User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Mar07

Rogue Admin or not...
Rogue Admin or not, this award is for you:


 * Martial Law 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also list yourself in my listings of Favorite Admins and make yourself a copy of my toolbox. Martial Law 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Madmod.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Madmod.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sinosphere
Hi there, I posted a notice about Sinosphere article on the Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192. I wonder if you are gonna to do something about it. Thanks. Migye 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fadix
InShaneee, could you please take a look at this: The action is too slow, whilst he continues to harass by constantly reverting all edits he dislikes. --AdilBaguirov 02:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * could you please take a look, as it's not ending, but getting worse: Thanks. --AdilBaguirov 02:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

u bugging me
but They didnt change it back... someone else removed it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeremybub (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Criticism and response in parapsychology
I've been advised to create a sandbox for the Criticism and response in parapsychology article. It's here, renamed to Controversy in parapsychology. I'm not sure if people want to edit under my user page, or edit the main article. But, if it's decided to edit the sandbox, It would be great to have your input. I won't be editing in the beginning, while I see what format people want to use etc. I'm putting this on several talk pages.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil remarks
I know you're busy! When you get a breath, give me a shout! Dreadlocke ☥  22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps
Perhaps you'd like to speak to the officers in charge of the case? I never once used the word pedophile anywhere ever in my statements to anyone. Reporting WikiStalking to admins doesn't get you banned, never has, especially when you have (And so do the admins) the ip addresses to back up claims of wikistalking and sockpuppetry. LexiLynn 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't really deal descreetly with anything once they follow me onto the internet. this is called wikistalking. I thought admins new about it. LexiLynn 21:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Shane, I am SO sorry to drag you back into this, but you may want to take a look at my entry in the Admins Noticeboard again. I am content to drop this matter, but LexiLynn is continuing with allegations of "court documents". Ispy1981 05:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive names
If you "edit this page" and look at your Werdnabot invocation, you will see that you have hard coded the year to be "06". Obviously, then it will alway be "06" until you change that. This is not a bug in Werdnabot itself, it is a bug in your invocation of it. JRSpriggs 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack
The user barefact made a personal attack: . I warned the user to stop his personal attack:. He still persisted even more:. --alidoostzadeh 11:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali doostzadeh complaint about deceptive removal of contents
Dear Chicagoland, I fully appreciate your comment and completely support the concept about personal attacks. There are instanses when the unrestrained deceptive editing should be called for what they are, deceptive editing. You may note that Ali doostzadeh brings upon himself numerous independent complaints about his racistic, militant and deceptive editing, which he brings up as personal attacks. In my response I offered him an independent arbitrage, I offered it many times and on many subjects, but he always declined a neutral resolution. I would gladly submit to your review of this dispute, and I am sure it would be clear to any observer that Ali doostzadeh's editing grossly conflict with his deceptive explanations. The Iranian group was already found as acting in bad faith in this article, and the same participants are engaged in stealthy but militant removal of contents and restoration of dismissive tags already deleted by admins. Barefact 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I find both of you right and myself wrong in regards to personal comments on this . I would appreciate your advice on how to productively handle the situation in this and in similar cases, when deceptive tactics plays the system to the advantage of people who work full time to enforce their parochial and racist dogmas, not infrequently resorting to bad faith and covert editing practices. Personal attacks are not acceptable, and Ali doostzadeh rightfully brings frequent complains against editors who abchore his methods, and there should be an equally rightful way to defend from militant and deceitful methods without resorting to personal attacks. Barefact 17:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Authentic Leadership
Hi, how can I make a page for "Authentic Leadership" without seeming like it's advertising? I am new at this.

Joe 415 472 2049 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jchung14 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

So "Good To Great" has this huge article on it... how come Authentic Leadership is not allowed one? It was a Business Week best seller! Is it the way I wrote it up? It has been awarded:

Economist: "Best Business Books of 2004" Business Week Best-Selling Books Economist: "Best Business Books of 2003" Amazon: "Best Business Books of 2003" 800-CEOREAD: #1 Best Selling Book

If I wrote something along the lines of:

Recognition and Praise Business Week Best-Selling Books Economist: “Best Business Books of 2003” Amazon: “Best Business Books of 2003 800-CEOREAD: #1 Best Selling Book Economist: “Best Business Books of 2004” “One new book, Authentic Leadership, is so valuable. Coming after a long period of convulsive scandal and upheaval in corporate America, Mr. George’s book could be an important contribution to refocusing American chief executives. . . There is a great deal of valuable insight in Authentic Leadership. One can only wish that Mr. George had written it five years ago before so many chief executives led their companies so badly astray.” - New York Times, July 27, 2003 “Bill George has put his views on Authentic Leadership in a book that is fast achieving cult status among chief executives.” - Economist, December 2003 Table of Contents Foreword by Warren Bennis Preface: A New Generation of Leaders

Introduction: Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Part I.  Becoming an Authentic Leader

1.  Leadership Is Authenticity, Not Style

2.  The Transformation of Leaders

3.  Leading a Balanced Life

Part II. Building an Authentic Company

4.  Missions Motivate, Dollars Don't

5.  Values Don't Lie

6.  It's the Customer, Stupid!

7.  It's Not Just the CEO

8.  Whose Bottom Line: Customers or Shareholders?

Part III. In the Crucible of the Market

9.  Seven Deadly Sins: Pitfalls to Growth

10. Overcoming Obstacles: Nothing Can Stand in Your Way

11. Ethical Dilemmas: When in Rome, Don't Follow the Romans

12. Innovations from the Heart

13. Acquisitions Aren't Just about Money

14. Shareholders Come Third

Part IV. Beyond the Bottom Line

15. Governance Is Governance

16. Sticking Your Neck Out

17. Preparing for Succession. . . and Moving On

Epilogue: If Not Me, Then Who? If Not Now, When?

Would that be better?

Please let me know, thanks.

Rumble in the Jungle
I notice you deleted my updated RitJ page. The reason I created it is explained on at the bottom of the discussion page of the original article. Basically the page is such a mess, factually and stylistically, that I wanted to have a sandbox where I could make large edits without actually replacing the old page until I was done with the article. It's possible there is a better/accepted way of doing this; if so please let me know as I am new at this. Until then I am reinstating my page.RaulGroom 22:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sports Trainer
according to my information you have just deleted sports trainer article. why?? there was nothing wrong with it and i am not a banned user???. (Kylie 05:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Thanks
I appreciate the warning given to the IP, but I think stronger is required in this case. People have been warning him for months and he just continues every few days spewing personal attacks and incivility.--Crossmr 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Threats
It is inappropriate for you to threaten another user for engaging in discussion. If you continue this inappropriate behavior, I will make a formal complaint. 24.116.200.178 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

FinancialContent, Inc. Dispute
I do not understand why you have blocked me needlessly. Other companies, such as GoFish, AccuWeather, MySpace, also have pages up. I do not believe that you are capable of determining the validity of this page.

Wikipedia policy does not disallow pages about companies. There is no promotion of the company and all data is factually presented. - Mdierolf 22:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Prolifix - Zaretser on "The Underground Collective"
Just wondering why you decided to delete the article I wrote on, "The Underground Collective". I added some reference to the page and I am still not sure of the reason(s) for you having to delete the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prolifix - Zaretser (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC).