Misplaced Pages

Some help

Hey Nishkid64, can you please tell that user giving me false warnings to back off? he is vandalizing a page accusing of Khoi and other editors including me of being terrorists. It's on my talk page, thanks. Artaxiad 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ordu page, vandalism, spam

You probably won't read this but here it goes...

"Sneaky vandalism Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages."

In the Ordu page, they cite a source that says genocide and Ordu on the same page. It never says "genocide in Ordu". I also provided valid sources that disprove which they erased for no reason like "newspapers not a good source".

Furthermore, I pointed out in detail the reason why the BBC source is considered "misinformation" on the Ordu discussion page. And I pointed out why it was vandalism in my warnings to the users. You obviously haven't read any of it, I understand you must be busy doing admin stuff.

And since when are 2 warning are considered spam? And who am I disrupting, Khoikhoi? Seems like he can revert my edit - the one I spent 3 hours researching - in a split second so I haven't seen any disruption there.

And now you say it's content dispute - read the BBC article (the link is in the Ordu article) and get back to me on where it says there was genocide in Ordu.

I am now officially asking you to resolve the content dispute by showing where in that BBC article says there was genocide in Ordu. I will stop my dispute if you consider that article to be verifiable and indisputable and NPOV or show me where it says "genocide in Ordu"...even that I'll take.

If you choose, you may also put a disclaimer on top of the page saying the information is disputed. But then again there are so many articles like that on WP aren't there. Maybe that's why so many people don't take WP seriously.

I think "respected" editors would try to argue their point and show some proof instead of trying to find a WP rule to silence the editor who doesn't agree with him or her. So I don't know who you were calling "respected editors"...respected by who - other Armenians? you? who are you? I thought you were suppose to be unbiased. Were they giving Nobel's to WP editors without me knowing. Are you serious? Maybe you read the news where schools (http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4598) are banning WP as a source, there's your respect.

Read the BBC article and get back to me on what I said above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oguz1 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Oguz1, I have dealt with you before. You tried to convince me to believe your point of you. This discussion is about whether or not a link is usable for the article. Discuss with the people that you are edit warring with at the article's talk page. I personally agree with you because the link does not say that the Armenian Genocide occurred in Ordu. However, I believe the other users think it is implied, since this is one of Turkey's largest cities, and there is no doubt that some Armenians were massacred in this area. I will remove the link and add {{fact}} and see what Khoikhoi and the other editors say. That is not the correct reference for that statement.

From what you quoted, their actions would not be considered vandalism. This is indeed a dispute of whether or not that link is a valid reference for the article. Discuss with others, and don't make accusations (warnings when not justified) at user talk pages. And I said "respected" because they are. And yes, people do take Misplaced Pages seriously. There are millions who use this encyclopedia for research purposes, and a good deal of it is completely accurate. (disputed articles have disclaimers, and people are well-advised about that) They have earned a reputation for being prolific contributors on Misplaced Pages. I am also well aware of that bill proposal. The bill will most likely fail in the US Congress. Nishkid64 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

When you cut and paste to Next Updates for DYK, can we give credits at that time? Or do we have to wait till it comes on main page? Check my Next Update at DYK! And how do you know how much characters are in the article? --Parker007 00:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you're doing it right. Basically, on T:DYKT the person who has the DYK article will say who to credit the article to. When transferring DYK items to Next Update, just add the credit for each corresponding article. When it's time to update Main Page DYK, admins can use Next Update to make crediting much easier and faster (since we know who to credit to). Keep up the good work, Parker007. =) Nishkid64 00:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you don't need to write (credits not given) on the page. An admin clears the credits once they have credited all who have written or nominated articles. Also, use the {{user}} template instead of doing "User_talk:Camptown". I'll fix it right now, and you can see what I'm talking about. Nishkid64 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :). --Parker007 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

HandsomePrints (talk · contribs)

Hi. You blocked HandsomePrints (talk · contribs) with a username block. He has stated in an unblock request that it is not a company name, but, rather, a longstanding online nickname. He had an unrelated commercial link on his userpage, but said that he did not know it was not allowed. I have listed this name on WP:RFCN, but if you have no objections and there are no objections there, I suggest an unblock as this name, assuming good faith that this is not a commercial name. --BigDT 01:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Priorfan65

Thank you so much for blocking this user. ~Steptrip 01:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry for vandalising the page.. my friend was pissing me off by putting comments mocking me. I will not vandalise the page again.. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oguz1 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Pablo Picasso Semi-Protection

According to , you protected this page in November. I don't know if it was your intention to leave it semi-protected for this long, and if it was, sorry for my mistake, you may disregard this message. Otherwise, you might want to consider removing the protection. Thanks a lot!!! - Hairchrm 02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article is ready to be unprotected. It has been vandalized 5 times by anons in the 5 minutes that it has been unprotected. Thanks, Cacophony 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is obviously going to be vandalized after I unprotect the article. However, we shouldn't keep articles protected for extended periods of time, and that's why I had to protect, even if it will be protected shortly thereafter. Nishkid64 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly well intentioned but unfortunate usernames

Saying "Misplaced Pages rules" is arrogant?

No, but having a name that can be taken to mean that you are the embodiment of, or have some especially close relationship to, wikipedia rules, can appear arrogant. -- just another nobody 09:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Eamonn Wallsh

Hi, You've deleted Eamonn Walsh among a list of Melbourne councillors marked as being non-notable. However, I contend that the page referred to the Irish politician and not to the Melbourne councillor. Can you check this please, and restore if I am correct. --Rye1967 12:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for deleting that article. It was under the list at the AfD, and I went ahead and deleted all since no one had said anything about any particular politician. I have now restored Eamonn Walsh. Nishkid64 18:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ordu page

Nishkid, I have dealt you before as well. And you have unfairly accused me of using sockpuppets without evidence. Meanwhile, Nareklem and Artaxiad seem to be same people, as you yourself slipped and almost called him Nareklem (Good job, Narek Artaxiad. ) You have also given them praises for doing a "good job" when they provided a self-admitted biased Armenian author as a source. As you being an Admin, I expect you to be neutral. Also, I have always posted my discussion - as you can see on this page - and complained about that BBC link - which is more than they have done. Only thing they have done in the past is revert the part where it says "genocide" (see the ) which originally was posted by "anonymous". Also, the page 176 of the book that is now being provided as a source, does not contain the quote that was used. The entire book itself does contain that quote. Plus, the entire book does not contain any reference to Hafiz Mehmed. I don't know where and how you were able to verify that quote. (I used the Google's "search this book" tool and also read pages 175 through 176 just in case). Moreover, the book does not source where it gets it's own information - that's English 101! Regardless of any of this, it's by an Armenian who is biased and the book is disputed http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/burningtigris.htm. That source can not be used within Ordu page. --Oguz1 15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I had my evidence. Someone came out of nowhere and made an account and supported your claims at Ordu's talk page. That's fair evidence. That's why I tagged the other user as a suspected sockpuppet. Also, Nareklm = Artaxiad. He had a name change, genius. As for the source, you clearly did not look it over. I am trying to get to Page 176 on Google Books now, but it won't let me for some strange reason. But when I looked at it yesterday to verify Artaxiad's reference, I saw that the book gave a list of cities along the Black Sea where the Armenian Genocide occurred. Also, when we cite a book, we don't have to cite where the book got their information. That's just absolutely ridiculous. And the link you provided...you can't be serious... That is some random guy's views on the verifiability of the author's book. That link is so biased and slanted (you can tell from the article title) You just showed me a more biased link, instead of showing me a NPOV link. Anyway, Balakian might be considered a biased source to some, but what he said has been verified by many other sources through the course of history. Nishkid64 17:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

protect on stem cell page

thanks for the protect! -Cquan 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Skip Bayless

Well done. The page was mentioned on ESPN's Cold Pizza -- causing the (arguably accurate) vandalism. --DNL 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A personal question

Hi, Nishkid64. We worked together with Alexander Litvinenko article. I am in a kind of trouble now. One of users wikistalked me for months and effectively blocked all my work on political subjects in Misplaced Pages. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov. He continues reverting all my changes. Three my articles are already blocked by administrators. What should I do? Could you give me a piece of advice? Biophys 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)