User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Feb07

Wikipedia Week

The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week#Wikipedia Week. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. Badbilltucker 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I think....

...that you could do with a cucumber :o) Guy (Help!) 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cucumber doesn't help to teach him that wheel warring is bad, for instance. Or blocking when involved in a dispute. Or blocking for removing HIS template from a page and calling it vandalism. The user has probably violated more policies than I have. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to violate WP:STALK, ALTTP, you will be forceably stopped from doing so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to resolve dispute

So are you going to apologise for calling me a douche? Hypnosadist 14:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, allow me - InShaneee apologizes for any offense you may have taken at any remarks he/she may have made. He/she requests that you begin following wikipedia policies, specifically, WP:STALK and WP:CIVIL, and pledges to do the same. If your stalking behavior, Hypno, over a 3 month old block continues, more eyes are going to start looking at you, and you will not appreciate the attention - stop now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted! Lets move on and leave this behind us (RL can make me snappy too). Hypnosadist 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. I hope that my outside view on Talk:Committee for Skeptical Inquiry helped resolve the dispute there, as well as providing me with some experience in mediation; a skill I'm likely to need as an admin. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilf anion (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User ignoring policy

Hi InShaneee, got a little situation going on, there’s been a dispute between four editors about the redirect of an article which had its contents moved to several other articles – the original article, now empty, had to be preserved for the 2 year old edit history.

One editor (User:Jc37) believed the redirect should go to a “lists” or “disambiguation” page, while the other three thought the article should be redirected to the main name article where the most relevant content was moved to.

In the middle of the dispute, the one editor (User:Jc37) took pre-emptive action to move the old redirect article under dispute to a new article, then created a new article with the old name.

He did this over the objections of one of the disputing editors, (User:Goldfritha) and during a holiday Wikibreak of another disputing editor (me!). This completely contrary to spirit of the AfD findings, the talk page discussion on the redirect, and bypasses the entire dispute resolution process.

The original article was Wizard (fantasy), which was moved to List of wizards in fantasy, which is one of the articles we asked that it not be redirected to! Then he created a brand-new Wizard (fantasy) article with no edit history [1].

I’d like to see User:Jc37 warned, so he doesn’t ignore the dispute resolution process again, and if possible have the changes he made reversed until we all come to a final decision.

Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been off Wikipedia for a few days due to illness, and I'm not sure if anything was done about this, or if anything should. Can you let me know? Dreadlocke ☥ 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, unfortunately the ANI entry was removed because it was not responded to within the two-day limit. Should we put it back up there, or can you assist? Dreadlocke ☥ 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new one up elsewhere: WP:AN#Request_for_advice. --InShaneee 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, it's everywhere! I was actually attempting to escalate above a request for advice on this issue and get admin involvement. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I go ahead and place my request to you on the ANI page? I don't think jc37's request on the "request for advice" page is suitable for what I'm complaining about. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it suitable for us to comment on jc37's "request"? Goldfritha 01:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and put my request on the ANI notice board. Let me know if there's any other place I should put it. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASUE

Hello, InShaneee/Archive/Feb07 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to A Series of Unfortunate Events. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject A Series of Unfortunate Events, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of A Series of Unfortunate Events and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3 Clamster 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

This [2] is another in a series of personal attacks and uncivil conduct by this user. Another editor blanked the comment, but I think this user needs to be warned. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you saw it, but Belbo Casaubon deleted your comment [3] Dreadlocke ☥ 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I know this is a bit late, but you've made 3 reverts in 24 hours at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. I know that you are an experienced editor and you know that edit warring is unacceptable. It fosters bad feelings and prevents proper resolution. You ought to be using dispute resolution like mediation when in a conflict, not aggressively edit warring. Thank you, Khoi khoi 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Paranormal articles page

Feel free to delete it. However, one of the reasons for creating the page was to permit the recent changes function to be used, as indicated on the project page. To the best of my knowledge, having such a page is the only way to use that function. If, however, there is another one, than I would have no objections whatever to the removal of the page. Badbilltucker 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. It might be best if only one or two members actually added the articles to the page. The recent changes is determined by the presence of the page name on the article page, so they would all have to be added eventually. But it might make it easier if it weren't revised too often, potentially playing hob with the server. No disagreement if you wish to do so. Badbilltucker 01:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intending to do so, actually. :) Badbilltucker 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually certain of it. Am adding banners and assessments to the articles by category right now, to ensure that they all show up. Badbilltucker 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. However, having an assessment is often better than not having one. Categories and articles will be worked out as soon as all articles are reviewed and assessed. Right now, it looks like the Cryptids cat will be broken up at least three ways, into real, mythical, and other alleged, but I want to ensure that they're all assessed before I do the break up, and then try to find other projects that engage in assessments that can replace the existing banner. Then, the articles will be broken up into the various subcats. Badbilltucker 02:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

I have blanked your userpage. The content was innapropriate, as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --InShaneee 14:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may not place it here, either. --InShaneee 15:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; Whatever makes you happy is fine with me - take it easy Surena 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion to Gaz

You recently reverted an edit to Gaz. While I am inclined to agree with your reversion, it appears to me to be a perfectly good-faith edit and should probably not have been marked minor. Regardless, I have started a new discussion on Talk:Gaz regarding this, your response would be appreciated. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Formal warning

Excuse me, I have been trying to focus on content for nine months now, but all my attempts to improve the article Persian Gulf naming dispute by insisting on verifiability and neutral point of view are quickly reverted by a small group of editors with specious or irrelevant arguments, and my attempts to resolve this on the articles talk page, if responded to at all, are responded to with equally specious, illogical or irrelevant arguments. In those nine months I have effectively made no progress. Please scan my contributions on Talk:Persian Gulf naming dispute and the responses. Do you have suggestions how I should "focus on content" with more effect than writing to /dev/null? --Lambiam ^Talk 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Paranormallogo1.png

Just wanted to understand your rationale in deleting this image, especially considering the relevant discussion. --InShaneee 03:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I completely missed that discussion. I'm new to IfD, and I didn't know that relisted images get their discussion in a new place. I've restored the image. Thanks for pointing this out, and thanks even more for coming to me in a calm manner :-) —Mets501 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Haham_hanuka

Hi, I saw you've made comments in the past on User talk:Haham hanuka about the conduct of this user. I just wondered if you're not too busy if you could take a look at Adolf Hitler where he is repeatedly removing serious and well-thought out sentences from the header with simplistic comments (the most recent being "rv vandal") generally aimed at me. His aim appears to be to trim out any reference to Hitler's crimes as regards general references to the second world war. Regardless of one's position on this, he is very incivil in his mode. He also appears to have broken 3RR today. Can you intervene in some way as an admin? For example a block for repeated incivility? MarkThomas 14:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop referring to the other as vandals. --InShaneee 15:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Oversight Board

As you are the only person who has responded negatively on the proposed project page regarding the project, I thought that it might be best to raise the matter directly to you. I had in fact contacted wikipedia's lawyer about the subject over a month ago, specifically requesting him to remove the proposal from the proposal page if he thought it would not be productive. He has not done so to date. Also, you said how you can't see how a project would affect a legal proceeding. The specific intention is to prevent the possibility of the legal proceeding ever being started, by providing an independent body which could be contacted short of a formal court hearing. So, basically, the intention is to, as it were, prevent the formal legal proceeding from ever taking place.

The idea was first proposed as a wikipedia guideline when one regularly hostile longtime contributor created userpages detailing what he saw as abuses of admin power. He did correctly raise the point that the admins are basically answerable to no one but other admins, and hinted at the possibility of collusion. Clearly, I don't think that is ever likely to happen, but a comparatively small group of people with power are often seen by conspiracy theorists in that light. There was also at least an indication of this user going further, possibly to court. Seemingly, as I don't think he's been banned yet, that hasn't happened. It however still could. When the idea was first proposed, I did note that the majority of the admins had taken umbrage at the idea in much the same way that you seemingly have, and more or less rejected it on the basis of it being perceived as being insulting to them. One person did get the idea, however. He specifically said that, something like Caesar's wife, admins not only have to more or less be pure, but they have to be perceived as being pure to be truly effective. Not giving others any outside recourse to appeal to does clearly mitigate that perception of purity, as admins are basically answerable to no one but other admins. Again, the wikipedia counsel himself has refused to weigh in on the point one way or another, despite my specifically requesting him to note if he thought it was a bad idea. As he has not done so, I have kept the proposal there, so that, when the worst does happen, as it almost certainly will, the proposal will still be there to be enacted upon if it is seen as being a possible remedy to the situation. I hope that this makes it a bit clearer to you. Personally, I don't think that the idea is likely to be enacted before it is, as it were, "too late" (whenever that may be), but still want the proposal to be there to be considered when and if that time does arise. Badbilltucker 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Josh d

Regarding attack articles like the above, please be careful in the future to remove the automatic deletion summary before finalizing the deletion in order not to perpetuate the damaging information in the deletion logs that are visible to everyone and that even oversight cannot remove. Thanks. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Your President

Hey man, why was my page deleted? It is an actual band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mintoisgod (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Invite,toolbox

Place your name in the "Favorite Admin" listings and make a copy of my toolbox. Martial Law 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

HELP, please!

ZakuSage has now started an organized campaign to keep sticking his harassment pages back into my user space over and over again. This is beyond ridiculous. RunedChozo 20:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "organized campaign". No such thing is in his userspace. This user is entirely out of line, and I'd like something to be done about him. - ZakuSage 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RunedChozo and ZakuSage

Hope you're about, these two editors have now become involved in an edit war over ZakuSage's attempts to place RunedChozo on the list of suspected sock puppets page. RunedChozo even moved the material into the main article namespace. Since you commented on the noticeboard earlier in their argument, thought you might be able to/want to do something about it before it escalates further. Thanks. QmunkE 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already moved the things out of the main namespace one Qmunk informed me that was wrong. I'm trying to deal with ZakuSage who just keeps harassing me over and over again, deliberately lying about me too. RunedChozo 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You consistently moved sockpuppet report into MY userspace. Most of this is visable in the history of that article, and some is now visable here after an accident while moving it. - ZakuSage 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I made a mistake because YOU kept leaving a confusing trail of redirects, and I apologized for that on the proper evidence page, and fixed the error as soon as I saw it again. Stop your lying ZakuSage. RunedChozo 20:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was clear and blatant vandalism. STOP THE LIES! - ZakuSage 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one lying, ZakuLiar. RunedChozo 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runed, I hope your break last for a while, because if you come back and continue your accusations, it will become an enforced break. Zaku, if you touch Runed's userspace, make one more accusation against him, or call him a 'liar' or anything else, you will be blocked IMMEDIATLY. This ends here. --InShaneee 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the continued drama, but I actually haven't touched his userspace since the first day of this mess. I apologize sincerely for my actions and will be sure to avoid this user in the future. - ZakuSage 02:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]