User talk:Netscott/Archive-06: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:35, 25 November 2006

Welcome to the garden.

Please note: Demonstrably false accusations directed towards myself on this page
are likely to be summarily deleted with no further discussion on my part.

Archive-01 • Archive-02 • Archive-03 • Archive-04 • Archive-05

Please help

Hi Scott, This is Mystìc here, I've been blocked as a sockpuppet account of user:Lahiru_k, you've known me and you know for sure that my account is not a sockpuppet account. Please help me please.. 222.165.157.129 08:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystìc, I'll take a look at what's going on and see how I might be able to be of assistance. (→Netscott) 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bremelanotide

I think I got it. It was the easy case, and seemed pretty straightforward. Please let me know if you find anything went wrong. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hi Netscott,

Could you please have a look at this [1] --Aminz 20:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I was about to do something like that :) I need to run now. Cheers, --Aminz 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for moving that. --Aminz 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their accusations is getting more and more annoying.

Can I open an RfC over the article rather than over particular editors? --Aminz 22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to have 3 comment on users but all together, since they are related. I don't think I can do that. Can I? --Aminz 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I didn't notice that. Thanks --Aminz 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Thanks. I'll start doing that. I need to gather the diffs. etc. etc. --Aminz 22:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:NRen2k5...

...is up at MfD. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NRen2k5. Thought you'd like to know. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

You have NO right to post my ISP on MY userpage. It is totally unprovoked intimidation and probably illegal. You will be reported to Wiki Adminis immediately. Actions have consequences and you shall face them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.115.155 (talk • contribs)

I don't know what youre talking about where's your evidence. You are harassing me for no reason and will be reported to administrators! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.115.155 (talk • contribs)

Anyone can have access to that information, there is a small [IPinfo] link at the bottom of each IP talk page. I just post it on the talk page to help quickly identify problem editors who keep contravening Wikipedia policies like yourself. (→Netscott) 15:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of Hindu Caste System from Muslim Caste System

The article Indian Caste System is doing injustice against all other religions becaue Hindus have a strong Caste system based on religion. In India Islam is polluted by Hindus who converted to Islam but carried their Hindu Caste. But there is major difference between the two religions. Islam and our Holy Bokks do not support Caste System. Hindu Religion and its texts preached caste system. So we need to separate the Indian Caste System according to religions.Iqbal123 19:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votestack spamming

Votestacking?

What is the basis for characterizing this as votestack spamming? In fact, I had already voted on the matter in question, but I don't see how anyone who didn't know me intimately could predict how I would have voted on this. Are you sure that this person was accessing only those he or she believed would be on one side of the issue? - Jmabel | Talk 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, didn't examine his/her edits at all. Just remarking if this person was actually intending to stack on this matter, then they were foolish to include me. Did you look at my comments in the debate in question? - Jmabel | Talk 22:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, looking at those edits, I see no sign of votestacking. I would expect the people contacted to have a wide range of views on the matter; many had already commented, and unless I am mistaken, you will not find any particular pattern in their views.

While this was clearly redundant, in that most of these people were clearly already aware of the discussion, I don't see any effort here to get a vote for one or the other side. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that, from what I can see, this person pretty much conformed to WP:SPAM#If you canvass. - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, I don't particularly think it's a big issue either but, for example, would you also want to block IZAK for doing pretty much the same with reference to the same discussion? I hope not. - Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, it looked to me from whom he contacted that he was contacting people who had worked in this area and with no particular apparent bias in whom he was contacting. I certainly understand your concern, but I would have assumed good faith here. The block apparently came so quickly after the warning that he or she quite possibly never even saw the warning.

Again, no big deal. Your initial comment accused this person of "votestack spamming", and I saw no particular reason to think the characterization was accurate. That was my issue, nothing larger. - Jmabel | Talk 22:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking delete

I don't need you as my personal spam guard on my talk page, thankyou, and prefer to evaluate vote requests on a case-by-case basis. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Please do not remove postings from my talk page. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tnavbar header

Your updated version {{Tnavbar-header2}} actually looks like it fixed a bug in IE6 of {{Tnavbar-header}} -- I'm sure having to do with IE6's busted box model... :) Just never noticed since I primarily use FF. At work so only able to test with IE6 and FF2, but each example looks great right now with those browsers. // Laughing Man 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to do this:

... but am beginning to see the need for it. We haven't met before, I believe, but you might be interested in this and this. At least, I do hope you are. Hornplease 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 Your updated version {{tl|Tnavbar-header2}} actually looks like it fixed a bug in IE6 of {{tl|Tnavbar-header}} -- I'm sure having to do with IE6's busted box model... :)  Just never noticed since I primarily use FF.   At work so only able to test with IE6 and FF2, but each example looks great right now with those browsers.  // [[User:Laughing Man|Laughing Man]] 18:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
+== Hate to do this: ==
+... but am beginning to see the need for it. We haven't met before, I believe, but you might be interested in [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Evidence#Evidence#Bakasuprman_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_is_an_extremely_disruptive_editor|this]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar/Workshop#Bakasuprman|this]]. At least, I do hope you are. [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)