User talk:InShaneee: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:00, 19 February 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:InShaneee/Archive/May06. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

Click here to start a new talk section.

Block

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee_2. Worldtraveller 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to raise questions about your conduct. All I want is for you to explain why you blocked someone you were having a dispute with, with nothing in WP:BP to support the block. More than a month has passed and you still won't engage in any dialogue whatsoever. Why is this? Worldtraveller 01:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning

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

Image:Paranormallogo1.png

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

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

User:Haham_hanuka

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

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

Newyorkbrad's RfA

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

Admin Oversight Board

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

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

Josh d

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

Kill Your President

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

Invite,toolbox

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

Golfore

dont delete my words golfore that is a new term that i coined just as renaissance writers coined new terms all the time and you do not delete those words. You have noob on here which is also slang in case you havent noticed. Why should you have more power than I do, are you better than me, no you are human(i think) just like the rest of us.

dude

what's the deal?

I AM NEW TO THE SERVER! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The-dsu (talk • contribs).

HELP, please!

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

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

RunedChozo and ZakuSage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fadix

InShaneee, could you please take a look at this: [1] The action is too slow, whilst he continues to harass by constantly reverting all edits he dislikes. --AdilBaguirov 02:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could you please take a look, as it's not ending, but getting worse: [2] Thanks. --AdilBaguirov 02:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Admin or not...

Rogue Admin or not, this award is for you:

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		This is for making Wikipedia a better website for all and for assissting me repeatedly. Martial Law 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Law 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also list yourself in my listings of Favorite Admins and make yourself a copy of my toolbox. Martial Law 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Madmod.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Madmod.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinosphere

Hi there, I posted a notice about Sinosphere article on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192. I wonder if you are gonna to do something about it. Thanks. Migye 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

u bugging me

but They didnt change it back... someone else removed it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremybub (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Criticism and response in parapsychology

I've been advised to create a sandbox for the Criticism and response in parapsychology article. It's here, renamed to Controversy in parapsychology. I'm not sure if people want to edit under my user page, or edit the main article. But, if it's decided to edit the sandbox, It would be great to have your input. I won't be editing in the beginning, while I see what format people want to use etc. I'm putting this on several talk pages. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil remarks

I know you're busy! When you get a breath, give me a shout! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps

Perhaps you'd like to speak to the officers in charge of the case? I never once used the word pedophile anywhere ever in my statements to anyone. Reporting WikiStalking to admins doesn't get you banned, never has, especially when you have (And so do the admins) the ip addresses to back up claims of wikistalking and sockpuppetry. LexiLynn 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really deal descreetly with anything once they follow me onto the internet. this is called wikistalking. I thought admins new about it. LexiLynn 21:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 == Block ==
-::Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee_2]].  [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
+:Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee_2]].  [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
+I'll continue to raise questions about your conduct.  All I want is for you to explain why you blocked someone you were having a dispute with, with nothing in [[WP:BP]] to support the block.  More than a month has passed and you still won't engage in any dialogue whatsoever.  Why is this?  [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 01:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 == Formal warning ==