Please review my actions described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Freestylefrappe and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe#Logs of blocks and bans. Thatcher131 19:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you please comment as it seems you have proposed this. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop#Laughing_Man_edit_wars. It has been nearly 7 days and I have yet to recieve a reponse. Regards.// Laughing Man 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you might be the one who needs to cool it. You're AfDing and PRODing articles about a subject you obviously know nothing about, and judging by recent comments by other editors, I'm not alone on this. PT ( s-s-s-s) 18:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd bring these three to your attention: [1] [2] [3]. Unsure what you want to do next. Daniel . Bryant 01:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this edit - why would a sockpuppeteer need to be blocked while that template is in place? BhaiSaab talk 06:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you've yet provided a sufficient solution to this problem. That's your duty as an admin. BhaiSaab talk 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit - I request you to please visit Wikipedia:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2 when u have time. I need your criticism and advice on improving myself - I will greatly appreciate your input. Thanks, Rama's arrow 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Please investigate possible immediate responses regarding the IP address 68.126.253.36 Someone is gutting the Srebrenica article from this IP address that has never been used before on wikipedia. Thank you. Fairview360 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You were right, I did not present any evidence for that at this time and I have removed the assertion accordingly. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for one of the best edit summaries I've ever seen. :) — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw that you speedied this as a G11. How does an out-of-business publication that doesn't have new issues and do no marketing because of its lack of current existence advertise? Could you reverse this? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well-established policy? I've seen that there are how-tos in Wikipedia. I'm saying the statement is too strong, because some people might use it to delete descriptions of things. How do you describe some things without it sounding how-to? Maybe it's possible, but the statement still sounds too strong. I am not watching this talk page.-- Chuck Marean 17:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to bother you. I know your time is valuable. There's currently an edit war happening with Ally Sheedy, and they've both breached the 3RR. I've discussed with one of them on my Talk Page, and he's stopped now, and won't revert it again. However, probably because I'm new, I was very perplexed by the process to lodge a breach of the 3RR (I looked, but didn't want to stuff it up royally). So instead, I'm harassing you and apologising ahead of time for the trouble. I'm learning, and hopefully I'll pick it all up quickly and can get back to reverting that pesky vandalism. Pursey 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, could you please do a check on Manzhouri ( talk · contribs)? Should go to WP:RFCU instead? Thanks. — Khoi khoi 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:HRosson&oldid=81000768 -- Netsnipe ► 16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
You should have an email from me regarding a third-party oversight request. Thanks, Xoloz 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I received a letter from one of WP:ANI regulars, asking me to vacate the page. Therefore I will respond here. It's undesirable to base blocks solely on subjective concepts such as "incivility" or "disruption". Every active on-wiki contributor may be found guilty in these. The problem is that people may call each other "bitches from hell" on IRC and go unpunished. It's very disappointing when they bring these standards to Wikipedia. When I reprehended Giano for his comments on Evidence page, he told me that "extra publicity is great because it will teach them to call Bishonen a Bitch from hell". I believe that the quality of IRC discourse is a real problem. Therefore, I applaud your decision to take action against incivility on IRC. -- Ghirla -трёп- 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I recently saw your opposing comment (I try to avoid the word vote on Wikipedia) regarding SOI's RFA.
From what I read you opposed his nomination on grounds that he displayed POV userboxes on his userpage, correct? If so, would you also have opposed his RFA if the display of bias/POV/personal opinion had been in other form, e.g. plain text?
Please note that this is not a criticism of your comment or position itself - supporting or opposing any point of view is a personal matter, and I respect other people's views as I hope they respect mine. Best wishes, Charon X/ talk 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit - just to alert you that I've sent you an email on an important issue. Rama's arrow 16:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I renamed it to 'Non-notability', the name of the page which is the locus of dispute. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 05:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you know anything about the consensus of opinion and WP policy about glossaries? Many lists and glossaries get removed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The reason claimed is that WP:NOT a glossary - but that official policy document does not really address this issue directly. The AfD community has also voted to keep a number of glossaries. In the discussion at Category talk:Glossaries it appears that wikified glossaries can be considered encyclopedic enough to keep (organizing jargon, etc.). I've searched for documentation on en.wiki and meta-wiki, but find no specific policy statement. Obviously no consensus on article naming: "Glossary of…" or "List of …", 'Terminology" or "Terms".
The architectural glossary started life as stubs from the old Encyclo.Britanica gathered together into one article. It's a scattershot of words, while missing out on many of the basic ones (see: list of basic architectural topics - not much better). Oh, and I just found list of architecture topics, (yuck). Putting stubs together in a glossary may actually reduce the chance that the topics will ever get expanded. But, many of the entries in architecture are archaic and too small to be a separate stub article.
I'm considering moving uncommon Greek and Roman architectural terms from the architectural glossary to the List of classical architecture terms, or to individual articles ( see this diff. at: Molding (decorative). Also, considering upgrading the List of classical architectural terms to a Glossary by adding brief encyclopedic content to the simple list of wikilinks that exist now. Any advice or comments are appreciated. — dogears ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Netsnipe says you checkusered User:Velebit. Are you sure only User:Matt Parlow, User:Ante Pavelic and User:Pederkovic Ante are his socks? I'm 100% sure there's at least 5 more (namely User:Ante Pederkovic, User:Perkovic Ante, User:Ante Pedercic, User:Kante Perkovic and User:Ante Peder kovic), and I could bet on few more which are not yet blocked. -- Dijxtra 08:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This has my support, certainly. Be aware that it is something of a perennial proposal, though. Look, I proposed it once myself, as a noob (though without a waiting period). — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 23:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
This one goes to Dmcdevit for conceiving the idea of speeding new unreferenced articles: the best thing since 3RR! -- Dijxtra 07:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ( s-s-s-s) 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have blocked the user for sock puppetry. Actually, blocked User:SuperDeng is likely to be the puppet master of all these accounts. SuperDeng characteristics: [5] and similar style by User:Daborhe: [6] Constanz - Talk 06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
(And consider User:Lokqs as well: [7]. Similar interests, similar long sentences, same misspellings.) Constanz - Talk 06:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
T-Man has been operating sock-puppets to evade his ban, which we have confirmed through checkuser and the puppets have been banned. I extended his block to indefinite due to this sock-puppeteering and also personal attacks made. He has, however, asked for his block to be lifted. I don't think it should be, and I detailed my explanation to him full dialogue here. I've since blanked and protected User talk:201, but directed him back to User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. I've also notified him that if he wants to appeal his block he should contact the arb-com himself. Just giving you a heads up. Steve block Talk 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The bicycling terminology page used to be a subsection of Road bicycle racing. It is consistent with countless other "terminology" Wikipedia articles (do a search on "terminology"). Please do not move it. -- Serge 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven/Proposed decision you posted a list of new sockpuppets of the Kven-user. I recognized most of these, but not User:Pudeo. I believe (s)he is an inoccent user. Labongo 10:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit, please check your e-mail. -- ManiF 02:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmc,
Errabee just pointed out that there is a new user named User:GiordanoBruno683. This user has no edits by himself, but User:Sosomk created his userpage and inserted some info (e.g. Babel and other userboxes).
Consequently, it might be a sock. Can you investigate the matter further, with maybe a CheckUser and so on?
Thanks in advance, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Dmc, there are 4 close votes but the Fof #23 about socks only has 3 vote (needs 4). Since it is a newish proposal I wondered if they were deliberately skipped votes. Do you know? It was your proposal I think. FloNight 00:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted let you know I went through the evidence you had against me. You asserted that "all" the edits you cited were reverts. Here is the list of those cited edits that weren't reverts:
If you would please correct either your assertion, or the inclusion of those edits, I'd appreciate it. Fresheneesz 03:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey Dmcdevit, 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, — Khoi khoi 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to barge in like this but I don't even known HMTL (although I know Tim Berners-Lee) and it was a badly written little paragraph mainly taken from Cannabis Health ...I just noticed it, so I cleaned it up and added a reference .. it was in Forbes, the New York Times, and yes, it was a real company ... I'd put this right there in the middle but when I try it says I'm blocked by a Mango - this is Laurence McKinney himself, and if you want to see me in person, just drop my name in Google image, or simply google my name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.201 ( talk • contribs) .
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that it is not very nice when you block a relaively inexperienced user and won't care enough to let him know what are the terms and choises. Sosomk 22:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Howdy :) I'm wondering if we could get a serious discussion on glossaries as a group, to occur at Talk:List of glossaries, so that we don't have to repeat the AfD for hundreds of instances? I'll add a note at the 3 AfDs, but perhaps it should be mentioned at a deletion policy talkpage, or WINAD, or village pump, or more places? I'm not sure where is appropriate.
I hope the summary of my position is clear, I'm in the middle of a very hectic weekend! Thanks, I'll see you at that talkpage :) -- Quiddity 03:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I hope you've had some time to read my email and consider. I will await your response. Thanks, Rama's arrow 16:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I was going to request that an uninvolved admin close this. It's been open for around a week. Do you agree? The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The Bevonsire Label is part of the EastWest family of labels. EastWest is owned by Warner Records, a very notable record company. Nightmare of You is a notable band, who has a release on the label. They run it, in fact. I thought it looked like it had notability. It could be expanded, but still. -- Russ is the sex 23:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in late on an Arbcom case that you have already taken to voting stage, but there's fresh evidence of highly disruptive, ban-evading sockpuppetry, which I feel should influence the outcome of the case. Just a heads-up to make sure it doesn't get overlooked. Please see Evidence page. Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
When I started my second editor review, I had no idea how greatly helpful it would be to me. Here are people from across the world who I've never met or laid eyes upon, taking their personal time to think about me and offer me valuable criticism and advice. And the stuff I've learnt is more helpful in real life than just on Wikipedia. This is an experiment I will never forget. I thank you most sincerely for your kindness, for helping me be a better person. I am very much in your debt. Rama's arrow 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, can I get an invite to #wikipedia-en-admins? It says it's invite-only, and I'm an admin. Thanks. Nishkid 64 01:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There are recent confirmed socks in the noincluded section of the page. Cheers. Thatcher131 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that the system is not there for the use that I am requesting but I can see no other way to clear my name. I have made 1500 edits and was contributing in an area (immigration regulations) that appears to have limited involvement from experts/practitioners. By the declaration that I was sockpuppetting I feel that my reputation has been tarnished. I am very disenchanted by the process and my experience with it. I was on the verge of leaving the project and will probably do so if it is not possible to at least get the IP numbers checked. I am prepared to fully waive my privacy rights for the check as I want to continue to participate but do not feel that I can do so once I have been labled as a wrongdoer. I understand that you have a lot of demands on your time and that I am probably being a total drama queen. Can I ask you to help me out here? I would be exceedingly grateful. -- Spartaz 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for processing my Request for checkuser so quickly. I appreciate it. -- Descendall 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You blocked this user for sending death threats, which was confirmed by Checkuser. I think you need to explain the last bit to him, as he is trolling and lawyering, requesting "evidence" from "this Dmcdevit". Maybe time to nip this one in the bud once and for all. Cheers, Daniel . Bryant 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of check user: Snle. I don't know how to e-mail you, so I write you here instead. Is there anyway you could do a check user on Manchus ( talk · contribs)? If you will be able to establish him/her as a sock puppet of User:Snle, you only need to read his/her only contribution to make a case with the school from where these contributions emanate.-- Niohe 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
On User_talk:Kylu#HU12, User:EinsteinEdits (signs as "Edited by a Professor of Life") makes some comments regarding the "laughable" checkuser staff and how the checkuser information regarding him is wrong. I'd appreciate it if, perhaps, some of the checkusers could look into the situation and determine if the user is being overly disruptive regarding this. (sigfix!) ~Kylu ( u| t) 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you maybe add some clarification to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu? Danteferno tends to accuse anyone who opposes him on Goth metal articles of being Leyasu. You said Cronodevir is not 86.132.130.138, but maybe the search was too narrow. Leyasu edits from a broad pool of British Telecom IP addresses, including a recent edit to the checkuser page, and some older edits to my talk page and Arb enforcement that he signed as Leyasu. If you could state that Cronodevir is not editing from BT, or even better is not editing from England, that would go far in clearing things up. On the other hand if Cronodevir has been editing from BT, that might put it at least in the realm of possible. Thanks either way. Thatcher131 02:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I sent you an email, but the network was timing out, so I'm not entirely sure it went through. It was in regards to your six-month block of my work IP 206.11.112.251 for vandalism. Unfortunately, there are upwards of 10,000 users of that IP (which can include children of employees in the breakroom), and so it's hard to tell where vandalism might be coming from. I was hoping you'd consider changing the block to a "soft" block with registration disabled, that way registered contributors such as myself can continue to edit while at work. When it's slow, it's nice to pass the time with new-page patrol, etc. :-)
I appreciate your consideration! -- NMChico24 07:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I just sent you a mail on something which I want you to see. Please advise. - Aksi_great ( talk) 09:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Dmcdevit, have a barnstar from me! This is for your work on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. SunStar Net 16:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
I saw this (apparently legitimate?) user was being blocked by your six-month block on 206.11.112.251; after asking for some advice on IRC, I've opted to convert the block to anon-only with account creation frozen, since you don't seem to be around for comment. If you know something I don't, feel free to reverse that. :) Sorry if this causes any trouble. Luna Santin 23:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of cycle of AfD and inevitable recreation of the same lousy list after a while a guideline or recommendation or suggestion could be written. Such guideline would specify a minimal quality threshold for this kind of lists (e.g. it cannot be just a dump of names w/o any context). This would, ideally, allow to delete crap on the spot, avoid endless debates about nothingh and valuable lists would be safe. Pavel Vozenilek 12:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just blocked Newsocks ( talk · contribs), a name that gives me the feeling that Snle is currently creating "new socks". Perhaps another check is necessary? Khoi khoi 18:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I applaud you for the block, as Shiva's Trident(Subhash bose) and Hkelkar have maintained that they are not sockpuppets of each other, and I have not believed them as you can see on both of their talk pages. I was about to file yet another sockpuppetry case regarding the two users in question, but since you seem to have blocked one already, I will hold off on that. However, should you get any criticism for this block, I will gladly add this evidence in your defense. I would also suggest a temporary block for Hkelkar, because this account has been used to evade Shiva's Trident's blocks. BhaiSaab talk 19:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
May I email you a draft of my case? If so, I will send it within an hour. BhaiSaab talk 19:54, 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)
“ | Well, firstly he was on at about 6 UTC, which is about 10-11pm Texas time, so he would have required security cards to get into uni. It would be a big move to take this risk of being caught breaching security regulations by taking an unauthorised person into a physics lab with expensive equipment at a higly regarded physics school for a wikipedia stunt. Also I looked at the student list and there are about 220 students [9] in the Physics Dept and 8 are Indian. PhD students need to help supervise lab classes (I do so myself) and share the same lunch room, and are required to attend the weekly afternoon tea and reaserch seminar, so you end up talking to everyone all the time, even though when you are in undergraduate you only talk to a few specific friends, as you now live in the same office 50 hours a week. It's quite likely that 2 out of the 8, at least 25% will be BJP supporters. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | ” |
[10]. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that Dmcdevit did not block Shiva's Trident as a result of any request made by me. BhaiSaab talk 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Where have you established abuse or block evasion? Hkelkar 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FS._Jithesh_.282nd_nomination.29_sockpuppetry, did Devapriya who commented on that AfD come clean ? She has all the hallmarks of a S.Jithesh sockpuppet. Tintin ( talk) 02:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Auto movil 03:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the quick reaction! Shabdiz 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you forget this, or still waiting for it to clear the list? Thatcher131 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like permission to post aksi great's evidence. There is no information that cannot already be found that by a simple Google search of what Hkelkar/Subhash bose self admitted in the uncensored version of this IRC conversation. Thanks. BhaiSaab talk 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello there, this user 203.38.140.127 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been harassing me under different IPs and Usernames all night. They have been vandalizing my page throughout the course of a few hours. Please alert this IP to stop immediately. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I just emailed you about it. -- SunStar Net 11:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello boss, how did you say that me and sarvagnya are same? Can I know what's going on? Gnanapiti 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I want to bring this to your attention. I used a shared IP address to edit Wikipedia and got blocked. I think it is unfair and have reported this case to Jimbo Wales. For my current account, I have used it for at least 3 different IP addresses to prevent you from mistakenly identifying me as a sock puppet of Snle. Niohe has been vandalising my userpage with the excuse of the sock puppet case. Could you finish the checkuser request proposed by Niohe at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle? I think the result should be declined, unrelated or inclusive. So he could stop bothering me. User68732 22:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you were able to confirm that Literaryagent = Lightbringer, why is there no block in place, either IP or proxy? MSJapan 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You probably didn't notice, but this page was protected from edits when you edited it. Can you please revert your edit. -- Barberio 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, I really don't think that it's suitable to use general guidelines as builitin boards for whatever the current issue of the day it. It leads to instruction creep, and making the guideline harder to read. Copyvio is Copyvio is Copyvio. And it should already be obvious that the copyvio linking policy in Wikipedia:Copyrights reflected in both the current guideline, and rewrite effort in progress, applies. -- Barberio 13:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the re-write workshop version of the guideline with text that I think properly addresses this issue. [11] -- Barberio 13:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Additional information needed. Diffs of vandalism or 3RR evasion? Dmcdevit·t 22:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1) They charge me of vandalism and remove each and every additional details about Hinduism I incorporate.
2) Their claims are far from truth and aimed at discouraging any editor to contribute to Hinduism.
3) Hope that you have your judgement for my English and edits.
4) It's in principle wrong, not to allow someone contribute to an article.
5) To serve the purpose, incivility and sock-puppetry is resorted to.
6) During a discussion, some Ramramji registered on a day. Placed his view in support of Apandey and then disappeared for ever. Varification of the following comment and user will proove use of sock-puppetry.
Apandey is correct. The term "raja yog" is used to distinguish this path from bhakti, jnan, and karma. The name is used for purposes of convenience, and many pandits and swamis also call it raja yog. He is also correct not to get obsessed with Geeta only since most Hinduism also includes Brahm Sutra, Bhagavat, and also commentaries by Shankaracharya, Ramanuj, and others. All these are included in Hinduism. It is a wonderful religion because it includes so much variety. Srimad Bhagavadgita never says "there are three paths alone and no other exists." If you try to limit Hinduism to one scripture only, or 3 paths only, it will no longer be Hinduism. RamRamji 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
7) "Hinduism" is a self nominated for FAC.
8) Other editors are not allowed to work on the article. The attitude is not in the interest of subject matter of article or Wikipedia.
9) I wish to get sock-puppetry checked and exposed.
10) Yesterday, HeBhagawan has awarded some award to Apandey for working on Hinduism and behaving civil whereas in fact there is no contribution of Apandey to Hinduism (and hardly anywhere else) except jumping on talk page with his gross incivil and intimidating comments. This would be additional evidence of lobbying to control monopoly over a Wikipedia article.
11) I do not know whether is just and fair and have no objection but today, HeBhagawan has given at least 2 Barnstars 1) to "Chrislk02" for rv and 2) to "Sfacets" for simply reverting my one edit.
12) Wish that you help in controlling HeBhagawan & sock-puppetry from preventing others to contribute to Hinduism.
The incivil comments are on the talk page of Hinduism.
With due apology, I copy paste below some of the comments made by HeBhagawan.
The first comment is on the occasion of my first edit to Hinduism. Followings are on daily basis. The fact remains that no one is allowed to work on Hinduism.
Well, thank you for your contributions, Swadhyayee. It is great that you want to work on the page. With due respect, however, there are a few problems with your edits:
Lack of citations Poor English Poor organization POV imposition (e.g., implying that the Bhagavad Gita is the only "authentic" Hindu scripture). Please don't feel insulted. I recommend that when you make new additions, you should use citations, have a native-level English-speaker check the grammar, and think about how your additions can compliment the overall organization of the article. If you do not have time to do this, another way is to just put your ideas on the discussion page for others to incorporate into the article. What do others think?HeBhagawan 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Swadhyayee, I have a suggestion: Why don't you help to edit other issues in the Hinduism Project? Let us leave the Raja Yoga issue. I was willing to accomodate you by putting a disclaimer, but it seems that other editors do not want to do even that. I felt compelled to report you to the admins because of your unfounded reversions, but I will gladly withdraw my report if you can put your efforts toward improving the article. There are so many things that need to be improved. Consider working on the Bhagavad Gita section, since you have great interest in that, and I think you will be able to find citations. I will try to find citations for the things you mentioned on the talk page. For a few of those things, a single citation is meant to cover multiple sentences. Thanks! HeBhagawan 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the "Karma and Reincarnation" section, you have modified the language of other users in this section in a way that has introduced grammatical errors that did not exist before. I hate to say this, becasue I appreciate your earnestness, but I have to agree with the user who pointed out that your edits sometimes reduce the quality of article rather than enhance it. I am sorry if you feel offended by this, but becasue of your level of English, I recommend that you seek the review of native-level English speakers before posting your edits. I do not say this to insult you. If you are honest with yourself I think you will understand what I am saying. I have no desire to exclude you from editing, but I do have a desire to protect the quality of the article. I am sorry if you feel hurt by anything I said. HeBhagawan 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know. It is ridiculous that one single user is bringing the progress of the article to a halt. It was improving daily until he arrived on the scene. It is very frustrating. HeBhagawan 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The edits you made today contained some constructive ideas, but once again they caused a lot of damage to the article. You inserted a lot of extremely low-quality material and deleted high-quality material at the same time. Please do not do this.
To other editors: Please help to monitor the changes made by Swadhyayee until the mediators decide whether to block him from this page. In my view, almost all his edits have failed to meet Wikipedia quality standards. With some exceptions, the substantive content of his edits is appropriate, but the way he implements his edits (without citations, disorganized, ungrammatical and muddled language) is a problem. Use your own judgement. Thank you! HeBhagawan 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Swadhyayee: I understand your approach. Although it would be fine if you were the only one editing the article, it creates extra work for others to have to follow behind you cleaning up the low-quality edits. Please consider this alternative: Make your rough-draft edits on a separate document, or on the discussion page. Then, AFTER you have brought the draft up to wikipedia quality standards, incorporate them into the article. This approach should work better for everybody.
Just a heads up: please help to keep an eye on Swadhyayee's edits. He has started to become active again after being away for a while. In the past I have spent a lot of time trying to dissuade him from making edits that clearly reduced the quality of the article becasue his edits were POV, factually dubious, uncited, and stylistically bad. I did not find him as easy to work with as Raj. He is very enthusiastic, and tends to make large-scale edits, but does not always have the same ideas about quality that some editors have.HeBhagawan 12:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Swadhyayee 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
May I seek your permission to provide details now?
Swadhyayee 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Allright, I was just having a bad day, Cheers! Sosomk 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
User:65.174.252.12 - is vandalizing pages, particularly Smelting. He's had numerous previous warnings and a previous ban as well. - WarthogDemon 20:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I am coming to the evidence of sock-puppetry in my reply at the case page. The issue is not only of sock-puppetry but also of not allowing use of free software Wikipedia for which, to my knowledge there is no platform to complaint.
I think, serious view must be taken for monopolising an article and not allowing placement of rationals and matters of general knowledge in a religious article like "Hinduism". It's not only doing injustice but dis-couraging new editors to attach them to Wikipedia. It also helps to develop un-ethical and un-desirable attitudes in present editors. This leads to ir-repairable damage to Wikipedia, particularly in the time to come.
I am suffering from last one month, where HeBhagawan is not allowing any rational to be included or any facts of general knowledge to be included on one or other pretext. Incivil comments are passed using sock-puppetry. I am told that my English is poor. I am suggested to go and edit elsewhere. I am suggested to write blogs.
I am from India. My English could be different from westerners but I am drafting reasonably well legal petitions in English. I have never come across a situation where otherside is unable to understand my English. I have not lost any legal case where petitions or replies are prepared by me. This mail itself could reflect my level of English.
Lobbying is being done by HeBhagawan awarding Zen Garden and Barnstar awards to the people 1) who have not contributed to the article but involved in passing gross in-civil remarks on article talk pages; distorted the facts on talk pages and before mediation panel; Shockingly the award is being issued for contributing to the article and civil behaviour! (To Apandey) [
[12]] 2) who have reverted just one vandal (To Persian Poet Gal & Chrislk02) [
[13]] [
[14]] 3) who have wrongfully reverted even my single edit (To Sfacets) [
[15]].
These awards are issued on 3rd & 4th Nov. 06 after I filed the present dispute. Sir, This is gross corrupt practice. You can varify the single rv or reversal edits of these Wikipedians here[
[16]].
This charity of awards is to win hearts for selfish purpose and earn reciprocal awards to add to the decorum of one's user page. This be-littles the value of awards.
My contributions to the article "Hinduism" are no-nonsense. I know Hinduism reasonably well. I have been a field worker spreading the message of our holy scripture Srimad Bhagwad Geeta in villages of India from last two decades.
To me, this is a case, where for personal credits, the principles of Wikipedia is thrown in waste-paper basket and un-ethical means are put into use.
To me, this is a cause of concern. My present approach is not out of ego problem. To me, this cause should be brought to the notice of Board of Trustees of Wikipedia Foundation.
My earnest submission in the interest of Wikipedia foundation to you would be to kindly give your dedication and patience to understand my grievances. I am new to Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of norms of awards. My further submissions to you would be, if, you feel this to be un-ethical, kindly bring it to the notice of other dignitaries.
Swadhyayee 06:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
RFCU
I think you have a misunderstanding. None of your arguments have to do with sockpuppetry. Please go to dispute resolution and make your complaint following that process. Dmcdevit·t 06:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swadhyayee"
I am sorry, I edited my last mail to you number of times. Have you read the latest one? I am coming to the sock-puppetry evidence on case page.
Swadhyayee 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Swadhyayee 08:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Please review my actions described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Freestylefrappe and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe#Logs of blocks and bans. Thatcher131 19:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you please comment as it seems you have proposed this. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop#Laughing_Man_edit_wars. It has been nearly 7 days and I have yet to recieve a reponse. Regards.// Laughing Man 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you might be the one who needs to cool it. You're AfDing and PRODing articles about a subject you obviously know nothing about, and judging by recent comments by other editors, I'm not alone on this. PT ( s-s-s-s) 18:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd bring these three to your attention: [1] [2] [3]. Unsure what you want to do next. Daniel . Bryant 01:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this edit - why would a sockpuppeteer need to be blocked while that template is in place? BhaiSaab talk 06:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you've yet provided a sufficient solution to this problem. That's your duty as an admin. BhaiSaab talk 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit - I request you to please visit Wikipedia:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2 when u have time. I need your criticism and advice on improving myself - I will greatly appreciate your input. Thanks, Rama's arrow 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Please investigate possible immediate responses regarding the IP address 68.126.253.36 Someone is gutting the Srebrenica article from this IP address that has never been used before on wikipedia. Thank you. Fairview360 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You were right, I did not present any evidence for that at this time and I have removed the assertion accordingly. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for one of the best edit summaries I've ever seen. :) — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw that you speedied this as a G11. How does an out-of-business publication that doesn't have new issues and do no marketing because of its lack of current existence advertise? Could you reverse this? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well-established policy? I've seen that there are how-tos in Wikipedia. I'm saying the statement is too strong, because some people might use it to delete descriptions of things. How do you describe some things without it sounding how-to? Maybe it's possible, but the statement still sounds too strong. I am not watching this talk page.-- Chuck Marean 17:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to bother you. I know your time is valuable. There's currently an edit war happening with Ally Sheedy, and they've both breached the 3RR. I've discussed with one of them on my Talk Page, and he's stopped now, and won't revert it again. However, probably because I'm new, I was very perplexed by the process to lodge a breach of the 3RR (I looked, but didn't want to stuff it up royally). So instead, I'm harassing you and apologising ahead of time for the trouble. I'm learning, and hopefully I'll pick it all up quickly and can get back to reverting that pesky vandalism. Pursey 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, could you please do a check on Manzhouri ( talk · contribs)? Should go to WP:RFCU instead? Thanks. — Khoi khoi 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:HRosson&oldid=81000768 -- Netsnipe ► 16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
You should have an email from me regarding a third-party oversight request. Thanks, Xoloz 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I received a letter from one of WP:ANI regulars, asking me to vacate the page. Therefore I will respond here. It's undesirable to base blocks solely on subjective concepts such as "incivility" or "disruption". Every active on-wiki contributor may be found guilty in these. The problem is that people may call each other "bitches from hell" on IRC and go unpunished. It's very disappointing when they bring these standards to Wikipedia. When I reprehended Giano for his comments on Evidence page, he told me that "extra publicity is great because it will teach them to call Bishonen a Bitch from hell". I believe that the quality of IRC discourse is a real problem. Therefore, I applaud your decision to take action against incivility on IRC. -- Ghirla -трёп- 09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I recently saw your opposing comment (I try to avoid the word vote on Wikipedia) regarding SOI's RFA.
From what I read you opposed his nomination on grounds that he displayed POV userboxes on his userpage, correct? If so, would you also have opposed his RFA if the display of bias/POV/personal opinion had been in other form, e.g. plain text?
Please note that this is not a criticism of your comment or position itself - supporting or opposing any point of view is a personal matter, and I respect other people's views as I hope they respect mine. Best wishes, Charon X/ talk 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit - just to alert you that I've sent you an email on an important issue. Rama's arrow 16:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I renamed it to 'Non-notability', the name of the page which is the locus of dispute. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 05:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you know anything about the consensus of opinion and WP policy about glossaries? Many lists and glossaries get removed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The reason claimed is that WP:NOT a glossary - but that official policy document does not really address this issue directly. The AfD community has also voted to keep a number of glossaries. In the discussion at Category talk:Glossaries it appears that wikified glossaries can be considered encyclopedic enough to keep (organizing jargon, etc.). I've searched for documentation on en.wiki and meta-wiki, but find no specific policy statement. Obviously no consensus on article naming: "Glossary of…" or "List of …", 'Terminology" or "Terms".
The architectural glossary started life as stubs from the old Encyclo.Britanica gathered together into one article. It's a scattershot of words, while missing out on many of the basic ones (see: list of basic architectural topics - not much better). Oh, and I just found list of architecture topics, (yuck). Putting stubs together in a glossary may actually reduce the chance that the topics will ever get expanded. But, many of the entries in architecture are archaic and too small to be a separate stub article.
I'm considering moving uncommon Greek and Roman architectural terms from the architectural glossary to the List of classical architecture terms, or to individual articles ( see this diff. at: Molding (decorative). Also, considering upgrading the List of classical architectural terms to a Glossary by adding brief encyclopedic content to the simple list of wikilinks that exist now. Any advice or comments are appreciated. — dogears ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Netsnipe says you checkusered User:Velebit. Are you sure only User:Matt Parlow, User:Ante Pavelic and User:Pederkovic Ante are his socks? I'm 100% sure there's at least 5 more (namely User:Ante Pederkovic, User:Perkovic Ante, User:Ante Pedercic, User:Kante Perkovic and User:Ante Peder kovic), and I could bet on few more which are not yet blocked. -- Dijxtra 08:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This has my support, certainly. Be aware that it is something of a perennial proposal, though. Look, I proposed it once myself, as a noob (though without a waiting period). — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 23:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The da Vinci Barnstar | ||
This one goes to Dmcdevit for conceiving the idea of speeding new unreferenced articles: the best thing since 3RR! -- Dijxtra 07:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ( s-s-s-s) 00:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have blocked the user for sock puppetry. Actually, blocked User:SuperDeng is likely to be the puppet master of all these accounts. SuperDeng characteristics: [5] and similar style by User:Daborhe: [6] Constanz - Talk 06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
(And consider User:Lokqs as well: [7]. Similar interests, similar long sentences, same misspellings.) Constanz - Talk 06:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
T-Man has been operating sock-puppets to evade his ban, which we have confirmed through checkuser and the puppets have been banned. I extended his block to indefinite due to this sock-puppeteering and also personal attacks made. He has, however, asked for his block to be lifted. I don't think it should be, and I detailed my explanation to him full dialogue here. I've since blanked and protected User talk:201, but directed him back to User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow. I've also notified him that if he wants to appeal his block he should contact the arb-com himself. Just giving you a heads up. Steve block Talk 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The bicycling terminology page used to be a subsection of Road bicycle racing. It is consistent with countless other "terminology" Wikipedia articles (do a search on "terminology"). Please do not move it. -- Serge 01:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven/Proposed decision you posted a list of new sockpuppets of the Kven-user. I recognized most of these, but not User:Pudeo. I believe (s)he is an inoccent user. Labongo 10:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmcdevit, please check your e-mail. -- ManiF 02:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dmc,
Errabee just pointed out that there is a new user named User:GiordanoBruno683. This user has no edits by himself, but User:Sosomk created his userpage and inserted some info (e.g. Babel and other userboxes).
Consequently, it might be a sock. Can you investigate the matter further, with maybe a CheckUser and so on?
Thanks in advance, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Dmc, there are 4 close votes but the Fof #23 about socks only has 3 vote (needs 4). Since it is a newish proposal I wondered if they were deliberately skipped votes. Do you know? It was your proposal I think. FloNight 00:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted let you know I went through the evidence you had against me. You asserted that "all" the edits you cited were reverts. Here is the list of those cited edits that weren't reverts:
If you would please correct either your assertion, or the inclusion of those edits, I'd appreciate it. Fresheneesz 03:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey Dmcdevit, 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, — Khoi khoi 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to barge in like this but I don't even known HMTL (although I know Tim Berners-Lee) and it was a badly written little paragraph mainly taken from Cannabis Health ...I just noticed it, so I cleaned it up and added a reference .. it was in Forbes, the New York Times, and yes, it was a real company ... I'd put this right there in the middle but when I try it says I'm blocked by a Mango - this is Laurence McKinney himself, and if you want to see me in person, just drop my name in Google image, or simply google my name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.201 ( talk • contribs) .
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that it is not very nice when you block a relaively inexperienced user and won't care enough to let him know what are the terms and choises. Sosomk 22:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Howdy :) I'm wondering if we could get a serious discussion on glossaries as a group, to occur at Talk:List of glossaries, so that we don't have to repeat the AfD for hundreds of instances? I'll add a note at the 3 AfDs, but perhaps it should be mentioned at a deletion policy talkpage, or WINAD, or village pump, or more places? I'm not sure where is appropriate.
I hope the summary of my position is clear, I'm in the middle of a very hectic weekend! Thanks, I'll see you at that talkpage :) -- Quiddity 03:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I hope you've had some time to read my email and consider. I will await your response. Thanks, Rama's arrow 16:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I was going to request that an uninvolved admin close this. It's been open for around a week. Do you agree? The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The Bevonsire Label is part of the EastWest family of labels. EastWest is owned by Warner Records, a very notable record company. Nightmare of You is a notable band, who has a release on the label. They run it, in fact. I thought it looked like it had notability. It could be expanded, but still. -- Russ is the sex 23:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in late on an Arbcom case that you have already taken to voting stage, but there's fresh evidence of highly disruptive, ban-evading sockpuppetry, which I feel should influence the outcome of the case. Just a heads-up to make sure it doesn't get overlooked. Please see Evidence page. Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
When I started my second editor review, I had no idea how greatly helpful it would be to me. Here are people from across the world who I've never met or laid eyes upon, taking their personal time to think about me and offer me valuable criticism and advice. And the stuff I've learnt is more helpful in real life than just on Wikipedia. This is an experiment I will never forget. I thank you most sincerely for your kindness, for helping me be a better person. I am very much in your debt. Rama's arrow 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, can I get an invite to #wikipedia-en-admins? It says it's invite-only, and I'm an admin. Thanks. Nishkid 64 01:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
There are recent confirmed socks in the noincluded section of the page. Cheers. Thatcher131 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate that the system is not there for the use that I am requesting but I can see no other way to clear my name. I have made 1500 edits and was contributing in an area (immigration regulations) that appears to have limited involvement from experts/practitioners. By the declaration that I was sockpuppetting I feel that my reputation has been tarnished. I am very disenchanted by the process and my experience with it. I was on the verge of leaving the project and will probably do so if it is not possible to at least get the IP numbers checked. I am prepared to fully waive my privacy rights for the check as I want to continue to participate but do not feel that I can do so once I have been labled as a wrongdoer. I understand that you have a lot of demands on your time and that I am probably being a total drama queen. Can I ask you to help me out here? I would be exceedingly grateful. -- Spartaz 18:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for processing my Request for checkuser so quickly. I appreciate it. -- Descendall 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You blocked this user for sending death threats, which was confirmed by Checkuser. I think you need to explain the last bit to him, as he is trolling and lawyering, requesting "evidence" from "this Dmcdevit". Maybe time to nip this one in the bud once and for all. Cheers, Daniel . Bryant 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of check user: Snle. I don't know how to e-mail you, so I write you here instead. Is there anyway you could do a check user on Manchus ( talk · contribs)? If you will be able to establish him/her as a sock puppet of User:Snle, you only need to read his/her only contribution to make a case with the school from where these contributions emanate.-- Niohe 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
On User_talk:Kylu#HU12, User:EinsteinEdits (signs as "Edited by a Professor of Life") makes some comments regarding the "laughable" checkuser staff and how the checkuser information regarding him is wrong. I'd appreciate it if, perhaps, some of the checkusers could look into the situation and determine if the user is being overly disruptive regarding this. (sigfix!) ~Kylu ( u| t) 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you maybe add some clarification to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Leyasu? Danteferno tends to accuse anyone who opposes him on Goth metal articles of being Leyasu. You said Cronodevir is not 86.132.130.138, but maybe the search was too narrow. Leyasu edits from a broad pool of British Telecom IP addresses, including a recent edit to the checkuser page, and some older edits to my talk page and Arb enforcement that he signed as Leyasu. If you could state that Cronodevir is not editing from BT, or even better is not editing from England, that would go far in clearing things up. On the other hand if Cronodevir has been editing from BT, that might put it at least in the realm of possible. Thanks either way. Thatcher131 02:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I sent you an email, but the network was timing out, so I'm not entirely sure it went through. It was in regards to your six-month block of my work IP 206.11.112.251 for vandalism. Unfortunately, there are upwards of 10,000 users of that IP (which can include children of employees in the breakroom), and so it's hard to tell where vandalism might be coming from. I was hoping you'd consider changing the block to a "soft" block with registration disabled, that way registered contributors such as myself can continue to edit while at work. When it's slow, it's nice to pass the time with new-page patrol, etc. :-)
I appreciate your consideration! -- NMChico24 07:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I just sent you a mail on something which I want you to see. Please advise. - Aksi_great ( talk) 09:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Dmcdevit, have a barnstar from me! This is for your work on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. SunStar Net 16:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
I saw this (apparently legitimate?) user was being blocked by your six-month block on 206.11.112.251; after asking for some advice on IRC, I've opted to convert the block to anon-only with account creation frozen, since you don't seem to be around for comment. If you know something I don't, feel free to reverse that. :) Sorry if this causes any trouble. Luna Santin 23:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of cycle of AfD and inevitable recreation of the same lousy list after a while a guideline or recommendation or suggestion could be written. Such guideline would specify a minimal quality threshold for this kind of lists (e.g. it cannot be just a dump of names w/o any context). This would, ideally, allow to delete crap on the spot, avoid endless debates about nothingh and valuable lists would be safe. Pavel Vozenilek 12:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just blocked Newsocks ( talk · contribs), a name that gives me the feeling that Snle is currently creating "new socks". Perhaps another check is necessary? Khoi khoi 18:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I applaud you for the block, as Shiva's Trident(Subhash bose) and Hkelkar have maintained that they are not sockpuppets of each other, and I have not believed them as you can see on both of their talk pages. I was about to file yet another sockpuppetry case regarding the two users in question, but since you seem to have blocked one already, I will hold off on that. However, should you get any criticism for this block, I will gladly add this evidence in your defense. I would also suggest a temporary block for Hkelkar, because this account has been used to evade Shiva's Trident's blocks. BhaiSaab talk 19:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
May I email you a draft of my case? If so, I will send it within an hour. BhaiSaab talk 19:54, 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)
“ | Well, firstly he was on at about 6 UTC, which is about 10-11pm Texas time, so he would have required security cards to get into uni. It would be a big move to take this risk of being caught breaching security regulations by taking an unauthorised person into a physics lab with expensive equipment at a higly regarded physics school for a wikipedia stunt. Also I looked at the student list and there are about 220 students [9] in the Physics Dept and 8 are Indian. PhD students need to help supervise lab classes (I do so myself) and share the same lunch room, and are required to attend the weekly afternoon tea and reaserch seminar, so you end up talking to everyone all the time, even though when you are in undergraduate you only talk to a few specific friends, as you now live in the same office 50 hours a week. It's quite likely that 2 out of the 8, at least 25% will be BJP supporters. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | ” |
[10]. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that Dmcdevit did not block Shiva's Trident as a result of any request made by me. BhaiSaab talk 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Where have you established abuse or block evasion? Hkelkar 19:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FS._Jithesh_.282nd_nomination.29_sockpuppetry, did Devapriya who commented on that AfD come clean ? She has all the hallmarks of a S.Jithesh sockpuppet. Tintin ( talk) 02:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Auto movil 03:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the quick reaction! Shabdiz 07:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you forget this, or still waiting for it to clear the list? Thatcher131 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like permission to post aksi great's evidence. There is no information that cannot already be found that by a simple Google search of what Hkelkar/Subhash bose self admitted in the uncensored version of this IRC conversation. Thanks. BhaiSaab talk 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello there, this user 203.38.140.127 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been harassing me under different IPs and Usernames all night. They have been vandalizing my page throughout the course of a few hours. Please alert this IP to stop immediately. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I just emailed you about it. -- SunStar Net 11:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello boss, how did you say that me and sarvagnya are same? Can I know what's going on? Gnanapiti 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I want to bring this to your attention. I used a shared IP address to edit Wikipedia and got blocked. I think it is unfair and have reported this case to Jimbo Wales. For my current account, I have used it for at least 3 different IP addresses to prevent you from mistakenly identifying me as a sock puppet of Snle. Niohe has been vandalising my userpage with the excuse of the sock puppet case. Could you finish the checkuser request proposed by Niohe at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle? I think the result should be declined, unrelated or inclusive. So he could stop bothering me. User68732 22:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you were able to confirm that Literaryagent = Lightbringer, why is there no block in place, either IP or proxy? MSJapan 18:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You probably didn't notice, but this page was protected from edits when you edited it. Can you please revert your edit. -- Barberio 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, I really don't think that it's suitable to use general guidelines as builitin boards for whatever the current issue of the day it. It leads to instruction creep, and making the guideline harder to read. Copyvio is Copyvio is Copyvio. And it should already be obvious that the copyvio linking policy in Wikipedia:Copyrights reflected in both the current guideline, and rewrite effort in progress, applies. -- Barberio 13:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the re-write workshop version of the guideline with text that I think properly addresses this issue. [11] -- Barberio 13:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Additional information needed. Diffs of vandalism or 3RR evasion? Dmcdevit·t 22:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
1) They charge me of vandalism and remove each and every additional details about Hinduism I incorporate.
2) Their claims are far from truth and aimed at discouraging any editor to contribute to Hinduism.
3) Hope that you have your judgement for my English and edits.
4) It's in principle wrong, not to allow someone contribute to an article.
5) To serve the purpose, incivility and sock-puppetry is resorted to.
6) During a discussion, some Ramramji registered on a day. Placed his view in support of Apandey and then disappeared for ever. Varification of the following comment and user will proove use of sock-puppetry.
Apandey is correct. The term "raja yog" is used to distinguish this path from bhakti, jnan, and karma. The name is used for purposes of convenience, and many pandits and swamis also call it raja yog. He is also correct not to get obsessed with Geeta only since most Hinduism also includes Brahm Sutra, Bhagavat, and also commentaries by Shankaracharya, Ramanuj, and others. All these are included in Hinduism. It is a wonderful religion because it includes so much variety. Srimad Bhagavadgita never says "there are three paths alone and no other exists." If you try to limit Hinduism to one scripture only, or 3 paths only, it will no longer be Hinduism. RamRamji 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
7) "Hinduism" is a self nominated for FAC.
8) Other editors are not allowed to work on the article. The attitude is not in the interest of subject matter of article or Wikipedia.
9) I wish to get sock-puppetry checked and exposed.
10) Yesterday, HeBhagawan has awarded some award to Apandey for working on Hinduism and behaving civil whereas in fact there is no contribution of Apandey to Hinduism (and hardly anywhere else) except jumping on talk page with his gross incivil and intimidating comments. This would be additional evidence of lobbying to control monopoly over a Wikipedia article.
11) I do not know whether is just and fair and have no objection but today, HeBhagawan has given at least 2 Barnstars 1) to "Chrislk02" for rv and 2) to "Sfacets" for simply reverting my one edit.
12) Wish that you help in controlling HeBhagawan & sock-puppetry from preventing others to contribute to Hinduism.
The incivil comments are on the talk page of Hinduism.
With due apology, I copy paste below some of the comments made by HeBhagawan.
The first comment is on the occasion of my first edit to Hinduism. Followings are on daily basis. The fact remains that no one is allowed to work on Hinduism.
Well, thank you for your contributions, Swadhyayee. It is great that you want to work on the page. With due respect, however, there are a few problems with your edits:
Lack of citations Poor English Poor organization POV imposition (e.g., implying that the Bhagavad Gita is the only "authentic" Hindu scripture). Please don't feel insulted. I recommend that when you make new additions, you should use citations, have a native-level English-speaker check the grammar, and think about how your additions can compliment the overall organization of the article. If you do not have time to do this, another way is to just put your ideas on the discussion page for others to incorporate into the article. What do others think?HeBhagawan 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Swadhyayee, I have a suggestion: Why don't you help to edit other issues in the Hinduism Project? Let us leave the Raja Yoga issue. I was willing to accomodate you by putting a disclaimer, but it seems that other editors do not want to do even that. I felt compelled to report you to the admins because of your unfounded reversions, but I will gladly withdraw my report if you can put your efforts toward improving the article. There are so many things that need to be improved. Consider working on the Bhagavad Gita section, since you have great interest in that, and I think you will be able to find citations. I will try to find citations for the things you mentioned on the talk page. For a few of those things, a single citation is meant to cover multiple sentences. Thanks! HeBhagawan 03:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the "Karma and Reincarnation" section, you have modified the language of other users in this section in a way that has introduced grammatical errors that did not exist before. I hate to say this, becasue I appreciate your earnestness, but I have to agree with the user who pointed out that your edits sometimes reduce the quality of article rather than enhance it. I am sorry if you feel offended by this, but becasue of your level of English, I recommend that you seek the review of native-level English speakers before posting your edits. I do not say this to insult you. If you are honest with yourself I think you will understand what I am saying. I have no desire to exclude you from editing, but I do have a desire to protect the quality of the article. I am sorry if you feel hurt by anything I said. HeBhagawan 03:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know. It is ridiculous that one single user is bringing the progress of the article to a halt. It was improving daily until he arrived on the scene. It is very frustrating. HeBhagawan 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The edits you made today contained some constructive ideas, but once again they caused a lot of damage to the article. You inserted a lot of extremely low-quality material and deleted high-quality material at the same time. Please do not do this.
To other editors: Please help to monitor the changes made by Swadhyayee until the mediators decide whether to block him from this page. In my view, almost all his edits have failed to meet Wikipedia quality standards. With some exceptions, the substantive content of his edits is appropriate, but the way he implements his edits (without citations, disorganized, ungrammatical and muddled language) is a problem. Use your own judgement. Thank you! HeBhagawan 13:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Swadhyayee: I understand your approach. Although it would be fine if you were the only one editing the article, it creates extra work for others to have to follow behind you cleaning up the low-quality edits. Please consider this alternative: Make your rough-draft edits on a separate document, or on the discussion page. Then, AFTER you have brought the draft up to wikipedia quality standards, incorporate them into the article. This approach should work better for everybody.
Just a heads up: please help to keep an eye on Swadhyayee's edits. He has started to become active again after being away for a while. In the past I have spent a lot of time trying to dissuade him from making edits that clearly reduced the quality of the article becasue his edits were POV, factually dubious, uncited, and stylistically bad. I did not find him as easy to work with as Raj. He is very enthusiastic, and tends to make large-scale edits, but does not always have the same ideas about quality that some editors have.HeBhagawan 12:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Swadhyayee 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
May I seek your permission to provide details now?
Swadhyayee 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Allright, I was just having a bad day, Cheers! Sosomk 18:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
User:65.174.252.12 - is vandalizing pages, particularly Smelting. He's had numerous previous warnings and a previous ban as well. - WarthogDemon 20:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I am coming to the evidence of sock-puppetry in my reply at the case page. The issue is not only of sock-puppetry but also of not allowing use of free software Wikipedia for which, to my knowledge there is no platform to complaint.
I think, serious view must be taken for monopolising an article and not allowing placement of rationals and matters of general knowledge in a religious article like "Hinduism". It's not only doing injustice but dis-couraging new editors to attach them to Wikipedia. It also helps to develop un-ethical and un-desirable attitudes in present editors. This leads to ir-repairable damage to Wikipedia, particularly in the time to come.
I am suffering from last one month, where HeBhagawan is not allowing any rational to be included or any facts of general knowledge to be included on one or other pretext. Incivil comments are passed using sock-puppetry. I am told that my English is poor. I am suggested to go and edit elsewhere. I am suggested to write blogs.
I am from India. My English could be different from westerners but I am drafting reasonably well legal petitions in English. I have never come across a situation where otherside is unable to understand my English. I have not lost any legal case where petitions or replies are prepared by me. This mail itself could reflect my level of English.
Lobbying is being done by HeBhagawan awarding Zen Garden and Barnstar awards to the people 1) who have not contributed to the article but involved in passing gross in-civil remarks on article talk pages; distorted the facts on talk pages and before mediation panel; Shockingly the award is being issued for contributing to the article and civil behaviour! (To Apandey) [
[12]] 2) who have reverted just one vandal (To Persian Poet Gal & Chrislk02) [
[13]] [
[14]] 3) who have wrongfully reverted even my single edit (To Sfacets) [
[15]].
These awards are issued on 3rd & 4th Nov. 06 after I filed the present dispute. Sir, This is gross corrupt practice. You can varify the single rv or reversal edits of these Wikipedians here[
[16]].
This charity of awards is to win hearts for selfish purpose and earn reciprocal awards to add to the decorum of one's user page. This be-littles the value of awards.
My contributions to the article "Hinduism" are no-nonsense. I know Hinduism reasonably well. I have been a field worker spreading the message of our holy scripture Srimad Bhagwad Geeta in villages of India from last two decades.
To me, this is a case, where for personal credits, the principles of Wikipedia is thrown in waste-paper basket and un-ethical means are put into use.
To me, this is a cause of concern. My present approach is not out of ego problem. To me, this cause should be brought to the notice of Board of Trustees of Wikipedia Foundation.
My earnest submission in the interest of Wikipedia foundation to you would be to kindly give your dedication and patience to understand my grievances. I am new to Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of norms of awards. My further submissions to you would be, if, you feel this to be un-ethical, kindly bring it to the notice of other dignitaries.
Swadhyayee 06:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
RFCU
I think you have a misunderstanding. None of your arguments have to do with sockpuppetry. Please go to dispute resolution and make your complaint following that process. Dmcdevit·t 06:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swadhyayee"
I am sorry, I edited my last mail to you number of times. Have you read the latest one? I am coming to the sock-puppetry evidence on case page.
Swadhyayee 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Swadhyayee 08:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)