User talk:Elahrairah/Archive 6

Comments left at RfA
Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

DQ
Not sure if you saw or not, but DQ answered you on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Question
Can you please explain why you tagged three of my IPs as "abusing multiple accounts"? Of my two accounts, the second was blocked for violating the clean start policy, and the first was never blocked. As far as I know, under these circumstances I would still be allowed to use my original account or post anonymously. --213.179.213.19 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * I was recently wondering if there was a "Have a cookie" barnstar. Close enough. I'm nabbing the source code. Thanks, Basalisk. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of iDeer Blu-ray player software
Hi,this page is not a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, It is just a tool for users to learn more about it and Blu-ray player software, just like Microsoft Office. I would appreciate any tips on rewriting it. User talk: Bella.show May 14 2013. —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwnyc block
You should look at your recent spamublock of User:Kwnyc who has been renamed to User:JDWilliams through CHU. Your block of the prior name was done at the same time of the rename so it spilled over to the new name which is not a username violation. -- Alexf(talk) 19:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I was about to look into it further but got called away from the keyboard. I've unblocked the renamed account. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 21:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me
Excuse me, but why did you revert my change? The change was factually correct, zinedine zidane is not french, he's a french national, but ethnically algerian. My edit was factually correct, therefore you should not have reverted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well first of all I disagree with you. He was born in France, and held French nationality his whole life. He never lived in Algeria, and as far as I'm aware never held Algerian citizenship, so to call him Algerian is obvious not accurate. But that aside, even if you are right about him "being Algerian", you still need to provide reliable sources to verify this (you'll note that there are already 3 references supporting the claim that he is French). I understand you may feel strongly about this, but Wikipedia is not the place to write stuff that you "know is true" (see WP:OR. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 20:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The guy is a Berber. His name is zinedine zidane. He doesn't look french or european and his His father is an ethnic algerian, and so is he himself. I can't source his family tree. According to himself in this article, he references to himself as Algerian Berber. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2004/apr/04/sport.features, to quote him: "Despite pressure from lobby groups, Zidane has never commented on the war in public or on his Berber origins; but he is clearly pleased that this identity should not be overlooked in the English-speaking press. 'My family are very proud of me, but I am very proud of them and where they come from. I am proud that they come from Kabylie. It is a special place and my roots there are important to me. We used to go all the time to my father's home village when we were young. But now, it's like Marseille and La Castellane: even though I want to go back it is difficult for so many reasons.'


 * The Zidane family legend is that when Zinedine's father, Smaïl, left the family village of Taguemoune in the remote hills of Algeria, he came first to Paris and, like many of his compatriots, headed for the tough northern districts of Barbès and Saint-Denis"


 * What more source do you need? Nationality as an identity is about as useful as toilet paper flushing down a toilet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no real argument for calling him french. He's as french as you'd be mozambiquan, if you acquired a mozambiquan nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're confusing having Algerian heritage with actually being Algerian. And yes, if I had Mozambiquan nationality, I would be Mozambiquan. What you're saying is like saying I'm Tanzanian because somewhere along the line some of my ancestors came from there (which is true of everyone, as that's where humans originated). Even if all of this were not so, you're still just talking about what you think you know, which is original research. The point of Wikipedia is not to report "The Truth" according to your own knowledge, but instead to report what reliable sources say. There are already three such sources in the article which claim he's French. I'm not saying that he does not have Algerian heritage or that he isn't proud of said heritage, but by the definition of the word he is not Algerian. He was born in France. He has always lived in France. He is and always has been a citizen of France and nowhere else. He is French. That's what the article reports. If you want to change that, you're going to have to establish consensus on the talk page of the article. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 20:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Which definition are you refering to? So people become a different ethnicity by acquiring citizenship, by what logic? The source i put up above is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Besides you being obviously partial towards the civic definition of identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.208.167 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * By any commonly used definition. Look it up in a dictionary. We're not talking about someone "acquiring" a new nationality. He was born French. He has never held any other citizenship. The source you provided is indeed reliable, but even that doesn't claim he's Algerian - it just says he's proud that his family come Algeria, which I don't deny. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 21:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's false, that is a civic definition of identity. That's something you don't mention. Because you obviously haven't done your homework. I'll refer you to the word http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civic and http://books.google.se/books?id=tTc8Pt8mX6wC&pg=PA27&dq=Civic+national+identity&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=TZOaUb_kL6fd4QTPwIGwDA&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Civic%20national%20identity&f=false, you have no way of defending your argument without conceding to the fact that you're using a civic definition of identity, which isn't universal, just civic 176.10.208.167 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Try typing "Algerian" into that dictionary site. You'll see it's "of or pertaining to Algeria or its inhabitants" (fails, since he's not Algeria or and inhabitant of Algeria) and "a native or inhabitant of Algeria" (fails, since he is neither). It's a far stretch to call him Algerian and not at all a far stretch to call him French. I have nothing more to say here. If you want to change the article you're going to have to gain consensus via discussion on the talk page. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 21:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You gravely misrepresented the definition in merriam webster, Here is what it says, quote "Algerian [ælˈdʒɪərɪən] adj (Placename) of or relating to Algeria or its inhabitants n (Social Science / Peoples) a native or inhabitant of Algeria"

Stop distorting information, he's a native by blood, nativity doesn't change by living or being born in another country. 176.10.208.167 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked user MarkMysoe socking
Blocked user MarkMysoe is still socking and evading block by making disruptive edits in Kevin-Prince Boateng (not only there). He is doing the same thing as before, adding content not covered by sources or partially covered. For example in April he added unreferenced number of assists to statistic table, I removed them as no reliable source was given (they shouldn't be included per consensus at WikiProject Football anyway), but he quickly reinstetad them with a link to non-reliable, user edited website transfermarkt, but a point is that number of assists on transfermarkt for most seasons was totally different than numbers he added to carrer statistics table. This is a classic example of his disruptive edits, adding a source that doesn't support the content in the article.

I also checked his earlier edit and the same thing here. He added two awards for him in honours and named them "Premio Gentleman: 2013 (Special Prize Gentleman of the Year Gold Cup)" and "Premio Gentleman: 2013 (San Siro Gentleman Award Serie A)". I checked the source and it says that Boateng was only awarded by the 'Gentleman against racism'. I'm so sick of this user disruptive editng and got no time to check the rest of his contributions in Kevin-Prince Boateng, but per summaries all IPs started with 31.127.x.x, 31.126.x.x and 178.99-111.x.x should be his. I think that article should be semi protected to prevent socking at least from IPs.--Oleola (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that this is him, but I can't do anything about it as I'm far too WP:INVOLVED. What I suggest you do is take all this evidence and start an SPI report. Make requests for page protection as needed. Revert the changes that are unsourced. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 12:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a problem?
We've already agreed on the zinedine zidane page that it should be more neutral, that was a compromise. Why are you doing this bullcrap and undoing edits? 176.10.208.167 (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your eurocentricism is intolerable. We had a 2 day long debate and members agreed to keep the matter neutral, just because you're not convinced, doesn't mean that you have the right intervene and do you please. 176.10.208.167 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What you are doing right there, is lying. We had a discussion where four editors other than me showed up and couldn't even believe you were trying to argue he was Algerian and said he was French. One editor said he could see some benefit in more neutral leads to footballer articles in general but didn't know the best way to implement it. So I don't know which discussion you had where "we agreed" to change the lead but it wasn't that one. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Chunqui Institute
Please show me what you deleted. I am interested in seeing what ever there is about this institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webvip (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello there. I'm afraid I don't know what article you mean. There's no deleted article at that title; are you sure that's what it is called? Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 01:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello?
Are you not going to reply to the Felix Kjellberg deletion and tell me what you thoughts are when you read those links? I've got a list of some YouTubers:

Youtube Channels/Real People Duos: Smosh, Fine Brothers

Youtubers/Real People: Freddie Wong, Shane Dawson, Ray William Johnson

Considering these people have their own articles and their just "some people who've uploaded videos on YouTube" I think a PewDiePie/Felix Kjellberg page should be created too. I'm not a fanboy of him, I just think he too should have a shot at getting his own wikipedia page. I only made a new topic because its been a week or so and you've replied to other topics but not the previous one.

☞ Яǐɱ ( Chat with Meh ) ( Updates )

22:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I did reply to the section. After my reply you made another post which was pretty vague and open ended, and certainly wasn't phrased as a question, and so I didn't comment further. Again, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. There has already been a deletion discussion about this particular subject and there isn't anything else to address. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 03:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you not getting what I am trying to tell you? You said you didn't look at those pages, I replied saying it affects the topic a lot. I waited a week and you didn't reply. I then posted another topic considering you would actually answer it. You did saying this. These people are "just some people that posted some videos on YouTube, they haven't made any lasting impact". The same goes for PewDiePie/Felix Kjellberg, but why do they have pages and not him? If you think they're too "inappropriate" or whatever then you can go ahead and delete them too. The have the same rights that PewDiePie has, and its not fair. Have another discussion about it and actually look at the god damn pages. ☞ Яǐɱ  ( Chat with Meh ) ( Updates )


 * 23:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No one has any rights on Wikipedia. No one has a "right" to an article. PewDiePie was deleted because the subject is not notable. I couldn't care less about those other articles; they don't have any impact on PewDiePie's notability. I'm not going to look at those other articles. I'm not going to restore PewDiePie. If you think the other articles are inappropriate then nominate them for deletion; you don't need my help for that. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 00:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I said if you thought they were inappropriate. You said PewDiePie is just a person who just uploaded some videos on YouTube, he has not had any lasting impact. The same goes for these people. Why is it that they have articles and not him? I am seriously annoyed with your ignorance, unless your job as an admin is hard, which it could or could not be. ☞ Яǐɱ  ( Chat with Meh ) ( Updates )  03:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to answer your question, but you just don't seem to be acknowledging the fact that I am answering. You're asking me if the other pages are appropriate - I'm saying that:
 * I don't know as I haven't looked
 * I'm not going to pass comment as I don't intend to look
 * It doesn't matter anyway. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 08:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thats not my question. I'm telling you that these people fit into the same category as PewDiePie. He is the 6th most subscribed channel on YouTube, got here and you will see that all these people are "just some people who have uploaded some videos on YouTube, they haven't had any lasting impact". I'm not saying to delete them, but they are all still here and not deleted. If you would get off you high horse and look at the god damn pages? Just look at the list I gave a link to in this reply. You would save a lot of time and arguing. Its not that hard. And give me a reply once you've read them, don't say you're not going to either. ☞ Яǐɱ  ( Chat with Meh ) ( Updates )    —Preceding undated 23:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to accomplish here? Why are you so desperate for me to read those articles? If you're trying to demonstrate that they're all the same as PewDiePie but haven't been deleted, and therefore PewDiePie should be restored, you're wasting your time, because it makes no difference. If you want me to delete those articles, go ahead and nominate them for deletion. If you're just desperate for me to learn more about YouTube culture, I can tell you that I have more important things to fill my time learning about. I'm not going to read those articles. I'm not going to restore PewDiePie. You need to let this go. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 04:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want them to be deleted, I'm just saying they're the same as PewDiePie but haven't been deleted. I just asked you to read the articles (Or atleast look at them) and tell me if you had changed your mind. You still haven't, and you could've saved a lot of arguing by just doing so. You don't want to fine. And yes I apologize if you are busy, and just to leave you alone is there anywhere I could go to discuss the restoration of PewDiePie/Felix Kjellberg.


 * Just get that he is the 6th most subscribed channel on YouTube which has the Alexa rank 3. Sorry for bothering you, just tell me where to discuss this and we're done. ☞ Яǐɱ  ( Chat with Meh ) ( Updates ) 22:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You could have just asked me that in the first place and saved all this. I don't know how many times I need to type this before you actually read it but it doesn't make any difference at all how popular he is on YouTube. Seriously, every person on the planet could be subscribed to him and it would not make him notable. This is because the general notability guideline doesn't take into account the number of prescribers on YouTube, only the amount of coverage by reliable sources. If you want the article to be re-created then you can use deletion review. Go ahead and open a discussion there. Bear in mind two things though:
 * The original deletion discussion last year addressed the fact that he has lots of prescribers, so if the discussion you start contains that as the sole reason to recreate, I will close it immediately.
 * At the deletion review page, the second point under the "Deletion Review should not be used:" section in the "Purpose" box states {{xt|"to point out other pages that have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits"). Therefore, if you start a discussion solely stating (yet again) that you think there are other similar articles that have not been deleted, I will close the discussion immediately.
 * Finally, please fix your signature before posting here again; I'm fed up of pacing the timestamp correctly for you. Also note that template signatures are discouraged because they suffer from these sorts of problems. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 03:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Felix Kjellberg Deletion
I don't really know why Felix Kjellberg was deleted. I mean, he is one of the most subscribed channels on YouTube, and I don't see Smosh or the Fine Brothers deleted, hes probably considered more popular then The Fine Bros because he has more subscribers. Would a PewDiePie page be possible to have created? I just want to check with you and see if you've changed your mind considering his rise in popularity. ☞ Яǐɱ ( Chat with Meh ) ( Updates )

01:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Wikipedia has its own set of rules governing what we should write articles about. Subjects have to be notable to warrant their own articles, and this is governed by the reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. Having "lots of YouTube subscribers" does not make a subject notable - this is an encyclopaedia, not a chronicle of internet fads. All of this information is linked in the big red edit notice you will have been confronted with when you hit "edit" on this page.


 * I haven't looked at those other pages you've linked too, but even if they're not appropriate, their existence is not a good reason to include yet more inappropriate content.


 * PewDiePie has previously been created, but was deleted for the reasons I've outlined here. He's just a guy who has uploaded some videos to YouTube - he has not had any lasting impact. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You really should look at those pages, it affects the topic a lot. He is also considered a celebrity. ☞ Яǐɱ ( Chat with Meh ) ( Updates ) 01:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

== ==

Hi. This user is back at re-adding images that he was asked not to by several editors. Can you please take a look? Thanks, &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 16:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The first thing I want to say is that you're not doing yourself any favours by edit warring yourself - which you are to a mild extent. I have blocked him for one month because of his past history of edit warring and sockpuppetry, as well as the personal attacks aimed at you in his edit summaries, but I also have to warn you not to edit war. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit that I have edit-warred over it. But this guy just drives me nuts completely. I guess the best thing to do is stay from interacting with him. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 16:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that, I've certainly been sat in your shoes fuming at another editor. But as you said, the best way to deal with it is either to discuss it rationally or walk away. It makes it harder for people to defend your corner if you start making mistakes yourself. Let me know if there are further problems. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. This user seems a lot like Superfast1111. Do we add this in the SPI? &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 04:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Rev deletion on WP:AN
I reiterate my position that this isn't a good case for rev deletion, that I mentioned to KoH. Also you did miss one revision. Many administrators have weighed in on that discussion, and none have rev deleted or even redacted the comment. Please reconsider. Removing basic personal attacks such as this makes it difficult for users to discuss what actions should be taken. Prodego talk  17:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You missed one..
You're one revision short... here. I'm unwilling to do it myself, am rather too involved. Worm TT( talk ) 17:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Your Revdel at WP:AN
Hello Basalisk. Are you aware that User:King of Hearts already Revdel'ed KW's offensive remark yesterday at 21:18 and User:Prodego restored it 7 minutes later? There has since been discussion as to why this was not a case for RD2 revdel. Also, why have you revdel'ed 205 other edits to that page, many of which were not offensive at all? --Stfg (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Answered at AN. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

pictures
I'm sorry, I put pictures because some users were complaining that the article had a low number of images, so I passed the limits. sorry again. Vinícius18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Vinícius18
This editor is back and is simply not willing or capable of understanding. The editor is simply WP:NOTHERE.Moxy (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Username
Hello, could you please block ? His name is inappropriate and I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked. YoshiDino90 (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)YoshiDino90
 * ❌. Thanks for letting me know. For future reference, you can use WP:UAA. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

AIV
Hi, if you're free could you please take a look at the AIV log? There are several active vandals -SFK2 (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a look and worked through most of them. Thanks. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 10:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Omar Todd
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Omar Todd. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Unscintillating (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for moving / helping on WP:ANI AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI
Since you had interaction related to one of the socks named here, I thought I'd bring your attention to Sockpuppet investigations/DanielTom. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 21:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

IP you blocked yesterday
Has returned with a new IP, continuing the edit warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * De has already done both of the things I was going to do; namely block the IP and protect the page. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 14:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I'm sure that guy will be back when his blocks expire. Let's hope not though. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No stress, that's what semi-protection is for. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 14:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Mitragyna speciosa
Please see the talk page of the article concerning the last edit you made for further discussion. ThorPorre (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A little help
I have tried to maintain as much civility as possible with other editors including Abhishek. I do admit i have lost my temper at times but i am only human. 1 guy gets on my nerves & both of us shoot off at each other. If you look at the other editor Abhishek191288,he has been having several uncivilized conversations with several others, has also engaged in edit warring, has admitted to it but gets away with a pep talk while i get blocked.

He has even refused to accept to Government of India notification as a reliable source of information. Take a look at Surat Railway station & Mumbai Rajdhani page main images. Previously they are exactly the same images & despite explaining in detail why the particular image was incorrect, he still refuses to accept it. What do you suggest i do with such a person because talking to him is of no use or there is a way to explain how the Great Eastern royale building (in the background)in Tardeo area of Mumbai got transported to Surat ?? Perhaps there is a way to explain how Mumbai Central & Surat railway station have identical layouts. Problem is i cant explain it & it is pointless asking someone who's ego is offended by superior work. If as he claims they are irrelevant then why except him is no one removing them. As far as other editors are concerned,we have had civil discussions on way to get around the problem. For example on the Lokmanya Tilak Terminus pages,an edit was explained so clearly that it left me in no doubt whatsoever neither was i offended by it.

He has been targeting my uploads but it puzzles me that when i undo them, i get blocked, he does it he gets a pep talk. Can you please explain it to me because i cant see any reason for it. As far as ownership of articles is concerned,i have long accepted that anyone from anywhere can edit anything but that is supposed to be based on facts not opinions. Besides i have made several offers to him to upload his work so that a impartial analysis of both our works can be done. I have yet to see a single upload in that direction but what i do see on his page is undone edits of various other people.

Fact in this case is that a building in Mumbai cannot be used to depict Surat,opinion is that lets revert the edit because i don't like the other person & he is uploading more images than me especially since i cant match him for quality & quantity. There is a small quote from a John Grisham novel If a witness is unshakeable on facts then beat him up with insignificant details which is exactly the case here. This is completely unacceptable.

A additional point for the ego case is Abhishek's edit summaries. He has listed that i have been blocked for adding images where as you have been clear on why that has happened & i am certain it was not for adding images. On other fronts even when explained in detail he refuses to accept it. Another thing:He has removed the sole image at Grant Road station giving a lousy reason but has added nothing. Why is a page with no images so liked by him or is this targeting work of other users.

Help me understand why facts are superseding opinions here. Superfast1111 (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to hear a loud quack quack. If so, then this guy has clearly evaded his 1 month block. Can you have a look at this? I have filed a report at SPI. Thanks, &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 12:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I hereby withdraw my request for clarification. Pls delete this thread when you can. Superfast1111 (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate close
Hi mate. I figure you'll get a couple of pings from me about undoing your close. I think you came within seconds of edit-conflicting with Mr Cunningham and the close was duplicated so I removed it to leave the original one. But I wanted to thank you for helping out and taking time out to close it anyway. Cheers, Stalwart 111  10:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I realised that Chris closed it first but when I looked at the AfD it appeared to me like my edit hadn't registered. Some caching problem I guess. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 10:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 👍. Yeah, I was having cache problems earlier today - getting edit conflicts where there were none (conflicting with myself essentially). Anyway, all good. Have a good one! Stalwart 111  11:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Supervisor" of sorts (Falkland Islands)
Hello Basalisk. How have you been? I am currently developing a major improvement for the Falkland Islands article (see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4), but I need a "supervisor" so that I may edit the history section of the article. Arbcomm placed a topic ban for me on all subjects related to Latin America due to a dispute at the Juan Manuel de Rosas article. Your task would simply be that of checking up on my work and seeing that it is not breaking WP:NPOV. However, since you are a professional native-speaker of English, I would love for you to help me with the article (mainly through copy-edits or grammar fixes); but this is optional. In fact, I think that (with your help) we could possibly nominate this article straight for Featured Article status. I hope you agree to work with me. :-) Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Marshal, hope you are well. I have no objection in principle to what you're proposing, but there are a few problems. Most importantly, I can't see from the wording of your ban how you would be allowed to edit the article, "supervised" or otherwise, without violating it. From what I can see of your contribs, you haven't received (or indeed even sought) any amendment that would allow this. If you're asking for me to make edits proposed by you, I wouldn't really be comfortable doing that as I think it's sailing too close to the wind in terms of WP:PROXYING, especially as it's an Arbcom ban. I think you need to sort these things out first, then get back to me. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 10:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Good points. I should probably have shown you this first: . On the last paragraph of the "MarshalN20" section in his talk space, arbitrator NuclearWarfare writes the following: "The Falkland Islands seems like a good choice. I think the best way to go about it would be to first work on the sections that aren't related to the history of the article, then identify someone who would agree to be a "supervisor" of sorts, who you agree would have the power to immediately re-restrict you from the article. After that, you could apply for the exemption from the Committee."
 * I conclude from your statement that you agree with being the supervisor. Thank you.
 * I will now write to the Arbcomm (and mention you there) to apply for the exemption.
 * Thanks again Basalisk. I am sure that this will be mutually beneficial to us.
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the amendment request filed .-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet_investigations/Jajadelera
Thanks for the block. Jajadelera socks tend to make hoax articles that should just be G5ed, so please don't close until that's dealt with. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk 20:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry about that. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 20:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic
They just use IP: 24.61.73.231 on my talk page.I am One of Many (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Vinícius18
A week ago, you blocked this editor for disruptive usage of images and edit warring. It is a virtual certainty that this editor has resumed the disruption through alternative usage of the registered account and IP 179.197.190.162. Thanks. AfricaTanz (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * God bless you, AfricaTanz! Vinícius18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This IP address (IP 179.197.190.162) is not from my computer! Vinícius18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * and more, never would edit with an alternate account and my computer is forbidden to revert edits! I think there was a misunderstanding! Vinícius18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I need an answer! Thank you! Vinícius18 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrolord
Honestly I found your comments you made recently on that page to be condescending. An admin can act on an unblock request but if third party people want to try and discuss it, that shouldn't be discouraged based on the fact that they can't act on unblock requests. It comes across as "Grovel to the admin, pay no mind to the petty people trying to help you." I realize that may not be your intent but that's the way it came across. I do agree that a break would probably be in his best interest I've advised that a couple times now, but if he honestly doesn't understand or is having problems seeing whats going on the more people willing to help the better. If he continues to be disruptive then there is steps that can be taken but until that happens you should leave it alone until he actually asks for unblock, or becomes truly disruptive. Remember often times blocks and ban can be made through consensus and not always through administration. Either way I could be wrong just my two cents. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that it came across that way. I was concerned that there was a lot of noise coming from parties who wouldn't actually be able to act on Retrolord's reaction to the advice given. I just feel that Retrolord could end up doing all the things recommended by those hanging out on his talk page and still not get unblocked (at this point, I don't think he's going to be unblocked in the short term no matter what he does) and then he'll make the complaint "but I did everything I was told! I deserve to be unblocked!" and we'll have another round of arguing on his talk page. I just think if there's going to be anyone telling him what he needs to do to be unblocked, it should be someone who can actually unblock him if he complies. Do you see my point? Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 10:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that my opinion is just an opinion like anyone else's. I just expressed what I thought was best for Retrolord; people are wont to ignore me if they wish. I'd totally understand your displeasure if I'd waded in and said something along the lines of "right, the next non-admin who comments here is getting blocked" or something ridiculous like that. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 10:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can understand your point and agree with most of it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested Articles
Hi! I am trying to reinvigorate WikiProject Requested Articles, which, if I get enough pointers that there is some interest, I will re-design, with a design similar to WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, involving drives, to decrease the number of articles listed in the various subpages, and blue link blitzes, involving editors removing all created pages. I am planning, with sufficient interest, to make requested articles 'stricter', i.e. you have to provide two reliable sources, and write a short note explaining why the requested article is notable. There would be a reward system, involving adapted barnstars, similar to the Guild of Copy Editors have here and here. If you have any questions about my aim, or want to indicate that you would sign up to the WikiProject, please say so on my talk page. Thanks! Mat ty. 007 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection of some articles on chess gambits
Thanks for semi-protecting Englund Gambit. I'm afraid that Four Knights Game, Halloween Gambit‎‎ also needs semi-protection if you would like to help again. The IP editor is very persistent but not malicious, I think. As you well know, some people find the WP:RS policy difficult to understand. Others understand the policy but don't agree it and refuse to play by the rules. In this case it appears that the editor is also the author of the web site he is trying to insert into the chess openings pages, so there's WP:SELFCITE and WP:NOR as well. Quale (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it. Would you mind clarifying something for me though? Is the stuff he's inserting actually wrong or is it just the source we're getting fussy about? Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 10:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Another admin has semi-protected the article, so I hope we're OK for now. Thanks for your help.
 * It's difficult to know if it's right or wrong, and it's certainly possible that it is correct in whole or part. He has spent quite a bit of time examining some obscure but entertaining chess openings, primarily by using a strong chess-playing computer program to examine them deeply.  The theory of popular chess openings such as the Sicilian Defense or the Ruy Lopez has been tested in tens or hundreds of thousands of games, but the openings he specializes in are very rare in top-level play.  The openings are not commonly played by professional chess players as they are thought to be inferior, but they are the sort of gambits that amateurs often find appealing.  You could compare it to new research done by an amateur in some backwater of mathematics, say compass and straightedge Euclidean geometry, that might be correct or might not but isn't published.  This kind of thing can be difficult or perhaps even impossible for Wikipedia to determine whether it is correct.  The ultimate truth in chess is hard to find, so we have to stick to what respected experts have written.  (In this case the respected "experts" are usually grandmasters rather than chess experts.  Some of the assessments that the IP editor disputes are from Max Euwe, former world champion and well-known chess theorist, and Pinski, who has written several books on chess openings.  Pinski is "only" an International Master, although that is a higher chess title than the IP editor holds today.)  Quale (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, that makes things a lot clearer. Thanks for that summary. Let me know if there are further problems. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion proposed
Hi MarshalN20, the Arbitration Committee has proposed a motion in response to an amendment request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Help Me
A few editors decided to include a clause about a controversy regarding box office collections of a film. We did it in a previous occasion and the overwhelming majority agreed. This user keeps on vandalizing the page by deleting the content even after the consensus. He doesn't understand English maybe, I don't know. What can I do? You tell me. Ashermadan (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Fideliosr (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Chennai Express Box Office Collections
All the news sites and almost everyone is reporting the collections to be 33.12 crore. But the wikipedia page for CE shows that it's Box-Office collections are 29.12 crore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.32.196 (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discuss this on the article talk page with the editor(s) who disagree(s) with you, not on my talk page please. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 07:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion passed
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=568317518#Motion_1:_MarshalN20 motion] that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for serving as my supervisor Basalisk.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your quote
I just wanted to let you know my Talk Page features a line that I read in a comment you made to Apteva on his Talk Page. I kind of stumbled onto the page and when I read the remarks, your words really summed up a situation I'm following right now. Also, I'm probably spending too much time on the noticeboards and it is amazing to me how some people refuse to consider that their approach might not be working, despite advice for other editors. I guess the idea that they are not always in the right is considered unacceptable to some individuals.

I didn't ask your permission but I hope you won't mind. If you do, I will remove it. I took it out of its context so now it just appears as general advice to Wikipedia editors. Cheers! NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 20:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm glad at least some people think I make some sense! Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Now that I'm spending more time looking at the business side of how Wikipedia works, I frequently see Admins swatting down troublesome editors for various forms of "disruption". I'm very grateful for the ones I've come across who take the time and care to explain to the editor why their behavior is causing problems. The advice might not immediately be appreciated by those who belligerently think they are right but I see it as planting a seed. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 22:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

speedy deletion
Dear, i would appreciate a reconsideration on the speedy deleting of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joost_Vandebrug I have read the notability in the wiki guidelines and I realise im bordering with the current entry so I will be more conclusive, thorough and add more independent resources, among them wiki pages in where he is mentioned as a director. 31.116.213.128 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you register an account I'll be happy to userfy the article for you. You can then work on it as a draft and if you can clearly demonstrate the subject is notable then I can move it to the article space when it's ready. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please go here:
AN and give your opinion, as it involves a case where you blocked some users for sockpuppetry. Thank you. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

SPI
Do you have any evidence to back up your comments at Sockpuppet investigations/XMattingly? If so what is it?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. I think the fact that Numazls was created, immediately made 10 nul edits to break autoconfirmed, and then immediately made grossly inappropriate comments on the talk page of a semi-protected article, on which heated argument was ongoing, is pretty good indication straightaway that the account is a sock of someone. The fact that XMattingly later restored this comment (twice) is suggestive of a link. All this evidence is provided in the case. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * XMattingly has sent me an email and I've unblocked per what he's said. Thanks for your help. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had also reverted Richard BB's deleting of Numazls's comment, and added a signature.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Can I bring something to your attention, I am concerned at the edits that User:MarshallN20 is making to Falkland Islands. I am currently gagged from editing on Falkland's topics so I cannot comment in detail. However, I would observe that a number of changes are changing the POV of the article to favour Argentina's sovereignty claim. What is also of concern is that discussion is not taking place openly in talk but here as a subpage of another editor.

This editor, Andrés Djordjalian, was in my opinion as much to blame as User:Gaba p for the problems at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, which lead to me being topic banned. I note he has continued in the same vein at Talk:History of the Falkland Islands. The whole of the Falkland Islands series of articles seems to have been under a sustained POV attack, they've been quite effective at driving the serious contributors away. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (Wee Curry Monster) sorry scrambled my password.


 * Wee, you need to let it go. Seriously. It's been close to 4 months now and you have: 1- disregarded completely the advice to edit other topic areas instead slapping a Retired banner on your page (at least the second you do that by my count), 2- violated the terms of our topic ban (Gaba p and Wee Curry Monster are both indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to the Falkland Islands.) twice now (first time in Marshall's talk page ), and 3- continued to attack me every chance you got, and now also apparently Marshall and Andrès, as POV editors. Move on mate. It's pretty clear that you have no intentions of retiring, so my advice to you is to remove that silly banner from your user page, drop the constant POV accusations on me and others and start collaborating in other areas of WP as advised if you want the topic ban ever to be lifted. Gaba  (talk)  14:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Basalisk, you'll note that User:Gaba p hasn't edited since the 15th August. His last two contributions are continuing to hound and persecute any attempt at editing by me.  Does that not perfectly illustrate his obsession with my editing and with preventing me from being able to contribute.   The guy will simply not leave me alone.  192.35.35.40 (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh, if you must know I have been editing less lately because I'm quite busy working on an article (yes Wee, I do work). As for your never-ending accusations of hounding, I'm pretty sure Basalisk is as aware as you are that when you mention someone's name in full in WP (ie: User:Gaba p ) as you did twice here, that editor is immediately notified that someone is talking about him. I'm betting that since you of course know this, you did this on purpose as an attempt at getting an angry response from me in an editor's talk page. I also note you mention me in Dpmuk's talk page making pretty much the same accusations. It never ends with you Wee. I will not leave you alone? Who was it that once again went over to an admin's talk page and out of nowhere started throwing dirt at the other? It wasn't me now was it? Unlike you I have been making a conscious effort since the topic ban to edit a variety of topics I had never edited before, one just needs to go through my contributions to check this. As for your contributions as an IP it's immediately noticeable that you have no intentions of doing as advised since your two main contributions are in Gibraltar and Falklands related topics. This last part means you have violated the terms of the topic ban at least twice now, and both times I've asked you politely to please stop.


 * For the love of god Wee: you need to let it go . Either work as any editor would to have the topic ban lifted by editing other parts of WP or refrain yourself from getting involved in Falklands articles. It is not that hard mate. Have a nice day. Gaba  (talk)  17:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so you both know, I'm reviewing Marshall's most recent contribs (again; I have been keeping an eye). But this I will say to - the last person in the entire world who has any business telling anyone to "let go" of a dispute and behave like an adult is you. You have enough of your own issues to be reflecting on before you start dishing out behaviour advice to others. IP - or Wee, I presume, as you have admitted implicitly - I'm not yet taking a stance on whether or not you're correct about any of this, but I will say this - think very, very carefully before proceeding any further with this complaint. Keep your topic ban in mind. The last thing you want is to find yourself blocked/banned and your opinion (as an IP or otherwise) instantly struck from conversation. There are plenty of people involved in this dispute who would set world speed records in slapping  tags around your comments given the opportunity.  Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW:


 * I am currently conducting an exercise of going through the points openly and in detail on the article talk page, section-by-section. At the beginning, it was agreed - at least by my understanding -  that the current consensus version is the version prior to these changes, so that is the version that applies if dispute proves irreconcilable.  If no such agreement had been forthcoming I would have reverted the article to its previous state and put the new version in a subpage (this might still be a good idea).


 * I am hoping that we can get consensus section-by-section and so we can keep what we can, even if some sections end up being irreconcible. I expect it to take some time, inevitably, because the changes are pretty major.


 * I will make it clear now that I for one will not recognise as in any sense binding or consensual any decision made at User talk:Andrés Djordjalian/Review of "Falkland Islands", which is based on a review arguing for the Argentine POV to replace NPOV, and as noted above, is not in an appropriate place. I was not aware of that discussion.


 * I would welcome your involvement if you feel that mediation or admin action would be of benefit, and though I cannot speak for them, I'm sure others would as well. Kahastok talk 17:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Your breakdown on the talk page has been very useful in keeping an eye on this. I'm not devoting this issue a great deal of my time and you're making it a lot easier. I agree with you about the Andres review. This is the first time that has been brought to my attention. I'm going to instruct Marshall not to use that page and to confine his discussion of this matter to the article talk page. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Basalisk, your comments on my topic ban are noted. Please note that although editing as an IP occasionally, I always ensure my edits are identifiable.  I have not as claimed edited on any Falkland Islands topics and specifically rejected a request from Marshall to contact him  by email.  I could have edited by proxy or circumvented the topic ban altogether, I have not.
 * You will note I was not making any comment on content related to my topic ban but on user conduct. For your information, I have a lot of respect for Marshal as an editor and I consider the outcome of the arbcom case to be a travesty; I am happy to state on the record he should never have been topic banned.  My specific concern was that having failed to get consensus in the talk page of several articles Andres had resorted to what was in effect a subterfuge; it was a none too subtle attempt at meat puppetry.  Looking through the comments you will note he refers to a "systemic bias" in the literature and is urging Marshal to edit to "correct" that bias using sources he provides to do so.  Further as I noted Andres has continued with exactly the same behaviour on other articles and as I noted on Dpmuk's page Gaba p has continued hounding me.  I was hoping to bring it to someone's attention to stop the constant badgering that happened to me, happening to someone else.
 * It should be fairly clear that as I noted at the time, Gaba p has hounded me constantly, it is blatantly obvious right now. I mean FFS just how obvious does it have to be? 213.105.34.162 (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC) (WCM)
 * This is bizarre to no end. So you're just going to ignore the fact that it was you Wee who summoned me over to this page? You also have the nerve of accusing me of hounding you when not only it was you explicitly mentioning my username which brought my attention here (otherwise I wouldn't have noticed) you just went through months of my editing history to find anything to accuse me of over at Dpmuk's talk page. Even after you found nothing, you still accused me anyway of driving an editor away when it can be easily seen that this is not true.
 * Basalisk: I know I have the losing hand every time I come to your talk page but come on mate. You admonish me for doing absolutely nothing wrong (just for saying to Wee that he should let it go and start editing other parts of WP to have the ban lifted as advised, as I have) and you say nothing about the fact that he violated twice now the topic ban. No matter how many times he denies it, the terms were terribly simple: Gaba p and Wee Curry Monster are both indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to the Falkland Islands. Commenting on edits on a Falklands related article as "POV edits" is a crystal clear violation of this term.
 * Wee's accusations of "hounding" are becoming as gratuitous and beyond ridiculous as his previous never-ending accusations of "sock-puppetry" and I'm really getting tired of them. Gaba  (talk)  19:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)