User talk:Fish and karate: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:52, 1 April 2008 edit207.91.86.2 (talk) Strange Edit War← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:09, 1 April 2008 edit undoAlansohn (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers504,689 edits suggestions needed to deal with recalcitrant and unrepentant sockpuppetNext edit →
Line 333:		Line 333:
	==Strange Edit War==		==Strange Edit War==
	A group of editors have developed a version of an article that meets all Misplaced Pages policies and standards. However, one editor keeps on reverting it to a version that he wrote months ago and refuses to discuss his changes on the talk page. One group says that the other group are "sockpuppets." The other group says that the first group are "meatpuppets." Why can't someone read both articles a pick one article as a starting point from which to make further improvements? Please help. ] (]) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)		A group of editors have developed a version of an article that meets all Misplaced Pages policies and standards. However, one editor keeps on reverting it to a version that he wrote months ago and refuses to discuss his changes on the talk page. One group says that the other group are "sockpuppets." The other group says that the first group are "meatpuppets." Why can't someone read both articles a pick one article as a starting point from which to make further improvements? Please help. ] (]) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
			*I have no idea how I got sucked into this article in the first place, but ] has to be the target of the most bizarre set of sockpuppetry I have ever seen, most of it aimed at including false and defamatory information regarding the subject. ] was part of one of the newer batches of sockpuppets, and his identity as a sockpuppet was confirmed at ]. After being outed, ] created ], also confirmed as a sockpuppet, and also blocked permanently. As soone as Runreston was blocked, Racepacket came out with a new set of IP addresses disrupting the article. There are no alternative "groups" here; There is a stable article and a single individual and his sockpuppets who have a monomaniacal obsession with this one individual and this one article, devoting well over 90% of edits to this one person. While I am working on documenting a new sockpuppet request for the latest crew of abusers, can you recommend any means to prevent further abuse, such as protecting the ] article from edits by IP addresses and new users? ] (]) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:09, 1 April 2008

Please place your comments at the bottom of the talk page. Make sure you sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~

New to Misplaced Pages? - hello! See Misplaced Pages:Welcome, Misplaced Pages:Help, and Misplaced Pages:My first article for useful advice to get you started. If those don't help you, then by all means please do come back and ask me your question(s).

Can't edit my talk page archives? If there is anything (chiefly privacy stuff) you would like removing or amending, let me know below or by email. If you are unsure whether you want everyone seeing your message, don't post it here - again, email me.

Name mess

Sigh. Why can't people agree to disagree reasonably? I wish he didn't try so hard to show how right I am and end up redacted because of it, because that means he's going to really blow up now, most likely.

I mean, I can see where you are coming from, the abundance of sources means we are unlikely to do harm— but I still can't figure out where there is any sort of putative gain to the article parroting the information. And I do see the great harm that can be done by leaving it here; both as a magnet for vendettas (I think we're seeing some of that now) and as a source of libel (people, no matter how wrong, read "suspected of X" as "definitely guilty of X", no matter how wrong— it's not a mystery that "tried in the press" is a common idiom).

If the suspect was independently notable, I'd understand. If he was an adult, I'd be less inclined to be protective. But since, to date, the only response to the question "what does it add to the article" asked (and not only by me) has been along the lines of "It's obvious!" or "Are you kidding"... a great deal of indignation and no substance.

At this point, I'm not going to be swimming upstream for no good reason; defending someone (rightly) unpopular like that kid is painting a needless bullseye on one's forehead, and I'll soon get accusations of defending the suspect's actions flying. I'd rather this didn't degenerate so much. — Coren 00:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning

I'll thank you not to warn me inappropriately, or threaten me with blocks again. It has been several hours since I stated unequivicoally that I wouldn't be referring to the young man as a "cold-blooded killer", no matter the facts in evidence, or my personal views. Your after-the-fact warning, and inappropriate threats of block (they're preventative not punitive) will be removed as soon as I finish posting here. Bellwether _C 01:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You just did it again. Neıl ☎ 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't. Your personal opinion of how this person should be referred to carries no more weight than my own. My current wording is benign, and states only what we know to be true. Bellwether _C 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What we "know" is that Brandon McInerney is a suspect in the case. Nothing more, nothing less. Neıl ☎ 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your RfB

On this occasion, your RfB did not succeed. I hope that you will continue your contribution to Misplaced Pages and may consider standing again in future. Remember, a significant majority of editors commenting did support your nomination. Warofdreams talk 10:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A shame about the minority though! Maybe I'll try for ArbCom again next year. Neıl ☎ 11:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My commiserations, it's a tough standard set over there... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole's block

I don't think the week long block was the right way to go. LC's being contentious to be sure and maybe even baiting you, but he at least seems to tacitly acknowledge error on his part. See my comments at User_talk:Locke_Cole#Blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your RfB

Hi Neil, sorry about your RfB not passing. I thought that, as you've never received one, you might like the admins' T-shirt. Better luck next time, and best wishes. Acalamari 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite difficult to pass RFBs, don't feel disheartened. My advice is to keep contributing and take on-board the comments made, I look forward to hopefully being able to support next time if you run again. Good luck! Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Move request merry-go-round

Hi, since you closed the move discussion "NVIDIA" -> "Nvidia" about a month ago, could you drop by Talk:Nvidia#Requested move 3 and review if there is any merit in a move request back to "NVIDIA" that soon? – Cyrus XIII 18:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I realized today that it's going to take another few weeks for anyone to look at Bertrand Russell for GA review, and further that having a GA under my belt really has very little influence on being an administrator, i.e., none. If you are still willing to nominate me for adminship, I feel I am ready for another RfA. Thanks. Hersfold 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Help me get this going!

I started a project I think you might be interested in. Seeing as it's detrimental to the Misplaced Pages project, I think the involvement of as many users as possible is essential. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:20, 9 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Not so much snidey...

...as referencey. Will 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Insulting the editor wasn't my objective. Bluntness, yes. I agree the reference was lost, my fault for not researching :/ Will 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

Neil, I know you missed out and that's crap, you'd make a splendid 'crat.. As I'm sure you know, my RfB was a success. I just wanted to say thanks for your support and I wanted to offer you my full support when you next head to the dead zone known as WP:RFB. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

Hallo Neil,

you've recently removed a neutrality template which I had added to an article as well as information from this article with the reason given

Problem solved - simply remove the mention if you can't decide on how to describe the awarding institute. Remove neutrality tempalte - the talk page doesn't explain why it's there

For the neutrality template: I believe that I've tried to explain why this article is currently not neutral (if it ever was) on the talk page, for example at Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas#Neutrality template. The concrete reason why I think the template should stay is that a user or group of other users, first under account user:Gancefort, and now under several IPs is trying to remove the mentioning of the birthdates and a critical review which I had (re-)added first here.

For the information about a prize: The purpose of wikipedia is to provide facts. I'm not sure how problems can be solved by silencing important facts. Further, if we remove facts which could turn out unpleasent for a certain point of view, then only the "pleasent" prizes would stay, and the article could become even more non-neutral.

Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Schwalker. Okay. Firstly, the neutrality template. See Misplaced Pages:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays. The birth date will not be re-added to the article, and if that's the reason for the neutrality template, it really should not be there.

This edit () is telling - you seem to want de Zayas labeled as a revisionist. Any such claim will need multiple very reliable sources. Such a notable figure's being a revisionist would not be confined to one cherry-picked review from an online discussion forum (), unless the claim was a nonsense.

This is also, I believe, why you want the award from the Ingolstadt Research Institute for Contemporary History included, and to describe them as a "far-right revisionist group". I can't find any evidence of this being the case. I find evidence of their being revisionist (eg ), but not "far right". You say "I'm not sure how problems can be solved by silencing important facts". The onus is upon you to show how the group is important and hence if their award deserves mention - do they have an article? A useful and typical cut-off point for whether awards should be included on an English Misplaced Pages biography is whether the awarding group has an article. 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC) (copied preceding contribution by User:Neil from my talk-page, --Schwalker (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for the fast response. I feel urged to clarify some points:

For the birthdates: Misplaced Pages:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays says: "Misplaced Pages includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people." Now Mr de Zayas has put a big effort on becoming a well-known person, his birthdates have been published in several papers (for example the "Ostpreußenblatt" according to other editors before me), so now I'm afraid he will have to carry this "burden" of his celebrity. I believe we can rule out identity-theft is his case. As far as I know, de Zayas has not complained at Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia Foundation so far because of the (re-)publication of birthdates, only anonymous IPs have tried to remove this piece of information.

"you seem to want de Zayas labeled as a revisionist." No, even if this was true, it is not relevant what I want. Not I, but the review is calling him a revisionist. Or to give an exact quote from the review: "De Zayas stellt sich damit in das Lager der Geschichtsrevisonisten, die 1986 den Anlass fuer den bundesdeutschen Historikerstreit lieferten", "De Zayas is siding with the history revisionists, who delivererd the occasion in 1986 for the Historikerstreit in Federal Germany".

The first sentence of the Misplaced Pages article on H-Net is misleading, it is not just an "online discussion forum". The Web-Site also has an important reviews-section. As far as I know it is the most renowned public Web-site for humanities and social sciences.

The Ingolstadt prize was allready in the article before I started editing it. On talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas#Ingolstadt Institute, I've mentioned and partly translated an account about the "Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle" from a German journal, which calls it far-right and revisionist. There also is an article de:Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt about the institute. The award for de Zayas had been noted in the German press, for example in the important FAZ-Feuilleton in December 2001.

Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: The Institute for Historical Review which you mention is a private club of Holocaust deniers itself, so I would not bee too surprised that their web-page doesn't call the Ingolstadt Institute far right and instead praises the Institute's conductor. --Schwalker (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ich habe geantwortet auf ihrer Benutzerdiskussionsseite. Neıl ☎ 10:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to your points on my talk page:

The birthday - nope, if it's bing removed, even by anonymous IPs, then it can stay out. A birthday adds very little to an article.
That quote says he "sided with the revisionists" on one occasion. It does not call him a revisionist.
If the H-net article is wrong, then find a number of reliable references describing it as anything more than an online discussion forum and change it. There are seven fairly solid references in the H-net article from diffierent sources, all of which describe it as an online forum or messageboard. While it is indeed a reputable forum, with a great deal of interest and subscription, it's also less subject to scrutiny or peer review than a journal or even a major newspaper of record.
I've addressed your point about the Ingolstadt institute on Talk:Alfred-Maurice de Zayas.
Re the addendum - I just picked a link at random describing them as "far right" - there weren't many. I couldn't find any describing them as revisionist. Neıl ☎ 10:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(preceding contribution by User:Neil copied from my talk-page, --Schwalker (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

Again, the policy says: ''Misplaced Pages includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, ". I don't think that IPs should simply overrule this sentence by deleting sourced information. Besides it is not just about the birthday but also the -place.
"sided with the revisionists" was my first coarse translation, more exact we could translate it as "De Zayas placed himself in the camp of those history revisionists, who ..." I think one occasion is enough, however there are other quotes from the review such as:

"Verdacht , dass es sich um ein geschichtsrevisionistisches Werk handelt", "suspicion, that 'A terrible revenge' is a history revisionist opus"

"allerdings ist der Grundtenor des Buches aehnlich revisionistisch gestimmt wie bei Publikationen dieser Interessenvertreter.", "the tenor of the book is tuned in a similar revisionist way as the publications of these representants "

"Es ueberrascht daher nicht, dass de Zayas 1987 in der zweiten Auflage der deutschen Version des rezensierten Buches anerkennende Worte fuer die revisionistischen Wortfuehrer des Historikerstreits fand." "it is not surprising that de Zayas found acknowledging words for the revisionist speakers in the Historikerstreit."

My proposal for the article had been "De Zayas has been accused of taking a revisionist point of view..." which too does not say that he is accused of being a revisionist but that he takes such kind of view.

I didn't say that the wikipedia-article H-Net is wrong, indeed further down it says: In addition to hosting listservs for specific academic disciplines, H-Net commissions book reviews . You will find that this review in question has been referred to approvingly by other H-Net reviewers. I think here the onus would be on those who want to keep it out of the de Zayas article to prove the claim that the review is indeed wrong or unreliable.
For the Ingolstadt institute I'll answer on the article's talk page.
I believe you that you've picked a link at random. But isn't it rather the other way around (and as you had said it in the message before), that the IHR describes the Ingolstadt institute as revisionist but not as far right?

Greeting --Schwalker (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Have answered at User talk:Schwalker#Alfred-Maurice de Zayas. --Schwalker (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Neil, can you please have a look on this article again. IPs and Users are deleting the birthday date and place which was published in different sources in Germany. If I would now start to edit and revert that again, this would end in an edit war. Kind regards --KarlV (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Neil, KarlV has evidently something against de Zayas. If you look at the German Wiki article and the archived sections, you will see that he has some one hundred entries, all of them pretending to suggest that de Zayas is a right winger (notwithstanding the fact that de Zayas is member of many left-wing and left-leaning organizations, as can be seen in his private website). KarlV has been caught with his pants down citing wrong sources. For instance, with regard to the book "Wehrmacht Untersuchungsstelle", he pretends that it has been disproven by scholars (notwithstanding the fact that the book was brilliantly reviewed by Christopher Greenwood in the Cambridge Law Journal, by Andreas Hillgruber in the Historische Zeitschrift, and that it is currently being used by the International Committee of the Red Cross in its trainings on international humanitarian law). When you look at the source proferred by KarlV, you find out that it is a single footnote in an article about something else (written by Juergen Wieland, a former prosecutor in the German Democratic Republic, and certainly not a "scholar", but a political activist in the "antifa" movement). Now, the footnote by Wieland refers to three sources. If you look at those three sources, you discover that they do not mention "Wehrmacht Untersuchungsstelle" at all, or de Zayas, or his methodology. Only one of the sources mentions a book review that de Zayas wrote in the 1970s in the American Journal of International Law. Still, KarlV and another fellow called Giro have managed to keep that wrong information in the German Wiki article, which is currently "gesperrt". Countless Wiki-Users have corrected KarlV and Giro, and yet they do not give up. Such Wiki-Users should be permanently blocked from meddling with Wiki. Evidently they have a political agenda. It is rather disingenous of KarlV to point out that he is only adding place and date of birth. If you look at his sources, you realize that they are rather obscure and not in the "public domain" in the sense of generally available information. It is not important to divulge the complete date of birth of an individual. Nor for that matter the place of birth. If you look at the "bios" that appear in any of de Zayas' books -- Nemesis at Potsdam (Routledge), the German expellees (Macmillan), A Terrible Revenge (St. Martin's Press), The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau (University of Nebraska Press), Heimatrecht ist Menschenrecht (Universitas), Human Rights in the Administration of Criminal Justice (Transnational Publishers), Rainer Maria Rilke: Larenopfer (Red Hen Press, Los Angeles), etc. etc. you will not find this information. In the Gernman wiki KarlV pretends that de Zayas is the great-grandson of Alfredo de Zayas y Alfonso, Cuba's fourth republican President. Now, who cares who his great-grandfather was or wasn't? The addition of this information is probably only intended to suggest that the books of de Zayas are somehow not neutral because of his family background. This information, if correct, could of course be included in the Wiki. But it is certainly not particularly important, nor is it crucial to put it at the very top of the article. Another Wiki user, Schwalker, keeps taking out the comments of other Wiki users (just look at the history, how often he undoes the work of others). Schwalker seems obsessed with citing "Blick nach Rechts", a left-wing fringe organisation today associated with the Social Democratic Party of Germany and notorious for defaming CDU and CSU politicians. It is a muckraking outfit that tries to suggest that CDU and CSU parlamentarians have a "Nazi past" -- and it monitors any statement that does not conform with extreme left wing perspectives on history or current affairs. Wiki users in Great Britain, Ireland, US have no clue that this Blick nach Rechts was founded and financed with monies from the "Stasi" the secret service of the German Democratic Republic (remenmber the 2007 film "Das Leben der Anderen" on the life of a Stasi agent, which got the Oscar for best foreign film) and that even today BNR gives you links to all sorts of extreme left wing organizations in Germany and Austria. Information that appears in Blick nach Rechts is certainly not for the Wiki, except to illustrate the manipulations of media in public discourse. But Schwalker does not claim that BNR directly attacks de Zayas. He notes that BNR attacks the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle, a conservative think tank in Germany, which gave an award to de Zayas in 2001. Thus, indirectly, if the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle is defamed, some of the dirt passes on to de Zayas. Maybe you should consider blocking Schwalker for a while, especially for his repeated erasing of other users' contributions. A reader from Ireland 84.203.178.18 (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

(thanks template expunged to User talk:Neil/RFA spam)

Ah, us two of the unpopular opinions! Maybe next time around? :) ~ Riana ⁂ 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe for you. Probably not for me. (sad face) Neıl ☎ 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

Neil, I read this post of yours on George's talk page about the Mackan block. In it you note an apology, which I have yet to see. Would you please tell me where this apology has been made? Thanks, Jay*Jay (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oof, you're right - he said "I apologize for making mistakes", not "I apologize for making a mistake", implying he still doesn't believe this was a mistake. I will append my comment appropriately. Neıl ☎ 12:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - a fair amount of the response to this block goes to GWH continuing to push even after the unblock (which he critised). The fact that Mackan felt it necessary to reveal his identity to Alison and prove his innocence is completely unacceptable, in my opinion, and George has a lot of explaining to do. Jay*Jay (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blood Electrification deletion

Hey Neil. I can't find a reason for the deletion of the Blood Electrification article, performed by you on Dec 21st, 2007. I can't find a reason for deletion, and, strangely enough, it can't find it on the Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 21. What happened ?

If possible, can you reply via e-mail to gusmolina at gmail.com ?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusmolina (talk • contribs) 06:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Blood electrification (2nd nomination). Neıl ☎ 17:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jordans, Buckinghamshire

Please can you unlock your move lock on Jordans, Buckinghamshire. If you do I give you my word as a trusted editor that I will not move it to Jordans which was the basis of the dispute. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Then where are you planning to move it? Neıl ☎ 11:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere unacceptable, if at all. Why would you question me on this. The point is that if there is no dispute it shouldnt be locked and when is ay there is no dispute you should trust me. Trying to avoid a request on WP:RPP and hoping you will respond positively and in good faith. . Thanks, SqueakBox 02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The page isn't locked - it's move-protected to prevent further move-warring (, . Considering you were half-responsible for the move-warring (making 2 of the 4 moves), I can only presume you want it unprotected to move it. Where are you planning to move it? Neıl ☎ 08:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it really any of your business? 195.104.240.7 (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it any of yours? Neıl ☎ 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the move protection I am requesting be unlocked, and because the move-warring dispute is over, not for any other reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The move warring had to end, as the article was move-protected. Unless there's a good reason to remove the move-protection, I don't see the point of removing it, other than enabling further move-warring. Neıl ☎ 14:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Minghella

It seems that there are a lot of references missing and that those which are there are in various formats. Help! : )--Beth Wellington (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support :-). I'd rather not have any of my map contributions on Misplaced Pages anymore. I genuinely wish to have them removed. I went into the IRC chat room after being more confused after reading the articles on deletion. A couple of users said placing Db-g7 on there would do the job. Apparently not though since Bibliomaniac15 removed my request for deletion with no reason or explanation given whatsoever. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. Justin Morris 14:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you would not like them. Neıl ☎ 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hacking report

Sorry, no idea what this is about. Neıl ☎ 12:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello admin, This is a report on serious hacking, as seen of here: NOTE! Anyone taking on this job here must spend the time researching and grappling with this extremely important and complex subject and the rat's nest now left by contentious kacking editors. This deals with the emergence of the first real line of self-replicator nanotechnology entities. This subject deals with very high technology (the highest there is) and various political groups such as the ELF and the like are working in the background to sabotage it so political neutrality is a must and intramural political university connections must not be an issue with admin. It would be best if admin is versed on hacking as such has occurred both in Misplaced Pages space and outside in tandem, singularly and in groups (both of which I consider hacking and hacking tactical activity associated with it). I have encountered vast and repeated attacks ever since I was written into the article Self-replicating machine (F-Units within) both inside and outside it and in fact had my personal MySpace site immediately deleted by hackers when linked to the F-Unit article. My name is Charles Michael Collins (former username Fraberj). I came to Misplaced Pages several months ago to defend my honor as a nanotechnology self-replicator scientist encountering biographical and copyright attacks which was being used as a cover in Misplaced Pages to having my innovations stolen by these NASA's two top scientists as seen here: Certain actions have been taken upon the above aspects portrayed as "ownership" see here: I strongly contest this and the blocks as "punishment" for my fighting back or allegations of "promoting" as the article is clearly about me (biography), been voted in solidly by other experts months ago (the just deleted favorable one) after literally hundreds of talk pages and if inaccuracies and copyright infringements are there it is not "ownership" or "promoting" to fight to have them removed. Such is the case particularly when I am the only expert upon this important subject that is an expert that exists anywhere (such goes on and Misplaced Pages seems to have no policy to accommodate sole experts writing on highly complex historical subjects shrouded in trade secrets) and it is too complex to be written by anyone else, though some have tried and failed and this is far too important an article to just delete it if written only by myself and no other cares to. Nonetheless the F-Unit article is not now authored by me as it exists now and all wrong which is highly scandalous and was voted in previously in proper order. Further, I did not start the general self-replicating machine article but I am intrinsically involved in all aspects of it because large amounts of stealing, patent/copyright infringements and Scientific misconduct exist amongst other scientists portrayed therein who clearly are my competitors directed at me. This makes it difficult for Misplaced Pages editors who are GNU friendly to write an unbiased article on F-Units. A debunk of this rat's nest of lies (which includes copyright infringements) written by myself can be seen here (mandatory reading before going further here): Further, my technology is being stolen by Cornell University, also set forth in that above stated debunk site. No editor seeing these attacks seems to have been able to observe that these attacks consisted of nothing but generalities and innuendos (which is outrageous for people calling themselves "editors"). These attacks come many years after the device was made which is patently unfair and highly specious. A working prototype of the self-replicator was presented to the patent office for patenting way back in 1998. Records exist of this in the file records at the patent office (AKA: file wrapper) and it is impossible to reproduce the experiments today due to the huge costs involved. All these facts have been made clear many times through pictures, documents and my personal statements and vouched for by experts editing herein and elsewhere. Such has been continuously ignored and ridiculed by shallow arrogant editors here at Misplaced Pages who are clearly my competitors and hacking was clearly used. I take this very seriously. I also consider the deceptions and other secondary actions to be set forth herein as part of the hacking activity as such was launched in tandem and coordinated with the hacks. Such was the actions by these miscreants, only after my linking of the F-Units article to my PCT world patent filings stirred up these overseas editors, clearly competitors even though early votes had a favorable article of the device posted to that effect and settled twice once for about four months and was written up with majority rule and pictures were presented of the device as well including reams of specification documents and diagrams and witness testimony presented to William R. Buckley, the only expert I've encountered here who favored the article three times in the talk at the Self-replicating machine article as seen here: and: and: Also note that during this discussion Buckley also agreed with me and fought with me against other editors that we found were not in possession of enough technical training in the least for doing this extremely complex and intricate article and later such type absurd editors ended up destroying the above article. Now it is a absurd mess. Of late, four contentious editors in particular (most from overseas to the United States): Yamla, RHaworth, Bobprime, FrankTobia... two of them seeming seasoned experienced editors (RHaworth and Yalma) working together as a malicious tactical unit with the other two (which I protest as gaming and bad faith, particularly when deliberately organized anonymously employing hacking and lies). RHaworth admittedly only has up to DOS programming experience and continues to viciously foist himself upon the project as an expert somehow (see his site admitting to this said experience gap but talks of "hacking about" on his userpage and further posts threatening unkempt inappropriate photos and talks of admitted and enjoyment of repeated newbie biting and displays general hostile attitudes in his diction and elocution in communicating therein. Bobprime and FrankTobia pretended to be working with me to improve and develop the F-Unit article of late (like good cops) when immediately thereafter, before it was even well started with all editors mediating in talk, RHaworth (as bad cop,later working with Yamla) swooped down without any prior discussion and Yamla did the deletions behind the scenes (Yamla and RHayworth have never discussed anything with me ever) ...deleting the favorable article on me in its entirety without warning or talk whatsoever and leaving a contentious stub libeling me and the existence of the device and instantly thereafter entering into trolling tactics to get me blocked when I reacted to the tactics such as harassing me into reporting them to the police for hacking which occurred, see my earliest comments before I ever knew of RHaworth or Yamla: . I've worked all my life on this technology, well known, though work in trade secret after having previous patented technology stolen and saying such a ridiculous, highly inflammatory and contentious thing as is in the article now is like saying Edison didn't invent the light bulb. It's radically crazy! It gets complicated from there as I'm certain they seem to have devised it that way as quickly all favorable editors to my side got blocked including any new ones along with myself for "self promotion" which I bitterly deny and protest (I'm fighting a biographical attack and copyright infringements not just "self promotion" a fact which seems to be absolutely ignored without discussion by this cabal). After blocking (said to be temporarily) when my unsigned IP anonymous connection came back up unblocked I began to edit again thinking it was OK to do as it was blocked separately to my sign-in connection and I was threatened thereafter by Yamla via email to have my ISP nefariously informed on if I edit at all for that after a now permanent block (for "editing past a block"). All this before giving me any time to write up my side of the story to other admins on anything(they occupied me by forcing me to quickly put a site linked to F-Units and deleted it when launched during construction commenting on its "incompleteness") after my user page was as well totally deleted and all the talk for several weeks was deleted to cover their tracks: while at the same time blocking me and friendly editors even in the talk section: While Yamla worked the talk pages RHaworth worked deleting friendly edits and blocked the article itself: and: These were sudden, mass deletions and actions planned far ahead of time I believe and done with no discussions with me or anyone open in the talks but behind the scenes discussions with Boprime and FrankTobia on RHaworth's userpage talk section: Notice, in bad faith Bobprime writes: "I was moving the full article out of self-replicating machine as part of a dispute with its author/inventor there simply to improve a more important article first by removing all of that text. The whole thing is pending a rewrite once I get time and at least this way the text is not visible to anyone who does not search for it directly. I could not think of any way to resolve the dispute between Fraberj (the inventor) and a large number of Misplaced Pages editors. It seemed better than the perpetual revert war that was happening." He and FrankTobia had no good faith interest in doing any F-unit article on the most important event since the dawn of time and now I get a hacked up sliver while imbeciles like Britney Spears get page upon page. It is high time literary people in the media get their priorities in line and stop this mad discrepancy right here and now! The massive number of editors and any new editors are now being blocked by Yamla and RHaworth alone indefinitely and were voting my article up, and the other two "good cop" editors never finished the article as promised me as well, of course and I am blocked as a "vandal for everything but the kitchen sink. What a joke. What absolute imbeciles. Don't let the nice code talk between Bobprime/FrankTobia to RHaworth fool you into thinking they were good faith editing because note they were just pretending to "start small" and "add to" the article later (that, in bad faith never happened and was never intended but just a ruse)...baiting me the newbie to place the article outside the Self-Replicating machine article space where it would be quickly deleted by unscientific, unfamiliar and unfriendly editors who didn't have a semblance of a clue as to what was going on: and: They proposed an article with consensus wherein my complaints were voiced (but never to come about): They even deleted it completely for several days and tried to get away with it: Pretended to be against the "vandalism" when planning themselves to do same later (IE: trolling in the classical sense): Any good faith editing I did with talk and consensus was called "vandalism" even when not in the article about me (which article now has no comments of my quotes of my side of the story which is highly non-neutral point of view editing). Anything I write is deleted instantly, even syntax changes even after others support it with talk and my reverts are called "vandalism" as well as the other editor's reverts against them. Then things get really crazy as I encounter RHaworth's vandalism track it back to his user page and see his weird threatening face, clearly to scare and talk of hacking on his userpage: Rhaworth and when I report it to Yamla (as they clearly wanted me to do to set me up) she lies and says she does not see it (obviously working with him), see her email (Feb 27, 2008) text to me after I report it to her here: "Although you claim that RHaworth has a rude picture on his userpage, I can find no such rude picture there. Additionally, I simply do not understand why you claim he is a hacker" I'll send you screen capture of this email if wanted as I sent such to my ISP that she threatened to have turned off in another email and in still another blocked me for calling police on the hacker activity calling the call "legal threats". Later they attacked my own Geocities site, deleting it as I was just starting to construct it (as agreed) to keep me busy and to harass me. History and existing talk on this appears to be deleted, undelete these deleted huge sections and I'll provide the diff; As well, the accusations by RHaworth that I was a "coward" for editing anonymously when my sign in simply failed, and the war it caused afterwards has been totally deleted to cover tracks as well. These are mass deletions of talk page and article texts by two very hostile and contentious unilateral editors Yamla and RHaworth with no open talk who have zero apparent technical expertise in this highly technical and important subject. Note another editor named Populos poped up and, without any talk wrote a similar contentious snippet with rude sanctimonious comments of "self serving", mass deleting the old full article as well but was reverted as vandalism by another editor but should be noted herein as a contentious action: As a tactic to trip me up (amongst the volumes and volumes of other machinations) they suddenly started posting notes on my user pages talk section for the first time at a critical juncture of new article creation (where they knew as a newbie I might miss it as it does not show in history of the article as a disconcerting action): These vandals have called me the vandal and have deleted all the editing of other editors editing in my favor accusing them of being me because they live near me and have similar IPs (people at several local papers here are aware of this story, including the editor of Potomac News who may be editing and band experts as I am a well known lead guitarist on the side from my scientific work). They are conveniently jumping to conclusions on all this and have warded off all my friendly editors to my side as well after vilifying me on line. The furious contention going on now for six months is about this single line: "To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed" in the F-Units article... as working models existed in this older technology back in 1998 which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to reproduce again today which is not going to happen just to give Misplaced Pages editors that can't read documents proof due to costs needed to do so. We are maintaining trade secret with all of our present work due to these attacks and cannot release any new work. That is no reason to ignore the past evidence which has been provided in reams to experts and jump to the extreme conclusion that no self-replicator has ever been constructed. No editor at Misplaced Pages has any proof to substantiate such a lie and I demand right now that that contentious line put in there by hacker RHayworth be removed immediately and the copyright infringing book "Kinematic Self-replicating Machines" be removed and all derogatory links to me as well of it and my fair side of the story be told in F-Units as it is not at all' now. Further, what is this? All my other competitors admit to having no self-replicator at all and no such assertions have been made upon their work. Total bias, bad faith vandalistic editing and all I get is a stub while others get far more who have done nothing but steal my ideas like Ardian Bowyer's "ReRap", NIAC, Cornell and Frietas and Merkle. It is my hardened opinion that simply stupid editors be identified if over active like this and be blocked from high science articles and that only seasoned experts known to be neutral edit such important articles or the results will be trash as it is right now. Note that these stupid editors fight for their rights to edit even when they know nothing of the technology at all: Remove that line "To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed" in F-Units or let me do it because it is untrue and Misplaced Pages has no proof otherwise to such a contentious lie (and unblock and restore my account and userpage and ban Yalma and RHaworth and warn the other two against vandalizing the Self-Replicating machine page and F-Units). If discussions over this line replacement and its form and context etc. is needed so be it. That's what the talk pages are for. This fast track mind set on something this important is something that must stop. I don't mind the short article if it will stop the fighting but Adrian Bowyers has huge articles all over the place in Misplaced Pages and steals my ideas and has no "self-replicating machine" and admits it. It should be in the "Rapid prototyping" article not here. This is ignored without comment because he is an open sourcer. It's just plain bias with this. Note that I have been reverted on everything I have ever edited in this article by these four short of the fiction section (even articles not about me) and I am the only real expert in self-replicating technology editing here on the page even though I am a newbie at it. This screams of bias. Further, RHayworth has been warned about "biting newbies" before or so he says and seems to relish it as some sort of sport or personal attribute, see here: and: ). This is absurd to the nth degree. It really is, every time a consensus comes to pass on a favorable article about me personally or with my side of the story bias editors swoop in tactically and scammed it out with highly contentious editing tactics incorporating gaming of the rules and now hacking. It stinks to high heaven. The main problem is a continual lack of intelligent neutral editors here and many are extremely antagonistic to this article and technology (note ELF are my rabid enemies). If they know not what they edit or are highly partisan they should not edit. Further, if they do wholesale contentious deletions while instituting group organized ploys Incorporated together and say nothing in talk to mediate they should be blocked (like RHaworth and Yalma have, working with the others Bobprime and FrankTobia). Charles Michael Collins (Former username: Fraberj). 71.114.14.20 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what this is about. Neıl ☎ 12:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello admin,

This is a report on serious hacking, as seen of here:

NOTE! Anyone taking on this job here must spend the time researching and grappling with this extremely important and complex subject and the rat's nest now left by contentious kacking editors. This deals with the emergence of the first real line of self-replicator nanotechnology entities. This subject deals with very high technology (the highest there is) and various political groups such as the ELF and the like are working in the background to sabotage it so political neutrality is a must and intramural political university connections must not be an issue with admin. It would be best if admin is versed on hacking as such has occurred both in Misplaced Pages space and outside in tandem, singularly and in groups (both of which I consider hacking and hacking tactical activity associated with it). I have encountered vast and repeated attacks ever since I was written into the article Self-replicating machine (F-Units within) both inside and outside it and in fact had my personal MySpace site immediately deleted by hackers when linked to the F-Unit article.

My name is Charles Michael Collins (former username Fraberj). I came to Misplaced Pages several months ago to defend my honor as a nanotechnology self-replicator scientist encountering biographical and copyright attacks which was being used as a cover in Misplaced Pages to having my innovations stolen by these NASA's two top scientists as seen here:

Certain actions have been taken upon the above aspects portrayed as "ownership" see here:

I strongly contest this and the blocks as "punishment" for my fighting back or allegations of "promoting" as the article is clearly about me (biography), been voted in solidly by other experts months ago (the just deleted favorable one) after literally hundreds of talk pages and if inaccuracies and copyright infringements are there it is not "ownership" or "promoting" to fight to have them removed. Such is the case particularly when I am the only expert upon this important subject that is an expert that exists anywhere (such goes on and Misplaced Pages seems to have no policy to accommodate sole experts writing on highly complex historical subjects shrouded in trade secrets) and it is too complex to be written by anyone else, though some have tried and failed and this is far too important an article to just delete it if written only by myself and no other cares to.

Nonetheless the F-Unit article is not now authored by me as it exists now and all wrong which is highly scandalous and was voted in previously in proper order. Further, I did not start the general self-replicating machine article but I am intrinsically involved in all aspects of it because large amounts of stealing, patent/copyright infringements and Scientific misconduct exist amongst other scientists portrayed therein who clearly are my competitors directed at me. This makes it difficult for Misplaced Pages editors who are GNU friendly to write an unbiased article on F-Units.

A debunk of this rat's nest of lies (which includes copyright infringements) written by myself can be seen here (mandatory reading before going further here):

Further, my technology is being stolen by Cornell University, also set forth in that above stated debunk site. No editor seeing these attacks seems to have been able to observe that these attacks consisted of nothing but generalities and innuendos (which is outrageous for people calling themselves "editors"). These attacks come many years after the device was made which is patently unfair and highly specious.

A working prototype of the self-replicator was presented to the patent office for patenting way back in 1998. Records exist of this in the file records at the patent office (AKA: file wrapper) and it is impossible to reproduce the experiments today due to the huge costs involved.

All these facts have been made clear many times through pictures, documents and my personal statements and vouched for by experts editing herein and elsewhere. Such has been continuously ignored and ridiculed by shallow arrogant editors here at Misplaced Pages who are clearly my competitors and hacking was clearly used. I take this very seriously. I also consider the deceptions and other secondary actions to be set forth herein as part of the hacking activity as such was launched in tandem and coordinated with the hacks.

Such was the actions by these miscreants, only after my linking of the F-Units article to my PCT world patent filings stirred up these overseas editors, clearly competitors even though early votes had a favorable article of the device posted to that effect and settled twice once for about four months and was written up with majority rule and pictures were presented of the device as well including reams of specification documents and diagrams and witness testimony presented to William R. Buckley, the only expert I've encountered here who favored the article three times in the talk at the Self-replicating machine article as seen here:

and:

Also note that during this discussion Buckley also agreed with me and fought with me against other editors that we found were not in possession of enough technical training in the least for doing this extremely complex and intricate article and later such type absurd editors ended up destroying the above article. Now it is a absurd mess.

Of late, four contentious editors in particular (most from overseas to the United States): Yamla, RHaworth, Bobprime, FrankTobia... two of them seeming seasoned experienced editors (RHaworth and Yalma) working together as a malicious tactical unit with the other two (which I protest as gaming and bad faith, particularly when deliberately organized anonymously employing hacking and lies). RHaworth admittedly only has up to DOS programming experience and continues to viciously foist himself upon the project as an expert somehow (see his site admitting to this said experience gap but talks of "hacking about" on his userpage and further posts threatening unkempt inappropriate photos and talks of admitted and enjoyment of repeated newbie biting and displays general hostile attitudes in his diction and elocution in communicating therein.

Bobprime and FrankTobia pretended to be working with me to improve and develop the F-Unit article of late (like good cops) when immediately thereafter, before it was even well started with all editors mediating in talk, RHaworth (as bad cop,later working with Yamla) swooped down without any prior discussion and Yamla did the deletions behind the scenes (Yamla and RHayworth have never discussed anything with me ever) ...deleting the favorable article on me in its entirety without warning or talk whatsoever and leaving a contentious stub libeling me and the existence of the device and instantly thereafter entering into trolling tactics to get me blocked when I reacted to the tactics such as harassing me into reporting them to the police for hacking which occurred, see my earliest comments before I ever knew of RHaworth or Yamla:

I've worked all my life on this technology, well known, though work in trade secret after having previous patented technology stolen and saying such a ridiculous, highly inflammatory and contentious thing as is in the article now is like saying Edison didn't invent the light bulb.

It's radically crazy!

It gets complicated from there as I'm certain they seem to have devised it that way as quickly all favorable editors to my side got blocked including any new ones along with myself for "self promotion" which I bitterly deny and protest (I'm fighting a biographical attack and copyright infringements not just "self promotion" a fact which seems to be absolutely ignored without discussion by this cabal). After blocking (said to be temporarily) when my unsigned IP anonymous connection came back up unblocked I began to edit again thinking it was OK to do as it was blocked separately to my sign-in connection and I was threatened thereafter by Yamla via email to have my ISP nefariously informed on if I edit at all for that after a now permanent block (for "editing past a block"). All this before giving me any time to write up my side of the story to other admins on anything(they occupied me by forcing me to quickly put a site linked to F-Units and deleted it when launched during construction commenting on its "incompleteness") after my user page was as well totally deleted and all the talk for several weeks was deleted to cover their tracks:

while at the same time blocking me and friendly editors even in the talk section:

While Yamla worked the talk pages RHaworth worked deleting friendly edits and blocked the

article itself:

and:

These were sudden, mass deletions and actions planned far ahead of time I believe and done with no discussions with me or anyone open in the talks but behind the scenes discussions with Boprime and FrankTobia on RHaworth's userpage talk section:

Notice, in bad faith Bobprime writes:

"I was moving the full article out of self-replicating machine as part of a dispute with its author/inventor there simply to improve a more important article first by removing all of that text. The whole thing is pending a rewrite once I get time and at least this way the text is not visible to anyone who does not search for it directly. I could not think of any way to resolve the dispute between Fraberj (the inventor) and a large number of Misplaced Pages editors. It seemed better than the perpetual revert war that was happening."

He and FrankTobia had no good faith interest in doing any F-unit article on the most important event since the dawn of time and now I get a hacked up sliver while imbeciles like Britney Spears get page upon page. It is high time literary people in the media get their priorities in line and stop this mad discrepancy right here and now!

The massive number of editors and any new editors are now being blocked by Yamla and RHaworth alone indefinitely and were voting my article up, and the other two "good cop" editors never finished the article as promised me as well, of course and I am blocked as a "vandal for everything but the kitchen sink. What a joke. What absolute imbeciles.

Don't let the nice code talk between Bobprime/FrankTobia to RHaworth fool you into thinking they were good faith editing because note they were just pretending to "start small" and "add to" the article later (that, in bad faith never happened and was never intended but just a ruse)...baiting me the newbie to place the article outside the Self-Replicating machine article space where it would be quickly deleted by unscientific, unfamiliar and unfriendly editors who didn't have a semblance of a clue as to what was going on:

and:

They proposed an article with consensus wherein my complaints were voiced (but never to come

about):

They even deleted it completely for several days and tried to get away with it:

Pretended to be against the "vandalism" when planning themselves to do same later (IE:

trolling in the classical sense):

Any good faith editing I did with talk and consensus was called "vandalism" even when not in the article about me (which article now has no comments of my quotes of my side of the story which is highly non-neutral point of view editing). Anything I write is deleted instantly, even syntax changes even after others support it with talk and my reverts are called "vandalism" as well as the other editor's reverts against them.

Then things get really crazy as I encounter RHaworth's vandalism track it back to his user page and see his weird threatening face, clearly to scare and talk of hacking on his userpage: Rhaworth and when I report it to Yamla (as they clearly wanted me to do to set me up) she lies and says she does not see it (obviously working with him), see her email (Feb 27, 2008) text to me after I report it to her here:

"Although you claim that RHaworth has a rude picture on his userpage, I can find no such rude picture there. Additionally, I simply do not understand why you claim he is a hacker" I'll send you screen capture of this email if wanted as I sent such to my ISP that she threatened to have turned off in another email and in still another blocked me for calling police on the hacker activity calling the call "legal threats".

Later they attacked my own Geocities site, deleting it as I was just starting to construct it (as agreed) to keep me busy and to harass me. History and existing talk on this appears to be deleted, undelete these deleted huge sections and I'll provide the diff; As well, the accusations by RHaworth that I was a "coward" for editing anonymously when my sign in simply failed, and the war it caused afterwards has been totally deleted to cover tracks as well. These are mass deletions of talk page and article texts by two very hostile and contentious unilateral editors Yamla and RHaworth with no open talk who have zero apparent technical expertise in this highly technical and important subject. Note another editor named Populos poped up and, without any talk wrote a similar contentious snippet with rude sanctimonious comments of "self serving", mass deleting the old full article as well but was reverted as vandalism by another editor but should be noted herein as a contentious action:

As a tactic to trip me up (amongst the volumes and volumes of other machinations) they suddenly started posting notes on my user pages talk section for the first time at a critical juncture of new article creation (where they knew as a newbie I might miss it as it does not show in history of the article as a disconcerting action):

These vandals have called me the vandal and have deleted all the editing of other editors editing in my favor accusing them of being me because they live near me and have similar IPs (people at several local papers here are aware of this story, including the editor of Potomac News who may be editing and band experts as I am a well known lead guitarist on the side from my scientific work). They are conveniently jumping to conclusions on all this and have warded off all my friendly editors to my side as well after vilifying me on line.

The furious contention going on now for six months is about this single line: "To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed" in the F-Units article... as working models existed in this older technology back in 1998 which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to reproduce again today which is not going to happen just to give Misplaced Pages editors that can't read documents proof due to costs needed to do so. We are maintaining trade secret with all of our present work due to these attacks and cannot release any new work. That is no reason to ignore the past evidence which has been provided in reams to experts and jump to the extreme conclusion that no self-replicator has ever been constructed.

No editor at Misplaced Pages has any proof to substantiate such a lie and I demand right now that that contentious line put in there by hacker RHayworth be removed immediately and the copyright infringing book "Kinematic Self-replicating Machines" be removed and all derogatory links to me as well of it and my fair side of the story be told in F-Units as it is not at all' now. Further, what is this? All my other competitors admit to having no self-replicator at all and no such assertions have been made upon their work. Total bias, bad faith vandalistic editing and all I get is a stub while others get far more who have done nothing but steal my ideas like Ardian Bowyer's "ReRap", NIAC, Cornell and Frietas and Merkle. It is my hardened opinion that simply stupid editors be identified if over active like this and be blocked from high science articles and that only seasoned experts known to be neutral edit such important articles or the results will be trash as it is right now. Note that these stupid editors fight for their rights to edit even when they know nothing of the technology at all:

Remove that line "To date, no working examples of such devices have been constructed" in F-Units or let me do it because it is untrue and Misplaced Pages has no proof otherwise to such a contentious lie (and unblock and restore my account and userpage and ban Yalma and RHaworth and warn the other two against vandalizing the Self-Replicating machine page and F-Units). If discussions over this line replacement and its form and context etc. is needed so be it. That's what the talk pages are for. This fast track mind set on something this important is something that must stop.

I don't mind the short article if it will stop the fighting but Adrian Bowyers has huge articles all over the place in Misplaced Pages and steals my ideas and has no "self-replicating machine" and admits it. It should be in the "Rapid prototyping" article not here. This is ignored without comment because he is an open sourcer. It's just plain bias with this.

Note that I have been reverted on everything I have ever edited in this article by these four short of the fiction section (even articles not about me) and I am the only real expert in self-replicating technology editing here on the page even though I am a newbie at it. This screams of bias. Further, RHayworth has been warned about "biting newbies" before or so he says and seems to relish it as some sort of sport or personal attribute, see here:

and:

This is absurd to the nth degree. It really is, every time a consensus comes to pass on a favorable article about me personally or with my side of the story bias editors swoop in tactically and scammed it out with highly contentious editing tactics incorporating gaming of the rules and now hacking. It stinks to high heaven. The main problem is a continual lack of intelligent neutral editors here and many are extremely antagonistic to this article and technology (note ELF are my rabid enemies). If they know not what they edit or are highly partisan they should not edit. Further, if they do wholesale contentious deletions while instituting group organized ploys Incorporated together and say nothing in talk to mediate they should be blocked (like RHaworth and Yalma have, working with the others Bobprime and FrankTobia).

Charles Michael Collins (Former username: Fraberj). 71.114.14.20 (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional reading on Liberalism

Hey Neil

I thought that was an elegant closing rationale you used to close this AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Additional reading on Liberalism and also a good way to handle the article. I had it watchlisted as I had intended to !vote in that AfD, but got backlogged. Nice job. If we are going to rant about what we think are poor admin actions, then we should also point out the particularly good ones also. Regards, — Becksguy (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Neıl ☎ 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note, not sure if it has any bearing on anything. The article lived there once before and got moved back. Also, in the process of the nomination, because the author kept removing the AfD notice he was banned. (Permanently, which I personally thought was very heavy-handed. A one week block would have made more sense.) You might consider removing his ban since otherwise the chances of anyone else working on the article are slim. Scott.wheeler (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Who was the user who was banned? Let me know and I'll take a look. Neıl ☎ 20:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Rubbersoul20 was the blocked user and author of the bibliography. While I personally am not a fan of the bibliographies, and he was annoying in removing the AfD notice repeatedly, I feel like a permanent block was over the top. Scott.wheeler (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly was, given nobody actually even tried to point the user towards the relevant policy. Thanks for letting me know. I've removed the block on Rubbersoul20, although I will reinstate it if he starts messing about with the sub-article's location again. Neıl ☎ 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking the user. I had second thoughts myself. Though in my defence, I had originally given him/her a 15 min block plus an escalating series of warnings. When an IP account threatened to carry on the behaviour using 300 possible IP addresses. I had enough. Thank you for closing the AfD and re-instating the user. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys are rather forgiving, I think. A threat to misbehave with 300 IP addresses seems worthy of an longish block for that alone. Although not for the bibliography, and the unblocking for that seems fair based on rationale. Regards — Becksguy (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

an article I feel has a hint of copyvio and ad-ishness

Please could you take a look at my comments on Talk:Alfred_P._Sloan_Foundation? special, random, Merkinsmum 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From out of the Rain

If you've read the discussion, then you'd notice that I was part of the discussion. No concensus had been reached. So unless you can prove your point of view, other than by "it looks right", I will stick to my point of view, which I have written about on the discussion page. To reiterate, the question revolves around "From out of the Rain", where the object is "Rain" vs "From Out of the Rain", where the object is "Out of the Rain". Within the context of the episode, the line that refers to the title is "They came from out of the rain", where the sentence breaks down as "They came ." DonQuixote (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You continue to be wholly wrong, but I've realised arguing whether it should be an "O" or an "o" is lame, and I've lost interest. Neıl ☎ 12:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked at WP:RPP for semi-protection of de Zayas' Talk page

Happy to let you handle this one, if it sounds to you that any action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ed - I don't think any action is needed, there seems to be a confusion over what construes a "personal attack". Neıl ☎ 13:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange Edit War

A group of editors have developed a version of an article that meets all Misplaced Pages policies and standards. However, one editor keeps on reverting it to a version that he wrote months ago and refuses to discuss his changes on the talk page. One group says that the other group are "sockpuppets." The other group says that the first group are "meatpuppets." Why can't someone read both articles a pick one article as a starting point from which to make further improvements? Please help. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how I got sucked into this article in the first place, but Dane Rauschenberg has to be the target of the most bizarre set of sockpuppetry I have ever seen, most of it aimed at including false and defamatory information regarding the subject. User:207.91.86.2 was part of one of the newer batches of sockpuppets, and his identity as a sockpuppet was confirmed at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket. After being outed, User:Racepacket created User:Runreston, also confirmed as a sockpuppet, and also blocked permanently. As soone as Runreston was blocked, Racepacket came out with a new set of IP addresses disrupting the article. There are no alternative "groups" here; There is a stable article and a single individual and his sockpuppets who have a monomaniacal obsession with this one individual and this one article, devoting well over 90% of edits to this one person. While I am working on documenting a new sockpuppet request for the latest crew of abusers, can you recommend any means to prevent further abuse, such as protecting the Dane Rauschenberg article from edits by IP addresses and new users? Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)