Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Supreme Deliciousness (talk | contribs) at 09:50, 2 November 2010 (→Hey: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you leave a message for me here, I'll respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, I'll look there for a response (but of course you can respond here if you want to).

Archives

User Talk:Looie496/Archive 1 User Talk:Looie496/Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

128.104.truth

I appreciate your comments about 128.104.truth at ANI , and the warning on their page about stalking the edits of another user. I see your point about his edits not being actual vandalism. However, when he returned to Misplaced Pages and saw your warning, his next three edits were all to articles that had been edited immediately prior by Off2RioRob . These are all minor edits, true, but they also seem to be very pointy choices of articles. Since your comment and warning pretty much ended the previous discussion, I figured I'd come to you first, rather than start a new discussion at ANI. Thanks again for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I have imposed a 24 hour block. Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but 128.truth returned from his block with three trolling comments to other administrators , then followed Chaser (who had told him to stop wikistalking) to an article , followed Tarc back to an article he had previously followed me to , then followed me to another low-traffic article . Any thoughts? I still feel as if he's just here to be pointy. Again, thanks in advance for your opinions. Dayewalker (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pawnee Bill Ranch

The Pawnee Bill Ranch page is for a museum that is owned and operated by the Oklahoma Historical Society. I am asking that the page be edited because the invididual involved is using personal opinion to write the page. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the Ranch was built using slave labor. The ranch was constructed in 1910 using professional builders and it was not a Sears Home. It was designed and built by the architect James Hamilton from Chester, Pennsylvania. The building is not experiencing structural damage as is suggested and is certainly not riddled with mold. Please check out www.pawneebillranch.org for the official site on the Ranch to make your own decision if you wish. The hours of operations listed on the wiki page are completely innacurate. Historicalidentity (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why either one of you would want false information in the article. I believe both of you believe that you're trying to make the article better. If you don't at least make an effort to work this out between the two of you, don't expect any help from me or any other Misplaced Pages admin. Looie496 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: We had the same trouble with the Miller Bros 101 Ranch locals. The 101 Ranch was bull-dozed by HUD decades ago but the people out there still put on shows in the dirt. They want to pretend, they are actors who travel around Oklahoma Fairs playing parts (Annie Oakley, Buffalo Bill, et al). Can you lock the "Pawnee Bill" page while we check on the other pages related to Oklahoma History. Please and thank you. Tintle (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I will continue to fight for my case and present the evidence that is true even as the other user continues to change it. If I'm to be banned for it, then so be it.Historicalidentity (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: I hate to bring you into another issue, but there is a problem with self citation on the Pawnee Bill page now. The bibliography is being continually edited to contain sources that have nothing to do with the subject and Tintle, R. "The Great Far East in the Historic Wild West" (2010) as well as Tintle, R. "Pawnee Bill Lives!" 2007 are unpublished papers done by Tintle. 152.132.9.73 is making the same changes on these pages as well: May Lillie and Mexican Joe. I did place a warning about self citation twice on the Pawnee Bill discussion page but the changes are continued to be made. Historicalidentity (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Malia Obama

Please undo page protection. Your action prevents a valid article from appearing. Some could say that a paid political activist who want to eliminate the article would do exactly as you. However, I don't say you are paid, only that the payment status is unknown. I do say that your action is unhelpful. Please unpage protect. I pledge that I will not re-create the article myself for 100 days.

I think you will refuse so I, hereby, give you notice of arbitration. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I hereby ask you to mediate to agree to unpage protect the Malia page and restore the article. NuclearWarefare says he reverted it to a redirect but can't do anything because of your action.

If you do not agree, mediation has failed and arbitration goes on. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Where did NuclearWarfare say that? If you want the redirect unprotected, the proper way to ask for it is to file an unprotection request at WP:RFPP. I am not going to do it myself without evidence that there is consensus to have an article. Looie496 (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I saw what NW said, and you have completely misrepresented it. Unless you can build a consensus, at a page such as Talk:Family of Barack Obama, that an article about Malia is desirable, I don't think you are going to get anywhere with this. Looie496 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Obama, Sorry :)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Talktome 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Dbpjmuf edit-warring on Big Beautiful Women

Does this count? Celestra (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have fully-protected the article for three days. There is plenty of fault to go around here. Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but I can see where you might form that opinion if you didn't take the time to research the problem. I should have explained: others have been trying to get the IP who later became Dbpjmuf to respect consensus and stop edit warring since September. The article was originally semiprotected to put a stop to that IP's edit war, at which time he registered an account and made edit requests until four days had passed. That's how I got involved, servicing some of those requests. If you were to read that talk page section, you would see a repetitive drum of "form a new consensus" from me and others. How do you expect to get someone to respect consensus and use a consensus building model if you don't prevent them from changing the article against that consensus? I assumed that is why he was brought to ANI and why you gave him a final warning yesterday - not to make empty threats but to get the editor to engage in the process. Celestra (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but then a different editor changed it in an attempt at compromise, and you reverted back to the old form. If it had only been Dbpjmuf against everybody else, I would probably have blocked Dbpjmuf. Looie496 (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, a different editor agreed with him to reject consensus. I left a note on his talk page asking him to join the process instead. Regardless of whether his suggestion was useful, just stepping in and implementing it while others are trying to reach an agreement isn't helpful. Celestra (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Looie496 (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Toni Braxton

Thank you! I will return if the user continues to be trouble. Carmaker1 (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Rape

In regards to the article on "Rape", rape can also be committed by higher animals like the orangutan. There are documented cases of humans being raped by animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.193.155.159 (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My only involvement with that article was to protect it because of edit warring. I don't know anything about its contents and don't have any opinion about that. Looie496 (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages consensus to no longer be discussion driven and now based on voting?

Is this the case? Your message implies it, but I was under the impression that consensus is driven by discussion. Did you by any chance not notice the opposition's inability to formulate a cogent (or even valid) argument to defend their viewpoint in the discussion page? I've been basing my attitude towards consensus on wp:cons, and I'm not convinced I should be blocked from the MSG page in this case. I understand that the discussion has grown quite long, and there is an understandable tendency to distrust the edits of IP addresses. I'm hopeful that the verdict of your arbitration may have been somehow influenced by this and possibly something Sciencewatcher or his company said to condemn me while pleading for administrative assistance, and that you would be willing to review the situation with impartial consideration.174.126.200.228 (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that you can't participate at the page, and the fact that you are using an IP is totally irrelevant. I said that you can't continue to edit-war to insert material that every other participating editor disagrees with. Looie496 (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines to try and bring in more eyes to the article and see if my viewpoint is shared before making edits. I'd like to point out though, that I'm going to make one revision of Sciencewatcher's. He made a section deletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Monosodium_glutamate#Health_concerns_section.27s_low_standard which poses to be unrelated to my 'wiki edit warring'. I objected to his deletion yesterday laying out the logic, but the discussion has remained stagnant.174.126.200.228 (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I gave my reasons in the edit summary. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Typesupper2

Hello Looie496. If I should take this to AE or ANI again I apologize, but you are familiar with the issue here. You warned Typesupper2 (talk · contribs) about calling living people Nazis when they are not Nazis (in fact, the person this user is calling a Nazi is a Jewish son of Holocaust survivors). The first edit they made since that warning was to reinsert the BLP violating remarks (here) with the edit summary "Stop defending Nazis". nableezy - 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I have applied a 24 hour block. Looie496 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats from blocked user

User talk:Braingym1 See his talk page. I think a hard block is necessary since he made a sock account User:BrainGym Webmaster and is continuing his legal threats. Momo san 20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's been dealt with for the moment. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Dear Administrator, I would like to address the allegation and would like to send you a screenshot with a colleague- scholar permission to use text at WP - please respond on my e-mail – so I’ve send you an image – please note - all private or confidential information was blanked. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer - Actually a paper version distributed for participants at Historical Memory in Contemporary Ukraine An international conference September 23–26, 2009 Kyiv does not have "draft" mark - avialable online it's same as final presented. Facts given at scholar work also was presented (in expanded version) in Poland 2010 - I hope it text will help to clear different scholar texts from proof by verbosity accusations in "pushing a pro-Soviet POV with respect to Ukraine" . I also can advice for reading ] page 59. Can you advice somebody else which can recieve a permission for text usage (free-e-mail account with no real name) to resolve the issue . Thank youJo0doe (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

2012

As a matter of fact, I have now written 3 paragraphs in the 2012 Discussion Page on the subject of the 2012 Bullfighting Ban in Catalonia. The only argument that anyone has offered for removing the data is the claim that only data of global world-wide extent can be included in Misplaced Pages. This is an absurd claim. Has any other information in Misplaced Pages ben removed because it is not about a matter that affects everybody in the whole world? Please stop the malicious vandal from his or her vandalistic removals. Thanks. Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added a comment to the talk page supporting your viewpoint, but that's all I'm going to do. A legitimate place for you to look for further input would be WT:WikiProject Spain. If you mention this there, don't say "come to Talk:2012 and set the idiots right", just say that the question is being discussed and further input would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi

Hello Looie496, I think 1 month block is overly harsh. Chesdovi has not had a block or topic ban anywhere near that length. nableezy - 18:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi's behavior needs to do a 180 degree turn if he is to continue editing in this domain. I didn't feel that a shorter block would get that message across. Thus far he has shown no sign of understanding why what he is doing is wrong, and if he can't understand that, he can't edit on these articles. I am not going to complain if some other admin shortens the block, but my feeling is that the block was appropriate. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If that is the message you are trying to convey to Chesdovi then a topic-ban would be a better approach. I obviously have problems with Chesdovi, but he is, more often than not, a good editor. Even if there are problems with his editing in the ARBPIA topic area, I dont think many people would deny the user is very valuable when it comes to his editing on ancient synagogues or Jewish history. The block stops him from contributing to areas where he is an asset to this project. nableezy - 19:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to make that suggestion at WP:ANI#Chesdovi blocked; I am open to the idea. Looie496 (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Pawnee Bill Ranch page again

Looie: I hate to bring you into another issue, but there is a problem with self citation on the Pawnee Bill page now. The bibliography is being continually edited to contain sources that have nothing to do with the subject and Tintle, R. "The Great Far East in the Historic Wild West" (2010) as well as Tintle, R. "Pawnee Bill Lives!" 2007 are unpublished papers done by Tintle. 152.132.9.73 is making the same changes on these pages as well: May Lillie and Mexican Joe. I did place a warning about self citation twice on the Pawnee Bill discussion page but the changes are continued to be made. The website on the Pawnee Bill Ranch linkswww.pawneebill.org is also directing people to the original Misplaced Pages edit of Tintle.Historicalidentity (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits in question, and semi-protected the page for a week. Looie496 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you take a look at the Pawnee Bill page as well for self citation? I have reason to believe that 152.132.9.73 is the user Tintle. Historicalidentity (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. I've semi'ed that one too. Looie496 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your help in the matter. Historicalidentity (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie496 new editor needed for history articles because the tour guide Historical Indenity has sold you a bstory from a brochure that should not be presented to people as history. This type of flaw is the reason that students are warned not to use wikipedia as a legitimate souce. Historicalidentity had no contact information, This article is not completely unfactual leaving out the land run, lanb grad, and violation of the Pawnee trible treaties in Oklahoma, all of which are well=known facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.243.66 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: The ISP address 71.29.243.66 has made changes on the talk page of the Pawnee Bill Ranch page as well as the talk page of the Pawnee Bill page to take out the warnings that were placed by other users about self citation on the pages. Comments about the page's accuracy has also been placed on those sites. Please also take a special look at comments that you yourself have written where Tintle's username has been erased from your questions. It looks like the user is trying to change things to benefit themself on these pages. I have reason to believe that 71.29.243.66 is the user Tintle as well as 152.132.9.73. "Misplaced Pages is too malleable a source of information; its articles are inherently unreliable and mostly inaccurate. Alert: Historicalidentity (talk | contribs) is posting dialog and other information from fiction sources such as dime novels and comic books as historical events, a violation of Wiki's TOS. Tintle (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)" This has also appeared on the users page. I do not know why this user wants to continually deny that the page does not present all of the facts. The page that is up has mulitple citations from multiple reputible sources on the topic. No brochures have been used in any of the citations. The matter of a land grab should not be an issue either as it has no historical basis behind it for the specific site. The site page is simply trying to talk about a historical museum. Talk of land runs and tribal issues should be reserved for other pages. I would hope that action would be taken. Thank you for your consideration and help in the matter.Historicalidentity (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that it's very difficult to effectively block people who can hop across a wide range of IP addresses. The only approach that really works is semi-protection. I don't have any problem with semi-protecting articles, but semi-protecting talk pages for long periods of time is not desirable unless absolutely necessary. My advice is to do your best to ignore this editor's talk page activity for a while. Nobody except you is really paying attention to it anyway, I think. Sooner or later he will probably give up and then we can clean things up. There are other possible approaches, but they involve more work than I'm really eager to do. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Might I just ask how long the protection on the pages will last? I believe that this issue will not be resolved so easily. I know that it's already protected until the 28th of this month, but is there any way that it could be protected for longer? Again, thank you and I am sorry to be such a bother. It simply bothers me when others abuse information like this.Historicalidentity (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't extend the protection right now, but it only takes a few seconds to re-protect it if the need is still there -- and if I have to do it again, I'll make it longer next time. Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Another ISP address to report for Tintle, now making sarcastic comments about sources produced in original discussion. 68.97.41.111. Just keeping you updated and thank you again for your help.Historicalidentity (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi

Do you care to respond to the questions posed here? I think that I have raised valid points that warrant a response--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Martin Charcot

Dude deserves at least a good article, no? I have the highest edit count on the article, mostly because of cleaning it up; I can't write much on the fellow. But I did plop in a ton of full-text sources, so someone more familiar with Charcot and neurology can take it to the next level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bull-fighting ban in Catalonia

Thank you for your support, Looie496. I know I am supposed to "assume good faith," but it is hard to do so when a malicious vandal keeps removing true and important information, for no good reason. I cannot help thinking that the malicious vandal just hates animals and wants the bull-torture to continue. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to take that attitude, I'm not going to be able to give you any support. Fanaticism is always unwelcome. It's clear to me that the people who are opposed to this simply don't think it is important enough to tell the whole world about. I think they're wrong, but if you are going to accuse them of being evil, I don't want anything to do with you. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement thread

Could you please take a look at my new comment in the arbitration enforcement thread I posted recently, and the diffs linked there? I'm not violating the sanctions against my account by posting there, because the admin who topic banned me made a specific exception for allowing me to do this. I was also told by one of the arbitrators that posting there would be acceptable while I was topic banned. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but I feel that you've abused the privilege. Looie496 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain how I've "abused the privilege?" When I was given permission for this by the admin who topic banned me, it was in the context of my wanting admin attention for the same specific behavior I’m reporting here, including some of the exact same examples/diffs.

The behavior that I was saying I thought needed admin attention, which NuclearWarfare was giving me permission to report, is what Captain Occam described in his comment here (in the "Response to new comments from Maunus and Muntuwandi" section). Three of the five examples of editor behavior that are described in that comment are the same examples included in my report. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

About Vandalism

I consider vandalism the removal of content without a single explanation. At least you Looie496 are now giving a reason, the fact that the TV transmission in question is in french. I suppose you don't disagree with the main merit of question, hunger as a weapon, and the importance of references to that by internal or external links. Thank you Marasmus (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Looie496, I would like to thank you for my account to be unblock and have a great day. :) クリッシーサングスタークリッシーサングスター ♥ 04:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcassionchan (talk • contribs)

Talkback

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

leadtooshort template

While completely uninvolved in the original editing dispute that was brought up at RFPP, I am so surprised by your reasoning that I would like to discuss the subject in greater detail.

You, rather aggressively, denied a request for page protection because a user was trying to use a template you consider to be "ugly". First off, using your subjective opinion of how attractive something is to direct your actions as an administrator seems a bit inappropriate, but more importantly you're arbitrarily slapping the face of all kinds of Misplaced Pages conventions.

Some cleanup templates are inherently ugly. They don't exist to make the article look better, they exist to notify users that there is a problem that needs correction. Bright orange road construction/hazard signs are ugly but you'd be foolish to argue they shouldn't be used for that reason. Secondly, this template has existed since 2006 and been used since then; it currently used on a variety of articles as unobscure as toaster.

As an administrator, you should be aware that the removal of maintainence templates is often considered vandalism and there are four levels of user talk warnings for the removal of these templates; the fourth level indicates "The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Misplaced Pages articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing without further notice" which conveys the seriousness of this behavior.

You're flying in the face of longstanding conventions and suggesting administrators should hold their personal standards of attractiveness higher than established wiki guidelines and procedures. Furthermore, removing properly-used templates because they are "ugly" undermines the entire maintainence template system and suggests we should value style over substance.

Please reconsider this inappropriate approach to editing and administrative duties. Some guy (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There are actually many editors who feel as I do that article-level tags don't belong at the top of an article unless they reflect some issue that casts doubt on the validity of the article. Also it seems to me that they are often used as a sort of power trip by users who aren't willing to do the work of improving an article but get a kick out of holding it hostage for the people who actually care about it. I think this is an area where people who actually create articles have a different point of view from others: we tend to see drive-by tagging as often just a sort of legalized vandalism. But I'll accept your point in one way: in the future when similar issues come up, I won't resolve them. I won't be the one who applies protection or blocks an editor in such cases, but I'll just leave them alone for some other admin to handle. Looie496 (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I "actually create articles" as well. I don't take it personally when someone adds a cleanup tag to an article I've created or maintain. Some articles need work, some users don't have the time, patience, or knowledge to fix everything they come across. As I mentioned before, you're looking at the situation backwards. It sounds as if you're saying your articles shouldn't have an "ugly" cleanup template because you don't want to take the time to fix the problem and you're offended someone else pointed it out. It should be that if you don't like the cleanup template and really don't want it to be there, you should fix the problem and remove the template. Nobody's holding anything "hostage". Some guy (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's very useful to point out problems in an article, but that's what talk pages are for. In fact, I wouldn't object at all to maintenance templates if they went on the talk page instead of the article. I just don't think it improves Misplaced Pages to put garish blobs on top of otherwise decent articles. Doing this for something like "lead too short" is especially out of line. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

67.176.220.219

• 67.176.220.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed you blocked this editor for warring on Fred Singer, which is in the climate change topic. Looking at his edits it looks like he's been around for a while on the same IP and his principal interests are climate change. Perhaps we should treat him as we would treat a registered editor, in which case it would be as well to warn him about the climate change discretionary sanctions. --TS 22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Done and logged; thanks for the suggestion. Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your hard work not even a month into your adminship, especially at WP:AN/3 I award you the admin's barnstar. Secret 00:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dang beat me to it! I was just coming over to giver the same award for the same reason! Keep it up! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

CSI needs to be re-protected (at least *I* think so)

Almost the minute the protection expired on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, 24.253.41.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (who JUST got off a six month block for persistant vandalism involving WP:OR new characters, blog sourcing and generalized fancruft) and a couple of others are right back in there messing it up. I have been trying under my username, but also my IP address at work, fighting vandals and those who refuse to edit Misplaced Pages by the rules in the CSI, Law and Order and NCIS shows - so that some of them might eventually reach GA status. Unfortunately, the IP I've listed above and others like them are wearing me down, and I've about had it as an editor whose work seems to be for nothing. Sorry, this isn't your fault, so I apologise for bitching. Anyway...would you be so kind as to check & see if you agree that CSI:Crime Scene Investigation does need protecting again? I tried appealing to the person who blocked the above IP user, but they say this is just someone who 'doesn't understand the rules' (my paraphrase) very well - but if you look at their talk page - it's fairly obvious they do not care to learn either, as it's all the same stuff in the same articles that got them blocked in the first place after much counseling and warnings. Thanks for listening to the rant. I appreciate any time you might be able to devote to this, as I understand how busy Admins are. I thought about applying, but I know my Irish temper would get my adminship revoked within the first hour or so. As I guess you can tell, I'm one of those that "doesn't suffer fools gladly"! Thanks very much! Cheers, Trista Triste Tierra (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for blocking the one offending user. With that one out of the way, it might be easier to fix some of the other stuff being put up by IP Vandals and those who want Misplaced Pages to be a TV fansite rather than an encyclopaedic source about many things, including TV shows. Zen hugs to you! Trista Triste Tierra (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also be prepared to semi-protect the article for an extended period if it's necessary, but let's see how it goes. Looie496 (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson editing conflicts

Hello, thank you for contacting me. The issue has arisen because in the previous intro edit, my facts were questioned. I was in the process of meticulously citing this material with references and then the section was not only drastically altered but the editor provided zero references and moved my previously entered cites around without thought to connectedness or relevancy. Then malik told me citations are "probably not needed" by str1977 via HIS work.

Here is the passage in question:

"U.S. Congressional records and FBI files reveal the reasoning behind his persecution centered not only on Robeson's beliefs in socialism but also his consistent work towards the liberation of the colonised peoples of Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and the Australian aborigines, his support of the International Brigades, his efforts to push for anti-lynching legislation and the racial integration of major league baseball among many other causes that openly challenged white supremacy on six continents."

Str1977 and Malik Shabazz have implied that the persecution points that I cited for Paul Robeson's persecution by the US power structure of the 1940's to 1960's are without historical merit or simply over exaggerated. I have gone through countless FBI files to prove them both incorrect with citations while str1977 has provided no cites or references for ANY of his edits. I acnnot edit in cites and references if my work is being reverted in real time.

I'm amazed now at the high standards that I was held to when first repairing and rebuilding the Paul Robeson article and sub-articles when I did the major revisions/creations on it. These rules are not be applied to Str1977. I never could have gotten away with such uncited material in the intro or elsewhere. I had editors breathing done my neck and tagging stuff as I was writing. Which is fine but why not others?

Writing a very large controversial article cannot be a flawless job and I have always maintained that I've made mistakes. But I DO cite my work and I make modifications as I did yesterday. I thought content on wikipedia research and references were cornerstone not editors ganging up on users. When str1977 comes through he deletes research citations and replaces it with zero cites please tell me why is that acceptable? Because he is an editor? I cannot find these answers in the rules. Thanks very much for your time.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be better to keep the discussion on your talk page -- but I'll just say that, while I haven't encountered Str1977, I have watched Malik edit for a long time and I have strong faith in his good intentions and expertise. Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy

FYI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Where's the diff

Hi, Looie496.
It worries me that previous WQA was closed after involved admin said that the case was already reported, but no diff. Things cannot be solved here on "honorable scouts word".
I've been looking through pages that link to "user:Ivan Štambuk" in namespace Misplaced Pages, search ANI archives, searchword="Štambuk".
My eyes "fell out" why I was searching through all those ANI's, but I haven't seen the case of Štambuk's "sod off".
Anyway, denigrating of opponents and opponents' sources (authors) continued ("nationalist fluff") "your own clique", "this nutjob + (name of scientist)" (violation of WP:BLP).... Kubura (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

About more notifications

Hi, Looie496.
You asked me here that if you have missed to notifiy anybody here Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings, to bring his/hers name to your intention.
I wrote a message to Kwamikagami . He's involved on several articles that are under the scope of WP:ARBMAC: Croatian language, Serbo-Croatian language, Croatian grammar, South Slavic languages, Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, {{South Slavic languages sidebar)...
E.g., here are inline citations needed; various topics are covered on various pages. Kwamikagami blatantly removed "citation needed" .
Kwamikagami also must be notified by you and his name also must be here Misplaced Pages:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings. The rules are equal for everyone. Bye, Kubura (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you show me even one example of incivility by kwami, I will notify him. Incivility means attributing bad motives to another editor or otherwise insulting another editor. It doesn't mean saying that an edit is wrong or doing things that another editor disagrees with. Looie496 (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please include Talk:Serbo-Croatian on your watchlist in relation to this issue. Some of the heat from the Talk:Croatian language discussion has migrated there. --Taivo (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All involved parties should be given a warning who participated, especially involved admins who were editing the blocked article even after the ban look at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Croatian_language&action=historysubmit&diff=392190211&oldid=391983057 Vodomar (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify: this is about incivility, nothing else. I don't know very much about Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, or their languages. I am not going to look at content disputes, edit warring, misuse of sources, or any of that. I can't, I don't understand the topic. All I intend to do is stop the pattern of editors insulting other editors. I don't have to understand the topic in order to recognize an insult. Looie496 (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

See also this:here all of his insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.116.102 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

PP

Can you reconsider full protection of Men who have sex with men until we reach a consensus? There was an edit war going on a little while ago. CTJF83 chat 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Always reluctant to grant a protection request from an editor who has just edited the page into their own preferred state. I'd be happy to revert your edit and then protect the page if that would be okay with you. Looie496 (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with BLP issues, over having the article in my state.... CTJF83 chat 04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dont know if this is still relevant but: There are heterosexual actors who appear in gay porn ... some men are pretty flexible. Gay-for-pay. Beyond that, though, there's the intricacy that "men who have sex with men" is not always taken literally either, as it's more of an identity than an orientation. —Soap— 00:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:68.167.83.210

Hi, you blocked User talk:68.167.83.210 for a week re vandalism of Toni Braxton. Having come off the block he/she has continued the vandalism. Please consider a longer/permanent block. Thanks Span (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it's just a single edit, I've only blocked for two weeks, and left a short explanation on the IP's talk page. For your information, we never do permanent blocks on IPs, because it is always possible that they will eventually change hands. Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Span (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Looie, can you explain to me what I should have done differently? I still can't possibly understand how I ended up getting blocked and Xenophrenic did not. Thanks. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The most important thing is that if you file a 3RR report in a situation where you yourself have violated 3RR, it will always backfire. As I wrote in my response, Xenophrenic was not blocked because your 3RR notice did not come until after the last revert -- an editor has to violate 3RR after being informed of the rule in order to be blocked. You yourself did not need to be warned, because the fact that you filed a 3RR report shows that you were aware of the 3RR rule. An additional factor is that you wrote some very rude messages to Xenophrenic, so rude that they would have caused a block even if you had not violated 3RR. Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WHOA, wait a second, I missed this last sentence. What in the world did I say to Xenophrenic that was rude?? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But first of all, that's just not what the rule says (emphasis added):

"A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a XXX template message on their user talk page."

Note: the user was demonstrably aware that edit warring is prohibited. He's been on wikipedia for over 3 years, and had acknowledged it on the talk page as well. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Second, I did warn him informally - twice, which he saw and acknowledged - on the talk page of the article, after each of which he continued to make more reverts.

Third, I still don't see how I was guilty of a 3RR violation. It seems you must be counting the revert that occured at 7:30 (as documented on my user page) as the 4th revert, but that was a completely different issue over completely different portions of the article. I know that some of these rules are necessarily a little vague, but that would seem very odd if that counts as a 4th revert, because that would seem to suggest that someone isn't allowed to make any edits to an article period for 24 hours after 3 reverts, even if it were in a completely different section of the page. Thanks again. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR rule doesn't apply only to reverts on a single topic. Any reverts count, as long as they are all to the same article. WP:3RR is very clear on this. You can make as many edits as you want without violating the rule, as long as they are not reverts. As for the warning to Xenophrenic, I could only base a decision on the warning you showed me. Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to find the original complaint I filed, but I'm pretty sure I did note those two warnings in it. Moreover, regarding the point you made about making as many edits as one wants without violating the rule, that doesn't seem to comport with the definition provided by WP:3RR:

A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

By definition, any revert that changes existing words on the page (rather than only adding new things) is reversing the actions of other editors.

Moreover, if we went with your definition, then consider this scenario:

X makes a change. Y reverts. X restores. Y reverts. X restores. Y reverts.

At this point, X would be free to do absolutely anything he wants to the rest of the wikipage and Y couldn't do anything about it according to your definition and the interpretation of the rules with which you blocked me. That can't possibly be the intent of the rule, can it? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many things that Y can do. Y can start a discussion on the talk page and ask X to participate. Y can go to an appropriate noticeboard or WikiProject and ask for input from other editors. Y can request that the page be protected. But Y can't do any more reverts. And it is not true that any edit that changes the text is a revert. If you fix a spelling error, or clarify the wording, or substitute a better source, those are not reverts, unless you are returning the article to a state it was in earlier. The basic problem is that you are seeing this as a fight, and trying to find a place to win. If you are dealing with another editor who wants to fight, getting into a fight won't lead anywhere -- what you need to do is get help. Looie496 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're confirming that according to your interpretation of the rules, X can do whatever the hell he wants to the rest of the article at this point and the best that Y can do is complain about it on the discussion page or try to get someone else to complain about it on the talk page while X continues to do whatever he wants to the page, or try to get the page shut down entirely? I'm not seeing this as a fight at all, I just don't see why youre interpretation of the rules - and granted, admins clearly have tremendous discretion on the 3RR/edit warring rules - favors chaos rather than the stability of an article.

Again, according to your interpretation consider this scenario:

There is a sentence in the wikipedia page for Albert Pujols that says "Pujols is 6 feet tall."

X changes it to "Pujols is 3 feet tall."

Y reverts. Y wants to discuss it on the talk page, but X won't, or at least X keeps changing things before consensus is reached on how tall Pujols is (or as in the case of Xenophrenic, he scribbles nonsensical stuff on the talk page to give the appearance that he's trying to discuss things).

X changes it to "Pujols is 4 feet tall."

Y reverts

Y changes it to "Pujols is 5 feet tall."

Y reverts

X changes it to "Pujols is 247 feet tall."

At this point, the article will state that Pujols is 247 feet tall and Y can't do squat about it, other than to try to go through some lengthy process to lock down the wikipage after making a lengthy plea to some admin, who would rather be doing other things than looking at this complicated issue. After all, X hasn't reverted to a previous state, even though he's re-writing the disputed text. Do you see what I'm getting at? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me answer this way. About one month after I started editing Misplaced Pages articles, I decided that edit-warring was a bad strategy, and ever since then I have followed a 1RR policy. I never revert more than once except in cases of clear vandalism. If I see a need for an edit to be reverted again, I ask for help. And in spite of this, I think most people who know my work (mainly on neuroscience articles) would say that I have been a pretty successful editor -- and in more than 10,000 edits I have never been blocked. Do you see what I'm getting at? Revert-warring is the wrong strategy. When you deal with an editor who reverts and won't discuss, admins and other editors will often be willing to help you. Not always, but often. When you respond by revert-warring, you lose any chance of getting help. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how controversial those topics can be, or how much astroturfing goes on in Neurosurgery etc., but I'll take that as an offer than I can contact you if I'm having trouble with something. The problem is on some pages (like with controversial political activists) frequently change quickly, and if you have to wait too long, things move on without you.

You might have missed it, but I didn't notice your assertion above about my being rude to Xenophrenia until my last post or two. Where was I rude to him, or rude to him in anything close to a way that would get me blocked? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that statement was a confusion with another edit-warring case I handled at about the same time, where I also ended up blocking the reporting editor for having violated 3RR (although in that case both editors were blocked). I have not in fact seen any incivility from you. Looie496 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Looie496. While you are on the subject of incivility, what would be your opinion of mischaracterizing another editor with comments like this one from above: "(or as in the case of Xenophrenic, he scribbles nonsensical stuff on the talk page to give the appearance that he's trying to discuss things)"? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Followup on Ronz

I read it a couple of times. My response is...

Sure, like another admin will come along and say Looie you're totally wrong, I'm putting a block in. So what you're saying is that, even though it's the worse case of tendentious behavior you've ever seen, you are going to do nothing at all based on Ronz's word? The word of four other editors means zip. Thirteen days of this hell, and nothing happens. I'm so going to bring my problems to ANI in the future. Thank you for helping my attitude. I'm sorry for sounding uncivil, but I can't believe what I read. It took thirteen days before we got a rapid and vigorous response this time. Frankly I wish I hadn't been involved in this now. I guess if some of us quit out of frustration it wouldn't matter, but let's not let Ronz go. He's just untouchable. He's probably laughing his butt off over a beer now, and feeling totally vindicated. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT _{GOOD WORKS} 00:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not by any means impossible that another admin will come along and say Looie you're totally wrong, I'm putting a block in. It has happened before. You should make your comment at ANI, if you haven't already. For what it's worth, what I really wish is that this had come to my attention after three days instead of thirteen, because I would have put a stop to it right quick, before it had a chance to turn into a nightmare for everybody. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The guy has 50,000 edits and probably 80% are reverts and abuse. What more do you need? I didn't want to get hit with some disrespect rule on ANI, that's why I'm not there. I'm done with this, this is outrageous. And what block are you putting in; you said you were doing nothing! The rest of us who worked this for two weeks on three boards must be fools. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT _{GOOD WORKS} 00:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie, I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed by your follow-up myself, though not outraged like some others apparently are. What I take issue with is the idea that the response Ronz gave to you on his talk page shows that "he is very chastened and fully understands that his behavior in this affair is decisively rejected by the community." I agree with those who do not think a punitive block of Ronz should be made because remedies ought to be preventative and not punitive, but I fail to see your question and his response as evidence of a remedy that will prevent these situations in the future. Can you help me understand your rationale here. As I noted at AN/I, all I see is the very tiny first step of accepting the community's consensus that there was no BLP concern after all, but perhaps I'm missing the part where he admits to violating WP:TALK and editing tendentiously while not hearing what others are saying. As I mentioned at AN/I, I see three viable remedies that would be more reassuring and they are not mutually exclusive - 1) specific statements by Ronz that acknowledge the actual disruptions he has made and promises not to repeat them, 2) mentorship so that Ronz can have access to resources to help him understand when he is being disruptive if understanding that is a problem for him, and/or 3) a topic ban from Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch related articles. What do you think about these ideas? Like I said, I'm not interested in whipping the guy, but I am interested in preventing another situation like this. Thanks for your further input on this.Griswaldo (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm skeptical about the value of mentorship. Your solution 3 seems possibly useful. Looie496 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm all for solution 3 personally. From what Hans has stated it appears that most of his interactions with others on the subject of Barrett and Quackwatch have been like the present one. I'm assuming that his productivity as an editor here is not in that area so a topic ban or some form of probation in that area could only be a benefit to the project.Griswaldo (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie do you mind commenting on my proposal back at AN/I if you've thought about it. You don't have to answer my other query above but I would definately appreciate it if you did that as well (at least here), because I remain confused about how to take comfort in Ronz' actual answer. Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again

Hi Looie. Thanks again for your quick response. I like to avoid AN/I and dramahz as much as possible, and you not only stepped in to help out, but you did it so quickly that I am already out of the arena. I really, really appreciate it. Awickert (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My own experience as an editor has made me believe that the most important thing an admin can do is clear away obstacles that make it hard for good editors to contribute. Looie496 (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's what you did! Thank you. Awickert (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What does "BS" means?

Hi, Looie496.
Please, see this . User Ivan Štambuk wrote that (28 Oct 2010, 21:51 CET, that's 6 hours ago).
"Yes (1) is commonly repeated BS that ... That BS is believe it or not even ....".
What is "BS"?
Does that "BS" falls under "I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block" , as you wrote here?
Bye, Kubura (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)NOT speaking for Looie496, but I suspect the comment must be taken in context to determine whether it was meant to be uncivil. In this case, it appears that Ivan is discussing the content of the sources in the section directly above his comment, as opposed to any editor here on Misplaced Pages:

The comment being refered to:

• 1. Some words from the Chakavian and Kajkavian dialects have entered standard Croatian, (cite) (cite)

First response (by kwami) with similar feelings worded differently:

• (1) is dubious (this is one of those claims which is frequently exaggerated, and which AFAIK advocates have been unable to justify on this talk page in the past)

Ivan's response (agreement with earlier response) on the content of the citations:

• Yes (1) is commonly repeated BS that has been debunked in many sources (Greenberg, Kordić etc.)

Thus, I suspect, when taken into context in such fashion, it may become clear that the external sources are being called (a) dubious, (b) exaggerated and (c) BS (that has been debunked in many (other) sources). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 04:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked my question to admin Looie, since he engaged in the topic. Not to user RobertMfromLI.
I repeat:Looie496, what does "BS" means? Ivan Štambuk used that phrase .
Looie, you've written here ""I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block". Does that BS belong there? This is the question for you, Looie496. Please, don't ignore my question.
Looie, you've been informed on the time about this incident. 6 hours after the incident. And I'm also still waiting to see where was Štambuk's "sod off" processed on WP:ANI. I don't trust to honorable scout's word, I'd like to see the diffs.
Looie, please. Don't give in to bully. Bullies never get satisfied with one victim, they always want more, their "greed" grows with every victim. Don't give in to a bully. Only proper sanction stops them. Do you remember what I've written here to you ?
Please, don't tolerate the injustice done to someone. Don't tolerate the cover up of misbehaviour. Don't tolerate the segregation of users (one side's appeals are ignored and sins are fabricated or magnified beyond the limits of truth, while the other side is protected and its requests (no matter how unfounded) are executed per wish). Don't close your eyes. Injustice won't disappear by herself. It doesn't happen to someone else.
Always remember this . "When they came for me, there was no-one left to speak out." Kubura (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your intervention at ANI in the thread about Heim Theory. Kind of reminded me of that old western movie where the bad guys are coming to town and no one wants to be the sherriff: everyone knows something has to be done, but no one is willing to do it, except that you were willing. I appreciate that. Also, I saw your user page. I was wondering whether you've ever taken any interest in the OpenEEG project, or active electrodes (pasteless) for EEG, at all? This is very off-topic, of course, so don't reply if you'd prefer not to, or feel free to reply via e-mail, if you'd prefer that. Thanks again for stepping up at ANI. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All of my EEG-related work has involved animals with implanted electrodes. The challenge of making any sense out of EEG signals recorded from outside the human skull has always seemed very daunting to me. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Classy

Regarding "truly intelligent": I've found considering the source a handy approach. You might want to lay low on this one and let a better informed and more civil admin not so prone to hurling insults step in. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely rare for me to say anything insulting, and I don't do it without careful thought. Pretty much the only time I do it is in response to condescension, because I haven't found any other response (short of blocking) that is effective. If you have any suggestion, I am open to it. In my experience there is nothing that infuriates editors as much as being condescended to, so something needs to be done when it happens. The only other option I can think of is to treat it as a personal attack and block the editor, and it seems to me that it is preferable to try something else before that. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you went out. If I employ "careful thought" (too rich) as well, can I have license to insult? Or is it for admins who barely know the protocols of WQAs only? Since you solicited suggestions, here's one: drop the shovel to quit making the hole you are in any deeper. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, bro. Holding me responsible for you inability to remain civil is weak. And and and, as for "nothing that infuriates editors as much as being condescended to, so something needs to be done when it happens. The only other option I can think of is to treat it as a personal attack and block the editor." Since "something needs to be done", are you going to affect a block on yourself. I mean, admins are subject to higher standards are they not? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have addressed you condescendingly. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What a talent you have: admittedly using "careful thought" (I just can't get over that one) to deliberately insult editors without being condescending. While were at it, I more than a little interested where your professed special habit of insulting editors has been "effective" in a manner no other response would have been. Dude you went out. I'd just step away from your mess. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you suppose you could spend one or two seconds considering that maybe I was trying to tell you something important, and that it might be to your benefit to try to understand what I was telling you? Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A scolding following an apology is impertinent. Don't be surprised that if I skip looking within the within the recent turd piles of admonishments for beneficial diamonds of good advice. Apology notwithstanding, I'm still going to have a hard time to not consider the source. Especially since you have not done what you shhould have done in the first place and closed the illegitimate WQA. BTW: BS24 is well documented on his talk page and on his SPI by me and other editors as a mendacious, deceitful sock whom has not substantially responded to any of the serious charges against him but has instead ignorantly viewed them to be personal attacks, and feeling besieged, has asked for admins to intervene. You're the first to take the bait. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Curious

I'm confused. I gave a link at AIV to that long report I filed. Why only block one day? It's clear that this is a long-term troublemaker. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

All the contribs from that IP address come from October 30. That means that almost certainly tomorrow the editor will have a different address. The only thing a longer block would accomplish is to possibly catch some innocent editor who later gets the same address. There's nothing to be gained from long blocks of IP editors who hop from address to address -- the only thing that might work is a rangeblock, if the editor uses a limited range of addresses. I could also perhaps semi-protect the articles that are being disrupted, if that would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, though a rangeblock would be more helpful. UFC 125, the target of choice is being subjected to a lot of speculation at the moment, but some IP edits are helpful. I don't think SP is the right way to go. Since a few of this individual's IPs are on the same range, I think that would be particularly useful. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User who got only a light warning

Hi since you took care of this case today. Please see here: and specially the last comment about "bombing" a certain country, and hateful WP:soapbox WP:BATTLE WP:NPA comments. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC). Please read my comments on the noticeboard. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm aware of what is going on here. The last messages from Iksus2009 (at Talk:Nezami Ganjavi) talk about going away and leaving Misplaced Pages alone. When a problem editor says that, the best approach is to disengage and see whether it happens. If the editor really intends to leave, attacking him is counterproductive because the only thing it can do is pull him back into the fight. If he comes back and makes any further edits to talk pages or articles along the previous lines, I plan to block him. You really don't need to do anything more here except, if you like, let me know if he edits again (although I'm watching anyway). Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How many chances does he get? Two, Three, four, five? Are three warnings not enough? Well, it is easy to be calm, but sometimes when you have family in a certain country, and another user hopes that they are bombed, it is sort of disturbing. It creates a bad atmosphere. What allows him to get away with such a comments? Misplaced Pages is not a forum or WP:BATTLE. He was been warned by you, another admin, me and Nishkid64 and his account is free. His ip should be blocked as well for a period, since he edited with that as well. Misplaced Pages should not tolerate such users more than three times. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

See my comments here: . I almost feel like there is a discrimination on the upper level. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder per previous dicussions: "Because this editor has very little history and the warning from Nishkid came last year, I felt it was more reasonable to give a clear and explicit warning that battleground behavior is not acceptable than to block immediately. However any repetition of this very aggressive behavior should lead to an immediate response. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC) "

After that he commented like previous time, I warned him once. Then he commented again, then nothing. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Quack!

I fixed the template - hope you don't mind :> Good call on the block, but Mackfan345 is possibly coming around the corner! Veeeeeerrrrryyyyy slowly and steadily... ;P Doc talk 00:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Pumpie's talk page. Thank you.— Dædαlus 01:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI - hiding comments

In this section you collapsed a bunch of comments under WP:RBI. Although I largely agree with this I thought the comments on JaGa's tool should be left outside the collapse as it may help people catch more socks (it's allowed me to find an extremely suspicious looking user) and so have removed it from the collapse. Hope this is OK with you. Dpmuk (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, all I was hoping for was to keep any more edits from the socks from accumulating there. Looie496 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting Shannon Brown

Good call with Shannon Brown. That article attracts so much garbage. Zagalejo^^^ 02:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Can you take a look at this? There has been a very long discussion here: 7 people support the inclusion of proposal 2 while only one objects, I believe the consensus is to have the sentence in all settlement articles. Can you take a look at this and confirm if you see there is consensus for it? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

1. name=http://foia.fbi.gov/robeson/robes1a.pdf, 1989, pgs 4, 53-55.
2. Cite error: The named reference Duberman Preface was invoked but never defined (see the help page).