Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:50, 2 June 2006

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, vfd comments

Katefan0

It looks like Katefan0 has left wikipedia, because of this It's a sad day for wikipedia. I went to Jimbo Wales talk page and stated my thoughts there, but I just previewed it, I didn't save it. I don't know if there's anything he could or would do about it. We've lost a dedicated admin. I hope she comes back, despite this attack from an outside source. Mytwocents 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Points-paying

Care to elaborate on why you don't think it should be merged? "I don't think it should be" generally doesn't cut it. Recury 01:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but they're given points per race and then at the end of a season the points are totalled up and whoever has the most wins. Recury 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly a different concept than what is discussed in the current Score (gaming) article, but I think it would make sense include a section there that discusses standings, etc. as those are ways of keeping score as well, just over a longer period of time. Recury 04:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'm going to put the merge tag back on the article to see if we can get anyone elses opinion. I don't feel real comfortable using the whole "argue with people until they get bored and give up" technique that Misplaced Pages sort of requires at times. Recury 16:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NLP

Hi, I noticed an ingoing dispute over the validity of NLP. I have personally been witness to individuals applying NLP with increased sex in interpersonal attraction of the opposite sex. I used qualatitive research and group interviewed four individuals who explained to me the processes of 'negging' and 'anchoring' and 'indicators of interest'. I may be a casual Wikipedian reader but If pushed I want to assert the validity of NLP as I know it works. Of course, as my interviews were unstructured and I haven't yet completed my Psychology course and still ongoing there is considerable delay before I take this further. Instead, I offer the advice that any strong member on the NLP page to review the claims Ross Jeffries has made. has video torrents outlining his seduction technique in full detail, and also videos where the techniques have been used publicly with success. Thanks for hearing me out --213.106.102.178 10:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian now targeting Falkland Islands

It seems nowadays Gibraltarian is targeting the article Falkland Islands. The article was protected by Katefan0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) twice, the most recent time with an instruction "please contact me before unprotecting...", but both times, Voice_of_All (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) later unprotected the article unilaterally, saying "been long enough...", but that's not true - unprotection caused G to reactivate both times, and now that Katefan0 has announced her departure, I'd like you to monitor this page and if necessary, protect the page and tell VoA to contact you before unprotecting. 00:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

He is targeting San Roque, Cádiz too. Please help if you can. Thanks, E Asterion 23:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And Algeciras too. This guy is a neverending nightmare! E Asterion 20:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

request

Wow, they got kate too? She was the best. I can't imagine why anyone would be angry with her. With my paranoia meter at full now, would you zap this and this? Lord knows there are enough nuts out there whom I've crossed. I'm a nobody, but who needs a stalker? Thanks much for all. Derex 17:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll just re-create it. It has a unique fingerprint in the history. Such that a BD, or possibly a Rex (though I think he's probably harmless), could track me down with a little effort. Thanks again, and sorry about Kate. Brandt is crowing about it over on Misplaced Pages Review. Sick bastard. Derex 18:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User SuperDeng

I request that you do something again'st him. He doesn't stop stalking me. He reverts practically EVERYTHING I do as vandalism and does not provide a reason for doing so. He just says things like "sneaky vandalism, spreading of misinformation".

See history of the Second Battle of the Atlantic. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic&action=history I had requested the editors to talk about the term "Decisive Allied Victory" at the talk page. Everything was going OK until Deng came and started editing while the debate was still going on.

Similiar thing happened at the Polish September Campaing article e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Polish_September_Campaign&action=history

You are free to look at my contributions.

Kurt.

VoABot2

I am about to make VoABot2, which will watch pages where arbcom or several admins block reccuring banned users. I'll just enter the IP range data, and it will watch the history and autorevert anyone from that range. It is kind of like protection against specific IPs for a specific article. What do you think of this idea? If it makes you uneasy, then I'll just do it for arbcomed users.Voice-of-All 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it may be easier to just have VoABot do those.Voice-of-All 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Behave myself?

If the merits of your arguments against me are so powerful, why don't you get me unblocked, so I can discuss them with ArbComm? 216.239.38.136 04:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you remove 216.239.38.136's comments from Merecat's userpage? I believe it doesn't belong there. DGX 05:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I guess if he wants to get them unblocked hard enough, I guess he'll attract an admins attention and eventually wear himself out from failing so often. ;-) But seriously, I don't think he should be unblocked. DGX 05:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That must have been a hellish night, eh? Yeah, I would agree with that block, he hasn't been doing us any favors tonight. Cheers! DGX 05:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wish I had IRC working on my computer, it sounds interesting. And oh, I do know. ;-) I used to have an account on Misplaced Pages before. I ended up in a conflict with a user that lasted over 6 months. It would still be ongoing if I hadn't abandoned the account. Don't worry, I wasn't one of the bad ones ;-) Darn shame I left my old account though, never had a single block to my name. Oh well.. DGX 05:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. sorry if the above comment freaked you out any. DGX 05:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Know what you mean about the past chances. I tried to give my personal vandal the benefit of the doubt and actually agreed to allow him to stay on Misplaced Pages but then he turned around and vandalized my userpage for no reason whatsoever. Needless to say, I don't have to worry about him anymore. ;-) Nope, not a bad guy, actually I think I racked up somewhere around your total number of edits before I left. DGX 06:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think I was somewhere around 21,000 when I left. :s Thats why it so hard to leave my past account. I was so well known as my past name and all my hard work went down the gutter. Oh well, it was worth it to leave my vandal behind. DGX 06:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's going on 3:00 a.m. where I am, so I' going off now. Good chatting with you! Cheers! DGX 06:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Privacy Protection

Hi Woohookitty. I heard about Kate. Well, at the very least for selfish reasons, I just hope we get someone as helpful as her for the NLP and related articles. Certainly from the responses I see, she's contributed a great deal to Misplaced Pages. I understand her leaving though. In fact I reckon there should be very clear cautionary statements for anyone wishing to administer or edit. Threats of legal action, violence, abuse or even simple verbal threats both explicit an implied are hard to cope with. Anonymity is always quite transparent when networks are concerned. Anyway, do you know of anything being done about this kind of issue within Misplaced Pages? My wife is a legal expert and a barrister, and I have some legal knowledge also concerning privacy laws and regs. I'd like to see if I can contribute something. Bookmain 09:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

page protection

Thanks Woohookitty, for protecting Kosovo page. It's been a center of attacks by several sockpuppets, meatpuppets, anonymous IP's changing all the time, NPOV pushers, etc. It would be maybe nice to keep it so for some time. 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Woohookitty. I bet we are all missing Katefan now... I feel really bad as I was about to give her a barnstar for her superb job in the page protection noticeboard. Nonetheless, I emailed her with my support, the sad thing is that she has done no wrong and that guy who is stalking her can't even understand wikipedia rules: he seems to think she was endorsing some sort of whitewashing, when the only thing she was doing was protecting an article. On a different matter, to the user who left the comment above, it was me who requested the protection. I have been keeping a close eye on the article for a while. I would like to remind you that the finality of the Protection Status is to stop edit wars and reach consensus, not to endorse any given version. It would make me very glad to see some constructive efforts by all parties involved in that sense. Regards, E Asterion 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yo, Asterion, I just thanked the guy. "The user who left the comment above", is that how you address me from now on? Since you did request this protection, then thank you, too. Gosh..ilir_pz 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I'm a Swedish user with keen interest in European issues (and a MSc in European Studies). My aim is for Misplaced Pages articles to be well written, concise and NPOV (including free of selective 'evidence', emotional language, etc). Sadly, a lot of the articles on topics related to ex Yugoslavia don't fill these criteria but rather tend to serve as arenas for pushing various political agendas and victimization.

A recent example of this is the Kosovo article where a number of Kosovar Albanians don't like to hear that Kosovo is still formally considered a province of Serbia, although administered by the UN.

In order to break the deadlock I have suggested the wording used by the US Council on Foreign Relations on Kosovo (the website is quite good overall). It says, under the heading "What is Kosovo's political status?":

"Since NATO forces occupied Kosovo in 1999, the province has been a protectorate of the United Nations, with broad administrative responsibility under a mission called UNMIK. Technically, Kosovo remains a province of Serbia."

A January 2006 US Congressional Research Service special report also states this saying (page 2):

"UNSC Resolution 1244 provides little insight into how the status issue should be resolved, saying only that it should be determined by an unspecified “political process.” However, the resolution explicitly confirms the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (consisting of Serbia and neighboring Montenegro) and calls for “substantial autonomy” for Kosovo “within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” The FRY was dissolved in February 2003, replaced with a looser “state union” entitled “Serbia and Montenegro.” Kosovars believe that the dissolution of the FRY invalidates this portion of UNSC Resolution 1244, while the international community views Kosovo as part of Serbia." (my emphasis added).

Now, since UNSCR 1244 confirmed the territorial integrity of what was then Yugoslavia and the UN, EU Commission, UNMIK, US government and all other describe Kosovo as a province of Serbia shouldn't also Misplaced Pages do this regardless of the political ambitions of various Kosovar Albanian users?

I don't see how you can compromise on the facts. Osli73 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The compromise can be found in the resolution 1244, where it is clearly stated that Kosovo will be formally considered as a part of FRY, and the UN interim admin there will lead the process to define its status (hint: there is no status until then). Osli73, referring to non-partisan organisations resarch groups and several old maps is trying to impose his NPOV on an article, and at the same time refusing to quote the documents with the highest importance in Kosovo, 1244 Resolution and Kosovo's . Ignoring these two important documents, and instead referring to sites of convenience to NPOV push is not appreciated in Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, no need to accuse Kosovar Albanian wikipedians, for inisting in these internationally recognized, and most important documents valid in Kosovo as of now. Regards, ilir_pz 13:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do this on my talk page. Thanks. --Woohookitty 13:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilir,

1. Yes, UNSCR 1244 confirms the territorial integrity of FRY (now SCG, soon only Serbia).

2. According to the Constitution of SCG Kosovo is a province of Serbia. Ergo, Kosovo is a province of Serbia.

3. The EU, UN, the US and all countries in Europe (except maybe Albania) obviously se Kosovo as province of Serbia, as shown by my references.

4. When respected media organizations like the BBC present Kosovo to its readers (see my previous link) it defines Kosovo as a province of Serbia.

5. Albanian nationalists (and you do define yourself as one on your user page) prefer to see Kosovo as a province of FRY with unclear legal status since it would imply that Serbia has no legal claim on Kosovo. Osli73 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bravo

You did the right thing DMorpheus 15:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My speedies

Thanks :) Betacommand 07:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Randy121

Sorry I should've made it more clear, he was blocked before for three hours then returned and proceeded to do the same thing. I didn't warn him again because I thought the previous blocking would've been sufficent. This was asking to block the user for the new nonsense that happened since the last block. --- Lid 09:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian and semi-protection

Hi, saw you semi-protected Falkland Islands and was wondering if you'd mind doing the same to Algeciras and San Roque, Cádiz. The recent edit histories are almost entirely reverts of User:Gibraltarian's edits. Cheers, — ceejayoz 16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng again.

This isn't going anywhere. You can ban me and him again if you wish, but that doesn't solve the problem. He says that practically everything I do is vandalism. It seems that he is too lazy to do research. E.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Second_Battle_of_the_Atlantic

SuperDeng: "rv, the removeing of vital information"

What I altered was this.

"Vice Admiral Karl Dönitz, commander of German U-boats (BdU, 1935-1943), Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy, 1943-1945; at war's end, Hitler's successor as Führer."

Dönitz was only Reichspräsident, his title was not Führer (but it seems that Deng doesn't realise even this. I have said this many times and he could find it out by simply looking at Karl Dönitz article), and I truly don't think that information regarding his presidency is relevant in the article.

My form.

"Karl Dönitz, commander of the German U-boat fleet between 1935 and 1943, and Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy from January 1943 to May 1945."

Another good example is the Winter War article (see it yourself). I suggested that people would discus about the change I did in the battle box at the talk page, but he rejected this offer and reverted, his only justification apparently being the RFC. That is no justification, you have said this yourself.

I would like to solve this "peacefully", I truly would.

Kurt.

Others revert you on many articles for example the battle of the netherlands and winter war which proves that you are a vandal. You remove sourced numbers and alter real facts. And you insert only vandalism into articles for example finland is not part of scandinavia therefore it can not have a scandinavian winter, but it is part of the north and can have a nordic winter. Respond to your rfc and explain your acts of mass vandalism instead of vandalizing even more pages. And respond in the proper field and in a coherent fashion (Deng 09:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC))