Misplaced Pages

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost

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

unlock suicide bombing

Could you please unlock the page? It appears that all discussion on the subject has ended.

Guy Montag 08:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another one

As we've both seen in the past, autobiography (vanity or sycophancy) on the part of editors can lead to, er, sticky situations. My 'Wikisense' tingles when I look over the contributions of 68.10.35.153/Baxter2 that seem to express the point of view of William White (agitator). The subject has a long history on the Internet (first website at age 13, about 13 years ago), including accusations of sock-puppetry and self-promotion (even here ). This is an editing situation that deserves careful watching. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

If it's not one thing is another. Thanks for your quick action on the LaRouche edits. After two ArbCom decisions I believe it is appropriate to suspend the assumption of good faith in this narrow field. It's funny, these guys are all alike - they assume that anyone who tries to edit an article for POV is a dedicated anti-them activist. HK kept saying that if he were banned the LaRouche articles would be filled in an ongoing stream of fresh lies (requiring his continual presence to balance). In fact, there have been few revisions since he's left and we moved in the sandbox version that we'd created (and invited him to join) while the last ArbCom decision was still pending. Their egotism makes them assume that people care enough to plot against them. (Why else would LaRouche's economic theories have been ignored?) On the White article, I asked Sam Spade to look it over. I hope that he can help bring it into general Misplaced Pages form more easily than some editors (like me) who come from a more different POV. There is apparently a long drama in the National Alliance circles involving these characters and this series of edits may be a form of axe-grinding. I believe that now one of the other participants/subjects is also contributing. I'm an optimist but I fear this is going to be another of those fascist/anarchist POV storms. Whew. Anyway, I'm sure that editing sessions at the old 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica went much like this. "Stop pushing your Suffragette POV, Miss!" Thanks for your contributions. -Willmcw 06:11, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your necessarily bold editing. -Willmcw 06:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Also, White mentioned this on his webpage, so all the anti-Bill White nutballs appear to be congregating. -Baxter3 00:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See? Didn't I tell you? It's all about them. It's a cliche, but I truly am laughing out loud. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:13, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

So it really is a conspiracy after all. -Willmcw 09:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for your vote of confidence on my recent successful RFA, it was much appreciated. I will work to demonstrate that your trust was well-placed. Fawcett5 19:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William White (agitator)

SlimVirgin engages in politically motivated page vandalism, and appears to make a habit of it. Also engages in abuse of Misplaced Pages rules to enforce heavy POV editing of articles. See her "edits" to William White (agitator). 68.10.35.153 00:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) — posted by User:Baxter3, who is also William White, the subject of the piece

Steven Hassan page

Hi SlimVirgin, I'm curious as to why you reverted *everything* I added to the Steven Hassan page? I put a fair amount of work into it, and I didn't think I was adding anything excessively biased or destructive. Petrus

Thanks, Slim. I noticed your own changes to Steve's page...they look pretty cool. I definitely need to read more about creating good category headings in particular. I will admit that maintaining the old NPOV on Steve was somewhat difficult, as I am a huge fan of his work. ;) I need to work on that a bit. Petrus 09:39, 8 Jun 2005

William White

Baxter3 has requested mediation with you on the William White (agitator) article. Could you please tell me your side of the story, either on my talk or by mail? He seems especially angry about how you removed sources you asked him to provide. Could you expand on that? He's already pretty frustrated, so I'd urge you to accept mediation, in hopes of coming to some agreement in this to avoid further escalation. Mgm| 20:49, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

Thank you for uploading Image:Rat.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. (unsigned by Nv8200p (talk · contributions)

The old story

Carelessness, inattention, and lack of experience — at least the consequences only lasted twenty-four hours, not nine months. (As someone who's only ever blocked six people for 3RR violations, I was amused to see violet/riga's opinion that I did a lot of it; but then, as Yuber's sockpuppet, I would say that wouldn't I?) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sockpuppet speaks! El_C 08:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You often see this, El C: the sockpuppets having conversations with themselves on talk pages, or referring to themselves in the third person. They don't realize we've seen it all before. SlimVirgin 08:38, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I should have suspected something. That they talk alike, walk alike, and dress alike (probably) should have led me on. El_C 08:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should the block be indefinite or infinite, and which one do you fancy keeping? SlimVirgin 08:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I always go with infinite, without exception. It's just so fun to type! El_C 08:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you noticed that "Yuber" and "Mel Etitis" backwards are both gibberish? Coincidence? I think not. --User:A Friend 11:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good catch, Mr./Mz. User A. Friend — the evidence continues to mount. El_C 11:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Numerical value of letters - Yuber = 71, Mel Etitis = 112. 7+1 = 8; 1+1+2 = 4. Mel Etitis is 1/2 of Yuber. QED, sockpuppet. Guettarda 19:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Numerology and Quantum electrodynamics = exhaustive evidence. El_C 21:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work, Guettarda. I hope Mr Tan is taking note. SlimVirgin 22:06, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Tsushima Islands

It seems that Mel Etitis has nothing more to say or ask concerning my edits, so I do not see why that the article should remain blocked, and I'm asking for an unprotection.

Also, please do not block the article again under Mel's direction just because he thinks that he do not like the edits. Let him discuss or ask me if he has any doubts, but I do not see why he should block it after all, and he has a tendency to have a mysterious (sometimes hostile) element in his discussions at bay.

Mr Tan 10:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mr Tan has adopted a new approach. After everyone has stated their objections to his edits (often many times), he proposes them again, and if no-one responds immediately (sometimes within a couple of hours), he posts a message saying that he now assumes that there's agreement and that he can make his edits unopposed. This is another example of that approach. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is the past matter, and I have turned over a new leaf, or at least I try. Did I do that in Lee Kuan Yew? And also, you have not answered my proposals for days, not a day. I would like to seek your co-operation in quick responses, but please forgive me for my impatience. However, your attitude is very suggestive, and I have often seen that you have a tendency either to deviate off from the mainstream discussion, or ignore the entire discussion in mid-way, so not responding to my questions for just a couple of hours (within your time span on the Internet) make me develop this negative attitude in response to yours. In addition, you have a habit of reverting my edits after waiting for your response (usually in vain).

Mr Tan 11:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's not only a Minister, he's a Minister Mentor! WAU! El_C 11:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And concerning the Wee Kim Wee/temp, I would like to bring the matter to your attention that you have yet to give me a response whether there is a policy concerning that /temp are not allowed. However, I have seen that working draft articles in your own namespace can be found in one of the guidelines. Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing better articles

Mr Tan 11:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really hope that you can drop me a reply on my talk page concerning the issues stated above, for I need to get things working. Thanks!

Mr Tan 13:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 14:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

External links

Hi Weyes, I see you're deleting lots of external links from articles. While you're right that articles shouldn't consist of lists of links, the ones you're deleting seem quite useful, and the lists aren't that long. Also, please note that Misplaced Pages:External links is just a guideline, not policy. Cheers, SlimVirgin 04:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think some more community input might help here, I've taken it to The village pump; hope you'll join in the discussion there. --W(t) 15:03, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Perverted-Justice.com

Aside from a few run-by fruitings, the PJ article has calmed down a LOT, and it looks SO much better -- I attribute that to your fine work! So, from me to you, a big WikiThanks! · Katefan0 17:24, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You to protect the Sega Dreamcast article. --Mateusc 22:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR and the Sega Dreamcast

I would like to clarify about and 3RR act and nomination that happens today. Since I initiate to revert User:24.125.136.245 and Marvelvsdc image changes, I was look to keep the discussion, fight against that crazy reverts (because I propose the image first - the old image are forgotten and out of the discussion). This is happening in last 2 weeks. Today, K1Bond007 decided to denounce my reversions because the discussion about image changes it transformed in disrespect and personal attacks.

My proposal of image is compatible with the philosophy of the Misplaced Pages: provide information, showing details as the Windows CE logo. It's only this. Sincerely, I don't see reasons to change the Misplaced Pages into a magazine with fair use and redundant images as considered for the user K1Bond007.

I'm thankful for the consideration and will appreciate comments.

Sincerely, --Mateusc 01:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Read you loud and clear. Will not revert again until appropriate time. Guy Montag 21:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber

When you deal with Yuber on a daily basis like I and other editors have, you realize the man is a bad faith editor. It's no longer about civil discussion, it's making sure that he doesn't ruin articles with his pov. I'd gladly deal with him the way wikipedia is meant to deal with good faith editors, but these options are futile as he ignores them. Please see the evidence in arbitration to understand what I mean. Thank you, Guy Montag 09:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for your statement. So thanks.

Guy Montag 00:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber is now vandalizing, and I don't use this lightly, he is vandalizing article Qana Incident by reverting to a previous article that is a ugly little POV stub, to prove a point. All the sources in there are cited, instead of discussing them, he is revert vandalizing them because he doesn't like the information there. Please check it out and block him from editing.

Guy Montag 00:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

God Bless you for you quick response.

Guy Montag 00:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Always nice to be able to distinguish civility from tripe. El_C 09:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pan Am Flight 103

Are you attempting to get this article up to FA quality? As a relative of two of the victims (on the ground, lived in Sherwood Crescent), I'd definately support a nomination. --Kiand 12:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism and "Lone Wolf" attackers

Hi Slim. You've been involved in the debate at Independent terrorist actor before, so I thought I'd ask you to add your opinion on an issue currently at Terrorism. I've put it up for RfC as well. Essentially several editors, including me, think the level of detail provided on "Lone Wolf" attackers is inappropriate for the article, but others feel that more detail needs to be added. Well, to be frank, according to some editors huge amounts of information "needed" to be included about Baruch Goldstein but none was needed for any of the other events listed on that page. Eventually, when that started looking too obviously like the POV pushing it was, information was added about a couple of other mass murderers to make the POV pushing less obvious. In any event, the issues I have are with 1) appropriate level of information for the article, 2) similar treatement for all attacks listed in the article, and 3) WP:NOR; just who is designating these guys as "lone wolf" terrorists anyway? Jayjg 21:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your well thought out comments, as always, though they seem to have generated little substantive response (other than the inevitable revert with insulting edit comment). Jayjg 23:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2RR?

I emailed you regarding my suspension, and I got NO RESPONSE. I did not revert more than three times in a 24 hour period. Please be more careful next time. Eyeon 17:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wp600 not admins

Hi - I added a disclaimer on User:Rick Block/WP600 not admins. Reading between the lines (well, actually, reading on the lines) I gather you're having troubles with one of the people on this list. I don't know what your general experience is, but I hope you haven't concluded most high volume editors are intransigent. You haven't re-commented on the talk page, and I see you've been busy, but just wanted to let know about the disclaimer. I hope this helps to address your concerns. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I updated the disclaimer with most of your suggestions. Any particular reason nuisance editors aren't warned and then perhaps banned outright? Seems like there's a pretty clear difference between making lots of minor, but productive, changes vs. do/undo repeats to make the edit counter go faster. Thanks again. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:55, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

PA 103

Capital-C for constabulary because its the force's title. Sellafield, because everyone is familiar with that name.

I have talked about this concerning the response of Lockerbie: The Scottish Office-Prime Minister's thoughts on the tenth anniversary of the bombing, as read out by Donald Dewar, Scottish Secretary. It has shown how people around the world have grown proud of the people of Lockerbie on how they responded to the disaster. SNIyer12

How come you haven't talked about the article I just sent about the praise by the government to the people of Lockerbie for their response? I would like to know. SNIyer12, 18:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Yuber and Talk:Jihad

Yuber is up to four reverts - MAJOR reverts destroying the comments of someone else - at Talk:Jihad. User:Weyes seems to be ardently assisting. Yuber is also unsurprisingly guilty of 3RR violation on Jihad itself. This has caused User:Inter to freeze Jihad and call for comments. Yuber has been serially reverting said comments. Any assistance you can give would be greatly appreciated. Yuber is out of control. Unsigned by 195.168.3.83 (talk · contribs)

You shouldn't take this guy seriously. He is one of Enviroknot's many anon ip's. Check the history and you will see he is clearly vandalizing the talk page and many users have reverted him.Yuber 22:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Make that ELEVEN now... Nope, TWELVE... THIRTEEN

Thank you

Thank you for blocking the troll User:Eyeon and his sockpuppets. I appreciate your prompt action. Samboy 23:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber

I see he's been busy while I was gone. I'm sort of sorry you got stuck in the middle of it but since you appointed yourself his guardian, it does fall to you.

I just want you to know from my mouth, I have no connection to any of the anonymous editors who stood up to him today.Enviroknot 00:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot and his anon IPs

These anon users are exactly the issue we are facing in the Jihad article. First of all, I think you should know that this barrage of anonymous IPs are definitely all environknot, a known sockpuppet that has been banned from Misplaced Pages. This is evident by the exact same stuff that they add in, the exact same comments that they make and the exact same tactics that they use to vandalize the talk page. Secondly, you can clearly see by what he wants to add in to the article (the bolded text in the anon message found in archive 4 of the talk page) that he has no good intentions for this article but rather wants to vandalize and add anti-Islamic POV. He has the reasoning that all muslims are 'islamists' and that anyone who tries to stop his anti-Islamic vandalist POV is an "Islamist" and is "whitewashing" this article.

He wants to remove all factual information from the article and say that any muslims and non-muslims who have been arguing against him are vandals. Surely you see the issue now. He is perhaps the worst editor of wikipedia, he has a long history on both the article page and the talk page of making personal attacks against people (e.g. cssloat and BrandonYusuf) and of vandalizing the article to make it seem that no muslims are tolerant and that muslims are evil people who have done nothing than kill people forever. This is as RACIST and anti-Islamic as it gets and surely you can see that now when he considers generally anything related to Islam is 'barbaric' or 'brutal'.

He seems to hate when users argue against him on the talk page and does not realize that it is against the rules to delete/edit other people's messages on the TALK pages. He has been the perpetrator when it comes to the talk page. HE WANTS NOTHING MORE THAN TO INSERT ANTI-ISLAMIC POV commonly found in western media that makes it look like Jihad is nothing more than 'islamist terrorism'. He has no factual material and his material does not belong to this article as this is about Jihad which is a large Islamic topic and probably the most misunderstood by people. All the other editors are at consensus to have him banned from this page. Hopefully you will take the appropriate measures to get this chain of enviroknot anon IPs banned so that we may get back to business and resolve any disputes productively. Thank you for your help.--Anonymous editor 01:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I had nothing to do with writing what you archived.

I would also like to point out what a frothing, raving rant that was. His claims that "all the other editors are at consensus" seem to be groundless and baseless, of course. I've come to expect this behavior from Yuber's clones.Enviroknot 02:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep denying the truth you have shown your true colours in other Islam-related articles. You are a proven sockpuppet and yet you still deny it. --Anonymous editor 02:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

As a former Muslim woman I want to advise you to disregard anything this Islamist fuck "Anonymous" says. One of my good friends died in that fire, and this mysogynistic devotee of Mohammed (may Piss be upon him) keeps trying to deny that it happened.

He can go rot in hell. The religion established by the false prophet needs to be exposed for what it is and die, the sooner the better for the sake of all the women in the world.

There you go again. SlimVirgin, I think that now it is clearly evident that he is making personal attacks again and I request that u take all appropriate measures against him. He seems to have a problem with my conversion to Islam too. here is his talk page concerning this --Anonymous editor 03:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am not Enviroknot but I support anyone who will oppose lying Islamist fucks who try to whitewash Islam's crimes against women, especially weak-minded fools like you.