User talk:AdjustShift/Archive 5

Reply
I've been quite distracted and things I was planning to do were piling up the whole time. Sorry for not having responded for a few weeks. It looks like your article on Fritz Neumayer has made good progress meanwhile. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sciurinæ. And nice to see you back on en.wikipedia. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice re esclation of edit warring at Thomas Henry Barry
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Paraguay Economy
Hello Adjustshift I hope this is formally right, I do it for the first time.

On 24 June you reverted a rather well founded and more up to date agriculture, lifestock and forestry back to your own much less up to date (basically copy&paste from Paraguay country profile. Library of Congress Federal Research Division (October 2005)) version. Absolutely uncomprehensable for me. Images you deleted, too. I re-reverted today. I also deleted your your phrase corruption keeps investors away or so. To judge by comments I see here you contribute a lot to wikipedia. Please be extra responsable when dealing with country pages, more so when it is a poor country doing its utmost to attract foreign investment. Greetings from Paraguay--Paisano flaco (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Paisano flaco, welcome to en.wikipedia. Glad to see someone from Paraguay! :-)
 * You may have inserted things without any reliable source. I'll analyze that article after some time. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your tools needed
I have accidently created a redirect Battle of of Lutter am Barenberge, whereas it should be Battle of Lutter am Barenberge. Can you please speedily delete the incorrect one per db-redirtypo, thank you. I promise to be more careful in the future. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the page. Sometimes we do commit blunders; there is nothing to worry about. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Kresock, I'm missing you. Where are you these days? If you are still around, give me a ping on my talk page.

Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ping! Kresock (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Closure of communist genocide AfD
I'm a bit confused about the closure of as no consensus (i.e. keep). There was another article where many similar arguments were presented in the AfD discussion:. In that discussion, delete - keep = 4, while in the communist genocide discussion delete - keep = 6 (if I counted correctly.) Still, the former was closed as merge (i.e. delete), while the latter was closed as no consensus. I'm also curious about how you assessed the weights of the arguments at, since it seemed to me that many who voted "keep" presented little argumentation at all (giving only one-line "votes"), while most who voted "delete" presented lengthy argumentation. Offliner (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Offline, AFD is not a vote. While closing an AFD, an admin doesn't count votes; he or she will analyze the arguments of both sides. You voted delete, and you may have found the arguments of keep side weak, but they were not so weak that I could discount them. Martintg defended the article pretty well in that AFD. BTW, the result was not keep, it was no consensus. No consensus defaults to keep (in very few cases, it defaults to delete). AdjustShift (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that AfD is not a vote, that's why I asked how you assessed the various arguments in the discussion. Also, I did not say the result was keep, I said "no consensus, therefore keep." Thanks for answering, but I still find it curious that another, very similar discussion with equally good arguments on both sides is closed as delete, while another one is closed as no consensus. Offliner (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Offliner, when I closed the debate as "No consensus", it means that there was no obvious consensus to change the status of the article; it is not same as closing the debate as "keep". "No consensus, therefore keep" is not right. When I can't delete the article based on the debate, what should I do? I should leave the article as it is. "No consensus" doesn't mean that there is a consensus to keep the article. The article just managed to survive the deletion. If you feel that the article should have been deleted, try WP:DRV, or you can once again nominate the article for deletion after few months. If you want to re-nominate the article for deletion after few months, please present a stronger rationale. If you have any question, you can ask me. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you chose to wikilawyer about my choice of words. The AfD was closed as "no consensus", therefore it was kept. I never tried to say anything else than that. I'm still wondering about the difference in the two closures, and you didn't comment on that. I guess it's just a difference in the closing admins' subjective preference. Personally, I'm just going to forget all about this piece of WP:SYNTH rubbish article now. Offliner (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You answered the question yourself: it's just a difference in the closing admins' subjective preference. I wasn't trying to wikilawyer about your choice of words. Anyway, if you feel that the article should have been deleted, try WP:DRV, or you can re-nominate the article for deletion after few months. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, AdjustShift. I think you the way you closed the AfD given the arguments was correct. However here is why I believe the article is wrongfully kept: The article appeared to me as a blatant POV attack when I first noticed it at Newpages and many of the people wanting to keep the page have a history of having a certain bias/voting predictably in AfDs related to the subject, whereas most users wanting deletion were regular AfD participants who could be expected to be neutral. I'm not saying the bias was not present in both sides but it the POV attack appeared very blatant the way I saw it. If you look at the talk page of the article, this nastiness is present at once. Anyways I have tried to work with this article however I am scared off by this nastiness. I believe this incident has taught me what I should stay out of. Thanks for your time,  Triplestop  x3  03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most editors wanting deletion were regular AfD participants who could be expected to be neutral??? Nope, I don't think so. The other side can also make the same argument. If the article is a blatant POV attack, we should erase POV from the article and make it neutral. We don't delete an article just because it is in a POV state. When we work on a controversial article, it can be frustrating. Editors should work together, and try to ameliorate the article. AdjustShift (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I have stated before the article itself is a POV attack. But that is just my opinion and if other editors want it to stay then I guess it will stay. However given the nature of the subject it will be very difficult to work with the article.  Triplestop  x3  03:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can be renamed, but working on that article will be pretty difficult. AdjustShift (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your protection needed
Hi AdjustShift,

Good day to you! I have not edited any material on WP for some time. User: Ravichandar84 is unnecessarily typing my name in edit summaries of the article Iyengar. You can see his edits here. He is the only one who is editing the article currently but he is again accusing me of having a ip sock. I am not a sock and I never used any ip sock all through my edits on WP. I do not want to disclose my gender or ethnicity here in the U.S. I request you to protect my account and please advise Ravichandar84 not to accuse me of anything. I have no grudge against anybody, but Ravichandar (a man from India) is relentlessly, unethically, unprofessionally, and belligerantly accusing me. You are also an American, you (I guess) follow principles and ethics while interacting with all people on WP and some other media. Please protect my account and please prevent any admin, or somebody from taking any negative action against my account. This is just to keep you posted of the recent happenings. I will call it a day now! Awaiting your help and professional assistance. Svr014 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if it offends you, but this edit by anon IP appears strikingly similar to this edit which you've made. And mind you, I've only used the term "probable IP-sock" and I'm not making any accusations. And your behaviour does seem suspicious, especially, if you make a claim in the talkpage of an article and contradict the same in the talkpage of another article. All that I do is to urge you to abide by Wikipedia's rules on sockpuppetry and civility. American ethics?? What do you mean? Do you mean to say that non-American Wikipedians are unethical cheats, liars and scoundrels? Please stop in engaging in incivility and abusing people based on their nationality.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Ravichandar84, 117.193.137.67 is an Indian IP. Svr014 is in the United States. YellowMonkey has run a CU on Svr014. It is possible for two people to share the same point of view. And there is no difference between the Americans and the rest of the world. Americans=Indians=Chinese=Europeans=Africans. All of us belong to one human family. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear AdjustShift, I want Ravichandar84 to stop accusing me. I am an American and I am following rules on WP. There is no need to do CU on my account. I also do not want Ravichandar to dictate terms here on WP as all editors must be given equal opportunity. I have clearly elucidated to you about ethics you may be following here in the U.S. You can very well see how badly Ravichandar is arguing the toss with me. He is also using offensive words like "unethical cheats, liars and scoundrels" in his posts. Ravi sits on computer for hours together to mainly accuse me for nothing I did. I respect all wikipedians regardless of nationality. Ravi is obsessed with articles on caste (which are as sensitive as articles on race, gender, etc). I am consistent with my opinions and unlike Ravichandar I don't enforce my opinions on people. AdjustShift, please protect my account. Please advice users like Ravichandar84 NOT to accuse me. I advice Ravi to keep a low profile and try to be a good citizen of the world. Hope this fills the bill. Also, please do not ask YellowMonkey to do any harm to my account as he tends to look down on some wikipedians who are not situated in British Commonwealth Countries. This is just my opinion. Still, I respect YellowMonkey. I will call it a day now. Thanks for your time. Svr014 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did NOT make any statements here that may be deemed as uncivil. I also did NOT abuse anybody based on nationality. It is your (Ravichandar's) headache if you misunderstand statements written by either me or somebody here on WP. I sincerely believe that User: AdjustShift is an American Administrator on WP. Most of the citizens of the United States follow principles, ethics, and honor code. We honor people's requests and needs based on principles, and ethics. You (Ravichandar) have been at odds with some editors (like me) here on WP. You come to incorrect conclusions and blindly accuse new editors as sockpuppets, meatpuppets, etc which constitutes UserSpace Harassment among other types of harassment. Please read here for more details. Ravichandar, I want you to understand this point clearly: Do not argue with people about what you understood from their statement, rather, ask them politely what they specifically tell you. There was no mention of abusive words on any particular nationality here on this talk page or on any other talk page, but you were accusing me of something I did NOT do. So, do not harass/abuse/accuse me here on WP. Should you harass/abuse/accuse me the matter will be handed over to a admin here in the U.S. Please take this caution seriously, and please do not engage in any demeanor like the way you did on this talk page. Thanks and have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism
Well, are you going to make an effort to explain your edits? Noloop (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't erase materials supported by reliable refs. AdjustShift (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Being "supported" by reliable refs isn't the sole criteria for inclusion. And, there is no "reliable source" for reporting a political opinion as a fact, which is what the material in question does. Please don't add material that vioaltes POV guidelines, violates WP:WEIGHT, violates guidelines re systemic bias, and most importantly, that has no consensus. I have given my reasoning and facts regarding this article for over a month in the Talk page; you have contributed nothing to the Talk page. Contributing to consensus means you use Talk. Noloop (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. The history of this article is complicated, and hard to review. The material you are adding back was added about a month ago and has been unstable ever since. It has never had consensus, and the account that added it never explained it on Talk. In fact, the account that added it (Gasta220) deleted its own Talk page and "vanished" a day alter. I would appreciate it if you'd revert your own edit, until the material has reached consensus on the Talk page. Noloop (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I many not have contributed to the talk page, but I've read the discussion at Talk:Anti-Americanism, and I've also read Requests for comment/Noloop. There is no question of me reverting the edits. AdjustShift (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you haven't contributed to the Talk page on an extremely controversial article, you haven't contributed to consensus. The RFC/U is about behavior, not the article, and is obviously only one side. Have you also read the RFC/U on WebHamster? The multiple AN/I's, etc? Noloop (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no consensus to erased those materials. I read Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558. So you think that multiple WP editors are wrong, and only you are correct? AdjustShift (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There doesn't need to be consensus to remove them, there needs to be consensus to add them, since the material in question isn't part of any stable version. As I said, it was added a month ago and has never achieved any consensus and was not explained by the account that added it. The AN/I is about behavior, not content. If you are interested in behavior, I trust you have also reviewed Webhamster's RFC/U and block history on this article, and SlaterSteven's block history. This conversation is very reminiscent of the conversation on the Talk page, however, where I say some text violates various policies, and am told "Yeah but it's referenced." Noloop (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)  Note: Abce2 also started an arbcom case, which you nshold probably look at if you're interested in the behaivors involved.


 * How can you say that the material in question isn't part of any stable version? I'll post something at Talk:Anti-Americanism. AdjustShift (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can say it because it's been challenged and removed repeatedly since it was added, and it was only added a month ago anyway. The article has certainly not been stable in the last month. Reverting to it is a violation of WP:BOLD, which states that material added without discussion and then reverted, should not be reverted back to. Noloop (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Noloop, when it's you against about 7 or 8 people, don't you think that you might be wrong? Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  18:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  18:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Useless stubs created by User:Dr. Blofeld"
Hi AdjustShift I don't think you comments at ANI concerning the conflict between Blofeld and Huldra were particularly helpful. It might have been the wrong venue or not, and of course nobody would get blocked over it, but calling the complaint of the one party absurd three times in a row, the actions of the other party praiseworthy, and marking the complaint as "resolved" at the same time, didn't defuse the situation, it escalated it. I saw two good-faithed and hardworking editors in a heated content dispute there. If they lock horns, we should try to calm the situation, not belittle one side. Cheers, Amalthea  22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't think your this comment is helpful either. Asking to block someone for creating stubs is absurd. According to our blocking policy, Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. How can blocking someone for creating stubs is going to reduce the likelihood of future problems? Is creating stubs a crime or something that warranties block? No. Huldra's report was not appropriate. You can yourself analyze the contributions of Dr. Blofeld, and decide whether they are praiseworthy or not. You may have saw two good-faithed and hardworking editors in a heated content dispute there, but I saw someone making an inappropriate report. I didn't try to "belittle one side", I called an inappropriate report an inappropriate report. As an admin, I know what I'm taking about. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm? That's not my point. As I said, of course nobody was going to get blocked. Realizing that though, you, "as an admin", could have tried to defuse the situation. Instead, your handling of this issue was escalatory and played a part in driving a constructive editor away. You should have realized that Huldra was angry, but a constructive editor and not a drama-monger, and consequently should have tried to deescalate, not dismiss with down-putting comments. To quote some policy back at you, "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" and "if an administrator finds that he or she cannot [...] remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should [...] refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own." A curt reply and quick dismissal has its place with disruptive editors or some other patterns of problematic behavior, but not in this case. "As an admin", you should have tried to handle this more empathetically, and quite generally, no, you don't simply know what you're talking about because you're an admin. Kind regards, Amalthea  08:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead, your handling of this issue was escalatory and played a part in driving a constructive editor away. How did I play a part in driving a constructive editor away? Please don't make such accusation. Below is the thread started by Huldra at WP:ANI:
 * For the last couple of years, some of us have tried to clean up the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War. Now User:Dr. Blofeld has decied to make our task much harder, by creating tons of useless stubs. I have tries to talk to hem, but he just removes my comments on his user.page. Could somebody PLEASE block that guy!! Now!Please!
 * Huldra asked an admin to block an editor for creating stubs. I don't think we have ever blocked anyone for creating tons of stubs. It was an inappropriate report. My comment may have been rude, but it was accurate. You need a thick skin to participate on en.wikipedia. People have said rude things to me, but that doesn't mean I will walk out of en.wikipedia. People have said lots of this and that to me, but I tend to digest them. When you make an inappropriate report at ANI, an admin can dismiss it with a rude comment. You should be able to digest it. The policy may say something else, but sometimes admins can dismiss inappropriate reports. After the report at ANI was closed, Huldra wrote on his/her talkpage: If you can get Blofeld /anyone to delete all the 48-village- articles Blofeld has made the last 12 hours: then I'll be back. So if those 48 stubs are deleted, Huldra will be back. My comments have nothing to do with driving Huldra away. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I seriously hope that you don't approve of needing a thick skin to edit Wikipedia? I don't know whether a more mediatorial response would have changed Huldra eventual reaction. Judging by, it's fair to say that the way it's been handled was a factor in her decision. In the end, it's all about improving the encyclopedia. That sometimes calls for a hard hand and calling out bullshit, if there's a pattern of trouble-making. By default, it requires a constructive and well-meaning attitude, and admins in particular should lead by example. I don't see how in this particular instance, a rude or at least confrontational response by an admin improved Wikipedia. Do you?  Amalthea  15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Asking to block someone for creating stubs also has nothing to with improving Wikipedia. You are pointing out diffs, but ignoring why I called that report "absurd". Do you think asking admins to block someone for creating stubs is appropriate? AdjustShift (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said twice above, it was obviously not actionable as requested, but it's irrelevant: It shouldn't prompt you to respond in kind. Cheers, Amalthea  16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I got your point. I posted this comment on Huldra's talk page earlier; hopefully she won't leave WP because of this dispute. AdjustShift (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw, and appreciated. Thanks for hearing me out on one of my pet peeves. :) Cheers, Amalthea  17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, AdjustShift. I have answered all here: User talk:Huldra, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * -Thank you for your note. It was really Jayvd´s solution which did the trick: I have no idea about how this "monobook.css" -thing works...but it does! ;) Now the big 48-template looks to me -more or less- as before, and I can manage to "navigate" on it again.
 * -Reading the above; I might also clear up a possible misunderstanding: when I wanted Blofeld blocked then and there (I first posted to the AN/I when he was in the middle of making these stubs), it was to stop him, to make him listen to what I said. (He had just removed my posts without addressing them.) When he had finished, and had made all the 48-village-stubs; well, I saw absolutely no point in blocking him then. (Btw, you might know he has made a new account now and is presently concentrating on expanding articles, which I think is excellent.)
 * -Also, though I am a strong "inclusionist" (except on BLP), I cannot agree that having a stub is always better than nothing. Though I understand that my situation (namely that I used a huge red&blue template to navigate after) is not common on WP.
 * -Anyway, thank you for your interest, Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the T-shirt
Thanks for the t-shirt, and for your participation in my RfA. I hope we'll get to colaborate in the future. best wishes! ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * Thanks for informing me; I'll see what the problem is. AdjustShift (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hi! Do you think you could give me the authorization to upload pictures. Thank you! Ashfromthepast (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Noel Coward
Thank you for alerting me to the appearance of this article on the front page. I am greatly obliged. Tim riley (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello I'm very new to wikipedia, perhaps you could show me the ropes? Himalayan   14:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * replied. AdjustShift (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Ultima characters
I noticed that there is a odd dispute at Talk:List of Ultima characters, with some users claiming that there was a consensus at Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters although this seems dubious. There is also an RFC where the discussion seems to be getting heated: Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters. I think an experienced user or admin should try to defuse the situation before it gets worse, but I don't know where to ask for such intervention. Can you help? Offliner (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Offliner, thanks for this post, but I don't have much idea about video games. I've not heard about "Ultima characters" before. You can post a comment at WP:ANI; may be another admin can help you. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think knowledge of the article subject is needed here at all. It's mostly just a dispute about whether there was a consensus in the merge discussion or not. But looks like someone already took it to ANI. Offliner (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kung Fu Man took it to ANI. Hopefully the dispute will be over. AdjustShift (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad news
I know :( It was too much for me to handle :P  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 21:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Durova
I see you emailed her, can you send me her email? She asked me to shoot her one but I've no idea what her address is. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this an option? Jamie  S93  21:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow... Uh, thanks, I guess I'm a bit dumb. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 21:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

White Tiger
Why are you reversing my edits? I'm trying to repair some of the damage done by Bioextra.72.1.195.4 (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You blanked the page without discussing with other editors. Here you erased info with the edit summary "general information on tigers is available elsewhere on Wikipedia". Was there any discussion about this on the talkpage? No, there wasn't. You also erased the section on Heterozygous tiger with the edit summary "this makes no sense, to have a section titled Heterozygous Tiger". If you want to erase something from the article, you have to discuss it with other editors on the talkpage. The info is erased if there is a consensus to erase it. Please don't erase info without discussion. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A sincere request to you (Account protection)
Dear AdjustShift, I sincerely request you to support me wholeheartedly in this issue. You now understand that User: Ravichandar84 is siccing me mainly because of deep-rooted hatred in his mind against me which may be based on my nationality (which is American) or based on some other unprofessional and unethical reason known only to him. He blindly accused me of having a sock way back in July 2009 (I guess on 07/06/09) WITHOUT any evidence. He also used some unprintable words like scoundrels, cheats, liars in his post mentioned above. I am really concerned that he may do some harm to me in the long run here on WP. Please respond to my requests and please protect my interests and account here on WP. Please do not discriminate against me for no reason. I am also cognizant of the fact that some Asian Indians are good people. They follow principles and ethics the way some Japanese, Americans, and others do. But I am really worried because of this man- Ravichandar. He is not willing to mend his ways here on WP but is constantly abusing and harassing other editors. Hence, please respond to my requests and please protect my account and my interests here on WP. Thanks for your time and have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't you think this is a bit too much! How long are you gonna continue this Wikidrama? You see, it looks funny if you accuse me of spending all my time fighting against you. I never attacked you because you are an American; in fact, it was you who revealed here that you are an American and I don't bother a trifle about your nationality. User:AdjustShift, I agree that there could be two people with same views but I strongly feel that there is someone or a bunch of people trying to sabotage the article on Iyer. Well, from articles on Dravidian movement and Anti-Brahminism, you might understand that it is a sensitive political issue in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu and I've tried my best to keep it neutral and remove unsourced info. Maybe, you can understand the motives of some people here.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 15:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ravichandar84, I can understand your frustration, but there are multiple people in TN who share Svr's view-point. I have some knowledge about the North/South divide in India. AdjustShift (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Svr014, I think you should drop this issue. Nobody is doing anything to your account, so there is no need to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, this is not just about North-South viewpoint alone but this is about the Brahmins and Anti-Brahmins, too. All points of view on the origin of Tamil Brahmins (Iyers and Iyengars) have been sufficently discussed here. It seems ridicuous if someone claims that a particular community in India is "Aryan" without giving any valid proof. And even if a particular community has "Aryan" roots can we ignore the centuries ofd inter-marriage that must have taken place. So, I do expect some proof from User:Svr014 than unsourced claims.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 15:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on this, so you and Svr014 should settle this dispute. If you ask me, race is a social construct. A person shouldn't be judged on the basis of his/her race, ethnicity, or nationality; he/she should be judged on the basis of his/her merit. AdjustShift (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear AdjustShift, I thank you sincerely for trying to mediate this misunderstanding fuelled by some people a world away from the U.S. I am NOT creating any wikidrama. It was Ravichandar who was accusing me while I was trying to contribute to some Asian Indian articles based on information given by my pal who also lives in the U.S. I am not that experienced like some editors as a result of which I could not field all the questions posted by other editors in Asian Indian articles. So, please bear with me. Also, I do not see any North/South divide in any Asian Indian articles or in The Republic of India, as a whole. I totally concur with you that a person's merits are of supreme importance and other unprofessional aspects like race, gender, religion should not be taken into account while judging a person or his/her works. I always try to be neutral towards Christians, Hindus, Jews, etc. I am also neutral towards all denominations of Hindus, Christians, Jews, etc.


 * Ravichandar, please note that I am not willing to talk anything about Hindu Brahmins here on WP for a while as I want misunderstandings to subside and people (like you, for example) to have an open mind while interacting with anyone on WP or anywhere else. I also want you to understand that some people in other parts of the world may have the same points of view as me. So, please prick up your ears at the mention of subtle differences of opinions or new points of view. You cannot expect all people to agree with what you say.


 * That's all for now. Have a great September ahead (to both AdjustShift and Ravichandar)! Svr014 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User:AdjustShift, I am mainly bothered about User:Svr014 making personal attacks based on nationality, etc., and introducing controversial claims concerning race without providing any sources. And I feel that this reasom was sufficient enough to suspect User:Svr014 to be a sockpuppet of some politically minded miscreant who had vandalized Wikipedia earlier. This was just a routine process and as you know each and every person in Wikipedia could be subjected to a sockpuppetry case. My actions were based on genuine doubts and concerns and it is not at all my intention to harass User:Svr014. If User:Svr014 is acting in good faith tyhen well and fine. Nice September to you, User:Svr014.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 09:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear AdjustShift, please note that I did not make any personal attacks based on nationality at anyone. I do not know why Ravichandar is accusing me. I think he has a grudge against me for some reason. I just talked about me, i.e. I am American. I did not talk ill of Ravichandar or any other editor based on nationality. Like I said before, I was trying to contribute to some Asian Indian articles based on information from my pal (who also lives in the U.S.) who has a vast collection of Historical/Religious works. I used to make long-distance calls from Chicagoland mainly to get information from her.


 * Ravichandar, you may want to watch your language while communicating here on WP as well as in other media. You used the word "miscreant" (in the sentence "User:Svr014 to be a sockpuppet of some politically minded miscreant") which means villian. Look here for the meaning. You are now indulging in personal attack by also calling me a sockpuppet when admin AdjustShift (as well as other U.S. admins) clearly knows that I am a new user on WP. I joined WP only in May 2009 from Chicagoland, Illinois. Please do not harass me by saying that I am attacking you or anybody based on nationalilty or anything else when I did not do anything like that.Read WP Harassment policy for more details. So I strongly advice against any apocryphal criticisms that may be directed at me. Please approach a psychologist in your hometown (where you live) and ask him/her for assistance in handling situations like these as you tend to misunderstand and make up instances that are completely improbable. I have always acted in good faith with all people, in all my born days. Professionals in almost all countries act in good faith in professional environments (like online ambience here on WP, as well as in work places). I am a professional in Chicagoland, IL.

That's all for now. Need to get down to brass tacks with my boss. Have a nice day! Svr014 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear AdjustShift, can you please tell User:Ravichandar84 in a stern manner not to harass me. I am really getting fed up with this predicament. He is again and again accusing me for no reason. Can he provide any diffs (that were used by Svr014) that contain any personal attacks against him based on nationality here on WP? There are many possibilities for his current stance- which is very antagonistic towards me. One of them is that he is not able to understand English language. Another possibility is that he is deliberately trying to malign my name and account here on WP by falsely blaming me for no legitimate reason. An important possibility is that he is suffering from an inferiority complex because of his nationality which is Indian (India, in South Asia). He feels inferior (because he is Indian) and accuses me of making personal attacks based on his nationality just because I am an American. I cannot tolerate this problem anymore so I ask you to solve it once and for all. Please respond to this problem and please support me wholeheartedly. I ask you to follow your nose and help me in this situation. Svr014 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Svr014, please stop commenting on someone's nationality. Your comment that Ravichandar84 is an Indian, and he is suffering from an inferiority complex because of his nationality is pretty inaccurate. Why should someone suffer from an inferiority complex because of his/her nationality? The idea of nationalism is a 20th century concept; the 21st century is a century of globalization. One's nationality has nothing to do with one's merit. Some South Asians are more capable, intelligent, and trustworthy than some Americans. An individual should be judged on the basis of merit, not on the basis of his/her nationality. AdjustShift (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, User:Svr014. I am an Anglophile and Americophile myself and I marvel at the hardwork that has produced the scientific and technological advancements of the recent past and also at the general sense of unity that you have among yourselves regardless of which state or religion or race you belong to. But then, I feel User:Svr014's remarks on his nationality and mine in the talkpage of Vadama or Iyengar article are irrelevant and imperialistic as it is not a requirement for someone to be an American in order to edit these articles.


 * By the way, I am getting weary of this fellow. All he has done is to indulge in personal attacks or disrupt Wikipedia. However, I suggest that we wait and examine his edits during the next few months. If we don't see anything useful from him, I feel it will be better to start an ANI. It's been months and I am yet to see some useful contribution.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 04:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ravichandar84, you don't know whether I am a male or a female, then why are you saying "He" while describing me. I prefer not to disclose my ethnicity or gender here on WP. Can you show any diffs wherein you see any statements that were typed by me which can be deemed as personal attacks, or disruption of anykind? To the best of my knowledge, I never indulged in any personal attacks. I also did not disrupt WP the way some others try to do. You have trouble understanding English language as your first language (mother tongue) is not English. My perception is that you feel inferior because of your nationality (which is Indian). Please don't be on the offensive mode always by critizing others. I have nothing against you or anybody. All people must be given equal chance to edit articles and you must not dictate terms that are very biased. A proud Illinoisan (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AdjustShift, I am not commenting ill of Ravichandar's nationality. I was just giving you the possibilities for Ravichandar's demeanor. I request you to advice Ravichandar not to accuse me for any reason as I am really fed up with his baseless claims about me. I never attacked him based on his nationality, why is he repeatedly accusing me? Instead of assuming good faith in my edits he biasedly accused me a sockpuppet while you very well knew that I am a new user. I request you also to assume good faith in me and my edits. You very well know that there are no diffs wherein I or any other American made personal attacks at Ravichandar based on his nationality-which is Indian (Asian Indian). I am also happy as you try to be meritocratic. I agree with you that globalization is the 21st century concept. To sum up, I did not indulge in any personal attacks against any editor based on his/her nationality, or on any other bases. A coin has two sides, so I want you to give a sage advice to Ravichandar too. Thanks for your time. Awaiting your reply and help. Svr014 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AdjustShift, please stand up for me (i.e. support me and protect me). Please give sage advice to User:Ravichandar84. Please tell him not to accuse me. I respect all editors but I cannot help if some editors (like Ravichandar) have some mental health conditions that hinder their understanding and general perception here on WP as well as in other media. Please do not give a deaf ear to my sincere requests. I also want you to understand me and honor my requests. I am a new user and I want editing articles on WP to be all plain sailing. I also look into the nuts and bolts of various topics in day-to-day life here in Illinois, USA. Thanks for your time, and I wish you well. Again, please stand up for me. Svr014 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Kid, this is what I said:




 * Now if at all you are a "real person", you might understand that I am NOT calling you a "miscreant" but then if you are indeed the owner of User:Vyaghradhataki who was blocked, then I was indeed referring to you. As is evident from my statement, I was only calling the owner of the sockpuppet, a "miscreant" and not you. And I advice you to use online dictionaries for more useful purposes. And better try to improve your understanding of English or stop boasting of your American-ness.


 * Kid, I understand that you feel extremely bored which is why you try to find excuses to pick up a fight with me or someone else on Wikipedia. But then, I have a lot of important things to do than fight with you so better find someone else. Look here, no one cares what you do in real life or whether you are an Indian American from the United States, but people here do care if you indulge in adding controversial unsourced shit in Wikipedia articles.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 04:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AdjustShift, please note that Ravichandar84 is using unprofessional language in the post "you indulge in adding controversial unsourced shit in Wikipedia articles". He is the one who is fighting with me right from July 2009. Oh my Gosh, some people are really awful. This is a testament to our present day and age. I tried to contribute to some Asian articles with the help of my pal (who has a vast collection of historical/religious works) here in the US but he (Ravichandar84) is talking ill of my contribution. Of course, I am not that experienced like some other American editors but I can definitely gain experience as days go by. Now, I want you to take a stern stance at Ravichandar84. Please don't be afraid of him. He is going beyond his limits. I speak English 24/7 and every person who uses English language may refer to a dictionary. He (Ravichandar) need not tell me what to do with a dictionary as I am NOT a kid. I again feel that he (Ravichandar) is feeling inferior/bad because of some general reason (like his nationality, etc) and is jealous at me. So, please give a sage advice to him and please ask him to stop this dispute as he started it way back in July 2009. He is going beyond his level/limits, and that is not good for me. A proud Illinoisan (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is more or less settled, so please drop this issue. If would be better if you were to contribute to WP articles. AdjustShift (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AdjustShift, can you please honor my requests? I am really worried because of User:Ravichandar84's demeanor. Please help me and please stand up for me. Also, have a great Labor Day! Svr014 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Svr014, there is nothing to worry about. Nobody is doing anything to your account, so please drop this issue. It would be better if you start contributing to articles. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AdjustShift, thanks for your post which is very motivating and soothing. I will definitely try to contribute to articles here on WP if time permits me. Hope you are having a great Labor Day. Svr014 (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, and thanks! AdjustShift (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome! By the way where do you and other editors meet the colleagues at WP? Is it in Chicago, IL? Svr014 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Season
Really? See the second section of Season. If you think vagina repeated 300 times is less vandalism than the two words in the intro, fine. You didn't give me enough time to fix all of it. Andyo2000 (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the article with this edit. I didn't see the vagina below. But your revert had "fucking" and "a cow vagina". You should have saved an older diff that has no vandalism. AdjustShift (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history, I see that we tried to revert a vandalization from an IP at the same time. This led to me reverting over your revert unknowingly. Neither of us wants this page to be vandalized - it appears clean now, so it's done. Andyo2000 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anons, section-blanking, and BLP
I happened to run across this (which I followed to this) a little while ago. Take a very careful look at what you restored here, in particular the sources cited. --Dynaflow  babble  04:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP erased info without any explanation, so I reverted his/her edit. It seems that the IP did the right thing, but he/she should have left an edit summary. If he/she would have left a nice edit summary, I won't have reverted his/her edit. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet war crimes
No problem .radek (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Radeksz. AdjustShift (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 05:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. AdjustShift (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks!
Such a pleasant suprise. Thank you, sir. :-) Sciurinæ (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein is Jewish, not only insofar as he was ethnically 3/4 jewish, but also in his constant references to himself as jewish. Read Culture and Value - he always regarded himself as Jewish. He actually discusses himself as a specifically "Jewish philosopher" many times. 86.26.0.25 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know whether he was a Jew or not. A reliable ref should identify him as a Jew. I've seen a source that calls him a Jew. AdjustShift (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wittgenstein (Avraham's response)
Per http://www.iep.utm.edu/wittgens/#H1, he was neither halachically a Jew nor born into a Jewish family; however, he had Jewish ancestors. Halachically, Wittgenstein's mother would have to be Jewish, and she was not, as only her father was Jewish, not her (Wittgenstein's mother's) mother. Wittgenstein's father was Jewish, halachically, as conversion from Judaism is not recognized by Halacha as removing one from the faith, but as Jewishness is decided based on matrilineal descent, his father does not have any bearing. As for a non-halachic perspective, as both of his parents were practicing Christians at the time, I fail to see how he could be considered Jewish under that view as well. -- Avi (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

--- The Halachical definition is irrelevant here, as he always considered himself to be categorically Jewish. [But his family was also considered Jewish by the wider society (to the extent that they only just survived the holocaust after years of legal battles, paying the Nazis off with their fortune).] On the other hand, he never considered himself to be Christian at all - although he was obsessed with the New Testament. (And yet he is listed as a Christian philosopher, despite the lack of references for this)

Also his family were not "practising Christians". It a different thing to nominally convert to christianity in order to avoid persecution, than to practice a religion.

Now as for reliable sources, I don't know where to post these on the article (how can you source categories?), but look at, for example,

Wittgenstein, Culture and Value (Oxford 1998), page 16: "The saint is the Jewish genius. Even the greatest Jewish thinker is no more than talented (myself for instance)."

Or Wittgenstein, Culture and Value (Oxford 1998), page 18: "If Jews are said not to have any sense for possession that is presumably compatible with their liking to be rich; since money is a sort of power not possession. (I should not for instant like my people to be poor, since I wish them to have a certain power. Of course, I wish them to use this power properly too.)

These are two examples, but there are hundreds of extant samples in his notes and letters where he refers to himself as Jewish. His Jewish identity was actually an obsession.86.26.0.25 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can supply acceptable sources that he considered himself Jewish, then that should be noted in the article. -- Avi (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If those quotes check out and they are not only verifiable but sufficiently notable then by all means find a way to work a mention into the article. What is not O.K. is to flat-out add Wittgenstein to the "Jewish philosophers" category. (If W. is currently in the "Christian philosophers" category then I would not mind him being removed from there also, as his published writings do not support such a classification – he is no Chesterton.) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your responses, Avraham and Goodmorningworld. AdjustShift (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wittgenstein refers to himself as jewish many times in his diaries, notebooks, letters and reported conversations. The sources are widely available.
 * HOWEVER, the question, whether or not he was jewish, let alone a jewish philosopher, is different, and somewhat subjective. Many articles have been published on this subject (See for example "Was Wittgenstein a Jew?", by David Stern, in Wittgenstein: Biography and Philosophy (Cambridge University Press 2001)
 * He certainly thought of his philosophy as "100% Hebraic". (source: )


 * I think it would useful to discuss this in the article, instead of categorising him either way.

There are different issues here: (i)whether he thought of himself as jewish? The answer is yes. (ii)whether he was actually jewish? The answer seems subjective. (iii)whether he was a "jewish philosopher"? Who knows? Avaya1 (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll analyze this. AdjustShift (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wittgenstein's thinking may be "100% Hebraic"; but that doesn't prove that he was a Jew. Please bring one reliable source that proves that Wittgenstein referred to himself as a Jew. Without any reliable ref, we can't insert category Jewish Philosophers in the bio. AdjustShift (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the sources where he explicitly describes himself as jewish is Culture and Value, page 16 (which is as reliable a source as you can get). This is a separate issue to whether or not he is actually Jewish, which seems to be a matter of third-personal opinion, and is extremely ambiguous.


 * From the third-person, mainstream academic philosophers (such as Hilary Putnam) do include him as a "Jewish philosopher". Avaya1 (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The book doesn't say that Ludwig Wittgenstein was a Jew. Where in the book is he included as a "Jewish philosopher"? Providing link to the front page of the book doesn't mean anything. AdjustShift (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Page no. 9 of that book says that "Ludwig Wittgenstein is not a "Jewish philosopher", despite his Jewish ancestry". He had a Jewish ancestry, but he was not a Jew. Avraham has given detail explanation why he can't be considered Jewish. I think this settles the issue. Ludwig Wittgenstein can't be under category Jews or category Jewish philosophers. AdjustShift (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're correct insofar as Putnam describes him explicitly as half a jewish-philosopher (see p 108). While Witt may or may not be Jewish, he is only half a philosopher of judaism in the religious sense, as Putnam uses it, unlike Levinas, Rosenweig or Buber, who were all Torah specialists. We are muddling up separate issues here. Wittgenstein was more Jewish than Hilary Putnam in the ethnic sense of the term. But Hilary Putnam knows a lot more Jewish philosophy.


 * Of course Wittgenstein describes himself as Jewish in his own writings many times. But does this mean he is a "Jewish philosopher"? He sees himself as a Jew, but this does not imply that his philosophy is Jewish (although he does also say that his thinking as "100% Hebraic"). This issue is far from "settled". Avaya1 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You claim that "Wittgenstein describes himself as Jewish in his own writings many times", but you haven't brought any source where Wittgenstein described himself as Jewish. See WP:V and WP:RS. AdjustShift (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, Oxford University Press 1998, page 16 (and other pages in that book). Surely his own writings (published by the Wittgenstein estate, no less) are the most verifiable and reliable sources of all? But I'll go to the library for some more sources later this week. I remember that Wittgenstein's Poker has a discussion of this with a good bibliography (although I returned it to the library). This topic is interesting.  Avaya1 (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I just removed five more categories from the Wittgenstein article. If adding a subject to a category is not uncontrovertibly accurate then it should not be done. As far as the quotes given by Avaya1 are concerned and providing they are as he says, then I would support inclusion as I find the information noteworthy enough. Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Those categories should be inserted in the article only if reliable references support the claim of Avaya1. AdjustShift (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I meant "… I would support inclusion in the body of the article as I find the information noteworthy enough." I don't foresee any set of circumstances that would allow for including Wittgenstein in the "Jewish philosophers" category. Apologies if I've needlessly repeate my point. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I got your point. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree removing categories is the most accurate thing to do. But, as for his comments, I'll try to find somewhere to insert it. I wrote quite a lot in the article over years (a lot before I got an account), and I didn't see where they would belong - somewhere in the 1930s area of the biography. But during the 30s, Wittgenstein wrote about his own jewishness in way which, taken out of context, might make him sound like a quasi-Nazi. It's quite a complicated subject Avaya1 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on Wittgenstein, so I can't comment much about him. When you insert something on the bio, please add reliable sources to support your claim. AdjustShift (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sławków - deleted reference
Regards --89.32.121.102 (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) the reference page I deleted does not exist any more;
 * 2) the information I deleted and the reference were misleading. They refer to Sosnowiec - a neighbouring city - not to Sławków itself. It's clear to anyone reading the text and the information thus makes no sense.
 * When you erase something from the article, please write why you are erasing it in the edit summary. AdjustShift (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Block query
Hey there. I noticed you recently blocked 91.104.74.124 for 55 hours for vandalism. This user had only received a level 1 warning, and as far as I'm aware, was not reported on AIV. I'm curious as to your reasoning for this block after just one warning. Cheers! A le_Jrb talk 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP was guilty of six vandalism in the past 24 hours. Should I wait for the seventh one before blocking the IP? It is not important for the IP to be reported to AIV before a block. It is not important to warn IP multiple times. After Ale jrb reverted the vandalism of the IP, what did the IP did? The IP did this. I don't waste time with vandals; I block them. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, Ale jrb is me. Interesting comment. Thanks. A le_Jrb talk 15:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that you are Ale jrb when I was responding to your query. :-) "A" is big in your signature, but "Jrb" is small, so that could be the reason. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It could at that. :) I must admit, personally I always warn users properly before blocking, but it could just be me I suppose. A le_Jrb talk 15:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, different admins have different style. BTW, this is the first time I'm interacting with you; it was nice meeting you. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's true. It was nice meeting you too. :) A le_Jrb talk 18:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooops
My apologies for the revert I was using Lupin's and it looked like you were the one vandalizing...Glad I didn't leave a warning though, Happy editing.-- SKATER  Speak. 20:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. The Jack article was badly vandalized by multiple IPs. When I reverted vandalism by one IP, vandalism by another IP was saved! I finally managed to erase vandalism from that article, and blocked the IP which was guilty of repeated vandalism. AdjustShift (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! Perhaps Semi-Protection would be needed there to prevent it from happening again?-- SKATER  Speak. 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP which was guilty of repeated vandalism, so semi-protection is not needed at this moment. AdjustShift (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Kim Cattrall
You changed Kim's nationality to Canadian without any source. I have changed it back to English and provided a reference to support this. Spudbynight (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source you inserted doesn't say Kim's nationality is British. She said in that source that "I'm English", but that doesn't mean her nationality is British. AdjustShift (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dewan357
All I am doing is removing the blocked users pov edits which got him blocked in the first place hes created many accounts and im trying my best to revert his edits on the Mughal empire page 86.158.232.138 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but you seem to be Nangparbat. Banned uses are not allowed to edit WP, my dear. AdjustShift (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But banned user Dewan357 is allowed? im not nangparbat btw 86.158.232.138 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, Dewan357 is also not allowed to edit WP. AdjustShift (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet he is If user Elockid is hell bent on giving him "another chance" he wants him back how many sock accounts must dewan make to get blocked indefinately? yet elockid seems to be sided with him remember I only removed his pov from the Mughal empire page I didnt add anything to it 86.158.232.138 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not hell bent on giving him another chance if you think that. But you on the other hand have already overly abused, in the several hundreds if not thousands have socks (that's why you're banned). So your not making a good point for yourself. But from AdjustShift's comment, banned editors (namely you) are not allowed to edit. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 17:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nishkid64 has blocked 86.158.232.138 as a sock of Nangparbat. AdjustShift (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good. I hope he didn't forget though. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've indef blocked Mupper3445 as a sockpuppet of Nangparbat. AdjustShift (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind taking look at this user?


 * Mupper3445
 * Dilawere123

Dilawere123 reinstated the same exact edits as Mupper. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 18:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, many thanks for helping out. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. After analyzing the edits of Dilawere123, it is obvious that Dilawere123 = Mupper3445 = Nangparbat. I've also semi-protected the Mughal Empire article for one week. AdjustShift (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey! This guy is a sock for sure of Mupper3445 Aamirshkh (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, the account was a sock, now the account is indef blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep and your mate above is a sock which you were aware of 86.156.211.56 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bias ?
You have been supporting the banned user Aamirshkh on the Mughal empire page I simply removed his POV edits hes not even allowed to edit yet you continued to support him by protecting the article and re adding his edits I will make sure Pakistani users are aware of your favouritism on the Mughal empire page and make sure his trash is removed whether you like it or not 86.156.211.56 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious you were not only here removing Aamirshkh POV edits. You simply stated that you were here to remove "Dewan's" edits while actually you removed any edits you thought did not conformed to your own POV. So stop changing your story. I don't think anyone is buying it. I will also make sure that the editors you are informing know full well that it is you, a banned user requesting to edit on your behalf, so they themselves will not be blocked from editing. It hasn't been working so why do you persist on trying? Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 14:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since commen sense is absent from Elockid I shall explain again I removed his edits because I knew him and Dewan were in contact he made exactly the same edit on the Mughal empire page as dewan357 did so I removed them I knew Aamirskhs would eventually be another sock of Dewans357 friend since you both realise your mistake of aiding a banned sock you should removed his edits and stop playing fiddle to banned users while claiming im Nangparbat its Hypocrasy of the nth degree so you let some banned users edit while ban other? maybe you should review WP policy on neutrality maybe? I will make sure the banned user Mrpontiac and edits get removed since you wont do it 86.153.129.29 (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW other users wont be blocked because they themselves are removing the edits of your banned chum Mrpontiac1 so they are actually carrying out a duty which all users should and one which you and Adjustshift choose to ignore 86.153.129.29 (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a banned tag on their page. But I can clearly see one on yours. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 18:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you blind you dont see a banned tag? are you just blinded by your one sided hatred here let me show you, and one more thing your responses are getting very pathetic 86.162.70.46 (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, those are tags for being blocked indefinitely, not tags for being banned from Wikipedia. This is an example of a banned tag: User: Isis. There is a difference between a block and a ban. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 19:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked the user who is accused of being a sock Must Not evade blocks either he has many times now with more then 10 different accounts so seems to me he will be banned soon and he CANNOT edit but he is with other accounts so you pick and choose the policys you want to follow and get lost 86.162.70.46 (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So why you evading your block, I mean ban then? Huh? You have HUNDREDS if not thousands of IP socks and many more account socks. So, yes the user (you) being accused of sock must not evade their block which you are clearly not doing. The Arb Committee, Jimmy Wales, the foundation or the community decides on a ban, so unless this happens, then there is no ban. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

your examination of my appeal
I reported on you on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. Loosmark (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi AdjustShift - I'm here as a result of the ANI mentioned above (here's a direct link). Given Loosmark's allegation of previous conflict between you and that user, it has been suggested that the hearing should be reopened. I'd like your input before proceeding on that however . Cheers Manning (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I ended up reviewing the entire case and subsequently fully concurred with your decision. I made a (very gentle) criticism regarding your choice of words in your closure summary ("I ignored all comments by..."), although I also noted that every admin is guilty of being overly brief in a comment at some stage or another. My comments are here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Manning (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark wishes to take it further...
Hi AdjustShift: Loosmark contacted me requesting advice on how to take his/her complaint against you further and I was duty-bound to reply. For your reference my response to Loosmark is here: User_talk:Loosmark. Regards Manning (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry - I didn't make myself very clear in my last comment. This is no longer about the review of the Sandstein sanctions against Loosmark (which I have already declared closed at ANI).


 * Loosmark now wants to initiate a formal review of your alleged "misconduct" in handling a case where you were (according to Loosmark) "involved". Loosmark asked me how to proceed and I gave him advice as a matter of protocol. I wanted to let you know this conversation had occurred as it concerned you. I also noted that I believe the exercise will be a complete waste of time (as I personally doubt that any impartial observer will find you guilty of any form of misconduct). Regards Manning (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Manning, I think the situation is quite simple really, AdjustShift is either too involved as I think he is or he is uninvolved as he seems to believe. I also find his threats to ban me from wikipedia.en on the ANI discussion and the suggestion on the Sandstein talk's page to block me, while the ANI discussion was in progress behavior which doesn't fit very well with the role of an Admin as I was only trying to clear the (un)involved status, and even if i'm dead wrong on everything none of the people who participated there found me disruptive in any way. But anyway if AdjustShift agrees not to handle AE requests/appeals on me in future, i'm ready to drop all this unfortunate story and move on. I think there a tons of other admins out there who can do the job and it is not absulotely necessary he handles me, I think we'll both be more happy if we stay out of each others' way. Loosmark (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have decided to stay out of your way. And you have to stay out of my way. From today's onward, both of us will not poke our nose in each other's business. AdjustShift (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

False statement
A.Shift, you accused me of making a false statement here I wrote:  I remember AdjustShift being very involved and even defending German editor from being blocked while in dispute with Polish editors. You wrote: This statement is 100% false. Here is the link to the page were you defended a German editor from being sanctioned [] I expect a clear and full clarification that I was not lying on the talk page you have made your accusations at, as well as maybe an apology. I believe that you did not remember that you did defend that editor, but yes you did, and you were involved in Polish-German disputes. At the same time perhaps you could examine your edit history and again think about it if your decision was really neutral and not dictated by luck of sympathy to the Polish editors. Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jacurek - as you notified me on my talk page about your complaint I'll answer it here. You accused AdjustShift of being biased on the basis of nationality. AdjustShift said that was 100% false. I see no basis to challenge that. The diff you provided showed that AdjustShift's intervention was on the basis of the editor being of good faith and made no reference to the editor's nationality.


 * Unless you can provide a diff that proves AdjustShift made a decision on the basis of nationality then AdjustShift has NO case to answer. Loosmark and AdjustShift have come to a compromise and everyone else would like to see this matter go away. Please put the stick down. Manning (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He did defend a German editor but said that it is %100 false what I wrote. All I want is to defend my name nothing else. Is this too much to ask? Because I'm just a "peon" and he is one of you then it is o.k. ? If I did something like that I would be probably blocked or sanctioned or topic banned or whatever you guys think would be "appropriate" to punish a "peon". Sorry but in my opinion there is a lot of injustice around here.--Jacurek (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First - apologies to AdjustShift for having this discussion on his/her page.


 * Jacurek - RELAX. Your name is in no way damaged and simply doesn't need defending. AdjustShift disagreed with your statement, but did not criticise your character or do anything that constitutes a personal attack. I realise you feel offended, but there is simply no reason to be. If you think that no-one cares about your honour and dignity you're wrong. We do care. It's just that we don't think that your reputation was actually damaged in any way, hence we don't see the need for any remedy.


 * Secondly - prior to this I had never encountered AdjustShift so I have no loyalty either as a person or as an admin. If you think we admins "all gang together" then you are VERY wrong - we are actually brutal in punishing our own, MUCH more so than with normal users. We expect much higher standards of behaviour from admins, and admins who transgress have a very miserable time.


 * Thirdly about standards. If you had written "That statement is 100% false" then absolutely no-one would take you to task for it. Ever. Everyone here makes incorrect statements all the time. However accusing someone of behaving from racist or nationalist motives is a bit more serious however and will generally get a warning.


 * So to conclude. You're fine. Your reputation is fine. Relax and get back to working on something constructive. Cheers Manning (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you are probably the best administrator I have ever interacted with. Faith in Wikipedia restored. All the best.--Jacurek (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I said Skäpperöd is a good-faith editor on the basis of his contributions, not on the basis of his nationality. Skäpperöd and I've worked on three articles (Gerhard Jahn, Fritz Neumayer, and Hans-Joachim von Merkatz), and they are in a good shape. BTW, I also think that Piotrus' edits are praiseworthy; it has nothing to do with his nationality, I'm saying this on the basis of his content contributions. Jacurek, your reputation is fine. Here on en.wikipedia, editors are judged on the basis of their article work, so if you do good article work, you will enhance your reputation as an editor. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

JFYI
IP mentioning your warnings here. 7 04:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me; after reading the discussion here, it appears that others have taken care of the issue. AdjustShift (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me. AdjustShift (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST admins
Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat wishes to discuss and talk
Nangparbat has sent me another message wishing to discuss current problems with me with this IP. I don't know if it might help and I know he's breaking policy by block evading but he seems to be willing to talk and discuss the root of the problem and put aside his past actions. Would it be right to discuss the matter with him so long as he remains civil and does not start editing articles, etc. or just enforce policy? Could you advise what to do? <b style="color:DarkRed; font-family: Papyrus">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 16:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for evading again I didnt realise Elockid message me on my previous ip so I message him again to talk to me sorry again 86.153.131.65 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nangparbat, if you want to edit en.wikipedia again, please contact the ArbCom. Please don't evade your ban by using socks. You have to convince the WP community that you can edit without causing any disruption. You should also never engage in any sockpuppetry. AdjustShift (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand however there is a problem my ip changes whenever I turn of my router I must turn it of because it over heats and whenever I turn it off it resets my ip to another figure how can I overcome this issue its actually because of my router that all this sockpuppet stuff began I havent switched my router of for 2 days now but I will have to soon thanks for talking to me 86.153.131.65 (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

UK Anon blocking
Thanks for acting on my edit war report. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, quick Q
What tools do you use to apply Anon bans? Just curious and all, you picked up this one I was having issues with pretty quickly: |diff Thanks --smadge1 (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've not used any tool for anon bans; I blocked the IP for 48 hours. Blocking an IP for 48 hours is not banning. Blocking is not banning. See WP:BAN. This edit, this edit, and this edit are vandalism; I blocked the IP to prevent disruption. AdjustShift (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I meant blocking. I'm just trying to work out how you knew to place a block without anyone reporting it? --smadge1 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When an IP is vandalizing an article or multiple articles, the IP can be blocked. Even if the IP is not reported to AVI, if it continues vandalism it should get blocked. I've fought vandalism on en.wikipedia for a long time, and I know when to block an IP. When I see an IP vandalizing an article or multiple articles, I blocked it for 48 or 55 hours after one or two warnings. There is no point in waiting for that IP to vandalize more articles before blocking it. AdjustShift (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

2 things.
First off, would you please stop beating me to reverting! :P And the second thing, do you have a bot that archives your page or do you do it whenever you feel like it? -- Scythre TalkContribs 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I archive my talk page after 65 threads (the Civil War ended in 1865). AdjustShift (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your block of User:143.231.249.141
Hi there,

I removed the block against 143.231.249.141 ( talk · contribs · [ logs ] · [ block log ] ), for several reasons:

A) This IP is shared, as mentioned on the talk page, and 72 hours is too long of a block for a routine block of any shared IP. Long blocks against shared IPs need to be made cautiously and with a great deal of community and technical support, because of the fallout that can result.

B) This IP is in a sensitive ownership group, in that it is owned by a governmental agency. This is a fairly minor point, and being governmental certainly doesn't excuse any vandalism or leave the IP immune to blocking, it simply means that blocks against it should be placed with the knowledge that they may be subject to extra scrutiny and should be placed with good cause.

C) The edits leading to this block did not seem to rise to the level of vandalism. They had only made three edits today.  I assume the block was placed because of the removal of a paragraph from Flags of the Confederate States of America, but that is not automatically vandalism.  Yes, they should have explained their edit, and perhaps it was without merit.  One could point out that section was unsourced, and partially original research.  This edit should have been reverted at most, though I'm not even sure that it warranted a revert.

Please consider these things as you block IPs in the future. I see that you do a lot of vandalism patrol, and that work is certainly important to the project and I appreciate it. It's easy when in the heat of trying to keep up with the recent changes to quickly block and forget users, but we must be sure that our blocks are placed with good cause and with an understanding of how blocks can appear to users, especially the casual users who might just be starting to edit Wikipedia after seeing an error. They're in the process of converting from reader to editor, and we want to encourage that to happen in a positive way.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Kmccoy, there is a reason why I blocked the IP; I don't agree that my block was without cause. See this edit. The IP blanked the section. Today en.wikipedia is basically is in maintenance phase. Removing vandalism from articles is one of the top priorities on en.wikipedia. While fighting vandalism, I'm pretty tough towards IPs who vandalize articles. AdjustShift (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Two more things: 1) at the top of the page, there is a message "This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block." 2) There is also "It has been established that this IP address has been used by blocked user OfficeMax." The reason you used to unblock the IP should be changed. There was a solid reason why I chose to block the IP. AdjustShift (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. The user in question blanked an unreferenced section of that article that was partially original research.  That is not vandalism.  What good does a 72 hour block do for an IP that is dynamic, and especially one that is considered "sensitive"?  Did you notify the communications committee as requested at the top of the blocking page?  It's one thing to be "pretty tough towards IPs who vandalize articles", but you need to temper this with some common sense.  A dynamic IP cannot be judged on edits from anything beyond the last little bit of time, and that section blanking was simply not vandalism, especially when judged in the context of the other two edits surrounding it, which were clearly constructive.  Please try to find a better balance between blocking vandals and scaring away potential constructive editors.  Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (Moved from User talk:Kmccoy to keep things together. kmccoy (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)) Point taken, but 1) there is a message at the top of the page "This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block." 2) There is also "It has been established that this IP address has been used by blocked user OfficeMax." Bbefore blocking the IP, I read them. AdjustShift (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can see the confusion caused by those somewhat conflicting templates. In general, blocking a dynamic IP for longer than 24 hours doesn't really do any good, even if that IP has been used for vandalism in the past, because the person using it has probably gotten a new IP at that point, and it increases the chance that a non-vandal will be hit by the block.  So, despite any such dire templates at their page, and despite long block times in the past, I'd suggest that when blocking dynamic IPs, you consider limiting it to 24 hours.  If you feel that an IP only contributes negatively, then perhaps you should bring it to WP:ANI or some similar noticeboard to see if a more permanent ban should be imposed on the entire block of IPs.  That will also probably result in someone contacting a network administrator from the offending block of IPs to help them prevent abuse in the future. kmccoy (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat again
Hi again. It seems Nangparbat created another sock and is warring over a couple articles with several users (they also seem to know that it's Nangparbat):

Nishkid blocked SupraTomas23 as a sock of Nangparbat yesterday. Tazer43 keeps removing the sockpuppet tags for SupraTomas23. It would seem that Tazer43 is also SupraTomas23. <b style="color:DarkRed; font-family: Papyrus">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 14:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, it is a sock of Nangparbat. Indef blocked. AdjustShift (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. <b style="color:DarkRed; font-family: Papyrus">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 15:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * uh :/ —SpaceFlight89 15:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here he comes again, 86.162.69.197 (talk).Qazmlp1029 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1 week. AdjustShift (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank You very much.Qazmlp1029 (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping
ping Skäpperöd (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just asking ...
.. but why this relatively short recent block, given the previous block history? Philip Trueman (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably didn't noticed that the IP was blocked for 1 year back in September 2008. Also, the talk page don't say much about the previous history of vandalism. If the IP continues vandalism, it should be blocked for a longer period. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! He fooled you - look at this . Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't consider this to be a major issue; if it continues vandalism, should be blocked for a longer period. AdjustShift (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3
An IP you just blocked has switched IPs, to. I've tacked this onto the report. Thanks, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Both IPs blocked for 1 week for edit warring and sockpuppetry. AdjustShift (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Page protection or block IP
Can you you protect my page[] please, it is being vandalized, thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for 1 week. There is no need to protect the talk page; if the vandalism continues, I'll protect it. AdjustShift (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Best--Jacurek (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
— BQZip01 — talk 17:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings
I'm extremely sorry. I wanted to revert and warn the vandal who did that, but you beat me to it, and I ended up warning you instead. Very sorry.  Rkr 1991  (Wanna chat?) 14:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok, but please be careful in future. AdjustShift (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanna be an admin
So how does the election process work?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 14:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to learn a thing or two about adminship, please analyze WP:Administrators and WP:RFA. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)