User talk:InShaneee

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Sep06. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

Click here to start a new talk section.

Archive - May 06

Darkred

... I already blocked Darkred for two weeks for this latest bout; hadn't gotten a chance to report it at AN/I yet. JDoorjam Talk 20:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

POV screed

What do you think about this:Bush family conspiracy theory? I think it's a WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:OR violation.

Diyako/Xebat/Retau

Hi, I suspected that this user is a sockpuppet since Xebat was blocked by you for two months or something and now the arbitation has banned him for a year, the user check for it says [1] it's possible but I am not quite sure where to go from here? The only reply he has given so far is [2] which doesn't say much, he is not even denying it. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I think he is using tens of more usernames and IPs to "contribute" but perhaps I am just all worked up under stress from exams -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on animal hoarding

I was trying to discuss. Look at this page. Who is doing the discussion here? Does Zoe know anything about this topic? Can you please explain to me what the other side of the issue is? --Brianbeck 01:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

   That's precisely the problem that occurs with hoarding! Did you check any of the links? Should I list the exact instances? --Brianbeck 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
   Isn't that a factual dispute and not a POV dispute? --Brianbeck 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes and now request removal again. See also that someone else posted on the discussion to request removal.

BuddhaWheel

I appreciate that BuddhaWheel is a product that we sell, but when my article was first deleted I took out everything that was not strictly factual. Can you please explain why it was still not allowed to stand? Thanks, Steve

Beeflin 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave my talk page alone

If you're leaving a message, fine.

If you're being a flunky of DakotaKhan, stay off my talk page. ForgetNever 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, personal attacks from a guy who's about to violate the seldom-heard-of 5RR Rule on his own talk page. User starts an edit war, gets in a fight with one admin, then three, then five, makes personal attacks, exhausts absolutely everyone's patience... I think I've seen this one before, and am pretty sure I remember how it ends. JDoorjam Talk 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

I am reporting hereby the violation of 3RR. 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert by Holy Ganga who has begun a unnecessary revert war in Pakistan article. Please take action. Anwar saadat 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hussey's General Store

This article was deleted initially with the explanation that it was "advertising". I disagree with the action on the grounds that it is a notable organization in the state of Maine especially for being the largest store in a state of several million people, and is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Ben Tibbetts 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You reverted my edits

here. May I ask why? If you compare the bottem of the page on your version and mine, you'll notice the Wikiquotes box runs a little into the other box. I added two spaces to prevent this-is there a policy against it? --69.145.122.209 02:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) --69.145.122.209 03:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple copyright violations and blanking notices from talk page

Benzee has been uploading some 140-odd images from WWW, adding fake tags and passing them onto Wiki as legitimate ones. He is a well-known vandal Prin who was already blocked for indulging in sockpuppetry. See Naan Kadavul, Cumbi, R.Madhavan, The Man's Plans and Yellow.

He edits the user page of his puppets signing interchangeably. I tried to tag the images. But he has reverted them all and blanked the notices from his talk page thrice. [3], [4] and [5].

See images he uploaded violating copyrights.

What should be done to deter him? Anwar saadat 12:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Registered vandalism

I felt obliged to bring this to your attention [6]. Miskin 14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

oki

I don´t see anything wrong with that I wrote, but oki I will be more careful with my writing..

OtrO DiAOtrO DiA 15:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my reply on ANI board. Tnx.

Please see my reply on ANI board. Tnx.

Lynch Mob (band)

FYI, I've undeleted this, see my comments on Talk:Lynch Mob (band). Friday (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the talk page

Of nakba day ?

For days I have tried to present there sources, alternatives etc...

Evetually it detoyorated into an edit wat (which I was not pasrt of) on the exact number of vilages destroyed in the 1948 war. There is a different article to cover that topic. Ever since I made my edit (and declared on talk that I will not make any other edit to this article until mediator is found) things calmed down except a revert by the parime editwarrior Ian.

In any case, what i disagree with you is that you shouild look at the whole issue and if someone close to the issue (like ramaliite who disgree with my edit) tells you that my intention are not malicious you should take this into consideration. I think it was wrong on Tony to intevine the way he did. Zeq 19:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:tasc

InShaneee, can you go soft on Tasc? I'm an uninvolved party who stumbled across the discussion on AN/I since I had seen a disturbing pattern by User:Ardenn on an article I actually know something about. Seems Ardenn behaved in a similar way and swooped in to an article where Tasc was active, tagged it as not npov or disputed (I forget which), and true to pattern was quite contentious about it when Tasc wondered what was going on. Tasc was provoked (perhaps that was Ardenn's intention, I am not sure) into a somewhat uncivil reply which prompted your involvement, and the situation deteriorated from there. I was originally going to ask you to reduce the block, since 48 hours is a long time for provoked incivility, even if combined with smart-alecky replies to you. If Tasc has been sending you abusive emails, you're probably not terribly inclined to do that, but can you at least just ignore them? Let Tasc calm down, and when he returns to editing let's see if something needs to be done with the underlying issue, which I think may be Ardenn, though I may be wrong. I've left a calm-down message on Tasc's page. Thanks, Martinp 00:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Storahtelling

Hi, I saw Storahtelling on Newpages, and I don't think it's speediable. The article claimed the group has toured throughout the U.S. and internationally; if it were a band, that would qualify it for WP:MUSIC. Could you please undelete it? Melchoir 02:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) ...Thanks! Melchoir 02:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Marianas

I provided a citation for my statement about reproduction in the Marianas Islands; I hope that's good enough. DS 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Check out Life Online with Bob Parsons. Wikipedia is tonite. Ardenn 00:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Template:Utverylong

Changing userboxes at most a content dispute?

You claimed that vandalizing Template:User Christian was at most a content dispute. If I changed the Template:User WPCVG into a long rant against computer and video games (with an offensive animated graphics to add insult), would you call it a content dispute? And if I did less and changed the userbox only at one user's page (yours, of course!), would it be less than a content dispute? Don't worry, I do not plan to vandalize your page. I just try to show you that changing the message hundreds of users have chosen for their userpages is no content dispute. It's multiple vandalism of userpages. It's so obvious to me I can't see how anyone may disagree. If you do disagree, I believe it's time to copy the sourcecode of all the userboxes I use directly to my userpage. Otherwise, I can have soon "content disputes" on my userpage every day. Friendly Neighbour 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan

One of the warnings on this users talk page states "This is your first legit warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --InShaneee 02:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)" It is signed by you. Did you actually insert the "first legit warning" business or was this the user's doing? If you didn't then that's vandalism of a warning isn't it? --Strothra 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

?

What is the problem?

new article

I just created a new article for 2001. I noticed that you were quick to "move pic to fix formatting." Just wanted to let you know, I appreciate the quick attention. Thanks. Jason Palpatine 00:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I DID NOT WRITE THE BELOW ITEM!!!!!! and I don't know who did. Jason Palpatine 01:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm...

Why did you delete, and then protect, the article I re-wrote (after you origanly deleted it) about the band "Fuck on the Beach"? This is a real band. The link I put in the article was put there to prove the existance of the band. The band also meets two of the criteria listed in WP:BAND I am not someone who is just writing random nonsence to be funny. The band is listed in the article for "power violence" but did not have an article assosiated with the band. I realize that the article had little information in it, but it contained all the information I knew. If you had allowed it to stay up for more than 5 minutes other people may have added to the article. You have made me angry.Seizurebot1011 01:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Heja helweda

This user is questionning my value of judgement over a non-reliable, "translation" of a non-verifable source, by saying this:

"Sorry. But you are not in a position to question the scientific value of a Journal published on the history of the Kurds. Are you specialized in this field (Kurdish history)?" [7]

Can you please remind him that..this is not how wikipedia works? apparently my long explanation of it [8] and SouthernComfort's [9], wasn't enough, and he has put the information back in the article, for the 5th time in the last month -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 01:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Willy on wheels!

His block was still there, but his Talk page wasn't protected, so he could edit it all he wanted. It is now protected. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I did because it belongs to User: Linuxerist as well, and he is a good ccontributer, so he would be blocked as well, they are brothers. Whopper 12:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Togrol

I am speechless by this user, he first started by comments such as [10] where he said the term "Iran" is outdated now..

Please read the edit summary [11]:

"Your censor and anti-Turkish behavior is embarassing. another intersting thing in Iran is they skill in 'art of censor' which made them universally knwon!"

and [12]

and [13]:

"Turks ruled Iran for thousands years".

His contributions are..again un-labellable! [14]. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 12:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Timothy Usher is making personal attacks and accusations against user:Zereshk

He is singling him out and making speculations that are degrading to the editor's integraty. 72.57.230.179 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

*[[15]]

• [[16]]

72.57.230.179 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee,

I direct you to User talk:129.111.56.195, where Zereshk has conceded that he was the user behind these comments and stated that he’d merely forgotten to log in[17], an explanation inconsistent with his wilful signing of comments as “anon observer”[18], [19], [20].

Zereshk has affected an inappropriately threatening tone on my User talk page: [21]. He boasts of editors being banned, and characterizes my identification of his anonymous posts with his regular username as hostility towards and an attack on him.Timothy Usher 21:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshanee,

This user has called me an anti-semite, and you did nothing about it. I find that highly interesting that you forward me a warning instead. I suppose I have to take some action regarding this matter, as it puts you in a questionable position.

Nor do I concede that that IP number was me. Tim did not post the entire message that I wrote there. He posted you part of it. He is therfore being untruthful to you (i.e. lying). This is the entire sentence I wrote to him:

"An IP address by itself is not an "account". Sometimes, I may forget to log in, like everyone else, when editing. Sometimes, WP keeps throwing me out for some reason, so I have to keep logging back in. And sometimes, the anon user is not me, because I often use public terminals, and there are many other people at U of Texas that share the same ideas I do. Im sure you realize that UT is the 3rd largest university in population in America (over 185,000 students I presume).--Zereshk 21:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds, if not thousands of WP account holders from my domain, and 10 times as many IP addresses in the U Texas system, where I write from.

I urge you to reconsider taking sides with Tim. Admins are prohibited from doing so.--Zereshk 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshanee, you have absolutely no evidence to explain or justify yourself in warning me. I challenge you to provide evidence that this post is considered an attack. And you still have not issued Tim a warning for calling me an anti-semite, nor for leveling a false accusation against me. I'll be waiting to see how you handle this matter.--Zereshk 21:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I did in fact post you the link on April 25th on your talk page. And you did nothing about it. See here: [22] Or: Link of anti-semitism remark by Tim in response to my comment/edit.

And secondly, "being argumentative" is no reason whatsoever at all to issue someone a warning, nor does it constitute a personal attack. That's taking things a bit too far, and you know it. That's why we have talk pages: To "boldly" argue on the article.

As for him falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry (which IS considered an attack), here is the link. He has even made a WP category called "sockpuppets of Zereshk" against me. (see the top of the anon user's page). That is considered slander, and is a highly offensive form of attack against other opposing users.--Zereshk 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Zereshk, I have no problem with you exposing Aucaman’s sockpuppetry. My issue was with your own use of sockpuppetry, which I solved by signing your comments for the anon IP and identifying it with your regular username. Despite the dishonesty of your explanation and your inappropriate threat on my user talk page, I did nothing to take it any further until I was compelled to defend myself against 72.57.230.179’s complaint on this page.[23].

You complained to Pepsidrinka and InShaneee that I’d called you anti-Semitic [24], [25], , but the edits about which you’d complained[26], [27], [28] discussed passages in the article, not you personally, which may be one reason (in addition to your failure to provide diffs) why your complaint was ignored.

See Talk:Iran-Iraq War#Possibly selling weapons through Israel? for the discourse context in which these comments appeared.

You then stated on the talk page that I’d called you anti-semitic[29] which I denied, and apologized for any impression to the contrary [30].

I am very surprised to learn that you've been harboring this perceived slight.

And I’m baffled by your claim that “[I], Tim, have been an ally and backer of Aucaman,”[31] with whom I’ve had very little contact, and as to why you now feel you must take a “position against [me].”Timothy Usher 22:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshanee, you need to pay attention to the article's history and talk page more closely before brushing me off. Tim's "anti-semitic" remark came as a direct response to my edits, and nothing else. I dont know why youre defending him so actively.

Secondly, I am still waiting for you to show me evidence on where exactly does this post contain an attack or an "uncivil" remark. Your response of it being an attack merely on grounds of "being argumentative" is t-o-t-a-l-l-y absurd. Arguments are in fact allowed on talk pages. Furthermore, Tim is ignoring WP:AGF by assuming that whatever anon user posts something against him must be a sockpuppet of me, merely because of my position in the article.--Zereshk 22:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock me

I am a veteran (>1000 edit) Wiki User. For some strange reason, you have me blocked from working on the main body of a page I just created Lou Graham, yet I can edit other pages and the templates in this article. I don't understand how or why this happened.--Hokeman 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I just tried it four times, + loggged in/out. It says that you are trying to block a troll named GOH in redlinks.--Hokeman 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hooray for InShaneee. The old Hoke is back in business.--Hokeman 21:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you Mediate?

I do not want an edit war to start, but my edits which I was verifying were reverted without plausible cuase. I am engaged in diolgue and reaching out to the other party. 72.57.230.179 20:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher

I'd have to strongly disagree with your blocking Zereshk. Timothy Usher has a history of directly engaging Zereshk in arguments, and he was clearly goading him by going to User_talk:129.111.56.195, User:129.111.56.195, Talk:Persian Jews, and Talk:Iran, posting allegations of sockpuppetry. As there is no legitimate reason for Zereshk being blocked, I suggest that it be undone. Best, SouthernComfort 23:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The matter can be easily resolved. Check Zereshk against IP records. If there is no match, then he has a right to be angry. If there is a match, he is still not necessarily guilty of any "offense" unless he is trying to skirt a ban - which, in this case, he is not.--88.111.63.92 23:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the histories and you will see that user:Timothy Usher has some sort of anamosity against user:Zereshk. i think he should be unblocked. 72.57.230.179 04:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, I think you need to carefully look at the history between these two users, Timothy Usher has been following Zereshk around on several pages, taking shots at him and failing to assume good faith. --ManiF 04:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Utterly false. SouthernComfort likewise has baselessy accused me of having “a disturbing obsession with [Zereshk]”[32]. I've never "taken a shot" at Zereshk, much less followed him around. Asking for the diffs seems superfluous at this point, but what's the harm in it...diffs?

Note that both SouthernComfort and ManiF are on probation by the ruling of ArbCom[33].Timothy Usher 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, the fact that you are changing the topic to probation, only proves my point that you constantly fail to assume good faith. I am not the only one to have suggested this, I just came across a similar complaint against you, by several other users who are totally unrelated to this case, on another discussion page. [34] --ManiF 06:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice wikistalking, ManiF, but I'd think twice before hitching your wagon to this wan star. Another editor is putting the case together as we speak. The record shows that I've made no findings of sockpuppetry without very good reason. And while I agree with WP:AGF, and follow it as a matter of prejudice, truth be told, nearly (as it's possible I'm forgetting someone) the only people I've ever heard invoke it were gaming the system, or defending someone else who was. Have you yourself assumed good faith? Has SouthernComfort? Has Zereshk?Timothy Usher 09:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's very low of you to bring up the issue of probation and striking out at us because of it - this is against WP policy. See Wikipedia:Probation for more details. Secondly, any cursory examination of Talk:Persian Jews will reveal your bias against Zereshk, by constantly supporting the violation of both WP:V and WP:NPOV by Moshe and Pecher who remove legitimate sources (in line with WP:V) in an effort to cleanse the article of any POV that they disagree with. [35] [36] [37] (supporting the inclusion of a Biblical legend that has no factual basis in history) [38] [39] [40].

That and the fact that you went around posting allegations of sockpuppetry on several different talk pages rather than go through the correct channels (CheckUser request, for instance) speaks volumes. SouthernComfort 09:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, neither of you have any reason to be involved in this, so unless you're following Tim around, I'd appreciate you taking this elsewhere. --InShaneee 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl

Hi this user is being uncivil, first he went on a spamming talk pages of others: [41], [42], [43], [44].

Claiming:

"Iranian monarchists seem to want to ensure the article is an OTT hagiography and don't like even mild criticism being added in."

Since then it was OK since we were discussing things in the article's talk page, but then he has started to personalize the matter where in the article's talk page he keeps commenting about me:

[45] "It would be nice if Kash was constructive for once in this page rather than just deleting thinks that don't reflect his opinion"

"Kash's behaviour is getting odder." "Kash's antics here are increasingly bizarre." [46]

Instead of actually discussing my concerns which I have put in the talk page Talk:Reza_Cyrus_Pahlavi#Title, Talk:Reza_Cyrus_Pahlavi#"No evidence has been produced" and Talk:Reza_Cyrus_Pahlavi#Wordings which I had done for every single one - and he chose never to respond to them, he keeps calling my name and personalizing the matter. Can you please remind him to be WP:Civil and WP:AGF as well as stop making this a personal matter? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

IN RE: WAMC

InShaneee, regardless of any bias you perceive in my WAMC.net Web site, how can the information posted to the WAMC article not be considered reliable if it is wholly based both on WAMC's own IRS tax filings (referenced by two of the links posted on the Wiki entry), and on eyewitness interviews with current and former WAMC employees?

What's the point in having any article posted anywhere in Wikipedia if Wiki admins are only going to allow posting of information favorable to a subject, and refuse to accept independently verified information just because it comes via a Web site some on Wiki consider biased? I personally believe The New York Times to be biased on a LOT of issues, so why shouldn't Wiki disallow The Times as a source in articles covering those particular issues? Request that you reconsider your rv of my material. Thanks. Fungible 15:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC

InShaneee, the problem with your line of reasoning on this is that the whole purpose of my WAMC web site -- the whole purpose of any muck-raking investigative Web site -- is that it is devoted to exposing fraud, waste, and abuse -- in this case at public broadcaster WAMC. I have chosen public broadcaster WAMC as my 'specialty'. Therefore, by definition, most if not all of what will be reported on my Web site is going to be articles discrediting practices at the station which are found to be bogus or abusive or illegal or wasteful. The manner in which you are choosing to interpret Wiki policy would have the effect of deleting from Wiki any sources of information that came from independent Web sites dedicated to exposing fraud, waste, and abuse -- meaning just about every single investigative journalist not connected with a major news outlet. Your policy would theoretically delete Matt Drudge's 'scoops'! Once again, I request you reconsider and rv the deleted material. Thanks for your time on this.Fungible 16:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee, it sounds to me as though you have not even read the article cited in my WAMC post.[47]] In my article that is published on my Web site, I have discovered and produced evidence of what appears to be an open-and-shut case of income tax evasion involving WAMC. I quote extensively from the US Tax Code, from IRS' own Web site, as well as from a number of other tax-regulation-oriented Web sites. Plus, I provide links to those reference Web sites so people can see the quotes used. In addition, via links, I post photocopies of pages from WAMC's own IRS Form 990 return. Please read the article first before denying an editor the ability to post relevant investigative material to a Wiki article on grounds that you believe the Web site too biased. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read the article, and when you are finished, please again reconsider and rv the deleted material. Thanks. Fungible 19:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshaneee: Please note Jango Davis' entry on the WAMC Discussion page at 22:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC). Please also provide me with a link to the Wiki policy to which you specifically refer. I am trying to come up with a metaphor for what you are telling me. Here's one off the cuff: The equivalent of what you are saying would be for example that Wiki has a new policy not to link to racy TV channels because they run XXX movies and the policy is not to link to or to promote porn. But then what if some time the racy channel decides to run Casablanca every Wednesday at 9PM, then that would mean you still could not allow a link to that movie on that channel on that night at that time because of the policy that the channel was generally too racy. This is only a metaphor but if what you are saying is Wiki's actual current policy, then not only would I be disappointed, but also then it sounds to me that Wiki may have a bad, bad case of "Political Correctness" and "Let's only say nice things". Also, I have to point out that it will drastically hinder original source material from anyone who might be savvy and energetic enough to go out there and dig up new and perhaps damaging material about politicians, public figures and celebrities. i.e.: What if I was in the right place at the right time and got a clear photograph showing Congressman Patrick Kennedy hitting that police barrier the other night in Washington DC. Let's say I also got photos of the cops talking to him, and also a clear photo of him stumbling and red-eyed when he got out of the vehicle, etc.. And let's say I posted the picture on my theoretical Web site that is dedicated to just showing various Kennedys in compromising circumstances. Your no original source policy from negatively perceived Web sites would prevent that critically important photo from appearing on Patrick Kennedy's Wiki article (unless of course I sold it first to NBC or Fox who posted it on their Web sites). Thanks in advance for getting me the link requested above; and also please let me know to whom I should e-mail to escalate this whole issue because I would like to see this policy changed because it reaks of censorship (and as I said PC). Fungible 00:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

If you read that user's edits you'd see that calling then "bizarre" is an understatement. He repeatedly deleted citations and neutral edits to replace them with extremely POV hagiographic edits lacking citations and contradicted by evidence. He posted {{fact}} templates where citations did exist, because the citation didn't match the POV he had repeatedly tried to add in. He has attacked those toning down hagiographic edits and accused them of bias. (I've been acccused of bias even though I have added in edits both supportive of, and critical of, Pahlavi, and added numerous citations into an article which previously had no citations. His behaviour has been criticised widely for such actions. At this stage debating the issue is impossible when the only issue is the conduct of an editor. It seems to be a problem all over with that editor. No amount of politeness seems to get through to him. It is only bluntness that seems to make him notice. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If he doesn't like bluntness then he better change his behaviour. If he acts bizarrely then I will say it as bluntly as necessary. The problem is with him. I'm not going to pussyfoot around and let an agenda-pusher push his POV edits and vandalise pages. If he doesn't like it, tough. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your issuing of threats is being reported. You have a history of threatening users. If you wany to act as a puppet for vandals then you clearly are unfit to be an admin. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Go off and fight some vandals (for a change) instead of defending them. That is supposed to be job of an admin. Do you even know what being an admin is about? Looking on the evidence of your page, you seem to prefer issuing threats to genuine users. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, InShaneee. I think you're correct. Constructing such comments in an already touchy situation is unfounded, and certainly unnecessary to diffuse the conflict. It wasn't so much I was angry when I made the comment, its simply that the original post compounded with the additional trolling has been completely unacceptable, and the only way I thought viable to defuse that blatent lie was with a flat-out denial. We are not a troll haven. The original post should have been to discuss comprimise and work to better the article, not to inquire for punishment on the opposing side of a debate. That's not what WP:AN/I is about at all.-Zero^Talk 18:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Emmaroberts

Oh, that's a good point. Thanks. :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 19:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the comment. It would be helpful to take a look at the discussion going on in the History of the Kurds. The problem is the other editors simply remove cited material simply because it does not match what they perceive as truth. I have asked them several times to include their own POV or their sources in that specific paragraph to make it more neutral. Unfortunately, they just want to remove it altogether. The section (Kurds and Zoroastrians) is based on an article from International Journal of Kurdish Studies. The opposing editors claim that it is not a good source, which seems like judging a source just because its contents does not match their views. So the basic problem is that they reject the source. That's why I made that comment. What I meant was none of us were experts on that field so we had to rely on academic sources (articles, books,...) not personal opinions. I would appreciate your feedback.Heja Helweda 20:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Administrators's noticeboard

If you have not seen it already [48] -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well no one is always right but this time you definately was! :) -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

A Barnstar!

The Resilient Barnstar I, WerdnaTc@bCmLt, award InShaneee The Resilient Barnstar for his tireless efforts to deal with trolls and other editors who consistently make personal attacks and uncivil remarks, despite being one of the most complained-about admins on ANI (generally by said trolls). Keep up the good work, and know that your efforts are appreciated! WerdnaTc@bCmLt 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

...And now for something completely different. Since your talk page is very active, would you like Werdnabot to automatically archive it. If so, let me know, and it'll archive all sections older than x days to y page, every 12 hours. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there's a bot for that? Sure, I'd love that! I've been simply deleting really old discussions, mainly because archiving is a pain. What do I need to do to 'sign up'? --InShaneee 23:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Add {{subst:User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Template|age=(age in days of oldest message in discussions to archive)|target=(insert a target)|dounreplied=(do not insert a value here to have it archive only discussions with >1 timestamp (i.e. replied discussions).)}} Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So just to make sure I've got this right...I'll need to periodically change the second value to update archives...will I need to create the archives myself, or will the first instance do it for me? And what should I do with the last value if I want it to archive everything? Thanks in advance, this is gonna save me a lot of time! --InShaneee 00:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, you will, unless you want them by month, in which case use (!month) as a semi-variable for the current 3-letter abbreviation for the month. 2. It'll create the archives for you; 3. It will archive everything with a timestamp (otherwise it wouldn't know how old everything was and would be confused as to when to archive. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 00:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

firstly, use (!month), not !month. Secondly, you need to give the full pagename.. i.e. user talk:Inshaneee/Archive/(!month)06. Thirdly, you can just change the (!month) to {{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}} in the template. Werdna_T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 00:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Attacks on Greece666

A newish user Greece666 has received a raft of uncivil comments on User talk:Greece666. A comment from a neutral party would be useful there. I am really getting tired of Miskin and company's ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with them, notably non-nationalistic (or anti-nationalistic) Greeks. --Macrakis 05:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hay

I want you to award me a medal or tow and also how do I get help?72.57.230.179 02:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My block of a user you just warned

Hello, InShaneee. Without knowing anything of the background, you saw that User:Dweec was adding links to a website, and you rolled back his edits and gave him a nice, kind, polite, gentle warning. I came along tonight, saw what the website was, blocked Dweec indefinitely, and deleted and partially restored all the pages where he had added the link. If you're interested, you can find out more here and here. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 00:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reply to Terryeo

Nicely done, hit the proverbial nail square on the head! Just need to wait for those faxes now huh? :) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 18:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Greetings, and thank you for your comment. I understand and appreciate your concern. Shervink 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)shervink

Reversions of Scientology

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. -- Jpierreg 20:00, 16 May 2006 (GMT)

3RR does not apply when reverted vandalism - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 20:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shane (I kinda knew that but thought I'd "watch ya back" so to speak)... I got my eye on the article now anyway :) - hey did you know this page is 170kB! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 20:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You would think that in 170 KB, the words Hubbard used to introduce the term could be used, wouldn't you? But instead the term Scientology is presented as a group of beliefs. That wasn't Hubbard's introduction of the term. Beliefs apply to churches, a philosophy (Scientology, Buddhism, etc) contains ideas or tenents or proposals or axioms or theories, but not "beliefs".Its possible I didn't sign this post yesterday when I made it. Terryeo 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User InShanee has in fact reverted back 3 times from the following fairer introduction:

Scientology is a system of beliefs and practices created by American writer L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as a self-help philosophy. L. Ron Hubbard is mainly regarded by many of his critics as a pulp fiction author.

>> Back to the least fair introduction:

Scientology is a system of beliefs and practices created by American pulp fiction author L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 as a self-help philosophy.

We don’t even know the real name of this “John Attack” (noms de plume)

Now! what looks more like vandalism ?

Here below are links to L. Ron Hubbard's different works:

linkspam removed -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jpierreg 05:40, 18 May 2006 (GMT)

The real name of "John Attack", as you misspell it, is Jon Atack. HTH, HAND. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jon Atack is a "noms de plume" -- Jpierreg 14:53, 18 May 2006 (GMT)

"Nom de plume". Not "noms de plume"; that's making it plural. Why are you so eager to spread the false claim that Jon Atack is a pseudonym? Are you under the illusion that it would somehow make a difference in whether his work can be cited? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so eager in sourcing pure calumnies --as a reference-- and from this false source ? -- Jpierreg 01:33, 19 May 2006 (GMT)

Well, if you have actual evidence indicating Jon Atack to be a pseudonym, or for it to be a "calumny" that L. Ron Hubbard wrote for the pulps for a living, or for A Piece of Blue Sky to somehow be a "false source", you can certainly show it. But then again, that's obvious, so maybe it's more appropriate to say: if you had actual evidence, you would have shown it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You left me confused

I've got to say, Shaneee, you left me confused. On one hand you present that certain lawsuits create truth, therefore Clambake.org's presentations are valid. You use the second person plural for that, as if you are a contributer to lawsuits, clambake.org and to the Dianetics and Scientology articles. On the other hand, you haven't edited much in the artlices and when I put the most commonly used official scientology sites in an answer, a site quoted in many of the articles, you make it sound as if I am presenting some revelation or new information on the discussion page. What really confuses me though, is your promise that you would have enough control to "fix up" things. I really don't follow you on that one at all. Terryeo 06:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"When I put the most commonly used official scientology sites in an answer" -- gee, Terryeo, you seem to have left out the part where you told the anon "Scientology as presented on Wikipedia is not 100% factual and you can't depend on it to be. Too many editors work too hard hard [sic] to present controversy" just before presenting the "most commonly used official scientology sites". Do you suppose that could possibly have something to do with it? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In that article, Scientology at that time, that is exactly correct. The first two sentences of the article present "Scientology is a group of beliefs" or something similar. And that is a false statement. The Church of Scientology may propose beliefs. The philosophy of Scientology does not. It presents information. It is written in books. "Beliefs" are actions that occur in the mind of man, not statements on a page. Scientology is statements on a page. There is the first inaccuaracy. And honestly Feldspar, who could possibly believe that "a glowing mass of entheta" (as your compliment describes it) could ever be 100 % accurate? Entheta, by definition, contains some kind of lie. Terryeo 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Same old word-games, Terryeo. Scientology is a system of beliefs. Scientologists believe them, the rest of the world doesn't. End of story. As far as "Entheta, by definition", go back and look up your own definitions. The Scientology glossary says entheta is "enturbulated theta (thought or life): it especially refers to communications which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group." "Enturbulated" in turn means "turbulent or agitated and disturbed".[49] So your claim that entheta contains some kind of lie by definition is completely false; information which is completely 100% factual is still considered "entheta" by Scientologists if it makes them feel "turbulent or agitated and disturbed." Which is why many of us are proud to make "entheta" available to the public; we do not share the Scientology belief that how a piece of information makes you feel is more significant than whether or not it is true. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I explained this to him, but he's clearly not here to help the site. --InShaneee 19:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You did explain to me and I replied to you that I understood why you did what you did. You are utterly and completely mistaken though, about "he's not here to help the site". It is nearly a personal attack to state that InShaneee. We might have vastly different views of a subject and we might disagree whether "Scientology is a secretive religion" or "Scientology is a relgion with some secrets", but that isn't the issue that you are confronting me about. You are confronting me about Wikipedia becoming a more popular, more relied upon website. You are mistaken to state that I am not here to contribute. Terryeo 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Terryeo, if it's a "personal attack" for us to state that you are not here to contribute, then you'd better get cracking and take down your page which personally attacks us by alleging that we are here to spread controversy rather than contribute, hmmm? Hmmmm, maybe I should bring that to the ArbCom's attention, that you consider such a statement to be a personal attack on yourself but you created an entire page for no other purpose than to make that personal attack upon others... -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User dispute

Would you mind looking into a user dispute? I have a rather lenghty evidence I posted at ANB/I that has been siting there for some time now.

I believe user:Moby Dick is also stalking me. An arbitration hearing found Davenbelle to be stalking. I feel User:Moby Dick is a user:Davenbelle sockpuppet and hence is attempting to evade arbitration restrictions.

I assumed you would volunteer to investigate. --Cat out 19:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think he's a sockpuppet, I'd think the first place to go would be RfCu... --InShaneee 23:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok done, see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Moby Dick --Cat out 09:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon using sock puppets to vandalise

Hi Shane, where would I notify of a user doing the above? User:65.189.204.197 & User:65.25.1.215 tag teaming on C.C. DeVille amongst other articles. Thanks in advance, - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 00:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

God bless! :) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 01:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

3-RR question

Is finding different ways of saying the same thing, and adding them to an article, considered reverting? For example, supposing an editor inserted into the article the following statement:

About his own religious stance, he said: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

and somebody deleted it. Next the editor inserted:

"Some say Hitler wasn't a Catholic, but he was faithful to the Church his whole life",

and someone else deleted it. Then the editor inserted,

"The Führer remained loyal to the Vatican for all his days "

and that too was deleted. Then he inserted,

"The faith with which Adolf was raised never left his heart,"

and again it was deleted. Has the editor inserting the statements made any reverts at all, for purposes of the 3-RR rule? Please reply here, I'm watching this page. Drogo Underburrow 01:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tila Nguyen

I see that you added a cleanup tag to the Tila Nguyen article without explaining what makes it read as an ad. Can you please check Talk:Tila Nguyen#Cleanup notice? --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 02:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot malfunction

Hey -- Werdnabot recently created a page !month that looked like an archive of your talk page. I cut & pasted the content to the redlink at the top of this page, because I figured it should go there... but you might want to check it. Mangojuice^talk 03:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

You are suggesting that I lack civility in my discussions, im sorry but what do you call this? : "I'm not sure if English is your first language or whether you have cognitive issues but the meer suggestion that a new user such as yourself that jumps into controversial topics might perhaps be a sockpuppet is not only not a personal attack but a daily occurance on wikipedia. Fear not, this is not turkey or mongolia. You are innocent until proven otherwise.--Eupator 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)" or this "That bullcrap was merely copy pasted from already discredited propaganda websites. The scoundrel didn't even bother to paraphrase that baloney.--Eupator 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)" or this "So Lucifer, you mean to tell me that in this freedom of speech paradise anyone can go and burn the turkish flag in ankara like we can do here in the US with our flag? Can the average Joe deface an image of your God ataturk like we can do in Europe or the States with our leaders images and whatnot? Go feed your crap to someone else troll and enough of this irrelevant spamming. This is not a discussion forum.--Eupator 18:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)" Lutherian 05:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

can I get an answer pls? Lutherian 17:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[50]--Eupator 17:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In the 18 hours since his warning, Lutherian (talk • contribs) has managed a few more personal attacks and incivilities. This attack, this incivility, this trolling, this trolling, this incivility. I'm not exactly brimming with good faith, true, but I cannot identify a single good-faith, constructive edit by Lutherian. Ever. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of civility, I’d like you to take a loot at the following excerpts that user Fadix (talk • contribs) frequently uses in the discussion pages. Clearly, Fadix has an attitude problem; he/she’s aggressively pushing his/her POV in Armenian Genocide article and constantly making personal attacks and falsely accusing other editors who happen to hold different views other than his/her own. I’m a recent victim of his/her accusations. I’m just going to give examples from one discussion Fadix is involved and how he/she kept accusing me being some other user[51]. If need be, I can provide many other examples his/her accusations to other users.

“That's simply non-sense.”

“...stop pulling my legs and pretend that you are actually saying something.”

“Stop wasting my time with made up things to pretend that you have anything valuable here.”

“If you don't know of what you are talking about, just don't talk about it.”''

His false accusation about me (being user Torque or an anon user) and also about others:

“Twisting my words again? If you don't want others suspecting you and really await from people to check the history of contributions and making the differences between all the different IP addresses you would have used your other logins. Also isen't it amazing that this new anonyma you are is so obstinently trying to discredit Dadrian with the materials used by our dear pall Holdwater AKA Torque? Well, I do admit I think it's my pall Torque there. :) And his pall, or else why would all those anonymous users had attempted to get my friends tallarmeniantale website back down here reinculding it repeatdly in the article? Why would it be else, that Mr. Deepblue add this mistakes which is proper to Holdwater in the article about Dadrian [52] claiming that he bases his cases on the Andonians, when he wrote a single paper on the subject . :) I see that you still like to use your favoured term 'onus' back from the forum genocide.com. :)”

A part of my response included “Unless you can prove that I made the above edit about Dadrian as you accuse (or unless you apologize for your mistake), I declare you as a psycho paranoid liar.” by Deepblue06

He admitted his mistake with no apology but continued to accuse me being another user, being user Neurobio this time: “Yes indeed it was a mistake, I was addressing to 82.145.232.143, AKA Lutherian who obstinently in the past tried re-adding tallarmeniantale website. I got mixed up between both usernames. My Mr.Deepblue should have been read as Mr. Lutherian, and my belief about you should have been Mr. Deepblue=Neurobio.”

Fadix clearly has an attitude problem always using an aggressive attacking tone and making impossible for others to contribute to the article by constantly pushing his POV. Looking at his/her other edits in discussion pages might quickly reveal his/her attitude problem. Deepblue06 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You've warned Fadix (talk • contribs) [53] 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 [54] and then admitted his/her mistake with no apology but kept accusing me being another user, Neurobio this time [55], accepted his/her mistake with no apology again but kept accusing me being a sockpupet again [56] and again and again [57]. 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. Deepblue06 00:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment

The said person is a not a wikipedia user.--Eupator 18:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy states "other (Wikipedia) contributors". Maybe you should modify it... Such as? I'll take my chance with an RFC any day over lack of respect towards trolls.--Eupator 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to a be a little more clear, which users? A troll by default is also a user.--Eupator 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What if they are a troll and trolling? You yourself have accused other users of trolling or being a troll. Here's one example: [58] I'm sure others can be found.--Eupator 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhu. So now we determined that we can use the word troll and trolling but we can't throw it around in a debate (I don't recall debating with a troll), is there a procedure or a policy that scrutinizies the issue at hand in regards to when and where it is proper to accuse someone of trolling?--Eupator 22:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We were making some headway there but now we're back to where we started. Let me be more blunt, is it a) I can use the word and you cant or b) I regret using the word in the past and promise not to ever use it again.

--Eupator 22:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that's your pov, in an attempt (as poor as it may be) to be balanced; however, it can easily be shown that I wasn't the only one to refer to the said user as a troll or his actions as trolling and that there is a growing consensus among others.--Eupator 22:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about butting in, but I agree with Eupator. Lutherian is jabbing where the skin is thinnest; he's obviously here to get a rise out of people. Hakob 22:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You can agree with him if you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that he is wrong. Even if you are being provoked, there is no excuse for making personal attacks. --InShaneee 23:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, show me where I have disrespected another user in a manner that you haven't done yourself. This is borderline harassment.--Eupator 23:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it appears that there's no reasoning with you regarding this matter, i'll drop a line when the user whose only contributions are shady reverts and provocations on talk pages eventually gets banned. I'll leave with the satisfaction of having pointed out the hypocrisy that you yourself have accused other users of trolling in the recent past.--Eupator 23:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Characters of Megatokyo

The merges put on the page don't make much sense because the new versions were exact copies of the orriginal. Then the old character page had all of its links removed and was left alone. So merging it would be pretty pointless. I mean this in no offence I just wish to point out why I am against merging the articles. Sorry if this annoys you Vcelloho 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of personal attacks

Hi, please read WP:NPA. My comments that I was disregarding another user's comments are not personal attacks. Please remove the comments from my talk page or reply on my talk page if you feel they should stay. Paul Cyr 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In which case you used the wrong tag so would you please change it to {{civil}}. In fact, you said every comment I made to the user violated WP:CIVIL. I can only find the one comment you mentioned where I violated WP:CIVIL. If you were to examine the situation you would notice that I only made that one snide remark after many, many, snide, rude, offensive remarks or personal attacks from that user. Please review the entire situation before making judgements, so that you do not place overly agressive or in this case incorrect warnings on talk pages. Paul Cyr 02:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying someone is acting like a child does not violate WP:CIVIL. Pointing out someone's attempt at a non-response reply does not violate WP:CIVIL. Could you please change the tag to {{civil}} as I asked before? Paul Cyr 02:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please WP:EXPLAIN. I was not attacking him as a person, I was attacking his actions. There is a difference, and I suggest you read Wp:npa#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks, specifically There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll". Paul Cyr 02:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You have not responded to my comment in about a day. If by two days you do not reply I will remove the warnings from my talk page with reasonable cause. Paul Cyr 01:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I asked you to respond to my previous point, which was to explain what your claim is. Redirecting me back to a previous comment doesn't count. Paul Cyr 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And that's the difference. I explained with specific examples and elaborations how they weren't. You are just saying "they are because they are". Paul Cyr 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, and since you will not discuss the matter I am also free to take it to mediation. Paul Cyr 02:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yanksox

Tell me why Yanksox has control over somthing he has absolutely no Knowledge? Are you going to allow an 18 year old american dictate what is and what is not important in Australian History?Lentisco 04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He is demonstratably ignorant. He cannot (and has not) offered any imput of historical value what so ever. Except that he, an 18 year old american has never heard of the Port Phillip Association. Well if thats your logic Yanksox could abolish all Australian history pages.Lentisco 04:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel very strange about this whole matter. I am sorry for the troubles. Yanksox 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actuarial Outpost

Good morning, Inshanee. I would suggest that you look at the site before you claim it is not notable. There are over 8700 users, over 1.5 million posts, and more actuaries and actuarial students in one place than anywhere else in the world. Members of the Board of both the Casualty Actuarial Society and the Society of Actuaries post there, as do study manual authors and others. There is a very busy job forum there as well. I am presuming you posted that it was not notable without looking much at the site, or at its links. I am asking you, please do a little research about it before summarily dismissing it. Thank you. -- Avi 05:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to see the site. What's important here are the standards set in WP:WEB, which I don't see met anywhere. --InShaneee 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the very opening paragraph of WP:WEB claims that it is a "rough guideline." Further, if the candidates for election of the Society of Actuaries campaign on this site as much as they do on their own site, that also speaks to notability. However, wikipedia is run by each and every one of us, and you must vote as you best see fit. Thank you for your interest. -- Avi 05:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshanee

I want major admin involvment. User:Grandmaster is trying to intimdate me and threaten me on freedom of expression alone. Look at what he left on my talk page. This was just because I added an alternative user box for the Wiki Azeri groupp to which I am a member of saying this user beleives in the reunion of Iran and the Republic of Azarbaijan. He has absolutly no right to threaten me on it and additionallyy hee has no right to delete it from the project page. This is not about editing now, this is about freedom of expression, which is more important. I want to take this to somesort of panel. I personally hold his behaviour in low regard. 72.57.230.179

You can keep your userbox on your personal page if you like it, but repeatedly adding it to the Azeri Wikiproject page is only intended to spark controversy. You can’t add to the Wikiproject page any userboxes that are not endorsed by other members. Your behavior is very questionable and admin interference is indeed required. Grandmaster 11:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sense and Civility

It seems that you've been handing out civility warnings like candy (this isn't an insult, just a description of something you have done) and there are other people who have had similar problems with you, it seems. I'd like a more neutral administrator to moderate our disputes. Thank you. Hakob 18:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Look user:Grandmaster and co. make rude and degrading comments, i.e. troll. I have a right to defend myself. Why do you think this guys user page is always vandalized. HE IS THE TROLL NOT ME. 72.57.230.179

Please go look at my last edits and tell me if they are correct

Go to both talk: Music of Azarbaijan and the actual article. ALso please look at the edit history for the article. This is what has me worked up. There is proof there that user:Grandmaster is not editing correctly. See what he states in the edit history. It is a short edit history and so is the little article. Please look and get back to me becuase I do not want an edit war where it is him and his friends vs. me. 72.57.230.179

SOrry I just noticed something

You know what user:Grandmaster was delete my work saying citations were needed but all the sections claiming Azaris are Turks needed citations for a very long period of time now and he never bothered to give verfications is this not double standards? Take a look at the article. This is outrageous I just realized it. 72.57.230.179

Also for the Music once again look [[59]]

72.57.230.179

Hi, InShaneee. I’m getting really tired of User:72.57.230.179. Despite being told numerous times about unacceptability of personal attacks and the need to adhere to civility norms, his almost every contribution here is another attack on me. See an example here [60], the heading speaks for itself. He goes around leaving messages slamming me on every Azerbaijan related talk page, moreover, he does the same on the talk pages of other Wikiprojects and users. He distorts my user name as user:AnMaster, which is also not very civil. Please have a look at his contributions after the block on him was lifted. I personally tried many times to explain to him that he should comment only on content and not on the contributor, but without any success. He’s been also warned by other admins and users, but his conduct is the same as before. What in your opinion should I do to stop this? Regards, Grandmaster 15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not making personal attacks; in fact what you are doing is slanderous. You have also been warned about negative behaviour in the past. Give mpore examples and quantitive examples where i have not been sanctioned. If I made a mistake in spellling your name that does not mean incivility. You are doing everything in yyour power to demonize me and that in itself is wrong and counter-productive. You have personally not done anything but mock me and play sherads so do not make it look like you tried to ingage me in dialogue. It was actually the other wat around. I am the one who made compromises compaired to your delete without consensus or discussion practices which you have a history for. It is your user page that has been vandalized many times do to your contriversal behaviour and upsetting of others not mine. I find it ironic that you make these claims against me. Any admin. can look at the history and they will see that you are painting a distorted picture user:Grandmaster. Additionally don't forget you also threatened me and made false claims about WIkipedia rules. Here is some food for thought [[61]]72.57.230.179

I highly doubt you can find any contribution by 72.57.230.179, which does not mention my name. Grandmaster 19:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking measures. Regards, Grandmaster 07:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

69.234.50.65

This IP has made series of incivil accusations against me, just have a look at: [62]. Multiple IP addresses are editing on that article, have a look at [63] I think they have mistaken edit summaries for chatroom! --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, by the way can you delete my userpage please? Thanks a bunch, --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can We Have verificaion for the claims that Azaris are ethnically Turkic too, please

Can the same formula be applied for Turkic claims as was for Iranian ethnicity?! The same formula; peer-reviewed, reliable sources that state that "Azerbaijanis are racially Turkic". Giving the citation, a link, and information to support the assertion. The claims that Azaris are Turkic never were varified and were on the article for ages, while the links to Iranians was verified. 72.57.230.179

Question

If an article copies information directly from another Wiki article then is that a copyright vio? I ask this because the article International Response to the Holocaust seems to do just that. --Strothra 23:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Lutherian again again again

You gave him a final warning, and then this edit. I gotta go now. —Khoikhoi 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Single-handedly punishing Lutherian will not remove the source of the problem. Fadix is at least as much guilty of degrading the civility of the talk page. You've also warned Fadix, but that had no effect. I'd appreciate if you can take a look at the my recent exchanges with this user [64], [65], or I belive looking at any of this user's recent edits at the Armenian genocide talk page will quickly reveal my point. Thanks Deepblue06 13:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Punishing Lutherian will tell him to stop trolling, which is all he's done ever since he's been here. It appalls me that you'd want to back some one like that. Look what he said here. —Khoikhoi 14:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, im not trolling, im defending a view but it seems my arguments fall on deaf ears! Lutherian 18:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're arguing that this isn't trolling? —Khoikhoi 18:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I find it very uncivil and annoying that you sneak up on me like that! Sorry, but it has nothing to do with trolling! If you have an issue with me, I would appreciate it if you raised it directly with me! Lutherian 19:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You've shown us all too well that you're not able to participate in a mature discussion without insulting people or accusing people of insulting yourself. I suggest you read WP:TROLL. That's why I try to avoid making contact with you. —Khoikhoi 20:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that his sole purpouses is to assassinate my character and push his POV, he would compare me with Adolph Hitler and this would not surprise me much. That he compares me with Lutherian confirm further how groundless his accusations are. But again, like I told him, he will be free when I fill the RfAr to slander me as much as he wants. Fad (ix) 17:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Help me out here, should I feel offended by your remark? Lutherian 18:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And how should I take this malicious plot here [66], for my head on a pole??? Lutherian 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

May the Schwartz be with you Muad'Dib!

I Sasquatch, hereby, award thee the power of a Vandal Whacking Ring of Schwartz.

Another user

Look at the edit summary here. Can you warn him for civilty and personal attacks? He's the same guy that said on my talk page that "he's proud to be an anti-Semite". —Khoikhoi 17:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi dont make propaganda. I said it in Turkish Wikipedia. Because anti-seminist a propaganda word created by USA for silence the people who is anti-sioninst.Khoikhoi you are a racist faschist, you said you hate altt the Turks, be honest dont use such as childs tactis. Ruzgar 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The other users delete the photo pleas warn other users like me if you are a real counter-vandalist. Ruzgar 01:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Who makes personel attacks? This users always insults me, he always said I have said I am proud of being anti-seminist? Where is your justice, please warn other users not only me! Ruzgar 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Ruzgar 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont replace them with blank pages. I remove them because they are uproved theories. And no one can use wikipedia for propaganda. If you are a counter-vandalist warn other users who vandals PKK article they remove the photo without showing no reason. Ruzgar 01:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have writed in Talk page. But nobody anwers me. They write in the article their theories and you say that is not a "Vandalism", when i remove their unproved theories you call me vandal. Are you a counter-vandalist or an anti-Turk. Ruzgar

My personal page

Thanks for dropping by my talk page. I noticed you had some remarks about it (and removed parts of it). For clarification, here is the reason why I refuse to talk to those two editors. They have proven several times in the past that they/he is/are there to NPOV push their nationalistic views. I spent a lot of precious time to find a compromise with them. It did not work. They kept calling me "idiot" "liar" , impersonating me, vandalizing my personal page, wiki-stalking me, and what not. I am not willing to waste more time doing that. There is much more to do in Wikipedia than try to calm someone's nationalistic feelings, you agree I suppose. As an admin, I hope you can do something about it. Thanks for the remarks anyways. ilir_pz 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have followed exactly the steps you described, but it did not work, on the contrary. I am sure it will not work in the future as well. Instead i will keep ignoring their inappropriate comments, and report to you when they go too far. regards,ilir_pz 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to talk about this stuff ...

Then I'm perfectly willing to. I refer to the comments you left on my discussion page. "First of all, Scientology has a remarkable amount of people doing a remarkable amount of work trying to keep it NPOV. And sure enough, it does spend a large amount of time running down just about everything that's known about the religion from its own standpoint before discussing it's controversies. As to it's accuracy, Scientology is an extremely secretive religion. Where are we supposed to go for 'good info' about Lord Xenu?" If you want to talk about any or all of that, I'm perfectly willing to. When you left the comments, my impression was that you didn't wish to actually talk, but that you were finding ways of stopping discussion, but if you would actually like to, I'm perfectly willing to talk about any of it. Terryeo 06:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lutherian 7

It seems that blocking him hasn't taught him anything, and I quote:

[67] well well THOTH, showing our true colors are we? Seems to me from your remark that you approve of what they said!

[68] hmmm funny how homogeneous Armenia is! Hardcore ethnic cleansing anyone?

[69] well no matter which way you look at it the debate has been going on for 90 years so your logic that its the world vs TR and that this should be the basis of measure does not really hold!

—Khoikhoi 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just warned another user for personal attacks, and they said this to me. Can you warn him again? —Khoikhoi 01:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

From User:InShaneee

Hello InShaneee,

Could you please explain why the article on creatureness was deleted. This is a definition that does reflect certain sub-culture, and is _not_ a joke. Please respond.

Sincerely,

Kurtitski & Kurtitski

P.S. My apologies for vandalizing this page, but this is just a mean for attracting your attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurtitski (talk • contribs) .

(relocated here by ~Kylu (u|t) 01:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC) )

Nizami and arrogance of a new user

Thanks to Mr. Khoikhoi I found your link. A new user by the name of Adil Baguirov has show a pretty much incivil tone in the discussion page. The user does not even speak Persian , which was the language of Nizami and his major is not literature, but economics. The user constantly calls me a Persian Chavaunist, Racist and some other names etc. --Ali doostzadeh 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings...

...fellow Wikipedian! I come to you with a request for a favour. You see, my friend User:C-c-c-c was blocked recently for personal attacks, for a week. I've chated to him over MSN, and he feels really bad about it, he has calmed down, and promises he won't do it anymore. I do not request for you to unblock him, just shorten the block to, oh lets say... 3 or 4 days? If you could do that, I would really appreciate it, and believe me, so would he :-) All the best, -- serbiana - talk 05:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

ok, i respect your decision. -- serbiana - talk 00:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

excuse me???

but what are you warning me for??? None of the three examples that khoikhoi quotes constitutes personal attacks (especially not the last two!!!). I demand an explanation, this it totally unfair!!! Lutherian 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree but do you also warn the others that I am interacting with for the same reasons or are you just attacking me? Lutherian 05:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice day, over

You are a good lad. Wallie 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your obviously not a gamer. It will be featured in 2old2play gaming magazine June issue (released in a few days). So how does one prove it's 'notability'.

It's an actual magazine, wouldn't a scan of it violate copyright?

X-men

Wikipedia policy is to limit the number of links in an article, namely repetative links. Please stop over linking names. Bignole 01:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevent. If you want to link it there, then delink the ones in the PLOT section. It's over linking either way you look at it, if you believe it would be better suited in the Cast section, then remove the ones from the other sections as well. Over linking is over linking no matter if it looks better or not. Bignole 01:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose which names to link either. If you are going to link names in the Table link them all. If you are going to link them all, then remove their redundant counterparts from the other sections. It isn't about being nitpicky, it's about conserving server space. Wikipedia doesn't have an unlimited supply. Bignole 01:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

you know? Wikipedia:Avoid_using_wikilinks is a joke. -- Drini 01:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm a pretty consistent viewer with the F.E.A.R. (computer game) and have contributed to it a bit myself. I had to take a small break from Wikipedia however, a short while ago (Computer virus. Darn them. :( Imagine my surprise when I checked the history and saw all those reverts! I truly thank you for you efforts in stopping this vandalism. Delta 01:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

excuse me 2

are you also warning those that I am interacting with? I would appreciate an answer! Lutherian 05:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

South Coast League

Why did you delete the South Coast League article? You have no reason, and I will appeal to the operators of Wikipedia. You are abusing your power as an editor. The South Coast League is a future baseball league with a logo and a current website. I even tagged it with a future events tag, and still you take it upon yourself to delete it. Why?

I'm seconding this. I'm not sure why you deleted it, any insight? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 01:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Lutherian 25

And more:

[70] If you are going to argue this, at least make an honest attempt!

[71] ...there is nothing here that our resident contributor Fadix has not explored...

[72] hence discussion on this matter is a clear waste of time, thanks for confirming this THOTH

—Khoikhoi 18:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

wow, here he is again, exposing one side of the argument. Why dont you be a bit more neutral instead of deliberately attacking me, khoikhoi? Why dont you expose the full conversation and lets see who is provoking who! I have been called all kinds of things such as troll, sockpuppet etc by this khoikhoi, its like he festers a deep hatred against me and is on a mission to get rid of me! Lutherian 19:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Also can you please warn this user. It's starting to get out of hand. —Khoikhoi 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Daphne Loves Derby

A while back you deleted this page and... well, the version you deleted was "nonsense" but there was real information in versions before the vandalism. Just wanted to let you know... I'm restoring the old stuff and trying to integrate all of the old content into the newly created article. gren グレン 02:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hi Inshaneee, I posted the following on User talk:Lutherian: [73] in response to you posting [74].

....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)

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)

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)

Blocked

I was recently blocked because I had the misfortune of sharing the same IP address as User:C-c-c-c. I looked into his history and while a block is certainly understandable, I hope it's possible to spare me from the effects of any future blocks as I do not believe I have done anything to warrant being blocked. Thank you.--T smitts 20:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

mass vandalism and sockpuppetry

Hi InShanneee, you asked me some time ago to report to you suspicious activity. Well here is the following. See contributions of this user in the article Kosovo Liberation Army, they are almost crossing the 3RR rule, and "suddenly" when I report him in the 3RR page, someone else Krytan does that what he wanted, and to confuse an admin further Estavisti also edited a bit. I realized that I wrongly reported him for the 3RR, which gave him a reason to edit with the other accounts, which I was very suspicious for a long time being his sockpuppets. Seeing the speed of edits, and the very short time between the edits. Just check when suspected sockpuppets User:Krytan and User:Estavisti "started" editing. Exactly when he was crossing the 3RR boundary. Please take some action, this user has been disruptive in almost all his Wikipedia "career", has been blocked 4 times previously, but is not becoming more understanding. On the contrary. I thank you in advance. ilir_pz 00:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, a simple IP locator can show that I'm in Vancouver, Krytan in Toronto and Estavisti in London. Now, they have noticed my edits and have decided to help stop Ilir's vandalism. Still, I ask you to investigate what happened, just to make Ilir happy and make him stop rambling about sockpuppets. -- serbiana - talk 00:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And yes, he keeps wiki-stalking me, as you can see, and this behavior of his is due to several warnings he sent to me. ilir_pz 00:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, i'm not wikistalking him, I saw his edit on this page because I contacted InShanee about C-c-c-c earlier, put this page on my watchlist, and forgot to remove it. Good thing I didn't. The warning I sent to him is quite civilized and I hoped to reach an agreement on Kosovo-related articles, but he refused, attacking me personally as a reason not to cooperate. I'm expecting him to use my history on Wikipedia (which has not been perfect) as his main evidence for a cause which is 100% false, which can be, as I've said, proven with a simple IP locator. Thank you. -- serbiana - talk 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Constistent rv-warring

User:Nedko has broken 3RR in [75]. I've reported him in the noticeboard but no-one seems to be watching it. In the meantime this user is having his way with the article and wastes the time and energy of the people who try to reason him. Besides 3RR, I suspect that his abuse of the POV-tag might fall under tag-vandalism. Regards. Miskin 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

why you deleted ghoom

Speedy deletion for Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction and Optimal classification

Hi Shane,

I was thinking about deleting those (authors request), however I saw you removed the speedy tags, so I thought I'd check with you first. "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created." I would argue that the author was the only person to add substantial content to those articles, as all other human edits were tags and minor Wiki formatting issues. So any objections if I go ahead and speedy those, or did you have some other reasoning? Cheers, Petros471 18:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well as you can see by the current red state of the links, another admin has decided that they meet db-author. Did you see the legal argument happening on Tawker's talk page about them? I just thought if we could delete them under a CSD it would save trouble for all parties. My take on 'mistakenly created' was 'didn't fully understand GFDL license', but I'm no legal expert! Thanks, Petros471 19:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem :) Petros471 19:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

See how he's sucking up, InShaneee? As I've said, good luck. -- serbiana - talk 00:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Personal attack

Hi InShaneee. Please take note of the last sentence of this edit by User:Inahet on an AFD, accusing "writer and the defenders of the anti-Persianism article" of "turning Wikipedia into a soapbox or a battleground". I warned the user about this personal attack, and asked him to discuss the topic not the users, but he remains defiant while threating me for asking him to read the policies. [76] --ManiF 07:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Inahet is now attacking me on Zora's talk page. [77] --ManiF 07:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For goodness sake, can you tell me how any of those statements would be considered personal attacks? ManiF is labeling some of my statements as personal attacks. This is not civil behaviour, and he is not assuming good faith, but he has the nerve to tell me to read the policies. Keep in mind that this user had not so long ago lobbied for meatpuppetry outside Wikipedia.[78] Here is an excerpt of what he wrote in an open letter at an Iranian site. "Separatist Arabs and Kurds, plus a few politically-motivated Arab and Israeli nationals, have been repeatedly and systematically vandalizing the Iran-related articles on Wikipedia." I'm certain that he includes me as one of the "politically-motivated Arabs" who has "repeatedly and systematically vandalizing the Iran-related articles on Wikipedia." As you can see, my comments are not in anyway near the severity of his accusations. And although I did not accuse anyone directly (e.g. user:John Doe is lobbying for votes [which is btw not a personal attack either]), ManiF's behaviour does give basis to the accusation of votestacking. Also, he is accusing me of threatening him, which I did not, he is mislabeling my comments yet again. And in the case of me being defiant, well the last time I checked ManiF wasn't my master. --Inahet 07:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, User:Inahet is now wikistalking me as well. --ManiF 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dracula

You reverted the article, but the anecdotes are sourced.

Source 1= http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~jrh11/DracParNEW.doc

Source 2= Dracula: Prince of Many Faces (1989). Florescu, Radu R. and Mcnally, Raymond T. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0316286559

Zoe said that because they don't have the book, and because the Doc file cannot be accessible by all users, the sources are invalid. Do you find this normal? --Candide, or Optimism 21:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I think an apology to all of us would be in order here[79], an apology would greatly help your own situation, not only would it make you seem like the "bigger man", but it also may keep you from losing your admin privliges which you are so openly abusing. Cheers!--GorillazFan Adam 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You have done it again, assumed bad faith, I was not being the least bit uncivil, rather I came to you trying to help you, you have abused your privleges as an admin once again, please do not do it again.--GorillazFan Adam 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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 [80] [81] with no success

[82] a scientific study in the Turkish style!

[83]- so up yours!

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

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

[86] 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 [87] with no success.

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

Incivility continues... [88] Deepblue06 18:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Show me a reason

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

Ruzgar

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

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

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)

what do you mean by nonsense

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)

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)

Ruzgar's a smart guy

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

Chicago, Illinois

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

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)

Delete

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

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)

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)

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)

NY TIMES article that mentions 102 and "Cat News," probably not useful.[89].

Forum post, more for interest and not useable, about Howard Stern liking "Gemberling[90].

Entertainment Weekly article showing both "Cat News" and "Gemberling"[91]. Yanksox 17:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moshe's new block

Hi InShaneee,

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has been blocked by User:Homeontherange in clear violation of the blocking policy.[92]. 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

=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

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. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)