User talk:WikiLeon/Archive04

{ {User:Lbmixpro/sp header|Talk Archive #4|Exquisite-kmenu_b.png}} '''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 9, 2006 and April 22, 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User Talk:Lbmixpro/Archive05. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Mas Oyama talk page
has been repeatedly deleting other people's posts in the Mas Oyama talk page. I have tried to get help on this from someone in a position of authority but no one has provided any assistance so far. In addition, user ROCKMANX has been adding to the main Mas Oyama page. Because of that, the entire page is now copied verbatim from other websites that claim copyright on their text. It is my understanding that this is unacceptable. I would think that the page will be removed and user ROCKMANX warned about his behavior. I do not want to be the one to do this because it will look poorly. If you could respond to me about this issue it would be appreciated. 142.161.185.32 05:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Matt

Thanks for the info

 * For more details on this topic, see User talk:71.131.182.135.

Haha I guess I did get a little heated in my remarks to those other users, and I can see now how you might have thought that I was simply a malicious user. Thanks for the information about what not to delete etc. Not quite sure how causing a ruckus on a site not directly related to the encyclopedia would constitute disruption, but it's your call and I'm fine with that. Is it alright if I take down the warning about removing vandalism warnings and your comment, since I've read them both? —This unsigned comment was added by 71.131.182.135 (talk • contribs).

Problem with Rory096
Rory096 keeps reverting my page and reinstating Malagurski "warnings" and new as well. Can you tell him to stop? Croatian historian 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true, I'm a dirty vandal. Even look at the history of WP:AIV, where I was reported twice.  And my block log, where I was blocked twice! -- Rory 0 96 15:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're vandalizing by deleting the warnings. You've been repeatedly warned to stop deleting them. Try listening. See WP:VANDAL and WP:TALK for the appropriate policy,. &rArr;   SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  15:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Shut up. Read the page. Lbmixpro and others have apologized for misinterpreting policy. I have the right to remove anything I want from my talk page, and especially trolling like that of Boris Malagurski. Croatian historian 15:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Croatian historian, Please try to be civil, please? Since I'm so involved in this dispute, I'm leaving it to another admin to look into this. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 20:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem, "misinterpreting policy?" WP:VAND is very clear about this. Lbmixpro: Sorry for having to have this spill over onto your talk. -- Rory 0 96 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rory: Talk to User:Mel Ettis about this. He found out the vandalism warnings were false, but I predict a major change in policy when it comes to removing warnings. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 20:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand policy. How about WP:NPA &rArr;    SWAT Jester     Ready    Aim    Fire!  15:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently YOU dont understand policy. Croatian historian 15:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize as well Lbmixpro. Croatian Historian: your talk page was blocked by the admins. You think we don't understand policy? Go ahead and read WP:VANDAL....or if you like I'll show you the exact section that states deleting your warnings is vandalism. &rArr;    SWAT Jester   Flag_of_Iceland.svg  Ready    Aim    Fire!  15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Deleting trolling is not vandalism and has always been accepted at wikipedia. On the contrary, adding vandalism and trolling on a talk page may lead to you being blocked. Croatian historian (Flag of Croatia.svg Flag of Germany.svg Flag of the United States.svg) 15:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Boris' comment
I feel I should comment on the issue. I would like to start by writing a Croatian historian quote:


 * "Not all nationalism is genocidal or aggressive expansionist/irredentist like the Serbian one."

I'm a Serb. I find that very offensive. So, I posted a "no personal attacks" template on his page. He just deleted it. He claims that I'm mad at him because he voted against me when I applied for an administrator on English Wikipedia, but that is not the reason at all. We're all a little biased, some more than others. But this next quote by Croatian historian is too much:


 * "Alojzije Cardinal Stepinac was perhaps the most honourable man in history of Croatia of the 20th century, also if compared to great statesmen like Franjo Tuđman."

Doesn't that seem a little too biased. I would even dare to call it nationalist. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. I'd also like to mention some other edits he made to actual articles, which I find are extremely biased, and quite frankly should be considered as vandalism:


 * "Serb irredentism and attempt to create a Greater Serbia under Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic led to the Yugoslav wars...", *"Serb war criminal Slobodan Milošević in the Hague...", *<>, *< >

And that's just what I could find in a few minutes... Not to mention, he's very rude:. Also, here's what he wrote about User:Lbmixpro - "vandalize user pages, needs to be banned", and the same for User:Rory096; "vandalize user pages (restoring personal attacks/trolling, deleting content), needs to be banned" for User:OrbitOne and "adminship abuse, removing properly placed warning templates" for User:Pgk.

Enough said. I don't know if he is blocked at the moment, some users keep unblocking him, maybe they think he might change his ways. Not likely. Block him for good - he is a vandal. -- Boris Malagurski  ₪  04:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/SPUI
Has been started. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy

 * For more details on this topic, see User talk:PizzaMargherita.

Shouldn't users like this be blocked for more than one day? They have brought nothing good to WP... PizzaMargherita 08:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it's shared, but my point is, look at the contributions: vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism, vandalism. That's it. They're wasting a lot of our time. PizzaMargherita 10:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The history of that account spans far more than 24 hours. Not one worthwhile contribution. And I'm not saying block forever either, but I would consider one month or two to be more appropriate, so they find another hobby in the meantime. If somebody with good intentions comes around and cannot edit, well, it's not the end of WP is it? And the statistics are pretty clear, that's very unlikely to happen.
 * Also, is it the right way to answer on my page? What's the point of splitting a discussion? Thanks. PizzaMargherita 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

srry about that
i'm sorry :( 66.169.1.14 04:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFC/SPUI
As a fellow admin, could you please give me some advice on what happened there at Requests for comment/SPUI? Things sure went sourh. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok b/c it gets worse by the hour... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You sure you endorsed the right summary? Because your edits seem to conflict... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

| Personal Attack

 * For more details on this topic, see User talk:NinetyNinePercentGood.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.' Comment on content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NinetyNinePercentGood (talk • contribs) 04:21, April 3, 2006


 * You reverted the deletion of an attack on another Wikipedian, which appears to be an endorsement of the personal attack. I am sorry if you did not appreciate the hostility that the other editor was showing in the 'humor', however personal attacks should not be tolerated. Thank you.  ThePuddingHasTheProof 04:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for getting involved. I appreciate it. --Nlu (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your help is appreciated. Thank you. Have you been able to find the policy violation that is the basis for Nlu blocking the sockpuppets? He says it is 3RR and NPA, and Point, however he can not find a single violation to cite. If you can find one, that would be great.  Thank you so much. CallingAllCars 04:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say that anybody who uses any sockpuppet while blocked, regardless of what the original offense are grounds for the socks to be blocked. As far as I can see from your original talk page, android79 blocked you because of your edits to Pet peeve. Since then, we've determined that you created these sockpuppets to circumvent your block. Every policy violation you made is still valid to your sockpuppets, which is why he states 3RR and NPA. As I can see, this edit refers to your 3RR. As far as NPA is concerned, the only thing I can see is this edit where you implied that Jamie isn't a valued contributer. WP:POINT is a guideline telling you not disrupt to prove a point. However, the same page states "Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive." Please sit out your block and not make any more sockpuppets. Once it's lifted, you can continue on your good faith edits. If you have a problem with the peeve list, you can RFC the article and see what they can do. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 06:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In Regards to the 3RR - I did that inadvertently because I | did not understand the policy at that point. I was blocked for 24 hours. I | apologized for it. It has | never happened again. Since the account had already been blocked for that, it should not be blocked again. Additionally, there was not a sockpuppet created until after the block had expired.

See | here and the block - 18:30, March 14, 2006 Android79 blocked "PoolGuy (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Pet peeve)

In regards to the NPA - Nlu | warned me. It has | not happened since. Since the account had already been warned for that, and it has not happened since, it should not be blocked. Additionally, there was not a sockpuppet created until after the warning and nothing was being evaded.

This is the whole issue that is being expressed. I am a good Wikipedian, trying to follow the rules, however administrative action has not been following the rules. The differing point of view with the peeve list was concluded with the AfD. I am looking for accounts to be unblocked and unprotected based on what is right, not to wait out an unfair block that was established on GoldToeMarionette in the first place.

Since your cited sources have not borne out a reason for me to be blocked. Please unblock my accounts now. Thank you for taking the time with this. I really do appreciate it.. SeeingClearly 12:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm denying unblocks for most of your sockpuppets, becuase they were created to evade a block (justified or not). For GoldToeMarionette and your main account, I've asked somene at a higher level to look into it, and see if it was truly justifiable. They'll also be able to know if the rest of the socks can be unblocked as well. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 18:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that a response to your request from a higher up is not coming. They have very few edits over the past few days, so their real life is probably occupying their time. Since there are so many blocks by Nlu, perhaps an unprotection of GoldToeMarionette's talk page could facilitate discussion is one location (provided Nlu doesn't protect it again). If you would request another higher up to look at this, it would be truly appreciated. It appears that you can see that the block occurred absent a policy violation. Thanks. FriendlyFriend 03:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * . That's all I have to say... --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 11:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry you can't help anymore. I hope someone will be able to. ReallyTryingHere 04:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you can't help anymore, but now I don't understand why you are perpetuating this. Per Sockpuppet#Prohibited_uses_of_sock_puppets "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this." Since there was never a legitimate block all use of the sockpuppets are permitted by Wikipedia policy. Blocking them does not help them correct the original problem. UnderstandingUser 04:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll give you one more chance. I'll unprotect your main account's talk page for a while so you can have others try and help you out. But please don't overdo it with the unblock template if someone doesn't agree with you. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak

Reversions on Religious Conversion
Please read the discussion and additions first before deleting well-sourced other users information. Keep Wikipedia interest in mind. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

County flowers
Following the AfD debate, you may wish to join in a discussion taking place at Talk:Plantlife. SP-KP 18:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Template Infobox Wrestler
Hello, a couple of flash questions :) --Gennaro Prota 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your last modification to the template makes me wonder: would you prefer to remove the new image_description parameter? I have no objections.
 * It would be better to avoid all the template machinery needed to show the "Born" or "Died" headers even when only one of the date and place parameters is provided. The simplest solution is IMHO to have a single "birth" parameter and require the user to put a &lt;br&gt; as separator if he provides both a date and a place. Example: &emsp; . However that's not backward compatible and would require fixing the invocation code in all these articles: do you think we can do that? Do you have some tool such as AWB which can speed up the job?

Locking Iglesia ni Cristo against anonymous edits...
It's too bad that a certain friend of ours seems intent on deleting content from the article. Do you think it might be possible to get a lock on edits from anonymous addresses, much like the one placed on the George W. Bush article?--Ironbrew 00:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

help!
User:Mir Harven has made two personal attacks on me, he said that I'm in a sick state of mind, and that I live entrapped in my own perverted mind here. He was also highly disrespectfull towards my story about the brutal murder of my gradfather in WWII by the fascists. These are probably the worst things anyone has ever said to me... Plase block him or something... -- serbiana -  talk  23:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Previous WWE roster
I have moved this page back to its original title as the former title applies to the topic of the page more. Trosk 17:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 07:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks. - Motor (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

 * For more details on this topic, see User talk:Fr3nZi3.

Oh thanks for your help. i am new to wikipedia, so don't hesitate to correct me on anything I am doing wrong. Fr3nZi3 19:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am totally confused

 * For more details on this topic, see User talk:67.170.97.60.

I don't understand why I am considered a vandal for updating incorrect information on the Wikipedia. There is no such thing as a "detached frenulum." A normal frenulum (under the baby's tongue) is ATTACHED to the floor of the mouth and the underside of the tongue. A problem comes when a tight frenulum prevents the tongue from coming forward enough to nurse properly. A normal frenulum is long enough for the tongue to stretch forward. 2nd: An HIV infection in the Mom can infect a baby through breastfeeding when the mother is in the beginning stages of the infection, or the ending stages of the infection. Breastmilk kills HIV in a petrie dish. Many mothers who have had HIV for a while, and are otherwise healthy nurse their babies without transmitting the virus to them. Especially in countries where mixing formula with unsafe water kills infants, it is considered safer to nurse! And the general recommendation on the duration of nursing a child (from the AAP) is for at least a year or for as long as is mutually desired. And WHO recommends 2 years or longer. So I am trying to make the Wikpedia more accurate, not "mess with it." I am a registered lactation consultant, and I've been working in the field of breastfeeding for more than 10 years. At the very least, please do some research and educate yourselves, so that you can recognize a helpful edit from vandalism! Mary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.97.60 (talk • contribs) 04:09, April 16, 2006.

Happy Easter


I'm vaguely unhappy with your message.

 * For more details on this topic, see User talk:Djbrianuk.


 * To my eyes, this comes off a little condescending. I can see it might be appropiate to put this message on a newbie editors page, but I've been around for quite a while. It assumes I didn't sign the nom as I'm ignorant of the syntax/method to do so, when the actual reason was I was c&p'ing the AFD texts and didn't select the entire line by accident. exolon 00:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's cool, no big deal. exolon 00:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And the Winner Is ...
Greetings,. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to Sango123 for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.

If you'd like to participate in the contest again, check by the contest page in a few days and sign up. See you around. (^'-')^ Covington 03:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

how did you move my user page? Thisuser 06:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Shekhawati farmers' history is unfortunate
Hi, You have deleted matter from Shekhawati article as per the wishes of a gentleman, who seems to be antifarmers. The above gentle man has not signed and has no account so far on Wikipedia. There is a policy of Wikipedia that if contests are from verifiable sources and reference has been given then it can not be deleted without properly discussing on its talk page. But this gentleman is bent upon not to see the content on this page. Where as the contents regarding farmers' history have been there for last one year. Why???

The contents about farmers' history are not my views. It has been taken from page 96-97 of history book by


 * Dr Natthan Singh: Jat - Itihas (Hindi), Jat Samaj Kalyan Parishad Gwalior, 2004

Dr Natthan Singh is an eminent writer which can be seen from his article. He is not a communist and so is me. I am not a communist. I am Indian wikipedian and contributing articles on historical and geographical subjects from very interior areas of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh which have not been mentioned properly in the history books. How can the gentleman put allegation on me that I am a communist. I have facts on Wikipedia which can be verified from the references. If Google could not search it was not my fault. Google was not there when the exploitation of farmers was being done by the Jagirdars. Pandit Nehru had not visited those interior areas. If a fact is not mentioned by Pandit Nehru does it mean it is false ???

This unsigned gentleman says that such exploitation is not possible. Was he there at that time. Ask from the elderly persons of Sekhawati area. What was recorded in history was what the rulers wanted. Why the rulers would like that such things come out. Farmers were banned to take education. No schools were permitted for farmers. Then who will and why write their history. The facts mentioned ars true and can be verified from the villages mentioned.

I have mentioned that There were 37 kinds of ‘lags” (taxes) prevalent in the Shekhawati area. Together with the share of the produce known as "Hasil" these cesses meant that the Kisans had to part with more than eighty percent of their produce. The findings of the Sukhdeonarain Committee in the years 1940-42 bear this out. So before deletion from the article kindly verify from the above committee report. It is not a hidden fact. Where is the question of telling lies ???

As regards appering names in the list it is from the above book. They are not my relatives. Burdaks are found in about 20 countries which can be searched from the google search. They are not my relatives. Rather than deleting one should do further research and add more contents. Falt finding is not of any use. If this type of deletion is done why should I do hard work and contribute to Wikipedia ???

With this request the matter may be restored. burdak 16:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I realized I wrongfully reverted the article, and restored it back moments later. It should still be there. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 19:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * With your second revresion the matter stands deleted. One gentle man is regularly deleting it. Now he is taking pretext of your reverted version. So kindly restore the matter which was there for a year on the page. One fellow is doing vandalism. Thanks burdak 07:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

thankz
thank you for unblocking me.--Freestyle.king 04:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE tag
I see that you followed up my categorisation of Newsmax etc with using the correct tag. Concern has been raised about those actions, saying that it should have been Danny that did that sort of thing otherwise WP:OFFICE stands to be degraded. I can see where those who think that are coming from but in this case I disagree with them. Leaving things just with the normal protection notice for a couple of days just begged for another admin who had not been following what was going on to make Eloquence's mistake again. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up about what has been said on my talk page and confirm that I would only ever use anything to do with WP:OFFICE in extraordinary circumstances like those of yesterday. I hope we see eye to eye on this and thanks for following things up. David Newton 08:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Retail therapy
I have rewritten this article adding information from verifiable sources. While there is still much work to be done, the article is at least referenced. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 09:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fansites For Wrestler
i know and you know that on the wrestlers pages only one fansite should be added, now i have contacted and asked CENA LUV to stop adding and editting many of the fansites, she wants to and will carry on editting them and adding more and more, she hasn't listen. I was wondering could you please contact her and inform her of the rules as me doing it is getting no where as she is still doing it, this person was actually banned before because of always editting the fansites for no reason. thanks for any help you can give (Lil crazy thing 18:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

Fansite Improving
thanks for contacting me..now, i know that the person up there contacted you but she never told me that we put one fansite. she told me before at most 2 fansites and for a few weeks now, she's been tracking me down and reverting EVERY SINGLE EDIT I've done. I really think she doesn't have any respect for me editing. well, you seem like a nice person but I don't know how to edit when what I put isn't respected. I'm trying to add pictures and she deletes all of them. What i'm trying to do is, just try to improve things because mostly, the pictures and the fansites had been there for a while now so I'm trying to edit but the thing is, every thing update is what she put and i'm guessing that she doesn't want her work to be changed. (CENA LUV 21:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

Reporting User
i'm contacting you again because i was left an insulting and abusive message on my user page from user:Fr3nZi3 someone i dont even know and who had nothing to do with the current conversation on the page, they did this completely out of the blue. Is there anything you can do, thank you for any help you can give. (Lil crazy thing 19:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

Shekhawati
I happened on the Shekhawati page because I'm planning on going to this region to do some amateur photography. I added my comments to the talk section, but I take issue with the general tone of the writeup about the farmers' rights movement. There are a lot of accusations made, but without any proof.While there may be a grain of truth in what he writes, it doesn't make sense to portray the farmers' struggle as the centerpiece of the writeup.

I live in San Francisco region. The history of this area is rife with abuse of Chinese immigrants' rights, the Japanese internment camps, etc., and even excesses against gays. But is the page on San Francisco dominated by that? Or by the beauty that is this city?

On another note: I was searching for this committee that the original writer mentioned, the Sukhdeonarain Committee. I could not find any evidence of it on Google; but I did find, however, this article by this guy spread all over the net. Then on Google Books search, which has indexed several books on the Jagirdari abolition movement, there was nary a mention of this committee (or of the excesses mentioned by the writer). I am very doubtful of how much of these are true.

Bkumar1976 23:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (new to this WiKi thing)

Thank you
Thank you for your recent help. josh buddy talk 07:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)