Jump to content

User talk:Elockid/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

LGBT articles of Brazil

Hello! I am Brazilian and I need of you to correct my translation edits, please help me in the Changing legal gender assignment in Brazil, LGBT rights in Brazil, Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, Age of consent in Brazil, Prejudice in the Brazilian LGBT community. 28 December 2010 (UTC) User: Hentzer

Sure. I'll get to work on it as soon as I can. As you can probably see, I'm limited in time right now. Probably will be able to start on Tuesday. Elockid (Talk) 16:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Chicago

You reverted an unsourced statement in the Chicago article earlier today. The user User talk:Verygentle1969 ignored such concerns, after I told him/her of them on his/her talk page. He/she again edited without source or comment. I deleted the latest edit as unsourced. Any help you can provide, would be appreciated.Alanscottwalker(talk) 23:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Gave them a 3RR warning. Since I'm an involved user in the dispute, I can't do anything, so WP:ANEW would probably be the best. Elockid (Talk) 01:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Verygentle1969 is a new user, and has been editing for all of four days. Any chance of rvting the template on his/her talkpage for the time being, while we see if he responds? The user wasn't talking to Alan, but until a few hours ago, no one was addressing the user either. When he signs on he will find (for the first time) talk page messages. Under the circumstances, the template (though completely justified) might be a bit BITE-y. Thanks for your consideration. Jd2718 (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. Elockid (Talk) 04:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Intervention at Maldivian (airline)

This user has added info to the article which sounds like a blatant advertisements. He has also attacked me here. Please intervene regarding the same. Abhishek191288 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Some other admin has already intervened. Abhishek191288 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Mmkay then. Elockid (Talk) 15:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Swamilive (again)

  • (diff | hist) . . m User talk:Caius James‎; 15:23 . . (+587) . . Elockid (Talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by Caius James (talk) to last version by Pdfpdf) [rollback]
  • (Block log); 15:23 . . Elockid (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for Caius James (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked)

He's now doing the same thing at User talk:Garrison Stanforth‎

  • (diff | hist) . . User talk:Garrison Stanforth‎; 02:19 . . (-725) . . Garrison Stanforth (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 405851378 by David Biddulph (talk)) [rollback]

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Elockid (Talk) 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Huggle

Hello, I would like to use Huggle to fight against WP:VANDALISM. May I know where I can make a request to use the same. Thanks, —Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added Rollback to your user rights which is one of the requirements to Huggle. Please be careful as Rollback is easy come, easy go. Be sure to stop by WP:Rollback feature. All you need to do now is download it at Wikipedia:Huggle/Download. Elockid (Talk) 16:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I would surely use it responsibly. Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
When I tried to log into huggle, it says that Huggle is not enabled for my account. Please help. Abhishek191288 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You need to create your Huggle page for it to work. For example mine is User:Elockid/huggle.css. Be sure to have it at enable:true. Elockid (Talk) 19:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanx. I have done that. :) Abhishek191288 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

New section

The greater los angeles area has 20,456,006 people. The LA metropolitan area has 15,486,927 people and the inland empire has 4,152,377, and Ventura has 817,702.

Uh, yeah. You're evidently just making up numbers. Consistently changing sourced data without explanation and introducing inconsistencies is disruptive. Let's take a look at the article Greater Los Angeles area article for example:
  • [1]: 20,250,000
  • [2]: 20,224,678
  • [3]: 18,786,419 (obvious vandalism)
  • [4]: 20,205,932 (this diff also provides an inconsistency with the number you gave for the metropolitan area)
  • [5]: 20,206,932
  • [6]: 20,216,165
The above two is a favorite of mine. Both of those edits were made in the same day
  • [7]: 20,264,639
  • [8]: 20,450,066
  • [9]: 20,456,066
Another personal favorite. You did initially put 20,450,066 on Dec 20th and today, but miraculously, the population increased by 6000 in just minutes. By the
These are obviously not census estimates and I still have yet to see a city where they change their population data as frequent as yours, both officially and unofficially. If you do this again, you will be blocked and/or the pages will be protected. Elockid (Talk) 04:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Block on 24.199.226.145

Hi. I saw yuour block notification here but didn't see any block imposed on that user. I imposed a 31 hour block. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks! Elockid (Talk) 03:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Polobob

Hey Elockid, Happy New Year. You just reviewed this user's unblock request and denied it. What about their (useless) sandboxes, User:Polobob/Sandbox, User:Polobob/Sandbox2, and User:Polobob/Dump? Is it worth our while and according to procedure to delete them? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! For Polobob, I'll wait a week for the small chance that they'll be unblocked. Though they probably won't be, but you never know. After that, I'll just delete them in a week. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 13:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Intervention

Hi there, I request you to intervene in the Cochin International Airport article. This user: User:DileepKS69 is re-instating the financial status of the company that operates the airport (see here). I removed the same because first of all financial status for an airport is pointless and secondly, the para seems too advert-y. Please take a look into this matter. Thanks, Abhishek191288 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Will handle it when I get on my main account. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 13:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like some discussion is going on and they've stop for now. Will continue to monitor. Elockid (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Elockid's Day!

Elockid has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Elockid's Day!
For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian,
enjoy being the star of the day, Elockid!

Signed, Neutralhomer

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 13:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You're Welcome! :) Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Request to be unblocked

Congrats on being a awesome wikipedian.

Thanks for the easy to follow instructions.

They referred me to you.

Request to be unblocked.

Thank you. "PonchoChet"

Thanks for the congrats. With regards to your account, it is currently not blocked and you should be be able to edit. Elockid (Talk) 01:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Tri400

Hello, Could you please help me on this. I have come across this user several times. I have noticed that he/she never provides an edit summary ([10]). I had some time given a notice using twinkle but in vain, so, as an admin could you please just tell the user the importance of the same. Thanks, Why so serious? Talk to me 04:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid (Talk) 04:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

NP?

Uzaifasaad (talk · contribs)? —SpacemanSpiff 17:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not. I haven't seen him editing those exact pages before. Also, in this edit, he didn't spell the word criticize the British way, so the person might not be from Britain. One thing of interest though is that the article Indian Armed Forces is in my watchlist because it was targeted by another sockpuppeteer. The person is Polylepsis. There's a chance it might be them but I don't have much going to support it. Will keep an eye out. Elockid (Talk) 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Lad, A Dog

What content is being added to Lad, A Dog that it requires revision deletion?Smallman12q (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that the edits are being revdeleted because of WP:DENY. The content being added is part of series of vandalism. There's a couple of threads on AN and ANI on this if you're interested. You'd probably wanna ask Nakon for a better reason since he revdeleted them. Elockid (Talk) 02:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edit war notice

Thank You for your comments and suggestions. I have not reverted the article, instead simply added info to it. Also, may I ask a war is always between two parties, so why was the edit war note just sent to me and not the other part involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killbillsbrowser (talk • contribs)

Edit wars may be between multiple parties. Not just between two parties but are most commonly between two parties. The reason why I didn't warn the other users is that the main cause for the dispute seems to be coming from yourself and you may not be familiar with policy. Being reverted by multiple editors and continuing to revert them is a very common way of getting blocked. It's also one of the fastest and easiest ways to get blocked. The other editors are also long time editors and should be familiar with the edit warring policy. Elockid (Talk) 02:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. But would it be possible for you to take a look at the recent changes before reaching a judgment? Just because the other user is a long time editor does not necessarily mean they are compliant this time. My edits are not being reverted (except for once), because I am providing references. They are however, being disliked especially by Wikireader41. Please read their comments on the discussions page and you will see they do not like the facts. I implore you to read the recent changes I have made and make a neutral and informed decision. My intention is to provide the world with real and unbiased account of this geographical area and as such have not reverted any well cited edits by the other users.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, this edit and this edit seems to say otherwise. There is another reversion on the recent history that isn't towards that specific edit. Elockid (Talk) 03:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean now and I will refrain from doing so. I will instead use the talk page for this. However, please see the talk page where Wikireader41 insists the difference between majority view and minority view and claims with no substantiation that their view is majority view and the corresponding edits and reverts to my changes (which by the way always have a citation). What do you say about that? Isn't that pushing POV? Killbillsbrowser (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I really wouldn't call it POV pushing. See WP:POV pushing. Elockid (Talk) 05:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
well killbillsbrowser has been repetitively adding pro wahhabi muslim/pakistan info and removing well cited info. Elockid please see the talk page for the specific concerns I have raised which he has willfully refused to answer. he specifically is ignoring WP:DUE and adding minority views ( views held by substantial minority as reflected by RS) and refuses to acknowledge that minority views cannot be afforded the same weight as per existing WP policies regarding NPOV. please look at this diff here [11]. It is a well established and accepted fact that Kashmiri Pandits left because of an ethnic cleansing campaign against them by Islamist militants supported by Pakistani State ( specifically ISI). any other theory to explain the migration is a distinct minority view which does not belong on WP. Panun Kashmir the leading organisation of Kashmiri Pandits has said it in no uncertain terms why they were forced to leave Kashmir[12]--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the background info, so I can't say for a degree of certainty about anything. With the first diff, I don't really see how that's making the section more neutral. Maybe you guys should ask for a third opinion/request a comment from someone more knowledgeable with the article to help better resolve the dispute. Elockid (Talk) 02:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

He didn't stop for long

69.31.68.204 has obviously started again as 200.237.201.74 : I can't see anypoint in delaying through warnings and AVI. Thanks Kevin McE (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Zzuuzz took care of them. But these are all open proxies. No point in warning them, this is a repeat vandal. Please report them immediately. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Excessive vandalism campaign on Today's featured articles. Elockid (Talk) 16:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No point in warning indeed, that's why I went straight to you quickly, knowing that you were online at the time, and knowing that an admin already on the case can intervene more quickly than an AVI request. I wasn't aware that these attacks on TFAs were ongoing. Kevin McE (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
At the time the attacks were happening I was running an errand, so that's why I wasn't able to act promptly. There are only a couple of admins that are actively monitoring. Other than Zzuuzz and Nakon, Materialscientist, Favonian and HJ Mitchell are other admins you could turn to. Elockid (Talk) 17:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That's OK: it was in hope that I did it: not meaning to nag you for not being quicker  :@) Kevin McE (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

LGBT articles of Brazil

Hello! Brazilian people love U.S. citizens. Many flights from TX, CA, FL, NY, and GE to Brazil exists. You are very welcome. In FEBRUARY, in the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil will be aproved the *SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL* ([13]), and the pages LGBT rights in Brazil and Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil need of you. Because will generate a heavy traffic on these pages, and we need you to help in the English spelling of these pages, you understand me? Please help me. Hentzer (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Question. In the article Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil in the section LGBT stable union, is that a copy of a document? There's some problems with it. If it's a copy I wouldn't want to modify the original text. Elockid (Talk) 02:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

While we're talking socks

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Patrick emerson? Likely a different master, but I'm not sure. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

David Luiz

Edit war started by Adam4267 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (or me?), leave it your the decision to keep my content or not (use Euro & pound, citing original Benfica announcement ), but he may not listen. [14] Matthew_hk tc 00:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I just protected the article per a request on RfPP. I'm not familiar with the subject so I apologize that I cannot tell whether or not your or their content should be kept. The only thing I can tell though is that there does seem that there was an edit war. That's about it. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 16:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A trouble spot

I'm going to be mostly offline for a couple of days, can you keep a look at some socking from Sinsen (talk · contribs) and also any contributions from the underlying IPs ([15]). These are all normally related to Erode district, with a lot of factual inaccuracies and POV pushing across multiple articles. Soon we are likely to reach a point where a range block might be needed. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Elockid (Talk) 05:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Civility in IP edits

Hi, May I ask for your help on Talk:Eucharistic adoration. A question is being asked in a manner that lacks civility and I do not want to do a 3rd revert of the IP. Your help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The question might not sound good but what is being asked seems to be made in good faith to me. This edit summary I would say is bordering on incivility, rather a personal attack. Not really bad though compared to what other admins would block for or the what other editors would deem blockable behavior. Elockid (Talk) 23:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Amazing! Have you seen his talk page? He can ask his question, but does he need to use 4 letter words about it? Does he really think that Catholics polish furniture or .... during church service? Can someone be that confused? Is calling me loony ok? The edit I made to trim his question still left it there. Why should I be reverted? If you allow this type of thing, you just open the door to inappropriate behavior. This is an encyclopedia, not a back alley 4 letter word environment. History2007 (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I apologize but I'm a bit confused by your terminology. What do you mean by 4 letter environment? Them calling you loony I agree is not appropriate. Elockid (Talk) 23:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I meant the use of the word "fart" in talk page edits. Is that necessary when a question is being asked? I see no reason to open the door to that type of language in an encyclopedia, exactly when the question is being asked about a religious item that is being "adored". Is that type of language becoming of an encyclopedia? Is that how standards of "world class culture" set by Wikipedia? History2007 (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that it's necessary. The language doesn't sound classy and gives the impression that it is not serious but unfortunately, it's not really the language that people censor in talk pages. Slurs, common vandalism (repeating characters, sexual references, etc.), most personal attacks (usually ones with swear words), outing, etc. are to my knowledge what people look for from others' comments. Otherwise, most people don't really mind. In most instances the word fart in talk pages such as the phrase "My friend farted" are usually considered vandalism as it has no relation to the article or it's just silly. However, their use of the word fart seems to be related to the question they are asking about the article. Again, I do agree it's not the best choice of words, but I'd say that other vandal fighters like the Hugglers or the Iglooers wouldn't consider that outright vandalism. Elockid (Talk) 00:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well that attitude assumes that Wikipedia is the gutter I guess. I am very disappointed in your relaxed attitude towards inappropriate language. It just opens the door to a low class, profanity laden shameful edit style. If that is your vision of Wikipedia I do not share your vision. History2007 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's not my vision. But the point I was trying to make is that that language is mostly accepted by the community and as such administrative action such as a block or page protection would not be applied. I had a little chat with some other admins and they believe that the comment the IP is making is harmless. I recommend that you go to ANI if you wish to seek another opinion. Elockid (Talk) 00:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, my level of respect for Wikipedia, its policies, the language used and the type of people who use it is rising by the nanosecond here. Long Live the Community of Civility. What was it that Jimmy Wales says when he asks for donations: "....doing extra ordinary things?" He did not mention language of the gutter when he asked for donations, or for free work. Anyway long live civility... History2007 (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your intercession. It didn't occur to me for a moment when writing it that my throwaway line might be considered offensive or disrespectful, but I re-iterate that had I been asked civilly and politely, I would happily have removed the phrase whatever my views on it. The only reason I did not remove it was the lack of civility which was shown. It seems to me, however, that if others are going to be offended by it or feel it is disrespectful, then I ought to rephrase it regardless of the rude behaviour that annoyed me - there's no reason for others to suffer for the above user's bad manners. I would appreciate guidance as to the necessity or otherwise of this - perhaps it would be better if we could all move on. 94.170.107.247 (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Dave

You can just edit that talk page to make it "polite" and we can move on. Will not cost anything to make it polite. History2007 (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Cheers, 99.168.83.112 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad I could I help. Elockid (Talk) 04:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Remind you of someone?

Range? In China, so likely not NP, but similar behavior, so wondering if you might know the master, especially since YM's gone. I'm on-off for a few days, so if you can keep an eye that'd be helpful. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Now he's on as Shova1976 (talk · contribs). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't exactly remember who this is but it looks familiar. I'll see if I can dig some stuff up. Elockid (Talk) 20:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a lead, it might be China Dialogue Net (talk · contribs). I'm gonna ask around and see if anybody is more familiar. Elockid (Talk) 01:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
That one doesn't appear to have an obsession with Ind-Pak though. I thought this could be Shinas, who has also used multiple ranges and proxies in different countries and has a similar obsession and edit summary behavior, but if I'm not mistaken the two CUs only uncovered ranges in India and UK outside of proxies. Eitherways, he opened an SPI on me (that HelloAnnyong deleted) so it's definitely not a new user who can't get to that policy page so quickly. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The thing that caught my eye with China Dialogue Net was this sock: Bombeye (talk · contribs). I was thinking that this might be Hkelkar. But if I remember correctly, he's somewhere in Texas. It's interesting that you bring up open proxies. A lot of mainland Chinese IPs I've seen were/are blocked as proxies or are on blacklists. I've also blocked 112.80.148.0/22 for a week for edit warring on multiple pages. Elockid (Talk) 13:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see the Bombeye one, this is quite similar. Shinas does edit some China-Islam pages too, so it could just be him using one of those proxies. The edit summary usage is very similar. Thanks for taking care of this. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

NP again

Looks like he's back after the flurry of recent Kashmir unprotections - Faheem719 (talk · contribs). Do we need a new SPI given that the two CUs that normally did the blocking aren't around. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a chance this is him but I need him to do something first. We probably need to do an SPI with a CU from now on unless YM, Nishkid or Hersfold start being active again. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I've got a few articles on my WL and I'm sure you do too, so an SPI should be feasible soon. Also, since you're a clerk, would you endorse Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinsen, I think I've spotted a couple more in addition to what sodabottle's listed there. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Case endorsed. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

[16] Tiderolls 03:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI. Elockid (Talk) 03:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the page protection on Iraqi Dinar! -Pax85 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Elockid (Talk) 04:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

iraqi dinar

I noticed you updated information regarding the dinar. I wanted to know your source for the speculation of the rate change...

Thanks so much for your time and i look forward to hearing from you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meishboy (talk • contribs)

Hi there Meishboy! Regarding your concern about the article. I really didn't update anything. I just reverted the article to an earlier revision due to massive amounts of vandalism happening to the article. To answer your question, I didn't use a source, just a bit of maintenance work. Whoever was editing the article before I did probably has a better idea than I do. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 16:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

IP Vandal

You recently blocked 125.160.159.75, there is a duck that needs to be blocked. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And 110.138.99.185. Rangeblock? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reimplementing a rangeblock on 110.138.96.0/22 when I get on my main account. I hope you don't mind. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 13:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done. 110.138.96.0/22 blocked 1 month. 125.166.128.0/20 also blocked 1 month. Elockid (Talk) 19:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Another. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 55 hours. Can't see a feasible rangeblock yet. Elockid (Talk) 03:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
125.166.46.42, same person. Adding random crap to anthem articles, wikilinking DRC territories. I honestly have no idea what they're up to. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Same. I don't really see a reason why they keep making those types of edits. I'm also gonna block 125.166.46.0/24 as soon as I can. Seems like he's been on there for awhile. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 13:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jonasorg

We have yet another block evasion account and I filed another SPI here, this time with CU request because probably only a block on their IP will stop this. --Kudpung (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like HelloAnnyong got it. The protection looks like it will do fine considering that that is the main page they're editing. If you find any other socks, please feel free to message me or report at SPI. Elockid (Talk) 15:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to report some users who are biased, religious discrimination, pushing POV & vandalizing wikipedia articles

Hello Elockid. I am a new user in Wikipedia and I don't know how to report Wikipedia admins. I want to report some users who are biased, religious discrimination, pushing POV & vandalizing wikipedia articles related to India, muslims etc. Everybody can compare the edits done by these users that all these users are clearly vandalizing wikipedia articles and pushing their biased POV and trying defaming muslims by their false propaganda. Can I report the names of those users here to you ? or what should be done for those users ? Shova1976 (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a clear content dispute to me and not vandalism. You have been reverted by multiple users and the only people who has been reverting them are yourself. This is one of the easiest ways to get blocked for edit warring. What I recommend doing is that you sit down and discuss with the other users or further sanctions may be placed. If you would like to report these users as you say, you may do so at WP:ANI or possibly WP:AN3. However, considering what I said previously, this will probably lead to WP:BOOMERANG. Elockid (Talk) 15:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Shova1976

Hi, I saw that you have blocked the user for edit warring. The editor has chosen a user name which seems to be a copycat of my user name and may cause unnecessary confusions in future. I am not sure whether this falls under inappropriate User Names or not, but just thought about sharing my concerns with you. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can see some similarities. But, I'm not sure if this would be a username violation. The accounts for similar usernames that I've seen where admin intervention has occurred are impostor accounts. May I refer you to Daniel Case or Beeblebrox? They're usually active in the username department and will probably be better than I am at addressing your concerns. Elockid (Talk) 15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

Elockid, could you do something about Brazil ongoing discussion? An user called Cybershore insists on placing unnecessary text into the history section. Even though another user (Dr.K.) reverted his edits before (see [17]) he keeps readding it over and over. Although there is an ongoing debate in the talk page (see Talk:Brazil#Expansion), not only he ignored but reinserted (here: [18]). Please, do something about it. --Lecen (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a message in their talk page. I'm also monitoring the situation and will act when/if necessary. Elockid (Talk) 22:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, now things have gone far alway from what I'm able to deal. I discussed the matter in the talk page and explained that according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) a piece of text like "After the events that during the 1910s marked the Brazilian political life" can not stay. What events? What happened? These kind of words are regarded as weasel words and do not contribute at all in improving the text or further understanding it. Also, Brazilian participation in World War One was not important enough to be in a summary like the History section, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections.
I have tried, along with other two editors, to point out those errors. Cybershore ignored the discussion for days and so I decided to remove the entire sentence since no one else agreed with them. He reinserted it [19] and gave as reasons no more as "nobody has presented any counter-argument, limiting to just stick to personal views of what it should be considered important or not" and "In relation to the supposed consensus, well ... No one should fear of facing groups, particularly when members of a group flatly refuse to counter-argue". Enough is enough. He is ignoring what we are saying and nothing will come out of it unless an Administrator tells him that he is supposed to actually care to what other editors say. --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked him for 24 hours. Check his block log. Also, another admin has also declined his unblocked request. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 13:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"What events? Well, Lecen I mention, for example (One more time) the Revolt of the Whip (1910), the Contestado War (1912-16) and the Big General Strike of 1917, apart the political turmoil and street clashes along 1917-18 between groups disagreeing about the appropriateness of Brazil to get involved in the world war I beyond the anti-submarine Warfare. Like it or not, these events marked the Brazil in that decade, are part of Brazilian history and summarized in less than one line, with links to its subsections, do not hurt this page. Related to the gaps in the historic narratives of some articles of this FREE encyclopedia; if they are necessary to keep an appropriate section's length OR are merely due to the fact that we not having yet found ways to fill them briefly, we can only to bide that the time, and the pratice of the constant collaboration of many people, tell us"
And finally, it's sad that still without showing objective arguments against, you preferred to slip into the easy path of subjectiveness about spelling accusing me to use "weasel words", criticizing but without improving - And worst: as if your own phrase in the same section referring to the 1920s years, did not use the same style... a clear example of selfinterest use of double standards Cybershore (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Contrary to what your saying, some editors may consider adding more information to the article as not a good idea. See WP:Article length. Some editors with slow connections complain about how long the loading time. It may seem like an improvement on the outside and it probably really is, but article length is a considering factor in what to put in the article. It may not hurt the article in terms of information, but readability is probably hurt. Based on MBelgrano's comments, it seems that this is a concern.
Per above, it's not necessary to improve and actually many times additions to articles are just deleted outright and kept deleted if multiple editors find it to be unhelpful to the article like in this current situation. The most common reason for doing this is WP:UNDUE. But others also consider what I stated in my fursr statement. Also, I don't believe this is self-interest. Seems like an AGF way of trying to keep the article the best it can be. Elockid (Talk) 01:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, this doesn't neither answer nor fix the question about the pointed Double Standard.
I can even understand that from time to time, people or groups not only try, but succeed in take 'ownership' of certain articles and defend them as 'their feuds', however, it is unacceptable that in this FREE encyclopedia, such behavior may come to be accepted as "consensus" in a closed, eternal, unchanging way or be subject to the whims of few people.
So, the practice of double standard is unacceptable!!! As well as attempts at improvement should not be conveniently viewed as edit warring, vandalism and reverted immediately (as you mentioned AGF), nor have the users discouraged by the bureaucratic procedures or simply mocked, calling them uninformed, unintelligent, uneducated, suggesting that their contributions are to be kept hidden in sub sub sub links, while (double standard again) other ones, with the same concept but incomplete, must be maintained untouchable.Cybershore (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Double standard is not against policy, at least one that I'm not aware of. Rather, people don't get blocked/sanctioned for it until they get to the point where they start using personal attacks, outing or edit disruptively. Commenting on your first statement, that's basically the process that's been decided by policy which in turn is decided by the community. Except that it's not viewed as ownership of the article, but that a decision between the majority was reached.
There's a fine line between improving the article and disruptive editing. Persistently reverting against consensus is disruptive and has the opposite effect of improving. Attempting to improve an article is one thing. But to push your own agenda, making unilateral decisions and overriding them over group decisions is another. They may be attempts to improve the article but other editors don't see eye to eye. In many cases unilateral decisions are criticized. Also, AGF only goes so far. As Bwilkins stated, others may not have been as generous and would have considered a longer block. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 14:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
So, that's it? "double standard is not against policy", Submit or go away? - It seems a convenient loophole to undermine the freedom in this 'free' encyclopedia...
In relation to disruptive editing; push to its own agenda; sorry if it sounds repetitive but:
again: in which point editions that are complementary without breaking the briefness of an summary are disrupitive? And again, one more time, where are the objective arguments against change the "untouchable", "sacred", "holy" version that in theory "anyone could edit"?
double standard again... Oh, yeah is morally wrong, ethically indefensible, but there is nothing in the rules about it, so it's 'ok', the feud can still feel safe, Burn the heretic!
In reference yr mention about BWilkins' statement, maybe I should expect anything else from "impartial" administrators but threats and reprisals (the line between authority and authoritarism), which like the present situation in the Arab world has shown, beyond inefficients often has the opposite effect to the intention... Cybershore (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep putting emphasis on the word free. I don't see how the context of the word free in this encyclopedia relates to the discussions. Could you please explain? Unlike what's going on in the Arab world, the community here, the people, generally frowns upon any sort of unilateral decisions overriding group consensus even if the unilateral decision is meant well especially if it's repeated. This is what's being considered as disruptive. It's not just administrator thinking, this is the norm thinking. This is why I used the term others instead of other adminisrators. To put it in better words, the edit itself isn't what's disruptive, but repeatedly making the same edit after a group of editors said no is what's considered disruptive. Elockid (Talk) 20:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning how the concept of "freedom to edit" fits into this discussion, I believe has already been quite eloquent about it. And, not to mention again how confused tutorials and certain loopholes in the regulation, as the "double standard" behavior don't be fall within the regulation (the disruptiveness can be groupal not just individual), among other things can undermine and discourage the collaborative freedom; only now that you defined what is considered disruptive (by the way, an ambiguous term) here, became clear to me, and I think for other people, the path to be taken in situations like this, assuming of course that your definition is not just a figure of speech and that also others editors are really open to the collaborative spirit of a free encyclopedia, where "anyone can edit". Thus, what a minimum of politeness, clear and precise definitions might not have saved hm?Cybershore (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, technically not everyone is "free" to edit. It's a bit misleading. Banned users are not free to edit Wikipedia. They're not allowed to edit and in many cases they're edits are just reverted to enforce their ban, even useful edits. The sense of the word free in free encyclopedia isn't the freedom to collaborate freely. It's just the encyclopedia is free to read unlike some other encyclopedias such as Britannica where you have to subscribe to be able to read all the articles. Wikipedia doesn't guarantee freedoms but it's an assumed natural right. See Wikipedia:Free speech for example. The "free" in the free encyclopedia isn't related to rights. 23:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, as the regulation about blocking "Blocks should not be punitive", what makes me remember again that a minimum of politeness, clear and precise definitions could avoid a lot of misunderstanding, altough I keep the alert about the question of 'double standard'. Anyway, to close: some jokes, tendencious questions and terrific headlines that 'Misleading policies' can generate:
"Wikipedia, just a empty slogan?" "Are you saying that the whole Wikipedia is based on a misleading concept?"
"It's a bit misleading" "Oh, a bit? Really?" "Just the 'bit' you've said or a bit bit more?" "how bit is the bit?"
"There just a 'bit'?" "When we talk 'misleading' there is a limit?"
"It's just the encyclopedia is free to read" Stop the presses "Social medias, attention": "Wikipedia's admnistrator change the slogan and lower the status" "The Free encyclopedia is not free anymore" "Back to pre-internet; Free just to read As the old and dust encyclopedias in libraries but without academic seal" "wikipedia, hijacked and closed to the world"
The list can be endless, just for fun Cybershore (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, blocking isn't the same as banning. See WP:BAN. I must apologize. I had a chat with some editors in IRC and they have stated that term free may be considered a double entendre as in it's free to read but may also mean free to edit. The basis being Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia. But like in the real world, there are always exceptions and rules to editing. The rules being the policies and also Wikipedia:Free speech. Elockid (Talk) 00:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I believe that two adults can in a civilized and respectful way always (or at least in general should) reach a solution without recourse to a third party, anyway I ask you to continue following the discussion, even though the use of double standards (as disruptive editions), lack of arguments and of politeness are not covered by the regulation of Wikipedia. By the way, is there any reference in regulation against quote an author but changing the meaning of her/his original citation or putting quotation marks in a quote that does not exist in the book used as reference? Cause if not, then there's one more that I suggest to add the list... Cybershore (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for fixing up my talk page and blocking the responsible. :) Jay-Sebastos (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to help. Elockid (Talk) 21:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Malaysia

Thank you for the block. I was in the middle of typing in a request for semi-protection when you did it. I'm not sure if 24 hours is enough as this has been going on for a while (as you can see from the talk page), and is a complete waste of our time. Hope you can keep an eye on it and maybe extend the 24 hours if necessary. Cheers! – SMasters (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. If the person's IP wasn't so dynamic I could probably block for a longer amount of time. Unless they use more IPs, I can't do a rangeblock at this time. Hopefully the duration of the semi will make them discuss. I'll keep an eye out and see if the problem persists during and after the protection. Elockid (Talk) 02:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I meant extending the semi-protect beyond 24 hours, not the IP block. Thanks again and we shall see what happens. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops, sorry of the misunderstanding. Regarding your concern, the protection I put on the article expires in June. Elockid (Talk) 02:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, excellent! Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:GBbuster

User:GBbuster is the fourth sock of the same user in quick succession. Can we please block the underlying IP?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wish I could, but only CUs have access that to information. Might I recommend filling an SPI with a request for CU? Elockid (Talk) 02:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
That's already at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWatchtowerIsLyingToYou, and GBbuster has since been blocked. But I'm not sure if user creation on that IP is still permitted?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Autoblock should block any accounts for 24 hours. Tiptoety should be able to see whether or not it can be extended. If more accounts pop up, that means that he's IP hopping. Elockid (Talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sigh... He's already back as BreakingWT.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Tiptoety took care of it. Please feel free to message if any more pop up. Elockid (Talk) 02:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring FYI

It seems a user Dsisdj is edit warring and trying to push Indian POV on one of your pages of interest. FYI. Intervention requested. 98.225.193.150 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI. Looking at the situation though, it doesn't look like there's any edit warring going on yet. But I always keep an eye on the article. Elockid (Talk) 01:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikireader41's Comments

ElockId, I was reading wikireader41's comments to you (jan 2011 archives). They made me laugh. He is trying to put some 'hot' keywords into his comment to instigate confusion and bias. I am not even sure what he is talking about. First of, I am not even from pakistan and then he makes certain remarks that are unfounded and basically reveals the sick and vile mentality of this guy. At the same time he cites the page Panun Kashmir (which i read for the first time thanks to him). Even that page lists in the Criticism section that this organization allies itself with communal organizations and is vile, so clearly Wikireader41 could be allied to these fundamentalist and communal organizations. In addition, he claims his POV to be majority POV: he should get his facts checked, in fact I would like to invite him to visit this place Kashmir and find for himself. I completely support bringing someone neutral to make this article better, but definitely needs to be clear from the opinions of ones like Wikireader41. If my edits sounded POV, then the article needs to be made clear of them as well as long as lies and falsehood do not creep into the page - I will stand by the neutrality of Wikipedia. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Try not to use adjectives like "vile" or "sick". Some people may treat this as a personal attack. Could you please be more specific which January archives. The archives in his talk page, another article, a Wikipedia page, etc.? You should try considering WP:Third opinion to get more opinions/bring more neutrality to the article. Also, do you want me to see any specific diffs? Elockid (Talk) 00:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Killbillsbrowser please read WP:NPA. I am NOT "allied to these fundamentalist and communal organizations". so please refrain from making unsubstantiated allegations. how would you like if I called you a member of Taliban ??? And I have not only visited Kashmir several times , but also lived there for a period of time but that does not matter. also remember that WP is interested in what is verifiable not necessarily what is true. you might want to read WP:TRUTH also. the facts are there for everyone to see and please do not imply that you know the facts any better than anyone else. the Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits is not an imaginary thing [20],[21]. cheers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikireader41, you amuse me. Does it hurt when you are called something? If you are so sensitive about these allegations, then what about your allegations against me in your comment to Elockid? This basically tell us about you. When you do it, its fine, and if someone else retaliates... ooh that is sooo hurtful... As for what you want to call me, you can call me anything.. that does not mean anything. the facts are clearly there for everyone to see and that is why I present them whenever I can in order to balance the views. Human Rights violations by India in Kashmir is also not an imaginary thing. What bothers you is that you cannot get away with your one-sided story. Elockid, I meant the January archives of your talk page, in which Wikireader41 started all of this personal attack.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any gross personal attacks in that one comment made. Can we also all calm down a bit? Elockid (Talk)
well their are 2 sides of each story. when did I deny it. the human rights situation in Indian Kashmir is MUCH better than the one in Pakistan administered Kashmir. that is a fact cited by multiple RS. killbillsbrowser you do not amuse me at all. so read WP:NPOV and stop complaining and also read Kashmir conflict#Pakistan administered Kashmir. It is pretty clear to me that you are not here to improve WP.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, the human rights situation is "better" is ludicrous. Second of all, just because there is human rights violation in PoK (and that should be brought to light as well), does not mean that the mass human rights abuses in other part of Kashmir should be ignored. I am here to improve Wikipedia just like anybody else. You start doubting my intention and accusing me, I will have every right to do the same for you. The human rights abuses in Indian Kashmir are widespread and are cited by multiple RS. The number of innocent deaths, unwarranted arrests, extra-judicial killings, rapes, torture, murdering prisoners, abductions etc. by the Indian forces have all been cited, well reported and acknowledged by multiple nations in the developed world. Now, if there is something similar (or for argument worse) happening in PoK, then yes that should be presented as well, however, both are independent and bear no consequences on each other. So, please stop trying to push Indian POV, it is mighty clear to me what you are trying to do. In any case, i will not waste my time responding to you. I will participate in making the article better. Elockid, sorry for spamming your talk page. What was it when wikireader41 mentioned terms like 'wahabi' etc. I don't even see a connection, how is it related... it is clear he from his ideology that he is bringing religion in...something I have not even touched upon.... ABout his PoK angle... Can someone tell me, if I say Mars is a planet, what sense does it make to produce an argument like, oh Jupiter is a bigger planet... am i missing something here? Killbillsbrowser (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
and at the same time when there are people full of hate, todays news like this one are a shining light. No matter how you twist this wikireader41, I for one am proud of this piece of news.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about an AfD

Hey, I had a couple questions. I am involved in an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House), full disclosure I said keep all. Most people including at least two admins except a handful have been saying keep as well citing that opponents are incorrectly attempt to apply style guidelines and claiming WP:NOEFFORT as reasons for deletion. The creating user is taking part in what I and another user interpret as WP:CANVASSING since their efforts are failing miserably (see Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:PLOT_for_episode_articles). My first question is, in your opinion is this canvassing. My second question is, is this AfD suitable for being a snowball keep, and if so where do I go to request that it be closed (as frankly it seems to be a waste of time). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For your first question, it looks like a good case canvassing. Looking at the AfD, it doesn't look like a snowball keep now since there's a couple of redirects and deletes in there. Elockid (Talk) 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Another question, it has been over a week. What do I do to get the AfD closed? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you can request a closure at AN. Elockid (Talk) 04:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Old news: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/8MA8/Archive

Hey Elockid, I know that old news is stale news when it comes to SPIs. Still, I thought I'd let you know that I found another IP, which we can maybe keep somewhere for future references, 79.126.248.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Drmies (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If they do reinstate it, you can just report it to me or file an SPI. With regards to Micoapostolov, seems like MuZemike is AFGing with them. Although he did block Micoapostolov indef at first. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 16:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cybershore

Cybershore has added once again his piece of text with different phrasing [22]. I don't know if he believes that this trick will fool us or if he is really headstrong. All I know is that his lack of respect for the community and other users, and for Wikipedia's principles has crossed the safe line a long time ago. The matter was discussed and settled in the talk page and he simply ignored it. --Lecen (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into this when I get more time. I'm a bit on holiday right now so I can't really focus as much. Elockid (Talk) 04:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Question. The thing I'm really seeing the same is the same reference being used. Would you mind pointing out the rephrasing? Elockid (Talk) 12:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I reverted his edition. This is why the text looks like it used to. What bothers me beyond this kind of behavior is the way he treats editors. I can barely discuss something there since he is unnable to respond if not with ironies and attacks. He has since left the article alone since then, but I'd like to ask you to keep an eye in case he returns. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Elockid (Talk) 23:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Same person, expanding their worldview slightly

Contributions of the IP. Changes to dates (although no longer 2012), and new Federal Republic craze. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocked again. Elockid (Talk) 12:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Urgh...not enough. [23]. I worry about whether other IP's have gotten away unnoticed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Another rangeblock. Quite surprised that I didn't block this sooner since he's been on the range I blocked for months. A bit worried. But I think with the active vandalism patrol, we should be fine. I'm also watching some of the articles their editing. Elockid (Talk) 14:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Reverted by someone else, but good to know they're getting back to their roots. [24] Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like my block on 125.166.128.0/20 expired. That will be getting another 3 month block when I'm able to. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 12:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nangparbat Today

Blocked. I protected one of pages he was editing since that was targeted before. The other is on PC already. The others I'll keep on my watchlist to see if they go there again. Elockid (Talk) 12:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I presume you guys can backup this claim with some evidence per WP:SOCK. I haven't gone through and checked all of this IP's contributions in detail, but certainly this one looks to be 100% correct, and of their first few contributions (and the others I have taken a brief look at) all the others look to be on a similar line making the encyclopaedia more neutral, which has to be a good thing.
Given I've actually been through quite a few protections due to Nangparbat it doesn't ring any of the alarm bells that when Nangparbat does make edits to pages that usually ring (other than editing Pakistan related articles from an 86.*.*.* IP address - but obviously that's going to trawl all the other British Pakistanis who use that IP range as well).
You guys are more than welcome to email me the evidence if you don't wish to present it on wiki. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
He likes changing the words administered, occupied, controlled or any other similar words/derivatives that are in the article to another one of the three mentioned. He's tried this several times such as this, this, this, this and this. He also has a preference to add those words thisand this.
Also, the IP commenting about someone is pretty much a giveaway. Elockid (Talk) 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That would all be very compelling, except that Pakistan occupied Kashmir is pretty obviously a POV term, whereas Pakistan administered Kashmir is much more neutral. Additionally Pakistan administered Kashmir is what the article on that subject is called. Finally I looked in a thesaurus for synonyms of governed, and the only sensible alternatives that aren't POV are "Pakistani governed Kashmir", "Pakistani controlled Kashmir" or "Pakistani administered Kashmir", so there aren't many alternatives to pick from.
After making the comment here I noticed the talk page thing and I thought that was compelling, except that the user in question hasn't edited since January 2009, and they aren't blocked as a sock-puppet of someone either - additionally they do have "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" on their user page so it might show up in a search for that term, and they do make the particularly absurd claim that Kashmir is in south-east asia - claiming Bangladesh is in South East Asia would be fairly silly, but at least its on the right side of India. As they claim to be Kashmiri too so its the sort of thing that might lead you to post on their talk page.
That they have only seem to have made the encyclopaedia more neutral and haven't reverted anyone else's edits makes it rather unlikely they are a super-vandal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the term is disputed as you can see from the history of the article. Since neutrality is based on perception, either side may claim (actually already argued) that whatever wording is more neutral than the other. Both have been discussed as more POV than the other. It's all a matter of opinion. No comment on which is more neutral. A bit ironic that you mentioned that they're making the encyclopedia more neutral since that's one of the primary reasons he got banned and a whole bunch of admins, checkusers, vandal fighters, editors, you name it reverted those kinds of edits. NP isn't a super-vandal, though some editors who contribute in that area consider him to be. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 12:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Being white and British I have no eggs in this particular conflict, however its quite clear that 'occupied' is more POV, just look at Occupied "Military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army. The territory then becomes occupied territory." and then if you take a look at occupied territory that's even clearer "Occupation is a term of art in international law; in accordance with Article 42 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Fourth Hague Convention); October 18, 1907,[1] territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." and "Examples of occupied territory include Germany and Japan by the Allies in the aftermath of World War II; Cambodia by Vietnam from 1979 until 1989; and Iraq by the United States and its allies after the 2003 invasion."
Given that it seems rather strange to consider that claiming a territory is occupied is less POV than administered, which merely states that someone controls the territory - although if you follow the stub Administered territories maybe the best term would even be Pakistani Kashmir and Indian Kashmir.
Of course maybe Occupied would be reasonable if we called both sides territory occupied, but in that case we would be implying that the whole of Kashmir was occupied and would be pushing the POV that Kashmir should be an independent state as it would be implying that it was occupied by hostile armies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Though if you wish to bring up whether administered is more neutral than occupied at the appropriate noticeboard we can discuss this matter further there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a preference on which of the words is more neutral. But I'm just pointing out that there is a long history of dispute in this area and because of this, saying that something is obviously more POV/neutral than the other in the presence of multiple established editors reverting the same edit(s) isn't exactly what I would I call more obviously POV/neutral. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Myanmar

Is this a good enough pop stat for Myanmar? http://countryoffice.unfpa.org/myanmar/2009/10/30/1474/indicators/ talk> 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit out outdated. The UN has more recent population estimates for Myanmar at their 2008 revision. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 19:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

New section

Detroit is no longer the 11th largest U.S. city based on U.S. Census data:

http://www.freep.com/article/20110322/NEWS06/110322036/Census-2010-Detroit-population-plummets-713-777-lowest-since-1910?odyssey=mod%7Cbreaking%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

Like what several other editors have been stressing, please see the talk page about updating to the 2010 Census data. Please note that there is no such thing as a 2011 Census data. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 19:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion

I'm curious as to why my page I recently created titled Lavender Town Syndrome was deleted. It didn't fall under any of the deletion criteria. It was stated that it was a fictional story and was not vandalism. If such an urban legend is vandalism then deletion should begin on such pages as Bunny Man and Bloody_Mary_(folklore) to name a few. Johnsmithy678 (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Unlike those two, those are notable pages. The article you created, Lavender Town Syndrome, looks like silly vandalism to me. It's not encyclopedic. Actually, another admin also tagged the page as a G3. Elockid (Talk) 03:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard of the 'Bunny Man' before in my life until just now when I went to look up other urban legends. In fact, there are multiple YouTube videos with well over 500,000 views pertaining to the topic of the Lavender Town story, while the highest video I can find in relation to the Bunny Man is 70,000. Most urban legends are purely hear-say anyways, so the simple opinion that it isn't relevant by one person's standards doesn't reflect anothers's. This story is an often talked about legend on multiple gaming forums specifically; there was no page about it, so I created it. Though it may be 'silly', it provides information and is not detrimental to the Wikipedia community whatsoever, so in my personal opinion, deletion of this page violates Wikipedia's writing criteria which states that an edit must post a "Neutral point of view, which describes Wikipedia's mandatory core approach to neutral, unbiased article-writing... which prohibits the use of Wikipedia to publish personal views and original research of editors and defines Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia of existing recognized knowledge...". Writing a page and deletion of a page should be under standards. You can't write an opinion or delete on an opinion. I understand another admin flagged this article, but as an admin you still took the action and you have a position of power to make the ultimate decision. You don't have to reply to this because I'm not going to invest any more of my time on this topic, so I won't be returning to read one; just some food for thought regarding apparently current trends.

Psych (season 6)

Can you speedily delete this page and salt it afterwards? It was recreated recently after deletion.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Elockid (Talk) 04:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.Jasper Deng (talk)

Sock harrassment

I noticed you playing whack-a-mole with a few socks harrassing you on talk pages, and am wondering if a range block is necessary.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm already on it. Elockid (Talk) 01:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Purple Barnstar
You definitely deserve one of these for blocking that round of harassment puppets! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Elockid (Talk) 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Yes, please protect my talk page (semi-protection).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For how long? Elockid (Talk) 03:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Until that sock problem is solved with CheckUser and rangeblocks.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Wish I could do that, but I don't think were supposed to. Do you think a week will be fine in the meanwhile? Elockid (Talk) 03:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That'll be fine.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 Done. Elockid (Talk) 03:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Asian American article scope

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#South Asian Americans are not considered Asian Americans. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Mail

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sock update

Any update on the socks? I saw at least one new sock made and blocked today.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Two additional socks: User:Senoj Ocon and User:Nono Joces.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Handled. Sorry to say, no new info yet. Elockid (Talk) 02:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Why are you blocking those unrelated IP ranges? We're dealing with JtV, not that other guy. --Bsadowski1 02:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Risker told me it's Moulton not JtV. She told me it was JtV at first but she changed her mind after seeing some of socks. Elockid (Talk) 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it's JtV. --Bsadowski1 02:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Hold on. I'll be on IRC. Elockid (Talk) 02:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Again I repeat, why are you blocking those unrelated IP ranges? This is JtV we are dealing with still, not Moulton. --Bsadowski1 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting two different pieces of information. Another CU said that JtV is in Boston??? Elockid (Talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
No, Moulton is in Boston. JtV is in a totally different country. --Bsadowski1 00:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Um. So I'm getting a lot of different information on top other information I found. Mind clarifying? You mind telling whose making similar edits from who on those ranges. Elockid (Talk) 00:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ack!

I was going to revert your user subpage, but Huggle accidentally reverted your edit for some reason and then you protected the page with my vandalism right as I clicked the "rollback" button! Sorry about that! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Elockid (Talk) 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ham...

...murabi bot. What's LTA? 43?9enter (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Short for Long-term abuse. Elockid (Talk) 00:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Two more socks

User:Typical researcher at MIT and User:Unusual researcher at MIT. CheckUser should be used to find where they came from.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked already. You may need to protect your talkpage.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
There appears to be a very large quantity of sockiness going on at the moment. See ANI where a couple have popped up. N419BH 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
@Jasper: just did. Again thanks for the quick response.
@N419BH: I'm only seeing one possible sock atm probably 76.172.47.95 too. The probable sock is already blocked and ANI is on my watchlist. Did I miss any? Elockid (Talk) 23:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Only other one I've spotted atm is this diff as a first edit by a new account. Otherwise so far it looks okay. Just seems odd that you're getting socked, ANI's getting socked and that edit's obviously from someone who knows what they're doing. I'll keep an eye for any more popping up. N419BH 23:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on the Bon Jovi one. Not too sure if that's a sock yet. As for the socking it's not really odd once you know the reason. I can tell you more about the background info privately for why this is happening if you're interested. Elockid (Talk) 23:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked user, naughty behavior

It's trivial, probably, but perhaps you could consider scrapping the talk page access for 203.214.68.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They're not doing anything productive with their talk page privilege. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Materialscientist already got it. Elockid (Talk) 02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Blinded you with science again, huh? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, as usual. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Vermapriya sock

Hi, I've just seen the conclusion of the SPI & have a query. Can you point me to anything that explains autoblocks? I'm just curious about how they are triggered/used - not seen the term before as my involvement with SPI has been minimal. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Autoblock for more info. To make things short, when an account is blocked, the last IP that the account used will automatically be blocked as well. Anybody who edits from that IP for the next 24 hours will be automatically blocked. Also, unless the IP has been blocked before, non-admin users will not be able to see whether an IP is blocked or not. I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Elockid (Talk) 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
That's great. As I said, I was just curious but had a half-feeling you might only be able to tell me if you killed me afterwards <g> Thanks very much, and also for your assistance in sorting out the recent problems directed at me and others. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elockid/Archive_6&oldid=1140631790"