. In somewhat religious terms, one may ask: When does the soul enter the human body? Kilian Klaiber

This is a problem with writing style. When I wrote the original article, I was saying "according to Kant" almost every third sentence and it was getting tedious. Therefore, I wrote at the top of the article that "[The argument] is outlined here according to the arguments therein." and removed a bunch of the qualifiers. If you can think of a better way to clarify this, I would appreciate it. --malathion talk 04:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC) I would have to agree about the abortion section. I agree that Kant would probably have followed the line of reasoning you describe, but I don't think that including that section is warranted without citing direct textual support from a work by or about Kant, and I don't personally know of any work arguing that Kant would have held such a position. -BLC"

User malathion is actually Mr. Delayne. Nevertheless a section about abortion was introduced without any textual support or any argument. I consider this to be vandalism.

I would like to add that user Delayne has been criticised numerous times of introducint POW, nevertherless he keeps on reintroducing his personel point of view. I quote the discussion page:

"The discussion took place in the section titled "Criticism section" above. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I see lot of criticisms of the criticism here. It seems that people got tired of arguing with you and left, rather than agreeing. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Many important views are excluded now. Instead, a POV-fork has been created to avoid NPOV. This is forbidden. "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article." Ultramarine 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Best regards

Kikl 17:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As is made clear at the top of Talk:Categorical imperative, Delaney's source is Christine Korsgaard's book, referenced at the end of the article itself. Adding material to an article which you personally disagree with is not "vandalism". Removing relevant material for which there is no consensus for removal is vandalism. Please don't do it. I'd like you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Vandalism before making this sort of allegation again - to quote the vandalism policy, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." NPOV doesn't mean you can cut out any opinion you don't like, it means that articles must give space to both sides of a genuine and reasonable disagreement. --ajn (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then introducing material for which there is no general consensus must be vandalism too. The abortion article reads as follows:

Abortion and animal rights

A Kantian mode of thinking suggests that these issues are, in principle, identical. Only rational and autonomous beings are held to have intrinsic worth under Kant's account, and objects or creatures that are not autonomous are held to have no moral value at all; rather, such entities only have contingent worth, based on their value to the world of rational beings. Consequently, any action performed by or to an animal, an unborn fetus, a stem cell, or a string of human DNA would have no moral content[citation needed]. These non-persons are merely means to an end, and never ends in themselves.

First of all, this passage seems to convey Kant's point of view. This is not possible, since the concept of stem cells and DNA didn't even exist in Kants time. Nevertheless, the article insinuates that this is Kant's opinion (mode of thinking). That's a wild guess. That's outrageous. If Mrs. Korsgaard believes that this reasoning is consistent with the categorical imperative, then it should be presented as Mrs. Korsgaard's opinion. But it isn't. In my opinion Mr. Delaney is misusing his powers and I'm not the first user to raise the issue. Last but not least, the purported citation is missing: "[citation needed]"

Best regards

Kikl 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please go away and read the two policies I suggested. The section on abortion does not seem to convey Kant's point of view (it refers to "a Kantian mode of thinking"), and it is part of a section which is explicitly about possible applications of the concept to contemporary debates, which again is clearly described as not being due to Kant himself. You seem to have completely misinterpreted this section, and Delaney's attitude to this section. I've just added the citation, I'm not sure why you couldn't have done this yourself. --ajn (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Korsgaard, 1996" Great citation, on what page, which book or article? Furthermore it is completely unclear what part of the abortion paragraph relates to Mrs Korsgards opinion and which part deals with Kant. The terms "Kantian mode of thinking" and "under Kant's account" do in fact insinuate that this paragraph is dealing with Kants opinion. So please go away and read the article. The opening sentence of the paragraph is pov too: "The interpretation of the categorical imperative is, in most cases, descriptive and uncontroversial." There are in fact many controversies about the application of the categorical imperative. The article itself states several controversies. The paragraph claims to deal with contemporary debates, but initially it doesn't. The following paragraph about deception doesn't deal at all with a modern application to a contemporary debate, it correctly cites Kant personel point of view. Then the abortion paragraph is introduced. This passage insuates to be dealing with Kant's point of view, since the interpretation of the categorical imperative is supposedly uncontroversial and according to Kant's mode of thinking. If you had read the article attentively you would have probably noticed these inconsistencies.

Best regards

Kikl 18:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The citation, in standard academic style, refers to the book listed at the bottom of the article. If you ask Ryan Delaney nicely, he might put in a page number, but it's a half-decent citation as it stands, and the two phrases you quote do not imply that the section is paraphrasing Kant's own views. You're now raising red herrings about other parts of the article - can I suggest that you put these, in plain English and without citing great chunks of previous sections of the talk page, on the article's own talk page? Preferably with suggestions as to how they might be improved, rather than just moaning. All your "contributions" to Wikipedia so far have consisted of deleting material, and complaining on talk pages (some of it remarkably ill-informed complaint). What about doing something constructive? --ajn (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Standard acamedic style? You haven't written any academic papers yet have you? These paragraphs do imply that they are presenting Kant's view. Please read all of the arguments above. You started talking about other parts of the article in order to make your point. But you failed to cite the whole introductory paragraph. I just quoted one sentence you deleted, and your response is: "Your now raising red herrings." Now your starting to talk about my personal integrity instead of whether the paragraph is POW. The paragraph was reintroduced although two different users criticised it for good reasons. The paragraph was reintroduced virtually unchanged. Therefore, I believe that reintroducing the paragraph is vandalism. I have made several suggestions for improval, which you obviously did not notice. You're doing a poor job as administrator.

Best regards

Kikl 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Harvard referencing, to be exact. You seem to be very confused about the difference between quoting and citing, and who is deleting what (I haven't deleted anything from the article, I restored your deletions). I'm not going to bother responding any further - you obviously still haven't read the two policies I asked you to read, because you still completely misunderstand what "vandalism" and "point of view" mean in this context. I'm afraid I've come to the conclusion that you're just trolling. --ajn (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Harvard referencing: "When you can (or should) provide a page number, the convention is (Smith 2005: 73). When the citation provides the reference for a quote that is within the text and marked by quotation marks, the citation follows the end-quotation mark ("), and preceeds the period (.) When the citation provides the reference for a quote that is indented, it follows the period."

I'm afraid I've come to the conclusion that you're just completely incompetent and your just love not to talk about the topic, namely point of view and vandalism. Vers silly! Kikl 23:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Mr. Delaney has deleted your citation of Mrs. Koorsgard's book, because she doesn't say that in her book. I advise you to read the books that you cite. Citing books you haven't read does not comply with scientific standards and may be considered to be scientific fraud.

Best regards

Kikl 08:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Limiting who can edit

Hello,

I came across you when you edited an article I contributed to and am now watching. I noticed you are an Administrator. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and am still learning how to navigate it. I am astounded by the number and degree of sheer vandalism that occurs in the articles. I believe that allowing anyone - with or without a formal, trackable Wikipedia account - to edit is much of the problem. What is the argument against requiring anyone who edits to have such an account? Michael David 13:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm one among several hundred administrators (804 according to Wikipedia:List_of_administrators), so it's nothing special, really. I'd encourage anyone to sign up for an account - I don't think "drive by" edits are a good idea, where someone visits the site, makes a couple of changes and then never comes back, because they won't pick up on the culture and what's expected. And if people are going to stick around, having an account makes a lot of sense (if only for the watchlist, and the fact that most people are suspicious of edits made by anonymous IP editors). There is now "semi-protection", which stops anons and new users from editing an article, and in some cases I think it would be a good idea to block people who don't have 6 months' standing from editing. John Locke, for some reason I can't explain, gets anonymous people inserting obscenities and nonsense almost every day. But having an account actually means you're less trackable in some ways - anyone can see the IP address of an anonymous user, but that information's only accessible to a select few for logged-in users. I think Wikipedia benefits from the openness of allowing anyone to edit, but as you say there are an awful lot of people out there with nothing better to do than put this sort of thing into articles about seventeenth-century philosophers. --ajn (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Shanebellinger

I must say that I am a little offended by YOU saying on the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard/incidents page that I must not be very old. The items on my webpage are things drawn by younger family members.

I also must say that I was using Wikipedia to upload images, but that will not happen any more. -shanebellinger(talk)

Midgley, anon user, etc.

Since I don't want to turn the incident board in a protracted discussion, I'd like to bring the discussion here.

(First of all, I'm not going to defend the "original invisible anon" or whatever he/she calls himself/herself, and I've repeatedly requested that he/she register. His/her response is that he/she is refusing to do so as a protest against "admin subculture," and I've responded I think there are better ways of making that point.)

Having said that, I am deeply concerned about the implied practice of allowing for bad behavior such as Midgley's if the provocation is bad enough. I'm concerned for several reasons:

• It is at odds with the way other sanctions are applied at Wikipedia, where the motto seems to be "we don't get into content disputes, we only react to behavior."
• Especially on the incident board, it invites protracted discussions on what led to what, and by whom. It seems to me that the board should simply cite and document violations, so that admins can investigate.
• It invites a pissing contest about who is most provoked in a given situation. I can show you that Midgley engages in personal attacks and put-downs in (conservatively) 70% of his messages - just who is most right to be provoked is certainly debatable.
• It encourages people to try out other forms of bad behavior if they think the ends justify the means.
• At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the nuttier partisans in the various debates with Midgley do the same, just to make a point. I promise I won't, but I'm not going to condemn anyone who does.

--Leifern 18:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. What I'm hoping to do here is cut out all of the personal stuff, and that includes Midgley as well as the others. Midgley hasn't gained anything by this, and there's nothing to be gained for the encyclopedia as a whole by blocking at this point. As I said on the noticeboard, the options now are to forget the past and move forward, or to dig up the past and let the formal dispute resolution process decide. I think the first option would be better for everyone. --ajn (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're right, but I fear you're not. And I do think that "justice" - as it were - should be meted out fairly. And of course, admins have the option of blocking, and you certainly could have blocked Midgley. --Leifern 18:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Midgley was able to do what he did because there is a systemic problem here. Consider this behaviour by the "management":-

• User:Essjay has archived this [[1]] without answering.
• [[2]] (link is to a section in an historical page), where a Steward takes an indefensible position.

These examples show why User:Midgley should be dealt with. These examples are related to the position with User:Midgley because User:Essjay and User:Midgley were both trying to delete information from my talk page and their efforts are closely related in time and also immediately preceded the action of User:Midgley which lead to your (ajn's) involvement. This all damages the credibility of Wikipedia. Leaving them all undealt with damages it even more. Dealing with User:Midgley in the same ways as others are would be something.

^Talk - The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC) & amended 15:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Take it to a request for comment or a request for arbitration. I am not going to engage in this sort of game, which is precisely what has gone wrong on the various vaccination pages. Midgley has been dealt with, and if you object to the way he's been dealt with, then (again) use the formal channels. Badgering me is not going to change my mind. As I've indicated above, there are two ways of dealing with this situation - if you think you'd be happy with the outcome of an investigation by the arbitration committee into what has been going on, go ahead. --ajn (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia project is magnificent and exciting. The responsibility for policing Wikipedia lies with others, not me. Those who take on the mantle take it with all that it comes with and they must rise to the occasion, on every occasion. Then and only then will Wikipedia itself rise above the criticisms often justifiedly levelled against it and leave behind the systemic defects that presently infect it. This in turn demands statesmanship, magnanimity and equity. Its up to you folks. Don't ask or expect me to do it for you.

^Talk - The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219

You are X and I claim my five pounds.

I readded the orgins to this page, as I honestly feel it looks sloppy to say "Please see X article for information regarding this aspect" Deathawk 22:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The section on the origins was inaccurate, and was also moved out because Lobby Lud deals with the newspaper competitions (most of which did not use that phrase), and YAXAICM5P is a phrase which has gained a life beyond the newspaper competitions. There's nothing wrong with saying "see [[other article]] for information on this related topic". --ajn (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting reference - applicable elsewhere?

Technology and Alternative Cancer Therapies: An Analysis of Heterodoxy and Constructivism, David J. Hess, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 4, Dec. 1996, pp. 657-674.

I don't have access to it. One of the tropes in the (ghastly, interminable, abusive) process of constructing anti-vaccinationist is that some of them are attempting to present Antoine Bechamp's early view of life from unlike cells as more correct than Pasteur's demonstrations etc etc - thus vacciantion would not work etc etc. Which proceeds from which is unclear as yet - I suspect that they mostly proceed backward from their conclusion grasping for straws as they go but that is not established. Might you feel inclined to add anything that seems apropriate from that refetrence, or indeed give any view you care to, over there?

If the main article looks too horrid to contemplate, there is a nascent one copied from anti-catholicism at anti-vaccinationist/catholic herald which I think may replace the original, since it starts with _structure_ even if search and replaces leave it thus far as complete porridge in its specifics. (It was quite funny after the first replace operation, actually). Midgley 21:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

North Yorkshire

Should you not explain your revert on this article on its talk page? They look like a good edit to me. --Bduke 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Anwar saadat has added economic "statistics" to dozens of UK geographical articles this evening. They are his own extrapolations from 1998 data, so they are not actual statistics and they are original research. I've just used the admin rollback function to revert the lot - sorry, but that was the quickest way to do it and it doesn't allow for a reason for the revert to be shown in the edit summary. --ajn (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Spamming" details

Thank you for your comment on Antony Flew's talk page. Obviously we cannot agree. As I see it, political dinners are important in political circles. Who attended them therefore gives the event a certain meaning. Who agreed to speak/be guest-of-honour indicates whether the organisation hosting the event was worth it/respectable. I did not "spam" anything. I merely went to the various pages of the notable right-wing attendees and placed the event information there also, as it was just as relevant to them all as it was to Flew. One of the crucially important things about Wikipedia are the links, so that when a reader of an article, any article, which mentions the event, wants information on others also present to see what those individuals were all about, they can click on the link. By removing them/the links, this major anti-communist event loses all political significance. Sussexman 13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

RFC. Troll. Remember above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 You are mentioned in it. Midgley 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Sterner Action Than Last Time?

And not against me I trust.

Please see [[3]]

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop complaining. You've had the RfC process explained to you, you have had the problems of not bothering to register for a proper account explained to you, you've had plenty of time to write lengthy diatribes on other people's talk pages but apparently no time to contribute to articles, or to respond to your RfC, or to go through the proper channels to make formal complaints. If you want sympathetic treatment, try cutting out the disruption and bringing something positive to Wikipedia. Otherwise, I don't want to know, and nor will anyone else. --ajn (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not complaining. I have made clear all along if you want me to register for an account please treat me like the intelligent civilised human being that I am. Please also treat with me in accordance with all the policies Wikipedia is meant to espouse starting with civility. I am also not the person disrupting. Please see now [[4]]. That is simply more dispute making and not dispute resolution.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:32, 2nd May 2006

"See What You Made Me Do"[5]. That seems to form the main part of the response. Midgley 07:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For valiance in the face of linkspam! I love you! mgekelly 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Franklin

I just added an image and made a few small edits. Which claims in specific were you talking about?

I'm talking about the claim that his final expedition was to take magnetic measurements rather than to find the NW passage. The ODNB, for example, says the expedition was organised by the Admiralty to find a final 300 mile stretch. That was written by Dr Beau Riffenburgh of the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography (written by Clive Holland, also of the SPRI, and like the ODNB heavily referenced from primary sources) says the same thing. --ajn (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I was just making edits that were in line with the article as it already stood. I can't find a reference for that claim either... I'm going to change that in the Franklin article, as well as some related ones that I altered. Thanks for the heads up. Gump Stump 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! I had noticed it was originally put into the Franklin article by an anon, I assumed that he/she and you both had access to something recent which overturned the conventional view. --ajn (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Singer = Humanist?

What is your rationale for adding Peter Singer back to the humanist list, despite the evidence given against such a classification?

MSTCrow 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you've provided no evidence, just your own opinion. He's been awarded the Australian "Humanist of the year" prize [6], he describes himself as a humanist [7], he has written for Free Inquiry, he's clearly a philosophical humanist in that he derives ethics from human reason rather than revelation or religious authority. You may not like the conclusions he reaches, but that doesn't mean he's not a humanist. --ajn (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I did offer evidence, that he was in favor of infanticide. You're not playing straight here. Also, consider that per Wikipedia, "humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people." Singer most certainly does not affirm the dignity and worth of all people, quite the opposite. He has targeted groups of people as being worthy of possible termination. That is not humanism. Also, I would like to warn you that reverting an article without attempting to reach consensus via talk is in violation of WP.

MSTCrow 09:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That has no bearing on whether or not he is a humanist (in several of those "broad categories"), and if we're going to get into Wikilawyering, you're the one removing information from an entry without providing justification in talk. "People" (or to be more technical, "person") is the key issue here - it's obvious you don't like Singer's conclusions (I don't much, either), but do you actually know what his reasons are for them? --ajn (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but humanism doesn't seem to include inflicting death on others for the sake of expediency. Also, the onus was on you to use talk, as you reverted an edit, instead of trying to work it out in talk. I was not reverting an edit to any clear or recent editor.

MSTCrow 10:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Manna

Thank you. I'm glad we finally have an admin that can step in on the drama that's going on over at Manna and Talk:Manna. Sparsefarce 23:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping that last outburst will be the end. If it happens again, I'm going to put a stiff warning there that the talk page is not intended for posting large rants about how he found God through psychedelic mushrooms, and block him if necessary. --ajn (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Manna

User:Mannaseejah is doing it again, under his anonymous URL. Can we block him again/ban him? [8]

Thanks for your help!

Sparsefarce 19:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ok sorry, ill use the sandbox my names andy

The Light User Syndrome

...is a great album. You can never have too many compilations with tracks from LUS on it! Really good work on the Fall compilations article, nice one. Ac@osr 21:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu_Aardvark/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bormalagurski

Hey i just stumbled upon Bormalagurski's user page and was reading some rather offensive stuff he had written on it at the moment which you suddenly erased it. Why was that? Just asking out of curiosity.

Thanks--Burgas00 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I got rid of the offensive links precisely because they are deliberately intended to cause offence. --ajn (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, well they offended me. I was just about to vandalise his user page when u intervened:-) There are quite a few of these fascistic Serbs around. Its a pity, they give a bad name to their country... If it wasnt for them, Serbia would be in a very different shape right now. --Burgas00 21:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

HEY ANDREW, the photo is PUBLIC DOMAIN man, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Subotica_city_hall.jpg!!!! If you do not stop vandalizing my page, I will have to report you. -- serbiana - talk 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The photo is clearly tagged as fair use. I have protected your user page - since you have left the English Wikipedia, this will make no difference to you. If you want to report me, go ahead. --ajn (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not fair use, I know the person who took the photo, he also sent the photo to Wikimedia Commons, and the link shows that it is in the public domain. Even though, I have left Wikipedia, I want my page to stay as it was, and I will definately take action against you this time. -- serbiana - talk 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I don't care about the image anymore, I'll just put a different photo of my hometown that public domain on this wiki too. can you unlock my page now? I promise I won't bring THAT image back. -- serbiana - talk 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, please? -- serbiana - talk 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AN for my response to this request. --ajn (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why have you protected Bormalagurski's user page and been changing it? His comment isn't offensive. Please unprotect it and leave it how it was. C-c-c-c 23:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bormalagurski_and_fair_use_image and WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. --ajn (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that, it got protected afterwards. You kept on removing "Косово је Србија" for no reason Andrew. C-c-c-c 21:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Go back and read the section on WP:AN again. Bormalagurski had an agreement, and he reneged on it, with your encouragement. I'm not going to de-protect his user page, and I doubt if he would find another admin willing to do it now. I'd advise you to keep out of other people's business in future. --ajn (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

OK, let me ask you this. Is writing "Kosovo is Serbia" on my userpage nationalism? Is it desruptive? Did I use any copyrighted photos? Cuz the last time I checked with the United Nations, Kosovo was Serbia. So, why the hell did you lock my user page? -- serbiana - talk 00:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, no, and because you broke your promise. I thought you had left Wikipedia. Goodbye. --ajn (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, you're wrong, and you're right! I have left Wikipedia, but I didn't add that to my userpage, C-c-c-c did. So, go on and block him, but leave my userpage alone (all I did was adjust the banner, I DID NOT ADD IT. Please unlock my page, I didn't break the promise, I really didn't add anything. -- serbiana - talk 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you removing this?

A harsh judgement in some of the most deprived mining areas, where mining families were forced into looting shops, and accepting handouts of cheese from the European union "food mountain" in some areas of South Yorkshire.

Hello, the above text is documented fact - not opinion. Please do not remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukbn2 (talk • contribs)

It needs to be verified, as I mentioned just now on your talk page. --ajn (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

admin noticeboard

This is a post from Admin noticeboard. I crosspost it here. Please read [[9]]. I was reinstated personally by Bishonen. Please get your fact straight before making decisions based on personal vendetta. And please provide diff. link. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 07:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Balkan wars

Hi,

Regarding too many people from the former Yugoslavia who seem to see Wikipedia as a chance to continue the wars of the 1990s by other means.

Well, sometimes you need to take a deeper look at the problem before accusing people of being war-thirsty balkanians.

Please, read my very detailed explanation of the case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Edit war on Serbs of Croatia.

If you have time, please do some analysis of behaviour of User:Luka Jačov, the guy who started all the fuss, but remanined unblocked. I explained the problem with him here: User talk:Ante_Perkovic#About Jacov's behaviour.

If you still believe that all the "revert-warriors" should be blocked without even bothering to investigate who is right, just let me know.

Regards, Ante Perkovic 15:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you help us deal with vandals?

Hi :)

If I have been to harsh in my last message here, I deeply apologise :).

I fully understand that You are pissed on balkan-related (Serbian, Croatian, Albanian...) vandals that make endless reverts without explanation. Well, I'mm pissed too. Yesterday, I was aditionally pissed because I become collateral victim (Your comment didn't really made me happy, you know) of a user who was as pisses as I am, and for the same reason.

Anyway, if you are really sick of those endless edit-wars, that mean you are the right person for the job!

We have problems with bunch pro-serbian users who vandalise Croatia-related articles and are mostly unwilling to make any compromise. Since somewhere around May 10th, great number of pro-serbian vandals came to wikipedia with only one goal - defamation of Croatia. These people didn't came here in good faith. They came here to defame Croatia.

I don't have the problem with users being pro-serbian in general. I know of many serbian users who I really repsect. But, I really don't like vandals. Even some Serbian users expressed their discust with those "new" pro-serbian (or anti-croatian, to be more precisely) vandals.

We allready have some admins from Croatia on our side who could block those users right away, but they refuse to do so because they feel too involved.

So, what we have here is:

• pro-serbian side: number of users who are either newbies (up to 3-4 months on wiki) plus bunch of IP-users that doesn't even bother to write anything longer then "REV" and who limit their contributions to edit-wars
• pro-croatian users with much longer experience here (including 2 admins unwilling to use their powers) whos edit-waring is secondary to other contributions (user:Zmaj wrote tens of articles related to Croatian culture while trying to solve conflicts on the other side!)

So, we desperately need third-party administrators! This edit-wars has been going on for more that a month and it is really getting frustrating. I feel we are left alone because some people see us as a blood-thirsty balcan tribes that are best left alone. Well, we are not! And we need your help.

See User talk:C-c-c-c and User:C-c-c-c for a start. I don't have any side on the Balkan conflicts, and I appreciate that sometimes people get caught up in things as a side-effect of drastic action to deal with problems (as you seem to have done). --ajn (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know you don't have any side on the Balkan conflicts. That is exactly kind of admin we need here.

I'm trying to be as civil and rule-obiding as possible, but this anti-croatian meat-puppetry is really taking too much resources of many users.

If I do something really bad, be free to block me yourself.

I will try to compile some report of this entire meat-puppet gang in next few days.

--Ante Perkovic 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and if anyone has any information about similar people putting forward extremist pro-Croatian (or pro-Whatever) points of view, that would be fine too. As I say, I'm not taking sides. --ajn (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

If you are going to start blocking people for having nationalist userboxes and the like, you will certainly have a long list to go through. I personally think you have allowed your private opinion on User:C-c-c-c to influence your decision on imposing an excessively long blocking period. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't blocked him for having those userboxes, I've blocked him for persistent abusive behaviour. The userboxes are just a symptom of that. --ajn (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Technical question.

Hi,

I need help with some nitty-gritty details of wiki rules. The details are here: Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Can this be considered sockpuppetry?.

If you don't have time, please ask some other admin to answer the question.

--Ante Perkovic 16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete Nationalism

I saw that you deleted nationalistic userboxes from C-c-c-cs page. I support a Wikipedia free from nationalism which I belive has nothing to do with a neutral encyclopedia. But what is right should be right. Look up Ilir_pz and delete his nationalistic userboxes. He is one of the worst nationalists here on Wikipedia, not alone unfortenaly so keep up the good work. Best regards Litany 18:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What else suprises me besides this userbox nationalism, is a vandal, who is always trolling, disrupting, being nationalist, provoking, and POV-pushing who is not permanently banned. (Hipi Zhdripi). People like him and Ilir don't even make much articles, but what they do is argue on talk pages and revert. It's a disgrace. As for C-c-c-c, he's been good lately, I haven't really seen him do any nationalist act. I hope you understand, Andrew. Also, there is a lot of userbox deletion to go. Regards, --Krytan talk 21:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser thingy

There has already been a RFCU and it concluded that C-c-c-c is not the same user as Bormalagurski. Ask User:Essjay if you feel like it but he will probably deny any new request. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 11:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the question of who Da Croatian Sensation was that interests me. Dijxtra thinks it might have been C-c-c-c posing as a Croatian fascist, since the same third party complained of being blocked as a side effect of both C-c-c-c and DCS's blocks, which implies they are at the very least using the same ISP. --ajn (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wrote a note on the noticeboard. I should have checked your page first. That guy who complained on the noticeboard uses Shaw which uses dynamic proxy servers like AOL. I had a similar problem with User:Hipi Zhdripi (he's on AOL) and User:Gibraltarian (if you block him, you block half of Gibraltar). The IP is shared by too many people, so you can't ask to have it fully blocked without pissing off quite a few others... --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew...

You know that you're wrong, but your pride doesn't let you admit it. If you do, I'm sure everyone will accept that you've admited that you were wrong, and probably respect you much more than right now. You know that you shouldn't have protected my page, I didn't add anything, I only moved it. The user that added it is blocked, isn't that enough for you? I did not break my promise, and you know it. Secondly, nationalism is "Long Live Greater Serbia" and "Death to Croats" and similar stuff. "Kosovo is Serbia" is NOT nationalism, it's simply reality, check the 1244 UN resolution. So, simply because I wrote that the holy land of all Serbs (check Kosovo is Serbia) is Serbia, which it is (check Serbia and take a look if Kosovo is in Serbia), you protected my page for "nationalism". Did you know that loving your country is patriotic, not nationalistic? I hope you agree, because we all know why you locked my page, and we all know it has nothing to do with nationalism, but something more dangerous that can result in your admin priviledges being taken away from you. Instead of leting me peacefully leave Wikipedia, you are really asking for drastic action, and everything can end by you unlocking my page, reinstalling the banner, and I promise that you'll never hear from me again. You are wrong, swallow up your pride and admit it, it's for the best. -- serbiana - talk 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have Northern Irish ancestry - I know very well what that sort of statement really means, and you're not fooling anyone. If you're going to threaten me, translate that into action. It didn't work last time, did it? --ajn (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew! I was actually searching for something else and saw this by coincidence. I don’t know precisely what you did, but if you erased such thing as “Kosovo is Serbia” or similar, I must say, you were right. Of course, it depends what people think nationalism is. But the fact is that such sentences as “Kosovo is Serbia”, “Kosovo is a heart of Serbia”, “Kosovo is a holy land of Serbia” etc were used and are still being used from ultra nationalistic parties and groups in Serbia. I guess their nationalistic medial brainwashing machine repeated that so often, so that many Serbs started to believe in that, they even think there is nothing nationalistic about it. Sad but true.

You have my support for the future, if you have any problems because of these things, and also if you need any translations, because I don’t know if you can speak any language from Balkans. Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia and absolutely free from these kind of nationalistic paroles! Regards, --Mig11 08:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Much as I dislike user Bormalagurski and his political views, I think he is right on this. He has all the right to express his political views and to say that he does not want a province of his country to be independent. I personally think that Kosovo should be independent, especially after what happened during Milosevic's rule. But he has the right to express this opinion on wikipedia which is by no means offensive. Its not like he is saying "I think the Albanian minority should be ethnically cleansed from Kosovo." He is just denouncing further dismemberment of his country.I think you should unblock his page and simply keep an eye on it in case he does include offensive material. He has done so in the past. --Burgas00 11:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He has no such right ([10], [11]), and Jimbo Wales has said on the mailing list that it's not a good idea. Given his bad faith in the past, I really don't feel unblocking his user page would be sensible. --ajn (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Many users express their political views in these boxes on their user pages. It is no big deal and Bormalagurski should be allowed to do so as everyone else does. So as long this does not include attacks on other nations or individuals. Claiming that Kosovo should remain part of Serbia is perfectly acceptable. Especially considering that legally it still is part of Serbia.--Burgas00 14:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it only okey to support the independance of Kosovo but not oppose it?. That would seem strange. Litany 15:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a brilliant idea to express support for either opinion on one's userpage, especially if you are a Serb living in Canada. --ajn (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well either all users who express political opinions have their user pages edited and protected or this particular page is unprotected. There is no reason to discriminate bormalagurski at this point. Opposing separatism is a perfectly respectable political opinion which I generally support. --Burgas00 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problem at all with people being asked to remove such material from their user pages. However, Bormalagurski was asked to remove stuff which was far worse than simply expressing an opinion on a political topic, he chose to play games, and this is the end result. His choice, and not my problem if he doesn't like the consequences of his decision. I'm not going to start playing "the other kids are doing it too". --ajn (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes and I was among the people who edited the offensive stuff out. I was even blocked for 24h by a friend of User C-c-c-c (who is now permanently banned) for mildly verbally abusing him. I was talking about the specific user box on kosovo. The rest I dont care.--Burgas00 16:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick note

Thanks for the revert on my userpage, cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted

I have reverted you're recent edits to userpages stating "removing various userboxes". I think the request on WP:AN/I in which said to depopulate the deleted category, does not require you to remove the userbox. It only requires removing the category itself. If you would like for me to remove them from the category, I will assist you in doing so. — The King of Kings 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, since I recieved no response, I went ahead and did it myself before I went offline. All the pages I reverted, I went back and depopulated the category by removing the category instead of everything. Cheers! — The King of Kings 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert any of that, but I think it was wrong. There's nothing in Wikipedia policy to say that people are allowed or encouraged to make inflammatory statements on their user pages, or that others can't remove such statements. --ajn (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy to say that people are not allowed to make inflammatory statements on their user pages, or that others may remove such statements. It's only disruption which is prohibited, which is your fault. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

OK, fine, unlock my user page, I DID NOT PUT THAT BANNER ON THERE, the user that put it there is BOCKED, why should I be punished as well? When he added it, I ONLY placed it on the bottom of the page! If you unlock my page I won't put it back, cuz I know you'll just lock it up again, I'm not stupid. You have nothing to lose, just unlock my page, please. -- serbiana - talk 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

MichaelIsGreat

Hello. I was just about to cut short this dreadful waste of everyone's time by permanently blocking MichaelIsGreat for exhausting the community's patience. Would you object? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not in the slightest, but I suspect he'll just pop up again under another name. --ajn (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a point, you're probably right there. Mutze seems to be trying to get him onside; I'll give that a chance, and perhaps implement a permablock later if there really is obviously no hope of progress. Thanks! --RobertG ♬ talk 10:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is great to see that Wikipedia's admins are as active and as reasonable as this issue has shown. I hope this will put the matter behind us, particularly because many people will now be watching the Bösendorfer and the player piano articles. My best wishes to both of you! Mütze 13:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Being a war refugee myself, I can't see why we should tolerate people making political statements, which are divisive and inflammatory, whether pro or against or whatever. This is an encyclopedia not a battleground. They'd attack me for "censoring" or "violating freedom of speech", but I know it's the right thing to do. Once all divisive userboxes are gone, people may look at each other as what we truly are, human beings. Best wishes, TheCooler

Gibraltar

Hello Norman:

I would like to ask you a favour. Could you please have a look at the talk page and history of the article on Gibraltar. Over the past few months a number of users, including myself, have been in conflict with user:Gibnews. We feel he has taken over the page as his pet project and has imposed a NPOV pro-Gibraltarian point of view. I feel his attitude and utter refusal to acheive any form of consensus is contrary to the rules of wikipedia. He accuses everyone of Spanish propaganda even on issues which are not directly related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute over Gibraltar and reverts pretty much everything which is not written by himself. Although I am not Spanish, I sometimes wonder if I may be slightly biased towards the Spanish perspective. I do not however believe that Gibraltar should be Spanish and I try to remain as neutral as possible. I do not have a problem with Gibnew's views. I simply do not approve of his way of discarding other people's sources, opinions etc... You should perhaps consult other users for their opinions such as user:ecemaml and user:asterion.

That is why I ask you, as an English-man, to mediate or atleast give your perspective on this issue.

Please look at the talk page over the past few months. Conflict with user Gibnews seems to go a long way back.

Thankyou very much for your help. We would really appreciate it. There is nothing worse that when articles are hijacked by individuals with political agendas.

--Burgas00 12:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

PoolGuy

Thank you for blocking PoolGuy. It is apparent that dealing with such behavior is a waste of the community's time.--Bonafide.hustla 20:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC) By the way, I think the link you provided on the list of blocks on the Rfa should be a diff. link.--Bonafide.hustla 21:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)