User talk:AdjustShift

I will likely respond to new messages here on my talk page.

Thekohser/MyWikiBiz

Please see my reply to your blocking Greg from his talkpage here [1]. Ripberger (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied. AdjustShift (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Absent a clear and compelling reason to keep the ban in place, I plan to change this. See User_talk:Thekohser. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy) I think Thekohser/MyWikiBiz should be allowed to edit one talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to lift the block on the talk page of Thekohser. Can I? AdjustShift (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly technically capable of doing it. I believe it is within policy to do so as well... blocking user talk pages is an admin discretion thing. So I think you should go ahead and do so. Thanks for taking the decision to do it. ++Lar: t/c 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Lar. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You too, and thanks again! ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo

As an admin, I'd like to request a copy of this "secret evidence" :) Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll not be closing the SPI case. The case has been deferred to the CUs. AdjustShift (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has told you specifically not to close (at least I have not, heck my last message to you was a suggestion on how to close as it would have been your first close), you can close it if you wish. I believe that there is an email to functionaries-l, and this has also been forwarded to arbcom (because of the existing case). I don't think a close of this case would be a good idea though without arbcom's endorsement of the result as there is an active case going and molobo has been around for quite a while. —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So what does this have to do with my request? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. My question is simple, and so should be your answer: "Yes, here you go" or "No, I'll not give you the evidence (that other admins have seen) because...". Please chose one of those and give me proper reply :) Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you can't answer questions in yes/no, my dear. You've to wait for sometime. When the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed in your cryptic responses. I asked you a very simple question, you are refusing to answer. Please see my comment here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The evidences are still being discussed on the functionaries list. There was no need to raise this at AN. I told you that when the right time comes, you will see the off-wiki evidences. AdjustShift (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus: I think AdjustShift gave you the best answer that can be given right now. I'm not directly involved in the investigation but from seeing discussion, I know it's not run of the mill, and these things sometimes take time to work through. Sorry if that's confusing, but please don't give Adj. a hard time about it, ok? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Piotruś, you know well that people are reluctant to let you, out of all people, see the secret evidence, because you have an age-old track record of protecting Molobo. I guess people feel that if they forward this stuff to you, they might just as well forward it straight to Molobo. Please don't pretend not to know or understand this. Had you been less protective of Molobo in the last years, you might not be out of the loop now. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

All I see is bad faith :( And I will keep on standing up for the underdogs and against witch trials, no matter how unpopular that makes me. I am not on Wikipedia to win a popularity contest. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"All I see is bad faith". The fact is that you have a long history of defending and protecting Molobo, which does not justify assuming good faith in this case. Assuming good faith is a principle that fails in the face of evidence to the contrary, here no less than in real life. "I will keep on standing up for the underdogs". Within the Polish editors' community, Molobo is anything but an "underdog" - on the contrary, he can count on the community's support no matter what. If you ever defended German users, or users of any other nationality for that matter, with the same passion as you're defending Molobo, you might be able to gradually restore the good faith others place in your neutrality - but I'm pessimistic that this will happen. You and I have been in touch on Wikipedia for years. In the beginning, I think we were on reasonably good terms, even if we may have disagreed on certain issues. Since then, you have demonstrated time and again that your first allegiance is to (what you believe to be) the Polish interest on Wikipedia, using up all my - and apparently a lot of other people's - good faith as a result. No one regrets this more than I do, believe me. --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Claude H. Van Tyne

On May 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claude H. Van Tyne, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BABEL

I gather that English is not your native language. Please consider BABEL templates to indicate this in your userboxes - they also help of one wants to send you sources or such in non-English language. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

English is not my native language, but I may speak American. :-) I can't use BABEL templates because of privacy concerns. On the English-language Wikipedia, I use sources in the English language only. AdjustShift (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

@Piotruś: An interesting request in the context of AdjustShift's handling of a Polish POV hothead... If AdjustShift put up a German, Russian, Hebrew or Yiddish Babel template, that would be great, wouldn't it? But come to think of it, anything else than pl-5 should be enough to base a conspiracy theory on... :-D Seriously, not everybody wears their ethnic identity like a badge. Outside Eastern Europe, this isn't such a hot topic any more. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a horrible assumption of bad faith on your part Thorsten1.radek (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"That's a horrible assumption of bad faith". Of course it is - too bad that Piotruś has let it come to this (see my comment in the section above this one). But you're welcome to provide me a plausible, innocent explanation why Piotruś was asking this particular user this particular question at this particular time. Who knows, maybe he has come across an interesting source in, say, Tamil and is curious if AdjustShift, who he just happened to meet because he was the one handling Molobo's SPI case, understands Tamil and is interested? ;) --Thorsten1 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thorsten1 basicaly what you are saying is that a German admin would be a good option to handle a case where a couple of German editors accuse a Polish editor, with whom they had arguments in the past, of socket puppery?. Just wondering. Loosmark (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

"what you are saying is that a German admin would be a good option to handle a case where a couple of German editors accuse a Polish editor, " No, you're misunderstanding this. In fact, I'm saying the opposite: Molobo's defenders have from the beginning been trying to dismiss the whole case as a German vs. Polish thing, implying that all criticism of Molobo was due to his critics' supposed national bias, and that Molobo's edits don't need to be scrutinized because of that. That's why it's a good thing that this case was not handled by a German editor. All I said was that it strikes me as pretty strange that Piotruś should inquire about AdjustShift's native language, which hadn't been an issue before, just when there were indications that things might not be working out alright for the "Polish side" after all. For me, this is clearly an attempt at questioning AdjustShift's neutrality and damaging his standing as the person handling the procedure. (As I said above, if you can think of any more plausible explanation for Piotruś's floating this trial balloon, go ahead and I may change my mind.) Fortunately, in the end the decision wasn't made by AdjustShift, but by Avi, who is even less likely to be a closet German than AdjustShift. --Thorsten1 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions

• 1-Is this your first SPI case ?
• 2-You commented that you are not neutral. Shouldn't the clerk remain neutral ?
• 3-Why did you congratulate Scinurae for "evidence" without waiting for my comments and defence ?
• 4-Why was "super sekret evidence" provided to a user with history of team taging with Scinurae against Polish users ?
• 5-As I understand you are not experienced with Wikipedia-as you are from August 2008, correct ?

--Molobo (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• 1) Yes, it is.
• 2) I'm neutral. We live in a beautiful planet called Earth, where 6,783,421,727 people live (as of May 31 2009). I'm one of them; you are one of them.
• 3) Scinurae's evidences are solid; that's why.
• 4) As far as I know Scinurae and Deacon of Pndapetzim are not against Polish users.
• 5) I joined since August 2008, but I'm experienced.

If you've any more questions, you can ask me. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I see, I would request then another person to handle this case, as you admit you are not neutral and take side of Scinurae. You are obviously also inexperienced in conflicts that went on the Wikipedia involving those two users and overall situation regarding disputes and manipulating evidence. I am also sorry to say that you have shown prejudice against Eastern European editors: Yes, editors fight. But, these Eastern European editors, they fight whenever they get a chance.[2] I will trust a neutral, experienced clerk. Somebody who from the start congratulates one of the sides and states comments based on ethnic profiling is not somebody that I can trust to have just judgment. --Molobo (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Molobo, I don't discriminate against anyone. Eastern Europeans, Asians, Africans ... we are all humans. I'm talking about the attitude of certain Eastern European editors on en.wikipedia. Yes, some of them fight whenever they get a chance. AdjustShift (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I judge people on the basis of merit, not on the basis of where they come from. Some Americans are good, some Americans are bad; Some Germans are good, some Germans are bad; and so on. AdjustShift (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AdjustShift: how can I believe if you are telling me you are neutral, but on the user page write with a smile that you are not[3].YO are also giving "secret evidence" manufactured by Scinurea to people who he edit warred against other Polish users with long history of disputes with Polish community(including Arbcom). I apologize AdjustShift-no matter your good intentions this does not build confidence. I realize how messed up Wikipedia is, and it is a devious place, you might be fooled even if you have good intentions and I am afraid you are too trusting and too prone to influence. For example-you do realise Scinurae has collagues in Poland who were attacking me from his account and what consequences that would have to see the "evidence" in proper light?--Molobo (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "For example-you do realise Scinurae has collagues in Poland who were attacking me from his account and what consequences that would have to see the "evidence" in proper light?" OMG. I don't have any contacts in Poland, nor does anyone else use my account. Stop making up such things. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Molobo, I was joking with Synergy. I'll not be fooled by anyone. Do you have anything more to say? AdjustShift (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are joking in procedural discussion that could result in block of editor responsible for creation of such articles as Aktion 1005 and adding countless information about atrocities of Nazi Germany ? I really expect clerk to be more serious and responsible. I am sorry but my confidence in your judgment was further eroded.--Molobo (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I was joking with Synergy. When it comes to the case, I'm serious. AdjustShift (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologize for perhaps seeming a bit of rude. I have been here for years, and you wouldn't believe the things I have seen and endured. Sometimes I wonder why I stay after the continued insults, accusations, death threats and so on. It really isn't that easy to write on atrocities during WW2 without and I became a little bitter about. Once people start writing to you that you should wear a bulletproof vest after you edit articles about crimes of Nazi soldiers then you see Wiki in a bit different light. You really shouldn't take any side ever, no matter how rude of friendly another person seems.

--Molobo (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

I think you deserve an explanation on why I am reacting so strongly to this SPI. First of all, I am strongly opposed to concepts of presumption of guilt and secret trials, as they are likely to lead to abuses of power and miscarriage of justice. Second, I believe that any profit from keeping secret evidence from one sockpuppeteer is outweighed by the above, plus by the inability to use this evidence to teach other admins/editors how to spot socks. Third, I believe that there are editors out there who in the past have shown to be less than stellar with presenting evidence (see ArbCom EE case) and who "have it" for Molobo, who I believe deserves a fair trial (and secret trials are hardly that). Having said all that, if it is shown that Molobo has used a sock to evade his 1RR restriction, I would support further restrictions/bans on his account. My argument is not that Molobo is innocent or good or whatever "because we are both Poles" (no matter how some want to make it look that way, I try not to let my personal POV affect my admin judgment), but that he (and anybody else - Polish, German or Zulu) deserves a fair trial without any "secret evidence" hanging above one like a sword of Damocles for weeks. You've said this is your first SPI, I wish you good luck in the future ones, but I believe you made a grievous error in this one by allowing some evidence to be kept secret. I hope you'll realize this was a mistake and if you keep helping out at SPI, you'll never again accept "secret evidence". Take care, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There were no secret trials. The appropriate CUs and arbs got to see it. It wasn't made public because doing so would damage wikipedia, as you should understand. That's why we delegate certain duties on wikipedia. There was obviously no presumption of guilt either; the evidence was just very strong. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, while AdjustShift's information was compelling, it was actually not used to a great extent in this decision. The information posted on the SPI page in and of itself and an analysis of Molobo and Gwinndeith's editing patterns combined with the checkuser information that they were in the same time zone, and much closer than that, was sufficient to make it clear that there was extremely sound evidence of sockpuppetry. The evidence on the SPI page is public, as is the editing patterns (just look at the historical contributions). The only thing that is private is the IP info, and suffice it to say that while it in and of itself was not a smoking gun, thus my initial finding of  Possible, when combined with the patterns of editing of the two, it served to further bolster the fact that these two accounts are one and the same person. This decision was made, for all intents and purposes, without reliance upon AS's information. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the initial finding from checkuser was "Unlikely", only later was it changed to "possible". There is also Mayalld commenting: based on the technical evidence from CU, and the behavioural evidence made public there is no case. That is a perfectly valid comment, and explicitly allows for the fact that the secret evidence may affect that view. And you have nixeagle agreeing with this assesment: based on what is here and the cu results, there is not much of a case here. So how do we get from "no case here" and "unlikely" to "public evidence is sufficient" - and that the decision was made without use of the "secret evidence"??? This sounds like an after the fact attempt to justify not publishing the "secret evidence" - which AdjustShift himself had stated would be made available AFTER the decision and particularly in case GUILT was found. To come back around now - after a two week delay (if the decision is based on publicly available evidence why wasn't it made two weeks ago? Why the need for all this time to review the "secret evidence") - and say "oh he's guilty, but we're not basing that on the "secret evidence", which we're not going to publish, even though we said we would, but only on the public evidence, which before we said was not sufficient" is completely insane. This whole thing should be scrapped and restarted, with everything public and the actual procedures followed closely and meticulously.radek (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Radek, I was the CU who upgraded the finding to possible, and that was before I looked at the editing history, as I was asked to come on board later. If you would like to say you don't trust me; fine. However, what I said still holds. I was asked to look at the evidence, I did so and reported on the technical findings. Afterwards, I was asked to look at the behavioral evidence as well, specifically the fact that the editing patterns did not make sense in light of the checkuser evidence if these were actually two people, but if they were the same person, then it did make a whole lot of sense. While I forwarded AS's evidence to the functionaries list, it was not a factor in my decision. The evidence presented by Sciurinæ and nixeagle was sufficient, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How could it be sufficient if you have nix eagle himself saying "there is no case here" (along with another involved admin and the person who filed the case). Also, to state the obvious, the reason both users were in the same time zone is simply because they are of the same nationality. This also explains why they edited similar articles and have similar interests. Correlation is not causation, particularly if a third common factor can explain the pattern (in this case, common nationality).

Because the decision based on the publicly available evidence appears to completely flip - from "no case here", to "guilty" - the only reasonable conclusion here is that the "secret evidence" played a substantial role. Ok. But then it needs to be published, as promised.radek (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And here is Skapperod - the person who filed the case - also stating that s/he doesn't think the publicly available evidence is enough: "it is likely, but not 100% sure that the puppeteer is the same person operating the Molobo account. From the evidence forwarded by me alone, this conclusion would be too hasty." [4].radek (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple, b/c that happened BEFORE the editing pattern analysis. Ask Nixeagle now if he thinks there is no evidence, especially as I enlisted his scripting help in getting the editing contributions from the toolserver instead of my copy-pasting them into excel . I understand your concern, Radek, but please realize that what is on the page is a set of snapshots of discussions that occurred, and the most important analysis was done by myself, with NixEagle's help, and with the input of one or two members of ArbCom AFTER the initial statements. When cases are difficult, they take extra time. As the deciding, closing, and blocking admin/checkuser, I am telling you flat-out that while I was in possession of AS's information, my decision was based on the public information of Sciurinæ and the pretty d@mning editing patterns in light of the checkuser evidence. There is not much more I can give you without exposing which small geographic location the two edited from. If you wish, you may file a case/complaint with ArbCom, or with the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee in particular, asking for a review, although that may not be that pertinent, as the editing behavior is more key here. However, do what you feel is necessary, I am pretty confident in my findings, although I am, of course, not infallible. I also suggest you do go and ask nixeagle what s/he thinks now, you may find it reassuring. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, you are still not getting it. I am also strongly opposed to concepts of presumption of guilt and secret trials, as they are likely to lead to abuses of power and miscarriage of justice. I agree with exactly what you have written regarding concepts of presumption of guilt and secret trials. I wrote several times that I will not take actions on the basis of secret evidences. Some evidences were posted on-wiki by Sciurinæ. I forwarded the other evidences given to me by Sciurinæ to Avraham, who forwarded it to the functionaries list. Sciurinæ asked me to not to post the evidences without his permission. Everything was not under my control. How could I have posted the evidences without Sciurinæ's permission? As an admin, I did what I could. AdjustShift (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply, you should've told Scirinae that he should either make the evidence public or discard it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Avraham stated that the secret evidences were not used to a great extent in this decision. He made the decision based on the information posted on the SPI page, and his CU result. Please read his explanation above. AdjustShift (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly means that the secret evidence was not used "to a great extent"? It was either used or it was not and if it was, even in small part, then it has to be made public as we were repeatedly told and promised it would. I'm highly concerned by the lack of transparency in the way this case was handled. Loosmark (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read Avraham's explanation above. If you've any questions regarding his decision, you should ask him. AdjustShift (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about questioning

I am becoming increasingly concerned at the level of questioning, which looks like badgering to this outside observer, of AdjustShift here. A few things to keep in mind are

• that WP is not a legal system. All this rather legalistic rhetoric is unhelpful
• that CU investigations are, by their nature, not something where every detail is discussed
• that AdjustShift is a clerk, not the investigator
• that if you have a concern your best route is the Audit Committee.

I'd ask all of you to please dial down the (apparent) rhetoric and badgering. Thank you. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in Iyengar and Vadakalai articles

Dear Administrator,

I noticed Vandalism in Iyengar and Vadakalai articles on WP. One user has removed some of the contents without posting a reason. Please prevent these types of incidences from happening again. Awaiting your action.

Thanks for your help in this regard.

Svr014 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Ok, I'll analyze this. AdjustShift (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I analyzed both articles. Both articles are Tamil-related articles. Can you present the source from which the materials were copied? AdjustShift (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your changed it from plagiarism to vandalism.[5] After analyzing both articles, I don't see any vandalism. I'm not an expert on Tamil-related subject, so you can post your complain here. AdjustShift (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, I have followed your advice and have posted a complaint in the section. Please do keep an eye on Iyengar and Vadakalai articles as they are considered precious and important like some other articles on WP. One user had removed the contents in the 'Origin' section of Iyengar and beginning section in Vadakalai sections yesterday. Thanks for your help in this regard.Svr014 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Ok, I'll keep an eye on Iyengar and Vadakalai articles. If I see any vandalism or if someone erase something without any explanation, I'll revert it. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Sir/Madam. Have a great rest of the week! Take care...Svr014 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

You're welcome. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing a word in 'India' article

Dear Sir/Madam,

I just now looked at the 'India' article. In the introduction, there is a line that states that India is one of the world's fastest growing economies, however it still suffers from high levels of poverty,... I checked with the source which happens to be the Government of India's National Planning Commission (NPC). NPC clearly shows that the percentage of people living under the national poverty line is 27.5%. The corresponding word will be 'moderate/low' levels of poverty and not 'high' levels of poverty. Can you please edit the word 'high' to 'moderate' in the line 'high levels of poverty? Awaiting your reply...Svr014 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

India is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations organization (all branches but the UN Security Council), G8+5 (Industrialized Countries and Leading Emerging Economies), and G-20 (Major Economies). India is Asia's third (3rd) Largest Economy, and World's fourth (4th) Largest Economy when measured in terms of GDP (PPP)(Source: The CIA World Factbook). Every year more than three million Indians graduate from Colleges and Universities across India which is considered strongest among emerging economies (Source: The Times of India). Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) augmented by about 78% between 1991 and 2001 (Source: The Indian Express).

I disagree with the UN/World Bank calculation of poverty in India. I stand with the Government of India's calculation that Poverty is about 27.5% in India. The sources (World Bank) does not say how it made that estimate. Few days ago I talked with a pal who has relatives that work in the Government of India. They concurred to my understanding that no foreign agency made any estimates of any kind in the last 12 years.

Believe me, in small villages and towns, Indian government rations offer food for families at less than Rs. 10/month. Vegetables and meats are available at very subsidized rates in villages, farms, and small towns who make up more than 88% of India. Monthly rent for houses cost less than Rs. 25 which comes to less than Rs. 40/month worth of expenditure. Many construction workers earn about Rs. 300/month and are given allowances to buy basic necessities at subsidized rates across towns, villages and some cities like Chennai, Mumbai and Bangalore. Also, making estimates in terms of US dollars is inappropriate as Dollar is the currency of the USA and NOT India. Let's say I visit India or any other foreign country and ask a lay person "Do you live on less than $ 2.00 a day?" Her (that person's) reply will be a cut-and-dry NO. If I give her Rs. 100 (little over US$ 2.00) and ask her to buy any of the basic necessities at stores operated by government, she will be able to cover more than 89% of the items (Source: The Hindu). So, please do not try to tarnish the image of India on the global stage by talking about erroneous calculations about poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition from any non-credible sources. Thanks for your time. Awaiting your reply and help in this regard. Svr014 (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Svr014, people living under poverty in India is 27.5%. That's pretty high. I think the lead section of the article is appropriate. Even though poverty is high in India, it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The article doesn't try to tarnish the image of India. We have to write article from neutral point of view. If you have any concern, please post your complain at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. There are other editors who have a better knowledge about India than me. They will be able to discuss about India-related topics better than me. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administrator, Thanks for your reply. I will duly follow your advice. The point I am driving home is that remarks that show tilt in favor of the extremes should be removed from any article if that article wants to be neutral. Comparing a country in one continent (like India in South Asia) with a country in another continent (like South Africa in Africa) should be done with ultra-precautions. Some of the statements in the India article are extremely biased, in my opinion. Believe me, the poverty rate in the USA is 17% and expert analysts predict that this percentage may augment to 40% in the upcoming years if more than 5,00,000 jobs are axed every month (which is the case right from 2007). Please notify the editors of the India article to write neutral information and avoid using harsh words that talk of the extremes when there is no evidence to back up their claims. Thanks for your time. Have a nice day! Take care...Svr014 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Pics

You don't need any knowledge of the cricketers to vote YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but when you know the cricketer, you feel like voting. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect information typed by a user

Dear Sir/Madam,

One user is typing defamatory and untrue statements in the article Newly industrialized country (NIC). Please prevent it from happening in the future. I had to correct them and put a note in the discussion section. Please keep an eye on this article NIC. Thanks for your help in this regard. Svr014 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

Please also keep an eye on the article 'developing country'. Some users remove contents, and/or type nefarious statements that are untrue and defamatory. Please prevent these incidences from happening. Thanks for your help in this regard. Svr014 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

The edits made by the person are incorrect as there are two facts that are very credible that you can trust. They are:

1) Mexico is classified as a developing country by the CIA World Factbook. Here is the source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html 2) The planning commission of Government of India classifies 27.5% of the population as the people under the national poverty line. I do not want some body to edit these data and type something amiss (wrong) about any country in particular- India. Please protect the articles- Newly industrialized country, developing country, Iyengar, and Vadakalai. I will keep you posted of other articles that are subject to mishandling, delivering the wrong information, and/or vandalism of any kind. Awaiting your help in this regard. Svr014 (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Chicagoland, Illinois, USA.

I'm not interested in classification of countries as developed and developing. I think you should post your complain at talkpages. AdjustShift (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but one of the principles of WP is NOT to misinform people. Please revert the change made to the article Newly industrialized country (NIC). Mexico is NOT a developed country and 27.5% of people in India live under the national poverty line. One user is vandalizing the contents and putting untrue statements in the article. Please correct them. Please do not misinform the populace. Awaiting your reply. Svr014 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Hi Sir/Madam, Please respond to my request. Please correct the Newly industrialized country page. Mexico is a developing country (classified by the CIA), and only 27.5% of Indians live under the national poverty line and NOT 77%. Please do not misinform people. It is considered a serious flaw if a person types some thing amiss (wrong). PLease correct them. Svr014 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Yes, WP is not to misinform people, but you need knowledge about the subject you are speaking. I don't know how certain countries are classified as developing and certain countries are classified as developed. You can click the history tab, and see who reverted your edit.[6] You should discuss with the user who reverted your edit. In this case, please contact AlexCovarrubias, and ask him why did he reverted your edit. Please talk with him politely, and reach a consensus. If you've got any further questions, please ask me. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have notified Alex Covarrubias about the information. He wants to be a racist by talking high of Mexico when we all know what type of country Mexico is. I respect all people across all countries of the world. I gave him the same sources and have asked him to politely revert the changes. If he does not revert the changes, I want you to prosecute him for typing wrong information about some countries and revert the changes he made to all articles without making a note in the discussion section. I want you to strictly monitor this person (Alex Covarrubias) and all the articles he modifies without any reason. Awaiting your help in this regard. Svr014 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Svr014, please don't use words like "racist". See WP:CIVIL. Let him reply, and please try to reach a concensus. AdjustShift (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand.. But I am really worried by the way Alex Covarrubias deletes/undos text other users contribute to WP. Given his temperament, I guess, it will be hard to reach a consensus. I hereby request you with all due respect to intervene when needed and revert the changes back to the way I legally made yesterday. Just because a person is from a particular country, he cannot write articles that glorify his country when the facts don't back the claims. Please explain this principle to Alex, and please ask him not to write defamatory statements about any country (like India for example) in WP. Please protect the articles on WP and please prevent incivility and vandalism from occuring on WP. Have a nice day! Awaiting your reply. Svr014 (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

I just now checked his (Alex's) discussion page and found that he has deleted my post in a discriminatory manner. This is incivility and a clear indicator of prejudice against Americans (Asian-Americans). I hereby request you to undo his recent edit in the Newly industrialized country article and block him from using WP. Please protect all the articles on WP. Please prevent people like Alex Covarrubias from using WP. Awaiting your course of action. Svr014 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Dear Administrator, please respond. Please revert the edit made by AlexCovarrubias. Please note that he has printed untrue statements on the page Newly industrialized country. Please accept this sincere request from my side. Please do this professional favor for me. Awaiting your reply. Svr014 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXXIX (May 2009)
From the coordinators With end of year exams beckoning for many members, this has been a quiet month on the talk pages for Milhist. (If you are facing exams yourself, we all wish you the very best of luck!) During this quieter period, some of our most active reviewers are busy revising so it would be really appreciated if you can help with peer reviews or A-Class reviews. You can easily track articles needing review, by copying {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your userpage. This month sees our first newsletter editorial. The idea is to provide regular tips and hints to help editors get up to speed with our large (and sometimes complicated) project. This month's piece, by EyeSerene, explains the workings of the project's main template, which is at the core of the project's tagging and assessing activities.  Roger Davies talk 20:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)	Articles of note New featured articles: 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash Arthur Henry Cobby Battle of Barnet Fort Ticonderoga Fountain of Time Neil Hamilton Fairley Operation Perch SMS Seydlitz SS Pennsylvanian New featured lists: List of United States Military Academy alumni (Medal of Honor) List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents) New featured topics: New featured pictures: The Battle of Schevening USS West Virginia (BB-48) New A-Class articles: Albert Kesselring Frank Bladin Henry Burrell (RAN officer) List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Schnellboot service List of Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service Midshipman SM UB-14 SM UB-16 SS American (1900) Teddy Sheean Tucker class destroyer
Project news The Contest department has completed its twenty-sixth month of competition, with 83 articles entered by 15 editors. This month's top scorer is Bellhalla with 123 points followed by Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. They receive the Chevrons and the Writer's Barnstar respectively. Parsecboy commendably came third with 47 points, with honorable mentions going to Ian Rose (38), Ed (28), Abraham, B.S. (15), the_ed17 (12), Amore Mio (11) and Kirk (11). Thanks also go to Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, DPdH, Lordoliver, Belissarius, Wild Wolf, Gaia Octavia Agrippa and mynameinc, who also fielded entries. In a welcome addition to a long under-represented area, this month saw the creation of the Pakistani military history task force, which hits the ground running with 11 participants. In another task force development, please help recruit members for some of our smallest and quietest task forces. If you know anyone who may be interested, or are interested yourself, please see the drive discussion. The affected task forces are (with numbers of particpants in brackets): Taiwanese military history (2); Polish military history (4); Dutch military history (6); Military historiography (6); New Zealand military history (7); Baltic states military history (8); National militaries (8); Southeast Asian military history (8); War films (8); Early Muslim military history (9); Intelligence (9); Lebanese military history (9); South American military history (9); and Spanish military history (9).
Awards and honours Bellhalla has been awarded the Milhist A-Class medal with Oakleaves for SM U-10, SM UB-14 and SM UB-16. MisterBee1966 has been awarded the Milhist A-Class medal for List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Kriegsmarine, List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Schnellboot service, and List of Knight's Cross recipients of the U-boat service. Ian Rose has been awarded the Milhist A-Class medal for Arthur Henry Cobby, Frank Bladin and Henry Burrell (RAN officer).
Editorial: "How to use the Milhist template" Welcome to a new occasional feature of The Bugle, where over coming issues we'll be exploring some of the roles, tasks, and technical functions that go into creating what archivist and researcher Simon Fowler has described as the best general resource for military history on the internet.† As a project we can rightly be proud of that accolade, and we gratefully acknowledge the debt we owe to those dedicated editors from across Wikipedia that have helped to make the Military history WikiProject what it is today. Many editors' first inkling of milhist's existence is when they spot our project banner on an article talk page. The banner can be easily added to appropriate articles by any editor, by typing {{WPMILHIST}} at (or near) the top of the talk page on a new line, and saving the page with an appropriate edit summary. This short form of the template will add the article to our project, and also flag the article as needing assessment and assignment to a task force by automatically adding it to the unassessed articles and articles with no associated task force categories. As with many templates in use on Wikipedia, additional parameters can be specified. Possibly the most useful to include is the class parameter, because this will help out any editors who come along later to assess the article. To add the class parameter, edit the template markup to look like {{WPMILHIST|class=}}... and if you wish, have a read through the assessment guidance on milhists's quality scale and assign a rating from Stub- to B-Class yourself. A banner template with, for example, a Stub-Class article rating will look like {{WPMILHIST|class=stub}}. Because B-Class is assessed against a checklist it has some additional parameters, so when adding the project banner to an article talk-page, even if you don't intend to assess the article yourself it can be a real help to subsequent editors to include these too. This version of the template can be entered as {{WPMILHIST|class=|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=}}. For detailed guidance on exactly what the five B-Class criteria are, see the B-class checklist. Finally, when adding the milhist banner it's useful to assign the article to one (or more) of our task forces. This will help to bring it to the attention of those editors most likely to be interested in, and knowledgeable about, the subject. As with assessment, task force assignment is accomplished by adding a parameter to the template—in this case, simply the name of the task force followed by =yes (or =y). For example, to assign a Start-Class article to the Second World War and Canadian task forces, the template should read {{WPMILHIST|class=start|B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5=|WWII=yes|Canadian=yes}}. For a full list of all the banner template parameters and more detailed usage instructions, see Template:WPMILHIST; if you are unsure as to whether or not an article belongs with milhist or what task force(s) might be appropriate, or if you have any other questions, you are welcome to ask at our main project talk page. Happy templating! EyeSerenetalk †Simon Fowler, Guide to Military History on the Internet, UK:Pen & Sword 2007, ISBN 9781844156061, p. 7
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My sincere and professional request to you...

Dear Administrator,

Please respond. Please revert the edit made by AlexCovarrubias. Please note that he has printed untrue statements on the page Newly industrialized country. Please accept this sincere request from my side. Please do this professional favor for me. It is incorrect on any person's part to type untrue statements on WP. Again, please respond. Awaiting your reply. Svr014 (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

I don't know how countries are classified as developed and developing. You wrote on AlexCovarrubias's talk page that if he doesn't revert the changes, he will be blocked.[7] We don't block people like that. Do you have a source that says that the planning commission of the Government of India classifies 27.5% of the people as people living under the poverty line? If yes, please add your statement with source. The source you add should be reliable. See WP:RS. When you add statement with references, other editors will not erase your statement. You can contribute to India-related articles. I recommend you to join WikiProject India. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, Thanks for your reply. I am giving you the credible source from the Government of India. Here is the source that classifies only 27.5% of Indians as people living below the national poverty line http://www.planningcommission.gov.in/news/prmar07.pdf .

Also, I checked with the CIA more than 10 times and found that Mexico is classified as a developing country and NOT a developed country. Here is the source from the US Government (CIA) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/appendix/appendix-b.html . Hence, I request you to revert his edits and prevent him from making unauthorized edits that are deemed catastrophic for WP. Please accept my sincere request. Awaiting your reply and help in this regard. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

I am awaiting your reply and help (by reverting Alex's edit) on the Newly industrialized country page. Can you please give me the types of links used on WP. I need your help to make the edits to the page (Newly industrialized country). I will be more than happy to add the source if I know more about the technocracy used on WP. Awaiting your reply and help. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Hi, I made some alterations to the page and put a note on the discussion section. Please help me with adding the sources on the references section in the article. Awaiting your reply. Svr014 (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

I'll reply to your queries tomorrow. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, am awaiting your reply. Have a nice rest of the weekend! Svr014 (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Roger Federer has just won his first French Open, and today is Sunday. I'll reply tomorrow. AdjustShift (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, am awaiting your reply today. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Svr014, please follow the instructions below:

• You have been in content disputes. On WP, we write neutral articles. Editors can get involve in an NPOV dispute. When you get involved in an NPOV dispute, please don't ask an admin to block the other editor or revert him/her. Please talk politely to the editor who is disagreeing with you. Sometimes, he/she may not respond to you or may even erase your comment from his/her talk page. Please don't lose your cool. Please try to get him/her involved in a discussion so that both of you can reach a consensus.
• Please read the blocking policy. When you are in a dispute with another editor, please remain civil and assume good faith. Please don't attack the editor or be rude. Please don't create socks to win the dispute. If another editor attacks you, you should file a complain at WP:ANI.
• When you insert a sentence in an article, please add source to support it. See WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V.
• To add references in an article, use <ref> and </ref>.
  • You have to insert a sentence in an article: John was born at Billings, Montana. To insert the sentence with a source, add: John was born at Billings, Montana.<ref>[(url) (space) (title)]</ref>
  • You are a newbie now; when you get some experience, start using Template:Citations.
  • You can also see some of my articles. Please analyze how I add references.
• I will strongly recommend you to participate in WikiProject India. You can contribute to India-related articles, so editors who have edited India-related articles can help you. You can join WikiProject India by adding your name here.

Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I don't think there is any dispute at anytime. I was really concerned and perplexed as a result of which I asked you to intervene and help me. I did not erase any thing that is correct. I just corrected the points that were incorrect. Alex accepted my points and did not do any harm to me so far. Please note that I am a law-abiding American and I always follow instructions from people in any situation. Will follow your techniques while adding sources, if I need more help, I will not hesitate to contact you. I know few other administrators of WP and they are very cooperative with me. Thanks for your post. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

I pointed out some dos and don'ts of Wikipedia. One has to keep these things in mind all the time when editing WP. You haven't been in any major dispute so far, but some instructions may help you in future. And please consider joining WikiProject India. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I want to join both WikiProject USA as well as WikiProject India. Can you please help me. I looked into the link you gave me today but could not add my name to the list. Awaiting your reply. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

You can join WikiProject India by adding your name here, and WikiProject United States by adding your name here. AdjustShift (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do so at my earliest convenience. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Some shameless thankspam!

You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Project Asia- links

Hi,

Can you please give me access to Wiki Project Japan, South Korea, and Singapore in my user page so that I can become a member in these projects. Awaiting your reply. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Singapore. AdjustShift (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do so accordingly. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

DYK for Andrea Elliott

On June 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrea Elliott, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 23:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Adminship

AdjustShift, thanks for your note on my talk page. And thanks for the show of support. I have to admit, though, that I'm a little puzzled and confused, especially after Malleus Fatuorum's words to the contrary. I'd be interested in knowing why it seems that you disagree with him/her. --Christine (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what Malleus Fatuorum said, and I don't know why you are taking him so seriously. You've two featured articles, and a featured list. If you can show good knowledge about WP policy, you easily can pass your RFA. AdjustShift (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps I have too thin a skin, perhaps too thin to go through an RFA. I'll think about it some more, and come back to the idea in another six months, or one or two more FAs. --Christine (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't need too many featured articles to pass an RFA. Many editors pass their RFA without contributing to any featured article. But, you need a thick skin to go through an RFA. Candidates can get smashed in RFAs. Some opposes are nasty; some are insulting. You should be prepared to face them. You should also keep in mind that even if you do your best, you RFA can still fail. Failed RFAs can hurt editors psychologically. You should be tough and you should be able to digest insulting comments. AdjustShift (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects- adding my name

Hi,

I was able to copy and paste the templates of Wiki Projects Korea, China, and Singapore. I need to add my name to the list of participants. It need the use of special functions. Can you please help me with them. Thanks, and have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

It doesn't need any special function, just add you name to the list. AdjustShift (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, will do so accordingly. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Userboxes information

Hi,

Can you please help me arrange the userboxes in my page in a row? Also, I want to get more userboxes as I am in the Science and Engineering field in the USA. Svr014 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

To arrange the userboxes in a row, add {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}. To get more userboxes, see Wikipedia:Userboxes. AdjustShift (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Will try to do so. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Interesting

I was taking a look at this discussion[8] and I noticed something interesting. You can tell which side someone is on just by looking at his/her block log, with almost 100% reliability. Not that this is an argument for anything, I just found it amusing. Cheers, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You can also tell by block logs that admins also push POV and since when have editors been on sides I am here to help contribute to a neutral encyclopedia just wish a lot more editors were. BigDunc^Talk 12:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

9/11

I don't really care that you closed discussion on talk page but I have asked you before and I honestly don't understand your comment Calling those 19 terrorists anything other than terrorists would be a POV. Calling them terrorists is neutral. Please could you explain it to me thanks. BigDunc^Talk 15:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A wide range of reliable sources call them terrorist attacks and therefore so do we. To not call them terrorists is to push a politically correct, overly sensitive POV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ice Cold Beer. BigDunc, do we have to explain each and everything to you? AdjustShift (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You really are not understanding my question I know reliable sources claim they are terrorist and I don't dispute this, but it is the neutral part that I have a problem with, also could you both please AGF with my actions, I am not a troll looking to stir up an arguement or espouse some fringe theory thanks. BigDunc^Talk 20:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You are looking at the word terrorist as a pejorative term meant to put down the terrorists. We see the word as a factual description backed up by reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, all I can say is we will agree to disagree, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, best BigDunc^Talk 21:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, you are still not getting it. Calling those 19 hijackers "terrorists" is neutral because plenty of reliable sources say so. Please analyze WP policies carefully before engaging in any discussion. WP policies complement each other, so they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. AdjustShift (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No AdjustShift; your reasoning fails the scum test. Tabloid newspapers and even commentators in the "serious" media (pretty MSM) routinely refer to people as "scum"; but try referring to someone in a Wiki biography as "scum" throughout the article on that basis - WP:NPOV will kick in. Exceptionalist "reasoning" in the case of 9/11 has no place on Wiki and constitutes a source of infection that will cause the spread of POV that will, in time, prove fatal to WP:NPOV. I hold that those of us who are prepared to point this out and suffer abuse by so doing are rendering the project a greater service by far than those who would seek emotional satisfaction by imposing their worldview. As Jimbo said - don't call Hitler "evil" in an article; you can say that some folk consider him evil, in context - but don't editorialise. Write a good article and let the reader make the obvious conclusions himself. Sarah777 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ section on that talk page:

Wikipedia:Words to avoid states very clearly in the beginning that "there is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires special attention when used in Wikipedia. The major contributors have arrived at the consensus, after several lengthy debates, that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.[9]

AdjustShift (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the "major contributors" have got is wrong. And their mistake is a threat to WP:NPOV. And I certainly didn't read the vast archives of debate that arrived at such a manifestly wrong conclusion; I assume the result reflects the quality of the input - so I'm not inclined to read it now either. I reacted to a discussion I was tracking; made a legitimate point which was attacked as a "rant" and removed. This sensitivity to discussing the issue on a Talk Page indicates that the supporters of the status quo are very insecure about the validity of their arguments for breaching WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

David Boothroyd

I must disagree with your decision, and your rationale. What Boothroyd said, repeatedly, is that he does not think he is notable; he may be right. He never said he disliked the article.

Lack of notability would be a reason to delete an article in mainspace, where all the world is likely to see it; but one of the reasons for drafts on non-notable pages in user-space is to wait until the subject can be proved notable, or becomes so.

Please reconsider; a draft there is no consensus to delete should be left alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Boothroyd doesn't want his biography on Wikipedia. His notability is low. He is a living person. There was no consensus to keep or delete the page. No consensus + borderline biography of a living person + the subject not wanting his/her biography on Wikipedia = Delete. The equation is simple. If you disagree, take it to WP:DRV. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know if I do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. No consensus defaults to keep, unless the rules were changed on that. Jtrainor (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In most cases, no consensus defaults to keep. But, no consensus + borderline biography of a living person + the subject not wanting his/her biography on Wikipedia = Delete. There have been long arguments about what to do with borderline biographies on WP. See Wikipedia:Borderline biographies, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie. I've analyzed the comments of Wikipedians such as Alison and Durova. I would say, we are not here to hurt people. We shouldn't keep borderline biographies, when the subject does not want them. AdjustShift (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff is an interesting read... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas K. McCraw

On June 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas K. McCraw, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Andrzej Walicki

Thank you for creating this interesting article. I will see if I can help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:85.164.188.149

Hello - I noticed that you blocked 85.164.188.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but the same user is now continuing the same edits as Nikitn (talk · contribs) -- Sander Säde 15:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Nikitn for two weeks. I've also extended the block to 85.164.188.149 for two weeks. AdjustShift (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

translation

File:Café cup.jpg

Good morning

Sure, what do you need to have translated? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am on it. Very decent person btw. What is DYK? "D"eletion something? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am done with the hr article translation and found good sources for the "other offices". I will take a break now, most probably you will have to c/e my edits. One thing that needs to be clarified is if he started as a lawyer in 1956 or 1957, the sources differ on that. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I'm pretty stressed at the moment and was putting off Wikipedia day after day but I'd still be happy to help with translations. Sciurinæ (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Geburtstag = birthday. :D Skäpperöd (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ergebnis der Suche nach ... = result of the search for ... Skäpperöd (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

dnb is "German National Library", the link is the main catalogue entry for Jahn, you get a list of publications of Jahn which can be accessed in the library if you click on "19 Publikationen ...", (leads you here) Skäpperöd (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The list is only of publications by Jahn, not about him. If Jahn is not mentioned as an author in the list, that only means he is not the "first" author, but is among the "et al". Skäpperöd (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the beverage :)

• "Die Geschichte der Deutsch-Israelischen Gesellschaft" = History of the German-Israeli Society
• "Gründung" = foundation

I have to go offline for a while now, but you can leave me a to-do list for tonight. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was fun working with you. Ask me if you need further help. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarage

Please note a severe case of WP:OWN by Tarage on the 9/11 talkpage; he is now threatening to remove comments on the "Long term effects" section of the 9/11 article. I have removed his rude/threatening comments but you really need to point out to him that he does not own the talkpage. Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Today is Monday; I'm busy in RL and I've limited time today. I'll analyze this issue tomorrow. AdjustShift (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite busy in RL; I think you should ask another admin to analyze this issue. AdjustShift (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (Finally someone sees what I'm talking about!) Sarah777 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And just a brief reflection on the cultural divide that pops up here from time to time; when you signed off "have a nice day" I assumed you were saying the equivalent of "sod off" (or stronger) - now I see you use the term all the time! I guess one must try harder to WP:AGF. Have a spiffing time:) Sarah777 (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Why did you arbitrary delete the sentence with a highly provocative anti-German POV comment, before protecting the page? Restore the status quo, please. Loosmark (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, how is this not an anti-German POV? It claims that "... the Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars." The German carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city? Were they ordinary Germans or Nazis? Perhaps they were Germans who opposed Nazis! Which German scholar supervised such activity? Albert Einstein? Günter Grass? Loosmark, the English-language Wikipedia is not a computer game where one can insert whatever he/she wants. The statement was without any reliable source. See WP:RS. If you want to insert such statement, please add reliable source to back up your claim. We are here to create a neutral encyclopedia; inappropriate statements are erased from articles. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page, I found a source. Next time please try to act a bit less arbitrary. Loosmark (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From next time, whenever you are inserting any controversial statement, please add reliable source to back up your claim. I'll respond on the talk page of Expulsion of Germans after World War II. AdjustShift (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

at least do the homework correctly: i have not inserted that statement. Loosmark (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't insert that statement, but you supported it. When you argue that a statement should belong to an article, you should provide a reliable source to strengthen your position. AdjustShift (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing AE thread

I appreciate your steps taken, but be aware that there is also an ongoing investigation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Loosmark specifically concerned with this article. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for informing me. AdjustShift (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Since we ended on a friendly note, I am offering you this advice: at Expulsion of Germans after World War II you should either undue your edit or your protection. You took sides in a content dispute, made a revert and then used administrative tools - even through the protection is short, this can be seen by some as admin tool abuse and used against you in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've not taken any side in that content dispute. I simply reverted the edit because the statement was unsourced.[10] If the statement was supported by a ref, I wouldn't have reverted the edit. After I reverted, I protected the page in order to prevent the edit war. Multiple editors in the disputed articles tend to edit war, and get blocked. I protected the page so that editors can discuss the issue on the talk page, and reach a consensus. After I protected the page, I've not edited the page, and I haven't taken any side. The protection is short, and I expect both parties to reach a consensus. You've been an admin longer than I have, so I value your advice. AdjustShift (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There was an edit war going on. See [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. I had to protect the page to stop the edit war. AdjustShift (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The reverts stopped already 4 days ago because the last edit warring took place on 27th July and you protected the page on 1st July. Also from your comments on the talk page it seems that the sentence that the Germans destroyed Warsaw is according to you anti-German POV, something that is still the matter of dispute, and thus by deleting the sentence with "anti-German POV" comment you directly sided with the side which claims that. If you had a problem with the lack of sources you could have asked for it and in fact when you raised the point afterwards, sources were provided within minutes. But at the very least while deleting you could have refrained from painting the sentence as anti-German POV until that dispute is settled on the talk page. Loosmark (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It may have stopped four days ago, but it was a massive edit war. Multiple editors were edit warring. I feared that the editors would continue from where they left off on June 27.

Loosmark, you are still not getting it. I've not sided with anyone; I simply erased an unsourced statement. Have you read the basic policies of en.wikipedia? See WP:RS. WP articles rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources. See WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." You should provide source when you are inserting something on articles. Whenever we see something controversial on articles, we don't ask for source, we simply erase the statement. Millions of people all over the world are reading en.wikipedia. The info we provide must be neutral. So, when you insert something controversial or support any controversial statement, you must provide source immediately. I didn't protect the page for three years; I only protected it for one day. Please discuss on the talk page of that article, and try to reach a consensus. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you simply "erased an unsourced statement" then why didn't you describe it as "erasing an unsourced statement" instead of "deleting anti-German POV"? And why you don't restore the sentence now that the sources were provided? Loosmark (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For your first question, see this. For your second question, I can't restore the sentence now because there is no consensus to restore the sentense. Please continue the discussion on the talk page of Expulsion of Germans after World War II, and try to reach a consensus. AdjustShift (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Again nobody is blaming the whole German people for the destruction of Warsaw, that is purely your ridiculous POV intrepretation of the said sentence. Many respectable books use the term "Germans" because it is very clear from the contex what the Germans there mean. I think I've also already explained to you that the destruction of Warsaw wasn't perpetuated only by the Nazis but also by some units of the Werhmacht. Loosmark (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, I've authored over 70 articles on en.wikipedia, and I've been involved in controversial articles such as the September 11 attacks; I know how important it is to write a neutral article. Read the sentence I reverted. "The most dramatic case of ethnic cleansing took place in Nazi-occupied Warsaw during World War II where the Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars.".[18] It is written that "... the Germans carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city ...". It sounds as if the entire German people were responsible for the annihilation of Warsaw. Even if some units of the Werhmacht were involved, the whole German people can't be blamed for it. So, the sentence was not neutral. AdjustShift (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That the sentence sounds as if the entire German people were responsible for the annihilation of Warsaw is simply your POV intepretation. I disagree with it. Loosmark (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you protected a version that you edited. I actually agree with your revert, as I do think unreferenced content should be removed - but personally I'd never protect a page after I have made a revert (well, unless it was a clear BLP or vandalism issue). Anyway, that article has quite a few other unreferenced problematic statements... it looks like a mess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of articles in which the term Germans rather than Nazis is used to describe who commited the crimes: Rape of Belgium, German war crimes, Vinkt Massacre. Do those articles also make it sound as if the entire German people were guilty? Thank you in the advance for the answer. Loosmark (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I just analyzed German war crimes, and the article sound as if the entire German people were guilty. We have to correct multiple WP articles. The entire population of any country can't be blamed for the crimes of its autocratic rules.

Here we don't write articles from a pro-Polish POV or anti-Polish POV or pro-German POV or anti-German POV. We write articles from a neutral POV. WP articles should mention the crime committed by the Nazis against the Poles, Jews, and so on; but it shouldn't blame the entire German people for the Nazi crimes. AdjustShift (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That we have to correct multiple articles is for now only your opinion. Start a discussion and lets see what other editors think about it. Please also note that many of those crimes were committed by Wehrmacht units so for claiming that the Nazis did it, you first have to demonstrate that Wehrmacht = Nazis (something which I think you will have troubles with). Loosmark (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"the article sound as if the entire German people were guilty". That's your opinion. My opinion is neither of those articles sounds as if the entire German people were guilty, because it is very clear from the contex that the "Germans" apply only to the various German units stationed there. note for the record: I'm not trolling that is my good faith comment. Loosmark (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never written that only Nazis were responsible for all the crimes during WW2. During the WW2, the German military was responsible for the crimes. Not all the German military were involved, but most of them were involved. I think using "the German military" instead of "the Germans" can solve the problem.

Looksmark, I accept that you were not trolling; I erroneously thought that you was trolling. AdjustShift (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks. Using the German military isn't good either because most SS organisations were paramilitary formations and some didn't even resemble military in the usual meaning. Anyway I think the best is to simply use either the name of the Unit or simply "Germans" but make it clear from the contex that term refers only to the units involved. Loosmark (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am otherwise not involved but after you deleted the user's comment he posted an ANI, so

Hello, AdjustShift. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Some guy (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me, Some guy. AdjustShift (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your help needed, please protect this article

Hi,

A user named Logicwiki is removing material that has sources from the article Iyengar. Please prevent this user from removing the material. This is my sincere request to you. Thanks and have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss with Logicwiki first. AdjustShift (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I had clearly elucidated Logicwiki but he will not listen to my sincere explanations. This is why I am asking you to intervene. Please keep an eye on the article Iyengar. Logicwiki is vandalizing the article by removing the contents that have reliable source references. Please prevent this from happening in the future. Please note that I am following the correct protocol while requesting admins like you. Svr014 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Svr014, you posted this comment on Logicwiki today. Logicwiki hasn't edited today. AdjustShift (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear AdjustShift, please do keep an eye on the article Iyengar. It has several points that have sources attached to them. Please advise Logicwiki (name: Srikanth) not to remove statements with sources attached to them. If he violates the rules, please take the needed action. Thanks and have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure. AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting comments at talkpages

I don't think your removal of several comments from the Wikipedia talk:Banning policy was justified. Specifically you removed this[19] comment by me which clearly adresses a perceived problem with the wording of the banning policy (ambiguity of "uninvolved editors") and supplies a model for solution (define "uninvolved" better in the text). Even if ABD's original comment had been off topic, which I don't think it was since the topic was the details of NYScholar's banning and how to interpret the wording of the banning policy in relation to that particular case, my comment was not out of place for the talk:page that supposedly is the right place to discuss changes to the banning policy wording. I am not going to scream "censorship" or some such, I don't think you were deliberately trying to remove my viepwoint from the page - I am sure you merely thought removing my comment as well as ABD's was necessary since it was a response to it - but I will ask you to be more cautious about removing comments in the future - and only do so if it is completely certain that it is not a valid contribution to the topic under discussion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It was justified. Wikipedia talk:Banning policy is not a place to discuss about the community ban of NYScholar. Please read what is written at the top of that talk page. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Banning policy page. I erased Abd's comments [20] because he was talking about why NYScholar's ban was unjust. Your comment also was erased, but that was not my intension. In future, please keep in mind that Wikipedia talk:Banning policy is a place to discuss about how to ameliorate the Wikipedia:Banning policy page. AdjustShift (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The community ban of NYScholar is relevant because it casts new light on certain wordings of the policy. And you don't need to remind me to focus on improving content on the talk page since that was what I was doing in the post you deleted and in the the rest of the thread. You are being overly defensive here - I merely suggested that you be less quick to erase talk page comments - since sometimes what doesn't look relevant to you may look relevant to others.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Maunus, your comments here and here indicates that you don't have much idea about community banning. As an admin, I know when to be defensive and when to be offensive. AdjustShift (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, my comments show that there is a weak wording in the banning policy. And being and admin doesn't give you any special psychic powers that are not available to other editors - nor do they enable you to be exmept to basic civility. I posted a friendly request and you threw a bucket of cold water in my face. Please don't try to paint me the uncivil one here - you have responded to every comment with sarcasm, arrogance and a general attitude of being infallible. The discussion at WP:Banning policy was not about you but about the banning policy and how to improve it - but apparently you took it personal. I suggest that you take a step back and look at it from a distance before proceeding. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with your baseless accusation. I've not said anything uncivil. My replies are straightforward. I don't take anything personal. If you believe that my comments are inappropriate, please provide diffs. Please don't accuse me without any evidence. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are two diffs in which you try to convince other editors they should pay attention to the points that I am making since I "Don't have much idea about community banning"[21][22]. If the case was that "I don't have much Idea about community banning" then it would of course still be uncivil to us that as a point of attack in stead of clarifying it for me - and even more uncivil since you are basically trying to convince other editors with whom I am egaged in a civil debate that I am clueless - a Personal Attack. now the case is not that "I don't have much idea of community banning" - but that I am pointing out points in which the banning policy is unclear so that your accusations of me not getting it is completely besides the point. Other kinds of polite incivility are replies such as these: [23][24] where instead of supplying arguments or reasoning you simply contradict in an arrogant manner. Incivility isn't just using cuss words (disingenious is no cussword by the way) it is also being uncooperative unwilling to engage in constructive debate and using a judgemental or arrogant tone in the debate. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying someone doesn't have much idea about community ban is not a personal attack. Your this and this comments strongly indicates that you don't have much idea about community banning. How is this and this examples of incivility? I didn't contradict in an arrogant manner. That's a baseless accusation. AdjustShift (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I will just cease communication now - it is not going anywhere.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Maunus, please try to assume good faith. Here on WP, sometimes heated arguments can take place when editors are discussing controversial topics. I've analyzed multiple community ban cases; I know when an editor should be community banned. Some editors may not know much about community banning. The wording on the Banning policy page can be ameliorated so that the editors who don't know much about community banning can understand about community banning better. Happy editing! AdjustShift (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I should assume good faith when you are the one throwing around accusations of ignorance, incivility (because of the word disingenious!) and bringing baseless accusations? How about you started showing some good faith and actually adress the points I make instead of just telling me im too stupid to understand it? I don't care how many ban's you've closed - if there is a problem with the banning policy it needs to be adressed. Come off your high horse please. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing like "accusing you of being ignorant". This and this comments clearly indicates that you don't know much about community banning. There is nothing wrong if you don't have much understanding about community banning. I also don't understand everything. You should've asked an admin about community banning before engaging in any discussion at WT:BAN. When did I use the word "stupid"? Can you provide any diff where I called you "stupid"? I've never called you stupid; I don't use such type of words. The wording on the Banning policy page should be improved so that people who don't know much about community banning can learn a thing or two about community banning. AdjustShift (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Concern because of a user

Dear AdjustShift,

One user named Office of the secret service is posting offensive messages in the talk pages and is threatening me saying that I am a sockpuppet. You very well know that I am a new registered user in US WP. He is also removing citations from the article Vadama. Please protect my interests at WP. I have been following guidance from experts like you. Please protect contents on WP. Svr014 (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to this sincere request. I am afraid he (User: Ravichandar84) may do some harm to me. He is making abyssmal claims about me. I joined WP only in May 2009. I am an American and not an Indian. I am NOT a sockpuppet. Please help me urgently. Please remove the allegation (statements without proof) from my talk page. Svr014 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I analyzed the edits of Ravichandar84, and my conclusion is that he is a good-faith editor. I'll try to analyze why he accused you of being a sockpuppet. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear AdjustShift,

Again, I am a new user and I joined WP only in May 2009. Please have good faith in my account. My IP address is completely different from that of blocked user. Please protect my account. He (Ravichandar84) is blindly accusing me because I am American. Please believe me. You are an administrator and you know the technocracy well. Please remove the accusation about the sockpuppetry from my user page. He (Ravichandar84)is indulging in incivility. Awaiting your reply. Svr014 (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm analyzing this case. AdjustShift (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear AdjustShift- I am awaiting your analysis. Please help me. I am NOT a sockpuppet. I use all of the services at all places only for legitimate purposes. You have been guiding newbies like me for some time. My UserAccount and IP address are completely different from that of the blocked account claimed by Ravichandar84. I sincerely believe that he hates American Wikipedians who try to contribute to various WP articles. Please accept my sincere requests. Please help me protect my account and my interests on WP. Svr014 (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are not a sockpuppet, there is no reason to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear AdjustShift, Thanks for your post. The reason why I am really perplexed and worried is because User:Ravichandar84 is making blind accusations. I request you to help me protect my account at WP as well as my interests on WP. Please clear me out of this allegation as I did not create socks. I am a new user and am an American. Vyaghradhataki, I guess, was an Indian. I believe that User:Ravichandar84 is also an Indian. These two guys have antagonistic feelings about Americans as a result of which he (Ravichandar84) is making abyssmal allegations against me. Please look at the comments by a clerk in the sockpuppet investigation of Vyaghradhataki. Am awaiting your help. Svr014 (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please solve this case asap. I feel worried and need some relief in the form of mental peace. Please help me and guide me. Please protect me and my interests on WP. This is a sincere request to you. Svr014 (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

People are analyzing your case. If you are not a sockpuppet, there is no reason to worry about. And please don't attack Ravichandar84. We don't tolerate personal attacks here. When you are talking with other editors, please be polite. You are angry with him because he accused you of sockpuppetry, but personal attacks are unacceptable. So, please don't get engage in personal attacks. AdjustShift (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I am not angry at Ravichandar84, but am worried because of him. I respect him very much and I admire some editors on WP. Please do not allow anybody to bite me. I am a new user and am new to WP culture. In fact, I am just like an infant learning to walk on WP. Please prevent any user from blocking my account. I will duly follow your advice. Again, I am a new user and am an American. Mr. Vyaghradhataki is an Indian and I do not know who he is. Please protect my account and my interests on WP. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans / Warsaw

An RfC has opened about this issue at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for informing me. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

NYS

We don't discount people's views if they had some involvement with the subject. If we did that, there'd be practically no one left to comment knowledgeably. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep! We shouldn't discount people's views if they had some involvement with the subject. AdjustShift (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing the account voluntarily

Hi,

Can you please tell me the method of closing the account voluntarily. I need step-by-step guidance. Thanks for your time and help. Svr014 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to retire from en.wikipedia? AdjustShift (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe so, I need a break. Can you please help me with the closing of the account. I need step-by-step guidance for this. Svr014 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to retire from en.wikipedia, add {{retired}} on your user page. You can also blank your talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will definitely consider this option. So, if I add the {{retired}} on my user page, will you cancel my account once and for all? Please tell me. Svr014 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't "cancel" your account. If you want to retire, you can add {{retired}} leave WP. AdjustShift (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, will consider this option at my earliest convenience. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gerhard Jahn

On July 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerhard Jahn, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject:Did you know 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Johann Friedrich, Duke of Pomerania

I just created Johann Friedrich, Duke of Pomerania and wonder if it would qualify for DYK or if it is still too short and poor referenced. I also have no idea how to file a DYK request. Since you are experienced in such issues, may I ask you for your advise? Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll analyze the article. AdjustShift (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I put 1560/67 because since 1967, he actually acted as a duke, while the years before he was only a titular duke with the regency stuff done by his great-uncle. Btw, is great-uncle a valid English term? Or is it grand-uncle? I'll look into the source you gave me, thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Great-uncle is valid. See [25]. AdjustShift (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: I am not used to bios' styleguidelines, my bad. From your experience, is DYK worth trying now? Skäpperöd (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check that tonite. If you track any more problems, please post them on my talk. Re "he returned?" - he was in Vienna and fighting the Ottomans before. Thank you for your help. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser

Hi AdjustShift, I had a run in with the thekohser today which is now being handled at arbitration enforcement. Seeing as you have some previous experience with thekohser (whereas I have only met him today) I feel your input may be useful. Please find the thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thekohser. Thanks   «l| ?romethean ™|l»  (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)