User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Jul06

Ruzgar

He added the image again. :( —Khoikhoi 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again! —Khoikhoi 18:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why you support the removal of the picture Ruzgar added in this link: Kurdistan Workers Party. It has no copyright problems as far as I know and is relevant to the subject. I am inclined to think that you are acting out of bias here. I am shocked to see such behaviour from an admin. I shall not edit the article as I am not a registered user but I strongly urge you to be neutral. Thank you. --85.103.192.170 19:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Werdnabot Oddity

Hey. Werdna bot just created a new talk page archive for me at User talk:Inshaneee/Archive/Jun06. Note that in my username, the 's' is capital (InShaneee) leading to the archive page being put in a weird place. Any idea why that would happen? --InShaneee 06:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. When I added your archiver code, I made a mistake in the code. You'll find it's been fixed. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 06:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anittas

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnittas&diff=56673994&oldid=56673791 for translation you may use http://dictionar.info.uvt.ro/modules.php?name=Tradu It says Devil of inferior ardelean (Romanian from Ardeal)...--GDP 18:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnittas&diff=56682176&oldid=56681915 --GDP 18:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to Bonny's friend:

Ce so întâmplat bai sugaci de pule, futeţai neamu-n gurǎ sǎţi fuţi. Ce futaiu mǎtii iţi tot bagi pula-n pizda unde nu-ti fierbe oala? Lasa-l ma pe GPD in pace daca nu tie fute soarele. Fii atent ce mai faci ca-ti trag pula-n gura de uiti cine tio futut azi-dimineata.

A quick translation: What has happened, you sucker of dicks, fuck your relative's mouth. Why in the name of your fucking mother do you penetrate your dick in the vagina that does not belong to you? Leave GDP alone (...cannot translate). Beware what you do, or I'll put my dick in your mouth in such a way that you'll forget who fucked you this morning. --Candide, or Optimism 18:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15:53, 3 June 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Anittas (drac de ardelean inferior) You said this long before you replied to my friend. --GDP 18:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 101

Thanks for helping me in editing Channel 101, I tried early as you could see, but you've really improved it. Yanksox 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 101 is great, I revamped the 102 page as well. It made me a little sad, considering I'm a 102er. Have you seen the new primetime shows? Yanksox 17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Of the notable shows you deleted, Gemberling and Jesus Christ Supercop are of some notability. I think everyone has seen the latter, but no one remembers the title. Also, Gemberling, I forgot the titles but has been featured in a magazine (with Cat News) and shown on television. Yanksox 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, it's funny, I try upholding myself to high standards and I'll do dumb things like this. :P. I'm looking for the magazine. I'm sorry if I've been irratable. Yanksox 17:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NY TIMES article that mentions 102 and "Cat News," probably not useful.[1].

Forum post, more for interest and not useable, about Howard Stern liking "Gemberling[2].

Entertainment Weekly article showing both "Cat News" and "Gemberling"[3]. Yanksox 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe's new block

Hi InShaneee,

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has been blocked by User:HOTR in clear violation of the blocking policy.[4]. He’s posted an unblock template on his talk page, where a discussion is taking place. Fresh from the false ANI report against him and resulting block (for six reverts in six days!), it's starting to look like persecution. I would deeply appreciate your willingness to take a look at this.

(Yes, I just sent an identical message to Pgk, I hope twice doesn't count as spam - it's just I'd nothing new to say)Timothy Usher 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: He's been unblocked. Hope I've not bothered you.Timothy Usher 17:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of personal attacks

Before taking the word of a newly registered trouble maker like Deepblue06, keep a closer look at the issue at hand before leaving such a message on my talk page. Fad (ix) 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry, but when there are mass registration of users primary for the purpouses of contributing in one talk page at the same time and that I start recieving threats by posting personal informations allegedly about me on the talk page of the same article and that there are many socks, those involved in this are indeed called trouble maker. Troublemaker is not a personal attack, it means, 'trouble maker' someone who makes trouble. But given that you took Lutherian the vandal as a normal contributor and took his words for granted I can't say your decision really surprised me. Anyway, your opinion at this point isen't much relevant since I will be bringing the cases of that article at the Arbcom and clean my reputation ones for all. Fad (ix) 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you aren't interested to even consider that your action isen't the proper conduct of an experienced administrator. That you have included the template including edit waring when I haven't ever engaged in edit war or never having been blocked for 3RR I hope isen't indicative of your overal handling of administrator privilages. Consider this as my last answer about this issue. Regards. Fad (ix) 02:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've warned Fadix (talk • contribs) [5] but that did not seem to have. much effect. The user constantly keeps accusing others being sockpupets. Here's the user's recent accusation record on me:

He first accused me being user Torque [6]

and then admitted his/her mistake with no apology but kept accusing me being another user, Neurobio this time [7],

accepted his/her mistake with no apology again but kept accusing me being a sockpupet again [8]

and again [9]

and again [10]

and again [11]

and again [12]...

There's no end to the accusations despite my requests to stop it. This is getting quite nerve-breaking, I don’t know how to deal with this user. I'd appreciate any help. I'm trying my best not to lose my temper. Deepblue06 00:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack

I needed to ask for some assistance, InShaneee, care to check this comment in my talk page? Is it a personal attack? I had a suspicion about a bunch of users being sockpuppets or meatpuppets, and wrote a report, is that considered a provocation from my side? Anyone has the right to be suspicious, according to activities of editors, right? any help would be appreciated. ilir_pz 23:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you automatically came to InShaneee to help you, just like Albanians have always done, always asking for help from someone more powerfull and experienced. You see, I try to solve problems on my own, like any confident man, without crying to my "big brother". InShaneee, good luck with this user, I hope you understand how he's taking advantage of your powers, and I hope you will ignore his last statement. --

serbiana - talk 00:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InShaneee, as you can notice from the comment above "Funny you automatically came to InShaneee to help you, just like Albanians have always done," I am being additionally an object of wiki-stalking, personal attacking, and what not. I do not ask for a big brother here, but try to stop people who disturb me, in a civilized way through competent people. I am confident enough that admins know how to deal with such in a better way. Regards, ilir_pz 00:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See how he's sucking up, InShaneee? As I've said, good luck. --

serbiana - talk 00:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You dropped a line in my talk page, asking me to rather discuss than just revert or I will be blocked. If you looked at the talk page of the article, I did call for people to discuss and not continue inserting that box, which I consider inappropriate there. And as you can see, none responded. So I do not think it should be me who should be warned for not discussing, but a bunch of "MSN coordinated" users who keep reverting it in a synchronized fashion, to make me cross the 3RR rule, or get the attention of an admin, like you in this case. Please revise the edits, and then accuse me. If I deserve it, I don't mind, but in this case I do not. ilir_pz 10:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I've been causing any frustration to you by my reverts, which I still insist I always discussed for, and justified. Nevertheless, I think you have many more other editors to worry about, and a rather different approach (than block) works with me. I apologize again. Regards, ilir_pz 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comment

The comment I removed was my own that I deleted right after I wrote it when I realized it was erroneus. Homey went through the history to copied it down so that he could have something to refute.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem very reasonable to me. I removed the comment before he even wrote the next post. How could you say that that is not extremely rude? It would be one thing if I went back to the middle of the discussion and removed a part of a bad argument, but this is different, anyways even if you don't see it as being wrong to reinsert the comment, how could you consider it okay to block someone for it? Especially when he and I were the only parties to the dispute?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that you removed a sentence from your own post, it's that you removed a quotation and explanatory sentence from the post *I* made in response thus rendering what remained of my post nonsensical. If you had left it at altering your own post there wouldn't be a problem. Homey 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe, I served a one-week block for a comment that was posted by accident and immediately self-reverted. Welcome to Wikipedia. Al 18:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Regarding this edit: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --InShaneee 00:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inshaneee, I posted the following on User talk:Lutherian: [13] in response to you posting [14].

....and then you leave me a note on my talk page saying not to make personal attacks?? Was asking if you were joking a personal attack?? I don't know all the templates on Wikipedia but I assume you used on here. Can you please let me know how you feel I personally attacked you? I actually don't agree with User:Lutherian on his stance regarding the Armenian Genocide but I found your statement that "Wikipedia is not a place to voice your personal opinions and points of view, especially when they are attacking the points of view of others" to be contradictory. Anyways, sorry if you felt I was attacking you, I defineately did NOT mean to, rather just to question your comment. Thanks and carry on! --Tom 02:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What I said is true; wikipedia is not the place to express your personal opinions. If you read WP:V, Wikipedia only accepts verified facts. This includes on talk pages; these are not for discussion of topics in articles, but rather for discussion of article content, formattion, and other writing concerns. --InShaneee 18:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi InShaneee, please re-read WP:V. It states "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace." Talk pages, see Help:Talk page, are the PERFECT place to for personal opinions like, "I think it would be better if we used this source rather than that source" and the like. I TOTALLY agree that civility and WP:PA are essential, but to say that Wikipedia should be totally devoid of opinions is, err, well, you decide....Thanks! --Tom 20:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're saying the same thing, just misunderstanding each other. I wouldn't consider a "this source is better than this source" debate to be expressing an opinion, since you'd want to back up your stance with evidence, and ideally it becomes a fact that your source is better. All I meant was that you can't express opinions such as "I think Bush should be impeached" or "I don't think you're a good editor" or even "I don't think I'm voting democrat this year". See what I mean? --InShaneee 20:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi InShaneee, sorry for the delayed response. No, in my OPINION, we are NOT saying the say thing. My OPINION is that we are saying TWO different things. If you would like a nice side project about Wiki civility, would you mind puting User talk:The Mad Bomber on your watch list?? Thanks and have a pleasant day :) --Tom 13:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero interest in any 'civility side project'. If you have any concerns about this users' actions, please take them up through the official channels. --InShaneee 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okie doukie. --Tom 23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sedat Laciner

I have moved comments/rant to the talk page. It doesnt appear very civil to me. Care to investigate? --Cat out 17:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedat Laciner seems to be suffering from vote stacking. I have User:Moosh88, User:Hakob, User:Eupator, and User:Fadix whom are not regular voters on AFD. See their userpages... :) --Cat out 10:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I will not be playing this stupid game with you

I gently request that you step down and ask another administrator to manage this thing. There is hardly any policies or guidelines being respected on that talk page of that article, either you decide to read what is happening there and pay attention or stop giving up to trouble makers. Just for your information, deepblue06 that is reporting me, has done much worst, and here an example. [15] Slandering an academic with words such as this: 'Dadrian is only good at one thing: Propoganda and Forgeries' is worster than calling some anonymous user a liar. Also, it would be interesting that you highlight the words which you think would qualify as ban material. Also, don't worry, other than slandering academics like this, which is a clear cases of diffamation and is criminal under the laws of his state, deepblue06 isen't immune of making personal attacks like accusing me of hallucination. [16] But since that articles talk page is in a choas, I won't take part in scrutinizing who slandered whom most by whom and to whom. Being an administrator is not to distribute warnings without taking the time to understand, even in court of law, an element of the evidences are not processed before trying to place it in context. Fad (ix) 22:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your intention is to follow any single posts I make and provoke me, you won't obtain any results from that. I will ignore your last warning because there is absolutly nothing remote to what could be constituted as warning material. Having administrative privilages doesn't give you the right to throw peoples warning like this. In my book you don't fit to administratorship and I am confident that more you distribute such empty warnings and more it will become clear as it is a matter of time. But what was I expecting, when an administrator retaliate for a critic of himself and sign an RfC in which he was not involved in anyway or ban another member because he criticised him/her and didn't left another administrator handle it, obviously there is something wrong. Stop searching bugs, I have no problem being watched over and will gladly welcome any administrators to pay attention to my conducts, but out of respect to veterans here many who are registered before even you came here, at least you should leave them tell you step down and leave another administrator handle the situation. You are taking this matter too personally, and consider that you don't have to do that everytime some criticize your use of administrative privilages. Fad (ix) 02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how non-answer by any other administrator supports your decision, to the contrary. There was no rejection of the unblock by any administrator which speak by itself, in court of law, it is this same doubt that set someone free. That you have not admitted your mistake, this I won't forget, but I'm sure you don't care. I will in due time report your mistake. Fad (ix) 04:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht rock

If you have issues with article content, how about discussing it rather than dumping citation templates into it? Without an explanation, I can't tell what your citation requests mean.

The article just finished an AfD that was caused by a number of editors believing "yacht rock" to be a neologism - ie, a new term. If it's not a new term (as your edit suggested), then it can't be a neologism. So who's right?

The articles that are already referenced in the article credit "yacht rock" to Ryznar and the show, which is precisely why the article survived the AfD process.

I have no problem with an editor attempting to improve an article. But unexplained drive-by "citation needed"'s do absolutely nothing to help an article. They deserve at least the barest modicum of an explanation, at least so that the editors who actually care about the article can figure out how to accommodate. -- ChrisB 04:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't get me wrong, I AM a fan of the series. Second of all, I thought that my cite requests were pretty self-explanitory. Mainly, I want to see some proof that the creators of the show popularized the term. I'd appreciate if you'd add back in my cite requests for the statements pertaining to that for the time being. --InShaneee 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I started working on the article, a couple of folks challenged the idea that the show popularized the term. They insisted that it existed beforehand to describe that music. I'm a longtime music geek, and I hadn't heard the term (though that doesn't mean it wasn't there). So I went looking. I parsed through every major music-related publication's archives (that were available) and came up completely empty. Even the Internet itself was lacking: the 1994 Usenet post was one of three occurrences of the term that I could find - the second was a 1997 Jimmy Buffett-related newsletter that questioned if "yacht rock" was an appropriate way to describe Buffett's music, the third was a 2004 blog post that used the term off-hand. In particular, Rolling Stone had nothing (and should have), and The New York Times' first occurrence came in a 2006 review of a Donald Fagan concert. Even newspapers with extensive archives (eg, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, LA Times) have nothing. And that's doubly notable for the LA Times, given the location of the "yacht rock" music scene.

So here's my challenge to you: find one article that pre-dates the show that uses "yacht rock" to describe that particular music. (Read: pre-2005.) I'm not requesting that for purposes of sourcing the article - I'm offering that so that you can parse through Google (etc) and see how the term "yacht rock" is inextricably linked to the show in its current usage. There are literally thousands of articles and blog posts that use the term "yacht rock", and nearly all of them reference the show in some way. (Even those that don't directly mention the show were written in the last year, and reference the specific bands parodied in the show.)

I'm not arguing that the term didn't exist before the show - it clearly did. But it categorically was not popularly used before the show. (Even if you take into account the Buffett references, the term wasn't popularly used, even in that regard.) The term is in heavy popular usage now, and it's entirely linked to the show's existence. -- ChrisB 04:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GorillazFanAdam

You IP blocked this chap but he's using Google Web Accelerator. The IP is just one of their many servers and results in myself, as well as him and many other GWA users alternating to and from being blocked. Please could you unblock the IP. BigBlueFish 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One such IP is 64.233.173.80. There may be others in a similar range. BigBlueFish 08:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, there are several in the 64.233.173 range. Maybe they're all blocked... BigBlueFish 09:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is exactly what is screwing up my ability to edit from home as well. With Google Web Accelerator running, I get an IP block for an IP that is not my actual IP. This IP block has to be lifted because it isn't a valid IP for blocking. There will have to be some other way for this user. ju66l3r 03:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some weird autoblock error. I apologize, I'm looking into it. --InShaneee 03:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what it turns out to be. From reading on the Wikipedia:Autoblock discussion page, it appears that I have to excuse Wikipedia from GWA to keep their proxy from showing up as my web address. I suggested on the Autoblock talk page that something be added to the IP block template to help defuse any frustrations like the one I and others have been having recently. ju66l3r 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; fair enough if a decision is made to block Google Web Accelerator to prevent intrinsic anonymity that these sorts of proxies give, but it's essential that this is explained on the block page, rather than "We think you're GorrilazFanAdam" which is completely confusing, especially to people who don't understand a thing about the technical workings. BigBlueFish 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When are we Going to See Proof that Azaris are Genetically Turkic

Please keep an eye on Azari and the talk:Azari. I have started the following in the discussion.

It has been ages since these citations have not been verified. Verification is needed. If not delete the material. the amount of time granted has been generious. The Azaris Iranian background has been verified through various scientific and academic sources, but the Turkic claim has not. The only think that has been verified is the Turkic langauge. 72.57.230.179

Mass Personal Attacks from user THOTH

I hope that you look into following and warn the user to stay away from personal attacks, he's been warned at the talk page by other users [17] [18] with no success

[19] a scientific study in the Turkish style!

[20]- so up yours!

[21] find it funny that you nationalsitic Turks are so quick to throw about adhominem personal attacks –

[22] No comment from the otherwise vociferous Turkish quarter?

[23] I wouldn't give credit for anything written by "Weems" as even worthy to wipe my ass with.

It'd be also helpful to remind this user to stay away from contaminating the talk page with abundant irrelevant copy-paste articles, which you can immediately notice if you check the talk page of Armenian Genocide article. He's been reminded multiple times by other users [24] with no success.

Thanks Deepblue06 19:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility continues... [25] Deepblue06 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility still continues... [26], [27], [28]. Deepblue06 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility became the norm [29], [30] and never ending racist remarks are very disturbing [31] "...Another Turkish historical milestone to be proud of I guess..." (see above or user's contributions history for examples of many others) 24.211.192.250 02:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: 65.184.159.115's vandalization of pages

My little sister was the one vandalizing the pages. I talked to her and told her to stop. If it happens again please drop me a line at evillizhaha@gmail.com. Thanks so much.

x-files cleanup

I take it you are interested in the cleanup of The X-Files. I was thinking of taking that list of suggestions and making a small table where people can pick which section they would like to clean up, and then mark off when they feel that it is completed. Do you think that this would be helpful? - Zepheus 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a reason

Show me a reason. Why i dont allow to add this picture. Ruzgar 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by nonsense

What the hell do you mean by nonsense? Uuuuuuuuuuu 23:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked???

Today I tried to edit an article but it says the IP 72.14.194.19. is blocked by you but my IP is a different address! I have no idea who is "GorillazFanAdam". Clearly, there is a mixup because I have not done any vandalism. 24.57.131.188 16:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on my User page 24.57.131.188 this is what I mean.

Vandal: Burgas00

This user has made personal attacks against other users, here , and also here. He has also been warned before, here, and also here. Afterwards, he vandalized my user page, here, and here.

I have filed a complaint here, but since nothing has happened, I hope you could intervene. Thanks. C-c-c-c 17:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAIN

I have reverted your edits to WP:PAIN. Your comment was a moot point; just because I am not guarenteed to be qualified, does not mean I am unqualified. If you have a reason why it should stay then say so. If you keep reverting the edit without reason I will report you for edit warring. Paul Cyr 18:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus 3RR

I know I shouldn't lecture you or anything, but I feel justifiably angry that I was even blocked since the 3RR report was so obviously bogus, I never even reverted 3 times in one day.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruzgar's a smart guy

He uploaded the image to the Commons. ;) —Khoikhoi 00:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago, Illinois

I prefer that you contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 03:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the article extensively and placed it on peer review. If you have the chance, can you look at it? Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 16:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Vandal

Dear Shane, when I try to edit an article, I receive a message like this: "Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by InShaneee for the following reason (see our blocking policy): vandal sock. Your IP address is 217.29.116.254". I think, 217.xxx.xxx.xxx is a dial up IP , but I'm an ADSL user (83.221.xxx.xxx). Both IP numbers from same ISP but I'm not a Vandal. When you block an IP adress, do this attentively please.----Selkem 08:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Can you please delete this page that I accidentally created? - User:Anwar_saadat/monobook.js Anwar 13:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:85.103.192.170

I am beeing told through a 3rd party that this anon is not User:Ruzgar but someone posing as him, an impostor. I am also uncertain how reliable a checkuser would be since 85.103.192.170 is in the ttnet range. ttnet assigns semi-dynamic ips...

While I understand there are a great deal of circumstancial evidence to suggest the IP could be Ruzgar, I just think we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Independent of this, the annons behaviour is unnaceptable and should be treated with equal apathy.

--Cat out 14:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=I see you want to make Attacks

Firstly those were classes offered and were not the public schools language; your saying your math class was taught in German? We are talking about CORE language. So you want to rub comments in my face? 72.57.230.179

No, I want to explain to you how things work. --InShaneee 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by InShaneee for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "GorillazFanAdam". The reason given for GorillazFanAdam's block is: "further block evasion, vandalism and trolling through socks".

Your IP address is 64.233.173.80.

Even though this is not my IP address, I am still blocked from editing. This is not the first time this has happenned, and it's frustrating because then I can't edit. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Coast League unprotection

Hey there. Can I request that South Coast League be unprotected so I can add my rewrite to it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes

Each episode needs a 1-3 line summary, and perhaps longer sumaries on the linked pages. After that this can be a featured list in no time :) --Cat out 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

Hi Inshanee. Looks like 72.57.230.179 has far-reaching plans for disruption of Azerbaijan related articles. See here: [32] The recent edit war at Azerbaijani people was started by him, and he plans to continue. Regards, Grandmaster 06:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) protection?

Its been full protected for over a month, and someone was requesting that we lift the protection on WP:RFPP. Do you have any objection to the protection being lifted? FWIW, at least the last few days of edits appeared to be a bunch of anons fighting back and forth and vandalizing...so we could apply semi if unlocking it was unsuccessful. Let me know either here or on my talk page (or unprotect it yourself if you wish). Thanks! Syrthiss 12:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

200 verses of Matthew, again

It appears that Rich Farmbrough has created blank (redirected) articles for all the verses of Matthew. While this isn't problematic in itself (though it seems pointless), Rich has also started wikilinking to redirects (which I thought was to be avoided in the first place) as opposed to using one of the bibleverse templates. Because this issue has come up in the past, I am announcing it to those who are concerned either for or against these moves. I'd like to hear anyones imput on this matter. Thanks!--Andrew c 20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G. Patrick Maxwell & Withdrawing Rfd because of free-for-all

Thanks for the vote of sanity. However, I have withdrawn the Rfd. It has become a free-for- all forum to launch personal attacks, and to discuss everything but the merits of the Rfd. Since no administrator has seen fit to do anything to stop it, I am taking action to protect myself. I have deleted the personal attacks and discussion that has nothing to do with the Rfd. Someone needs to do something to stop it, and nobody will. THis may be the last I ever participate in Wikopedia, because I don't think much of this kind of selective monitoring/administering. This is not personal to you, so please don't take it that way. However, I have received emails from people I don't even know saying that Midgely has a long pattern of bullying and intimidating anyone with whom he disagrees, until people just leave Wikopedia. I do not know if this is true or not, but judging from what I have seen, I would believe it. I am truly astonished that no admininstrator has put a stop to the pages and pages and pages of venom.MollyBloom 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi. 72.57.230.179 constantly removes from his talk page the comments that he doesn’t like, including the comments from the admins, which urge him not do so. Is it an appropriate behavior? Here’s my comment that he removes [33], and here are the comments from another admin that he also removes from his page [34] Grandmaster 07:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnstevens5

This user is claiming that using Encyclopædia Iranica, the most comprehensive and authoritiative encyclopedia of Iran-related topics, in English language, published in America, makes users nationalists:

..Using "Iranica" makes you a Nationalist..if you find this hard to swallow that's your problem.. [35] --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse or RV by user: Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

Dear inshaneee

You have previously blocked me because I was trying to defend my edits at the article Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

You gave me advices and I tried to follow them. I was away from the article for a while. Then I made small edits of unsourced information and replaced it with cited info.

Although I provided my citation, I immediately got RV by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg!! in less than 15 minutes.

At least in two times you came for the defense of this user. Now please help me do some reasonable editing. Thank you

Now what can I do? --Thameen 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted an in progress article.

I was making an article about all of the teachers at wayzata high school and you deleted it before I could finish and complete the article. I can see why you would delete it if I just left it like that but as I said it was in progress

Hey InShaneee - Article about Backgammon Chouette

Hey,

You have recently deleted an article I made stating it was copyvio. The site, from which you saw the article (redtopbg.com/chouette.php) is my site and I wanted to share my backgammon knowledge with the rest of the world, thus published it on the wiki site as well. if there is a problem with that can you explain how can I amended this so the information could be published.

Thanks for your time, David Davidoff 04:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL

AOL is being massed blcoked because of user:UUUUUH_YEAH

Re: AFD and the Generals Strucutures

I currently have four seperate versions of the structures pages consloidated here, and I was wondering if you would take a look at the work I have done so far and put your two cents in about which version would stand the lowest chance of ending up on AFD. Keep in mind the versions are not set in stone, I am still tinkering with them in an efort to make them more capatable with WP:NOT standards. TomStar81 04:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious hatred

"I dont care what in past our ancestors may wrongly followed...Why that spider mark should be in artile but not a sign of our true religion, the holy Islam?" [36]

The comment is regarding Zoroastrianism and it's symbol..Can you please warn him that some might find such comments very offensive? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also went to Islam article..spamming for "help"!! [37] --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issues

Hello InShanee, recently you gave a warning to Haham hanuka for his uncivil behavior against me on the Germany page. Unfortunately he continues his ways as if had not been warned. Here for example he falsely accuses me of POV pushing for a difference of opinion on the contents of an article, specifically putting an accent on my name. Otherwise he frequently advises to "watch" me (he does this also to other users) or calls me a vandal. As you will see in his edit history all this happens very often. I hope you can do something about this situation, because my neutrality and reputation is very important for continuing to overhaul some of the most contested articles on Wikipedia, an intellectual challenge I enjoy very much. Best regards, gidonb 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could not do anything about it - never mind. I am sort of getting used this. Would be good though if someone could take some action. Regards, gidonb 02:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please unblock

Don't mean to be a bother but I did ask a while ago on my usertalk page as is standard. Thanks CyntWorkStuff 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of legitimate edit

Hi, I noticed you reverted[38] a legitimate edit to the Uwe Boll page. I know how easy it is to mistakenly revet something when looking out for vandalism, but you really should correct it yourself. An admin has added responsibility not to wantonly revert edits, possibly scaring off new editors. I've readded the info, without the "Ironically" and with a citation. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Cheers. Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hi. It looks like 72.57.230.179 tries to evade the block by using another IP address: [39]

Please have a look at contributions of this anonymous user, especially to the article about Ismail I. Now check it with his agenda: [40]

He was planning to remove the word Turkish from this article, and he tried to do so. And he’s interested in the same articles, everything related to Azerbaijani people with obvious anti-Turkic agenda.

Regards, Grandmaster 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil language

Dear Shane. On the Nagorno-Karabakh discussion page, AdilBaguirov has been using uncivil language for some time, which really makes it hard to have discussions. Here are two recent edits: [41] and [42]. I don't think statements like "please stop projecting your own image onto others and do not make baseless, groundless accusations that are so frivolous that make one wonder the real intentions" or "Golbez, just because a few ignorant users "disagree", doesn't mean there is no concesus. Neither NK page nor Wikipedia can be held hostage by a few motivated users who base their incalcitrant and meritless positions" is particularly constructive. Please warn him against violating rules of civility. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AdilBaguirov continues his uncivil and inflamatory language, as in this newest edits: [43] and [44]. It really hinders discussion. Please intervene. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 23:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What hinders discussions, and is inflamatory, is when one makes certain claims which routinely turn out to be untrue. --AdilBaguirov 12:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like the ones you constantly make in Talk:Tigranes_the_Great or Talk:Koryun or Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. Already two topics have been locked vecause of your behaviour.--Eupator 17:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, you played a certain role in that as well by reverting legitimate edits without a discussion. Grandmaster 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the edits were legitimate as perfectly supported by two other users, AdilBaguirov and you know this quite well. The only reason AdilBaguirov is making these edits is to cause havoc and disrupt the articles.--Eupator 17:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Tigran, the one who is unconstructive and uncivil is not me, the person who revealed legitimate information about Koryun and Tigranes Great not being ethnic Armenian, but those who oppose the inclusion of this crucial information. --AdilBaguirov 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil remarks on Lehi (group)

Hello InShaneee, User:Lemuel Gulliver has become increasingly rude on the Talk:Lehi (group) talk page [45] [46], I am sure that I would not be taken seriously if I was the one that asked him to be civil since the attacks were directed towards me and he has not listened in the past.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After coming back from a holiday, I am glad to note that my account is unblocked, and so you must have decided to discontinue your series of illegal blocks. Well done. Make sure it doesn't happen again. Regards. — Gulliver ✉ 02:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
I assume good faith and believe that this was an honest mistake. The case you alluded to is different from the one that occurred now as you could have easily verified if you had taken the time before posting unsubstantiated allegations where they mislead others. Please remain civil in the future. Socafan 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I don't know what to do in case of this new user he assumes too much which I can't deal with right now [47], I tried explaining it all in his talk page [48] but it didn't work. Can you remind him to assume good faith, I think that'd be a good start? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Guidelines

There are many wikipedia guidelines, many often conflict each other. Guidelines are ment to guide users in writing high quality articles and are not absolute. If the application of a guideline degrades article quality, I am more than willing to ignore it.

Some wikiprojects set their own guidelines such as the one ned 'works' at (has a total of 6 members I believe). Nothing compels me to follow their 'standards', especialy if the format I use is used on 3 featured lists, all three I used. He is telling me that I cannot use DVD covers on that list I have initiated. He has no such authority, no one does. Consider this change [49] in the name of guidelines.

My comment originaly was protesting against the application of WP:FICTION on stub articles I created. Now I intend to expand them in time, I cannot do that in an hour. The creation of the stubs happened less than a week ago. People started talking about mergers before I could even rewatch the series.

This whole thing is pretty silly, I know but it is not a content dispute. Ned just want the articles to appear exactly how he wants them. He does not contribute to the articles much. Prior to june he had no contribution to air at all.

--Cat out 04:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This hole thing started when I answered this request. I made this fatal edit for which Ned had practicaly punished me. neds other contribution on Talk:List of Lost episodes is also visible. In sum I am being punished for making a remark. --Cat out 04:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say a few things about that. First off, I think the the times when guidelines should not be followed are rare exceptions, not the rules, and I don't think I'm alone in that view. Secondly, it does seem that he is discussing this. If consensus goes against him and he continues to revert, then there's something actionable. Thirdly, I personally detest stubs and believe that everyone should make use of workspaces to get a good sized article before posting (and I was a big supporter of WP:FICT). Finally, there's nothing wrong with jumping into a new article and making changes to a page so long as you don't go against the feeling of the other editors, which can be determined through discussion. --InShaneee 04:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK consider this. You start edititing an article (you initiate it) and this third party comes and dictates it. List of Oh My Goddess episodes List of Planetes episodes List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes follow the style I want for List of Air episodes. Is there any reason you would object to that?

Would you object to stub articles the second you notice them or would you give them like a month or a week?

--Cat out 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fadix

Hi Inshaneee. Would you mind to have a look at the behavior of User:Fadix at Nakhichevan talk? This person was many times reminded by me and other users of the necessity to adhere to civility rules, but still continues his personal attacks and uncivil comments, constantly calling me a POV pusher, etc. Here’s the last example: [50] Grandmaster 09:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recognize your autority as an Administrator, and I will be ignoring your warning. you own me an apology for having abused your administrator privilages in blocking me, for which you should be blocked yourself. Grandmaster is indeed POV pushing, and there is nothing wrong in telling someone to be a POV pusher in an article which he is POV pushing. Also, yet to come your warning to him after I have reported similar statments made by him and which you have ignored. But interesting that you never miss the occasion to warn me in any given occasion which I am reported. Fad (ix) 19:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Fadix brought this to wikien-L, I figured I'd have a look. What about the comments on Talk:Nakhichevan counts as a blockable PA? It's a heated argument, but nothing more. Am I missing something? And his response to you, while overly aggressive, doesn't strike me as blockable either (not for 36 hours). Am I missing something? Guettarda 14:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo! rouge admin abuse! Seriously, though, both sides of that dispute need to chill. Just zis Guy you know? 14:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil language

Dear InShaneee,

I would like you to remind User:Grandmaster to refrain from negative personal comments such as "you are in denial of facts", as in this edit. He has used similar language with me in the past--I believe it's time to remind him to strictly focus on content and not get personal. Such comments inflame discussions and are unconstructive. Thank you.--TigranTheGreat 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is incivility? I just pointed out that you were denying a verifiable fact. I said nothing personal about you. Here's incivility and a personal comment by you: "You started a revert war without discussion, which is your habit". [51] There are more. I suggest we cool a little bit down and keep the discission strict to the topic. Grandmaster 05:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Accusing others of being in denial is not about topic. Please stay on topic.

By the way, my edit quoted by you was in response to another uncivil comment by you: [52] "You introduced a POV edit to the intro, which was stable for many months, and did it without discussing it with other users. And I don’t remember you calling for discussion", Grandmaster, 10:23, June 17, 2006. It was personal, uncivil, accusatory, and false. I am not saying it excuses an uncivil response, and the best way to avoid responding to an uncivil attack is to report it instead of responding to it, which is what I chose to do. Again, I am always ready to stay on topic.--TigranTheGreat 06:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tigran, I don't think that there was any great incivility in my comment. Indeed, you unilaterally changed the neutral and compromise intro of that article without discussing it with other interested parties, which started the current dispute. I just pointed that out. So I think if we agree to keep it strictly to the topic, the problem is resolved. Grandmaster 06:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it violates the "assume good faith" rule of Wikipedia, something which always hampers discussions. You are continuing to make your accusations. I could go on and demonstrate why they are false, but bringing up the past will not do anyone good. Staying on topic will.--TigranTheGreat 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, he's right, assume good faith and don't make accusations. Tigran, Grandmaster's right too. Letting a discussion fall to pieces because you percieve a comment to be an attack does no one any good. Both of you need to take a few deep breaths. --InShaneee 00:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sorry. I hope we will keep it strict to the subject from now on. Thanks, InShaneee. Grandmaster 04:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shane. We will.--TigranTheGreat 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project paranormal

I hope I did the right thing by adding the project paranormal tag to the Talk:Natasha Demkina page. It has been the subject of considerable dispute since one of the principles for the CSICOP-CSMMH investigation into her abilities is directly editing the article, and has a tendency towards violating WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette. Dreadlocke 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds paranormal to me! And if it needs some work, all the better! :) --InShaneee 20:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! It will be so nice to have some paranormal help! I worked on an draft expansion of the Demkina article, asked for and received feedback before putting it into place, but after it was placed in "production", it was immediately reverted by the skeptic-principle. This is my response to the reversion of added material. I'll post this on the paranormal team talk page too! Dreadlocke 20:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck?

Re: Talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey

So.. Your answer to a comment you don't like is to revert?

Come on.. Show me up. Make me look like an idiot. But, don't delete my comments. That's a trick Jeff would use, and I'd expect better from a Wikipedia Admin.

Thanks.. --Jerry (Talk) 06:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll.. You seem to have found an interesting definition for someone with an opinion that differs from yours. When you get a chance, please put a indefinite block on this username. I wouldn't want to continue to disrupt your tidy little universe. Thanks. --Jerry (Talk) 06:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you, InShaneee, for your help in keeping Wikipedia dialogue civil.Timothy Usher 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commcercial Links?

You left a blurb about commercial links on my talk page. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you're talking about. -Timzor 06:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack

Greetings InShaneee, sorry to bother you but I noticed your personal attack warning on User:His excellency's page and was a bit puzzled by it. If anything User:Crzrussian's "rhetoric" was being attacked which seemed right in response to Crzrussian's own use of the word "ridiculous". Was there somethinig I missed? Netscott 17:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your inclination to do some warning I think a final warning jumped the gun in this case and removing it seems like the sensible thing to do. Looking at the talk the words are heated but civil (imo). Netscott 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly remove the incivility warning? Even User:Crzrussian disagrees with it. Thanks. Netscott 21:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just sitting there waiting to block me? I remarked on his comment, not on HIM. Withdraw this warning. His Excellency... 17:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice you posted no response to Crzrussian using the EXACT same word as I did. Can you justify the difference in your judgement when he used it first?His Excellency... 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on WP:ANI in regards to your block threat. I think you need to reconsider your broad definition of the phrase 'personal attack'. Your reaction to the word 'ridiculous' which was directed at a line of rhetoric isn't covered in WP:NPA. His Excellency... 19:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Minority

Hey, a couple of weeks ago you deleted an article on the Sarah Lawrence College a cappella group Vocal Minority. I saw that it was fast-tracked for deletion, owing to the fact that it did not justify its own existence. Aside from the potententially mentally damaging nature of that revelation, there are plenty of other pages for lesser-known college a cappella groups that haven't been deleted - why this one? It provided the same information those did. Grahamdubya 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Aha. Well, fair enough - I hadn't seen those before, but I suppose they make sense. Carry on, then!

Grahamdubya 20:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dos vandal

Cculber007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) dos vandal, could you please clear these autoblocks--152.163.101.9 02:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it for you (both) -- happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.196.164.190

Hi Inshaneee. I would like to draw your attention once again to conduct of the User:69.196.164.190, who I believe is banned User:72.57.230.179, evading the block. Please check his latest contributions, he goes around leaving similar anti-Azeri messages on the talk pages of the articles and other users. The text of those messages is quite similar to those left by 72.57.230.179, and the manner of conduct leaves no doubt that we are dealing with same person. I don’t believe that check user will be effective in this case as this person does not have a registered account. Regards, Grandmaster 06:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, it appears that 69.196.139.250 is also the same person. Looks like he switches the IPs when they get blocked. How can I check if all these IPs were used by the same person? Checkuser is good when you deal with a registered user, but what to do in cases when a person uses multiple IPs without registering? I would appreciate your advice. Regards, Grandmaster 05:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look if you want to make accusations you need to verify them, but you can not just go around spamming this everywhere or being uncivil about. I am here to edit, but you have just wasted my time by putting me in a position where I have to report your constant badgering. If you beleive that I am whoever; that is okay, but you can not accuse me on talk pages and attack me or keep on making accusations especially without any proof. Go ahead scrutinze my articles and edits as much as you want, but they are not extraordinary onto themselves. I do not think any views or statements or edits I made are outside of any norm; they ar epretty typical of most Azarbaijanis. If you beleive I am whoever ask the admins to take care of but please stop attacking me and trolling. Please stop. 69.196.164.190

Banned User:72.57.230.179 made up a plan of the things he was going to do, you can see it here: [53] It said:

Clean the Shah Ismail article, remove the term Turk, make sure it says he was born in Iran and not Iranian Azarbaijan...

One of the first edits of the above user was removal of the words Turk and Turkish from the article about Ismail I. [54] Coincidence? Grandmaster 07:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And messages like this, left at the talk pages of other wikiprojects, are not nice either. [55] The messages refer to “biased Azeri editors”, etc. How about assuming good faith and keeping talk strict to the subject? And it is interesting to note that messages left by 69.196.164.190 and 72.57.230.179 are not much different. Grandmaster 11:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguement is that I edited an article?! That is not a case. Shah Ismail was born in Iran and I do not think I have been the only editor to make that correct edit. As for the word Turkish of course it does not belong there. Shah Ismail was not Turkish so why would it be in the article. So myself and everyother who corrected that are one person according to this logic. This still does not justify personal attacks and incivil behaviour. How do you justify this? As I said please stop slandering me it is uncivil. Keep your comments directed towards edits and not editors. 69.196.164.190

I see user:Grandmaster that you contineu acusing me; submitted for your approval: [56]. You also indirectly claim I am another editor. Additonally if you read the talk page on the talk page on the Shah Ismail of Iran talk page page as shown here [57] you will see that I never tried to replace Iranian Azarbaijan but wanted to add Iran. This further proves that you are mistaken. 69.196.164.190

You did not see the Rescue Rangers series on TV

Loser, you remove other characters out of Rangers that mean you are not a big fan but more like a big dolt.

Contact me

Please conact me at dwool AT wikimedia DOT org. Thanks Danny 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the warnings on His Excellency's page

Hi, InShaneee. After noticiing the appeals from Netscott on this page, and also that you hadn't been editing for a day or two, I took the liberty of removing your PA warnings from His Excellency's page. I hope you don't mind. I thought HE made a cogent argument, and people on ANI seemed to agree.[58] I left links in the place of the removed text so people can easily access your original posts. Best, Bishonen | talk 13:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi!

Some time ago, you speedie delete a page. The book is notable, writen by a notable scholar. Could i ask you to undelete it, and posibly put it up for afd, if you feel it necesary? Peace! --Striver 11:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. Yes i know, but it in that case, it would be added to sum of my deleted edits. It would really make me happy if you undeleted it :) --Striver 18:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i will expand on it :) --Striver 18:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Peace! --Striver 18:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is good enough :) --Striver 20:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO not revert the edits by not even reading the history part. It is obvious that you are not interested in the subject and you have no knowledge about it all. I am a wikipedian as much as you are, so please be respectful and read the messages. This is not a personal claim, we have been discussing it for ages. But you seem to know nothing about it. --Sokrateskerem 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally new to the subject. I am a wikipedian and this is not measured with the time I have been here. How do you know that I did not read the discussion page ? IF you had bothered to see the images uploaded there, you would have seen that there are clear Armenian forgeries desperately TRYING to prove the claim. Why would you try to make fake documents if that was the case ? And who are you to judge that my edit is contraversial. Whom do you represent ? It is not vandalism, what you do may be considered as pure vandalism and cyber-racism by discriminating me. I sign all my posts. I do not need your advice and please do not spam my talk page. --Sokrateskerem 17:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete

InShaneee, this is hardly a speedy candidate, afd it if you wish, but please undelet it. --Striver 19:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have been speediet, the mother of a queen, and the wife of a king is not speedy material. She is a Queen, mother of a Queen. Further, of course it has little material, you deleted it within 3 minutes of being created, i was editing it when i discoverd you deleted it. Please reconsider. --Striver 20:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, please do not mess with my talk page! --Striver 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, are you refusing to undelete? Let the comunity decide, put it up on afd, a queen, mother of another queen is not a speedie after 3 minutes of creation! --Striver 20:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ( three times a day ) am allowed, just like you do, to change whatever page I like. So including your friends and buddies maybe you can do that 100 times a day (let me explain it in your IQ level. Say you have 33 buddies like you. 33*3 = 99 edits.) This is just a draw-back of Wikipedia. Because 33 people like you, can change the direction of an article. Your childish desperations trying to humiliate me with suggestions regarding the sandbox are just matching the low ethics and discrimination policy of a person like yourself. I am not at all angry. You just have a good sense of humour. I suggest you read Merchant of Venice of Shakespeare. Then maybe that is going to help you be cleansed from your racist feelings against the fellows of other nations. Life must be hard for you, and your kind. Sincerely

--Sokrateskerem 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

forgeries armenian genocide

Dear InShanee please see my comment in the talk page [[59]]. I wish to delete this [[60]] propaganda advertisement but it will be reverted immediately.neurobio 00:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my main concern was this [[61]]. What does it do in a history article. If this is not POV what is POV anyway.neurobio 02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So about a historical event that academics are still discussing. and despite %80 percent of the world doesnt recognize the even as genocide. and despite England and Israel are actively rejecting "genocide" term. Putting an advertisement which present the issue as "the Truth" (saying "Turkish Denial") which people paid for it to be published in a newspaper is not POV. Denial! You deny a fact! You reject a claim. Since it is not universally accepted it is still a claim. though a strong one. This is a propaganda poster for gods sake.neurobio 02:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am cool. dont worry. thanksneurobio 02:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 67.185.57.48 on Dion Fortune page

Hi. I notice that you reverted some abuse by user 67.185.57.48 from the Talk:Dion Fortune page. I thank you for that. I have been having a long ongoing problem with this user on the Dion Fortune page and my talk page and they have ignored mediation. See [Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21_Dion_Fortune]]. Today this user has posted threats of legal action to my talk page on the grounds that I posted their IP address to the talk page, which is both sad and funny as their user name is their IP address... Please note that this user deletes things from their talk page which are unfavourable to them, so you may have to dig in the history to get the picture. I am at my wits end with this user. I would really appreciate any help you can give me. This user has been banned six times now and still isn't learning. I am forced to admit that they may be beyond hope and I am looking for a solution that will see them banned for longer as I am wasting too much time dealing with their vandalism and I would rather be spending my time writing new articles.

Optimistically Morgan Leigh 02:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking this user. Out of interest, how long are they blocked for?

Morgan Leigh 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reversion on my user page - I've made what is probably a mistake by replying on his talk page, although the other comments on that page suggest I'm making a rod for my own back. jimfbleak 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]