| Revision as of 13:37, 16 June 2006 editBriangotts (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,437 editsm Category marked for deletion← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:13, 16 June 2006 edit undoJohnleemk (talk | contribs)Administrators20,736 edits →Category marked for deletionNext edit → | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| --] ] ] 13:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | --] ] ] 13:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, | |||
| An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: ]. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] | ] 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:13, 16 June 2006
user page
It's his user page, editing it is vandalism. Ask him to remove it or get another opinion, but don't do it yourself. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's bullshit. I'm warning him not to put that reference back on his page. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Conversation with Anonymous editor
Can you explain to me, why you keep restoring a personal attack me on Irishpunktom's userpage? -- Karl Meier 19:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's his user page, editing it is vandalism. And I don't keep reverting; I reverted once. Ask him to remove it or get another opinion, but don't do it yourself. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I ask you again to please quit harassing me, by restoring personal remarks regarding me on Irishpunktom's userpage. Nobody own any pages here on Misplaced Pages, and personal attacks can be removed on sight. If you keep harassing me, and insist on restoring these personal remarks/attacks on Irishpunktom's userpage, then I'll have to make a complaint on the administrators noticeboard about your and Irishpunktoms behavior, and bring it to the attention of a broader range of Wikipedians. -- Karl Meier 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- You think that reverting someone's edits to a user's page is harrassment even if if it's done once?
- About four other editors have also reverted you. I remember you had a very racist link on your userpage once that you absolutely refused to take off even when administators warned you. You can not edit his page, please ask him to remove it. I have nicely responded to your answer. Good bye. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is true that there is several members of the "Muslims Guild" that has insisted on readding the personal attacks against me, but until now you are the only administrator that has done it. In my opinion it makes it much more serious, as administrators should be expected to be experienced users, that didn't engaged in such behavior (harassment/personal attacks and remarks). Regarding the external link, I have already agreed to remove it from my userpage a long time. In my opinion it wasn't racist, it was just an angry response to the violent attacks that happend just because of a few cartoons. This being said, I have already admittet that it was wrong that I placed the external link on my userpage, and it surely doesn't give editors such as you and Irishpunktom the right to harass me months after I removed the link. Please end your insults against me. -- Karl Meier 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- You aren't allowed to edit another person's page and that's it. Don't do it because if he reports you will be blocked for vandalism. And please stop exagerrating one revert by me as harassment. I might have prevented you from being blocked. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- You don't own any pages on Misplaced Pages, and personal attacks can be removed on sight whereever they are. If you feel that I vandalize Irishpunktoms userpage by removing a personal attack against me, then please file a report on "vandalism in progress" or quit your false accusations against me. It's bad enough that you restore these personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 20:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think it should be removed but me reverting one of your edits to someone else's user page is not harassment even if you are biased enough to think so. You should have asked another editor or admin to remove them for you. Not do it yourself when three or four different editors have told you not to do so. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you where not "biased" as you call it, and if you really believe it should be removed, then I don't think you would have restored it. The plain and simple facts are that Irishpunktom made a personal attack against me on his userpage, and that you insisted that it should stay there. You even used one of your admin tools (the rollback feature) to insist on having this personal attack against me on Irishpunktoms userpage. -- Karl Meier 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Another Barnstar
--FairNBalanced 07:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I tried the link "E-mail this user" ... but you don't have one set up. Any chance you'll put one in? Just curious --F.N.B.A.K.A.Effin' Bee 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you get my email? --FairNBalanced 03:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Critics of Islam
Hey, you probably didn't know... but this category was deleted per CfD a while ago as being over simplistic (]). The list is still over simplistic but it at least has the potential to explain how one is critical of Islam since it's not a straightforward thing. As in... Amina Wadud is critical of Wahhabis who she sees as sexist... Ibn Wahhab was critical of Sufi movements... etc... they're all critics of Islam but it's not straightforward. I am deleting the category and depopulating it... if you really feel it's worthwhile then take up the issue on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review and please notify me so I can make a comment there too. gren グレン 12:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Odd, I thought that category made a lot of sense. Especially in terms of individuals like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Netscott 12:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Anti-Islam sentiment
Some editors are busy populating this newly-created category with articles. Pecher 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The evidence section
I see that you find it hard to stay away from me and my edits, and do a lot of research regarding my activities on Misplaced Pages. I guess that now, nothing will prevent me from investigating your edits and add relevant evidence regarding your countinued POV editing and other violations to your most recent ArbCom case. -- Karl Meier 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm? I was asked to comment there via email. You seemed to have predetermined conclusions... That is no way to start any investigation. In any case, be my guest to review my edits and present them at arbcom case.
- Only edits that can be viewed as somewhat contraverisal was in Batman, Turkey. I objected the cities ethnic clasification as "kurdish dominant" when such thing cannot be based on any reliable data and that such a thing should be presented as a "claim" in the light of WP:NPOV, WP:Cite etc... I really have nothing to hide, I never had.
- What I call "a lot of research" is the evidence I collected against Moby Dick. IIRC you were present on that ANB/I discussion.
- --Cat out 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- To present edits that are more than half a year old does indeed take a lot of research, and that is what you just did. Anyway, as you clearly refuse to stay away from me and my edits I will feel free to examine your diffs. Whether or not your edits has been against policy is something then something that the ArbCom will make a decision about. -- Karl Meier 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I picked an article randomly that you have edited recently, Ali Sina. At random and reviewed the past 1000 edits reviewing your reverts. My monobook highlights administrators so its fairly easy to notice an administrator reverting you...
- You seem to be alarmed when people monitor/review your edits. It is curious however the behaviour that alarms you is the behaviour you indulge yourself most...
- Whether or not your edits has been against policy is something then something that the ArbCom will make a decision about as well...
- --Cat out 22:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- In any case what is the purpose of this talk page msg? --Cat out 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- To present edits that are more than half a year old does indeed take a lot of research, and that is what you just did. Anyway, as you clearly refuse to stay away from me and my edits I will feel free to examine your diffs. Whether or not your edits has been against policy is something then something that the ArbCom will make a decision about. -- Karl Meier 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello
I by chance saw the following discussion:
In my opinion, your views are right. No one owns any page here - all pages are owned by the Misplaced Pages Foundation. In case, you find that an administrator's action is not in conformity with the requirement of the wikipedia's policies, you should report the matter. there is nothing wrong in such reporting. Cheers. --Bhadani 12:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Category marked for deletion
You may be interested.
--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)