User talk:Srikeit/archive 9

LAnguage dispute
Wow the disputees (or disputers) seem to post their laundry on every users talk page. Utschurch (probably supports and RFC/A), Bhadani(noncommital), AmbroodEY(supports), and I (support) have talked about a possible rFC/RFA. What do you think?Bakaman Bakatalk 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

NPA article
Hello.

Myself and User:Cswrye are currently discussing rating an article within Wikiproject: Psychology - specifically NPA personality theory. Would it be possible for you to provide additional insight, as and when it is convenient? Thank you! :) -- D-Katana 14:24, 04 October 2006 (UTC)

lol
Thanks for the congrats, Srikeit! Good luck with the rest of your exams! That poor earthworm... oh well, don't feel so bad, it doesn't need its gonads anymore :-) -- Samir धर्म 02:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect templates
Can you avoiding substing them since it makes it harder to remove when patrolling WP:PP? Thanks.-- Voice -of- All  20:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Q answered - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais
Hi Srikeit, and thank you for the response. I agree that the Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais page is not vandalised every day - the current rate is about once or twice per week. But the problem is that I am now the only "regular" user who has it on his watchlist after Pecher resigned and quitted Wikipedia. And I would like to get rid of it, because I am really not interested in Islamic preachers. So please watch the page yourself and revert the vandalisms. Thank you.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Look

 * 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)


 * Hi. Thanks for your interference. The issues are being discussed here,  you are welcome to join. I don't want to split it to many discussions, I think it is better to keep it in one place. Regards, Grandmaster 20:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats exactly what I was about to do.Khosrow II 20:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You should unlock those pages. See the discussion on El C's topic, everything is explained there.Khosrow II 17:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My chances for RfA
Hello, I am messaging you and a couple of other people that participated in my RfA back in May. I am considering making another request soon, but before I do I wanted to get some opinions on my chances.

Last time I applied you opposed based on lack of experience. Looking back I agree with this assessment. I now have over 3400 edits and a further 5 months experience. If I were to nominate myself again, would you still object based on my experience? Thanks for the help, I appreciate the information. HighInBC 17:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your wishes on my birthday, Srikeit! Sorry, I don't have a piece of my cake for you :) -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 06:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Vishnu Bhagwat
I have nominated the page for DYK.Can you please look at it and suggest improvements to make it to DYK. Shyamsunder 00:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Trying to reach an infobox consensus here:. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion?129.127.28.3 11:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias


Hey Srikeit, 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 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Diwali!
Hello Srikeit, I wish you a very happy Diwali! May you enjoy yourself on this day commemorating good over evil. Cheers! -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 12:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy Diwali (or Deepavali as we call it here in Singapore)! Hope you enjoy your weekend, and let the good overcome the evil. :D --Ter e nce Ong (T 13:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The lighted path
I wish you All The Best on the ocasion of the Indian festival of light, Diwali. I am sure that the light of hope, confidence, and all positive attributes shall always remain inside you – lighting your path and guiding you to attain higher and higher levels of excellence in all your endevours! All the best! --Bhadani 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish you and your family a happy "Festival of Lights"! Nish kid  64  17:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais again
Dear Srikeit, since you declined to semiprotect the article Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais last week, it has been vandalised by 4 different anonymous IPs. You did nothing against it. Please be so kind, watch the page and revert the vandalisms destroying sourced material, or semiprotect the page. Thank you.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. Happy editing.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To help you with your welcoming of new Esperanza members...
... TangoTango has kindly written up a script that once a week lists all of the new members to Esperanza. The list can be found at User:Tangotango/New members of Esperanza; it is updated once a week, and will show all of the new members since the last update. If you're not sure if everyone who joined the past week has been welcomed, that is a great place to check! I hope that helps you in your welcome, and thank you for making a point to greet new Esperanzians! -- Nataly a 18:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Our article has been deleted
Please can you undelete "Capital Equity Trust" which was recently deleted as below:

13:28, 12 October 2006 Srikeit (Talk | contribs) deleted "Capital Equity Trust" (expired prod)

Thank you.

Chris Holder

07831 799995

Please could you send the content of article "Capital Equity Trust"
Hello Srikeit,

Yes please could you forward the content of the deleted page "Capital Equity Trust" for re-editing.

Regards Chris Holder 00447831 799995

--Chrisholder 14:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

IRC
Hi Srikeit. Could you come on IRC if you are online. Want to discuss something. If I am not on IRC call me. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinion
Hello, Srikeit, I found your name among Indian Admins and Counter Vandalism Guys, so maybe you could have a look at this? and. History of article is full of this. Am not sure what to do. I'd be eternally grateful for a suggestion of any kind. Best regards, -- Plum couch Talk2Me 21:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Help me, pls
Hi Srikeit, could you please help me with Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais - I am probably already nearing to the 3RR now? Thank you, --Ioannes Pragensis 18:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar
This stuff has not even had a request for comment yet. The arbcom will probably refuse to take the case. BhaiSaab talk 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Srikiet. May I abjectly request that you remain uninvolved in this matter? The reason why I ask this is that I feel that you may be too close to the situation to be an objective observer and, given your powers as an admin and the methodology of execution, I feel that the deck may be stacked and there is a conflict of interest.Thank you and have a nice day.Hkelkar 20:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, you are involved in a request for arbitration. Please see this case. BhaiSaab talk 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab

 * He continues baiting me despite warnings .Hkelkar 00:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The use of "janaab" is suddenly a bait? It's the equivalent of "sir."BhaiSaab talk 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mhm. I dont see any tehzeeb in your case though.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tehzeeb is reserved for genuine editors, not sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers. BhaiSaab talk 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Or trolls and vandals or tendentious editors.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please cease battling on my talk page. --Srik e it (Talk 05:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais
Dear Srikeit, I repeat once again that I am not interested in the article about a Moslem cleric and that therefore I do not think that I'm having a "content dispute". I am only trying to prevent blanking sourced and seemingly relevant material from Wikipedia. I tried to request semi-protecting the page, but it was YOU who denied it. Therefore I think that YOU have a part of responsibility to solve the problem. I do not wish to communicate with anonymous mass of admins via noticeboards about themes not interesting to me. Could you please find a solution yourself? - Happy editing! --Ioannes Pragensis 08:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Nileena?
Hello Srikeit,

I dont understand why you blocked user Nileena joseph! She is a good contributer for Wikipedia, please go through her edits.

Regards

Kjrajesh

Thanks
Thanks!! -- Lost (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:EMOXHARDCOREXGRRL
Hey, there; was wondering if you had any thoughts or comment on this user's current unblock request? A quick discussion on IRC hasn't reached any particular consensus, so we're looking for some more insight. Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 08:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, "A quick discussion on IRC hasn't reached any particular consensus" means Luna and I can't agree on what is going on here :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Onefortyone RFAR
Um, did someone ping you to open this case? Because last month Jayjg changed the acceptance procedure to require 4 net votes to accept, and there were only three. Thatcher131 19:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement of injunction against User:Rex Germanus
Hi. The Arbcom has imposed the following temporary injunction on myself and an "opponent", whose recent edits show deep contempt for the decision and general lack of good faith/incivility, as shown by his "revert sniping" (with disparaging edit summaries) , , , etc. I fear he is itching to draw me into an edit war, himself failing to even meet the minimum 24 h ceasefire span, though sniping can be clearly observed through the proximity of reverts, probably hoping that his "clever" minute play will fool anyone. I hope that some action will finally be taken, as nominal self-reflection/good faith is clearly lacking, and that this will help to establish the true culpability as to the nature of these disputes. Regards, Ulritz 23:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Nileena joseph's unblock request
See User talk:Nileena joseph. The user claims that she works for a Malayalam newspaper and uses a shared IP. She says that other users are not her sockpuppets, but her co-journalists, whom she has "inspired" to edit Wikipedia in order to improve articles related to Malayalam journalism.

Some of the users suspected of being sockpuppets have made good contributions on Malayalam-related articles.

But the user's stance at Articles for deletion/S. Jithesh, Articles for deletion/Chiricheppu, Articles for deletion/S. Jithesh (2nd nomination) and some of her edits (this one for eg.) raise doubts. May be we should ask her to clarify her edits on articles related to S. Jithesh. May be we can ask for checkuser request that tells us whether the IP address is shared or not. utcursch | talk 08:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In sockpuppet cases, isn't there a provision to unblock one while leaving the others indefinitely blocked, as in the AryaRajyaMaharashtra case ? Despite all the noise that I made about the sockpuppet discovery, if you exclude the shady nature of the Jithesh-Chiricheppu affair, Nileena has made some very good contributions to Malayalam articles. Tintin (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I discussed the situation on IRC with Dmcdevit (the checkuser who ran the check) and he said that the IP is dynamic and if the others are not sockpuppets, the group-voting in the AFD is definitely meatpuppetry. We reckon that User:Nileena joseph should be unblocked and the other users should be asked to create new accounts if they wish to edit. They should also be advised to edit seperately from one another and abstain from group-participation in AFD's or any other consensus building process. I'd like to hear what you think about it. --Srik e it (Talk 09:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, AFD is not a vote. Two people making the same arguement carry no more weight than one persom.  So socks don't matter.  However, RFA is a vote and therefore, socks are banned. The above persons have not taken part in a RFA. Is there any real purpose in banning one account and asking the same person to create another account. I thought that Persons are important in Wikipedia and not accounts (for 3RR etc). What is the opinion of the community    Doctor Bruno    12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, that should be fine. Most of these accounts were created when the Jithesh was originally nominated for deletion and from the writing style, atleast some of them are sockpuppets. But now that the recreation of the two articles is blocked, the project (especially the ailing Malayalam section) would be better off if atleast the main editor among is them is unblocked. Tintin (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Tintin did good editings on Sports related articles. I admit that. But he showed some personal agenda in some deletion discussions. He inspired to vote against the article which I have created. I felt it as a humiliation to me. Actually I had great respect to him as a sports related editor. But his knowledge in art related subjects is so poor.I used to edit only art and literature related subjects. I'm totally ignorant about sports related articles. When he blindly argued against my art related editings it provoked me. I too is a humanbeing belongs to weaker sex. I'm an avid reader of all art related periodicals and literature related magazines in Malayalam.I love Malayalam very much. It will be cleared from my contributions. Nileena joseph 06:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that User:Nileena joseph should be unblocked. The rest may create new accounts, if they wish. The group should be advised to abstain from meatpuppetry. utcursch | talk 10:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I had told tintin a few days ago that Nileena could be a genuine user on account of her contributions but now I do feel differently. Check this and . The first link was edited by Devapriya and the second one by Nileena. For convenience purposes, I'll just refer to which line I am referring to. First link- 9th line of section. Second link- Last para. Notice the similar language used by both the users used regarding wikipedia used by teenage computer pros and editing articles on icecream, films and cricket. That's not enough proof, but I have my doubts.-- Ageo020  ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 17:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Check this too. There are a lot of similarities between My Words and the various ("wife" substituted for "husband" and vice versa, Mr.X and Mr.Y) to points raised...... Inspiration ??? (You can Check who has written first)    Doctor Bruno    18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Kven close case
Hello :-) Saw your question asking for help. Did you see the template? FloNight 00:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Help with Arb clerking
Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors is ready to close. Technically we would wait until 24 hours after the first motion to close vote. I see no need to wait since all agree and it is straight forward. If you want to wait that is okay, too.

If you have time and are interested in closing a case, leave a mention of it here okay. ] Check back to make sure it is a go ahead. I think this will work best while everyone learns the ropes.

I quickly looked over your closed case. No need to sign the cases when you close them. Other than that everything was good stuff. Thanks for your help. Take care, FloNight 15:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Technical matter here, but the required majority changed overnight from 4 to 5 due to an arbitrator no longer being recused. The motion to close still has only 4 votes so the closure looks irregular.  Durova  19:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Closure takes 4 "net" votes regardless of the majority in the case. Thatcher131 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It always only takes 4 votes to close. --FloNight 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification (whew, it's over). Cheers,  Durova  19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Typo
Whoops. All your Gundagai close messages have Kven in the link. Thatcher131 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for semiprotecting ECW December to Dismember it was getting annoying reverting it every couple of hours. Jayorz12 05:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser clerk
Please check out my comments at Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard. Thanks. Thatcher131 00:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)