User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Nov06

Bush family conspiracy theory
Bush family conspiracy theory could you please restore this page ? Bush family conspiracy theory I realy need/want to read it ? Freedomspeechman 15:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

another Blainetologist sock?
Another brand-new account, User:ScienoSitter, immediately jumps right into making the exact same "test is rigged" insertions as User:Blainetologist: wikipediatrix 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the new Ref Citation code
Much appreciated. I'm still very weak when it comes to formating references but this will help me so much. I was making the reference list manually on some articles. This will be a big help. I'm working on becoming a stronger editor but I have a long way to go. Lisapollison 14:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper deletion
Hi please take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Turkic&action=history Does the article have to be properly deleted or it can just be blanketed by the original creator? I was not sure about the wiki-procedure so I just revert it with the deletion tag. --alidoostzadeh 16:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention How can tell them to go to the Talk Page?User:Gamer322

Thanks!!Appreciated!User:Gamer322

My "civility"
Was that "incivil"? Well, maybe I was a bit impatient and it was unnecessary at that moment. I'll try and keep my cool more in future. But do you know what it is like to be in such a situation? Did you look at what was happening on that page? I came to that article, as a brand-new editor, and make a small rewrite for neutrality. Explained it on talk page too. One user immediately reverts it with a totally irrelevant, ignorant reason. I explain to him on talk. I restore my edit, as his objections were clearly invalid, and provide more references. The other guy inserts his ignorant remarks into the article without even an edit summary. I explain again patiently and turn his information into something that makes sense. Then ManiF turns up, blindly reverts all of my work, and pretends in his edit summary he's only doing "copyediting". What a lie. At the same time, he slams a note on my page claiming I'm a "sockpuppet", with no reason whatsoever. I protest. At least he puts back a few pieces of information in the article from what I wrote. The first guy puts his ignorant stuff back in, again, I turn it into something that makes sense. Again, I explain that patiently on the talk page. Next morning, a third guy turns up and again reverts everything I did without the slightest attempt at a justification. Then he brazenly puts in another completely made-up claim, clearly false and without a source. I correct it and make a few other minor improvements. Again, everything explained on talk page. He reverts immediately, only saying that it's "my POV" (whatever on earth that means! it seems to be their blanket justification when they have no arguments to counter) Next, I don't revert, I just put in some marks noting what I find dubious. ManiF reverts me again. I ask him to leave the dispute tags in and restore my uncontroversial improvements which had blindly removed together with the rest. He reverts again. I make another few minor improvements. The next day, I'd found the time of actually going to a library and researching the matter. I come back with a few books and do a real big, good rewrite of the whole thing. Now the article has real sources for the very first time and is like about 200% better. I even give quotations for the little details they had been blindly reverting without paying attention to them. Suddenly, a fourth guy pops out of nowhere, someone who I later find out only ever appears every few weeks to help out ManiF and his friends in revert-warring (he does nothing else), and reverts me again. . Just so that ManiF is spared the necessity of doing it himself. At that point I really am exasperated, and do another revert myself. And about that time I made that remark you found objectionable. Then ManiF starts expanding the article himself (without all of my material) with some blatantly propaganda stuff he plagiarised from a website, citing bogus "sources" that didn't even say what he claimed they said. Then I can't help myself but revert him again. And I'm still the only one who discusses anything about the matter itself on the talk page, all my arguments have remained unanswered to this day. Then reverting helpers number five and six pop out of nowhere. At that point, I'm really at the end of my tether. At last, one of them shows some understanding and makes a halfway decent compromise version including back some of my work.

So, the upshot is: These people work together with friends and helpers they call in from somewhere to help them reverting - but it's me that gets accused of being a sockpuppet. I spend the time in libraries doing actual research, they just blindly revert - but it's me that gets accused of "undoing the work of others". I patiently give explanations on the talk page - but it's me that gets accused of being "impatient" and "not leaving room for discussion". I ask admins for help - but nobody can be bothered. I'm told to "follow dispute resolution" - but when I make an "RFC" nobody answers. I get treated like garbage - but it's me that's accused of incivility. The cynicism of it all. And they say somewhere that "newbies shouldn't be bitten". Well, I'm still recovering from my first days on Wikipedia. I must say it was quite some experience.

Well, sorry for giving you such a long story, but I think you should know what's going on. And while you're at it telling people of for incivility, you might look at this other guy, "Azerbaijani": Do you find that civil? Calling me a "Pan-Arab" when I have actually nothing in the world to do with Arabs ? Accusing me of lying, just because I state who and what I am ? I can assure you, I am really not that Arab guy they think I am. But apparently, in their world, anybody who ever suggests that an Arab point of view might perhaaaaaaps merit inclusion in Wikipedia simply must be him, LOL. I still don't know what the poor guy did to make them so mad at him. FellFairy 23:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject idea
The Council talk page might be a halfway decent place, I suppose; or we could just discuss it privately, if that's what you prefer. The important point for any new idea is actual adoption by projects; where it's discussed before that tends not to matter too much. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First, some extreme pedantry: the prevailing terminology seems to be that a "task force" is a sub-group that works on a more narrow scope, while a component of the project that does some particular task is a "department". ;-)


 * As far as the actual idea goes, I suspect it wouldn't be too effective with such a setup. In my experience, editor participation decreases quite sharply as you move away from the main project page (which tends to be the most bustling area).  So, an "RFC department" subpage would only be visited by a fraction of the people seeing the project page; and only a fraction of those would follow the next link to the actual RFC page.  At this point, the numbers will be so low that burnout (a major factor when intervening in disputes) will be a substantial problem.


 * The flip side of this, incidentally, is that (informal) requests on the project's main talk page tend to attract much more attention than out-of-the-way RFC listings. So there are two obvious things that could be done:
 * The more minor option: have a system where RFC listings would be cross-posted to the relevant project's talk pages. This would mean a lot of extra messages, but would allow the RFC listing to stay in place.
 * The more drastic option: dispense with the RFC listings entirely and have RFCs be made on the project's talk pages directly. This would remove the extra work in option 1, and would be fairly easy to arrange because the existing talk page tags would provide easy links to whichever projects had an interest in the article, but would, obviously, lose the central listing.


 * Which of these is better, I'm not sure. Personally, I don't think the central listing is really useful; but some people would probably be upset if it were to disappear completely. Kirill Lokshin 06:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you help me with Calton attacks?
Hi InShaneee,

I have had som problems with Calton for a while now, and its getting worst. I feel I have done everything that is in Wiki policy and I have tried to keep cool and to contribute with usfull information and articles but he is insulting me, deleting fully valid external links Ecological Economics http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ecological_economics&action=history --Swedenborg 07:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior
Certain editors are having a problem with User:Khosrow II.. He is being disruptive and unconstructive in my opinion, but what worries me is that he sees Wiki as turf war: Every time hes gets into an edit-war, he puts messages on the Iranian Wikipedians' notice board, he is practically the only one saying things like this is once again under attack by pan-turkists, anti-iranianism has become a disease, please help etc. See that page's history .. The whole notices there seem to be inflammatory eg Azerbaijani national heroes - Full of POV and propaganda - it looks like a place to get meatpuppets.. I don't know whether that article is full of POV and propaganda, but it is an extremely wrong attitude, they were warned by other impartial users as well.. In all his edit summaries he accuses people of being pan-this, pan-that, racist, not knowing anything etc.. I was wondering what could be done to stop such disruptive behavior, particularly with respects to the noticeboard issue.. Cheers! Baristarim 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is what the Iranians notice board is there for. Its not a secret buddy. Also, it is not I who starts the revert wars, it is you and the other pan Turkists that you muster up. You have been accused of pan Turkism, not just by me, but other users. You continuously make baseless and ridiculous assertions without facts.Khosrow II 01:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed it, there should be no problems now. If the user reverts again, you need to take care of him. Thanks.Khosrow II 01:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant if he reverts my changes, which should make everything ok now, then you would have reason to block him for disruption right? I for one will not be doing anything for the time being.Khosrow II 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. Could you mediate something for us? I took a bunch of reliable maps and basically combined them into one to make up for a map that cannot be found on the internet. This usesr claims its OR just because I had to combine several maps. The map this user insists on using is greatly exaggerating Turkic groups in Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East.Khosrow II 01:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at this: Khosrow II 01:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you see what I mean? EVERY single time I make a change he uses the word pan-turkist, this is really getting old.. I see your point, I will try to take it easy, but you must understand how nerving it is to be called a vandal and pan-turkist and eg You continuously make baseless and ridiculous assertions without facts, other pan Turkists that you muster up.. I hadn't see your post when I wrote that edit summary.. Sorry about that.. But surely you must see that it is not easy to take it easy when even legitimate edits are reversed - an hour before this episode, i made this edit to calm a revert war and right after I was reverted like this  !! How would you feel if that edit summary was directed at you? honestly? I am really trying to take it easy, but it is really NOT easy like this, I hope that you understand that.. Regards.. Baristarim 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We wont call you pan Turkic if you stop acting like one. Supporting your fellow pan Turk in saying that Arabic and Iranian culture had nothing to do with the Ottomans is propaganda. Claiming that my map which is based on several reliable sources is not right and your preferring an exaggerated map is propaganda. I can continue even more.Khosrow II 01:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here you go Inshahee: :Turkic people. See the discussion page.Khosrow II 01:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Inshanee, please see this .. You are giving me a warning because of my edit summary, but it is ok for him to say things like other pan-turkists that you muster up??.. I never claimed in my above edit in question that Persian and Arabic cultures had no influences, before my involvement there was an edit war because there were many nations that were mentioned, so I replaced them with Byzantine culture and cultures of Islam, that way noone would have reason to start an edit war again.. I fail to see how that is propaganda.. There is absolutely no assumption of good faith, seriously.. I reported this user for 3RR a week ago, I think this is the only reason why he is making this fuss.. In any case, please do something Inshanee, I also dont think it is right that he calls me pan-turkist EVERY single time, I hope that u understand, if my edit summary is unconstructive, which I accept, than this must also be considered as such.. Baristarim 02:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I understand what you are saying, but the number of my inflammatory edit summaries dont come as near as his, in EVERY single edit summary he uses the term pan-turkist or vandal, not that it makes me angry coz I can shake it off, but it is still not cool.. You warned him, but even after your warning, in every single one of his edits he is still speaking with the same tone - see this, this was some time after your warning.. What happened to comment on content and not the user?? I got angry for a moment, I also said sorry for my edit summary that intervened after your warning that I hadnt seen at the moment, but please take a look at his edits, every single time he says vandal, pan-turkist etc.. What is going on?? I also have a right to not be insulted.. Please do something about this.. As for my edit to the OE article you mentioned, I was really trying to find a solution, I was never claiming that COE didnt have this or that influence, what I wrote was much more encyclopedic, what happened to the assumption of good faith? regards Baristarim 02:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ? I told you I agree with what u said earlier.. What do you expect me to do? And I don't understand why u say i dont have a right to anything at all on wiki, thats way too much wikilawyering, you missed the spirit of what I was trying to say: I am subjected to repeated insults and degradation, that is not cool either.. I hope that u understand this.. All the users have/dont have the same rights, so you could have phrased your last post in a better way.. So after all this, u r telling me that it is basically ok for him to keep on repeatedly calling me pan-turkist or vandal since he has done so after your warnings? In any case, it is still wikilawyering to say that anyone can put any post on a WP page as long as no specific course of action is encouraged: what counts is the spirit of the rule: i dont have to write a specific course of action to be taken as long as there is one implied eg full of POV and propaganda, attacked by pan-turkists or attacked by russians, instead of simply writing POV issues, surely as an admin you can see that? In any case, I am not interested in continuing this any furher, I have wasted enough time already.. Baristarim 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am aware that this is a private website :).. Please be my guest and keep an eye on me, I would like that, I have nothing to hide. All I am trying to do is contribute to Wiki, I am not here to only push agendas, I am actively creating and rewriting articles in the fields of my specialisation.. If u r not happy with that, u have a right to have that opinion. I know what the noticeboards r for, I wasnt complaining about anyone putting any messages, I only said that the way certain posts are put also push people to act in a certain way, thus violating that policy.. On the other hand, pls see my point about Khosrow having a bone with me, I reported him for 3RR a week ago, he did the same just twenty mins ago for me, in a case where my last edit was a correction of the edit directly three mintues before, which was also mine. I was honestly trying to revert my last edit and unfortunately I was looking at a wrong version when I did my last edit. See what I mean? I sense a lot of bad faith there bordering on harassment. He even replied to my explanation on the 3RR page, so what can I say? Baristarim 05:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I didnt even know that you reported me. Second of all, I reported you for 3RR because you broke the rule. I would have done it to any other person. You reverted 4 times, and your last revert was not a re-revert, you simply reverted to an older version of the article basically. The way you re-revert is to revert back to the version before your reverted in the first place. You did not do that, and you had a long time to do so.Khosrow II 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please post your posts to me, and not to Inshanee, to my talk page, I think he would appreciate that, this is my last reply to you on his talk page.. As for 3RR, in my fourth edit I was honestly trying to revert my last edit as I explained above.. I wasn't aware of any older version, believe me. In any case, that's the truth, I can't do much if others wish to believe in a different version of events.. Baristarim 05:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Zaparojdik
Hi, I see you just blocked Zaparojdik. I just reported him for violating the 3RR - if you're not going to lift his block later on, you may want to specify that he's already blocked there; it may confuse other administrators.--Tekleni 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, got it. --InShaneee 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Turkey and EU
I realy wonder why you found the user template about the users supporting Turkey's joining to the EU divisive. Although there are lots of templates and also some articles which are more divisive and subjective than this template, please inform me why you deleted it. I think it is really nonsense to delete a temlate which is about a country's quest to join an internatinal organization. There are lots of templates that you should work for, which are about independencies of regions in some countries, therefore extremely divisive. If you are against, you did not have to delete it. Everybody has ideas and can state freely but if you let people to do so. CrashMex 20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so why don't you start to work on templates or articles that are exteremely divisive and subjective. Please tell me the point to choose specificly this template to delete while there are much more divisive templates. Also, on the user pages of wikipedia there are freedom of speech. If I write "Turkey should join the EU" on my user page will you delete it too? CrashMex 20:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there is this one. It is very divisive about Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan. "This user supports the independence of the '''Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" Please work on this! Also, please can you tell me why you find Turkey EU template divisive. It is just a wish about Turkey and the EU relations. CrashMex 20:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But it is not a debate to have point. It is about a new member of the EU and that joining will be realized in 10 years by 90 percent probability. Of course there can be unexpected consequences but that is what will be in the future: TURKEY IN the EU CrashMex 20:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How come you have right to monitor my messages to other Wikipedians? Of course you can read they are not hided but YOU CERTAINLY NOT HAVE RIGHT TO THREATEN ME in any case because you are just an admin. CrashMex 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RuthieK and List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars
Hi InShaneee, I noticed you blocked RuthieK recently and I was wondering what your opinion was on List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars. This article was created by RuthieK before his block. It is almost an exact copy of List of Arab scientists and scholars, an article that was recently protected because of alot of revert warring (which included RuthieK's edits). As you can see by Talk:List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars, Ruthie's first comments on the talk saying "This list was created because there is a group of people determined not to follow the self-description of the list arab scientists and scholars...". It seems to me like he created this article to get around the protection of the other article. By the history of the new article, another user thought the same thing I do, and I was wondering if you think me redirecting List of Ethnic-Arab scientists and scholars to List of Arab scientists and scholars was proper given the situation? — Moe  20:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats what I thought too. I wasn't really sure what to think when I first saw the title of the two articles. I'm not sure what the difference between a Arab and an Ethinic-Arab is, so unless there is a difference, I would keep the redirect. If there is a difference, I would delete it and add deleted to it so no furthur reverting can occur. — Moe  20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Shall you do the nuking? :) — Moe  20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nuke :p Regards — Moe  21:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Curses, and the Project's scope
Get ready for length... I understand where you're coming from on the issue of curses; at the same time, however, sources ranging Coast to Coast AM to numerous paranormal literary volumes have extensively referenced the subject, especially two of the most famous (at least to the West) cases of "genuine" curses, or cases of misfortune continually befalling individuals connected to a given thing, those two being the matters surrounding Hope and Tutankhamun, respectively. At the same time, however, I realize the difficulty of being able to recognize "if a curse is active," "was" active, if one was ever involved, or in turn if curses are even real: misfortune does happen, but when is it enough to invoke the c-word? The notion of curses is an ancient one; in our modern society, they have suffered under what I term the intellectual flippancy of our times: seemingly regular loss of sporting competitions are quantified as curses, even though the old system of using the word involved spirituality, occasionally demons and other dark things, and always either maiming or death. To compare the two as co-equal is as if to compare soap-box racing to the Indianapolis 500...both are racing (or in this case, "misfortune"), but the scale difference is immeasurable. Thus, our struggle is with the society we're in, not with the notion of Curses. George Noory has had individual shows about curses on Coast to Coast...tales of total devastation of people's lives being attributed to them is rare, but definitely there. Curses are a paranormal subject; bringing them up in sports is almost always not. ...though with rare exceptions: ask me about a curse involving the number nine at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and you'll hear about a story of death striking on the track, with clocklike regularity, for over half a century. In the end, I suppose our task is to find a way to make clear the differentiation between the jokes and the brutally serious. --Chr.K. 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My first offer, then: we put Curse on the Project list (have now done so) of articles needing expansion (and especially clarification, since the article suffers from the same problems I mentioned earlier, of 'playing loose' with the word's definition), and make a vote for Project members as to whether to include the Hope Diamond as a viable example of a cursed artifact...or what I'm now thinking is best, creating a individual curse page for each example such as the Hope. --Chr.K. 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In policy of what to include, I say we go simply by the references: if a book has been written on the subject of a given curse, and has made reasonably clear its intentions to be taken as paranormal literature (Curse of the Bambino references obviously do not withstand such scrutiny), we include it. Hope and Tutankhamun, two of the most famous, pass such a test.  In writing them up, however, all the more emphasis must be placed on those references, to differentiate from faux curses. --Chr.K. 21:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Did anyone get critically injured or DIE from the purported Curse? Real curses should involve maiming or carnage, to say it grotesquely, otherwise they're not really a curse in the antiquian sense. Though, admittedly, I've long since seen your point, that the only way to solve this is to write up my own articles elsewhere and in official journals as to what a Curse actually is supposed to be, scientifically. --Chr.K. 21:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me?
I want to install WERDNABOT on my talkpage to archive older stuff but I am simply flummoxed by the method. If you would be so kind as to help figure it out or better yet, show me how to plug in my own info to the formula exactly as you have it set up, I'd e ever so grateful. if you want to just do it on my talkpage you can but then I guess I wouldn't learn much. The part I don't get is how to create and link to a page. I was gonna just cut and paste but the archiving talk instructions say that isn't a good way. I don't have as big a talk page as you do, so it's not a huge priority, I just like the idea of clearing the decks every month for new discussions. Lisapollison 19:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Potomac Senior High School
The article I am talking about has references to a particular person that I would really like to have removed. I would appreciate it if you could have that history file removed. Thank you. John R G 18:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that it is not in the actual article but it is in the history files and that is why I would like you to remove that particular article because I dont want anyone to see that even if it is in the history files. If you do this I would really appreciate this. Thank you very much. John R G 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a response from someone else on this subject because I really want that one history file deleted and I am trying to do this the right way. Can you please talk to someone else and get the history file deleted. Thank you. John R G 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Heads up.
Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Supreme_Cmdr_2. JBKramer 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: I was shocked as well. JBKramer 20:28, 13 October 2006

(UTC)

Help Prevent an edit/revert war
User Grandmaster keeps removing a sourced section from the Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic articles (See history). He sites POV and spam for the removal, but: 1) I changed those sections to summarize the neutral and consensus version of the main article (History of the name Azerbaijan, which we finally corrected after about a month of debating. You can see now that the page protect has been taken off and so far everything is fine. Grandmaster was heavily invovled in the creation of the nuetral version of the main article, and the summary is directly summarizing the main article. So I dont know why GM says its POV (read the article, and then read the summary, whats POV about it?). I am openly telling you that you can check both the summary and the main article and you will see that they are in agreement with eachother. I personally took the POV out myself. 2)GM says I am spamming, however, the section is both relevant to the Azerbaijan article and the ADR article.

Please help resolve this dispute.Khosrow II 04:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will be going to sleep now, so I ask that the admins not make a decision until I can come back and make a better case tomorrow (as I believe GM and I are in different time zones, he has the opportunity right now to bring up his case, while I do not). In the mean time, I ask that you read the main article and the summary, and decide for yourself whether they are in agreement or not (now I remind you that the main article is a consensus version acheived with GM's participation). Also, I urge you to consider that the Azerbaijan and ADR articles are relevant places to post this information. I'll say good night for now and I will talk to you tomorrow. Thanks adn I hope you are able to resolve this dispute. For now however, since the sections are sourced, I think they should stay in the respective articles until a final decision is made.Khosrow II 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. With regard to the last posting of Khosrow, this person is trying to mislead you. There was no agreement on him spamming all the articles about Azerbaijan with the same repetitive section. On the contrary, it was agreed that the articles will be just linked to the main article about the name of Azerbaijan. Khosrow was even warned by another admin that his actions are not appropriate, but despite that he keeps on spamming the articles about Azerbaijan with his POV interpretations of the history. Regards, Grandmaster 05:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize to both of you, but this is out of my area of expertise. I'd recommend that you try an RfC or mediation, though I do ask that you stop using the term 'spamming', GM. --InShaneee 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Grandmaster 06:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as I suspected what would happen, it has happened. GM got the Azerbaijan protected, and he got the List of Azerbaijanis page protected. GM continually starts edit wars, has a double standard, and is a very big POV pusher. Read the below and everything should be crystal clear. (see here, where I discussed all of my edits and reasons with an admin first, and tried to prevent an edit/revert war, but as usual, GM thinks hes right all the time, refuses to compromise... and then eventually he tricks an admin into taking his side. Notice how he asks El_C for a lock first, but ends up getting it from another admin later! )


 * Now regarding the Azerbaijan article:


 * GM keeps claiming its POV, yet he does not say whats POV about it.
 * GM believes he is the only one that is rigth all the time. He refuses to compromise, I am the one always having to resort to compromising, now why is that?
 * I did not break any Wikipedia rules by merging the sections. I shortened it, I stopped "spamming", and I myself conformed the summary to the main article. What did GM do? Nothing but repeatedly deleting a sourced section.
 * Again, I will remind you that this is a sourced section.
 * Get the page unprotected because it is very evident that the only POV pusher here is GM. This cannot be denied anymore, its write here infront of you.


 * Now regarding the List of Azerbaijani's article:


 * If it is not a list based on ethnicity, then why is it called List of Azerbaijani's? Last I checked, Azerbaijani is an ethnic group. This is like have a list called "List of Turks" and having Kurds on it, just because Kurds live in the same region as Turks from Turkey.
 * A significant amount of the people named on that list are from Iran, with nothing to do with the R. of Azerbaijan. So why are they on there? Last I checked, Mexican's dont claim famous people from the state of New Mexico as Mexican.
 * The region of Iranian Azerbaijan, the real Azerbaijan, and the R. of "Azerbaijan (see: History of the name Azerbaijan) have nothing to do with each other at all. This whole thing was started by pan Turkists in 1918 with the aim of claiming North Western Iran.
 * Having those ancient figures on that list is like saying that Avicenna was Uzbek, Sitting Bull was American (as in USA), Heraclius was Turkish, etc... That doesnt make sense does it? This is clearly a POV push by GM.
 * Also, maybe we should update the List of Persian's page to include everyone from Iran, regardless of ethnicity, because according to GM, list's of people are not based on ethnicity, but by region... and since Persians make up the majority in the region of Iran, that would make everyone Persian. (by GM's logic).


 * This is GM's tactic. He starts revert wars citing ludicrous reasons. Ignores discussions on talk pages as much as he can. Then goes to admins to get pages locked. Please unblock these pages. Thanks.Khosrow II 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, I don't know the slightest thing about this topic, so I am in no position to say who is right. Secondly, the history shows that there was heavy back-and-forth editing, so there is no way that I'm going to unprotect it. You think something doesn't belong there? Take it to the talk page. Additionally, these accusations and name calling against grandmaster need to stop. --InShaneee 21:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He uses the same words. Also, its not important whether you know enough about the subject or not, you can still read both our arguments and decide for yourself who makes more sense.Khosrow II 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not the admin's job to say who's right and who's wrong in a content debate. And I don't care what words he uses, I'm telling YOU to be civil. --InShaneee 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, but can you please tell him also. Thanks.Khosrow II 21:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attack
See here: Khosrow II 02:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:PARA again
I've made a (rather crude) change that will give it the result you're looking for; there's probably a cleaner way to do it with a second switch block, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. (Most larger projects don't have a central category, actually, because it would quickly become unusably large; so there isn't really any standard code to copy in this case.) Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 04:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Discussion
No one, in the entire time I've used this site, has been civil with me. All I've ever gotten is told repeatedly that any info I add, can and will be deleted for whatever reason they can find. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that viewpoint, but that's what I've experienced. And after talking with even more users today, it's quite clear that nothing I submit will ever be accepted onto this website. JohnQ.Public 15:14, 16 October 2006

Wiki Paranormal Thing
Hi InShaneee

Please think through this indiscriminant labelling of all sort of anomalous albeit preternatural (not supernatural) phenomena as "paranormal" on talk pages. Whilst for example some cryptozoological putative animals have been labelled as paranormal by some people, many haven't, including the gigantic octopus, the sea monk etc etc. For example the St Augustine monster was a big smelly carcass, nothing paranormal there and no one has ever suggested otherwise. Anomalous is NOT a synonym for paranormal. thanks Tullimonstrum 22:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This user raises an interesting question: where does anomalistics and paranormal no longer coincide, and is there an overarching term that incorporates both? Wikiproject Strange would be a strange name, indeed...but when people get extremely pet-peevishish on THIS being The Truth but THAT being a Bald-Faced LIE...strangely named überprojects sometimes seem to be the only way to restore civility (or at least order). As it stands, I suggest subdividing the Project into two "kingdoms," Anomalistics and Parapsychology.--Chr.K. 15:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

subProjects
I think we need two automatically, Wikiproject Cryptozoology and Wikiproject Ufology, what with how many of both kinds of pages there are. Problem is, if we just go straight from WPParanormal to WPCryptozoology, I have a feeling the pet-peeves are going to lash out, as Cryptozoology is considered by many (see Anomalistics) as not paranormal per se. As it stands, I regularly read much of the latter, but have nowhere near the interaction with them historically as I do with the UFOs and Bermuda Triangles of the world; if it were a complete project and not subject to being confused with such things as FBI investigations, I'd also think to include unexplained disappearances as well, given how many I've found that need to be put in. --Chr.K. 15:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then with that as the case, our Project's name is flawed, as the pet-peevers will simply never stop coming...and argument amongst project participants, or those working on the pages regardless of affiliation with the project, will only assist the irrationally skeptical editors. --Chr.K. 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Community Ban
Thank you for taking the time to realize the degree of disruption involved in Brya's participation in Wikipedia. KP Botany 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You is officially informed about this Berton 00:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment and help
Hello, could you please help resolve a long running problem regarding User:Caligvla's conduct by commenting on Talk:Armenia. Thank you.--Eupator 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal information
I'm taking care of it with oversight. Jayjg (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RfAr
I repaired a mistake, my apologies. Berton 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias


Hey InShaneee, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions? See: User:Khorshid/Misconceptions
I do not think a userpage is for that stuff... -- Cat out 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's strictly innapropriate, though I'm not pleased that it already exists on its own subpage, as well. Have you considered MfD? --InShaneee 15:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for your review before seeking any kind of action. I do not want to make the nomination myself. How should I proceed? -- Cat out 16:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Take it to MfD, mention why it was removed from wherever it was removed from, and point out that it already has its own subpage in his userspace. --InShaneee 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Khorshid/Misconceptions -- Cat out 18:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with my user page? I thought users are allowed to put "userfy" certain things? I dont see anything wrong with it, its just a list of misconceptions, its not going to kill anyone or start any arguments or anything. I understand it was deleted but its on a User page now, it has no influence in Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia if thats what your worried about.Khosrow II 16:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking Mustafa
Hi, there's an emerging consensus at WP:AN that he should be given second chance (but kept on an informal "probation"). I plan to unblock him soon, but I wanted to notify you first, as the blocking admin. Please comment at WP:AN if you wish. 08:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Laurentdion proposal
Would you perhaps feel more comfortable with giving Laurentdion a second chance if he agreed that actions and discussions on pages about him or his work would be undertaken through me or some other suitable person? David Mestel(Talk) 08:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to check with him, of course, but it sounds reasonable. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that he makes all his edits through me - just those relating to himself or his work. David Mestel(Talk) 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. I was more thinking of his work as an artist. David Mestel(Talk) 08:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but...
I'm getting a bit sick of dealing with things around here. No matter what username I choose, or what page I create, it's deleted or blocked(!)Camp For Troubled Teens Mentor 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RKO Industries, Inc.
I found a reference so as to establish notability for the article RKO Industries, Inc. which you deleted. I recreated the article, but it's still not much more than a stub. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Community Probation for [[User:Heqwm]]
Hi InShanee, thanks for your help in working out something to do with User:Heqwm. There seems to be consensus at WP:ANI for putting him on Community probation. Would you be willing to notify User:Heqwm of the probation? I think it should be done by a neutral party such as yourself. Hopefully, the one month community probation will give time for the mediation to proceed successfully, or to fail. Either way, we should know if he can be channeled into productive contributions or not. I hope you will be able to provide the notice. Thanks very much, Johntex\talk 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)