User talk:Isotope23/Archive 5

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

My RFA

Thank you to everyone who took the time to weigh in on my RFA, which succeeded with a final tally of (83/0/0). I truly am overwhelmed by the support I received. If there's anything I can help with, don't hesitate to ask. Isotope23 20:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

After an impressive showing of community support, (unanimous in fact) you're now an admin. Have fun using the new tools to keep the project improving. Use them conservatively, and make sure to re-read the policies as needed. The community has placed it's trust in you, and I'm sure you'll live up to that well, but don' hesitate to ask questions. Again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the entirely merited and unanimous support. Try to remember not to push all the new buttons at once. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you!--Isotope23 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! If you need any assistance with the admin tools then please don't hesitate to ask. Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 22:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Newyorkbrad! Happy mopping! S.D. ¿п? § 23:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Congrats too

I second that congratulations, Isotope. And I have a question for you, as a new admin. Would you mind taking a look at an article that is up for AfD (a second time)? Sarah is helping out there, already, but the more input from the Wiki community, the better this will ultimately be resolved, I believe. The first article was speedy deleted and salted. The author objected, wrote another article with a variation on the name, to get around the salt. Then it was unsalted, and the author wrote the attack page again, and an admin tried to make something workable out of it (but cannot, as she states in the AfD). The author of the article has now made an identical article, only now he is calling it Jim Shapiro and Legal Ethics,to avoid calling it a WP:BIO. This is exactly what he did the first time, only now he is doing it before the AfD is over. He grossly misrepresents the sources he cites (someone else called it WP:NPOV#Undue weight in an attempt to justify "notability". The subject of the article does not look like any saint (that's an understatement) but he is a licensed attorney. He is also not notable except for his obnoxious ads in his local area. This is beyond my "Wikipedia" experience, but it looks like this author is obsessed about this, and about bashing lawyers. I'd appreciate any help possible. Jance 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like while I was offline the fork was deleted and at this point it is just an AfD, which I'm going to leave to run it's course. Maybe I'll try to tackle it as a close when the 5 days is up though.--Isotope23 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the edit

Just wanted to say thanks for cleaning up the references in the Carter Cooper article. It's the first thing I've made a significant edit to and I searched *everywhere* for instructions on how to do that. I think I got lost in the links.

I have a question for you re: plagerism versus borrowing when it comes to using info from one Wikipedia article in another. I noticed that you took out the self-referential statement that referred to Gloria Vanderbuilt's comments about her son's suicide. The text here is almost word for word from the Gloria Vanderbilt article. If a self-referential statement is not required (or wanted), is any other mention needed? Is it okay to put a chunk of text from one article in another so long as it's relevant? I knew the text was awkward the way I had it worded but after years of "Plagerism is Evil" talks from profs I couldn't bring myself to just cut and paste.

Claire Claire loon 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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 (alongside yourself, I suppose) how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Alkalada

I have blocked Alkalada for a week and will during that time discuss issues with him. He was not editing as a sock. That account is the one he chose. Fred Bauder 16:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello.

I wasn't sure where else to put this. I hope you will not mind that I am placing it here. Thank you for the information about the criteria for a musical act to be included on Wikipedia. I will look it over. Though, as a student and researcher, I have little time to continue defending my article so I will most likely give up soon. Thank you for your help and patience in this matter, and I will ensure that future article submissions you see from me will have greater justification.

    Thanks! Mrmb6b02 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Events on WP:AN/I

In dealing with this situation, you may or may not want to take this recent thread into account. Cheers. MastCell 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tobin Shepherd

I believe you acidentaly erased Tobin Shepherd's page today. You may want to re-add the plowing ledgend's page. Thank you. (69.223.182.214 00:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

What is this about Tobin Shepherd's page being deleted even after the sources were varified. Wow! How crazy is that? He is very notable and generations of Coloradians need to read about his work. (Jjboyle 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

What happend to the Tobin Shepherd page? I was told of the story and then I was told I could find it on Wikipedia and now I see that it is gone.

The Tobin Shepherd page was a fabulous resource! How can it no longer be viewed? This is crazy!

Beyond the fact that it was a complete fabrication based on a made-up bibliography... yeah, it was really great. Sorry kids, try reading WP:NFT.--Isotope23 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

so let me get this straight... the ledgendary Tobin Shepherd has his page removed? Why? I have never heard of of someone of such promense get their page taken down... It must habe been an accident. (Jjboggs43204 06:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Hey Isotope... I was doing some research and I found that Center, CO does exist and do they have circles in fields. Maybe this Tobin isn't as fabricated as we thought. Look for yourself. (Joshkessler 18:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

You guys still have not given up? I'll just respond with WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:NFT... as well as Logic all apply here (how the heck does a city existing and having crop circles = notability for this kid? Unless someone produces actual, verifiable, reliable sources we have nothing else to discuss.--Isotope23 19:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Isotope!

Since you're now an admin, I was wondering if you could do a little task for me: There's a page called Jamaal Anderson, which has been deleted numerous times as per CSD A7. I've posted {{db-repost}} and {{db-bio}} tags on the page. I was wondering if you could delete it, then protect it to prevent recreation.Hondasaregood 06:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Do the same for Victor Abiamiri & Greg Olsen (Football).Hondasaregood 07:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone got to it already. I'll look at Victor Abiamiri in a bit.--Isotope23 14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to review my contributions and contribute to my RfA. I withdrew when it became clear that the uphill climb had crossed the snowball threshold, but I appreciate your feedback and the process gave me some good ideas for other ways I can be contributing to Wikipedia. I'll work on the areas that came up in the discussion, and try again after I've gained wider experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hallmark holiday

Please see Hallmark holiday. I don't want to violate 3RR, so I can't edit it much more. Not a dog 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Human League and related articles

Thanks for the heads-up, Ill report it there. - eo 17:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reporting to WP:OP

Will do in the future, I wasn't aware there was a place on wikipedia to report suspected open proxies. I was also wondering if you could semi protect World Economic Forum as it seems to be the subject of many hits recently. Lastly, is it possible for me to help out at WP:OP as I feel I have sufficient knowledge in that field. Yonatanh 20:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For not biting the newbie. I guess I need to develop a thick wiki-skin. I am letting Ben Hur stand, as who the hell cares what you call it, it's a bad novel written in my hometown ;) If you have time, I would like to know why you think the Jesus-Movement has a totally separate connotation, since as an RS doctoral student I am totally baffled by that comment. Cheers ParvatiBai 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy at 165.228.131.12

Hi, I notice that you have blocked User_talk:165.228.131.12 as an open proxy. I've also noted there that it was a sockpuppet of SummerThunder (as both have been identified with FabulousRain). Fayenatic london 10:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess he won't be using that one again...--Isotope23 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Xbox 3

Here is the deletion log for the Xbox 720, which is what people call the Xbox 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Xbox+720

I'm saying this as an anon so i don't get wikistalked by him

I'm certain that another indefinite ban is appropriate on this user. I mean, come on - two seconds after he gets unblocked, he gets straight back into edit warring, POV pushing, unwillingness to discuss. If there was any justice in the world, he would be banned and never given another chance since he will never change his ways. (I also posted this on another admins page, but I wasn't sure if he was a sleep or not in his part of the world, so i sent it to a few more as well.)

At this point it looks like something that should be dealt with throught WP:DR, an ArbCom if other dispute resolution has already been done, or by User:Fred Bauer as the unblocking admin. I honestly don't have enough background here that I want to WP:WHEEL with Fred on a block.--Isotope23 14:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing Afds

Hey. I noticed you've been closing some Afds lately, so I thought I'd give you a few tips. Make sure you subst the afd top and bottom templates, and also remember that the afd top template produces "The result was" text, so you don't need to re-type it. Also, please try to remember to remove {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|x}} from the discussion page when closing so the Afd does not show up in the various Afd categories. Thanks! --- RockMFR 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Thanks for your comment: as I replied to Ed on talk page, I will honour his request, not just because he asked me to (although that's really reason enough), but also because it's a sensible request - there's nothing to be gained from pursuing that issue any further. Guettarda 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding job description in biography articles

I have heard on several occasions something to the effect of job descriptions in biography articles should be essentially as the subjects would describe themselves. I'm pretty sure I heard this repeatedly from some of the people who heavily edit cult articles. (Btw, you might want to have a look at some of them - biased and exhibiting bad behavior IMO). Is there some Wikipedia policy/guideline/suggestion like this? I took your comment on Jonathan Wells to mean that there is no such Wikipedia policy or guideline. -Exucmember 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Incidently, I didn't mean to drag you into an argument over Jonathan Wells; I just passed on what you said to me because JoshuaZ was misrepresenting what you said on the Wells Talk page. Anyway, thanks again. The compromise solution would not have been my first choice, but at least it's reasonable. -Exucmember 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise is rarely anyone's first choice... that's why it is a compromise.--Isotope23 02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Help over at CAT:CSD

Hi, and congrats on your promotion! Per this discussion, I'm dropping a friendly note to some of the recently-promoted admins requesting help with speedy deletions. I am not an administrator, so if you don't feel comfortable diving into deletions - or if you need more info - please don't come to me, but I'm sure that Cyde Weys would be happy to guide you if you want to help. Any help is great, but I'm sure that Cyde and others would deeply appreciate it if you could put the page on your watchlist and do a bit of work there on a regular basis? Maybe weekly? Thanks in advance! Anchoress 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Elves Impersonator

No worries, glad you found it. I only saw it because I speedied it last time, and watched it get deleted... so when it showed up on my watchlist, I happened to remember it. Philippe Beaudette 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Task:

Could you protect my user page & talk page? PLEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSE?Hondasaregood 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that it's any of my business, but I can't imagine why anyone would want their talk page protected... Philippe Beaudette 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've protected your userpage from IP editing for now... I hesitate to protect your talk page unless it is really serious vandalism... you know what this is about/who you pissed off? Might be worth an an abuse report to SBC...--Isotope23 00:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

moved

it sjust days before the first melodifestivalen semi. and after that other people WILL get interested and fill in what tehy think should be in the actuall info. that was my tought,/matrix17

i jsut wanted to say i see your point in one way...matrix17

it sjust days before the first melodifestivalen semi. and after that other people WILL get interested and fill in what tehy think should be in the actuall info. that was my tought,/matrix17

just dont take it personal. i just dnt like some of wikipedias rules is nothign against you.( matrix17

and i just want to ask you one thing, if this artist wasnt popular and real artists why would they be in the Melodifestivalen who is the most popular tv show in sweden? it seems like you dont now anything about the subject you want to delete s why not let people who actually now stuff about the subjet take care of it./matrix17

SVT who holds the contest would never let artists who hasnt never done anything or isnt popular be in the contest.and as i sayed dont take it personal;)/matrix17

Please E-mail me

CyberAnth 07:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

so now i have made some of them better/matrix17

dont push it dude/matrix17

Viliuisk Encephaloymyelitis Article Help

Thanks for the speedy edit, the lab and I are really having a lot of fun with this. I have all the citations I need right here on my desk, but I am unsure of how to set up references other than associating superscripted numbers with numbered references. I'd appreciate the article examples, Thanks-Goose359 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get that done probably around the beginning of next week, Thanks again for all of your help Isotope-Goose359 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Fortunately or Unfortunately, I am very used to deadlines and I have been reading wikipedia article after article to figure out how this whole thing works--congratulations on the Administrative privileges by the way. Sooner rather than later, this page will be complete, and i will have the experts on VE (whom I am Citing) edit all the material and mature this page even more.-Goose359 18:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Web.com

Hello. I have been trying to keep an eye on the Web.com article, but, as you know, IP sockpuppets keep blanking all negative information. Most of them trace back to the company itself, so it's apparently employees trying to whitewash the article. Do you think I should put in a request at WP:RPP for semi-protection status? I also don't want to run into 3RR issues, although I believe I am reverting blanking vandalism. Thanks for any advice you have, Satori Son 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, never mind for now. One IP editor has responded on my talk page and hopefully we can start resolving some of the issues with some good dialogue. Thanks, Satori Son 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I already anon protected it and then had to log off before I had a chance to comment back to you. Based on this I'll unprotect it.--Isotope23 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Funbrain source

I found its usage stats here: http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/313431 WhisperToMe 07:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about reverting your edits to Jenny Ulving. It was a misclick. .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

VE Page

Hey, I've finished my Viliuisk Encephalomyelitis article for the most part. It may need a few edits here and there but overall its taken form. I'd appreciate any edits you can find or format errors that you could correct. Thanks for the help--Goose359 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Free Speech

Hello Isotope23. Thank you for backing me up on User_talk:Cracker989. That's the first time I'd ever reverted vandalism and been accused of denying the vandal's right to free speech. What will they think of next? Oh, and Cracker989 also left a rather colorful response to your message. You may want to have a look. Jay†Litman 19:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Block enough vandalism and you will see it all. At least he didn't resort to Godwin's Law.--Isotope23 19:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ever thought about it

Thanks for your kind words, Isotope. I have in fact thought about adminship, but I never actively pursued it, because, as you said, I know it would decrease the time I have to write articles. I am open to it though, I've often thought it was time I helped out with some of the janitorial work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be honored to accept your nomination. Thanks, Isotope!--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've finished the questions at the RFA. Please take a look, and let me know if there's anything else I need to do, or if I need to change anything. I'll be out for the rest of the night tonight, but I'll have more time tomorrow. Thanks again!--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates/Jesus

I added a html comment to the article text that asks that the way dates are expressed not be changed without attaining consensus in the talk page. --BenBurch 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Web.com

I think you are misunderstanding these changes. No-one is trying to present something biased but these facts you keep using are slanted. How is a 5 year old uneventful court case that seems irrelevant to the business something that should show up on an encyclopedia, for example. That said, Interland has had all of the problems you mention and more. BUT…Web.com is a new company, with a new NASDAQ stock ticker symbol and a different management team. Since the company started, it has increased shareholder value. The lawsuits mentioned are not recent and were all started during the Interland era. These things should be on the Interland page, not this page. I will try to take a stab at a completely unbiased view but I am worried that the people who added this in the first place will just delete it. People who know and care about the company are doing this and that is why we keep erasing the information. I for one have no problem leaving it in but the information should be more broad so it tells the whole story. We should all try to be unbiased and factual. It is just wrong to say these things (exclusively) about web.com simply because it includes and took over Interland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movtoo (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Re: Sikh Prohibition Article

Thanks for locking and protecting it. Can you please add back the verifiables refrences on point 10 again in the article that were deleted. Thanks and most appreciated.--Sikh-history 14:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Isotope23

The problem is there is a fanatic who is trying to push his weird views onto other people. Using fringe and weird references rejected by the majority. It was noticed this fanatic was not happy when his fringe interpretations were challenged. This fanatic uses many ip addresses read this post that put against User:Sukh one of the most respected Sikh wikipedians

"Meat eating a non-issue Why does the editor feel that meat eating should be brought into a discussion about Sikhism, when it clearly is a non-issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC).

:If you are a Sikh, you will know as well as I do that there are always discussions about whether it is okay to eat meat or not. This certainly isn't a non-issue. If there are inaccuracies in what was written, please change them. There is no need to remove them completely. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)"

Same user = Sikh-history = User:195.92.40.49 = 82.36.147.99 = User:62.25.106.209--Sikh 1 15:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any need to make slanderous remarks? Please grow up and post verifiable facts, not personal attacs about me being weird or not. Best Wishes. --Sikh-history 23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The thing is Isotope23 Sikhism is a hard religion to follow because there are a lot of requirements and Prohibitions that are hard to live up to and meet. And traditionally for the last 400 years people have followed those hard rules and Prohibitions. However, in modern times e.g. last 20 years some fringe groups who do NOT want to live to the hard rules and lifestyle of Sikhism want their cake and eat it. They want to call themselves sikh and not live up to and abide by the hard rules and Prohibitions in Sikhism so they will try to use any way to get out of them--Sikh 1 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what you are both saying is that there is a traditional, historical prohibition against Sikhs eating meat, but in more modern times there has been a movement by some to try to rethink or redefine this prohibition. Is that a correct statement?--Isotope23 15:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but by some fringe sects maybe 5% of the total world Sikh population, 95% do not agree with them and agree with tradition and what the Sikh Gurus (spiritual leaders) taught the people who designed Sikhism.

Not true. The ruling body of all Sikhs is the Akal Takht. It is our temporal centre. It makes rulings and final directions on such issues. Most Sikhs are not vegetarian. My family all live in India and are practicing Sikhs, and I am the only vegetarian. Vegetarianism is my choice, not because my religion tells me (or not in this case).

Here are some views of prominent Sikh Scholars on this issue:

Throughout Sikh history, there have been movements or subsects of Sikhism which have espoused vegetarianism. I think there is no basis for such dogma or practice in Sikhism. Certainly Sikhs do not think that a vegetarian's achievements in spirituality are easier or higher. It is surprising to see that vegetarianism is such an important facet of Hindu practice in light of the fact that animal sacrifice was a significant and much valued Hindu Vedic ritual for ages. Guru Nanak in his writings clearly rejected both sides of the arguments - on the virtues of vegetarianism or meat eating - as banal and so much nonsense, nor did he accept the idea that a cow was somehow more sacred than a horse or a chicken. He also refused to be drawn into a contention on the differences between flesh and greens, for instance. History tells us that to impart this message, Nanak cooked meat at an important Hindu festival in Kurukshetra. Having cooked it he certainly did not waste it, but probably served it to his followers and ate himself. History is quite clear that Guru Hargobind and Guru Gobind Singh were accomplished and avid hunters. The game was cooked and put to good use, to throw it away would have been an awful waste.

— Sikhs and Sikhism by I.J. Singh, Manohar, Delhi

The ideas of devotion and service in Vaishnavism have been accepted by Adi Granth, but the insistence of Vaishnavas on vegetarian diet has been rejected.

— Guru Granth Sahib, An Analytical Study by Surindar Singh Kohli, Singh Bros. Amritsar

Commenting on meat being served in the langar during the time of Guru Angad: However, it is strange that now-a-days in the Community-Kitchen attached to the Sikh temples, and called the Guru's Kitchen (or, Guru-ka-langar) meat-dishes are not served at all. May be, it is on account of its being, perhaps, expensive, or not easy to keep for long. Or, perhaps the Vaishnava tradition is too strong to be shaken off.

— A History of the Sikh People by Dr. Gopal Singh, World Sikh University Press, Delhi

As a true Vaisnavite Kabir remained a strict vegetarian. Kabir far from defying Brahmanical tradition as to the eating of meat, would not permit so much, as the plucking of a flower (G.G.S. pg 479), whereas Nanak deemed all such scruples to be superstitions, Kabir held the doctrine of Ahinsa or the non-destruction of life, which extended even to that of flowers. The Sikh Gurus, on the contrary, allowed and even encouraged, the use of animal flesh as food. Nanak has exposed this Ahinsa superstition in Asa Ki War (G.G.S. pg 472) and Malar Ke War (G.G.S. pg. 1288).

— Philosophy of Sikhism by Gyani Sher Singh (Ph.D), Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. Amritsar

The Gurus were loath to pronounce upon such matters as the eating of meat or ways of disposing of the dead because undue emphasis on them could detract from the main thrust of their message which had to do with spiritual liberation. However, Guru Nanak did reject by implication the practice of vegetarianism related to ideas of pollution when he said, 'All food is pure; for God has provided it for our sustenance' (AG 472). Many Sikhs are vegetarian and meat should never be served at langar. Those who do eat meat are unlikely to include beef in their diet, at least in India, because of their cultural proximity to Hindus.

— A Popular Dictionary of Sikhism, W.Owen Cole and Piara Singh Sambhi, England

In general Sikhism has adopted an ambivalent attitude towards meat eating as against vegetarianism. But if meat is to be taken at all, Guru Gobind Singh enjoined on the Khalsa Panth not to take kosher meat ie. Halal meat slaughtered and prepared for eating according to the Islamic practice. In fact it is one of the kurahits for every amritdhari Sikh. One who infringes it becomes patit (apostate).

— Sikhism, A Complete Introduction by Dr. H.S. Singha and Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press, Delhi

A close study of the above-mentioned hymns of Guru Nanak Dev clarifies the Sikh standpoint regarding meat-eating. The Guru has not fallen into the controversy of eating or not eating animal food. He has ridiculed the religious priests for raising their voice in favour of vegetarianism. He called them hypocrites and totally blind to the realities of life. They are unwise and thoughtless persons, who do not go into the root of the matter. According to him, the water is the source of all life whether vegetable or animal. Guru Nanak Dev said. "None of the grain of corn is without life. In the first place, there is life in water, by which all are made green" (Var Asa M.1, p. 472). Thus there is life in vegetation and life in all types of creatures.

— Real Sikhism by Surinder Singh Kohli, Harman Publishing, New Delhi

The Gurus neither advocate meat nor banned its use. They left it to the choice of the individual. There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth. Guru Gobind Singh however prohibited for the Khalsa the use of Halal or Kutha meat prepared in the Muslim ritualistic way.

— Introduction to Sikhism by Dr. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Hemkunt Press, Delhi

There are no restrictions for the Sikhs regarding food, except that the Sikhs are forbidden to eat meat prepared as a ritual slaughter. The Sikhs are asked to abstain from intoxicants.

— Introduction to Sikhism by G.S. Sidhu, Shromini Sikh Sangat, Toronto

According to the Maryada booklet 'Kutha', the meat prepared by the Muslim ritual, is prohibited for a Sikh. Regarding eating other meat, it is silent. From the prohibition of the Kutha meat, it is rightly presumed that non-Kutha meat is not prohibited for the Sikhs. Beef is prohibited to the Hindus and pork to the Muslims. Jews and Christians have their own taboos. They do not eat certain kinds of meat on certain days. Sikhs have no such instructions. If one thinks he needs to eat meat, it does not matter which meat it is, beef, poultry, fish, etc., or which day it is. One should, however, be careful not to eat any meat harmful for his health. Gurbani's instructions on this topic are very clear. "Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. Who can define what is meat and what is not meat? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian?" (1289) The Brahmanical thought that a religious person should be a vegetarian is of recent origin. Earlier, Brahmans had been eating beef and horse meat. In conclusion, it is wrong to say that any person who eats meat (of course Kutha, because of the Muslim rituals is prohibited) loses his membership of the Khalsa and becomes an apostate.

— The Sikh Faith by Gurbakhsh Singh, Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society, Vancouver

The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that the Sikh Gurus made people aware of the fact that it is very difficult to distinguish between a plant and an animal, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish between a vegetarian and a non-vegetarian diets and there is no sin of eating food originating from plants or animals.

— Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani, Paper by Dr. Devinder Singh Chahal

The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten venison or goat, depending upon different janamsakhi versions of a meal which he cooked at Kurukshetra which evoked the criticism of Brahmins. Guru Amardas ate only rice and lentils but this abstention cannot be regarded as evidence of vegetarianism, only of simple living. Guru Gobind Singh also permitted the eating of meat but he prescribed that it should be Jhatka meat and not Halal meat that is jagged in the Muslim fashion.

— Mini Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by H.S. Singha, Hemkunt Press, Delhi.

Best Wishes    --Sikh-history 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The basic point is you cannot do anything that conflicts with the Sikh holy book SGGS. Just like muslims must do everything it says in the Koran. Fundamental rule of Sikhism = You must do everything it says in the Sikh holy book SGGS your lifestyle cannot conflict with what is says in there, if it does then you can't call your self a Sikh.--Sikh 1 16:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji makes no ruling on meat eating or vegetarianism. It leaves it to individual conscience.--Sikh-history 09:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ballog

Thanks for the help. He's just sent me a second email, after the message I left on his page regarding this diff. It states "Welcome to Wiki. Please review Wiki guidlines. The Talk page is not for false and accussatory personal attacks. Such falsehoods and mistatements not only may be removed but should be removed. Should you have any other questions please feel free to contact me." I'm all for WP:AGF, but it's starting to wear thin with this editor. One Night In Hackney 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, thanks for your swift action in the AFD for Clint Hartung, which I sort of knew was coming given Ballog's comments. I just wasn't around to see it when it happened.--Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clark

Thank you for unblocking me. The last thing I intend to do before leaving is to document the actions of User:Spamreporter1 that indicate that he was acting in bad faith and harassing me. I'll be placing these on my user page, and then I'll need to post a complaint somewhere, and then I'll leave forever. I'm not sure where to do that, so if you could let me know I'd appreciate it, otherwise I'll try to look it up.

Hi, Isotope. For what it's worth, I think information on cable operators and other utilities is useful. If you get the chance, please see the proposal, perhaps too late, that I left at User talk:Bill Clark#Lists of utilities. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Matrix17

I just reverted Matrix17's blanking of his talk page, and just want to make sure someone can monitor it - I don't feel like getting into a three-revert-rule discussion - I have a feeling it might come to that. --Strangnet 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He did it once again. I wont revert it, but I do think it's time someone really informed him about what's ok and not. Just commenting on his talk page doesn't seem to work, since it has a tendency to disappear after a while. --Strangnet 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jowharah Jones

I've expanded the article to make it more acceptable, which is why I put a hangon until it can be reviewed. Robert Moore 01:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

dont complain so mutch

why do you always complain instead of giving good advices or fixing the things you complains about?. its not only me you do it to so i am curious? you are an ADMIN on wikipedia right? so do your job. administrate..not dictate.its only you and your friend stragnet who always are on me. no one else has ever had the same reactions that you have had. and i have to say its quite childish of you to care so mutch /matrix

If it is childish of me to care about the quality of Wikipedia, then we should all be so childish...--Isotope23 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Matrix. But I've never crossed paths with Isotope until I chimed in to the AFD discussion about Addis Black Widow and helped by giving a source to the group's success. This is one reason why the article is kept, so I would think you would be pleased about that. I think most people have been giving you very much slack given your behavior - after all, it is you who have been having a bad attitude towards other contributors who only look out for the quality of the encyclopedia. After I found that you have a rather poor history with similar behavior on the Swedish Wikipedia, I'm now aware of what we're dealing with and hope this is the final bad word I hear from you about me. Being civil helps a lot, the contrary can have the opposite result even in cases where you're right - just my 2 öre. --Strangnet 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

burning ears

It is a little rude to others, perhaps, to post in foreign languages -- but sometimes it is much easier to get a point across in your own language. (Or at least that was my theory.) --Bonadea 19:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks

thank you for stopping them, you have no idea how demeaning it was to me.

--Jadger 17:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Image

If you could explain to me why the logo on the article titled xipno was deleted, and how I might go about including this in the future without it being deleted again I would appreciate it. --Sixes 12:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What to do

I am wondering what can someone do to stop vandalising and propaganist revisionism on Wikipedia? Currently there are a number of Italian users (User:Giovanni Giove and User:GiorgioOrsini), among them even a moderator (User:Aldux), who constantly revert and have reverted and prevented others to remove their falsifictions with the help of the mentioned moderator. Their target: medieval, baroque and renaissance Croatian writers, philosophers, scientists, etc. from Venetian Dalmatia have been stripped of their Croatian notes and identities in Wiki articles. These people lived in bilingual society where one had two and somtimes even three or more versions of their name: Croatian, Venetian (Italian) and Latin most commonly. You can find examples of such reverts all over the place: Benedetto Cotrugli, Francesco Patrizi, Stjepan Gradić, Joakim Stulli, Republic of Ragusa, Ivan Lučić, Giovanni Luppis, List of Croats, Andrea Meldolla, Ivan Duknović, Juraj Dalmatinac, etc. , etc....it's getting ridiculous and no one is doing anything about it. Are Italians allowed to do rewrite history to their wishes?! --89.172.230.220 17:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but only the Italians...

OK, all joking aside, it would appear that there is somewhat of a consensus that you/your IP range are indefinitely blocked user Afrika paprika. I have no idea if this is true, but the bottom line is that this is a content dispute and should be dealt with as such. To be honest I'm not at all familiar with Dalmatia so it is hard for me to even have a real opinion here other than that I really don't want to get involved in Balkans related ethnic/nationality article content. Sorry.--Isotope23 18:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am banned, the reason for my ban was the fact I was reverting their falsification even after being blocked for 3RR....what can I do, I am stuborn. The point is their reverts are unfounded and revisionistic. Besides you can check all my contributions as Afrika Paprika and as Factanisa and you will see that everything I ever added was neutral and even-minded content and that I have upgraded many articles. Also it's not a content dispute when you remove a fact and post a lie or a modified version so that it suits your nationalistic agenda, wouldn't you agree? This is not "balkan related article content", this is a group of people ruining and modifiying articles according to their nationalistic agenda. Anyway it seem that certain members are tolerated the lowest of the low vandalizim and POV reverts while others are banned because they want neutral articles but are ganged up by trolls. I mean isn't there anyone who actually CARES!?! --89.172.192.149 18:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are not banned you were just indefinitely blocked. I know it seems academic, but there is a difference. As for your second point, it isn't that I don't care... it's that I have no clue about this stuff. Like I said above, I'm not familiar with Dalmatia; I learned of its existence about 15 minutes ago when I was looking into the post you made here on the talk page. There just isn't much that I can actually contribute to this situation because frankly, I have no idea about the topic. I don't know if it is or is not appropriate to list Croat names for any of the individuals you've mentioned. As much as I'd like to help here I'm the first to admit my own ignorance (try asking me about calculus sometime). I'd suggest Wikipedia:Village Pump or WP:AN/I, but honestly I'm don't know enough about this to get it right.--Isotope23 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I am not banned, I am indef. blocked or more correctly my accounts are. --AF

---

Hello; sorry to intervene, but I have to advise you not to fall for Afrika's trickeries. If you investigate my user page, you'll see that he added homosexual connotations, me "sucking a war criminal's dick"; aside from that, he told me (and various other users) to fuck themselves for precisely 73 times (including the one that he recommended that "Jesus Christ will fuck my mother"). He also called various users "Greater Serbian Chetnik [pejorative for Serbs] Shit". And I do advise you to inspect Special:Contributions/Afrika paprika, as you will see nothing but disruption, trolling and edit-warring - which are the reasons that he was community-banned (yes, banned, not blocked), aside from creating around 120 sockpuppets (counting various anonymous IP ranges). --PaxEquilibrium 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talkpage.--Isotope23 22:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Trickeries? LOL! If anyone is using trickeries it is you. Pax is a person who pretends to be "neutral" but if you take a look at his contributions you will find nothing but revisions of existing article. He is indeed a Serbian radical and person who spreads Serbian propaganda. He is for example claiming Bosnian kings were Serbian kings which is absurd. And yes I did add insults to his page which is as I stated several times an outburst from my side....it's rather difficult to hold it together when someone pretends to be your friend then bands together with several other users and reports you to the admins and furthermore proclaims you a troll and disruptor. All the insults came after I was unjustly banned first as Afrika Paprika and second as Factanista. Despite my unjust ban for the first time i decided to overlook it and came back not holding any gruddges and trying to be more neutral yet this person is unable for a compromise. If it's not how he wants then all hell breakes loose. Anyway this is not about you Pax or HRE or whoever you are, it is about Italian nationalists doing revisions to the existing article and ommiting facts on their side. Surely even you can see that. The fact I am banned or that you can even call me a troll (I don't really care) doesn't changes these facts. I am asking you and anyone else to stop it and do something about it. If you care about Wikipedia at least a bit... -- AF

The only way to find out is to skim User:Pilotguy's contributions on 11 October 2006... and I've got no idea how to look for it (clicking like an idiot on Special:Contributions/Pilotguy is not something I'm prepared to do). --PaxEquilibrium 22:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

"Attempting to add a userbox to someone else's userpage after they have specifically asked you quite nicely to stop falls pretty easily within the realm of a Personal attack. Consider this your warning against doing this again.--Isotope23 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)"

If I want to kill you, change my mind and give you a present (unwanted, maybe but destructible), are you gonna charge me with murder? Is everything all right with you? You sure?Space Cadet 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh?--Isotope23 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what he means is that if he schemed to kill you, but changed his mind and didn't, does that make him guilty of murder. I don't see the relevance though as he is talking about how he personally attacked me, but I don't see any evidence he removed one of his personal attacks. I have seen him remove my comments on his usertalkpage asking him to stop personally attacking me, but that is it.

P.S. thank you!

Hi

--Jadger 03:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi 23 (Is it sodium or magnesium?)
So my analogy kinda went way over your head, huh? I overestimated you, deepest apologies.
Jadger, if you have freedom to consider my peace signs a PA and remove them, so do I have freedom to consider your offensive comments a PA also, and send them to hell, where they came from. You just proved to me that it's not the intention of the sender that counts, but the way the receiver feels about it. So stop your drama about me deleting your crap and stuff it. I DID NOT delete the admin's warning. Get it? I know you do. Now just act like appropriately. Thank you. Space Cadet 14:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Both of you please excuse my tone and harsh language, but you have to understand that I'm really sick and tired of constantly being harassed with, because of my ethnic background.

Ha ha ha, Nice sneak in of a backhanded personal attack there... Your earlier comment was completely inappropriate. I'm not sure you meant it as a personal attack, but it sure came off as one. Maybe it was just a very poor choice of words on your part. I'm willing to let it go, but per my earlier warning (and what George said), that comes dangerously close to a personal attack and if I see anything along those lines again I will not hesitate to block. You are right though, it is not the intention of the sender that counts it is entirely the way it is perceived so I suggest you choose your words more carefully in the future.--Isotope23 14:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, just thought it would be a little bit of extra information, but if he schemed to kill you but didn't, then he is still guilty of "conspiracy to commit murder", and would have gone to jail for a long time. I would like for SC here to point out my "offensive remarks" that he is referring to here, as I do not think I have spoken very harshly with him, simply asked him to stop personally attacking me.

--Jadger 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I do consider deleting a valid reference an act of vandalism - and this is exactly the case here. The person in question deleted a reference and then removed a valid remark claiming... it's unreferenced. This is particularly disrupting and I'm not ashamed to call such actions by their name. Do not expect me to praise people who disrupt wikipedia or vandalize it. //Halibutt 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, that is just what Wikipedia needs, more unapologetic POV editors...--Isotope23 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me disagree with you. This edit is vandalism: Jadger has removed a reference. Halibutt is right that this is vandalism; you'd do better to warn Jadger to stop his POV pushing and vandalism instead.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears there is a contention that the source doesn't actually support the text it is sourcing & that is why it is removed. I have no idea if this is true or not; I don't read Polish. If it is this would not be vandalism. Regardless I think I'd do better to take my leave of this situation because what I see is POV pushing on both sides and at this point visiting peoples' talkpages to give them WP:SPADE messages isn't going to help the situation. What is needed here is outside WP:DR from a neutral party, preferably one who can assess the sources neutrally.--Isotope23 12:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

James E. Sabow article

Thank you for your help. Please explain further your concerns, as there is no indication on the imagepages for the images commented out at James E. Sabow that there is any copyright violation. The imagepages in question are {redacted} 18:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Well, I clearly remember them discussing if that can be considered a community ban, and Pilotguy and several high-rank bureaucrats agreed that it can (clearly). I just cannot find the relevant link (was a long time ago). --PaxEquilibrium 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

and Pilotguy doesn't seem to remember it either. I'm not saying definitively that he is not community banned, but at this point I don't see where it was decided. It's sort of a moot point anyway...--Isotope23 19:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

concerns about critical image exclusion

(Reposted from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard) Thanks for making wikipedia great! I would like to include the images Image:FIGURE 11 A 4cda533808cecbb8952a1a001392adc86ad9a4f282ee2e97f56e28849b88048f.jpg Image:FIGURE 11 B 1a65945fc077c716da682e8c877fb62c9957ad5ef20afcd497353f7c9f23c4fb.jpg Image:FIGURE 11 C 9de163fa3d855d4d1c5273e0ea16bf984f185f5fdc314b4410e55d6bd6be45cf.jpg in the James E. Sabow article. The images make plain that Col. Sabow suffered a basilar skull fracture before a shotgun was discharged in his mouth. The images (initially on commons at Image:FIGURE 11 A a5cd1064fb7502e6a9e10b1dfe54ea5872c3279f.jpg, Image:FIGURE 11 B f1992ff75a9c82108c08c27e207879b8115fc9bf.jpg, Image:FIGURE 11 C 3ae8ad0330aeba8d5250813b471dc58c7a248e9e.jpg) are autopsy photographs that are not generally copyrighted. The fair use rationale provided with the images at en.wikipedia.org would apparently satisfy wikipedia's copyright policies.

Unfortunately, the edits including the images have been reverted twice, and I am seeking help here. I believe that, despite the graphic nature of the images, it is important that users of wikipedia be able to see the facts of a disputed case for themselves. Thank you for your consideration. JPatrickBedell 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Brett Favre:

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Gratitude

Thanks for taking on the Jfell case from AN/I! Figma 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Sounded familiar, huh.

[2] and [3]. Mangojuice^talk 02:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Great... good eye catching that one.--Isotope23 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't take credit; Sikh_history tipped me off. Mangojuice^talk 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Do Biased check

Isotope23 can you do me a favour check whether there is neutrality and biased against Sikhs in Martial Race article. --Sikh historian 18:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Isotope23, the things that concern me are that there is only one wikipedian pushing this point onto wikipedia User:Fuzzone. There is clear bias Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. To make such wide ranging and serious statements against millions of people is complete POV there is no surveys or statistical data backing it up that "In India, a minority of Sikhs, hold the non-martial races with contempt as a lawless, lesser breed". And the only reference is from a right wing BJP hindu politician who's neutrality is disputed. This sikh section should be removed immediately.--Sikh historian 01:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the uncited statement. Give me some time to review the rest of it.--Isotope23 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Henchman 2000 and Bowsy

Per the conclusion you posted at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Henchman 2000, they shouldn't be posting in the same AFD and/or content disputes. Well, they just did here: Talk:Mario_Party_8#Request_for_comment:_Lists_of_mini-games. I don't know if it warrants a block or anything, but I wanted to point it out. They clearly ignored what you said in the Suspected sock puppet page. RobJ1981 20:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to worry about it too much in this case. For starters I think that consensus is completely against them here. I'd be more concerned if they were frequenting the same AfD's or acting in concert to circumvent 3RR.--Isotope23 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Banned user

Hi. Malibu55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an obvious sockpuppet of Starwars1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Why are you responding to him? Why is he not yet blocked? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So, if an indef blocked user creates sockpuppets to edit Wikipedia, so long as they don't edit the article where they were causing the most disruption, they can edit freely? This sounds absurd to me. Unprotect the Favre page; see how long it takes him to edit it, then block him. This is getting to be ridiculous. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 14:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Then chill I shall. Thanks for explaining the situation to me. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought I was allowed to revert anything he did to Brett Favre, including its talk page. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• No problem... I would say that reverting on the main article (unneccesary right now since it is protected) is fine if the editor is just adding back the same exact info with no attempt to discuss it, but I would let him edit the talkpage/other pages. If he attacks you report it on WP:AN/I, but please try not to provoke him. I've had a bit of a talk with him on the talkpage of his latest incarnation, so we will see if that sticks. If not I will initiate a more formal request for community action.--Isotope23 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I will take both your and my advice and just ignore him for a while; let others deal with him. Obviously I'm a bit heated about the topic; it's only because I've put so much work into the article. Thanks again for your understanding. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Starwars1955 put a lot more into the article, he created the playoff stats section and the stats box above it and most of the records and milestones, Malibu55 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55

• Please read my talk page and see the personal attacks against me posted by the above user. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

They are not personal attacks, the way you are acting is not professional and wikipedian like, you broke the 3RR rule several times yesterday and you should get a block for that, and you are doing and saying things in a tempermental way with anger, that's not right and now you've run and said Isotope23 look what he did, you must be very young because age is clearly showing because I diffenatly said nothing wrong, your actions are bad, and quit using Isotope23 Talk page as a medium for this discussion, you should know better King Bee, Malibu55 04:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55

Hi, this statement was posted by PSUMark2006 on his talk page on 20:48, 12 February 2007:

Yeah, I'm not siding with anyone - if anything, I'm siding with varifiability and accuracy of data. Hence the emails I've sent to NFL.com, ESPN.com, and PFR.com. As soon as I hear back from them, we will be able to confirm. As far as the additional statistics, since they are verifiable there shouldn't be a problem re-adding them to the article. PSUMark2006 then signed 20:48, 12 February 2007

Well, I guess we are just waiting to find out about the attempts only, whether it's 8,224 or 8,223, as far as the 3 links in the infobox, they were there before, someone just had to add the 4 diget code to the page, they is no need to discuss that in the Brett Favre Talk Page, the page already had it there, someone just has to put in the 4 diget code, the Peyton Manning page has all 6 infobox stats, just check, and why shouldn't Favre's. This discussion has been resolved in the PSUMark2006 talk page and there is no reason to continue it in the Brett Favre talk page, we age just waiting to know about the attempts, 8,224 or 8,223 and PSUMark2006 will let us know when he hears something, now lets stop using PSUMark2006 and Isotope23 talk pages as mediums for this discussion now that the discussion has been resolved except for the attempts, Thanks for all you've done Isotope23 and PSUMark2006, Malibu55 04:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)malibu55

Adminship Suggestion

Isotope I'm really quite flattered that you suggested it - I have considered the idea a bit, but haven't done so for probably three reasons

1. I'm not convinced I'm experienced enough to make a successful run. I've participated in a bunch of stuff, but very little in policies/guidelines for instance. But a lot of the backlog type tasks admins do I'm not too familiar with, so it might be legitimate to criticise me for a lack of experience.
2. I worry that were I successful, the higher standard Admins should hold themselves to will make me hamstring myself. Maybe I'm being goofy. But I do have some habits now that are passable as a regular editor, but would really be nappropriate for an admin (like not adhering to WP:1RR).
3. I'm fairly sure there are two or three admins who have a very negative opinion of me, such that I probably wouldn't be able to get through a nomination successfully. And I'd guess I've pissed off more than a few editors in arguments because my style is very blunt. I think I'm good at sticking to WP:NPA, but a lot of people take blunt criticism of their arguments personally. Some of those have come around, but I'd guess some have not. All in all, I'm not particularly hopeful

All in all, I'm not sure I'd be particularly successful if I did, so I haven't.... I may be way off base, however (it happens). WilyD 21:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: FarmSanctuary Images

Thank you for the compliment for calling me "The Image Master", though I would disagree and say there are others around here that are much more knowledgeable about images and policy. But anyways, I only found 6 images that he uploaded [4], most were just uploaded over an existing file. I couldn't find a source for Image:Gene Baur 2.jpg and Image:Gene Baur 1.jpg so you can see the "Better Source Request" tag I put on there and notified the use to provide a better source for the images. The main confusion is that if you look at this image page and it will state " Please feel free to use this image with credit to Farm Sanctuary". But if you click on the "Click Here" for a high resolution TIF, they state not to use for commercial uses, which would be incompatible with our policy. Also confusing in the matter, the user has a username that implies they are a part of this organization, along with their userpage that states as such. The image on their userpage was uploaded by someone else though, who is interested in the same topics and has few edits anyways. I would say they are the same person. Lastly, the image on their userpage (Image:FarmSanctuary.JPG) has a unique message I've never seen before about OTRS that says they gave permission. I asked on IRC and the OTRS folks said it was only for that image, but it seems they would be likely willing to license the others, if asked. My guess: Email the folks at the foundation, and ask them to do what they did for the other image, for the other 6 images that this user uploaded. You could list them under "Possible Unfree Image-disputed" (it's a bad name) using {{PUIdisputed}} and follow the directions on the tag, though I doubt it would get as much attention as I have given it, but this is the "standard" method of dealing with these things, I think. --MECU≈talk 22:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the info..--Isotope23 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Image talk:Ciara promise singlecover.jpg

Would you mind taking a look at Image talk:Ciara promise singlecover.jpg and deleting it if it's supposed to be deleted? Someone identified herself as a twelve-year-old girl and provided her phone number; Wikipedia:Help desk suggested that I ask an admin to delete it and it looks like you're currently online since you showed up on my watchlist. ShadowHalo 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries...

Don't worry about it. You weren't the one rehashing the same arguments ad nauseum and replacing wikilink syntax just so the "You have new messages" bar keeps popping up on every page I view. I want to help us get past this just as much as you do, that's all. Thanks, PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/James E. Sabow

You are correct that my intention was not to have this artticle deleted. However, it appeared clear to me that there were 2 parties involved: one keen to subscribe an article, the other keen to reduce it to a one-line stub, at which point someone was inevitably going to AfD it, purely on sub-icity.

I had hoped that the pro-deletionist would put his head over the parapet and say why the article was defective, which simply reverting to a one-liner doesn't really explain. But he didn't, and you speedied it (as is your right), and now we will never know.

In due course I will re-AfD this as a stub, and perhaps then we will get a debate/discussion, not a swift-close. Simon Cursitor 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban for Starwars1955

What's the proper etiquette for going through with this? Do I just have to post a strong case on WP:CN, and then people come in and discuss? –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested that Starwars1955 be banned from the community. Please see this discussion. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please understand that I was assuming good faith in the case of the template that Jaranda left on the Starwars1955 user page. I assumed it was a mistake, not that he was doing something dastardly. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you mentioned something about an IP range ban; if you do decide to do so, note that all of his IPs that I have seen are 4.245.120.XXX or 4.245.121.XXX, so you don't have to go too crazy by banning 4.245.XXX.XXX. I know we're not quite to this point, but I'm just throwing it out there so that you know. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 22:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• LadyVols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is another sock; please see this diff. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 03:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ebony Anpu AfD

Hello. You recently commented and/or voted on the AfD for the Ebony Anpu article here. FYI, the AfD has been reset because the discussion was not about the merits of the article, but instead about procedural issues. You are welcome to leave a new comment about whether or not the article should be included here, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu. In order to be as fair as possible to the article's creators and those who feel it should be deleted, all comments about Wikipedia deletion procedure as it relates to this specific AfD are being directed to the AfD's talk page, here. Thanks for your time, and sorry for the wikispam. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ebony Anpu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Captain Barrett 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My Apologizes

Sorry about me losing my temper on the WP:ANI page....then just laughing at Calton. Him and I have gotten into one arguement after another and him bringing my Aspergers, under "psychological projection", was just one step too far, I lost my temper, I'm sorry. Then after his response, I just laughed cause he didn't understand or just didn't care that he had used one's psychological problem as an insult against them. I honestly have tried to get along with him, I really have, but I have failed on all accounts and my words have fallen on deaf ears. I am rambling....again, my apologizes for the WP:ANI problems. Take care....SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 15:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dude, just letting ya know:) Have a good day and enjoy the snow if you got it. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Toil)} 15:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Well, it looks like I've got the mop and bucket now. Thanks so much for nominating me. I'll probably try to familiarize myself with these shiny new buttons before using them very much. Again, thanks for the nom, and happy editing!--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

About Bobster12

Jfell is Bobster12. I don't have proof, but you might consider investigating this matter further. 12.217.183.192 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC -PiratesArCool-

Then can you talk to them and send the same message to their IP block as well? Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine the. I have one more question: will you be the one to revert their edits this time? Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! That's what I've been trying to say here! The person creates a redlinked category over one that exists, which constitutes as blanking. The person did this repeatedly for several articles that I noticed and just had to fix them up wierdly. PLEASE issue a warning at least to all of those IPs that are involved in the ISP block, including those two. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Warning every ISP in the block is overkill. You've already issued a final warning, so at this point a warning from me on top of that doesn't do anything. If they start doing it again, report it to WP:AIV. Thanks.--Isotope23 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

MimePants Works With User:Jfell

Poke' mon4ever 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I Am User:Jfell But AM working to better myslef on wikipidea. And Yes I also Was Bobster12 But One of my BUDDIES logged on to my name with my password JFELL6 and gave out some vandalism please respond but dont block me i have not done any wrong

Adminship

Go ahead (well... went ahead :) , Isotope23.
I don't mind at all, delete that page (already done :) .
Currently I don't see myself as an administrator. Kubura 08:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Unprotecting

Not at all. ;) I believe you're more familiar with the situation than I am, and we can at least be sure people will be keeping an eye on the article. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What was vandalized?

What are you even talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellothere21 (talk • contribs)

Suggestion

User Matrix17 should be banned from this page. I've begged him to follow some certain rules, but he does not listen. Peace, Azores.